The War Movie Buff

#43 - Hell's Angels

2012-02-11T17:05:00.000-06:00

BACK-STORY: “Hell’s Angels” is a WWII aerial combat war movie released in 1930 and memorably directed by Howard Hughes in his debut. The production is legendary. The movie was intended to be Hughes’ answer to “Wings”, but the advent of “talkies” prompted him to convert it to sound at great additional cost. At around $4 million, it was the most expensive motion picture released to that date. The switch to sound also necessitated the dumping of the thickly accented Greta Nissan and her replacement with Jean Harlow. Hughes insisted on going big so the famous dogfight scene used 70 pilots (many of them WWI vets) and many actual WWI biplanes. Three of the pilots died in filming and Hughes himself crashed and broke some bones filming a sequence none of the pilots would agree to attempt. The movie had one of the grandest openings ever at Grauman’s Theater and was a hit although it had difficulty recouping the cost.

OPENING: “Germany before the war”. Two college buddies are drinking at a beer garden. Cigarette smoke wafts as though produced by a fog machine. (There will be at least ten scenes with someone smoking.) Surprisingly for a Hughes movie, the flirty German bar maid does not display massive cleavage. Roy (James Hall) and Karl John Darrow) are joined by Roy’s wastrel brother Monte (Ben Lyon).

SUMMARY: Monte gets caught on a couch with a German aristocrat’s wife. The Pee Wee Herman lookalike challenges Monte to a duel which he skips town back to London to avoid in spite of his brother’s arguments for upholding the family honor. Roy takes his brothers place and is wounded in the arm by Pee Wee. The scene is shot from a distance and we see the duelists in silhouette. Cool.

     Back at the frat house, Monte is unapologetic and carrying on like a frat boy. War is announced and Karl is despondent because being a German he might have to go to war against the country he loves – England. Sure enough, Karl gets a draft notice from the German military. Roy joins the Royal Flying Corps out of patriotism and Monte joins him after being recruited in exchange for a kiss.

     Monte and Roy go to a ball. The scene is colorized! Roy introduces Monte to his girlfriend Helen (Jean Harlow) who we just met coming out of the bushes with another gent. It quickly becomes apparent that Roy is the only bloke in England that does not know that Helen is a slut. Helen is wearing a dress presumably designed by Howard Hughes which ranks with Marilyn Monroe’s from “Some Like It Hot”. She boldly kisses Monte while Roy is off getting drinks. They go back to her apartment where she utters the famous line: “Would you be shocked if I put on something more comfortable?” Flash forward to Monte feeling awfully guilty.

     The next scene is the famous Zeppelin bombing London scene. It is a night attack through hazy clouds and has a sci-fi look to it. The first view of the ship has a “Star Wars” opening feel. The German commander is scar-faced, naturally. Karl is a reluctant crew member. A listening post picks up the bomber and Roy and Monte’s squadron is scrambled. Karl is lowered in an “observer’s car” to play the role of bombardier. He cannot bring himself to bomb London, so he drops the bombs in a lake. When the fighters arrive, the pod is slowing the Zeppelin’s escape so the commander cuts Karl loose. We do not get to see Karl’s reaction to his sudden bout with gravity. Speaking of gravity, members of the crew robotically jump to lighten the craft in a chilling scene. Roy and Monte get shot down, but walk away from the crash. The last British fighter goes kamikaze, crashing into the Zeppelin which erupts like the Hindenburg in a fiery display of movie making. Would you believe it almost lands on Roy and Monte?

     Next, our heroes (or hero and brother actually) are in France where Helen is now a flirtatious canteen gal. She is still a slut (but now a patriotic one) and Roy is still a sap who is yet to sample her wares. He finally gets clued in when he catches Helen with another man and she proceeds to tell him she never loved him and basically he is an old stick in the mud. Way harsh! Monte’s sage advice is “Never love a woman, just make love to her.”

     Back at the officer’s club, the men are assigned to a hazardous night patrol. Monte (who already has a reputation as a slacker) refuses to go, ranting that the war is a “politician’s war” not worth sacrificing his future bed-hopping for. He is headed for a court-martial when he suddenly (and out of character) volunteers for a mission to fly a captured German bomber to destroy a munitions depot. Roy can’t let him go alone, of course. They spend the pre-raid hours not learning how to fly the foreign craft, but at a brothel getting drunk with some loose French women. Are there any other kind? (Sorry, Caroline) Monte, reverting to his yellow stripe, almost convinces Roy to go AWOL.

     Guess who is defending the ammo dump? The “Flying Circus” of Red Baron fame. Since Roy and Monte are “disguised” as Germans they are able to fly under the watchful eyes of the squadron and drop bombs on the depot. This results in a series of explosions that would put many modern explosion-fests to shame. It takes a little while, but the Huns figure out that the bomber is not German and they set off in pursuit. Things look bleak when here comes the cavalry in the form of a squadron of British fighters. The ensuing dogfight featuring numerous vintage WWI biplanes is awesome. There is a mid-air collision and we get to see facial views of the pilots as they are killed (some of them afire). It’s kind of creepy, but unique. It looks like the shot up bomber might make it when Von Richtofen himself swoops in and sends it into a death spiral. Well, not quite a “death” spiral since our duo improbably survive the crash. They are taken prisoner.

CLOSING: Roy and Monte are brought to German headquarters where guess who is the general. It’s Pee Wee! In a nod to the intelligent people in the audience, the screenwriters added a line about what a coincidence this is. Pee Wee wants information on the upcoming offensive. The brothers naturally refuse and are sent to their cell to think it over. An execution outside their window makes it clear what their fate will be. Monte turns chicken once again and wants to talk. Roy goes instead and convinces the general he will turn traitor, but wants to first silence his mate so he can’t rat him out after the war. Pee Wee gives Roy a gun with one bullet. I’m wondering what Roy will do with one bullet. Back at the cell, Monte still insists on saving his own skin over the thousands of British Tommies so Roy shoots him in the back! The biggest scene chewer in the movie is given an extended melodramatic death scene. Roy is led out and shot off screen. The offensive immediately begins.

RATINGS:

Acting - 6

Action - 7

Accuracy – 5

Realism – 4

Plot – 7

Overall – 7

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? If they are a flapper/hippy/women’s libber, yes. Helen is a modern girl and whether you agree with her morals or not, she is a fascinating character. The leads are okay and you have a choice between the ladies’ man (Monte) and guy next door (Roy). The movie is not overly graphic although some of the pilot deaths are squrm-inducing.

ACCURACY: The film is obviously not meant to be factual, so historical accuracy is not a major issue. The two big aerial combat scenes are a mixed bag. The Zeppelin bombing raid is well done and realistically staged. The Germans did bomb London at night using the airships. I was surprised to find that the “observation car” (sometimes called a “spy car”) was accurately depicted. The Germans did lower a crew member on a cable in a pod to a lower height so he could guide the bombing. A telephone connected him to the bridge, as shown in the film. Of course, there is no evidence of an Anglophile German purposely misdirecting bombs and no incident where crew members sacrificed themselves to save the ship.

     The big dogfight scene, while accurate in its chaos, is not based on an actual event. I have found no evidence that a captured German bomber was used on a raid like this. It’s pure Hollywood. I find it hard to believe that a pilot (Baldie) could communicate with Monte by yelling above the roar of the planes. A small, but significant, note about the portrayal of Von Richtofen. In the movie, he is shown as staying out of the melee and then closing in for the kill on the bomber. This is out of character for the Red Baron who was never one to avoid the opportunity for mixing it up.

CRITIQUE: “Hell’s Angels” can best be described as an entertaining old school war movie. What makes it a cut above similar classic black and white war movies is it is also an interesting movie. Hughes did some things outside the box that make the movie stand out and those unorthodox elements have allowed the movie to have a longer shelf life than most war movies its age. The money the eccentric millionaire spent was well worth it if he wanted the movie to live in posterity.

     The special effects are ground-breaking and well ahead of their time. The Zeppelin looks less like a model than many aircraft in more modern movies. It is not laughable like you might expect. The dogfight is, of course, done without the aid of CGI. Compare that scene using real planes and stunt fliers to similar scenes in “Flyboys” and you can see that Hollywood is still not capable of duplicating Hughes accomplishment. Then again, noone died making “Flyboys”. (No, that is not a shame!) The cinematography justifiably got an Academy Award nomination, but the sound effects are equally impressive. I was not as impressed with the sound of the soundtrack which tended toward the schmaltzy score so popular back then.

     The acting is not outstanding, but it also is not terrible. Even Harlow, who took a lot of grief for her lack of thespian skills, is not cringe-inducing. I found Helen to be a fascinating departure from virtually every other female in black and white war movies. Unless you admire her “anything goes” philosophy, she is pretty dislikable. Hollywood would produce few Helen’s for a long time after this movie because Helen had a lot to do with the Hayes Code crack-down. The movie also had some salty language of the SOB variety during the dogfight scene that prompted the censorship. As far as the other actors, Lyon hams it up in a grating performance, but the character is supposed to be loathsome. Hall is solid as Roy. Lucien Prival as Baron Von Kranz (Pee Wee) previews the way Nazis will be handled in the 1940s – cool and malevolent.

     The plot is a weakness. It is your typical cliché-ridden lover’s triangle. You get the two friends (in this case brothers) torn by the same woman. One is good and the other bad. In a bit of a departure, the girl is bad, too. You get a heavy dose of “it’s a small world”. For example, meeting up with the Baron again. Or Helen working a canteen in France near the air base. Or Roy and Monte attacking Karl’s Zeppelin. The clichés include the redemption of the coward. Another is the noble sacrifice for the greater good.

CONCLUSION: “Hell’s Angels” is a special movie. It was revolutionary at the time and still stands out today. The Zeppelin scene and the dogfight are iconic. You have to admire Hughes for his commitment to making a great war movie. While the plot keeps it from being great, it is certainly memorable. It was a grand effort by Hughes and the film belongs in the trio of significant WWI air combat movies with “Dawn Patrol” (#38) and “Wings” (#11). As far as the ranking by Military History at #43, that seems overrated. Although entertaining in a hokey sort of way and marked by some remarkable scenes, it is not better than at least twenty of the movies I have already reviewed. It certainly belongs in the 100 Best War Movies list, just not as high.

CRACKER? Steel Helmet

2012-02-02T20:52:00.000-06:00

     “Steel Helmet” was the first movie about the Korean War. It was released during the war in 1951. It was directed by WWII veteran Samuel Fuller. He also wrote and produced the film. It is a classic B-Movie which cost only $100,000. Fuller used a plywood tank and 25 UCLA students as extras. It made $6 million. The movie was “dedicated to the U.S. infantry”.

     The movie opens with the survivor of a North Korean prisoner execution (his steel helmet had deflected the kill shot) crawling from the site with his hands tied. Sgt. Zack (Gene Evans) is freed by a Korean orphan who he dubs “Short Round” (William Chun). Zack is a racist who refers to Short Round as a “gook”, but he lets him tag along. They meet up with a black medic named Thompson (James Edwards) and it turns out Zack is an equal opportunity racist. The trio runs into a patrol led by Lt. Driscoll (Steve Brodie) who Zack hates and disrespects. The three go off on their own, but return to rescue the patrol from an ambush by snipers. This is a good scene although it was obviously shot on a sound stage.

     The unit moves on to establish an observation post in a Buddhist temple. We have a typical heterogeneous unit including the black medic, grizzled sergeant, hick, conscientious objector, the quiet guy, the by the book officer, etc. Fuller can be excused for wanting his characters to represent the variety of the U.S. Army. Hiding in the temple is a Commie who knifes the quiet guy while the others sleep. They search the temple and Zack captures him. He turns out to be a Major who speaks English which comes in handy as he tries to persuade the minorities to switch sides. First he works on Thompson by pointing out the mistreatment of blacks in America. When this does not work, he reminds the Nisei Tanaka (Richard Loo) of the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII. This was the first reference in a movie to this shameful episode in American History. Kudos to Fuller for rattling the cage.

Zack and Tanaka

      Surprise, Zack has bonded with Short Round. Unfortunately, the kid gets killed by a sniper. Zack shoots the Major out of rage in a scene that was protested by the Army until Fuller pointed out that the killing of prisoners was not unheard of. This action by Zach also caused outrage in parts of “Red Scare” America as conservatives called for Fuller’s arrest for treasonous production of an anti-American propaganda film. Double kudos to Fuller for standing up to McCarthyism.

      The Reds figure out that the temple is a forward observation post that is raining artillery fire on them. Fuller uses stock combat footage from WWII that does not blend well with the film. The enemy attacks in swarms. Weirdly, the indoor defense does not match up with the outside attack. The movie shifts to a “who will survive” mode. Being a 1951 black and white movie, the deaths come without blood or even bullet holes. (Is that the way Fuller remembered his war days?) If you bet on four surviving, you win. Zack is one of them. They hook up with a relief patrol, but first Zack replaces the helmet on Driscoll’s grave with his lucky steel pot. (Earlier Driscoll had asked Zack to trade and Zack had dissed him.)

      This is one gritty film, which is saying a lot for a movie made at a time that grit could not be combined with graphic. In some ways it reminds me of “When Trumpets Fade” with its anti-hero main character. Zack is a great character. How rare to anchor a war from this time period on a dislikable protagonist. Evans probably did the best acting of his career. The studio had pushed for John Wayne, but Fuller stuck to his guns (and his budget). The rest of the cast are B-Movie actors that rose above the class. Edwards and Loo are particularly strong. Both characters could not have existed accurately in a WWII movie. However, the Korean War-era Army was integrated.

     The movie is most reminiscent of a Western. The old surrounded-in-the-fort variety. There is a little “Stagecoach” in it as well. The biggest difference is no women to distract our warriors. Not saying that’s an improvement.

      Does “Steel Helmet” crack the 100 Best War Movies? It deserves consideration for the balls that went into making it. It is safe to say it is one of the greatest war movies ever made for just $100,000 and shot in ten days.

NOW SHOWING: Red Tails

2012-01-21T21:40:00.001-06:00

      “Red Tails” has everything that is wrong with a Hollywood history movie. It takes a story it claims is “inspired by true events” and uses those true events to structure an edifice of sappitude. In the tradition of atrocities like “Wind Talkers”, you can check off all the aspects that depress war movie lovers like me. Trite musical score – check. Sappy dialogue – check. Cliches – check. Stereotype characters – check. Gross exaggeration of historical events – check. Ridiculously over the top explosions – check. Pious moralizing – check. Evil Nazi antagonist – check. Tacked in romance - check

      The movie begins with the unit limited to ground missions which at least allows them to blow up a train with lots of pyrotechnics. We are introduced to the usual stereotypes. The two main characters are “Lighting” Little (David Oyelowo) hot shot pilot, ladies man, disobedient (you know the type) and “Easy” Julian (Nate Parker) – bottle-hitter with daddy issues. Not to mention the super religious guy (Black Jesus fan), the field hand (for comic relief), the rookie, the grumpy crew chief, etc. We bounce back and forth from the air base to the Pentagon where the racists are trying to disband the unit because they do not shoot down German fighters. How can they when they aren’t given a chance?! (“Glory” be!)

      When they are given a chance we are treated to set pieces that include their incredibly successful first dogfight (reminiscent of “Fly Boys” CGI whirling chaos), the strafe-destruction of an air field, the strafe-destruction of a German destroyer by “Lightning”, and a tangle with German jet fighters (which includes a duel between Lightning and Pretty Boy!). You get to catch your breath in between with the requisite romance between “Lightning” and a white Italian woman named Sophia (Daniella Ruah), Pentagon racism versus simmering give-us-a-chance-you-racist-bastard posturing, conflict between the hot shot and the rule-follower, and trite airmen banter.

      The big breakthrough comes when the 332nd Fighter Group volunteers to provide close escort for the white bomber crews. Do you think they will gain the respect of the white crews? Will there be a scene where one of the blacks is refused admittance to an officers’ club followed later by a scene where the blacks are bonhommed at the same club? Guess.

      If you took a shot every time someone says something cringe-inducing in this movie, you would be drunk very soon. Here’s a very limited sampler:

“They done shot down the whole Luftwaffer.”

“Lightning, when are you going to learn this is not a game?”

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler?”

“Die, you foolish African” (spoken by the Nazi “Pretty Boy”)

      Surprisingly, the “true events” are ball-park true. They were limited to just ground missions which resulted in talk of disbanding based on lack of kills. They did participate in ground support for the invasion of Pantelleria (Operation Shingle in the movie). They did sink a destroyer. They did earn a reputation for disciplined escorting of bombers. They did successfully take on ME-262’s in a raid on a tank parts factory outside Berlin. The problem is all of these are grossly exaggerated in the movie.

      The Tuskegee Airmen deserve a good movie. Now they have two strikes against them and it is highly unlikely they will ever get their just reward. George Lucas’ “Red Tails” is the second strike (the first was HBOs “Tuskegee Airmen”). I had eagerly waited for this movie because I teach about the Tuskegee Airmen, but the commercials gave me an inkling of my disappointment (although the CGI was not that bad in the movie) and then there was a pre-movie trailer for the new 3D “The Phantom Menace” to remind me of the damage Lucas is capable of. Premonition confirmed.

FACT OR FICTION?

1. None of the characters are real. Howard’s character, Col. Bullard, is obviously based on Benjamin Davis, Jr. The personification is pretty close to Davis. He did insist the unit not leave the bombers when they got the escort job.

2. The painting of the tails red began with the P-47s (this stage was skipped in the movie). I found no evidence that the color was foisted on them as a racial slur. It makes more sense that they chose it for the flamboyance.

3. They were assigned ground support duties that avoided air combat. The lack of kills did provide fodder for opponents in Washington who wanted the unit disbanded. The conversations in the movie get the basics right, but the unit was never on the edge of being disbanded.

4. Their first combat mission was in support of the landing on Pantelleria. It was successful, but not nearly as exciting as in the movie since there was no enemy contact in the air.

5. Surprisingly, the destroyer incident was fairly accurate. Two of the pilots did sink a German destroyer through strafing. It was the only incident of its type in the war.

6. Although the movie does not make a big deal of it, the unit did not have a spotless record of never losing an escorted bomber as legend holds it. Recent scholarship sets the number at around 25 lost. The unit was well-respected by the bomber units.

7. They did have a mission against a tank parts factory outside Berlin where they ended up going all the way. They did encounter German jets and shot down three. They got the Distinguished Unit Citation for this mission.

8. The romance is unrealistic because Italian women were discouraged from hooking up with African-Americans.

After researching the real story, I have to admit the movie was accurate enough to be commended. If only the dialogue had been better and the actual facts had not been exagerrated so much.

Rating - 6

CRACKER? Three Kings

2012-01-15T20:53:00.000-06:00

“Three Kings” is a war movie released in 1999. It was written and directed by David Russell from a story idea by comedian John Ridley. The movie was a moderate success at the box office, but was critically acclaimed. At the time of filming, George Clooney was a TV star hoping to make a splash in movies. He worked hard to get the reluctant Russell to cast him. Spike Jonze made his acting debut in the film. The movie is set in March, 1991 – “the war has just ended’. This is a reference to the Persian Gulf War.

is this dude surrendering?

The movie opens with a provocative scene in which a soldier named Barlow (Mark Wahlberg) shoots an Iraqi soldier who may or may not have been trying to surrender. This was a common situation at the end of the war. The scene shifts to the celebration back at base camp. The movie is outstanding in showing the chaos at the end of the war.

Gates, Barlow, and Elgin

During the searching of Iraqi prisoners, Vig (Spike Jonze) finds a paper stuffed in a prisoner’s anus. “I didn’t join the Army to pull paper out of people’s asses.” He also didn’t join the Army to become a millionaire, but the paper is a map to a bunker where Saddam Hussein has stashed millions in gold bars. When Major Gates (Clooney) gets wind of the map, he takes charge of the trio of Barlow, Vig, and Elgin (Ice Cube) and they go off in a humvee to get rich quick. Surprise – complications arise.

They find the gold, but they also encounter civilians being threatened by Hussein’s loyalists. The civilians are part of the rebellion against Hussein that was encouraged by the Bush Administration. Our heroes are only interested in the gold so they simply watch while the civilians are killed. Just kidding. Russell is not breaking new ground here. The quartet intervenes in a wild firefight that is one of the coolest ever filmed. The use of slo-mo and graphic visuals of bullets entering bodies is visceral. The battle is not depicted as a fireworks extravaganze, but more like a multi-player tennis match.

Vigs isn't giving up his gold

They flee with the civilians, but the enemy fire chemicals which turn out to be tear gas. Their vehicle crashes in a minefield. Don’t you hate when that happens? Actually, it was probably common in Iraq back then. They are rescued by rebels, but Barlow is captured. The rebels are angry that Bush has abandoned them. (There is some time compression here as this stage of the rebellion would not have been reached this early.) Gates makes a deal with the rebels. If they help him rescue Barlow, the Americans will help them cross the border into Iran safely.

Gates negotiates

      Meanwhile, Barlow is being “interrogated” by an Iraqi soldier named Said (Said Taghmaoui) who lost his son to an American bomb. He is not a big fan of the U.S.A. He uses electric shock to show it. They debate the war and Said has some good debating points in his favor. When Barlow points out that the war was fought to stabilize the world, Said’s counterargument involves making Barlow drink oil. “This is your f****** stability.” Well played, Said.

