Sunday, October 15, 2017

DOCUDRAMA: Hannibal: Rome’s Worst Nightmare (2006)



                The other day, I was absent from school and I needed something for the sub to keep my classes occupied.  Fortunately, I was about to start my unit on the Punic Wars and there is a movie available on Hannibal Barca.  It is free on You Tube.  Netflix is the greatest development as far as my blog is concerned, but second to it is You Tube.  I have gone to You Tube to watch war movies that are not available on Netflix.  For instance, last week I was able to finally watch “Alatriste”.  Not only is You Tube great for watching obscure war movies, but it is the go-to site for documentaries.  “Hannibal:  Rome’s Worst Nightmare” is a combination of those.  It was produced by the BBC in 2006.  What sets it apart from your typical war movie or your typical documentary is it is a hybrid.  It covers Hannibal’s career by way of acting it out.  The cast includes some recognizable actors.  Since it is admirably accurate, this makes it perfect for a Western Civilizations class that is about to cover the Second Punic War.  Especially on a Friday when the teacher is out.

                The movie opens with the famous moment where Hamilcar Barca has the young Hannibal swear never to be a friend to Rome.  A narrator sets the theme by previewing that history will turn on a single decision that Hannibal will make later.  The movie jumps about twenty years and Hannibal (Alexander Siddig) is now commander of the Carthaginian army in Spain.  He meets with a Roman named Varro who tells him to lay off of Saguntum, a city in Hispania that is allied to Rome.  Hannibal is uncowed and lays siege to the city, thus provoking war with Rome.  Fabius Maximus (Ben Cross) leads a delegation to Carthage and gives the Carthaginian government the choice of turning over Hannibal or going to war.  Carthage chooses war.  On a table map, Hannibal shocks his subordinates with his proposal of crossing the Alps to invade Italy.  The pros and cons are discussed, but Hannibal is set on the strategy.  He says goodbye to his Spanish wife Imilce and sends her to Carthage for safety.  Hannibal begins his famous campaign by heading for the Alps with an army that includes war elephants.  It’s on to glory and an answer to the question:  what single decision by Hannibal will change the course of history?

                “Hannibal:  Rome’s Worst Nightmare” is a near perfect docudrama if you are looking for a biography of the greatest general in history.  It is as accurate as you could want.  It does simplify events, but that fits the format well.  You get the basics of his life and the greatest hits of his story.  These include his swearing to his father, cracking the boulders blocking his army’s path in the Alps, having the prisoners fight, sparing Fabius’ estate, the Senators’ rings being emptied before the Carthaginian government, Hasdrubal’s head, the meeting with Scipio, etc.  It’s an amazing life full of priceless anecdotes.  The movie does his life justice while being informative and entertaining.
 
                What makes the movie wonderful for a high school setting is the fact that Hannibal’s life is acted out by a competent cast.  Alexander Siddig (“Game of Thrones” fans know him as Doran Martell) is excellent as Hannibal.  Ben Cross is strong as the cautious Fabius.  Shaun Dingwall does a good job as Scipio Africanus.  The movie makes the logical decision to give Scipio his own arc.  He goes from a young man who saves his father’s life in battle to a man who can stare down Hannibal before the Battle of Zama.  Another key character is Hannibal’s cavalry commander Maharbal (Emilio Doorgasingh).  The movie lays it on a bit thick by having him question every decision Hannibal makes. He is a whiner, but he does get to set the theme by questioning Hannibal’s decision to wimp out after the Battle of Cannae.  While the movie acts out the biography without the intrusion of talking heads, it does use a narrator effectively to fill in historical details.  Plus Siddig provides a voiceover so we get into Hannibal’s head.  Maps are used to give some geographical framing.  Given the nature of a made-for-TV production, the armies are small with limited use of CGI.  The battles are basically melees and do not stand out.  The showpiece is Cannae.  The movie intercuts between the fighting and Hannibal outlining his strategy to his staff.  The combat is fairly graphic, but simplistic.  As usual the Roman reenactors do not use their pila, but you get the gist of the battle and a cool overhead CGI shot of a plain covered with bodies as the aftermath.

                I’m not sure if I could justify using an entire class period to show a movie about Hannibal, but this movie was ideal for a day when I was absent.  It is entertaining and informative, which is the most you can ask for.  I doubt my students would stay awake for an hour and half documentary on anyone, even someone as fascinating as Hannibal Barca.  I strongly recommend it for anyone who wants to know the basics of Hannibal’s career.  Thank you You Tube for providing it for free.

GRADE  =  A


HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Most historians believe that the young Hannibal swore never to be a friend to Rome, so that was a good place to start the narrative.  I don’t think Varro met with Hannibal before Saguntum, but the Roman government did warn him not to attack their ally.  The movie does not make it clear that Saguntum was south of the Ebro, which meant it was in Carthage’s sphere of influence.  The siege is dispensed with quickly, but it was actually a slog.  We don’t know much about Imilce, but she was apparently a Spanish woman that he married for political purposes.  Historians do think he sent her to Carthage.  The crossing of the Alps is much too simplistic.  There is no reference to trouble with the hostile natives.  The hardships are downplayed.  For some reason, the cracking of the boulders is done with wine, instead of vinegar, but that is a small quibble.  The reluctance of the Gauls to join and their subsequent support is accurate.  Scipio did rescue his father’s life, but this was not in a forest ambush, it happened at the Battle of Ticinus.  The Battles of Trebia and Lake Trasimene are only alluded to as ass-whippings, but that is accurate. The movie shows Hannibal loing sight in one eye, but does not explain why.  In actuality, he led a march through a marsh and caught an eye disease. After Lake Trasimene, Rome did appoint Fabius Maximus as dictator and the movie does a fair job of outlining his strategy of avoiding battle.  However, the movie insists on making him something of a villain and does not do justice to the success of his delaying tactics.  The reference to Hannibal sparing his estate to sow dissension toward Fabius is accurate.  The movie does do a good job of portraying how the Romans chafed at Fabius’ lack of aggression.  Varro is a good representative of this mentality.  The Battle of Cannae is well done although it would have needed a movie to itself.  Maharbal’s questioning of Hannibal’s decision not to advance on Rome agrees with most historians, but the movie’s decision to have Hannibal claim that his reason is that the war is already over is not realistic.  Hannibal may have been wrong about not at least attempting the attack, but his decision was most likely due to the exhaustion of his army and his lack of siege engines.  (Most historians do not believe he could have taken Rome, so the central theme is flawed.)  Fabius did return to power after Cannae, but the movie once again downplays his strategy’s frustration of Hannibal.  Mago did return to Carthage with a bushel of rings and the government led by Hanno the Great did refuse to reward success and instead sent Mago to Spain.  Scipio did go to Spain and capture New Carthage, although the movie does not show any details, sadly.  The Romans did intercept a message from Hasdrubal to his brother Hannibal, but it does not even mention the Battle of Metaurus, where Hasdrubal was defeated and killed.  The head-throwing incident was a nice way of implying the result of the battle.  The movie does a fair job of showing the opposition of Fabius to Scipio’s proposed invasion of North Africa.  The leadup to the Battle of Zama is a highlight.  The incident involving Hannibal’s spies being given a tour of Scipio’s camp is well-played and the movie follows that with the famous meeting between the two generals.  While it is unclear what exactly they discussed, most historians agree that Hannibal tried to avoid the battle, but the confident Scipio shot that down.  The movie is out on a limb by having Scipio hammer the movie’s theme by taunting Hannibal for not attacking Rome after Cannae.  The battle is disappointing as the movie is running out of gas at this point.  It is a much too complicated a battle to be done justice in five minutes.  The elephant attack and Scipio’s response is accurate, but the nature of the infantry and cavalry engagements is too hazy.  And Scipio was not the type of general to fight in the ranks.  Hannibal’s death by self-induced poison is nicely handled. 


