#7 - Good Morning, Vietnam vs. #10 - Private Benjamin

BACKGROUND:

        “Good Morning, Vietnam” (1987) is the story of a military disc jockey named Adrian Cronauer (Robin Williams). He arrives in Vietnam and immediately rocks the boat at the stodgy radio station. He plays rock n’ roll and makes hilarious comments and does comedy routines between songs. Off base he falls in lust with a Vietnamese girl and befriends her brother who turns out to be a V.C. operative. The relationships with the girl and her brother take some rocky roads which parallel his troubles at work.

         “Private Benjamin” is the story of a Jewish princess (Goldie Hawn) who enlists in the Army after her husband dies on their honeymoon. She goes through boot camp under the disapproving scowl of Sgt. Lewis (Eileen Brennan) and miraculously comes out an elite soldier stationed at NATO headquarters. She ends up quitting the Army to marry a suave European and the movie builds to their wedding.

FIRST HALF: ACTING
       “Good Morning, Vietnam” is a star vehicle for Williams and he dominates. It is one of his best performances. Although he is playing Cronauer, he is really playing himself (especially during the radio show scenes). His dramatic work is impressive. He was nominated for Best Actor. The supporting cast is strong. The other DJs are distinctive and fleshed out. Bruno Kirby does an unenviable job as the painfully uptight, humor-challenged supervisor. J.T. Walsh is slimy as the villainous station manager.

        “Private Benjamin” is a star vehicle for Goldie Hawn. She was nominated for Best Actress. It is probably her best movie. Her performance is not as assured as Williams’and she does not have to stretch as much. Brennan was nominated for Best Supporting Actress and is solid. The rest of the cast is weak, however. The stock squad of misfits is second-rate and make little impression. Amazingly, P.J. Soles (“Stripes”) is in this movie as the suck-up.

Halftime score: GMV – 43 PB - 36

SECOND HALF: HUMOR

         “Good Morning, Vietnam” is a comedy/drama that blends manic schtick by Williams with a romance set in the decaying situation in the war. The drama parts are bridges between the stand-up comedy routines and are breathers from the humor. The movie is funniest when Williams is on the air, but laughs are dependent on how much you like Williams’ style. He appears to be ad-libbing a lot and the jokes are hit-or-miss. Of course, he is made out to be the most hilarious person in Vietnam. In the dramatic section, Williams’ throws in snark to keep the comedy flowing, but most of those scenes are pretty serious and sometimes depressing.

         “Private Benjamin” is a service comedy in the first half and a tale of female empowerment in the second half. Hawn is very funny as the clueless rich girl who has to adjust to boot camp, but when she suddenly becomes a model soldier rather than fulfill her father’s condescending attitude, the laughs come to a screeching halt. The courtship with Henri (Armand Assante) is humorless and predictable. You wait for the inevitable ending while squirming.

Second half score: GMV – 38 PB – 32

ANALYSIS:

        GMV is #100 on AFI’s list of greatest comedies and PB is #82. I can live with GMV being included in the top 100 because it has an interesting take on the Vietnam War circa 1965. It even presents a balanced view of the Viet Cong. The blending of comedy with romance and drama is more quality-consistent than PB. PB is very overrated. It starts strong, but wilts after that. The only laughs come from Hawn’s whiny reaction to boot camp. The romance with Assante is painfully unfunny. In fact, the second half ceases to be a war movie when Benjamin drops out of the Army and returns to her previous life (only now she is empowered!). GMV is funnier and a better movie.

FINAL SCORE: Good Morning, Vietnam – 81 Private Benjamin - 70

MARCH MADNESS: The Best War Comedy

    This year's March Madness tournament will determine the Best War Comedy of all time.  I am limiting the field to American movies.  I chose the movies based on my knowledge of war movies, various lists on the Internet (like the American Film Institutes list of 100 Best Comedies), and input from war movie lovers.  Once I narrowed the list down to 16, I seeded based on their ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.  Each round will compare the movies on two criteria.  The first round will use Acting and Humor.  I will watch all 16 in the next few weeks.