      The plan to rescue Barlow revolves around making the Iraqi captors believe Hussein is coming in person and boy is he pissed. Since the Iraqi soldiers are Iraqi soldiers, they fall for this and most run off. Unfortunately, an Iraqi helicopter arrives to change the equation. (This is a reference to how Hussein used helicopters to put down the Iraqi rebellion due to the fact that the Bush Administration did not cover non-fixed wing aircraft in its no fly ban.) Too bad the insurgents did not have explosive Nerf footballs like Elgin uses on the helicopter. Why did the U.S. encourage the rebellion and then not provide the explosive Nerf footballs? What kind of foreign policy is that?!

       Barlow is rescued and in a “you had the better argument” recognition lets Said go. The quartet (minus one) get some trucks and head for the border with the rebel families. Unfortunately, at the border the Iraqis are not allowing anyone to enter Iran and Gates’ commanding officer arrives in a court-martialing mood. Luckily, being an American, he might be open to a bribe of golden bars. It’s redemption time for our scheming rogues.

       “Three Kings” takes an historical event (the Iraqi uprising after the Persian Gulf War) and injects a fictitious story into that chaos. When the Persian Gulf War ended with Hussein still in power, the Bush Administration encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up. The Shia in the South took up the call and at first were successful. Unfortunately, the war ended with the Iraqi Republican Guard crippled, but not powerless. It was able to carry out Hussein’s orders to ruthlessly put down the rebellion because fighting lightly armed civilians was more its skill set than combating the U.S. Army. To make matters worse, the peace agreement did not forbid the use of helicopters. An oversight that was to bring disaster to the insurgents.

a bullet trail

The movie is very entertaining. It came out after “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Thin Red Line” and joined them in juicing up the war movie genre for modern audiences. It is different and more unorthodox than those other films. It is the MTV version of war. The use of hand-held cameras and Steadicams gives it a journalistic feel. It also uses CSI-style graphics to show the effects of bullet wounds. There is one remarkable view of a bullet penetrating a body and the resulting sepsis. This style reappears when Gates plunges a needle into Barlow’s lung to help him breath. Another scene uses Matrix type visuals to portray a firefight. It’s a war movie for the new generation, but my generation can admire the viscerality of it. Speaking of generations, "Three Kings" is the modern equivalent of "Kelly's Heroes".

The movie is not just eye candy. The acting is stellar from the ensemble. Even the novice Jonze holds his own. Clooney’s charismatic performance conclusively proves that his decision to jump from TV was a wise one. Wahlberg cemented his status as a major star. More importantly, the screenplay is thought-provoking. It does not preach, but makes it clear that the period at the end of the Persian Gulf War was a messed up situation and the U.S. should not be proud of our role in the Iraqi Insurrection. It even includes a sympathetic Iraqi torturer (Said). In some ways it is a biting satire of the military and the media. Although the bigger picture is conveyed, the movie dwells at the human interest level. It depicts how government decisions affect civilians.

Carcker? Absolutely. Possibly in the Top Ten.

9/10

the trailer

#44 - The Great Escape

2012-01-12T19:21:00.000-06:00

BACK-STORY: “The Great Escape” is a WWII prisoner of war movie. It was released in1963 and was a huge hit and has grown in popularity over the years. It is the most famous movie in its subgenre. The film was directed by John Sturges and is based on the nonfiction book by Paul Brickhill. Brickhill was a prisoner in Stalag Luft III and helped with the escape although he was not one of the escapees. His book and the movie are dedicated to the fifty escapees who did not survive. The main screenwriter was James Clavell who spent time in a Japanese prison camp and later the screenplay for “King Rat”. One of the tunnelers (Wally Floody) served as a technical advisor. Donald Pleasance was a prisoner in Stalag Luft 1 during the war. Steve McQueen insisted the motorcycle scenes be written in and did the stunts, not including the last jump (for insurance reasons).

Hilts' first trip to the cooler

OPENING: With the iconic opening theme playing in the background, truckloads of Allied POWs arrive at a brand new prison camp. Most of the main characters are briefly introduced as they case the new camp already plotting escape. The POW leader, Wing Commander Ramsey, is welcomed by the commandant who tersely explains that the camp is designed to hold all the most troublesome escape artists held by the Germans. Within minutes there are escape attempts that fail, but show that the prisoners are not impressed with the impossibility of breaking out.

SUMMARY: The movie has three distinct parts: the planning and execution of the escape, the escape, and the attempts to reach safety. The first part concentrates on the plan and each main character's role in it. The leader of the escape organization is Roger Bartlett (Richard Attenborough) who is known as “Big X”. He has been warned by the Gestapo that his next attempt will be his last. His plan is to create turmoil in the Third Reich by busting out 250 prisoners. It’s a massive undertaking involving three tunnels. Besides the digging of the tunnels, there are special jobs like forging documents and making disguised clothing. The main characters each have a specialty and gets screen time to demonstrate their prowess. These include the “Forger” Blythe (Donald Pleasance), the “Manufacturer” Sedwick (James Coburn), and the “Scrounger” Henley (James Garner). To break from the “grunt” work of escape preparation, the screenplay adds a cocky American named Hilts (Steve McQueen) to spice things up. He becomes the “Cooler King” for his frequent trips to isolation for insubordination and escape attempts.

The digging of the tunnel is in the hands of Willy (John Leyton) and Danny (Charles Bronson). The movie chronicles the problems and solutions to the tunneling. Example: problem – disposal of all the dirt / solution- bags containing dirt concealed in pants legs and then deposited on the camp grounds. Meanwhile everyone else is doing their job including uncredited actors acting as lookouts to watch for “ferrets” – Germans who tried to discover tunnels.

The tunneling follows a typical Hollywood story arc of smooth sailing, then numerous problems develop, followed by success. The problems start with the discovery of the main tunnel (Tom) while the camp is celebrating the 4th of July with American-made moonshine. A tragic death moves the movie into a darker direction. Some of the problems that now appear include Blythe going blind, Danny developing claustrophobia, and dangerous cave-ins. This leads up to the climactic break-out.

oops, this is not the woods

The buildup of problems culminates in the tunnel being twenty yards short of its destination – the safety of the woods. Hilts rigs up a rope tug system to get the escapees out whenever a nearby guard is not looking. 76 escape before the inevitable screw-up. Luckily, all the main characters were written in as getting out before #77.

Blythe dies in Hendley's arms

The rest of the movie follows the main characters in their attempts to elude their pursuers and return to Allied lines. The movie stays in chronological time by effectively skipping between characters. The individual stories are varied and unpredictable. Unfortunately, most of the men are unsuccessful. Hilts story dominates this section. He steals a German motorcycle and leads the Germans on a merry chase that ends with one of the most famous scenes in movie history.

CLOSING: Fifty of the recaptured men are executed by the Gestapo/S.S. The lucky ones who are returned to the camp are informed about their comrades. Henley pointedly asks Ramsey if it was worth it (a question the movie does not consider until this brief exchange and based on the underlying vibe definitely answers “yes!” to). Hilts steals one more scene as he is the last to get back. He taunts the ousted commandant and goes to the Cooler for some more throwing a baseball against the wall action.

one of the three that made it

RATINGS:

Acting – 9

Action – 7

Accuracy – 8

Realism – 8

Plot – 9

Overall – 9

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Although there is not a single female that has a speaking role in it, I would think most women would enjoy it but wonder what all the fuss is about. It is certainly aimed at the male audience (specifically 14 year old boys). However, the actors are appealing and the action is not graphic. It is undoubtedly entertaining.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY: The movie opens with the claim that it is based on a true story, but with composite characters and time compression. It boldly proclaims that every detail of the escape is true. That statement is too strong, but the movie is commendably close to the facts.

      There was a Stalag Luft III and the Germans did put all their “bad eggs in one basket”. The attempted escapes on the first day actually occurred in the way depicted. The “X organization” did plan an escape of 250 men involving the construction of three tunnels named Tom, Dick, and Harry. Weirdly, the movie changes the names around for no discernible reason. Harry was actually the one under the stove and Dick was in the washroom. (It was abandoned and used for dirt storage after the Germans cleared the area it was to pop out in.) Tom was discovered by ferrets, but not during a celebration of the 4th of July. There was a moonshine celebration on a different day.

      All the activities surrounding the escape are accurate. The forging of papers, disposal of the dirt, making of clothing, creation of the ventilation system, the singing of Christmas carols to hide the sounds of digging, the shoring up the tunnels with bunk bed boards, etc. The movie is extremely strong in depicting how the plan was put into effect.

      The escape was essentially like the film shows. The tunnel was twenty feet short of the woods. There was an air raid that shut the lights down for a while. I could find no evidence that a rope was rigged up, but seventy-six men did escape before the exit was discovered by a sentry (probably not because someone fell). It is important to note that none of the seventy-six were Americans. The Americans had been moved to another camp before the escape. Gee, I wonder why the filmmakers decided to leave Steve McQueen and James Garner in the escape?

      The third of the film dedicated to the main characters on the lam is substantially Hollywoodized. There was no theft of a plane or a motorcycle, for instance. The movie is close to the truth in its depiction of the success of Sedgwick (actually Dutchman Bram van der Stok) in reaching Spain (although the Resistance drive-by shooting is surely artistic license) and Willy and Danny (Per Bergsland and Jens Muller) stowing away on a ship to reach Sweden. The execution of fifty recaptured men is a fact, but they were not killed in a large group as shown in the movie.

       Where the movie takes most of its liberties is in the characters, but it is up front in the composite nature of them. Some are close to a real person like Roger Bartlett representing Roger Bushell. Bushell was the leader of the X Committee and played an essential role in the escape. Ramsey was actually Herbert Massey and he did have a leg injury. Ives (the real Jimmy Kiddell) did die on the wire. Willy and Danny and Sedgwick were differently named and of different nationalities than their counterparts, but their escapes were true. The rest take some creative thinking to determine who they are supposed to be. The important thing is the roles they represent (scrounger, forger, manufacturer, etc.) were real and accurately depicted.

CRITIQUE: I have to be up front about the fact that this was my favorite movie when I was growing up. This was back when I and my brothers got to see it once a year on network TV. That was always a great night in our house. I may have seen it more than any other movie (not counting movies I have shown in class for decades). Sometimes our childhood favorites do not hold up when we watch them through adult eyes. This is not the case with “The Great Escape”. It was and still is one of the classic war movies.

      The iconic nature of the film starts with the opening credits as we listen to the stirring theme music which every man of my generation instantly recognizes. Elmer Bernstein wrote the musical score and it is perfect. It dwells in the background of every scene and defines the moods. In this respect, the movie is very similar to another great guy movie – “The Magnificent Seven”. Speaking of which, the two movies also shared Sturges, McQueen, Coburn, and Bronson.

      The movie is an expert blend of suspense, action, and humor. The humor works very well. It is dry and used sparingly, but effectively. Some of the lines are memorable. For instance, the ferrets bust in to the washroom and narrowly miss the trap door to Harry being sealed. Danny hustles into the shower and when the guard asks Sedgwick what he is doing there he responds “Watching him. I’m the life guard.”

      The camp was constructed near Munich and accurately recreates a Stalag in layout, if not in atmosphere. The tunnel set allows for a cutaway view of the digging. The scenes are truly claustrophobic and the ever present danger of cave-ins adds to the suspense. The scenes outside the camp are authentic-looking since the movie was filmed in Europe. There is even some beautiful Alpine scenery.

      The movie does a great job in its structure. The buildup to the escape concentrates on character development and is tutorial on the work that went on. This could have been tedious, but the injection of humor and Steve McQueen keep the narrative flowing. The movie, to its credit does not have a prolonged denouement after the escape. The alternating getaways are deftly juggled and suspenseful. Hilts motorcycle capers dominate, but they are edited such that we have to come back to him at least four times before the famous climactic jump sequence.

       The movie ends on a sober note with the murders and the question – was it worth it? However, if ever there were a war movie that is not anti-war, this is it. Life in the camp is portrayed like it would be if you went to a POW fantasy camp. It seems like fun, which it assuredly was not. This is the biggest factor in keeping the movie from being a 10.

       Finally, the acting is stellar. Whoever did the casting gets a gold star. The mix of dependable British thespians with cocky Americans is stimulating. This is an actors’ movie. In particular, watch Steve McQueen steal every scene with little eye-catching movements including shameful mugging. His co-stars either had sharing natures or were infuriated. Whatever, McQueen became a superstar based on his performance.

CONCLUSION: You might say I’m prejudiced, but “The Great Escape” is woefully underrated at #44. It is a better movie than its most obvious competitor – Stalag 17 (#18). It has everything that makes a war movie great, in my opinion. It is entertaining. It tells a story that deserves to be told. It teaches. It is accurate enough. It is realistic. Sometimes 14 year old boys are right. This movie rocks!

the famous bike ride

BOOK / MOVIE: Starship Troopers

2012-01-08T21:38:00.000-06:00

     “Starship Troopers" is set in the future when planet Earth (called “Terra”) is at war with a planet of badass arachnids from the planet Klendathu. The “Bug War” is the big picture, but the story concentrates on the soldier level. The novel is by Robert Heinlein and was published in 1959. The movie came out in 1997 and was directed by Paul Verhoeven. The book and movie differ greatly. Let’s find out which is better.

       The novel concentrates on one character – Juan Rico. In fact, the story is told in first person by him. It opens with a raid by the Mobile Infantry on a planet allied to the “bugs”. Heinlein’s imagination has conjured up remarkable “power armor” suits which makes these modern grunts really armies of one. They can leap tall buildings, etc. After a brief taste of combat (a foreshadowing of the teasing to come), the book flashes back to enlistment and basic training. A recruiter tries to discourage Rico from enlisting. It seems that being soldier is a privilege, but necessary if you want full political rights.

        Rico’s high school “History and Moral Philosophy” teacher Mr. Dubois (a veteran) channels Heinlein by preaching that only people who have served in the military deserve to be full citizens. He also argues that violence solves problems. In a later chapter, we are updated on how “Terra” got to this state. To simplify, juvenile delinquents were roaming the parks terrorizing society because their parents refused to spank them. The militarization of society was a necessary solution to the chaos. You would swear the book was written in the sixties and Heinlein was ranting at the hippies. He was a prophet!

      The book traces Rico’s career. He is a survivor and thus rises through the ranks. He participates in a disastrous invasion of Klendathu. Heinlein (thinking of Korea?) opines that “the trouble with lessons from history is that we usually read them best after falling flat on our chins”. He goes to officer training school which gives Heinlein a second opportunity to give his political views in another History and Moral Philosophy class. Only soldiers should vote. The views may be fascist, but they make sense.

      The book concludes with the implementation of a new strategy of getting to the brains of the bug world. Rico is wounded in his last battle and ends the book in the hospital. There is no reason to believe the war is close to ending.

      The book is highly regarded, if controversial. It won the Hugo Award as best science fiction novel. More amazingly, it is on the reading list for Marine officers. It is very pro-military and all the officers are positive role models. As a predictor of future war, it could very well be prescient. The power armor is certainly in the early stages today. It does a good job in the evolution of the warrior Rico. The boot camp and OCS chapters are well done, but there is not much on soldier recreation. Heinlein is stronger on the science part of future war than on the human dimension.

     I enjoyed the numerous references to past history, especially military history. Heinlein throws in references to Carthage, Napoleon, Horatius, the Bonhomme Richard, and Sargon the Great. Even two poems by Kipling – “Danny Deever” and “Gentlemen-Rankers”.

     The book has weaknesses that made it a disappointing read for me. There is shockingly little actual combat and what there is is usually inconclusive. Two of the potential main characters, Rico’s high school friends Carl and Deladier are dropped from the narrative early. The first person narrative leaves us with only Rico as a fleshed out character. The book is also very male. Heinlein’s future does not include women in the infantry (although they make the best pilots). Another flaw is it is hard to know what is happening in the war. He is purposely (?) vague on the big picture.

      The movie opens with a commercial for the army and news about the bug war. (In a bit of unorthodoxy, the movie has no opening credits.) These satirical commercials and news reels will reappear throughout the movie. They harken back to propaganda films of WWII like the “Why We Fight Series”. The commercials strengthen the theme of a fascist society and the news reels give a clearer view of the war than you get in the book. Like the book, the movie thrusts us into battle early, but in this case it is the disastrous invasion of Klendathu (which will be returned to later in the movie). We are quickly immersed in graphic violence well beyond what the book posited. The bugs (malevolent spiders) are awesomely rendered by the CGI. They are not easily killed. This movie expends a lot of bullets.

     We flash back to Rico (hunky Casper Van Dien) and his high school friends and follow their paths into the military. One armed vet Mr. Rasczak (a well-cast Michael Ironsides) effectively emotes the books preachings on violence and the primacy of the military caste in his History and Moral Philosophy class. Several characters briefly mentioned in the book get full billing in the movie and it strengthens the story. This is especially true for the two main females. Carmen (Deladier in the book, portrayed by the acting-challenged Denise Richards) is made Rico’s girlfriend who becomes a pilot and jilts him for another pilot. The love triangle is trite but gives the movie a dimension the book lacks. The other female, Dizzy (Dina Meyer), was a male in the book and died early. In the movie she has a crush on Rico and follows him into the infantry which is coed so Ver Hoeven can have a shower scene (the actors insisted he direct in the nude, which he did). Carl (Neil Patrick Harris) goes into military intelligence.

      The movie jumps back and forth between Carmen and Rico’s training. She is a hot shot pilot trainee and he is part of a heterogeneous group of recruits. The contrast of the pristine pilot atmosphere and the rollicking soldier barracks is cool. The movie does not avoid clichés. For example, Rico and Zander (Patrick Muldoon) meet in a bar and being from different branches and romantic rivals at that, guess what breaks out? Rico wants to wash out after a training accident, but stays on when his home town of Buenos Aires is destroyed. (In the book, his pacifist, disapproving dad survives, enlists, and encounters him later.)

       The rest of the movie is basically battles interspersed with breathing spells. The invasion of Klendathu is spectacularly rendered including the destruction of the fleet from bug flak. Another planet witnesses a Fort Apache type defense of an outpost against a horde of bugs. The action is so intense the grunts have no time to reload. Now the bugs have a flying variety and giant tank-like beetles! Major characters are killed. Later, the fleet gets hit again. It’s scary to realize that in the future our military leaders still don’t learn from their mistakes (close formations do lead to cool collisions, however). Guess what couple survives and crash lands on the bug planet where Rico’s unit is hunting a “brain bug”? It’s a small universe, apparently. Moreso because Carl makes an appearance, too. Insert traditional happy ending.

       The film is popcorn entertainment of an incredibly gory variety. The action is spectacular. The special effects are extraordinary. The bugs do not look fake. The CGI is flawless. The weaknesses include the predictable plot (albeit with some surprise deaths). There are a lot of coincidences. The acting is spotty. Casper Van Dien is surprisingly good and Dina Meyer belts it out. Michael Ironsides dominates his scenes. However, Denise Richards is cardboard.

       Verhoeven claimed he did not finish the book because he was “bored and depressed”. It shows in that the movie differs radically from the book. This includes the overall political theme. Where Heinlein takes a sympathetic view toward a fascist solution to society’s problems, Verhoeven fills the movies with anti-fascist satire. He is pretty heavy-handed with his Nazi style uniforms. We get it, Paul.

        The movie should not be on the Marine Corps watch list. The tactics are unrealistic. There is no recon. There are no flankers even when marching through a canyon. There are frontal assaults against a more numerous enemy. Pre-assault bombardment is too brief. A more acceptable flaw is the movie cannot duplicate the futuristic weaponry and equipment of the book. The budget did not allow for “power armor” so the soldiers are still very much “foot soldiers”. I would think that in the distant future we would be beyond souped-up machine guns firing bullets.

      Which is better? Definitely the movie. It improves on the book which is what you want from a movie based on a book. The book did not have enough action – mission accomplished! The book concentrated too much on one character – mission accomplished. The book is too preachy – mission accomplished. With that said, I will say that the book and movie are a good pairing because if you read the book first you get more background about how Earth got to the way it is and you follow Rico’s career. The movie then fleshes it out and adds action.

BOOK / MOVIE: Cold Mountain

2012-01-04T20:20:00.000-06:00

       I have already reviewed "Cold Mountain", the movie. This essay is on which is better – the book or the movie.

      Cold Mountain is an acclaimed novel by Charles Frazier which was a smash bestseller and multiple award winner. It is set in North Carolina during the Civil War. It tells the dual and parallel stories of an upper class woman named Ada and her farmer beau Inman. After a brief courtship that ends in a kiss that implies their future bliss, Inman is off to war. The book alternates chapters of Ada coping with adjusting to surviving without her preacher father and Inman’s Odyssey-like trek back to her. Her story is the story of a woman totally unprepared for rural life and running a farm who is transformed with the help of a women who is her opposite – Ruby. Meanwhile, Inman is encountering a series of eccentric characters and perilous incidents. They reunite at the end of the book.

      The book is wonderful. Frazier is a great writer. His prose is the kind that makes you savor every sentence. The alternating chapter approach really works because Ada and Inman’s stories are equally interesting and the end of each chapter brings anticipation of rejoining the other story line. The two leads are endearing in a non-schmaltzy way and the supporting characters are fascinating. It is not a flawless book, however. Given the bizarre nature of some of Inman’s adventures, there are some elements that strain credulity. In particular, two characters survive shootings that are nothing short of miraculous. Frazier also tends to throw in every variety of flora and fauna that existed in rural North Carolina. This is the perfect book for romantic botanists. These are minor criticisms, however.