Thursday, October 12, 2017

PICTURE, QUOTE, MOVIE #23


WHAT MOVIE WAS THIS SAID IN?  
"Very pretty.....but can they fight?"

WHAT MOVIE IS THIS?  

It is based on a short story by Rudyard Kipling. John Huston co-wrote the screenplay. Originally intended as a project for Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable, then Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, then Robert Redford and Paul Newman, it was finally made starring Michael Caine and Sean Connery. It was nominated for Academy Awards for Best Art Direction, Writing, Costume Design, and Editing. The movie was critically acclaimed and did well at the box office.

Friday, October 6, 2017

CRACKER? Battle Ground (2013)



                Do not confuse this movie with the William Wellman classic “Battleground”!  This movie is an Australian WWI film.  It was directed by Johan Earl and Adrian Powers – two directors should equal one Wellman, right?  They managed to shoot the movie in only 21 days.  It shows.  It was originally entitled “Forbidden Ground”.  Apparently they changed the title to dupe DVD purchasers. 

                The movie is set in 1916 France.  A typical WWI slimeball officer orders an attack before the preparatory bombardment.  It does not go well.  The assault uses “Saving Private Ryan” style with hand-held, slo-mo, and even some sensory deprivation.  It also has some extreme micro.  It is not graphic, but is low budget and poorly staged.  The main character is a Sgt. Maj. Wilkins (Johan Earl).  He ends up trapped in a shell hole with a shell-shocked buddie who tries to kill him at first.  They go out to rescue a badly wounded Tommy and the trio get pinned down in the crater.  There’s a lot of blah, blah, blah.  Meanwhile, a second story arc involves Wilkins’ wife seeking an abortion.

                The movie becomes a very slow moving chase film as the trio tries to crawl their way back to their trench while being pursued by an evil, scarfaced German.  They are caught between a rock and a hard place as their Lieutenant does not want them returning because they might give away the attack plan.  This makes no sense, of course.  There is also the upcoming bombardment to worry about.  Meanwhile, Mrs. Wilkins finds a nurse who will perform an illegal abortion.

                “Battle Ground” is decidedly low budget.  The directing is pedestrian and the acting is amateurish.  The cast is low rent.  The villains are cartoonish.  The dialogue is blah, but not terrible.  Just boring.  In fact, boring would be the best way to describe the movie.  It does not help that the boring comes with a healthy dose of maudlin, enhanced by tearjerking music.  The cinematography looks like it was done by the A/V club.  As far as reality, the movie dispenses with realistic tactics in the belief that the audience will be ignorant of how WWI was fought.  Attack before the bombardment?  Germans walking around in no man’s land in daylight without taking fire?  German patrol tracking three enemy soldiers?  Face, enjoy thy slap.  The only thing positive I can say is the filmmakers were sincere in their efforts.  That is what keeps the grade above an F.


GRADE  =  D

Saturday, September 30, 2017

PICTURE, QUOTE, MOVIE #22



WHAT MOVIE IS THIS QUOTE FROM?  

"He's going to do it, believe me, he's really going to do it"

WHAT MOVIE IS THIS?

It is a masterpiece acted, directed , and produced by Laurence Olivier.  His work was so amazing he was awarded an Academy Honor Award at the Oscars.  It was nominated for Best Actor, Score, Art Direction, and Picture.   (It lost to another war film – “The Best Years of Our Lives”).  It was designed to be a morale booster for WWII Britain.  Mission accomplished.  It was specifically dedicated to England’s commandos and airborne troops.  What better subject than the battle that is considered the greatest upset in military history?  The story of a small, exhausted army defeating the cream of French knighthood certainly resonated with a Britain facing the supposedly all powerful Wehrmacht.  The movie was a box office success and inspired the British people to carry on.  It was the most expensive British film up to that time.  Wartime shortages impacted production.  For example, shortages of metal led to the decision to “make” the chain-mail out of hand-knitted gray wool.  Many of the extras were servicemen. 

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

BIOPIC: Faith of My Fathers (2005)



                “Faith of My Fathers” is a biopic about John McCain, the famous senator and presidential candidate.  It is based on his memoir which was published in 1999.  It was produced for the A&E Network and directed by Peter Markle.  The television movie was A&E’s biggest hit for over a year.  It was nominated for four Emmy Awards including art direction, editing, and cinematography.

                The movie begins in 1967 on an aircraft carrier in the South China Sea during the Vietnam War.  McCain’s (Shawn Hatosy) squadron is sent on a mission to bomb an industrial plant in Hanoi.  McCain’s A-4E Skyhawk is hit by a SAM (surface to air missile) and he bails out.  He lands in a lake and suffers serious injuries, and that’s before the North Vietnamese brutalize him.  His captors soon discover this is no typical imperialist dog.  McCain is the son of an admiral.  Queue the flashback to a stereotypical father-son biopic relationship.  Admiral McCain (Scott Glenn) is disengaged as are all cinematic military fathers.  The young McCain is a slacker when it comes to academics, but he’s a chip off the old block and his father see him off to Annapolis with the very uncinematic advice to not care too much about his grades.  McCain follows the advice well and adds a streak of demerit-acquisition.  Hey, it’s not like his father can complain.  Plus, McCain is destined to be a fighter jock, so you know from movies that they don’t give a rat’s ass about the rules.  Except the Code of Conduct for prisoners of war.  In another war movie trope, McCain woos a young lady named Carol who tames him socially, but doesn’t dilute the warrior instinct.
 
                The flashbacks to his pre-Vietnam days end with the entrance of Carol.  From here on we witness his treatment as a prisoner in the infamous North Vietnamese “Hanoi Hilton”.  At first he is put in a cell with two other captives, Bud Day and Norris Overly.  The other two help McCain recover from his injuries and the horrible treatment he got in the hospital.   A theme is established when Overly accepts amnesty, but McCain does not. Later, McCain is put in solitary confinement and tortured to get him to confess to being an “air pirate”.  Others have collaborated, will he?

                John McCain has been in the news a lot this past year.  Recently, he has sadly been diagnosed with a terminal illness and has been a key factor in defeating Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare.  His handling of the illness and his vote against the repeal have been described as heroic.  This contrasts with the comments by Donald Trump on the campaign trail last year where he questioned McCain’s heroism as a heroic prisoner of war.  Even though McCain ran for President himself in 2008, most Americans probably were clueless of his prisoner of war past before Trump brought it up.   If you want to know whether Trump’s assessment is accurate, you can watch this movie.
 