Here is the bracket:

1 - Dr. Strangelove

16 - 1941

3 - Duck Soup
14 - The Russians Are Coming!

5 - Mr. Roberts
12 - Hot Shots!

7 - Good Morning, Vietnam
10 - Private Benjamin

8 - Stripes
9 - Catch-22

6 - MASH
11 - Kelly's Heroes

4 - The General
13 - Tropic Thunder

2 - To Be or Not To Be
15 - Top Secret

Game on!!

#8 Stripes vs. #9 Catch-22

BACKGROUND:
        “Stripes” (1981) is a boot camp/adventure comedy starring Bill Murray. He plays a loser named John Winger who enlists with his best friend Russell (Harold Ramis). They go through boot camp under Sgt. Hulka (Warren Oates) and by miraculously overachieving at graduation, their unit is given the mission of protecting a militarized RV. John and Russell steal the RV to go on a tryst and the rest of the unit gets captured behind the Iron Curtain going to get them.


         “Catch-22” (1970) is the retelling of the famous book by Joseph Heller. The main character is a WWII bombardier named Yossarian (Alan Arkin). He wants out of combat, but because he is sane enough to know that he is crazy to go on the missions that proves he is not crazy (a dilemma called “Catch-22”). The movie follows several of the pilots on base and off. The incidents are layered over the creation of a syndicate run by Milo (Jon Voight) which turns their war into a business enterprise.


FIRST HALF: ACTING


       “Stripes” is a star vehicle for Murray and he is at his snarky best. His character is pretty much an asshole and yet Murray makes him likeable. He is ably served by Ramis who makes a great straight man and does some funny takes. Oates (like Palance in “City Slickers”) is perfect as the drill sergeant and does not allow the character to be lampooned. The heterogeneous unit is populated by comic stereotypes that the supporting cast (especially John Candy as Ox) handle deftly.  The female love interests for Murray and Ramis are weak, but pretty.


        “Catch-22” has more of an all-star cast (including Orson Welles). Many of them are considered higher quality than the “Stripes” cast. Arkin, the equivalent of Murray, does a bit more scene-chewing, but his character is much more stressed and the movie is more heavy-handed in pushing its message. The supporting cast is excellent and plays the satire straight.


Halftime score: Catch-22 - 45 Stripes - 40


SECOND HALF: HUMOR


      “Stripes” falls into the classic service comedy genre pioneered by Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, and Abbott and Costello. Murray is hilarious as the anti-hero and has numerous snarky one-liners. More importantly, it’s a team effort and each character has his moments to make us laugh. The boot camp segment satirizes several war movie clichés effectively - the hair cutting, the obstacle course, the poker game, out on the town. The movie peaks with the iconic graduation scene. “That’s the fact, Jack.” The second half is an action comedy that is less humorous, but gets in the requisite explosions.


       “Catch-22” is a dark comedy that is very anti-military. It is much more intellectual and satirical. The movie also does not have a linear structure so it requires more effort by the viewer. Parts of it are even surreal. There are few jokes, the movie is more situational and character driven. It is a message movie, not a make-them-laugh movie. In this respect it is humorous in a head-nodding way. However, it could also be described as depressing in spots. It certainly has more of a point to make than “Stripes”, but for pure humor does not stand up.


Second half score: Stripes - 45 Catch-22 - 35

Analysis:  If you judge the movies on their success in reaching their demographic, "Stripes" is the clear winner.  It's humor was aimed at 14 year old boys (and those that still are) and it hit the target on the head.  Not just the humor, it throws in a ladies' shower scene and a nude female mud-wrestling scene just to be sure.  Part of me found this shameful, but...  On the other hand, "Catch-22" aims for the high-brow anti-Vietnam War set and is something of a disappointment.  (By the way, it throws in full-frontal so we'll call that a tie.)

FINAL SCORE: Stripes - 85 Catch-22 - 80

Winger's Speech

What is "catch-22"?