      How does the movie compare? My provocative premise will be that any movie that does not improve on its literary source is either poorly made or trying to bring to screen a book that cannot be recreated. It would have taken incompetence to not have made a movie that was better than the book in this case. Considering the director (Anthony Minghella) and the star-studded cast and the amount of money that went into production, it should not be surprising the movie is better than the book. It is also no shame for the book that this is true.

       Think about it. Minghella starts with a great book which is ripe for film adaptation. The book has nothing in it that cannot be recreated on film (with the possible exception of the passage at Junior’s cabin). That cannot be said for all books. The director starts with a great “script” (the book) and can pick which scenes to incorporate into the movie and can change the scenes to improve them. He can use dialogue from the book and improve on the lines where he sees fit. Even a great book can be improved. The problem is when screenwriters and directors make poor decisions on changes they make, when they throw in elements that are not in the book, or they leave out key things from the book. These problems do not apply to the movie version of “Cold Mountain”.

       I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but the movie is better than the book. It is faithful to the book and even keeps the same structure. It does leave out some scenes, but none are crucial and it has all the key scenes and characters from the book. In significant ways, some of the scenes are improved and some of the characters are fleshed out. Here is a list of the improvements:

1. The book makes you wonder if Ada and Inman are really in love, the kiss in the film makes it obvious they are.

2. Teague and Boosie are much more integral to the plot and their malevolence makes Ada’s homefront experience more realistically fraught with peril than the book which limits her problems to running the farm.

3. The raid on the Swangers (in the book it is a raid on a different farm) personalizes the atrocities that occurred.

4. In the movie, Veasey’s death is not only more realistic, but implies that Inman’s obsession with getting home to Ada resulted in the deaths of the men.

5. In the movie, the scene with Sara (the widow with the baby) is much better. Having Sara shoot the soldier who was actually caring for the baby was a powerful comment on the war.

6. The Battle of the Crater gives a clearer picture of what Inman went through and why he is a different man who is worried about how Ada will feel towards him. Plus these scenes at Petersburg include Swimmer, Inman’s Cherokee Indian friend.

7. The final battle with Teague has Ada and Ruby heavily involved in defending themselves.

8. Ada and Inman’s “honeymoon” is much more romantic than in the book. Plus there’s some nudity.

      Some will argue that the movie is an aggravating hodgepodge of accents and nationalities of the actors (I’m talking about you, Caroline), but the acting in the movie is quite good (the worst actor got an Academy Award) and I do not care how the words sound as long as the sentences are good. I also don’t think most people care that Ada is a brunette in the book and a blonde in the movie.

      Most importantly, the movie has sound which means we can hear the music. Music plays a role in the book, but it is bumped to a higher level in the film. Minghella even adds a musician by fleshing out the role of Georgia (and then he puts Jack White into the role – genius). The score and two of the songs were nominated for Academy Awards.

       In conclusion, always read the book first because it will give you a fuller story and then the movie will probably improve on the basics.

#45 - The Story of G.I. Joe

2012-01-01T20:08:00.000-06:00

BACK-STORY: “The Story of G.I. Joe” was released in 1945 and is based on the columns of war correspondent Ernie Pyle. It was directed by William Wellman who had been a pilot in the Lafayette Escadrille in WWI and at first refused to do a movie about the despised infantry until he met Pyle and saw the adoration the infantry had for him. Once on board, Wellman insisted on realism and convinced the Army to loan him 150 soldiers training near the production. The movie also used several actual war correspondents. So the actors would not look foolish alongside real soldiers, Wellman put them through the first actors’ boot camp. Sadly, Pyle was killed before the opening of the movie and many of the real soldiers were killed on Okinawa. For this reason, Wellman never watched the movie after its release. The movie was a hit and is considered one of the most realistic war films. It was nominated for four Oscars (Supporting Actor - Mitchum, Song, Score, and Screenplay).

OPENING: The 42 year old Pyle (Burgess Meredith) attaches himself to Company C, 18th Infantry as it prepares to go by truck into action in Tunisia. He meets Lt. Walker (Robert Mitchum) who agrees to let him accompany them all the way to the front. The men are rookies with a nervous bravado about them. The hound in the group named Dondaro (Wally Cassell) greets Pyle by saying: “Hey Pops, why wasn’t you born a beautiful dame? Or even an ugly one?” That night they lounge in their pup tents and listen to Artie Shaw as played by Axis Sally. Her taunting about their girls back home registers various facial reactions in a series of close-ups. The soldier talk is tame, but realistic.

SUMMARY: The first death occurs soon after as a plane strafes and one of the men dies off screen. Walker: “The first death is always the hardest.” The Company mascot, a cute little dog named Arab (“Squirt”), is passed on to one of the survivors.

      Next thing we see is the unit facing defeat at Kasserine Pass (although not mentioned by name). The defeat is seen through Pyle’s eyes as he follows the degeneration at headquarters. A montage of columns follows. The film skips Sicily and has Pyle reuniting with the now seasoned unit in Italy. The men are genuinely glad to see Pyle and give him the typical gentle ribbing. At mail call, Sgt. Warnicki (Bobby Steele) receives a recording of his son “Junior”, but will spend the rest of the movie trying to listen to it.

     The only battle scene has the men taking an Italian town house to house. The assault culminates with Walker and Sgt. Warnicki cat-and-mousing with German snipers in a bombed out church. The scene is bereft of dialogue, but has great sound effects (but no music). It really sounds like a WWII battle. The tactics of covering fire and maneuver are also realistically portrayed. After the liberation of the town, the men settle down for a while. The movie is true to the stop and go nature of war. During this interlude, Murphy (John Reilly) weds his nurse fiancé (played by Wellman’s wife Dorothy). In the honeymoon suite/ambulance, he falls asleep before the camera has to cut away.

     The next big set piece involves the capture of a monastery on a hill (obviously meant to be Monte Cassino). This is one of the grubbiest scenes in war movie history. The men are dirty and unshaven and living in caves surrounded by a sea of mud due to the incessant rain. Patrols go out and return with less than they started with. One of the victims is Murphy. The men take the deaths in stride, but clearly the strain mounts. We see this attrition through Pyle (“The G.I. lives so miserably and dies so miserably”) and Walker (who agonizes over being a “murderer”). Everyone is weary, but they do what they have to do. “Every step forward is a step closer to home.” They maintain their sardonic G.I. humor throughout. After another vicious artillery barrage, a soldier says “Gee, a guy could get killed around here”. Warnicki snaps when he finally hears Junior’s voice. Finally, Eisenhower bombs the religious site and although the movie alludes to this making the monastery a tougher nut, the movie moves on after a brief final assault that includes actual war footage.

CLOSING: The last scene is a reenactment of Pyle’s most famous column “The Death of Captain Waskow”. The men are resting when a mule train arrives from the front carrying dead bodies. One of them is Capt. Walker. The men are stunned and their facial expressions reflect the love of soldiers for a well-respected officer. One by one members of the unit pay their last respects laconically. “I’m sorry, old man” is a typical eulogy. But the war must go on so they march past into the sunset. Pyle: “For those beneath the wooden crosses, there is nothing we can do except perhaps to pause and murmur “Thanks pal, thanks”.

     As a post script, we see actual footage of Pyle interviewing a soldier. Cool.

the real Ernie Pyle

RATINGS:

Acting - 9

Action - 6

Accuracy - 6

Realism - 8

Plot - 8

Overall - 8

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Probably. It is bloodless and not graphic. There is a sweet wedding scene. The soldier language is toned down. The acting is stellar.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY: The movie starts with a disclaimer that the “characters and events are fictional”. Several of the main characters are based on soldiers that figured prominently in Pyle’s columns. Walker is based on Henry Waskow and sentiments voiced by Sgt. Frank Eversole. Warnicki was based on Sgt. Jack Peterson who had a son named “Junior”. There actually was a dog, but its name was “Nigger”. Just kidding – it was “Squirt”. (I assume the dog threatened to sue if his real name was used in the movie.)

     The main divergence from truth is the fact that although Pyle travelled with Company C, 18th Infantry in Tunisia, the unit did not fight in Italy. Pyle accompanied a different unit in Italy. This Hollywoodizing of the facts is totally justifiable for the continuity of the film. After all, the movie and Pyle were interested in boosting the G.I.s in general, not in particular.

     The two battles – San Pietro and Monte Cassino – are simplified and not meant to accurately depict actual battles. This is not a movie about strategy and tactics. It does not give the big picture. A minor flub is having Eisenhower order the bombing of Monte Cassino when it was actually done by Gen. Harold Alexander.

      The final scene is close to the famous column except that the incident actually occurred at night. It is well done and quietly poignant.

CRITIQUE: “The Story of G.I. Joe” has a reputation as one of the best of the circa-WWII movies. That reputation is well-deserved. It holds up well partly because it does not have to compete with the recent crop of hyper-realistic combat films started by “Saving Private Ryan”. It is a simpler soldier slice of life picture. As such, it is better than most modern attempts to depict soldier life. The dialogue is sparse and rings true. The only flaw being the language constraints of 1940s cinema. A remake would undoubtedly have a lot of f-words.

      The acting stands out. Meredith is perfect as Pyle. He met Pyle before filming and spent time with him. He looks like the famed war correspondent, but more importantly he portrays Pyle’s ambiguous feelings about war and the men who had to fight it. Meredith was an Army Captain at the time of the filming and was given an honorable discharge by Gen. Marshall so he could do the movie. MItchum is superb in perhaps his best performance. He earned his only Academy Award nomination. Ex-boxer Bobby Steele is another who puts in his best effort as Warnicki. (His other recognizable role was in “Hail the Conquering Hero”, but he is more central in this one.) The rest of the cast is fine and “Squirt” is adorable.

      The cinematography is outstanding. There are lots of close-ups of facial expressions. These are often more powerful than the dialogue they replaced. The landscapes are appropriately stark. The soundstage for the monastery scenes is one of the muddiest in movie history. The sound and soundtrack are very good.

       The film is true to the reality of war being mostly downtime followed by brief periods of terrorizing violence. This makes it reminiscent of another great WWII film – "A Walk in the Sun". Like that film, it avoids dysfunctionality within the unit, but that was typical of that era’s war movies.

CONCLUSION: Dwight Eisenhower called “The Story of G.I. Joe” the best war film made on WWII. That is high praise and may have been true at the time. Although it does not stand up to modern films like “Saving Private Ryan” and “Enemy at the Gates”, it holds up better than most 1940s WWII films. The only real complaint I have is there is still a movie about Ernie Pyle waiting to be made. Watch it if you can find it – it ain’t easy.

BEST AND WORST OF 2011

2011-12-29T14:53:00.000-06:00

All About War Movies gave me the idea of a list of the best and worst war movies I reviewed in 2011. To qualify, I could not have seen the movie in the last five years. I saw a lot of war movies in 2011. Few were great and few were terrible.

THE BEST

10. Cross of Iron - great performance by James Coburn as one of my favorite characters - Steiner; gritty combat; very anti-war; set on the Eastern Front in WWII

9. Army of Crime- the best of the French Resistance movies; concentrates on the French Communist Resistance in WWII

8. Beau Geste - old school entertainment; a rare war movie mystery and it works; great cast

7. Battle of Haditha - true story of an atrocity in Iraq seen through both perspectives; thought-provoking and fair-minded

6. The Train - Burt Lancaster at his peak; very suspenseful; Resistance protecting art treasures

5. Born on the 4th of July - Tom Cruise's greatest performance; goes from pro-war to anti-war in a realistic way; true story of Ron Kovic

4. Where Eagles Dare - the best of its type - war/action/adventure; a kick-ass movie with some great twists and a lot of dead Germans

3. Three Kings - a modern war film for modern audiences; great ensemble cast; personalizes the Persian Gulf War

2. Oh, What a Lovely War! - WWI set to period music; a remarkable movie with great songs; very hard on the brass - justifiably so

1. Waltz with Bashir - the most incredible movie I saw last year of any type; set in Israel's invasion of Lebanon; the visuals are jaw-dropping

THE WORST

5. In Harm's Way - bloated star-studded soap opera set around Pearl Harbor; even John Wayne and Kirk Douglas

4. Hanover Street - sappy romance set in WWII with a ridiculous spy plot thrown in

3. Journey to Shiloh - some friends trek to join the Confederate Army; series of lame adventures ensue

2. Tin Drum - a bizarre movie about a malevolent little boy set in WWII; many critics patted themselves on the back for praising this piece of crap

1. Braveheart - my mission to watch the top 100 war movies forced me to watch this abomination again; the small hope that I had been too hard on it in the past did not come to fruition; the most egregious falsification of history ever put on film

NOW SHOWING: War Horse

2011-12-25T22:33:00.001-06:00

     Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse” opened on Christmas day and I attended the first feature. Being a war movie buff, I have eagerly awaited this movie, but with trepidation because Spielberg has been known to get juvenile in his movies, especially recently. The movie is based on a children’s novel and an acclaimed stage play. The movie has generated numerous awards nominations and could end up as one of the more important films of the year. But how is it as a war movie?

     The movie opens with the birth of a colt in Great Britain. The birth is witnessed by a farm boy named Albert (Jeremy Irvine). Albert falls in love with the horse and in a happy coincidence his father decides to outbid his evil landlord for the horse at an auction where his farm desperately needs a work-horse. “Joey” (as Alby calls him) is no work-horse and his mother Rosie (Emily Watson) rightfully thinks her husband is daft. They can’t get rid of the horse because Alby really wants a pony. In a cliché-busting scene, Joey proves to be easily trainable and very smart. When the landlord (David Thewlis) threatens to take back the farm if the drunken, loser father (Peter Mullan) does not make a rock-strewn field productive, Alby hitches him to a plow and (with the help of a fortuitous rainstorm that quickly softens the ground) the horse earns his keep.

     The father’s love of the bottle is explained by his soldiering in the Boer War. He was decorated, but does not talk about it. Rosie theorizes that “he refuses to be proud of killing”. He is so down on his luck that when the plowed turnip field is ruined by rain, he is forced to sell Joey to the military. The horse goes off to war as the underage Alby stays home.

     The movie from this point on is basically another take-off on Homer’s “Odyssey” with Joey meeting several interesting new owners and facing dangers. Here is a summary:

1. Captain Nicholls rides Joey in a cavalry charge which represents every cavalry charge of the Great War in that machine guns > horses.

2. Two German brothers acquire the horse who is to be used as an artillery-puller, but instead is used as a getaway horse as the elder brother rescues the younger from a column heading for the front.

3. A feisty young French girl named Emilie is the next owner. Before she can break her brittle bones riding recklessly, the German army requisitions the horse and its back to the artillery.

4. An animal-loving German lets Joey escape when his usefulness is approaching bullet-in-the-head time. In the process, in a scene of heavy-handed symbolism, Joey escapes from a tank and then runs down a trench and then through no man’s land. Unfortunately, Joey gets entangled in barbed wire.

5. A Tommy and a Fritz use wire-cutters to free Joey and he rejoins the British Army.

6. Joey is reunited with Alby at a hospital where Alby barely convinces a doctor not to put his wounded horse out of his misery.

7. Joey is bought at auction by Emilie’s grandfather, outbidding Alby (and a butcher).

     I’ll stop right there to and let you wonder if the movie has an ‘Old Yeller” ending. Don’t read the next paragraph if you do not care if a movie has ridiculous moments.

     Where do I start? Joey becomes BFFs with another cavalry horse named Blackthorn. They are captured together and after it is unsubtly made clear that if you don’t work you die, Joey “volunteers” to take Blackthorn’s place pulling a cannon. The whole scene with the German brothers is laughable. When the deserting brothers are captured, the older brother does not insist he forced his unwilling brother to come along and they face the firing squad together. Or why would a tank chase after a lone horse? You have to suspend disbelief a bit in this movie.

     Historically speaking, the movie is based on a children’s book so what do you expect. However, since Speilberg had to assume some adults might want to see it, he could have at least read one WWI history book. (This is his first WWI movie after six about WWII.) Before the big cavalry charge scene, the British commander references famous successful charges, including Pickett’s Charge. Surely, even an Englishman would know Pickett’s Charge should not be mentioned to boost morale. The charge itself adequately depicts the suicidal nature of WWI cavalry attacks. I assume the attack is fictional and it is possible that the Germans could have been stupid enough to camp in a field with no entrenching or even guards posted because its early in the war. It is also possible they may have emplaced a line of machine guns behind their tents. Highly unlikely, however. By the way, that line of machine guns is incredibly accurate as they knock off riders without hitting horses.

     The “Saving Private Ryan” moment comes two-thirds of the way through the movie. Incredibly, Spielberg decided to label the battle “1918 – The Somme”. You don’t have to be a military historian to know the very famous Battle of the Somme was in 1916. Alby is now at the front in a Pals’ Battalion with his best friend and a snooty rich kid acquaintance. The trench sets are realistic and no man’s land is appropriately hellish. The British assault is bloody (without blood) and violent (but not graphic). Alby reaches the German trench first and it is empty with all the Germans dead. Wait, what? To make matters worse, Alby is blinded by a poison gas bombardment that hits directly in the trench. What accuracy! This works out for plot purposes as Alby needs to be sightless for his reunion with Joey.

     Being a Spielberg movie, certain things are guaranteed. The cinematography is lush in the bucolic British countryside scenes and colorless in the muddy Western Front scenes. John Williams’ score plays on the audiences emotions throughout. You don’t have to think much, Williams will let you know how to feel. For example, plowing the field – cue the inspirational music. The acting is satisfactory, if unspectacular. The horse (actually eight horses to portray the adult “Joey”) is amazing and its accent does not change, unlike some of the humans. The film does avoid some obvious clichés. The horse is not hard to train. Alby’s potential rivalry with the rich boy over a local girl ends up on the cutting room floor. Emilie does not have an accident. It’s not unorthodox in its cartoonish villains, however. The evil landlord. The martinet German officers. Hiss him, cheer that, cry now. The movie very effectively manipulates the audience’s emotions. Most people will get what they paid for.

     The problem is that Spielberg has made the kids’ version of a war movie. He even includes a goose for comic relief. How Disneyesque! The “it’s a small world” on the Western Front aspect is to be expected from any mainstream movie, I suppose. For those expecting the WWI equivalent of SPR in the combat scenes, consult the movie’s rating and target audience. Even the cavalry sabers (inaccurately called “swords” in the movie) remain unbloodstained. Realism is not a forte of this movie. “War Horse” is a good movie for civilians, but it is not a good war movie.

A CHRISTMAS WAR MOVIE: A Midnight Clear

2011-12-23T08:30:00.000-06:00

     I thought with Christmas approaching I would suggest an X-Mas themed war flick. “A Midnight Clear” was released in 1992. Its cast consisted of several up and coming actors like Ethan Hawke, Peter Berg, Kevin Dillon, John McGinley, Frank Whaley, and Gary Sinise (his film debut). The ensemble cast is strong and the movie is a little gem that is not well-known. It cost less than $5 million to produce and made less than $2 million. It is based on the novel by William Wharton.

     The movie is set in the Ardennes Forest before the Battle of the Bulge. It is not a big picture movie. You get no idea how the battle is going. There is a “fog of war” surrounding the intelligence squad that is sent out to observe enemy movements from an abandoned mansion. They are scared and unclear about what they are supposed to do. The mission is seemingly suicidal and their ex-mortician, current martinet Major Griffin (McGinley) has a habit of putting them in precarious positions. Speaking of a previous patrol, Will (the narrator Ethan Hawke) makes the following telling remark: “We lost half of our squad attempting one of [Griffin’s] map-inspired, ill-conceived recon patrols. When I say ‘lost’, I mean ‘killed’. Nobody in the Army ever admits that someone on our side is killed. They’re either ‘lost’ like Christopher Robin… ‘hit’, as in a batter hit by a pitched ball… or get ‘it’ like in hide and go seek. Or maybe they “get it”, as with an ambiguous joke.” Well said and true. In fact, much of the narration is cynical and critical of the Army.

     We get to know the squad well. They are typically heterogeneous except there is no country hick because this is an “intelligence” squad. They care about each other, but are not all BFFs. There is a flashback scene from boot camp as several of the boys attempt to lose their virginity with a good girl down on her luck. It is a sweet scene and tastefully done.

     The setting and mood of the movie could have easily fit a horror movie. On the way to the mansion, they come upon the corpses of a G.I. and a German in a death embrace. The chalet is eerie. It is empty except for a deer. The nights are particularly spooky. The first night Germans yell unintelligibly from the woods and the next day the Americans discover a German squad encamped in a hut nearby. That night the Germans come again to yell “Fuck Hitler” (later they insist they are not Nazis, just German soldiers – an accurate description of the dilemma of many German soldiers) and throw snow balls. The third night they rig up a Christmas tree and sing carols. Although fictional, the film harkens back to the famous Christmas Truce of WWI. (That reminds me to suggest "Joyeux Noel" as a companion to your Christmas viewing.) The perplexed Americans finally realize the Germans want to surrender, but they need for it to look like they put up a fight. Since “Mother” (Sinise) has recently suffered a breakdown, the guys decide to make him the “hero” of the skirmish so he can be sent home. Mother is to be kept in the dark about the whole affair. Nice plan, disastrous results. Watch the movie and see what happens.