                McCain obviously deserved a biopic treatment and A&E did the obligatory movie.  It breaks no new ground in the field of laudatory biopics.  The best word to describe it is “sincere”.  However, it is not a hagiography.  If you watch carefully, you can see the seeds of why some question McCain’s conduct as a POW.  Not that the movie is critical of him.  It simply attempts to reflect the honesty of the memoir it is based on.  The movie is an accurate rendering of his POW experience, but under the constraints of a made-for-TV movie.  Notably, the movie downplays the torture and deprivation by implying it more than depicting it.  For instance, the leadup to McCain signing the statement where he admits to being an “air pirate” is not sufficient to justify his decision.  The decision to dedicate much of the running time to the flashbacks was a poor one because it left less time for the prison camp scenes and also because it interrupts the flow of the movie.  The scenes dedicated to his relationship with his father, his push-up baiting days at Annapolis, and his courtship of his wife are all biopic fodder and could have been replaced by a narrator telling us that McCain was a hotshot with daddy issues and a military wife.  Boom, now let’s see his prisoner of war experience (which is what everyone is here for, right?).

                The movie connects the dots and ends up as a movie you could show at a political convention.  The acting is average, although Scott Glenn brings some gravitas to a stereotypical role.  Shawn Hatosy is not memorable as McCain.  The supporting cast is adequate.  The cinematography stands out and makes up for the cheap feel of the film.  The big problem is the movie is not gritty enough.  His experience does not come off as particularly horrible.  The script touches on the amnesty issue and in the process makes Overly the poster boy for prisoners who took the offer.  It also throws in a reference to prisoners who collaborated.  Neither issue is explored in depth.  The movie is not really interested in controversy.  Although, McCain apologizes to his father for his conduct, the movie does not delve into the Code of Conduct and how McCain might have broken it.

                Does it make sense to say that a movie is must-see and yet it is not a very good movie?  I think so.  I don’t believe we are going to get another movie about John McCain, so this is it.  You owe it to him to see what all the Trump-initiated fuss was all about.  Of course, Trump would call it fake news.  Since the movie does not air brush all the warts, I think it is safe to say that you will be able to make your own mind up whether he was a hero.

GRADE  =  C

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  John McCain was a Navy brat.  His grandfather and father were admirals.  His father rose to be Commander-in-Chief Pacific Fleet and eventually was given overall command of the Vietnam theater.  The high school wresting scene was accurate, but I was not able to determine if the depiction of the senior McCain as something of a jerk is accurate.  (I guess I need to read the memoir.)  I would not be surprised if the military daddy/son trope is authentic.  The scene where daddy McCain drops off John at Annapolis and wink/wink tells him not to obsess over grades is true to his father’s academic career.  John did get in a lot of trouble at the Academy, but the movie downplays his popularity and his leadership ability.  He did finish near the bottom of his class.  He met Carol before graduation.  Curiously, the movie does not have anything on his family.  Carol already had two kids who John adopted and they had one of their own.  By the way, Carol suffered a near fatal car accident when John was in prison and never fully recovered.  She could not have danced with him when he returned.  But then how would we have had that symbol of happily ever after at the end of the film?


                McCain went to flight school and asked for combat duty.  He was stationed on the USS Forrestal when an accidental missile launch caused explosions and fires that killed 134 men.  He barely escaped with his life.  The movie makes no mention of this tragic incident.  In fact, the implication is that he was shot down on his first mission.  He actually was on his twenty-third.  He was hit by a SAM and bailed out, landing in a lake in Hanoi with broken arms and a broken leg.  After being fished out, he was beaten by the rescuers and the crowd of understandably angry civilians.  He was bayonetted in the process.  He spent six weeks in a hospital and was given minimal treatment until it was discovered that he was the son of an admiral.  To get that minimal treatment he did give some information, such as his target.  As the movie shows, he gave the names of Green Bay Packers for his squadron mates.   He was then placed in the cell with Day and Overly.  Overly nursed the close to death McCain back to decent health.  He did accept amnesty.  The movie makes the point of Day disagreeing with Overly’s decision.  This seems accurate.  Day is legendary and deserves his own movie.  He was one of the most recalcitrant prisoners and was awarded the Medal of Honor for his efforts to avoid capture and his resistance to his captors.  The movie does show him being tortured and he suffered some of the same treatment as McCain. (Day’s support for McCain in his runs for President tends to refute the claims that McCain’s experience was exaggerated and that he collaborated.)   After being separated from Day, McCain spent two years in solitary confinement.  Meanwhile, his father had been promoted to command all forces in Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese upped the pressure on him to accept release for propaganda purposes.  McCain was conforming to the Code of Conduct which says POWs should be released in order of capture date.  They also tortured him to get him to make a statement, which he eventually did.  He regretted this, but every man has a breaking point although the Code of Conduct did not allow wiggle room on this.  The torture continued to get more statements, but he drew the line here.  At one point, he attempted suicide, but was stopped by the guards.  The movie does not show this.  One thing the movie shows that I thought was ridiculous, but is based on truth, is McCain senior’s order to send B-52s to bomb Hanoi.  I take back my LOL.  McCain and the other prisoners did cheer the “Christmas Bombings”.  Not long after, McCain and the others were released as the war ended for U.S. forces.  He returned to Carol with permanent damage to his arms.  He cannot lift them above his head to this day.           

Thursday, September 21, 2017

FORGOTTEN GEM? Alexander the Great (1956)


                Most people do not realize that Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” was not the first biopic about Alexander the Great.  “Alexander the Great” was released in 1956.  The historical epic was written, directed, and produced by Robert Rossen.  Rossen, who had been a member of the Communist Party, was caught up in the Red Scare of the 1950s.  He was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and took the 5th.  This resulted in his being blacklisted.  Later, he changed his mind and named names.  “Alexander the Great” was made after the blacklist was lifted.  He wanted Charleston Heston for the lead, but Heston was dubious about the potential of an epic biography.  The movie was made with the cooperation of the Spanish military which provided 5-6,000 extras.  The technical adviser was His Royal Highness Prince Peter of Greece.  That credit was the first signal to viewers that there might be problems with the veracity of the film.  For this review, I have decided to concentrate on the historical accuracy of the film while critiquing it.  I do not think anyone who reads this will watch the movie so I am not going to worry about spoilers.  We will treat this as an exercise in examining how Hollywood of the 1950s dealt with a historical biography of one of the most famous men in history.  It ain’t pretty.

                The movie opens in 356 B.C.  with Philip of Macedonia (Frederic March with both eyes – Philip had lost an eye to a slinger) threatening Greece.  Demosthenes argues for standing up to him.  This is a bit early as Demosthenes did not deliver his first philippic until 352 B.C.  Philip is informed of Alexander’s birth and Olympias (Danielle Darrieux) insists he is a god.  She did claim Zeus was his fatherThe movie jumps to Alexander as a teenager with the 29 year old (but looking older) Richard Burton looking ridiculous in an embarrassing training montage.  Philip puts Alexander in charge of pacifying a revolt fomented by Olympias.  This is basically true except Olympias had no role.  Philip remarries to Eurydice and the break with Olympias is complete.  Alexander is on the outs with his father over the break, plus gossip that he is illegitimate and possibly out as heir.  This is true.  Philip and Alexander fight the Battle of Chaeronea against the Greeks.  The opposing armies face each other across a river.  In the battle, Alexander saves his father’s life.  Nothing about this battle is accurate.  There was no river and Alexander did not save his father.  The reenactment is a simplistic mess.  The movie stages a high school play version of the wedding banquet incident where Philip tried to stab his son.  The scene is true.  Olympias plots with Pausanias to kill Philip.  Pausanias stabs the king as he enters a temple and then is killed by Alexander after being captured.  Olympias may have been involved in the assassination, but there is no proof of this.  The murder was similar to as depicted, but Pausanias was killed while fleeing by Alexander’s friends.  The army proclaimed Alexander the new king.  True.