#42 - The General

BACK-STORY: “The General” is Buster Keaton’s masterpiece although it took a while for the critics and public to realize that. The movie was a commercial and critical bomb when it was released in 1926. Thankfully Keaton lived to see the revival of its reputation in the 1960s. Recently the American Film Institute ranked it the 18th greatest film and the 18th greatest comedy (don’t ask). This must have been heartening since he co-wrote, co-directed, and co-produced it. He based it on The Great Locomotive Chase by William Pittenger. Keaton used 500 Ohio National Guardsmen for the battle scene and even had them switch uniforms to give the armies more size.  Needless to say Keaton did all his own stunts and several were dangerous.

OPENING: Keaton is a Southern railroad engineer named Johnnie Gray (get it?). His co-star is his engine, the General. His train arrives in Marietta, Georgia in the spring of 1861. He goes to visit his girlfriend Annabelle (Marion Mack). Word arrives about Fort Sumter and everyone is excited. Annabelle’s father and brother rush off to enlist. “Aren’t you going to enlist?” Sealed with a kiss. Off goes Johnnie. He cuts to the head of the line, but is turned down because engineers are deferred. Only he is not told this (for plot purposes) and is crestfallen. Annabelle assumes he is a coward and breaks off their relationship.

SUMMARY: One year later, Union General Thatcher agrees to a bold plan by civilian scout/spy Anderson (Glen Cavender) to cut the rail link between Atlanta and Chattanooga by stealing a locomotive and wreaking havoc on the rail line. This will aid the Union’s assault on Chattanooga.

Johnnie is determined to get his first love back

      Anderson and his team hijack the General in Big Shanty and kidnap Annabelle in the process. Johnnie gives chase in a hand-cart and then a bike. Later he gets another train and hooks up a mortar. The movie cuts back and forth between Johnnie and Anderson. Anderson’s men cut the telegraph line, drop ties on the track, and set fire to a car - leaving it on a bridge. Nothing stops Johnnie, however. Several gags are incorporated into the chase. For instance, at one point, Johnnie chops wood and misses both the Union army and the Confederate army passing by.

      Johnnie gets trapped behind enemy lines. He sneaks into a house and hides under a table. Union officers and Anderson come in and discuss plans. Annabelle is brought in and locked in a room. Johnnie disguises himself as a Union soldier and rescues Annabelle. There is comedy gold involving a bear trap. The next morning they find themselves in the middle of the Union army. He hides Annabelle in a sack that is thrown onto the General and he then steals it back. This time Anderson is doing the chasing. It’s almost a mirror image of the original chase. Johnnie tries some of the same things Anderson did.

the spectacular train crash

       Johnnie sets fire to a bridge between enemy lines and then alerts the Rebel army which rushes off to confront the Yankees. The Yankee general sends his supply train across the bridge which results in a spectacular crash into the river. This was the most expensive stunt in filmdom up until then and the engine remained in the river until WWII.


CLOSING: There is a big battle as the Union army tries to cross the river. There is lots of cannon fire and smoke. Remarkably (or maybe not), the scene is similar to the bridge scene in “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”. There is some funny stuff involving a broken sword. Johnnie captures a Union general, is promoted, and gets the girl. Surprise!

RATINGS:

Acting - 7


Action - 7


Accuracy - 7


Realism – 7


Plot - 7


Overall - 7


WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? It depends on their feelings about silent movie comedies. They also need to have a sense of humor that appreciates old-school slapstick humor. The movie does have a romance, but Keaton is not exactly Brad Pitt. It certainly is not graphically bloody.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY: The movie is actually fairly accurate in depicting the famous Andrews Raid in the Civil War. James Andrews and a group of Yankee volunteers hijacked the General at Big Shanty in April, 1862. The plan was to damage the rail line and to facilitate the Union offensive against Chattanooga. The General's engineer William Allen Fuller gave chase after his engine on foot, then hand-cart, then on the locomotive Yonah and later the William R. Smith. Meanwhile, Andrews’ men were doing the damage depicted in the movie. Broken tracks forced Fuller back on foot until he acquired the Texas. Fuller had to drive the Texas backwards, but he did gain ground on the General.