     This is a remarkable movie. It is unlike any other war movie I have seen. It is spiritual (helped by the New Age musical score) and has a heart-tugging scene involving the bathing of a dead comrade that is hard to forget (and slightly homoerotic). It is also overtly religious in spots. Although a Christmas movie, there is also a strong reference to the Crucifixion. Some will not like this aspect of the movie, but I found it refreshing. Keep in mind that soldiers tend to be religious for obvious reasons, so why shouldn’t war movies occasionally have religious themes?

     The movie is very well acted. The squad is likeable and relateable. Each has a distinct personality. Each actor gets a chance to shine. No one dominates. The small unit dynamics are realistic. Their behavior rings true. McGinley is appropriately loathsome as the clichéd commanding officer. (By the way, McGinley and Dillon went on to appear in another great small unit movie – “Platoon”.) The Germans are shown in a sympathetic light. What happens to them is truly tragic.

     This is a very snowy movie. Watch it with a mug of hot chocolate by a fire place if you can. It was shot in Utah and the temperatures at night were frigid. The cinematography is crisp and clear like the locale.

     In conclusion, “A Midnight Clear” is one of the two greatest war movies set at Christmas. Are there others? Let me know. It will make my 100 Best War Movies list when I get done with my journey.

a tribute video

CRACKER? Taegukgi (The Brotherhood of War)

2011-12-21T21:22:00.000-06:00

     “Taegukgi” is the most famous war movie to come out of South Korea. It was released in 2004 and was South Korea’s answer to “Saving Private Ryan”. It was written and directed by Kang Je-gyu and set attendance records in South Korea. The name comes from the name of the pre-war flag of Korea. It is an epic.

     The film opens at an excavation of a battle site (similar to the grave site opening in “Saving Private Ryan”) which leads to the contacting of an old Korean who is linked to one of the corpses. This leads to a flashback to Seoul in 1950 right before the war. Jin-Seok (Jang Gong-gun) and Jin-Tae (Won Bin) are brothers. Tae (that’s what I’ll call him) dreams of being a shoemaker and Seok hopes to go to college. Their happy family life comes to a screeching halt when Seok is press ganged and Tae enters the army to protect him.

     They join a unit in the trenches near the Naktong River in the Pusan Perimeter. On a mine-laying operation in no man’s land, the squad is ambushed and Tae goes Rambo (even pulling a grenade pin with his teeth). He is a natural born great shot. The violence is SPResque and the wounds are very graphic. A later attack at night ups the adrenalin with Molotov cocktails and hand-to-hand combat. Tae takes out a machine gun and then the command bunker. Tae has made a deal with his commanding officer that if he wins the Taeguk Cordon of the Order of Military Merit (the South Korean equivalent of the Medal of Honor), his brother will be discharged. The problem is that Tae becomes addicted to combat and the subsequent glory that comes with it. Meanwhile, Seok’s attitude is heading in the opposite direction as his experiences have disgusted him and he is becoming estranged from his brother.

     In October, 1950, the fighting shifts to Pyongyang for some urban combat. Tae captures an enemy captain and Seok accuses him of being a glory-hound. At a nearby village, the squad encounters countless bodies, some of which are booby-trapped. It’s retaliation time at the next town as they kill prisoners with only Seok refraining. Seok has to intervene to save the life of a friend of their’s who was forced into the North Korean army. Later, in a strange character development, Seok beats the tar out of a prisoner in a gladiator style pit.

      When Seok returns home he has a brief reunion with his fiancé Yong-shin before she is carted off by anti-communist zealots. They bring Seok, too. Yong-shin gets a great death scene as she is killed during a mutiny by the political prisoners. Seok is held captive and then dies when the “Communist” prisoners are burned alive in their jail. An enraged Tae kills the officer who gave the order and then defects to the enemy not knowing that Seok has survived.

     Tae is now a North Korea Rambo and heads an elite squad called the Flag Unit. Seok returns to the front to try to reconvert his brother. There is a huge set piece battle involving 15,000 bullets, 3,000 extras, and 500 stuntmen. There are numerous minor injuries in the 3 weeks of shooting, mostly from the fist-fighting. Director Kang Je-gyu throws in the kitchen sink in one of the most remarkable battle scenes ever filmed. There is a strafing attack by CGI Corsairs. A plane is hit and crashes into a machine gun nest. The fighting is hand-to-hand as Seok runs through the trenches seeking his brother. The Flag Unit enters the battle to boost the carnage to a peak. The brothers meet, but Tae does not recognize the ghost of his brother and is in a zone anyway. He is about to kill Seok when he is stabbed. Tae finally recognizes Seok and agrees to return with him but urges Seok to go on ahead while he holds off the North Korean army with a machine gun. His bones are found many years later.

     This is an amazing movie. I did not expect much from a South Korean film. I have to assume South Korea is a macho society because the film has more blood and guts than a vast majority of war movies. The violence is a bit over the top, but you have to admire the sheer quantity of the killing. It is “Saving Private Ryan” on meth. It is very gory. If shown in splatter-vision, you would have to burn your clothes.

     The movie has its flaws. The two leads are excellent, but the character arc of Seok is not believable. He goes from being frail to buff too quickly. His whipsawing from pacifist to pugilist is also hard to swallow. The family scenes are touching and the relationship between Seok and his fiancé is well done. Her death is heart-tugging. The rest of the roles are not fleshed out enough. We do not get to know the squad very well, unlike other small unit movies like “Platoon”. It does have a few clichés. One soldier shows off a picture of his family.  Can you guess what happens to him soon after? I wonder if this cliché seemed fresh to the South Korean audience. The score is sappy, but at least you can hear it above the explosions. This is one loud, badass movie.

      Will it crack the 100 Best? Certainly. It could definitely kick the crap out of movies like “Guadalcanal Diary”.

8/10

the trailer

trench warfare

SHOULD I READ IT? Prisoner of the Mountains

2011-12-17T09:35:00.000-06:00

      “Prisoner of the Mountains” is a Russian film released in 1996. It is based on a short story by Leo Tolstoy entitled “The Prisoner of the Caucasus”. It is set in the First Chechen War and in fact was filmed in the area at the time fighting was still taking place nearby. The movie was critically acclaimed and was nominated for the Best Foreign Film Oscar.

     Although fictional, the film gives the viewer a feel for the First Chechen War. The war began in 1994 after Chechnya seceded from Russia and declared independence. Boris Yeltsin decided to invade and reacquire control. The war was a foreign policy disaster for Russia. The Russian army of mainly untrained conscripts was marked by poor morale and lack of support from the home front. The Russian military resorted to sledgehammer tactics like carpet bombing and rocket artillery attacks on civilians. Thousands of civilians were killed. The capital of Grozny was destroyed in the taking. Next the Russians attempted to pacify the mountainous areas and were confronted by guerrilla war tactics that included ambushes, IEDs, and hostage taking. Eventually, in 1996, Yeltsin cried uncle and agreed to a cease-fire and pulled out of Chechnya.

     In the movie, a Russian unit is ambushed and two soldiers are taken captive. They are taken to a Chechen village in the mountains. Vanya (Sergei Budrov, Jr.) and Sasha (Oleg Menshikov) are given to an elderly man named Abdul. He plans to exchange them for his son who is being held in a Russian stockade. Abdul has them write home to get their parents to put pressure on the Russians to make the deal. Vanya’s mother (a school teacher) makes the journey to the local Russian occupied town. Meanwhile, Vanya and Sasha are being held under guard by a man named Hassan who lost his tongue to the Russians.

     Vanya and Sasha are polar opposites. Vanya is a young naïve soldier and Sasha is a cynical officer and all-around jerk. He torments Vanya, but gradually they bond and Sasha becomes less of a jerk. Vanya developes a relationship with Abdul’s teenage daughter Gina. Vanya is also interested in the local culture and endears himself to the locals by fixing clocks. Sasha is only interested in escaping.

     Vanya’s mother tries to broker the deal, but the Russian commander doesn’t trust the Chechens. Rebels come and take Vanya and Sasha. They are forced to walk through a mine field at night to clear a path. At the rebel camp, Vanya is forced to fight a rebel, but the Chechen backs down when Vanya yells at him. This bit of bizarreness is followed by them being returned to Abdul. Apparently, they were taken only to clear the mine field.

     They manage to escape with Sasha killing poor Hassan. Later, he kills a shepherd. Unfortunately(?), they are recaptured. Vanya is returned to Abdul, but Sasha is taken away to have his throat cut. Vanya is chained in a hole. At the stockade, a father of a son who turned traitor and joined the Russian army kills him touching off an escape attempt by Abdul’s son. The son is shot and killed.

     Gina wants to help Vanya, but he refuses because he knows she will be punished. Abdul takes him off to be shot, but instead lets him go. As he flees the village, Russian helicopters ominously pass overhead on their way to the village.

     This is an intriguing movie. It forced me to learn a little about the First Chechen War. That was one messed up war. Worse than Afghanistan (which obviously influenced the average Russian’s adverse reaction to it). The movie does not do justice to the atrocities, but you do get the impression that some really bad things have happened on both sides. Abdul, for instance, not only has a son being held captive, but had lost two other sons in the war. The villagers have a strong desire to take revenge against Sasha and Vanya for Russian offenses. Given that it is a Russian production, the film is admirably sympathetic toward the Chechen point of view. This probably reflects the guilt feelings of many Russians toward the conflict.

     The movie is slow-moving and introspective in spots. It is not an action film and does not have a lot of war violence. Maybe this is a good thing because in the ambush scene, the actors look like actors playing soldier. The lead actors are excellent, especially Menshikov. I hated his character at first, but he grows on you. Budrov matches him in what is in some ways a buddy film. The music is effective and includes some traditional Russian songs. The scenery is beautiful. The slice of village life is tasty.

      “Prisoner of the Mountains” is a thought-provoking film. It explores the theme of how distrust in war between enemies can lead to tragedy. Civilized human emotions can be overcome by our more animal instincts, like revenge. When a minority of warriors are empathetic to their enemy’s motivations, it usually leads to more tragedy instead of less.

Overall – 7/10

Sorry about the poster, it's the only one I could find. It has little to do with the movie.

I could not find a trailer, so here is the first part of the movie on You Tube.

CIVIL WAR READALONG: Damage Them All You Can

2011-12-14T20:57:00.000-06:00

      Damage Them All You Can by George Walsh is the history of the Army of Northern Virginia in the Civil War. The book covers all the major battles the army was involved in and analyzes command decisions. It is pro-Robert E. Lee, but Walsh’s opinions are solid and he does not hold back on criticisms. I will use this review to partly judge Lee’s performance in the major battles.

      Walsh sets the stage for the “Lost Cause” by pointing out how statistically dominating the North was. In 1860, there were 22 million whites in the North versus 5.5 million in the South. The North had 1.3 million factory workers versus 110,000. 97% of firearms were produced in the North, 94% of textiles and 90% of industrial production. The North had twice the railroad capacity and more than twice the draft animals (an often overlooked advantage) . Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia had its work cut out for it. The book makes a case for the army doing as well as it could have.

1. Mechanicsville – Good plan, but Jackson did not launch a flanking attack and A.P. Hill prematurely launched a series of bloody frontal attacks on a very strong defensive position – Lee rating = 7

2. Gaines’ Mill - Good plan, again Jackson is slow in engaging 7

3. Savage’s Station - Plan was too complicated and relied on suspect generals (a recurring theme) 5

4. Glendale and Frayser’s Farm - poor coordination and poor performance by Jackson, but Lee is not forceful enough in demanding he move 5

5. Malvern Hill - suicidal frontal attacks that are ill-coordinated; inexcusable 2

6. Second Manassas - daring plan that came together for a stunning victory; first clear look at Lee’s formula for success: aggressive maneuvering, faith in his army, and his ability to read his opponent’s deer-in-the- headlights reactions; Longstreet begins to show his stubbornness when it comes to offensive tactics 8

7. Antietam - the decision to stay and fight was very questionable and the decision to remain on the battlefield for another day was borderline insane, but the handling of the battle was artful (although dependent on incompetency by McClellan) 8

8. Fredericksburg - not much planning involved here; credit for letting the opponent play the aggressor and accepting the defensive role (which thrilled Longstreet, but chafed Lee) 8

9. Chancellorsville - Lee’s masterpiece, but dependent on passiveness on the part of Hooker; should have been a terrible defeat; Lee’s decisions are breath-taking in their daringness 10

10. Gettysburg - Lee’s penchant to allow initiative by his generals back-fires in several instances, but the ultimate decision to launch Pickett’s Charge is totally on him 4

11. The Wilderness - Lee takes advantage of Grant leaving two flanks open and relies on the fighting ability of his men 8

12. Spotsylvania - Lee anticipates Grant’s maneuver, but mars the victory by agreeing to Ewell’s holding of the Bloody Angle salient 7

13. Cold Harbor – similar to Fredericksburg in that Lee allows the enemy to win the battle for him 8

      One theme of the book is that Lee was often let down by his generals. Walsh is especially hard on Ewell and Longstreet. However, it is apparent that Lee’s method of allowing his commanders flexibility in carrying out their orders was a double-edged sword. It led to some great successes, but also some failures. Lee can mainly be faulted for not realizing which of his generals (e.g. Ewell and Lonstreet) needed firm orders. He also should have fired some of them.

      The book is very well written. Walsh did copious research and it shows in the numerous quotes from both the officers and the foot soldiers. The first person accounts are kept short and blend in seamlessly with the narrative. Although the book does not have much on soldier life (other than an excellent chapter on the subject), the quotes by regular soldiers give a clear view of their combat experiences.

     Walsh humanizes the commanders. He provides interesting biographical information on most of them. Strangely, this drops off in the second half of the book. Another fault is the lack of maps. The book includes many interesting anecdotes.

      The main takeaway from Damage Them All You Can is the incredible bloodshed in these Civil War battles. Few Americans have any conception of what the soldiers went through. More amazing is the losses among the officers and generals. The power of honor and peer pressure has never been better used to the destruction of men than in the Civil War.

#50 - Colonel Redl

2011-12-11T08:27:00.000-06:00

Note: This review is appearing out of order because I had a hard time finding it. Surprisingly, I ended up watching it on You Tube.

BACK-STORY: “Colonel Redl” is a Hungarian film directed by Istvan Szabo. It was the second in a trilogy and came after the acclaimed “Mephisto”. It is based on a British play by John Osborne entitled “A Patriot For Me”. The movie won the Jury Prize at Cannes, was chosen Best Foreign Film at the BAFTAs, and was nominated for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars. The movie was hardly shown in America and made just $2,357 in one week at one theater.

OPENING: The movie is set in the Austro-Hungarian Empire pre-WWI. It is “not based on a true story”. Alfred Redl is a boy from a lower class family that is heading off to a military school. The training is typical with Redl and another cadet having to run a gauntlet after breaking some wooden rods in sword practice. Surprising for macho teenage boys, the whacks are half-hearted.

SUMMARY: Redl develops a friendship with the son of a baron, Kristof Kubinyi (Jan Niklas). He visits his friend’s estate for a fish out of water scene. He also strikes up a relationship with Kristof’s sister Katalin (Gudrun Landgrebe). She will reappear throughout the film as a sounding board and to give him advice. They would make a good pair except that Redl is a closet homosexual. Redl deals with this social taboo by going through the motions. He visits a brothel, but can only perform after witnessing Kristof in another room. That same night another officer plants a big smooch on Alfred, but the prevalence of homosexuality in the officer corps is not going to be explored.

      The turning point in Redl’s education occurs when he protects Kristoff from punishment by ratting out another student for a prank. Although he self-flagellates with “I’m a treacherous peasant”, he discovers that being a loyal stoolie is good for his career. He is not quite a Judas because he sincerely worships Emperor Joseph and is willing to fight anyone who disses His Majesty. A telling moment occurs when he turns down permission to go home for his father’s funeral because he does not want to miss a celebration honoring the Emperor. This guy has really drunk the Koolaid.

     Redl rapidly rises to Captain. It is implied that he benefits from sucking up to his superiors. Meanwhile, Kristof languishes because he refuses to play political games. For instance, he fights a duel with flintlock pistols in which he shoots his opponent dead. Significantly, Redl is reprimanded for being a second in the duel, but gets promoted to Major.

     Now in a position of power, Redl is able to implement his desire to clean house. He accuses the officer corps of wining, wenching, and not properly supervising their men. He might be meant to come off as a martinet, but I found his rant to be reasonable. He breaks with Kristof when he criticizes the Emperor as being senile. Redl literally leaps on him and they have a silly fight. This disagreement comes from out of the blue and is unrealistic. Later, Kubinyi is transferred because of disciplinary problems.

      The movie now begins to chip away at Redl’s façade. A strange visit from his sister is thrown in to reveal that Redl is a closet Jew and uptight about it. He is decorated by Franz Ferdinand (Armin Mueller-Stahl) who appreciates his blind loyalty and ability to turn on his fellow officers. What better person to head Military Intelligence which the Archduke envisions as an organization to spy not on the enemy, but on his own officer corps? Redl relishes the role and in a telling scene he reads his own file and finds himself accurately labeled as ambitious, a social climber, and a monarchy lover. He adds “insincere” to the list.

     Redl is efficient in his ferreting. He interrogates potential rats and uses filmed surveillance. When Ferdinand longs for a spectacular shake-up of the army, Redl suggests a public treason trial. The Archduke likes the idea, but then ticks off a long list of ethnic groups that cannot be targeted! Redl: Who can I target then? Ferdinand: I suggest someone from your insignificant group. Someone like you.

      Redl seems to have found the perfect victim, but in a ridiculous scene he manages to commit suicide. Oops, there goes the show trial. How about Kubinyi, his former friend? Surprisingly, Ferdinand refuses and asks Redl if he is evil. It seems the Archduke has already decided who his patsy will be.

      Redl meets a beautiful young man at a ball and decides that considering the piranha-infested waters he is swimming in, now would be a good time to abandon chastity! In a squirm-inducing scene, they seduce each other without words. Gag! When Redl realizes he is being set up he threatens to shoot Alfredo, but lets him go after reciting a list of military facts to put the noose around his own neck.

CLOSING: Ferdinand hosts a conspiracy meeting where Kubinyi suggests Redl be allowed to commit suicide. Strangely, Ferdinand agrees so long as Kubinyi hands him the revolver. What happened to the show trial they were looking for and how is this different than the other suicide which was deemed unacceptable? Surely, the trial of the head of Military Intelligence would make the splash desired by Ferdinand. Anyway, Kristof delivers the gun and the wink, wink. You know all those movies where the soldier stoically bites the barrel? This is not one of them. It might be more realistic for the human to vacillate, but the movie comes off silly with Redl literally running around the room. The movie has a happy ending as Ferdinand is assassinated and WWI begins.

RATINGS:

Acting - 8

Action - 4

Accuracy - 4

Realism - 7

Plot - 7

Overall - 7

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Since this is not really a war movie and is more of a character study, it should appeal to many females. There is certainly nothing graphic or violent about it. The back-stabbing is soap opera-esque. The acting is good and there is a strong female character.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY: The movie makes it clear from the opening credits that it is not a true story. This was wise because Szabo strays far from the real story. In reality, Redl was one of the most infamous traitors in history. He was much worse than Benedict Arnold and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of fellow Austrians in WWI.

     Some parts of the film are accurate. Redl did come from a poor family and at first he did not fit in due to his lower class upbringing and ethnicity. He did well in school and his academic achievements got him noticed. Excellent fitness reports and subsequent military decorations put him on the fast track. As in the movie, he was promoted to head of Military Intelligence. The movie hints at the reforms he made in the agency. In some ways he was the J.Edgar Hoover of the Austrian Army. He instituted modern methods that allowed him to ferret out spies. These methods included hidden cameras, fingerprint dusting, shadowing suspects, and intercepting mail. He was also not beyond setting up officers for arrest.

      The movie is accurate in portraying Redl as a homosexual, but in reality he was not as in the closet as is depicted. His favorite partner was a young cavalry officer who he kept in luxury and travelled with (introducing him as his nephew). However, he also had numerous partners and pictures were found of them wearing women’s clothing and in various “activities”. He was certainly not as torn over his sexuality as the movie implies and was not nearly as secretive. There was no Baron Kubinyi or his sister Katalin. Redl was never married.

      Redl’s turning coat was apparently a result of blackmail due to his homosexuality. The Russians got him in their pocket and then kept him there by financing a lavish life-style that went way beyond his salary level and yet raised no red flags. In exchange Redl gave the Russians awesome information. He passed on the plans for the invasion of Serbia which Russia then passed on to its ally resulting in failure and thousands of casualties. He also gave Russia various Austrian plans and information. He ratted out Austrian agents in Russia. He presented the Austrian Army with false estimates of Russian strength. Szabo having Redl blurt out military statistics to a confused faux lover is a ridiculous downplaying of his treason.

      The movie implies Redl’s downfall was the result of the dissatisfaction of Archduke Ferdinand. This is totally made up. In fact, Redl was ensnared by his own method of intercepting mail. In a stroke of incredible luck, the new counterintelligence head traced an envelope full of Russian payoffs to Redl. Redl was given a pistol similar to the movie.

      In defense of his take on the Redl story, Szabo said he was interested in exploring the identity crisis Redl must have gone through. Coming from a lower class family and a minority, he had to try to fit in in order to rise in the Army. When you throw in his homosexuality, you have an interesting character study.

CRITIQUE: “Colonel Redl” is an interesting movie, but predictable. The themes that power corrupts and ambition is bad have been explored ad infinitum. There is little that is special about the film. The cinematography is simplistic and features a lot of extreme close-ups and static cameras. There is no soundtrack which is either lazy or avant-garde. Generally speaking, there are reasons why virtually every movie has music to set the mood. “Colonel Redl” is not unorthodox enough to justify the absence of music.