                Alexander invades the Persian Empire.  He throws a spear when he comes ashore in Asia Minor.  This was based on a supposed incident.  The first battle with the Persians is at the River Granicus.  Alexander attacks across a river.  His life is saved by Cleitus (Gustavo Rojo).  The battle ends with the massacre of Memnon’s Greek mercenaries.  Again the battle is ridiculously reenacted, but the basic events are accurate.  Alexander cuts the Gordian Knot in an acceptable rendering of the incident.  The movie skips the Battle of Issus and moves on to Gaugamela.  Alexander refuses to attack at night while Darius III anticipates a surprise attack and keeps his men awake.  Alexander handles the scythed chariots by opening lanes for them to pass through.  Alexander leads a cavalry charge and spears Darius’ chariot driver.  Darius flees.  The movie shows no infantry fighting.  Most of this is accurate except Darius fled from Issus in a chariot.  He was on horseback at Gaugamela.  Alexander captures Darius’ family and later marries his daughter Roxanne.  Darius is killed by his own men but leaves a will that offers his daughter’s hand in marriage to unite the cultures.  Darius’ death is competently handled, but the will is crap.  He did marry one of Darius’ daughters, but the movie is obviously confusing her with his first wife Roxana who he met in India. 

                Barsine (Memnon’s wife) instigates the burning of Persepolis, but Alexander puts a stop to it.  The actual instigator of the burning of the Persian capital was a concubine named Thais and Alexander was on board for it due to alcohol.  A montage of conquests gets the Macedonians to India.  Alexander executes Philotas for plotting, but the movie spends no time giving background on this.  This incident actually happened before India.  As did the murder of Cleitus.  The movie does not clearly explain why Alexander kills him other than it was a dispute over Alexander’s adopting Persian culture.  The death scene is fairly accurate except that Alexander did not spear Cleitus in the back.  It was in the front.  The movie has Alexander turning back from India due to the murder.  This is ludicrous because it does not include the Battle of Hydaspes nor cover the actual cause which was a mutiny by his soldiers brought on by low morale and exhaustion.  Alexander marries Roxane in a mass wedding involving his men and Persian women.  The mass wedding did occur, but Alexander was already married to Roxana.  Alexander did marry Darius’ daughter Stateira (and the daughter of the previous Persian ruler) at the mass wedding.  The movie concludes with Alexander’s death after he collapses at a banquet.  It does not go into the cause(s) of his death.  The movie does not show the excessive drinking at the banquet, but does get the famous last words “to the strongest” right.

                As you have read, the movie is a mixed bag historically.  It manages to hit some of the iconic moments like the cutting of the Gordian Knot.  But then it leaves out Bucephalus and Hephaestion.  There are definitely some head-scratching decisions about what was included in the script and how some of the battles and events were handled.  Some of this may be due to the studio insisting on a shorter cut than what Rossen intended.  This may explain why some of the scenes seem truncated and poorly edited.  It is not surprising the movie does not even hint at Alexander’s homosexuality.  We are talking about 1956 here.  But why would the movie not play up Alexander’s charisma and genius?  Or even hint at his ruthlessness?  His relationship with his soldiers is not covered.  His relationships with the various women in his life are totally screwed up.   Although Chaeronea is a joke, the Battles of Granicus and Gaugamela are satisfactorily done – for a movie.  In sum, the movie has some tutorial value.  You would be better off watching any of the excellent documentaries on Alexander.  Plus the acting is better in the documentaries.

                Nothing about the production is above average.  The acting is poor and Burton is terribly miscast.  It is distracting watching him play Alexander, especially as a teenager.  The sets look fake and the backgrounds are unrealistic. It is painfully clear that you are seeing a painted backdrop on a sound stage. The score is second-rate so it matches the overall vibe.  The dialogue is abysmal.  But as a war movie, the biggest flaw is the laughable battle scenes.  For a supposed epic, the battles are too brief and simplistic.  They are also small scale. This is one of the reasons the movie is boring.  I hate to imagine what Rossen’s directors cut of over three hours would have been like to sit through.  But I still would like to see it.

                “Spartacus” came out just four years after “Alexander the Great” so it was possible back then to do an entertaining epic biopic.  Rossen’s pic is not even close to Kubrick’s.  Both tell the story of charismatic historical figures, but that is the only similarity.  Rossen botches the job and has only himself (and possibly the studio to blame).  After all, he wrote the screenplay and he chose Richard Burton. “Spartacus” had an advantage of a cleaner slate to write on because Spartacus’ biography is sketchy.  But on the other hand, Alexander’s life is well-chronicled and has numerous film-worthy anecdotes.  It should have been more entertaining.




GRADE  =  D

Saturday, September 16, 2017

CRACKER? Alexander (2004)



       “Alexander” was Oliver Stone’s (“Platoon”) endeavor to bring an epic biography of Alexander the Great  to the big screen.  You have to admire his commitment to the project.  It could be argued that there was no great demand for this biopic.  The box office receipts tended to confirm that.  The movie cost a whopping $155 milllion and although it eventually covered them, it was not a box office success.  Stone was man enough to admit that the finished product was flawed, so he made three more finished products.  First, there was the “Director’s Cut” which amazingly was shorter than the original.  Say what?!   The second was called “Alexander Revisited:  The Final Unrated Cut”.  The third is the one I am reviewing here.  It is entitled “The Ultimate Cut”.  It clocked in at 3:26 as opposed to the original’s 2:55.  I assume that for the twentieth anniversary he will issue the “Absolutely Ultimate Final I’m Not Kidding This Is Really the Last Cut Cut”. 

                The movie opens with a quote from Virgil:  “Fortune favors the bold”.  If you had to choose a quote to exemplify Alexander (Colin Farrell), that is an appropriate one.  Stone chooses to flashback from Alexander’s death (a common biopic opening) so we immediately know that this is going to be a tame Stone movie.  Not the gonzo movie maker that he sometimes is.  He also uses the narration technique with Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) reminiscing from post-Alexander Alexandria.  This is an immediate clue that the movie will not be anti-Alexander.  Ptolemy was a friend of Alexander and owed him a lot.  The flashing goes back to Alexander’s childhood.  Stone establishes the dysfunctionality of Alexander’s family by portraying Philip (Val Kilmer) and Olympias (Angelina Jolie) as two wolverines in a burlap sack.  Oh, and the young Alex is in the sack, too.  Could this have affected his personality?  Stone thinks so.