       Andrews’ mission ended in failure because Fuller’s dogged pursuit did not leave him time to effectively destroy the rail line. There was some bad luck involved as well. For instance, the attempt to burn a key bridge failed because the wood was wet from a recent rain. A flaming boxcar left on the bridge was pushed off by Fuller.  Alas, there was no spectacular train wreck. Just a few miles from Chattanooga, the General ran out of fuel. Andrews and his men abandoned it and fled on foot, but they all were captured and treated as spies. Andrews and seven of the men were executed. Eight later escaped and six were exchanged. The first Medals of Honor were awarded to the Andrews Raiders.

CRITIQUE: We are told that “The General” is a masterpiece, but if you weren’t told this you might miss that fact. It strikes me as more of a curio than a masterpiece. Although it holds up much better than most silent movies, I feel modern war movie lovers will wonder what all the fuss is about. It helps to know the effort that Keaton put into it – the National Guardsmen, the train crash, the stunts, etc.  The movie is also admirably authentic in its weapons, uniforms, and equipment. You also learn how a train works which is a nice touch.

      The movie has a lack of subtitles which forces the watcher to concentrate. That is a plus to me, but a turnoff to others. The cinematography is fine. The acting is spotty. Keaton, of course, is brilliant with his stoical persona. However, the supporting cast is your typical overly emotive silent movie actors. Mack is particularly weak. Parts of the movie drag.  For instance, the second chase is tedious and recycles elements from the first chase.

      The big question is whether the movie is funny. Well, it is certainly not funny enough to be ranked the 18th funniest movie of all time. Most of the slapstick is on the silly side. There is a lot of falling down. Some of the sight gags are amazing. This includes the iconic sight of Keaton sitting on the drive shaft between the wheels as the train moves. The movie made me smile in spots, but seldom laugh. One of the funnier aspects of the film is how roughly Johnnie treats Annabelle. At least I think that was supposed to be funny. Keaton deserves credit for seamlessly blending the comedy into the narrative. The gags are not just thrown in to add humor periodically.

CONCLUSION: “The General” is another example of how the editors of Military History magazine must have meant the 100 Most Important War Movies instead of 100 Greatest. It was a great movie when it came out, but cannot be considered such now.  Also, as a war comedy, it is not in a league with Dr. Strangelove (#84)  However, all war movie lovers should see it because of its place in war movie history.

Keaton stunts!

the full movie - enjoy!

DUELING MOVIES: “The Tuskegee Airmen vs. Red Tails”

      My recent review of "Red Tails" reminded me that it was not the first attempt to bring recognition to the 99th Fighter Squadron, also known as the Tuskegee Airmen. Others have commented on which version is better so I decided to rewatch “The Tuskegee Airmen” to weigh in on this debate.


      “The Tuskegee Airmen” begins with the claim that it is “based on a true story”. The opening scene of a young African-American boy playing with a toy plane and then running after a crop duster sets the tone of clichéd sincerity. Unlike “Red Tails”, TA covers the training at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. On the way there, Hannibal (Lawrence Fishburne), Billy (Cuba Gooding), and Walter (Allen Payne) encounter Southern racism as Nazi prisoners of war are seated on the better part of the train.  This was sadly based on fact.

     
        The heterogeneous cast of fighter jocks (the hot shot, the steady hand, the pompous overachiever, the one with low self esteem, etc.) is introduced and soon we are wondering who will make it to the end of the movie. We are also introduced to the requisite racist trainer (Maj. Joy) who wears a pencil thin mustache to go with his sneer. You know, the kind of guy who if you met him on the street for the first time you would punch him in the face. He does not agree with this experiment with nigger fliers and does his best to sabotage it. In contrast to him is black Lt. Glynn (Courtney Vance), a veteran of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who has their back. Vance is his usual smoldering ball of second-rate Denzel (see “Hamburger Hill”).