       The strength of the movie is the acting. Brandauer is excellent as Redl. His portrayal of a tormented man is mesmerizing. His performance is the main reason to watch the movie He is ably served by the supporting cast. Armin Mueller-Stahl as Franz Ferdinand is convincingly malevolent.

       The plot is realistic. Redl’s evolution from innocent, but ambitious trainee to toady of the emperor is believable. The homosexuality angle also seems to fit the man and the times. The depiction of the inner workings of the Austrian Army pre-WWI are well done. The role of politics in a military-dominated monarchy is apparent, especially in the guise of the Archduke.

CONCLUSION: I can only wonder what an accurate movie about the arch-traitor Alfred Redl would be like. I cannot help but believe it would be more powerful and entertaining than this movie. Why do movie makers tinker with accuracy when the real story is better than fiction? Why make the loathsome Redl into a sympathetic character? If you want to make a character study with the themes in this movie, why not make up a fictional character?

      “Colonel Redl” is overrated at #50. It is interesting, but not special. I am glad I watched it because it forced me to research the fascinating Alfred Redl. I am ashamed to admit I had never heard of him. His real story would make a fascinating movie.

REARRANGING THE BOTTOM 50

2011-12-09T17:37:00.000-06:00

After reviewing almost all of the bottom 50 (I still have not seen "Scipio Africanus"), I am ready to rearrange the list. The number in parentheses is the Miltary History Magazine ranking.

99. Ben Hur (96) (not a war movie)
98. Ministry of Fear (53) (not a war movie)
97. The Informer (51) (not a war movie)
96. Foreign Correspondent (86) (not a war movie)
95. The Third Man (80) (not a war movie)
94. Notorious (57) (not a war movie)
93. The Tin Drum (60)
92. Castle Keep (66)
91. They Died With Their Boots On (68)
90. The Life and Times of Colonel Blimp (87)
89. Hail the Conquering Hero (70)
88. Braveheart (67)
87. From Here to Eternity (59)
86. Ulzana's Raid (54)
85. To Hell and Back (77)
84. The Thin Red Line (100)
83. The Alamo (61)
82. Ballad of a Soldier (81)
81. Guadalcanal Diary (69)
80. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (55)
79. Guns of Navarone (93)
78. Northwest Passage (97)
77. Henry V (75)
76. Run Silent, Run Deep (79)
75. Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (98)
74. They Were Expendable (99)
73. Dunkirk (89)
72. Desert Rats (88)
71. The Desert Fox (78)
70. The Big Red One (71)
69. Battle of Britain (90)
68. Midway (92)
67. The Manchurian Candidate (85)
66. The Bridges at Toko-Ri (73)
65. Sahara (83)
64. The Big Parade (58)
63. El Cid (63)
62. Twelve O'Clock High (72)
61. Ran (76)
60. Beau Geste (52)
59. The Man Who Would Be King (77)
58. Cross of Iron (64)
57. A Walk in the Sun (82)
56. A Bridge Too Far (94)
55. Casablanca (65)
54. Dr. Strangelove (84)
53. The Train (62)
52. Breaker Morant (91)
51. Last of the Mohicans (95)

BOOK / MOVIE: The Killer Angels / Gettysburg

2011-12-04T22:00:00.000-06:00

     I recently reviewed “Gettysburg” as #46 in the 100 Greatest War Movies list. It gave me the idea to reread the book The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara to compare the book to the movie. The novel came out in 1974 and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction a year later. In 1993, Ted Turner released the movie “Gettysburg” based on the book. The film was written by Ronald Maxwell.

      The movie parallels the book extremely closely. Almost all of Maxwell’s dialogue is word for word from the book. All of the scenes are from the book. I have seen few movies that are more faithful to their source material than “Gettysburg”. Since the book is a Pulitzer Prize winner, this makes the script for the movie outstanding. If you have not seen the movie, read my review at . Since the movie is so close to the book, I’ll concentrate on what the movie leaves out.

      The book delves much more into Lee’s heart condition. This leads to exhaustion and poor decisions. The movie has little on this theme. It also goes further in some scenes. For instance, the book goes beyond the death of Reynolds on the first day. We read about Lee sending orders to take Cemetery Hill “if practicable”. This makes Lee’s reaction to Trimble’s complaint of Ewell’s lack of initiative more understandable. The novel includes an entire chapter on Lee’s thoughts during the first day. The movie limits itself to getting in the minds of Longstreet and Chamberlain. The book gives more back-story for their characters. We learn that Chamberlain’s father had referred to man as a “murdering angel” and he had turned it into an oration entitled “the Killer Angels”. (The movie script has Kilrain using the phrase.) Similar to Lee’s heart condition, Shaara explains that Longstreet’s moroseness is partly attributable to the deaths of his three children.

     The book has a whole chapter on Longstreet talking to Fremantle including the need for trench warfare. Later, they discuss tactics. Lee meets with Ewell and Early to discuss the situation at the end of the first day. The movie deletes this and picks up with Trimble’s rant. Fremantle, who appears briefly in the movie, gets his own chapter where he likens the South to England. He (and Shaara) conveniently overlook that England was very anti-slavery. Both the book and the movie sympathize with the South and push the “states’ rights” argument.

     The book spends more time on Longstreet’s thoughts which helps when viewing the movie to understand where he is coming from. Not that the movie is totally unclear on this. We also learn Longstreet’s reaction to the second days’ fighting after he visits Hood in the hospital. It turns out that he is not a big fan of Stuart.

     Several scenes in the movie get post scripts in the book. For instance, we find out what Chamberlain is thinking the morning after.

     Basically, if you watch the movie you do not really need to read the book with one big caveat. The chapters on Pickett’s Charge are amazing at taking you into the action. The movie does not give a good idea of what the men are experiencing. Although the viewpoint is General Armistead’s, he is on foot leading his brigade. This means we get a foot soldiers perspective of the carnage.

      My advice would be to watch the movie and read the chapters on Pickett's Charge.

WAR MOVIE PICTURE QUIZ #3

2011-11-24T20:59:00.000-06:00

In honor of Thanksgiving, it's time for the third quess-the-movie-from-the- still quiz. Good luck!

1.

10.

Once again I would like to thank IMFDB for the pictures.

I'll post the answers in a bout a week.

CRACKER? The Halls of Montezuma

2011-11-19T18:06:00.001-06:00

      “Halls of Montezuma” is a war movie released in 1951. It was directed by Lewis Milestone and was inspired by a short film entitled “Objective – Prisoners” which was about the necessity of taking prisoners for interrogation purposes. It was filmed at Camp Pendleton, California with the full cooperation of the Marine Corps. The movie is dedicated to the Marines and was later used as a recruiting film. It opens with the “Marine Corps Hymn” which, of course, starts with ”From the halls of Montezuma”.

      The seven surviving members of a platoon are on a troop ship headed for an unnamed Pacific island circa 1943. Lt. Col. Gilfallan (Richard Boone in his film debut) gives a speech emphasizing the need to take prisoners. (In reality, this speech would have gone over with a yawn from Marine vets who had seen or heard about the results of trying to take prisoners.) The leader of the unit is Lt. Anderson (the always reliable Richard Widmark) who is suffering from psychological migraines due to combat fatigue. Through a flashback we learn he was a science teacher before the war, so the war experience is pretty foreign (a theme of the movie). He pops pills given to him by the medic (Karl Malden). It’s your typical “quit your preaching and give me the pills, doc” situation. (It’s unclear what message the Marines were hoping to send with this subplot.) In spite of his own problems, Anderson is able to convince an ex-student, who he had helped overcome stuttering, to fight on in spite of his fears. (A message for Marines in Korea?)

     The landing in amphtracs is well played and includes a seamless blending of color archival footage. We get old school deaths sans the blood. Those are real Shermans spouting flame. “Spray the whole hill, it’s lousy with Japs.” After the initial combat, we get some character development for our heterogeneous small unit. This is done through flashbacks and realistic soldier talk. Strangely, I was shocked to hear the comment “They can kill me, but they can’t eat me” for the second time in a war movie. Wait, what? The ensemble cast is first-rate and includes Jack Palance, Neville Brand, Jack Webb, Martin Milner, and a very young Robert Wagner as Coffman.

     When Coffman is killed in a Japanese rocket barrage, Anderson pops some more pills and we realize we are in a “who will survive?” war movie. One down, how many more to go? Anderson is sent by Gilfallan on a mission to bring back some Japs hiding in a cave. The location of the rocket site must be discovered because the frontal attack must go on. Accompanying the squad is a Brit named Johnson who speaks Japanese and knows their culture and psychology. Played by Reginald Gardner, he appears to have wandered in from North Africa, but is droll and adds color. They take several prisoners including a wounded officer (we’re the humane ones) and head back to headquarters. In the process, Pretty Boy (the resident psychotic) goes crazy and is killed accidentally when he yanks on a buddy’s gun (that’s original, anyway). Death #3 is the medic. The rest make it back. However, Conroy (the stutterer) dies from shrapnel, sending Anderson over the edge. Fortunately, a letter written to him by the doc reminds him of his duty to his men and he throws away the pills and gets his act together.

     The movie slows down appreciably at this point as deduction is necessary to pinpoint the rocket site. A big clue comes from the pompous Japanese officer. The attack goes off as planned and as the rockets come raining down, Corsairs swoop down to take them out.

      This movie is definitely second string Milestone. The acting is pretty good, especially Widmark. It’s also a kick to see the recognizable faces. The back-stories are not particularly compelling, but it is a commendable effort to flesh out the warriors. In fact, the movie is a part of the second wave of WWII movies which spend more time on the effects of war on the soldiers and admit to dysfunctions within units. In spite of the cooperation of the Marine Corps, the film is not a jingoistic flag-waver.

     The action is fine and the actual footage adds to the authenticity. The weaponry is accurate. The location (Camp Pendleton) must have been convenient, but the terrain does not look like a tropical island. The plot is not strong. The two main plot points – take prisoners for questioning and find the rocket site – are not very realistic to the war in the Pacific. In all my reading about the war in the Pacific, I never ran into Japanese rocket barrages as being a problem. Another problem is the ending. It does not appear all the trouble of discovering the site is put to use. The attack is launched and comes under rocket fire. The Corsairs taking out the rocket battery is not contingent upon pinpointing them on a map. The movie would have been better if the unit had gone on to take out the site after questioning the Japanese found in the cave. The dead could have more effectively died going after the site than returning to base.

     “Halls of Montezuma” is worth watching. It is entertaining and has good performances. However, it is definitely not one of the 100 Best War Movies.

By the way, check out that movie poster. Who is that woman? There are no women in the movie! Imagine the disappointment of women who went to this movie. False advertising!!! Also, this is not "the everlasting story" of the Marine Corps.

#46 - Gettysburg

2011-11-05T18:01:00.001-05:00

BACK-STORY: “Gettysburg” is a war movie that began as a TV miniseries produced by Ted Turner. The finished product pleased the millionaire so much that he decided to release it to movie theaters. It may be the longest American movie (254 minutes) ever to appear in theaters. It appeared in a limited number of cinemas and did not recoup its cost, but the publicity was golden and when it was first shown on Turner Broadcasting Network, it was the most viewed basic cable program up to that time. The movie is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. The title was changed to the battle name after it was discovered that potential viewers thought the original title indicated a motorcycle gang movie. The National Park Service allowed filming on site, although much of the action was lensed at a nearby farm. The film made use of over 5,000 reenactors. There are also cameos by Ted Turner and Ken Burns. Turner is killed during Pickett’s Charge (rumor has it by Jane Fonda masquerading as a Union soldier). Burns plays an aide to Hancock.

OPENING: The movie opens with a map tracing the paths of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac as a voice-over explains the strategic situation in June, 1863. The assumption that most of the viewers would be ignorant of their Civil War history is appropriate. The movie will take great pains to inform the historically-challenged.

     A lone horseman spies the Union army on the march northward. He turns out to be an actor/spy named Harrison who works for Confederate General Longstreet (Tom Berenger). He reports the surprising news that the Union army is much closer than was believed. Longstreet passes the information on to a skeptical Lee (who has been blinded by the loss of contact with Stuart’s cavalry) and Lee decides to concentrate the army at a sleepy little crossroads named Gettysburg.

SUMMARY: (Note: since the movie is over four hours long, I’ll mercifully hit only the highlights) Union Col. Joshua Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels) is handed a hot potato in the form of some mutineers from another Maine regiment. As commander of the 20th Maine he is tasked with taking the mutineers along and shooting them if necessary. He gives an inspired speech about the importance of the upcoming battle (“we are here to set men free”) and his empathetic approach convinces most of the unhappy crew to pitch in.

     Outside Gettysburg, a Union cavalry unit led by John Buford (Sam Elliot) blocks the road leading to the town. Buford assesses the terrain and realizes his outnumbered brigade must attempt to “hold the high ground” until the main body of the army arrives. He soon makes contact with Confederate infantry heading for Gettysburg. The movie jumps to Lee (Martin Sheen) who is still in the dark about what is transpiring, but follows Napoleon’s advice to march to the sound of the guns. Lee reluctantly orders a general attack knowing the battle you get is not often the battle you want. The first of the movies set piece battles chronicles Buford’s holding action and subsequent retreat after being flanked in spite of the arrival of Reynold’s corps. The highlight is the death of Reynolds by sharpshooter.

     The movie introduces a major theme as Lee and Longstreet disagree on strategy. Lee, ever the aggressor, wants to end the war with this battle and intends to attack the Union army no matter their defensive position. He has supreme confidence in his soldiers and exhibits a tiredness that influences his decisions. Longstreet, ever the defensive-minded, wants to maneuver around the Union position to force the Union to attack them on advantageous ground. This back and forth will reappear later in the movie with Longstreet playing the petulantly obedient subordinate.

     The 20th Maine is marching toward destiny. They encounter a runaway slave which gives Chamberlain the opportunity to expound on his liberal professorial views against slavery. His earthy Scottish sergeant Kilrain (Kevin Conway) argues the war is a class war to ensure that Americans are judged by their ability, not their lineage. To Chamberlain’s belief that all men have a “divine spirit”, Kilrain refers to men as “killer angels”.

     Longstreet’s brigade commanders discuss the war around the camp fire. They are all agreed that the war is about states’ rights and Northern aggression. A British observer named Fremantle listens to the speechifying with a “hey, I’m only here to watch the killing” look.

     General Trimble (Morgan Sheppard) visits Lee to complain about his corps commander Ewell’s failure to take “that hill”, Cemetery Ridge. Lee defuses his anger, but obviously empathizes with his frustration. Meanwhile, on Cemetery Ridge, Gen. Meade arrives to ask if his subordinates have put his army in a good defensive position. Buford and others assure him it is “good ground”. Buford pats himself on the back for “holding the high ground”.

the 20th Maine defends Little Round Top

Rebels advance up Little Round Top

      The second big set piece takes place on Little Round Top where the 20th Maine is stationed on the very end of the Union line. Chamberlain is ordered to hold his position at all costs. The situation is clearly outlined for the audience through some more speechifying. The subsequent series of assaults by Alabama infantry that culminates in hand to hand fighting and finally in a bayonet charge are the high water mark of the film. The second day ends with the Union still holding its fishhook line on Cemetery Ridge and Little Round Top.

     The last day is portentously set up by the melodramatic story of pre-Civil War BFFs Gen. Armistead (Louis Jordan) and Union Gen. Hancock. Armistead tells Longstreet of their teary parting at the beginning of the war and his desire for a reunion in the midst of the battle. This effectively adds a human element to the next day’s carnage. At Lee’s headquarters, the joy-riding Stuart returns to a wood-shed moment from the fatherly Lee. The encounter accurately reflects Lee’s command style of giving his generals lots of room for initiative and then gently scolding them if their decisions are flawed.

      The third set piece is the famous Pickett’s Charge. It is shown in what seems like real time. The plan is outlined by Longstreet to his generals (and the audience). The theme of Longstreet’s reluctance to launch what he is sure will be a failed attack reappears. The 30 reeanactor cannons fill in noisily for the actual over one hundred. The 5,000 reenactors fill in for the actual 15,000 in Pickett’s Charge. There is a long stretch featuring tracking shots that has no dialogue and relies on the beating of drums that evolves into the score. The Rebels march stoically into a metal storm of first shrapnel, then canister, and finally volleys. One has to admire the dedication of those men. As to why they did it, there is a telling moment when Armistead bucks up a cringing youngster with the question “what will you think of yourself in the morning?” He responds with “I won’t think too highly of myself, but at least I’ll be alive to think!” Just kidding – he continues on after properly being shamed into doing the honorable thing.

      The movie reaches a second climax (the first being the bayonet charge) with Armistead (hat on sword) reaching the Union line but falling mortally wounded. Jordan gets to chew the scenery with his death scene including a wheezing begging of forgiveness from Hancock. On the other side of the corpse strewn field, Lee rides among the survivors taking the blame for the disaster and encountering the distraught Pickett who cannot reform his division because “General Lee, sir, I have no division”.

CLOSING: Joshua Chamberlain and his brother Thomas embrace as the sun goes down. The closing credits tell us what happened to the main characters. Pictures of the real historical figures make you feel guilty for laughing at the seemingly ridiculous facial hair of the actors. They actually looked a lot like their characters.

RATINGS:

Acting - 6

Action – 9

Accuracy – 9

Realism - 9

Plot - 9

Overall - 10

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Only if they are a Civil War buff. This movie is the anti-“Gone with the Wind”. There is absolutely no romance (except between Armistead and Hancock – which is thankfully unrequitted). In fact only one female speaks in the movie. Interestingly, the line by a Northern belle (“I thought the war was in Virginia”) is uttered by director Maxwell’s daughter. The movie does have a lot of talking and is not graphic in its violence. It is also very educational which might be appealing to some females.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY: It amazes me that some critics question the accuracy of the movie. Trust me, you are not going to get more accuracy than this movie. The small faults can be excused by the fact that the movie is technically based on a novel, but the novel is a masterpiece of imagining around historical facts. Shaara imagines conversations and thoughts of the historical figures that populate the movie, but all of it rings true. The movie is faithful to the book and few have questioned the accuracy and authenticity of the book.

     The Battle of Gettysburg is probably the most important battle ever fought on American soil. It lasted three days and involved well over 100,000 men. It would be impossible for any movie to cover the battle in detail. The screenwriter wisely focuses on one key action per day. Buford’s holding action, the defense of Little Round Top, and Pickett’s Charge are adeptly reenacted. The three set pieces are much better and more enjoyable than any documentary could do.

     The strategy and tactics are true to the battle. The command decisions are accurate. The movie does a great job of showing the hows and whys of the battle. There is no historical revisionism here. The motivations of both sides and of the individual leaders are clear, although the movie can be faulted for downplaying the South’s desire to maintain slavery.

a reenactor fires an Enfield

As far as historical realism, anyone who is familiar with historical reenactors knows they are obsessed with authenticity. “Gettysburg” makes fantastic use of this resource. CGI cannot compare to the real thing and reenactors are as close to the real thing as you are going to get. These are people who insist on having the correct buttons on their uniforms. The participation of over 5,000 is incredible. This movie is their shining moment and they have a lot to be proud of. Their participation takes the movie to unparalleled heights of accuracy in tactics, uniforms and equipment, and soldier life. One example will suffice. There is a moment in the Little Round Top scene where a soldier does not use the ramrod to pack down the powder and ball, instead he taps the butt of the rifle on the ground. Only a reenactor would know Civil War soldiers sometimes did this in battle. I have to say that although I still do not know how they decide who will die, these reenactors really stepped up their game in dying. The deaths are not cheesy or ridiculous. Also, some of the reenactors seemingly were given speaking parts and they do a commendable job for amateurs.

Daniels as Chamberlain

CRITIQUE: “Gettysburg” is not a perfect war movie. It has some flaws. The acting is spotty. It appears some of the actors are not motivated by the made-for-TV nature of the production and perhaps their salaries matched their performances. Louis Jordan in particular chews the scenery. This dynamic makes the good performances stand out. Jeff Daniels deserved an Academy Award nomination. Joshua Chamberlain was virtually unknown before the movie and Daniels delivered him the fame he deserves. Chamberlain was a remarkable man and one of the great soldiers of the Civil War. Daniels is brilliant in his portrayal of the reluctant warrior who rises to leadership in the cauldron of battle. He nails the character’s humanity. Tom Berenger’s Longstreet is properly morose (although the movie does not mention the recent deaths of three of his children) and tactiturn. Lang gets Pickett’s flamboyance down pat. Sheen is not great, but his seemingly lackluster performance would have been more acceptable if the movie had alluded to his heart disease.

The movie has been criticized for its pro-South slant. This reflects the book. Shaara obviously found the “Lost Cause” appealing. It must have been fun imagining the stilted speaking style of the Southern aristocrats. The movie actually edits the speechifying commendably. The brushing over of slavery as the key cause of the conflict is upsetting.
The sound effects are superb. The sounds of battle are realistic. The cannon fire in particular (while not nearly loud enough) is as close to being there as you can get. More importantly, the score by Randy Edelman is one of the best in war movie history. The music matches the mood perfectly. Do not forget that the score was meant for a TV movie. That is hard to fathom.

a face full of grapeshot

     The combat is well done, thanks again to the reenactors. Unfortunately, due to the PG nature of TV movies (at least ones made in the 1990s), the violence is not graphically realistic. There is little bloodshed. An R-rated version would have been awesome. There is one cool shot where some Rebels get a face full of grapeshot, but there is no spray of blood. The hand to hand combat on Little Round Top is cool.