                Stone hops through key moments in Alexander’s life to get to the Battle of Gaugamela.  These include his tutoring by Aristotle, his acquisition of his horse Bucephalus, and his contretemps with his father at Philip’s wedding banquet.  From that falling out, the movie makes an eight-year leap to his last battle with the Persians.  Gaugamela is the movie’s big set piece and it is epic.  Alexander and his generals discuss the plan the night before.  There is a spirited debate on whether and when to attack.  Alexander talks to individual soldiers before the battle and then gives a Braveheartesque speech about free men versus slaves.  The battle itself is large scale with graphic violence.  The recreation is simplistic, but satisfactory unless you are obsessed with accuracy.  Stone uses an eagle eye’s view (literally) to show the battlefield.  However, for those unfamiliar with the battle, there is a lot of “the fog of war”. 

                From Gaugamela, we return to some anecdotal hopping to reach India and the last battle.  Some of the scenes are soap operaish as Alexander meets his wife Roxana (Rosario Dawson), but does not completely jilt his longtime BFF Hephaestion (Jared Leto).  The film definitely come down on the side of the historical debaters that argue that Alexander was bisexual.  Alexander and Roxana reenact what Philip and Olympia’s wedding night must have been like.  I guess you could make the case that the movie has three battle scenes.  Meanwhile, outside the bedrooms, Alexander has to deal with dissension amongst his men.  Alexander is going Persian on them and not everyone is obsessed with seeing what’s on the other side of the next hill.  For reasons that defy the otherwise linear nature of the narrative, Stone throws in a flash back to Philip’s death.

                Since it’s time for more fighting, the movie suddenly arrives at the Battle of Hydaspes in India.  There is not even enough time for the name of the battle or any other background, for that matter. The money shot comes with Alexander and Bucephalus facing off with a war pachyderm.  Stone uses a red tinge to the cinematography because a second battle needs to be different.  Hymnal music tells the uninformed that the conquering is over.  It’s full circle back to the death scene.

                “Alexander” deserves a better reputation. It did not become this generation’s “Spartacus”, but it is superior to that film is some ways.  No doubt it does not have the charisma of the earlier epic.  This may be due to the fact that Stone shows uncharacteristic restraint.  The only pizazz is in the red-tinged scene.  Stone also does not dig deep into the controversies of Alexander’s career and personality.  He is timid on the homosexuality angle, but he does take a firm position backing the bisexuality theory.  Stone clearly means for the movie to present the positive Alexander.  The movie spends little time on the ruthless Alexander.  This is not “Patton” where audience members left the theater arguing over whether the director was pro or con toward his subject.  Stone made a decision to come down on the side of most historians.

                The movie is epic in its casting.  For the most part the actors do a fine job.  Jolie is stunt casting, but she probably is the closest to an Olympia as Hollywood has.  She does not get to do much.  She reminded me of Marlon Brando in the first “Superman”.  By the way, she is about the same age as Colin Farrell.  Val Kilmer chews scenery as Philip, but you get what you pay for.  He gained 50 pounds for the role so kudos for that.  Farrell gets the personality right, if not the accent.  The character development is commendable and considering the size of the cast an effort was made to develop Alexander’s officers. 

                The movie is a blend of action, exposition, and battles.  The battles are well done.  The combat is of the new variety.  Frenetic mixed with slo-mo.  The CGI is seamless and the elephants are remarkable.  Stone also took advantage of many Moroccans to give the Persian army some size.  The battles are the highlights and the other scenes are a mixed bag.  Most attempt to reenact famous moments in Alexander’s life.  These are fun to watch if you are already familiar with the stories.  The dialogue does not stand out, but the movie excels in the discussions between Alexander and his generals. 

                The movie comes off as “Alexander’s Greatest Hits” as it hits almost all the stories a teacher would tell to make a unit on Alexander interesting.  And the truth is that, unlike Hannibal for instance, we have a trove of memorable anecdotes about Alexander.  It’s cool seeing them acted out.  Just covering those high spots took over three hours of screen time.  To truly do Alexander’s life justice and not just cover the hits, the movie would have to be mini-series size.  As it is, Stone has had to compress time and combine events.  Some events and characters are out of place in time.  None of this is historical deal breaking.  The movie is actually above average in accuracy for a biopic.  Better than its closest equivalent “Spartacus”.  The reason “Spartacus” is the superior film is partly due to the fact that because we know so little about Spartacus, Dalton Trumbo could construct a thoroughly entertaining epic.  Plus he had a cast that makes “Alexander” blush.

                Alexander is the most famous figure in Ancient History, so he certainly deserves a movie.  In fact, two.  Considering that the Richard Burton 1956 movie did not do him justice, Stone was justified in revisiting him.  Although his film is not perfect, it is as good as we could expect in our modern cinema that is averse to historical epics.  Now let’s move on to “Hannibal” please!

GRADE  =  B-

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  “Alexander” was based on historian Robin Lane Fox’s biography.  His Alexander the Great is considered one of the best. Lane acted as an uncredited advisor on the film and was paid by being allowed to participate in the Companion cavalry charge in the Battle of Gaugamela dressed as a Macedonian officer. Having read extensively on Alexander (I role play him in my Western Civilization course), I feel I can weigh in on the accuracy of the movie.  I have decided to take the major scenes and briefly critique them.

1.       Olympias was a maenad which means she was a member of the female cult of Dionysus.  The cult was associated with snakes so it is appropriate to have her with one. 
2.       Although the relationship of Philip and Olympias was dysfunctional, it is a stretch to have Philip trying to rape and strangle her.
3.       The line “It was said later that Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaestion’s thighs” is attributed to Diogenes, but it may have been “fake news” from back then.  There is no proof that Alexander and Hephaestion were lovers.  I (and most historians) personally think they were, so the movie is not out on a limb with this depiction of their relationship.
4.       The movie has Aristotle discouraging the conquest of Persia which is the opposite of the truth.  Alexander’s tutor, in fact, had a grudge against Persia for the sacking of Athens and passed this on to his student.
5.       The acquisition of Bucephalus conforms to most versions of the story.
6.       The Battle of Gaugamela is a blending of Issus and Gaugamela (with a bit of Granicus thrown in).  The numbers are acceptable.  The debate between Alexander and his generals is realistic.  The battle was a complex one that is adequately reenacted.  Some historians propose the mouse trap tactic for dealing with the scythed chariots, but I am of the opinion that the phalanx opened lanes for the chariots to go through and did not try to block their path.  The incident where Cleitus severed the arm of an enemy that was about to kill Alexander actually happened in the Battle of Granicus.  Alexander did not get off his horse and did not hurl a spear at Darius III.  The chariot escape was from Issus.  Alexander did get a request for support from Parmenion.  Alexander was not wounded in this battle.
7.       Darius daughter did mistake Hephaestion for Alexander.
8.       Roxana did do a sexy dance that caught Alexander’s attention.  Most likely he married her out of lust rather than any political, cultural, or heir reason.  Their relationship is not well chronicled so the movie is able to be imaginative.  It seems likely that she was jealous of Hephaestion and that Alexander quickly lost interest in her.
9.       The Page Plot is blended with the supposed plot by Philotas.  Philotas was executed for not revealing a plot and his father Parmenion was murdered to avoid his attempting revenge.  Alexander’s resident historian Callisthenes was executed for encouraging the page plot.
10.    It is conjecture as to whether Alexander and Bagoas were intimate.  It is reasonable for the movie to imply it.
11.    The murder of Cleitus comes too late as he was killed before the army reached India.  The circumstances and cause is accurate by most accounts.
12.    Philip’s death is accurate.
13.    The withdrawal from India combines two incidents.  Both occurred after the Battle of Hydaspes, not before.  Alexander actually backed down when his men mutinied and grudgingly returned home.  Weirdly, the movie shows the monsoon, but does not link it to the lowering of morale that contributed to the mutiny.  The execution of the mutineers was a separate incident.
14.    The Battle of Hypaspes (hey movie, that was the name) is poorly handled.  It was not in a forest but along a river on a plain.  The enemy was led by King Porus and did use war elephants, but Alexander’s infantry was never in trouble.  In fact, the cavalry was troubled by the elephants so Alexander would not have ridden to the rescue.  It is debatable if Bucephalus was still alive at this battle.  Most likely he was, but too old for Alexander to have ridden him in combat.  He certainly was not wounded in the battle and neither was Alexander and certainly not by Porus.  That was a low moment in the movie.  Then the movie doubles down by implying that the reason for the return home was due to Alexander’s injury. 
15.    The crossing of the Gedrosian Desert is screwed up.  It was not the quickest way home.  Alexander choose this extremely difficult route to punish his men for their mutiny.
16.    Hephaestion did die of a fever, but Alexander did not blame Roxana. 
17.    Alexander’s death is accurate.  His last words are usually recorded as “to the strongest”.