       Scratch one main character when the pompous Walter intentionally crashes and burns after washing out for buzzing the field. A training montage gets the rest of the cast through basic. A highlight is a visit by Eleanor Roosevelt who is taken for a ride by Hannibal. Meanwhile, back in Washington, the dastardly Senator Beach (John Lithgow) is attempting to disband the unit due to the physical inferiority of Negroes. They don’t specify, but I’m pretty sure he is a Southerner. Score one for Eleanor as they are posted to North Africa where they are given P-51s. They are limited to ground support missions, however. If you hate CGI, no worries. We are treated to actual gun camera footage which unfortunately usually does not match the actions of the pilots and is far from seamlessly edited in. Too bad the producers did not have actual radio chatter because what Hollywood puts in their mouths is ridiculous (but not as ridiculous as in “Red Tails”). “Take that you Nazi bastard” is typical.

       The first time they encounter German fighters, Cappy (Malcolm Jamal Warner) disobeys orders and goes charging off to his melodramatic death. This incident gives fuel to the fact-searching Sen. Beach when he visits. He recounts all the criticisms of the unit which include poor flight discipline. Later, back in Washington, he has them on the ropes when Col. Benjamin Davis (Andre Braugher) gives an impassioned speech about fairness. That shuts up that son of a Beach (sorry, but you have to admit that’s an accurate description).

      The 22nd Bombing Group is getting hammered. “Where the Hell are our escorts!” Lucky for this one incredibly unlucky bomber, the 332nd Fighter Group is posted to Ramitelli and assigned close escort duty. Sure enough, Hannibal and Billy come to the rescue of the very same bomber by shooting down two German fighters. “Give my regards to the Fuhrer”. (Top that, George Lucas! Well played, sir.) Would you believe the Texan bomber commander refuses to credit Niggers for saving his white ass?! Would you believe he later has a change of heart and demands that the 332nd escort them to Berlin? How did you know that - have you seen a movie?

       I had forgotten that this movie has the destroyer incident with Hannibal and Billy sinking a German destroyer. In this case, the movie uses gun footage of a Japanese warship. Close enough – it was an Axis ship. Good thing I looked this up and found it to be based on a true event or else I would have accused both movies of the most egregiously ridiculous plagiarism in war movie history.

      The final mission. The only bomber apparently in the 22nd Bomber Group is rescued again by the only two fighters in the 332nd. Small sky. Someone who is not Laurence Fishburne does not make it back, but does make it into the montage of the dead guys at the end. If you like to read, you can find out some heroic facts about the Tuskegee Airmen including that they never lost a bomber they escorted (actually, don’t believe that one).

        This is a good movie to watch during Black History Month. It’s hard to be harsh with it. It is sooo sincere. It gets the point across and this makes “Red Tails” treading of the same ground (but more piously) hard to stomach. I definitely think George Lucas thought we did not know about this movie. Hell, maybe he did not know about it. How do you explain the dialogue and stereotyping in “Red Tails” being worse than this $8.5 million made for TV movie? Probably because Lucas spent his money on CGI effects so video gamers would go see it.

        Its accuracy is commendable. It is similar to “Red Tails” in that respect. Both movies use composite characters, but kudos to TA for having Benjamin Davis in it. (Making RT’s exclusion of him even more perplexing.) TA does a better job on the racist obstacles the pilots had to overcome. Each has a ridiculous villain, but Major Joy is less laughable than “Pretty Boy”.

        I suggest you watch TA until they reach Ramitelli and then switch to RT. That way you will get complete coverage of the Tuskegee Airmen. Unfortunately, you won’t be able to avoid the dialogue, clichés , stereotypes, and unrealistic situations.

COMPARISONS

Acting – Tuskegee Airmen


Action - Red Tails


Accuracy – tie


Plot - TA


Realism - tie


Dialogue - TA


Dogfights - RT

Overall -  Red Tails