     The movie does a great job in teaching the battle. The narration and map at the beginning establish the situation and the dialogue makes it clear what the big picture is throughout the battle. I can think of no other war movie that attempts to tell the story of a specific historical battle that does a better job in replacing the written word. It is superior to “Waterloo”, “Midway”, “Pearl Harbor”, etc. in this respect.

CONCLUSION: “Gettysburg” has been harshly judged by critics who are not familiar with the Civil War, The Killer Angels, or the way people talked and groomed in the 1860s. I’ll grant you the beards look fake, but if you stick around for the closing credits, you will see that the actors look a lot like their characters. Even a minor figure like Harrison is a lookalike. Such fidelity to accuracy was not necessary, but indicates the care with which the movie was made. If you criticize the screenplay, you are essentially criticizing a Pulitzer Prize winning novel. The movie follows the book very closely. The dialogue is almost word for word from the book, which is a good thing. The scenes in the book are replicated in the movie with the only significant difference between the book and the movie being the fact that the movie deletes some scenes. It could be argued that the movie improves on the book. There is little reason to read the novel if you see the movie.

      “Gettysburg” is very underrated at #46. There are several movies ahead of it which I have seen, but not reviewed yet that are inferior to it. It is a classic example of how a labor of love can overcome a small budget and low expectations. Many military history buffs rank Pickett’s Charge as one of the top moments in their “if I could witness an event” lists. This movie achieves that dream and throws in one of the all-time great battle scenes (the defense of Little Round Top).

     On a personal note, I took my History Club on a field trip to see this movie during its brief run in the theaters. We had to travel two hours to see it. It was worth it, although I can't say the students were thrilled with the length.

the trailer

fix bayonets!

#47 - Battleship Potemkin

2011-10-24T19:38:00.000-05:00

BACK-STORY: “Battleship Potemkin” is a combination war movie / propaganda piece. It was meant to be one part of an eight part series on the Revolution of 1905. It turned out to be the only one in the series that ended up being made. It did not have the intended inspirational effect as it was not warmly embraced by the Russian people. It actually lost the box office to “Robin Hood” the opening week. It was a big hit outside Russia, however. The movie is justifiably famous and is considered Sergei Einstein’s masterpiece. It has been oft-copied by other directors. The film is divided into five parts: (1) “Men and Maggots” (2) “Drama on Deck” (3) “A Dead Man Calls for Justice” (4) “The Odessa Staircase” (5) “The Rendezvous with a Squadron”. Interestingly, the staircase scene was not planned as part of the movie and was added during production.

OPENING: Waves are crashing on a breaker. The screen tells us Russia is in revolution. “The individual personality, having hardly had time to become conscious of itself, dissolved in the mass, and the mass itself became dissolved in the revolutionary elan.” On board the Potemkin, two soldiers talk about supporting the workers. Vakulinchuk urges the men lounging in their hammocks to revolt against mistreatment.

SUMMARY: The men are upset about rancid meat, but the officers (including the doctor) insist it is edible. The men refuse to eat the borscht. In response, the Admiral orders the execution of those who are insubordinate. The rebels are gathered on the deck and a tarpaulin is thrown over them. A wild looking Rasputin-like preacher condones the execution. Vakulinchuk demands the firing squad back down and they do. The mutiny begins. There is mass chaos as the officers are thrown overboard. Unfortunately, Valulinchuk is shot and killed, thus becoming a martyr.

Valulinchuk’s body is carried ashore at Odessa. A mass of people come out to view the body. The whole city apparently. There is a montage of various emotions. The anger builds, symbolized by clenched hands recurring. “Down with tyranny!” The crowd joins with the crew and raises a red flag of revolution. An armada of sail-boats comes out to bring food to the battleship while a crowd cheers from a stairway. Uh, oh!

      Next is the famous Odessa Staircase scene. Einstein shows off his innovative cross-cutting technique as he bounces from the robotic czarist soldiers advancing with bayonets fixed down the seemingly endless steps and the panicked civilians reacting to the tsunami of violence. Some of the focus is on a boy and his distraught mother. Another group tries vainly to reason with the soldiers. Most famously, a mother is shot and her baby carriage goes bouncing down the steps unguided. The violence is graphic for that time period of black and white / silent movies.

CLOSING: The fleet is coming! What will happen? The Potemkin will obviously be outnumbered and outgunned. The crew prepares for battle in a good tutorial of how a dreadnaught would be readied for naval combat. The music builds, the tension rises. At the last moment the squadron allows the Potemkin to pass through unimpeded to the accompaniment of cheers from the other crews who have refused to obey orders to open fire.

RANKING:

Acting - 6

Action - 6

Accuracy - 9

Realism - 6

Plot - 6

Overall - 6

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? It depends on if they a film buff. Everyone who claims to be a movie lover should see this movie. It is a true classic. It is not particularly macho and since it is not in smell-o-vision, females should be able to get into the story. Certainly the staircase scene tugs at female emotions as many of the victims are women.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY: The movie is surprisingly accurate for a propaganda piece. There was a mutiny on the battleship Potemkin in 1905 and it apparently started over the gross food. The movie does not give background (which makes the causes of the rebellion unclear), but the crew was already low on morale because of the aftermath of the terrible ass-kicking at the Battle of Tsushima. The Japanese fleet destroyed a Russian fleet and rumor threatened that ships like the Potemkin might be sent to the war zone. To make matters worse, the officer class had been diluted in quality to bolster the fleet that had been sent to Tsushima. The Potemkin’s officers would have probably been similar to the arrogant bourgeoisie of the film. However, it seems unlikely that Einstein’s heroic, saintly proletariat sailors were accurate representations of the actual crew.

      The mutiny did break out under circumstances similar to the film. A sailor named Vakulinchuk did foment the rebellion against the food. The sailors who were refusing to eat were being threatened by marines when Vakulinchuk started the mutiny. He was shot and fell into the sea, was rescued, and subsequently died. His funeral in Odessa was attended by a large crowd and incited more civil discontent.

      The movie has had such an impact that the staircase incident has been read into history. The fact is that it never happened. However, there were incidents in Odessa involving troops firing into crowds.

      Surprisingly, the sailing of the Potemkin through the fleet unmolested is true. The movie does not carry it from there, but the battleship took refuge in Rumania where most of the crew went into exile. The ship was eventually returned to the czarist government.

CRITIQUE: “Battleship Potemkin” is a remarkable movie. It is a classic that holds up well. You do not have to be a film historian to recognize the brilliance of Einstein’s direction. His innovations of montages and cross-cutting are apparent in their importance to the evolution of movie-making. The staircase scene alone is worth the price of admission. The story-telling is terse, but effective. The subtitles mostly explain instead of translate. To tell the truth, the film could have used more subtitles. The music is effective and matches the scenes well.

      Unlike other true classics (like Casablanca), the movie is not flawless. Some of the scenes linger too long. We get your point, Sergei! The movie also tends to be heavy-handed at times, but for a propaganda film it is remarkably restrained. The acting is mediocre. This is not surprising considering several key players were not professional actors.

CONCLUSION: Once again we have a movie that is obviously one of the “greatest” war movies, but not necessarily one of the “best”. It is interesting and does a good job covering an important historical event. It is very influential and is still studied. This influence has been basically on films in general, not particularly on war movies, however.

       I think the editors of Military History magazine got its ranking of #47 pretty right considering their apparent definition of “greatest”. There are many movies that I have already reviewed from the 100 Greatest that are better and more entertaining, but you have to give “Battleship Potemkin” some credit for being ground-breaking.

CLASSIC or ANTIQUE? Shenandoah

2011-10-17T19:16:00.000-05:00

      “Shenandoah” is a war movie set in the Civil War starring James Stewart. It is set in the Shenandoah Valley and centers on the Anderson family with their patriarch Charlie (Stewart). They own a 500 acre farm and although they are Virginians they don’t own slaves and are not secessionists. Charlie growls “this war is not mine and I take no note of it.” Since Charlie is a dictator, he is preventing his sons from going off and having fun as soldiers. What a party pooper! Luckily, they live in a part of the South that was little touched by the war – the Shenandoah Valley. (For those of you who don't get that snark, the Shenandoah Valley saw more action than any other area by far.)

      This idyllic life comes to an end when the war hits home. When a Confederate unit arrives “recruiting”, Pa turns them down and they are subsequently ambushed and wiped out. Not their problem. Later, a comical G-rated Hollywood fight breaks out when government agents try to confiscate some of their horses. A connection to the war is established when the Anderson daughter marries a Confederate officer named Sam (Doug McClure) who is called away right after the wedding. Things get worse when the youngest son, simply called "the Boy" (Phillip Alford), is captured by a Union patrol because he is caught wearing a Rebel cap. His best friend, a black kid named Gabriel (Eugene Jackson), ends up in the Union army.

     Pa and all the family except his married son and his daughter-in-law go searching for the Boy. They block the tracks to stop a train carrying prisoners. They free all the prisoners, but no Boy. Instead, guess who’s on board – Sam! Meanwhile, Boy escapes and joins a Rebel unit. He participates in a battle that must not have involved any reenactors based on the lack of authenticity. The ridiculous combat features soldiers loading their muskets with powder horns! Boy is wounded, but rescued by Gabriel who is fighting in an integrated unit. Too bad their were none in the Union Army.

     While the family is away, tragedy strikes back home when marauders kill James (Patrick Wayne) and his wife Ann (Katherine Ross). The movie has now grown as dark as Charlie’s mood. Another son is killed by a jittery sentry. Pa almost strangles him, but decides to leave it at a sermon demanding the soldier suffer mentally for the rest of his life. It looks like the quest is futile and they return home. An unhappy ending is avoided when the Boy appears at the back of the church on crutches during mass.

     This movie is like a tragic episode of “Bonanza” and has the same production values. It looks like a made-for-TV movie. The cast, other than Stewart, are second bananas (McClure and Ross were early in their careers). Stewart dominates as the crusty Charlie Anderson. You would not want to be that cigar he chomps on throughout the movie. This is all comparative because Stewart does not give one of his better performances.

      The movie is cheesy. The dialogue is corny. The situations are unrealistic. The Shenandoah Valley shows little of the devastation that was wreaked there. The action is ridiculous. There is one scene where Confederates hiding in trees ambush a Yankee unit. Their bullets cause wagons to explode! I hope those explosions were not the reason the movie was nominated for an Oscar for Best Sound. That’s right – this movie was nominated for an Academy Award! Oh, by the way, some people saw some analogies to the Vietnam War in this movie. Those hippies need to stop seeing what they want to see.

Classic or Antique? Dusty, old antique.

RATING - 5/10

#48 - THE SEA HAWK

2011-10-10T20:33:00.000-05:00

BACK-GROUND: “The Sea Hawk” was a remake of the 1924 silent classic, but while the original was loosely based on the novel by Rafael Sabatini, the 1940 version was inspired by the adventures of Sir Francis Drake. The film marked the tenth pairing of Errol Flynn and director Michael Curtiz (they made a total of twelve including “Captain Blood” and “The Adventures of Robin Hood”). The two brought out the best in each other although they did not like each other. The movie had a huge budget of $1.75 million and was a box office success. Part of the money went into building a sound stage that had a water tank that could hold two full-size ships (which were built for the film). The movie was nominated for four Academy Awards: Art Direction, Music, Sound Recording, and Special Effects. In an interesting decision, “The Sea Hwak” was filmed in black and white whereas the earlier “Adventures of Robin Hood” was in Technicolor.

OPENING: The movie opens in Spain in 1585 (three years before the Spanish Armada). King Philip II complains about the English “Sea Hawks” who are raiding Spanish treasure ships. Spain will defeat that “puny rock-bound island” and rule the world. The devious Philip sends ambassador Don Alvarez (Claude Rains) to assure Queen Elizabeth I that Spain is not plotting an invasion. Alvarez will bring his beautiful niece Dona Maria (Brenda Marshall) to be a handmaiden to the queen.

SUMMARY: Don Alvarez travels on a Spanish galleass (a hybrid of a galley and galleon) which is rowed by slaves or prisoners or captives. Whatever – they look straight out of “Ben Hur” with the whips and drum. An English ship is sighted so they realistically go to battle stations. There are soldiers on board armed with crossbows. The mysterious ship is the notorious “Albatross” captained by the swashbuckling Geoffrey Thorpe (Flynn). As a contrast, his crew of pirates is lacking discipline but full of panache.

     The Spanish fire a laughable broadside. We know it’s laughable because the pirates laugh at it. The “Alabatross” cannons are deadly accurate against the masts and rigging of the Spanish ship. It then rakes the Spaniard and comes around to the other side. This realistically depicts the British ability to sail circles around the slower, clumsier Spanish ships of the era. The pirates board using grappling hooks to pull the ships together and then swing over on ropes. The Albatross has enough ropes for every man to have his own! There is a frenzied melee climaxing in a duel between Thorpe and the Spanish captain, of course. Guess who wins? Thorpe encounters Dona Maria and it’s hate at first sight for her. It looks like there is no hope for any love developing between them, just like all the other Hollywood relationships that begin with mutual dislike. Sad. However, when Thorpe returns her jewels plus some, she begins to look at him in a different light. Errol Flynn + diamonds = ‘nuf said.

     At Queen Elizabeth’s court, the Sea Hawks are called to account for their inhospitable treatment of Spanish shipping. Thorpe sends his monkey on ahead and then makes a grand entrance (not that anyone could top a monkey, but what Queen can truly scold you with a monkey in the room?). Liz feigns indignation at the actions of the pirates and backs the nefarious Lord Wolfingham’s “Armada – what Armada?” policy. Behind closed doors with a bit of monkey-charming, Elizabeth wink-winks at Thorpe’s proposed raid on a Spanish treasure caravan in Panama. Unfortunately, Lord Wolfie (Henry Danell - Basil Rathbone being unavailable) and Don Alvarez snoop out the destination and send advance warning. As the “Albatross” prepares to sail, Maria rushes to see Thorpe for possibly the last time. In a nice unHollywood touch, she is too late and only gets to see his rear (calm down ladies, I’m referring to the stern of the ship).

     The ambush of the mule train in the tropical jungle is marked by mosquitoes, but little sweating. It is easy, perhaps too easy. Soon the ambushers become the ambushees. The Spaniards have a big advantage because their flintlock muskets require no reloading! Thorpe and the survivors flee into the “no one can survive in there” swamp. The appropriately bedraggled and now semi-sweating crew persevere and reach the ship which is ghost-like for good reason. Guess who is there to greet them and usher them into the grand world of Spanish galley rowing? The Spanish captain with the laughable broadsides and cheek to duel with Thorpe! If you think he is going to have the last laugh, stifle it.

     Thorpe is now a shirtless galley rower ala Judah Ben Hur. Ironically, the sweating is being done by the ladies in the audience. Thorpe starts a rebellion that gets the rowers freed and they did not even have to endure a ramming. They board an adjacent ship that just so happens to have the Spanish Armada plans – proof that Wolfingham is a traitor and support for the Sea Hawks’ farsighted policy of waving a cape in front of the Spanish bull. Wait till Liz hears about this!

     But first Thorpe has to fight his way into Elizabeth’s bed chamber. Naturally this involves a sword fight with Wolfingham. Since Danell is no Rathbone, the director wisely utilizes shadows to depict the duel. We are treated to a tour of the palace via sword-fight.

CLOSING: The film closes with a nifty bit of propaganda. Winston Churchill (oops, I mean Elizabeth I) looks at the camera and speaks directly to Hitler (oops, I mean King Philip) averring that England does not want this war. Her speech condemns the ruthless ambitions of one man. The Earth does not belong to any man. We are now ready to meet the Armada. We will create a Navy that will dominate the oceans for all time, including the 1940s, just in case another Philip comes along.

RATINGS:

Acting - 8

Action - 7

Accuracy - 5

Realism - 6

Plot - 8

Overall - 8

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Are you kidding? It has Errol Flynn and a woman who does not look or act better than the average female viewer. Fantasize while increasing your self-esteem, ladies.

ACCURACY: The movie is very loosely based on the career of Sir Francis Drake. Hollywood – make a non-fiction movie about this dude! Flynn’s portrayal of Thorpe (Drake) is accurate personality-wise. I do not know how much of a ladies’ man he was. He was married, but probably had a girl in every port. The romance in the movie is totally fictional. He certainly was a swash-buckler. He buckled plenty of swash during his pirate days. He was a leading member of the Sea Dogs.

     Don’t ask me why they decided to rename them Sea Hawks. That was stupid. The Sea Dogs were a group of captains that included Drake, Martin Frobisher, Walter Raleigh, and John Hawkins. To the Sapnish they were pirates, to the British they were privateers sanctioned by the government. The movie accurately shows Elizabeth’s unofficial encouragement of the Sea Dogs.

     Flora Robson is spot on her in her portrayal of Elizabeth. Her feisty personality and scheming politics are realistic. She did try to walk a fine line between tacit support for the Sea Dogs and friendship with Spain. Her refusal to curb the Sea Dogs did motivate Philip to end their depravations by invading England. The movie conveniently leaves out the fact that Elizabeth benefited financially from the Sea Dog “acquisitions”. Wolfingham is probably based on Lord Francis Walsingham. However, this is character assassination as he was not a traitor.

      The raid on the gold train is based on an actual incident in the career of Drake. In 1573, he captured a mule train in Panama. They buried much of the gold. Under pursuit, they traversed eighteen miles of jungle-covered mountains to get to their boats. Unfortunately the boats were gone. Drake and two survivors sailed a raft back to the ship. By the way, unlike in the movie, Drake’s pursuers would not have had flintlock muskets and pistols.

      Thorpe being condemned to row a galley is not ridiculous. The Spanish did rely on convicts to row their galleys. It seems unlikely if Drake had ever been captured that he would have ended up behind an oar.

CRITIQUE: “The Sea Hawk” is definitely an old school swashbuckler, but it holds up well. The music is grand and fits the movie like a glove. It is one of the most acclaimed scores from that era. Erich Wolfgang Korngold had earlier won for a similar effort in Flynn’s “Robin Hood”. The cinematography is excellent. The costumes are wonderful. ( They were reused from the Curtiz/Flynn “The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Exeter”.) The supporting cast is great, especially Robson. Alan Hale plays Thorpe’s first mate Carl Pitt and flirts with Una O’Connor as Maria’s handmaid. (They had similar roles in “Robin Hood”.) Flynn is at the top of his game which means he overshadows Brenda Marshall, but what do you expect? The sword fights are a bit disappointing, but the dialogue is better than average for this type of movie.

     The battle scene is one of the best and had an obvious influence on “Master and Commander”. Contrasting the two scenes from these movies that were made more than sixty years apart shows how technology gives modern movies an advantage, but gives you an appreciation for what Curtiz was able to accomplish with a lot less.

     The movie is not meant to be a history lesson. None the less, it gets the big picture fairly close and certainly does not claim to be more than pop corn entertainment. For anyone not familiar with Elizabeth and the Sea Dogs, you get a taste for their role in provoking Philip to send the Invincible Armada.

CONCLUSION: This is a fun movie. It is classic action/adventure and holds up surprisingly well. There are no sour notes. It is consistently strong across the board. Unlike recent members of the Greatest 100, “The Sea Hawk” is comfortable in the war movie genre. I would have to say that unlike some movies I have reviewed lately, this one is fairly placed at #48.

CHICK WAR FLICK: Hanover Street

2011-10-04T22:01:00.000-05:00

     This is the second on my wife and my journey through wartime romances. After Harrison Ford completed “Star Wars”, he made the dubious decision to sandwich in a war romance before playing Indiana Jones. The film entitled “Hanover Street” was released in 1979. It is your typical two soldiers are vying for the same girl plot.

      The movie opens in London in 1943 on Hanover Street. .A brash young American pilot named Halloran (Ford) bumps into and falls in lust for a perky British lass (Lesley Anne-Down). They get to know each other over tea. She is very reluctant to take the encounter further. They get separated during a daylight bombardment (in 1943?), then find each other for a kiss. It’s a ridiculous scene with sappy music and cheesy special effects. Halloran insists they meet at the same place two weeks later. Margaret says no.

     Halloran is a B-25 pilot and the movie uses five authentic Mitchell’s for the flight scenes. (Probably the same planes used in "Catch-22.) His crew includes Richard Masur offering a welcome dose of comic relief as a chicken bombardier. He belongs in "Catch-22" also. On this mission, Halloran plays the hard-ass who insists on completing the bombing run despite engine damage. When Halloran goes back to Hanover Street, Margaret appears in spite of her best efforts. She can’t help herself and they are soon in bed for one of those montages of groping arms and arching backs Hollywood likes in PG movies.

     It turns out that Margaret is happily married to a proper British gentleman named Paul (Christopher Plummer) and they have a precocious daughter. Paul is part of British intelligence and is training a man to go behind enemy lines to steal a list of double agents from Gestapo headquarters in Lyons. Meanwhile, the hard-core Halloran decides that he likes sex with Margaret so much that he should not risk it for something silly like a bombing mission. He begins to hear engine noises forcing them to scrub their mission. Guess what happens to the bomber that takes their place?