ACCURACY GRADE  =  C+

Monday, September 11, 2017

CRACKER? The Hunt for Red October (1990)



                “The Hunt for Red October” was based on Tom Clancy’s debut novel about a rogue Soviet sub captain who attempts to defect to the West.  The book was a bestseller and Hollywood was interested.  The U.S. Navy was interested in cooperating due to the desire to have a boost to submarine recruitment similar to the effect “Top Gun” had on naval aviation.  The Navy vetted the script and was pleased.  It allowed inspection of the non-classified sections of American subs so the production could create realistic interior sets on soundstages on gimbals for pitch and roll.  For the first time, the USN allowed the filming of a sub in dock. For exterior shots, the production built a 500-foot mock-up that could submerge and surface.  The movie was directed by John McTiernan who was famous for action films like “Die Hard”.  This was his only war movie.  “The Hunt for Red October” was a big hit.
                The movie is set in the Cold War before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The movie opens with a title card informing the audience that there was an incident in 1984 where a Soviet sub sank in the Atlantic due to a radiation problem.  Very suspicious, right?  “But according to repeated statements by both Soviet and American government nothing of what you are about to see actually happened.”  Wink, wink.  Now that the seed is planted, we learn that there is a Soviet Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine captain who wants to defect to the West and bring his boat with him.  The rest of the officers are on board and if they aren’t, Capt. Ramius (Sean Connery) will take care of them Ninja style.  A CIA analyst named Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) has discovered that the Red October has a revolutionary propulsion system called a “caterpillar drive” that makes the boat very difficult to be picked up by passive sonar (which is basically the ability of another sub to hear the sub when they are both under water).  Coincidentally, the USS Dallas (an attack submarine) is on duty monitoring Soviet subs in the Atlantic.  It’s ace sonar operator Jones (Courtney Vance) picks up the Soviet boat and then loses it when the caterpillar drive is initiated.  Ryan connects the dots and convinces the CIA that the reason why the Soviet navy has sallied in large numbers is to track down the Red October before it can defect.  We need to make contact with Ramius and facilitate his gifting this amazing technology.  Since its your crazy theory, you can do the contacting, Mr. CIA analyst.  Meanwhile the entire Soviet navy is determined to sink its ship.  In particular, one of Ramius’ proteges is chasing him in an attack sub called the V.K. Konovalov.  It’s like “Fast and Furious” underwater.  The movie would have been better titled “The Chase of Red October” as the boat is actually easy to find.
                “The Hunt for Red October” is an entertaining rendering of a popular novel.  It has been a long time since I read the book, but as good as it was, the movie is better.  The plot makes clearer the motivation of Ramius.  The book emphasized the death of Ramius’ wife due to a corrupt system.  Sean Connery insisted in clearer motivation so John Milius was brought in to write dialogue where Ramius speaks about having an impact on the Cold War.  He is a “good Russian”.  Connery also insisted that the movie make it clear that the incident is occurring before the Gorbachev era.  Once the motivation and goal is firmed up, the movie is very manipulative to get to the desired conclusion.  Not that that is particularly unusual for a Hollywood action movie.  You decide on the outcome and then arrange the dots to get there in as exciting a manner as possible.  And plausibility be damned.  I already mentioned “Fast and Furious” as a good example. 
                The connecting of the dots is competently done by an outstanding cast.  Alec Baldwin was the original Jack Ryan and he does a good job in portraying him as a reluctant hero.  An egg-head who was also a Marine so it is fairly believable that he can go from policy wonk to action hero. Scott Glenn is well-cast as the captain of the USS Dallas.  The Navy may have been hoping for a “Top Gun” type recruiting result, but the sailors are not mavericks.  Glenn went on board the USS Houston and was allowed to parrot orders to get a feel for the captaincy of a sub.  Mancuso is not a Captain Queeg.  In fact, he even listens to a CIA analyst at the risk of his boat and its crew.  This is the modern Navy, young men.  But the key recruiting bait is Sonar Operator Jones. Hey potential African-American submariners, you can now be a Sonar Operator instead of a cook in today’s silent service.  (And in just a few years with “Crimson Tide”, you could actually become an executive officer.)  Not only can you be a sonar expert, but you can go aboard a Soviet sub with a select group even though the enemy sub already has a sonar operator.  (But they did not have a black guy.)  Sean Connery is solid especially after he no longer has to fake a Russian accent.  He is so good you forget he plays a traitor and murderer.
                The movie is refreshingly free of submarine movie clichés.  It does have the claustrophobic setting.  The sets are authentic looking.  The Navy cooperated with the mise-en-scene for the Dallas and set designers winged it with the Red October by putting in lots of dials, buttons, and assorted gizmos.  The underwater shots are excellent, but clearly CGI.  This is an improvement over models, however.  The special effects are good and unfortunately encourage some silly pot developments, as I will point out below.  The sound effects are outstanding as evidenced by the film’s lone Academy Award for Sound Editing.  Speaking of sound, the soundtrack is one of the best for a war movie. 
                So, it’s a good movie then?  Yes, but it is a bad war movie.  Plot devices that have the average viewers on the edge of their seats, have hard-core war movie lovers pulling their hair.  There is much that is ridiculous in this movie.  Let me name a few things that I found laughable.  Ryan is an unheralded CIA analyst and yet he convinces the head of the CIA and a submarine captain to take action on his theories even though he presents no convincing evidence.  Although Ramius is meant to be a positive character, he is certifiably insane if you look at some of the things he does.  He sends a letter to the head of the Soviet Navy telling of his intentions, which makes his goal infinitely more difficult.  This was a plot requirement, obviously.  By the way, he made this decision without consulting his fellow mutineers.  He traverses an underwater twisting cavern at a recklessly high speed.  The movie is also chock full of implausibilities - all of which propel the narrative.  It is an incredibly small ocean as three submarines keep running into each other.     Well, not literally running into each other, but coming within a whisker of each other.  They are so close that torpedoes don’t have time to arm themselves!  The final showdown between the Red October and the Konovalov strains credulity for anyone familiar with how subs actually fight.  This is intercut with an equally ridiculous showdown between Ryan and a patriotic Soviet (and that’s exactly what he is!).  There’s more, but I won’t bore you with the details.  You may now yell “it’s just a movie, for Christ’s sake!”   It is just a movie, but this blog reviews war movies.  It is definitely a war movie so it should be held to a higher standard than “Die Hard”.  And the technical adviser should also be held to a higher standard.
                Will it crack my 100 Best War Movies?  No.  In fact, although there is a fairly large submarine subgenre, few are well done.  “Das Boot” stands out because its competitors are weak.  It is hard to make a realistic submarine movie, although the dynamics are rife for drama.  Those dynamics tend to be cliched.  One thing about “Hunt” is it avoids the tropes of the subgenre, but it substitutes the tropes of the action genre.  Enjoy.

GRADE  =  C

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  If you believed that based on a true story bull shit that opens the film, you probably have not made it this far.  If you are still reading, sleep well knowing that the world did not come close to ending in 1984 due to a rogue Soviet sub.  Surprisingly, there was a seed of truth to Clancy’s novel.  He was inspired by an article about the attempted defection of a Soviet anti-sub frigate named the Storozhevoy (Sentry).  The political officer named Sablin planned the defection on his own.  He was upset with the corruption of the Brezhnev government and wanted to start a revolution.  His plan was to sail to Leningrad, take over a radio station, and broadcast a call to arms.  And I thought Ramius was insane!  He tried to convince the rest of the officers to join after he locked up the captain.  Only half the officers were convinced and the rest were locked up.  One of the supposed conspirators escaped to sound the alarm, so the ship was forced to flee the harbor ahead of schedule.  Sablin, who was persuasive for a delusional individual, got the crew to support the mutiny.  Many of them were conscripts.  They lost their enthusiasm when the Soviet air force found the ship and dropped bombs on it.  One hit the stern.  At this point, some of the crew set the captive officers free and they freed the captain.  The captain confronted Sablin and wounded him with a gunshot.  And that was that.  Sablin was executed, naturally.  However, the other mutineers were not.  All the officers were demoted or dishonorably discharged.  Most of the crew was sent home after taking an oath of secrecy.  The Soviet government did not want the public to get any ideas about rebellion or any Western authors any ideas for a book.  Or become the buffoons of a US Navy recruiting film.

Friday, September 8, 2017

PICTURE, QUOTE, MOVIE #21


"Bob, I got a bad feeling on this one, all right? I mean I got a bad feeling! I don't think I'm gonna make it outta here!"


WHAT MOVIE?   It is an autobiopic released in 1955. It is based on the book by the same name. The star plays himself. It was his 16th movie. He had come to Hollywood after WWII on the urging of his friend James Cagney. This movie was his biggest hit in a career dominated by B westerns. He was reluctant to play himself because it smacked of self-promotion. He wanted Tony Curtis for the role. Studio execs and friends convinced him to take the part. They were right.



     The movie was a critical and box office success. In fact, it was Universal’s biggest hit until “Jaws”. It was not a hit with the star, however. He felt that even though he had acted as technical adviser and tried to get things right, the studio sanitized the blood and gore of combat. He also felt the movie muted the unpleasantness of war and the negative emotions it brings out. He noted that the climate conditions that he actually fought in (mud, rain, snow) were usually depicted as nice, sunny weather.

Sunday, September 3, 2017

FORGOTTEN GEM? Mosquito Squadron (1969)



                One of the most memorable movies of my childhood was “633 Squadron”.  It was right up there with “Von Ryan's Express”.  One thing I have learned through doing this blog is that sometimes childhood memories are best left untampered with.  Reviewing childhood favorites as an adult can be a disillusioning experience.  Since a recent rewatching of “633 Squadron” revealed that I was sadly wrong about the quality of that movie, I was expecting the worst in rewatching its lower budget kin “Mosquito Squadron”.   This nonsequel came out five years later and tried to tap into the misplaced fondness for the original.  It even used footage from that movie.  And shrewdly borrowed the word “squadron”.  That was good marketing.  The movie was directed by Boris Sagal who is not a particularly renowned director, but he did have an interesting death.  He was filming the miniseries“World War III” when he got off a helicopter and turned the wrong way.  His encounter with the tail rotor did not end well.

                The movie opens with the launching of a V-1 and its hitting a building in London.  This is actually footage from “Operation Crossbow”.  We get a stirring theme courtesy of Frank Cordell (a Mosquito veteran).  A flight of Mosquitos is sent to bomb the launch site.  German fighters shoot down Squadron Leader “Scotty” Scott.  He is almost surely killed.  What a shame for his best friend Quint Munroe (David McCallum).  Now he will have to comfort Scotty’s wife Beth (Suzanne Neve).  Since war movies insist on love triangles, one must wonder if Scotty is really dead.  Munroe makes a recon mission on a chateau.  His plane gets hit and a fire starts.  Lucky for him the fire stays the same size the whole time.  That’s extremely fortuitous for a man flying a wooden warplane.  The recon photos reveal a tunnel on the chateau grounds that is being used to develop secret weapons so a mission is planned to bomb it using the same type of bouncing bombs used in “The Dambusters”.  The plan is complicated by intelligence that reveals that the chateau is being used as a prison camp and one of the prisoners is Scotty.  It’s a miracle!  The mission can’t be scrubbed because it is crucial to winning the war, naturally.  Someone has the bright cinematic idea of coordinating a prison break with the bombing raid.  As long as they are going to be dropping bombs, why not have some of them breech the chateau walls to help the prisoners escape?  And since we all love a good fire-fight, how about if the French Resistance attacks to facilitate the breakout?  All this carrying on should resolve that pesky love triangle.

                It turns out you cannot replicate the awesomeness of “633 Squadron” (except in scoring).  And since “633 Squadron” is not actually awesome, that will give you an idea how bad “Mosquito Squadron” is.  The best word to describe it is “cheesy”.  The special effects are low rent.  The explosions are big and gassy.  The planes are small and modelly.  Say what you want about CGI, it’s still better than models on wires.  Did you know that when you drop a bomb from a moving plane, it does not go straight to the ground?  Neither did the special effects people.  In this movie, the bombers release right above the target and still hit it.  Another cheesy element is the sappy romance replete with sappy music.  The love triangle is classic cliché, but the movie does throw in a little twist by having Scotty develop amnesia so he does not remember who he is and that he is married to Beth.  While that is original, it is also plot-advancingly ridiculous.  The cherry on top is Scotty resolving this dilemma with a duel with a tank.  For a movie that eschews even British humor, this scene does provide a good guffaw.  You can elicit more chuckles if you drink while watching the film, which I highly recommend.  This will help with the wooden acting and the cringe-inducing romance.  Not to mention the ludicrous plot which unbelievably was based on a equally ludicrous historical operation called “Jericho”.  I’m not sure that a documentary on Operation Jericho would not end up just as unbelievable.  But at least the documentary would not have a love triangle involving an amnesiacal fiery plane crash survivor.

                This review has attempted to save you baby boomer, war movie lovers from revisiting a fondly remembered curio that will just leave you depressed and questioning your childhood memories.  You’re welcome.