     Halloran’s commander, who despises his cynicism, “volunteers” him for the special mission of dropping Paul’s man near Lyons. Would it shock you to learn that Paul has decided to prove his manhood by going on the mission himself? It’s a small world (war). Wouldn’t you know it, the bomber is hit over France and all the crew is killed except Halloran and Paul! They parachute and hide in a barn where they witness a woman kill an amorous German soldier. She’s with the Resistance and thus can help them with their mission. Halloran has by now decided to not let this jolly good chap down. The two, disguised as a German officer and his aide case the Gestapo records room and then return for the heist. They acquire the papers in a scene that stretches credulity no more than every other WWII spy movie. They get away in a chase that features obvious Nazi crash test dummies.

     Back at the barn, Paul gushes over his wife and shows Halloran a picture of you-know-who and now so does Halloran. With the entire German army closing in, they hop a motorcycle ala Hilts in “The Great Escape” and jump a canyon (take that McQueen!). They end up on a foot bridge which collapses leaving Halloran clasping the arm of the wounded and soon to plummet, plucky Paul. It would be so easy to let Paul go and have Margaret to himself. What would you do, guys? (Ladies, stay out of this) This is Hollywood, not reality, so Halloran saves Paul saying “You die on me, I’ll kill you”. (A line written by Moe Howard.) Who gets the girl? You’ll have to sit through the movie to find out.

     Rachelle liked the movie, mainly due to the actors involved. The main actors had good chemistry. It was a bit slow moving in the beginning. The mission was implausible, but if you are able to suspend logic it is satisfactory. The romance was saccharine, but the upholding of moral values was refreshing. The movie is not graphic in its violence and there are no curse words to offend anyone.

     From a guy’s point of view, this is not a very good movie. The acting is average, although Lesley Anne-Down is lovely. Some of the dialogue is silly and I doubt Harrison Ford lists this film as one of his prouder moments. The special effects are below average and although the film has developed a reputation for having good aerial scenes, I found them to be unnoteworthy. The whole special mission is suspense-challenged and the chases are forgettable. The twists necessary to put this love triangle together, and resolve it in a way that the trio all enhance their Pearly Gates resumes, turn the plot into a pretzel.

     Guys, reward your significant other for her having to watch all those testosterone movies by enduring this estrogen flick. Keep your sighs and chuckles to a minimum please.

Rachelle - 6/10

Kevin - 4/10

SHOULD I READ IT? The Army of Crime

2011-09-30T22:21:00.000-05:00

“The Army of Crime” is a war movie that fits firmly into the French Resistance sub-genre. It is a French movie directed by Robert Guediguian. He intended it to be an homage to the FTP-MOI branch of the French Resistance. This group consisted mainly of Communist immigrants who conducted missions to kill Nazis in Paris in 1943.

The movie opens with a preview of the end. Members of the group are on their way to torture and execution by the Gestapo. This probably worked well with a French audience which I assume knows the sad result of the Affiche Rouge affair, but for me it ended the suspense of who would survive. The rest of the movie is a flashback to how they got to that police van.

Marcel takes out another Nazi

     The movie follows several characters who eventually link up to work together. The leading character is an intellectual Armenian poet named Missak Manouchian (Simon Abkarian) who has a dedicated wife Melinee (Virginie Ledoyen). We first meet him as he is released from Gestapo captivity after he signs a document recanting his communism. Thomas (Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet) is a Jewish student who joins the movement and brings a bomb to a party (in a hollowed out copy of Das Kapital, naturally) full of Nazi officers. Marcel (Robinson Stevenin) is a Jew whose father has been deported. He takes vengeance by offering German soldiers cigarettes and then shooting them. He is a loose cannon, but does not dispute this. They hook up when Manouchian forms a group to carry out terrorist activities.

     At first, Missak refuses to kill, but it does not take long for him to get his hands dirty. In a cool scene, he throws a grenade in the midst of some marching German soldiers and then Marcel finishes them off. Later, the group attacks a bus in an orgy of quick and efficient violence.

     The movie is consistently somber, but there is some levity in a scene where the crew plans to use a grenade to blow up a brothel frequented by Germans. The first guy returns after refusing to kill teenage prostitutes, then shockingly Marcel wimps out as well. To make matters comical, they lose the grenade pin and have to go home to Melinee to get a sewing needle to disarm the bomb.

     Their run of luck ends when Marcel’s girlfriend is bribed by the evil French policeman into ratting out the gang. The various members are rounded up with Missak unrealistically going down without a fight even though he must know he will be tortured and killed. Only Melinee survives. The Nazis put out a poster (Affiche Rouge) to discredit them as communist troublemakers. The title of the film comes from an accusation from the poster.

      “Army of Crime” is fairly accurate. The three main characters are actual historical figures and are realistically portrayed. Most of the violent episodes are based on actual events., but I found no evidence for the brothel grenade scene. It also appears that the traitorous girlfriend and her police paramour subplot was fictionalized. More disturbing, it seems that Manouchian was actually the one who turned in the others under torture. The executions and poster are based on fact. One controversial aspect of the film is the accusation that Guediguian makes that the French authorities considered the Communist Resistance to be a bigger threat than the Nazis and thus collaborated with the Germans. The French police are bigger villains in the movie than the Gestapo. The French public is depicted as apathetic about German occupation and even upset with the boat-rocking FTO-MOI. There is also the implication that the ethnicity of the group played a role in their lack of support from average French people. Ironically, these “foreigners” were more interested in dying for “liberte, egalite, fraternite” than the French were. It may be exaggerated, but it feels authentic.

     I liked this movie much more than the similarly themed “Army of Shadows”. It does not drag and the action sequences are well-paced. The cinematography is crisp in color. The acting is very good, especially Abkarian and Stevinin. The production design and costumes take us back to wartime Paris.

OVERALL - 9/10

#49 - The Searchers

2011-09-25T21:14:00.000-05:00

BACK-STORY: “The Searchers” is a “war” movie based on the eponymous novel by Alan LeMay. It was released in 1956 toward the end of the great period of black and white Westerns and is considered by many to be the best movie of that genre. It is marked by peak performances by director John Ford and his perennial star, John Wayne. Shockingly, although the film did well at the box office, it did not get a single Academy Award nomination. The casting was interesting. Natalie Wood’s sister plays the younger Debbie. Natalie was still in high school at the time of filming and you can imagine the stir when Wayne and/or Jeffery Hunter would sometimes come to pick her up at school. Fess Parker of “Davy Crockett” fame was set to play the Martin Pawley role, but Disney would not allow him to. He later said it was the biggest loss of his career. Buddy Holly got the idea for the title of his hit “That’ll Be the Day” from the oft used line in the movie.

OPENING: The film opens in 1868 Texas. A typical old cowboy song plays over the credits. We view the Texas prairie from through a doorway (a frequent motif in the movie) and then the camera moves outside to greet the return of Uncle Ethan (Wayne). This scene sets the theme of the indoors representing civilization and the outdoors standing for savagery. Ethan has been gone for several years. He was on the losing side in the Civil War, but is unreconciled. Where he has been since the end of the war is unclear, but he has a Mexican medal (which he gives to Debbie) and a lot of gold coins. Ethan is out of place in his brother’s home (civilization) and it is obvious from body language that there was something between Ethan and his sister-in-law Martha. Another interesting dynamic is the family had adopted a boy rescued from the Indians by Ethan. Because Martin (Hunter) is part Indian, Ethan is cold towards him which is our first inkling that Ethan is a racist. At one point he calls Martin “blankethead”.

SUMMARY: A posse of Texas Rangers led by Capt. Samuel Clayton (Ward Bond) arrives searching for some cattle thieves. Ethan and Martin join the group. They discover that the culprits are Comanche raiders on a “murder raid” and they have been drawn away from the farm. As Martin spurs his horse back, Ethan stops to rest his horse knowing it’s a long (and probably fruitless) return. He is accompanied by an addled Mose (Hank Worden).

The scene at the farm is fraught with omens. Dusk is coming in reddishly and faux bird calls pierce the air. Aaron and Martha know they are doomed. The emotions of the family vary by age and adulthood. Martha sends Debbie to hide in the family grave plot (next to the tombstone of Ethan’s mother who was killed by Indians). Soon she is covered by the shadow an Indian named Scar.

When Ethan arrives at the farm (he has passed up Martin who is afoot having run his horse to death) it is aflame and he finds what’s left of the family in a shed. What he sees is left to our imagination as the camera focuses on him looking in through the doorway.

look at his eye - acting!

Ethan, Martin, and Lucy’s (the elder daughter) beau go after the two girls. The Rangers are along, too. When they locate the Indian camp, Ethan wants to go charging in (seemingly unconcerned with the consequences to the captives). Clayton insists on using stealth which fails. The tables are turned with the Indians chasing the smaller group of Texans to the river. The Indians use the typical Hollywood tactic of a frontal attack across the river and are predictably mowed down by the repeating rifles. Ethan revels in the killing.

costarring Monument Valley

     The trio continue on alone and Ethan discovers Lucy’s body in a canyon. When Brad asks for details Ethan snarls “What do you want me to do – draw you a picture?!” Brad commits suicide by charging into the Indian camp. Once again our imagination is required as all we hear is a series of gunshots.

     Time passes and Ethan and Marty return to Brad’s parent’s home. Brad’s sister Lori (Vera Miles) has been pining for her childhood sweetheart although Martin seems clueless about their unofficial betrothal. Brad’s parents have taken his death stoically – they are frontier folk. Ethan tries to leave Martin behind, but Martin insists on coming along because he fears what Ethan will do when he finds Debbie. A trader gives Ethan information about Scar’s whereabouts. That night Ethan sets up Martin as bait for the inevitable campfire ambush by the trader and his cronies. Ethan kills the three.

     Some comic relief is thrown in as Martin accidentally “purchases” an Indian wife. Ethan gets a big kick out of this, Lori does not. The wife runs off when they ask her about Scar and later they find her dead body in a village that has been sacked by the U.S. Cavalry. The white girls rescued by the Cavalry are all mentally scarred by their experience as captives, but none are Debbie.

Martin shields Debbie

A Mexican leads them to Scar’s camp to parley and trade. Scar recognizes them as his pursuers and makes a point of showing scalps he has taken to avenge the killings of his sons by whites. It turns out he is a racist, too. Guess who one of his wives is? Except she is not looking like a typical captive. In fact, she looks like she is going to a Halloween costume party dressed as a sexy squaw. Ethan and Martin play it cool and camp nearby. Debbie comes out to meet them to urge them to go. She is content with her situation. Ethan wants to shoot her. Martin shields her with his body and an Indian hits Ethan with an invisible poison arrow. The duo flee and take refuge in a cave where they beat off, you guessed it - a frontal attack. (Indians don’t sneak up on surrounded and outnumbered enemies in most Westerns.) So close and yet so far, they return to the Jorgenson’s.

Lori is fixing to get hitched to a rube named Charlie (Ken Curtis). The traditions of frontier weddings is depicted quaintly. Naturally, Marty and Charlie have to settle this with a fist fight because this is a Western and two guys cannot share one girl. Ethan is about to be arrested for the “murder” of the trader, when word arrives that Scar is camped nearby. Ethan, the Texas Rangers, and the Cavalry (led by Patrick Wayne) head for the camp.

CLOSE: The whites plan an attack at dusk. Ethan hopes Debbie is killed in the attack. Martin sneaks in early to try to save her. He finds her in Scar’s tipi and she agrees to go. This is an unexplained change of heart from the last time they saw her. Scar appears in the doorway and in an anticlimactic moment, Martin shoots him. Done. The gunshot initiates the assault on the village which catches the Indians sleeping, but appears to result in no casualties for either side. Ethan chases Debbie to a cave. She is doomed as her psychotic uncle catches up, but he lifts her in her arms and says “Let’s go home, Debbie.” All those who expected John Wayne to kill his niece in cold blood will be disappointed. In the iconic closing scene, Debbie is taken into the bosom of the Jorgenson home and Ethan is left standing on the porch. Still not civilization-worthy nor wanting to be.

RATINGS:

Acting - 8

Action - 7

Accuracy - 8

Realism - 6

Plot - 8

Overall - 8

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? It depends on whether they enjoy Westerns. ”The Searchers” is well-balanced. The plot includes some female roles and some gentle humor. Two men fight over the same woman. Women love that. The action is not graphic. The themes should be interesting for women.

Cynthia Ann Parker

Natalie Wood as Debbie

ACCURACY: I was surprised to find that “The Searchers” is based on a true story or stories. Author LeMay did his research on Indian captivities. The one that most closely corresponds to the movie is the story of Cynthia Ann Parker (which happens to be the most famous one). Parker was nine years old when she was taken by the Comanche in 1836. She was taken among others when the Indians took Fort Parker in Texas. Her uncle spent the rest of his life and his fortune searching for her. She was treated much worse than Debbie was apparently treated in the movie. The treatment included torture, but like Debbie she was eventually married to a chief. Unlike Debbie, she gave birth to three children, one of whom became the famous Quanah Parker (the last great Comanche leader). She was not “rescued” until twenty-four years later when Texas Rangers attacked her village. Uncle Parker was not with them, but she was soon reunited with him. She was unhappy living in civilization and once escaped only to be “rescued” again. From the pictures, she does not look like Natalie Wood. Surprise! Another surprising historical accuracy is the loony Mose character. There actually was a half-crazy Mad Mose in Texas who had the reputation of being an Indian fighter and rocking chair lover. By the way, in the book at the end Debbie runs away from the village and Martin only catches up to her days later after she has collapsed from exhaustion.

CRITIQUE: “The Searchers” is a great Western. It has all the ingredients of a classic. The music fits the movie well. So do the typical Ford touches of humor. The directing is robust with Ford at the top of his game. His use of doorways to frame his theme of civilization versus savagery is genius. It’s not the bullshit of an auteur. It is obvious what he is trying to say and you wait for the next use of the motif and nod that you get it. The opening and closing of the movie with the doorway imagery makes it clear you have seen something special. The cinematography is amazing with Monument Valley standing in magnificently for Texas. The outdoors may symbolize savagery, but savagery has never looked so awesome. Admittedly, some of the sound stage scenes have a phony look, but they seem to enhance the scenes set in Monument Valley.

The acting is strong across the board and is anchored by what most consider to be Wayne’s greatest performance (and his personal favorite). Wayne was notorious for avoiding roles that were not heroic, but he made an exception for Ethan (a similar exception was made for “Red River”). Ethan is an anti-hero predating the vogue of the sixties. Ethan’s racism and abhorrence of miscegenation was typical of a majority of white frontiersmen of the time, but still a daring portrayal for the Duke. One has to add, however, that the offensiveness of the character is diluted in the abrupt acceptance of Debbie when he “rescues” her. It appears that Wayne and Ford could only go so far in amending their previous depictions of the West and the Indians. I guess they were willing to settle for Purgatory instead of Heaven.

The supporting actors are good and for lovers of old Westerns have a familiar vibe. Jeffery Hunter is only singed a bit by Wayne’s volatile performance. He does not embarrass himself. Ward Bond, Harry Carey, Jr., Ken Curtis, and Hank Worden are solid, as you would expect. It was probably a fun movie to make.

Martha and her brother-in-law

The best thing about the movie is it is not the usual white hat/horse hero versus either bad guys or Indians. Don’t get me wrong, Scar is a classic villain. But Ford throws in the fact that he is avenging his murdered sons when he takes scalps. This mirrors the motivation of his foe Ethan. Speaking of Ethan, he is a fascinating character. The movie makes you think about issues deeper than your average Western. Should I empathize with an obvious racist? If my mother and the love of my life (Martha) were killed by Indians, would I feel the same obsession with vengeance? What is harder to empathize with is Ethan’s primitive take on miscegenation. It is hard for our tolerant society to fathom why Ethan would search for years for Debbie seemingly just so he could kill her for sleeping with a “buck”. The movie does not make it clear whether Ethan is principally motivated by revenge for Martha’s death or the purifying of his family name by eliminating Debbie. It is interesting to consider what would have happened if Scar had traded Debbie to another tribe. Who would Ethan have searched for then? Critics have introduced the intriguing theory that Debbie is actually Ethan’s daughter (the timing of her birth makes this possible). This just makes his objective more fascinating.

CONCLUSION: While certainly a great movie and possibly the best Western ever made, “The Searchers” is not even close to being a war movie. The editors of Military History magazine should not have included any movie that is a war movie second, another genre first. If they truly felt it was a war movie, it should have been ranked much higher (a similar situation to “Casablanca”).

the trailer

the opening scene

SHOULD I READ IT? Army of Shadows

2011-09-21T19:30:00.000-05:00

     “Army of Shadows” (“L’Armee des Ombres”) is a French movie by acclaimed director Jean-Pierre Melville. It is based on the 1943 novel of the same name by French Resistance member Joseph Kessel. Originally released in 1969, it was hammered by the French critics for its supposed pro-De Gaulle slant. The backlash ended its chances for U.S. distribution until its reissue in 2006. It became a critical darling and made many critics’ Top Ten lists. Some had it as the best movie of 2006.

     The movie opens with a German band marching through the Arc de Triomphe in a long shot toward the stationary camera. (This scene was originally placed at the end of the film.) Nice start. It is October, 1942 and we meet the main character Gerbier (Lino Ventura) who is under arrest for Resistance activities. He is one cool customer. When he is transferred to Gestapo headquarters, he stabs the only guard and escapes. (This will not be the last implausible thing to happen in this movie.) Gerbier is part of a Resistance cell. Their lives are in constant danger, but they patriotically take it in stride. They live by a code and of course the worst violation of the code is to rat on one’s comrades. In one scene, they strangle a traitor because they cannot use a gun. Powerful.

     Gerbier recruits a young hot shot pilot named Jardie (Jean-Pierre Cassel). He joins the group that includes agents with cool nicknames like Le Masque and Le Bison. Unfortunately, Gerbier’s best friend Lepercq (Paul Crauchet) gets arrested while Gerbier is in England consulting with the British. He returns, parachuting from one of the most fake airplanes in cinema history. Mathilde (a matronly Simone Signoret) has a plan to rescue Lepercq from deep in Gestapo headquarters. Piece of cake, right? Meanwhile, Jardie takes it upon himself to get arrested hoping that the Germans will suspend logic and put him in the same cell as Lepercq. Mission accomplished! Mathilde’s rescue squad arrives disguised as an ambulance crew, but Lepercq has been tortured to the point of death and he can’t be taken so all this is for nothing. WTF? (And by the way, Jardie’s arrest plays no role in the success or failure of the plan.)

Gerbier (Lino Ventura) trying to stay awake

     Later, Gerbier is picked up in a routine raid. He and others are to be executed, but not by firing squad and before he can be tortured like Lepercq (wait, what?) It is not a simple execution thankfully. The victims are told to run down a corridor while a machine gun fires at them from behind. Luckily, Gerbier decides to be a coward and run instead of taking it like a man. I say lucky because Mathilde has somehow learned of the exact time of this bizarre event and is stationed on the roof of the corridor which conveniently has an opening for her to toss some smoke bombs to blind the machine gun and a rope to hoist Gerbier to safety. I am not making this up. Critics undoubtedly fawned over the lighting in this scene.

     Gerbier is whisked to a safe house where he must lay low for an incredibly long and boring time. Go use the bathroom and take a nap during this part of the film which feels like it is taking place in real time. While watching the paint dry in the house, Gerbier is visited by Le Grande Fromage who tells him Mathilde has turned her coat to protect her daughter. The code deems her death-worthy and so they do a drive-by on her. A post script tells us she is not the only one of our less-than-merry band to not collect their French Resistance pensions. This is not a feel good movie.

     I sometimes disagree with critics, but seldom as vociferously as with this movie. This movie is boring! It drags and is way too long. Some scenes seem to move at a snail’s pace. It is pretentious (which may explain some of the critical acclaim). It also has some ridiculous scenes which I have to assume were the author’s attempt to jazz up a novel that was supposedly about true events. I will admit the acting is good and the cinematography is well done, but that does not overcome the plot (or in this case, the plod). The incredible thing is I am way out on a limb on this one. Virtually no critic had anything bad to say about it. Normally I would admit I need to watch it again, but I’d rather take my chances trying to outrace a machine gun down a long corridor.

4/10

FORGOTTEN GEM? Birdy

2011-09-17T22:37:00.000-05:00

“Birdy” is a different kind of war movie. It was directed by Alan Parker and is based on the novel by William Wharton (the novel is set in WWII). It has an interesting soundtrack by Peter Gabriel. It was awarded the Grand Prize of the Jury at Cannes in 1985. In spite of critical acclaim, it is virtually unknown and made less than $2 million at the box office. It is one of the best examinations of the mental and physical aftermaths of war.

The film is the story of two friends who go off to the Vietnam War and return scarred. Al (Nicholas Cage), who has facial wounds, visits his best friend Birdy (Matthew Modine) in a mental hospital and tries to break through to him. Birdy thinks he is a bird and is unresponsive. There is a striking shot of Birdy perched on his bed.

      During their sessions, the movie flashs back to events in their friendship. The vignettes are endearing and include rebuilding an old car and working as dog catchers until they find out the dogs and being made into food. It quickly becomes clear that although Al is an typical urban youth, Birdy is quite strange. He is obsessed with birds and even makes wings and tries to fly! (How did this guy make it into the Army?) The movie includes a remarkable sequence of Birdy dreaming he is flying around. We see this from a bird’s eye view accompanied by cool Gabriel music. This was the first use of a skycam in a feature film. It is the most memorable scene in the movie.