GRADE  =  D-


HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Operation Jericho is worthy of its own movie – made by Quinten Tarantino.  The British conceived a raid on a German prison camp at Amiens in France.  The goal was to set free French Resistance members and political prisoners.  But instead of dropping spoons for them to dig tunnels, someone with a very high opinion on the efficacy of air bombing thought of the idea of using bombs to breach the walls around the facility and open the walls of the building housing the prisoners.  Also, the guards’ mess hall was to be bombed.  The mission had to be moved up when intelligence revealed that a large number of prisoners were to be executed on Feb. 19, 1944.  A squadron of Mosquitoes undertook the mission on Feb. 18.  The bombs did the trick and 258 of the 717 inmates were able to escape.  102 were killed and the leader of the flight was shot down and killed.  Unfortunately, two-thirds of the escapees were recaptured.  The operation is shrouded in controversy and mystery.  Noone has claimed credit for ordering it.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

DUELING MOVIES: Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957) vs. Father Goose (1964)


VS.



                “Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison” was based on a novel by Charles Shaw.  John Huston and John Lee Martin adapted the screenplay and Huston directed.  Huston and 20th Century Fox envisioned it as a successor to “The African Queen”.  You’ll enjoy it more if you forget that.  It stars Robert Mitchum and Deborah Kerr.  It was the first of their four screen pairings.  They became good friends during the filming as Mitchum bonded with her when she would curse while wearing her nun costume.  She gamely put up with the drunken binges of her director and co-star.  She ended up being nominated for Best Actress.  Huston and Martin were nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.  It was a screenplay that was vetted by the National Legion of Decency.  The Catholic Church also had a hand in monitoring the production to protect the image of its nuns.  The movie was filmed on Trinidad and Tobago. The actors to portray the Japanese-speaking soldiers had to be brought in from a Japanese community in Brazil. 

                The movie opens with a stranded Cpl. Allison (Mitchum) coming ashore on a little island in the Pacific.  There is a deserted village, but he meets a lone nun named Sister Angela (Kerr) who maintains the church.  What Allison hopes is an Adam and Eve scenario ends when the Japanese arrive and the duo goes into hiding.  Close proximity and the tension of being prey could lead to something.  If the Catholic Church was not on the set.

                “Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison” was a popular movie, but as a war movie it is nothing to get excited about.  It is more of a character study than a war film.  There is little suspense, even when Allison sneaks into the Japanese camp.  This is a shame as the situation should have lent itself to some edging to the front of your seat.  The movie is too busy toying with the “will they or won’t they” question.  The leads do have a lot of chemistry and Mitchum and Kerr were great actors, but the moral restraints placed on the script hindered a realistic portrayal of two beautiful people marooned on an island.  Actually, Kerr’s Angela is an authentic character.  Or, what the Catholic Church would have us believe is a typical nun.  As far as Mitchum’s gyrene, we get a family-friendly leatherneck.  He is one of the more saintly Marines you will run into in a war movie.  (Maybe the Marine Corps was on set also.)  Mitchum’s dialogue sounds phony and the romantic arc is unrealistic.  It is rushed due to cinematic time constraints.  We go from “hey lady, get real” to “I never realized how attractive you are” to “let’s make the best of the situation” to “marry me” to “admit it, you want it to” to “I respect you” too patly.  The “supervision” of the film caused a watering down of the theme comparing the Marine Corps to the Catholic Church.  The biggest problem with “Heaven Knows” is that the plot makes little sense.  Specifically, the actions of the Japanese are unrealistic.  (For instance, the Japanese actually invade the island twice!) At least they speak with no subtitles and are not demonized.

                “Father Goose” was Cary Grant’s second-to-last screen role.  He turned down the role of Henry Higgins in “My Fair Lady” because he wanted to play against his usual suave characters and instead play a role that was close to his actual personality.  Apparently, the real Grant  liked to dress like a bum and yell at kids to get off his lawn.  The movie was directed by Ralph Nelson (“Soldier Blue”).  The screenplay was an adaptation of the short story “A Place of Dragons” by S.H. Barnett.  Peter Stone and Frank Tarloff won an Oscar for the screenplay.  The movie was nominated for Film Editing and Sound.  The song “Pass Me By” was not nominated but was later a hit for Peggy Lee and was recorded by Frank Sinatra and others.  The movie was filmed in Jamaica.  It was a big hit.

                The movie opens in early 1942 with the Japanese rampaging through the Southwest Pacific.  Walter Eckland (Grant) is a loner who couldn’t care less about the war effort.  He is “recruited” by Commander Broughton (Trevor Howard) of the Royal Australian Navy to be a coast watcher.  The curmudgeonly Eckland is more civilian than most civilians, but he is given no choice.  He is deposited on a deserted island with a radio.  To get him to file periodic reports, Broughton has hidden whiskey bottles and reveals their locations only upon receipt of the reports.  When he is sent to rescue another coast watcher, Eckland instead is saddled with a school teacher named Catherine (Leslie Caron) and her seven girl charges.  The situation is reminiscent of Felix Unger moving in with Oscar except that Felix is a woman and she brings teenage girls with him.  Eckland tops Oscar by being not only a slob, but also an asshole.  Naturally, “Mother Goose” (Eckland’s code name) gets along with “Goody Two Shoes” like an old mutt with a Persian cat.  Eckland hurls a lot of invective such as “you should carry a tambouring and put fig leaves on statues”.  Oh, snap!  These two have as much chance of falling in love as that old mutt and the Persian cat.  Unless this is a movie.

                “Father Goose” is fluff, but it is well done fluff.  The confection has one prime ingredient – Cary Grant.  He has fun playing against type and Caron is an excellent foil.  They have chemistry and this makes the absolutely predictable romance watchable.  Like “Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison”, the romantic arc is too rushed, but hell, there’s a war going on.  In most ways, the movie is more of a romantic comedy than a war movie.  As far as the comedy part, the movie is fairly amusing.  Grant gets some funny lines (he had his writers on call), as does Howard.  Although it co-stars the venerable war movie stalwart Howard, his Boughton is mainly there to facilitate the comedy.  He seems to have had fun as well.  It’s not often you get to top a Cary Grant character.  His character is the key to making the movie above average.  For a comedy, it is surprisingly more suspenseful than “Heaven Knows”.  You’re not going to lose sleep, mind you.  Another surprise is that it actually has more of an “The African Queen” vibe than the other movie.  The two main characters are much closer to Charlie and Rose than Allison and Angela are.  Speaking of which, although the script is competent, it hardly deserved an Oscar.  (It beat out “Hard Day’s Night”!)  “The African Queen” was only nominated.

                Both movies are better as movies than war movies.  However, “Father Goose” is more entertaining and less unrealistic in its handling of an unrealistic situation.  At least, there were coast watchers that served in the Pacific.  I wouldn’t say that the movie honors them, however.  “Father Goose” is just more comfortable in the romantic comedy genre than “Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison” is in the romantic genre.  “Heaven Knows” was crippled by the production code and the blue noses and clergymen who scrutinized it.  It also fumbled the trapped scenario.  The two are very much of their times, but “Father Goose” would fit well into today’s rom-com environment.  “Heaven Knows” is too uptight to find a modern audience. 

GRADES:  Heaven Knows  =  C-

                  Father Goose  =  B-