     The flashbacks from Vietnam are less effective. There is a confusing scene where Al gets wounded and is on the same helicopter as Birdy. Since they went to war separately, this seems a major coincidence. The copter is shot down and the area is napalmed, but we do not find out what happened to Birdy. The ending is equally weird and I won’t give it away, but it has justly been criticized for not fitting the film.

      Forgotten gem? While not a gem, this movie deserves to be seen. It’s a bit bizarre, but it holds your attention. The two leads are better than you would think. They were early in their careers, but you can see the potential. You get the good Nick Cage in this one. It is surprising that he has the less hammy role. Supposedly Modine read for Al, but was given the Birdy role by the director. It is intriguing to imagine how the film would be with the roles reversed. Modine is excellent in a physically demanding role. He does take on the mannerisms of a bird. Most importantly, you care about these two young men.

#51 - The Informer

2011-09-13T21:36:00.000-05:00

BACK-STORY: “The Informer” is a movie about the Irish Republican Army set in Dublin in 1922. It won John Ford his first Oscar for Best Director. It was based on the novel by Liam O’Flaherty. It was released in 1935 and although not a box office hit, it was critically acclaimed. It was nominated for Best Picture (losing to “Mutiny on the Bounty”). It won for Actor (Victor McLaglen), Screenplay (Dudley Nichols), Score (Max Steiner), and Director. The studio did not want to make the picture because of its depressing nature. When the execs were convinced that Ford was worth the risk, they insisted that he stay under a $250,000 budget. Ford gave up his salary, shot the film in 17 days and brought it in around $243,000.

OPENING: Gypo Owen (McLaglen) sees a wanted poster for his best friend Frankie McPhillip (Wallace Ford). He rips the poster down. The wind-blown poster will reappear in scenes coming up. British soldiers called “Tans” rove the streets intimidating the Irish. Gypo is down on his luck. He was recently kicked out of the IRA because he refused to execute a Tan. Frankie meets Gypo in a flop house and mentions he is going to sneak home to see his mum and sister. Gypo is tempted to claim the reward for Frankie because his girlfriend Katie (Margot Grahame) has turned to prostitution and dreams of starting a new life in America.

SUMMARY: Gypo succumbs to temptation and the fact that he is a dumb ox. He goes to the police station and rats out Frankie for the 20 pound reward. The Tans catch Frankie at his mother’s house and kill him in a fierce gun battle. Gypo, wracked with grief, buys some whiskey and starts a binge to end all binges. (Being Irish his alcohol consumption is remarkable only in its extreme quantity.) He lies to Katie, telling her he robbed a sailor for the new-found money.

"My best friend is worth 20 pounds!"

Gypo goes to Frankie’s wake to try to look innocent, but being drunk and stupid and suddenly flush with cash is not a good combination for him. It does not take Sherlock Holmes to solve this case. He is called to see the local IRA commander, a man named Gallagher (Preston Foster). He is told he will be reinstated if he helps find the informer. It’s clear they suspect him, so he fingers a patsy named Mulligan claiming he had a grudge against McPhillip.

"Fish and chips, on me!"

     By this time the prodigious drinking has made Gypo careless and belligerent. He knocks out a snob and then a cop, but he buys the love of the crowd with fish and chips. That 20 pounds is going fast. Next Gypo and a sychophant visit a “gentleman’s club” that is not a brothel because all the girls are wearing hats. (The hats were Ford’s way of getting around the censors.) More money slips away. It’s rapidly approaching the point where Gypo and Katie will not be able to afford a cab ride across town, much less a trip to America.

     Gypo is summoned to a board of inquiry hosted by Gallagher. He accuses the befuddled Mulligan, but he has an alibi. The court turns its attention to the obviously guilty Gypo and he confesses after some grilling. He is thrown in a cell while Gallagher’s henchmen draw straws to see who will shoot him. The quivering, short straw drawer lets Gypo escape. He goes to Katie’s room. They’ll never look for him there, right? When Gallagher and McPhillip’s sister (Heather Angel – nominated for Best Actress) arrive, Katie pleas for forgiveness. No dice.

CLOSING: Gypo emerges from hiding and fights his way out only to be shot three times on the doorstep by one of Gallagher’s men. The bullets go through his clothing without leaving holes! The executioner conveniently does not stick around for any last words. Gypo stumbles into the nearby church where he finds Mrs. McPhillip and gets her forgiveness before he dies.

RATINGS:

Acting - 7

Action - 5

Accuracy - 8

Realism – 6

Plot - 6

Overall - 5

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Possibly. There are some strong female characters. The violence is tame. It is firmly PG-rated. If they don’t like war movies, no problem here.

ACCURACY: The movie is set in the Irish War of Independence. This conflict began in 1919. The Irish Republican Army conducted a guerrilla war against the British authorities. Those authorities included the Temporary Constables, better known as the “Black and Tans” (or simply “Tans” in the movie). They were mostly WWI veterans recruited for counterinsurgency in Ireland. Not surprisingly, atrocity was met by atrocity as in all guerrilla wars. Both sides were big on reprisals. The Tans did pay for information and given the nature of the conflict, informers were not uncommon. Although the movie is not based on a true story, it could have happened. We can assume some of the informers were alcoholic dumbasses.

     The war lasted until 1921 when the Anglo-Irish Treaty was negotiated giving southern Ireland its independence and retaining Northern Ireland for the United Kingdom. At this point conflict broke out within the IRA between the pro and anti-treaty forces. And, of course, the insurgency moved into Northern Ireland. This would seem to indicate that either the timing or the location of the movie is historically inaccurate. It is set in Dublin in 1922. It should have been set in Belfast in 1922 or Dublin in 1921. This is a minor quibble, but still a perplexing mistake.

CRITIQUE: The movie is very dark and foggy. It takes place in one night and a foggy one at that. This fits the mood of betrayal central to the plot. It is impossible to imagine the movie being set in the daytime. Gypo is essentially Judas turning in his friend for 20 pounds instead of 30 pieces of silver. We sympathize with Gypo because he is a likable lug, but in some ways he is more despicable than Judas. At least Judas did his treachery out of misguided principle and committed suicide when the consequences dawned on him. Gypo is motivated by desire for the money and to impress a lady. He compounds his sin by fingering an innocent man. The movie makes it clear that the decision to turn in Frankie was spur of the moment and much of the subsequent actions are based on the effects of alcohol. I wonder if the movie would have been stronger if Gypo’s actions were not tainted by drunkenness.

     The acting is good with McLaglen the standout. However, I do not think his performance warranted an Oscar. It is a bit hammy. According to legend, Ford got this performance out of McLaglen through tricks like telling him he would have the day off knowing he would get drunk and then suddenly putting him in front of the cameras with a raging hangover. These tales are probably apochryphal. McLaglen made twelve movies for Ford and Ford once said that being drunk made it impossible to play a drunk. No doubt a sober McLaglen could play a drunk from experience. I know one thing, if McLaglen was drinking real whiskey during the filming, he would have died of alcohol poisoning! Gypo was super Irish.

      If I was covering this movie as part of my “Classic or Antique?” series, I would have to consign it to the antique bin. It is quaint. The acting is stereotypical. The death of Gypo sans blood or bullet holes is expected, but ridiculous. The fights are fake with missed punches. The city looks like Hollywood’s idea of an Irish town. The old school atmospherics and score hold up well, but overall the movie does not.

CONCLUSION: I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but this is another movie that does not belong on the list because it is not a war movie and it is not even very good.

SHOULD I READ IT? The Counterfeiters

2011-09-08T20:53:00.001-05:00

“The Counterfeiters” is a war movie made in Germany and released in 2007. It was directed by Stefan Ruzowitzky. It is based on a memoir by Holocaust survivor Adolf Burger entitled The Devil’s Workshop. It is a true story revolving around the S.S. forging operation called “Operation Bernhard”.

Operation Bernard

The main character is Salomon “Sally” Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics) who is a successful forger in Berlin before the war. He gets arrested and is sentenced to a concentration camp where his artistic ability gets him a job as a painter. After five years, the cop who originally arrested him gets him transferred to Sachsenhausen to participate in a secret counterfeiting operation called “Operation Bernhard”. Friedrich Herzog (Devid Striesow) is now an S.S. officer who is in charge of the counterfeiting the British pound note to help finance the Nazi war effort and cause economic problems in England. The skilled Jews are given special treatment by Herzog as an incentive to get the job done. They are also separated from the rest of the camp.

Adolf Burger (August Deihl)

Sally quickly discovers that the survival of the entire group depends on results. Since survival is the main goal of all inmates and the treatment is good, there would seem to be no conflict. However, Sally inconveniently develops a conscience whereas he had previously been a narcissist. In two separate incidents he saves inmates from being shot. He helps perfect the pound and Herzog rewards the men with a ping pong table. Herzog moves them on to forging the dollar and Sally sees this as his greatest challenge. Plus creation of the dollar means survival for them all.

      Sally’s friendship with Adolf Burger (August Diehl) complicates matters. Burger correctly deduces that “Operation Bernhard” is helping the Nazi war effort. If the Nazis win the war and they have helped, that is worse than surviving. He tries to convince Sally to sabotage the dollar effort. Sally does not completely come over to his view, but does delay the completion until it’s too late for Germany. With the Russians just down the road, the Nazis pull out, abandoning the camp. Sally catches Herzog trying to leave with thousands of dollars he has hidden. Sally beats him up, but lets him go – without the money.

     “The Counterfeiters” is an admirably accurate film. Burger served as technical adviser on the film and was very hands-on.. “Operation Bernhard” is considered the largest counterfeiting operation in history. It was headed by Bernhard Kruger (Herzog in the film). Kruger was apparently a relatively benevolent Nazi as depicted in the film. (Striesow plays him as a yuppie who is more concerned with money than ideology.) He was not condemned for war crimes after the war and actually had several of the forgers testify on his behalf (although Burger insists he was a murderer). Obviously Burger’s character is true to life and so is Sorowitsch. The acting is outstanding, especially by Diehl and Markovics.

     This is not your typical Holocaust movie. The Jews are treated much better than we are used to seeing and although there is always the threat of violence, it seldom materializes. Even the rebellious Burger does not face the consequences of his sabotaging. The movie is suspenseful and thought provoking with its theme of conscience versus survival, but it does not truly explore this theme. This is the rare case of an historical movie where I would argue it would have been better if it had veered from the facts for dramatic effect. The truth is that the forgers know that the Allies are going to win the war so they know perfecting the dollar will have no impact on who wins. For this reason, there is no real conflict between survival and helping the Nazis. They can delay the finished product, but they never have to make the ultimate decision whether to complete the project. The movie would have had a stronger punch if it had left this knowledge of Germany’s situation out and fully debated whether survival under these circumstances was justified.

8/10

#52 - Beau Geste

2011-09-04T09:46:00.000-05:00

BACK-STORY: This is the 1939 version of the oft-made action/adventure film. Obviously it is considered to be best version. It is based on the novel by Percival Christopher Wren. The book was aimed at the teenage boy in all of us and the movie puts this to film. It was one of the first movies to link war and adventure. But in an entertaining twist, the book and film add a dash of mystery. It explores the themes of loyalty, duty, and honor. The movie was a big hit and helped launch the subgenre of the French Foreign Legion film. It is unique in that it features four actors that would subsequently win Oscars as Best Actors or Actresses (Cooper, Milland, Crawford, and Hayward). Interestingly, considering that line-up, the acting honors in “Beau Geste” go to Brian Donlevy as the sadistic Markoff. He was nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

OPENING: A preface tells us this will be a manly movie by quoting an Arab proverb: “The love of a man for a woman waxes and wanes like the moon… but the love of brother for brother is steadfast as the stars and endures like the word of the prophet…” The opening scene is famous. A French Foreign Legion unit comes to Fort Zindernauf in the Algerian desert to find the ramparts manned by corpses. The bugler scales the wall, but then disappears. The Major enters the fort to find everyone dead and one clutching a note confessing to the theft of a precious jewel. Gunshots cause the unit to retire to a nearby oasis before the mystery can be solved.

SUMMARY: We flash back fifteen years earlier. The Geste brothers are playing naval war with some really nice wooden ship models. They are being raised in the upper class after being orphaned. Their benefactor Lady Brandon is in financial distress because of her wayward, spendthrift husband, but this does not stop the boys from reenacting a Viking funeral by torching one of the models. Beau avows that he wants to go that way when his time comes. Foreshadowing, anyone?

Digby, Beau, Isabel, and John

Flash forward to the boys as young gentlemen. Beau (Gary Cooper) and Digby (Robert Preston) are gallant mouse catchers, but can’t bring themselves to kill anything cute. John (Ray Milland) is in love with Lady Brandon’s niece Isabel (Susan Hayward). Word arrives that Lord Brandon is coming to get the famed “Blue Water” sapphire to sell it. Beau asks Aunt Patricia for one last look at it and as they gather around, the lights suddenly go out and so does the sapphire. None of the boys will take responsibility, but the next morn, Beau is gone leaving a note confessing to it. Digby follows him into the French Foreign Legion. John lingers a bit, but the bonds of brotherhood overcome the bonds of love and he says farewell to Isabel to find them.

John (Milland), Beau (Cooper), and Digby (Preston)

     John arrives at the training depot where Beau and Digby are already proud legionnaires defending “millions of unfortunates” in the name of French colonialism. The new recruits are greeted by the 1939 equivalent of R. Lee Ermey. Sgt. Madoff (Brian Donleavy) calls them scum and vows to make them into men – yadda, yadda.

     It is still unclear who stole the jewel, but a slimeball named Rasinoffe overhears the Gestes discussing it and rats them out to Markoff. Markoff arranges to have Beau and John sent to remote Fort Zinderneuf where Markoff will be second in command. With the commanding officer ill, Markoff runs the show. His solution to the desertion problem is to send the deserters back into the desert with no provisions. When the humane CO dies with is boots off from a fever, the company plots mutiny. Beau and John refuse to be mutineers because it is dishonorable. Markoff gets wind of the rebellion and disarms the rebels. He is about to force Beau and John to execute them when the fort comes under attack from the Tuareg (Berbers). It seems these villainous ingrates don’t like having a foreign fort in their land. Don’t they want to be Christianized and civilized?

     Everyone mans the battlements. Remarkably, none of the mutineers decides to avoid execution by “accidentally” shooting Markoff in the back. Maybe they figure that would only make him angrier. Neither side ever misses a shot so there are a lot of Tuareg horses flopping and legionnaires dropping. Markoff is in his element and sees himself decorated for this last stand. He actually is a good leader and they do not question his orders. He comes up with the idea of putting the dead soldiers on the ramparts so the dim-witted Arabs will think the fort is fully manned. He literally places each man himself (exposing his fraggable back each time). He encourages the men by saying “the rest of the bullets you stop will not hurt as much as the first one.” Amazingly, none of the legionnaires is wounded. The Tuareg only use kill shots. No blood, no bullet holes = this is a pre-1960s movie.

     At one point, Markoff orders the men to all laugh to weaken the morale of the enemy. We are treated to one of the funniest deaths in war movie history as the hyena-laughing Rasinoffe is shot and then leaps (not falls) from the tower. By the time the enemy has had enough, Beau is wounded and only Markoff and John are intact. Markoff moves to rifle the “dead” Beau for the jewel and is about to shoot John when Beau throws off his aim allowing John to stab him. Beau dies in John’s arms after instructing him to leave the confession letter in Markoff’s hand. John flees the fort and the movie comes full circle with Digby (the bugler) arriving on the scene to find Beau’s body.

      Remembering Beau’s childhood dream, Digby gives Beau a Viking funeral complete with a dog (Markoff) at the foot of his byre (bed). John fires at the relief unit to get it to take refuge in the oasis. Digby joins John. Meanwhile, the cremation of Beau results in the torching of the fort. Beau and John hook up with two American legionnaire friends who have conveniently deserted conveniently with horses. They come to another oasis just as the quartet’s water has run out. Digby blows his bugle to chase off the Arabs, but a parting shot kills Digby. (Did I mention the Taureg are amazing shots?)

CLOSING: John is the only brother to return home which is fortunate for Isabel. He brings a letter for Aunt Pat from Beau. The mystery is solved. Beau had accidentally witnessed Lady Brandon selling the “Blue Water” years earlier to make ends meet. He stole the jewel to avoid her confrontation with Lord Brandon when he would have discovered the jewel in the case was a fake. What a beautiful gesture – “beau geste”.

RATINGS:

Acting - 9

Action - 7

Accuracy - not applicable

Realism - 5

Plot - 9

Overall - 9

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Definitely. The leads are dashing and likable. The violence is PG–rated. The mystery aspect makes it more than a one-dimensional war flick. Plus ladies are less likely to be distracted by some of the ridiculous plot twists than guys might.

ACCURACY: The book and movie are not based on any historical events or people. Surprise! I did discover that the Tuareg were not noted for using rifles. That is one of the reasons the French overcame them – superior firepower. The French Foreign Legion is accurately depicted in its cosmopolitan nature. The FFL was created in 1831 to enlist foreign nationals. The intent was to remove troublemakers from French society. Anyone enlisting was taken no questions asked. The mission of the FFL was to protect and expand the French colonial empire, but the army saw action in most wars that France got involved in. It was stationed in Algeria and is most famous for its pacification campaigns there.

CRITIQUE: “Beau Geste” is old school entertainment. Check your intellect at the door, it will get in the way of your enjoyment of the film. Don’t think too much about the details after viewing, it might wipe the smile off your face and replace it with a look of perplexion. For instance, did all the legionnaires die with their eyes open or did Markoff pry them open before putting them on the ramparts? Who turned off the light so Beau could steal the jewel or did he just take advantage of a sudden power failure?

     The movie is very well acted. You would expect that from this cast. It especially works because the trio of Cooper, Preston, and Milland are adept at comedy. Their chemistry is apparent. It looks like the actors had fun making the movie. Donlevy is unintentionally funny in his over the top malevolence. His is a command performance. Get it?

     The key to making the movie a classic is the mystery that is integral to the plot. This makes it a rare war movie that doubles as a whodunit. The mystery is well done and the resolution will surprise most viewers. The structure of flash-backs and flash-forwards greatly enhances the mystery. The foreshadowing does not give away the mystery, but meshes nicely with the conclusion. The movie also has its suspenseful moments and fits well in the “who will survive?” subgenre.

      The movie is well filmed. It was nominated for Art Direction. The fort is a realistic setting. The scenes in the Brandon mansion also give a taste for upper class British trappings. The dialogue is not as trite as in most 1930s movies.

CONCLUSION: I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Considering I love old movies, I had never seen it and now I wonder why. As those who follow this blog probably know, I do not fawn over the “classics”. Just because it’s old does not make it good and in fact, an old black and white movie had better be damn good to make up for the lack of technology and the unrealistic effects (e.g., no bullet holes, no blood). This is one movie that transcends those disadvantages. Plot and acting can do that. But mainly, the movie deserves to be in the Greatest 100 because it is so fun.

the trailer

Markoff and a ghost soldier

CRACKER? Miracle at St. Anna

2011-08-31T19:46:00.000-05:00

     When “Flags of Our Fathers” came out, director Spike Lee took Clint Eastwood to task for not portraying any black soldiers in his movie. At the time, Lee was in Cannes promoting his own WWII movie entitled “Miracle at St. Anna’s”. Lee had made the counter to movies like “Flags” which he feels overlook the African-American military contributions in WWII. It is based on the novel by James McBride (who wrote the screenplay). McBride sets his tale in Italy in 1944 and centers it around four members of the 92nd Division. The unit, known as the “Buffalo Soldiers”, was an all-black unit in the segregated Army.

     The movie opens in Harlem in 1983 with the murder of a man in a post office by a veteran. The cops find a famous Italian statue in the shooter’s apartment. In jail, Negron Laz Alonzo) cryptically tells a reporter “I know where the sleeping man lies.” Flash back to Italy in 1944. Negron’s unit, the 92nd Division, is attempting to breach the Gothic Line. An assault across the Serchio River ends limb-severing disastrously when their racist commander orders an artillery barrage that takes them under fire. Four survivors are caught behind enemy lines. They stereotypically mixed group consists of the average Juan (Negron), the playa (Cummings), the stolid Uncle Tom (Stamps), and the spiritual giant (Train). They hook up with a little boy who has an imaginary friend named Arturo. Train (Omar Benson Miller) takes the boy under his rather large wing and things he has religious powers.

Angelo, Train, Cummings. Stamp, Negron

    The quintet ends up in an Italian village where they are taken in by a family which includes the hot Renatta (Valentina Cervi).   Stick around guys, it will be worth the gratuitous wait. Cummings (Michael Early) and Stamps (Derek Luke) immediately begin pawing the ground. Surprisingly, Renatta ends up bedding the obnoxious Cummings. The G.I.s roam around the village seemingly unconcerned with Germans or collaborators and unconcerned with their orders to bring back a prisoner for interrogation. A bigger concern is the fact that blacks are being mistreated back in America. They recall an incident in a Louisiana malt shop where the racist owner caters to German POWs, but not blacks. It is ironic that they are treated better in Italy than back home!

     We find out about the second half of the title of the movie (we never do find out what the miracle was) when the movie has a graphic reenactment of the massacre of civilians by the S.S. The murders are retaliation for the village of St. Anna supporting partisans. The scene is horrific, but does not go far enough in accurately depicting the actual incident where 560 women, children, and old men were machine gunned and grenaded. No one survived. In the movie, about fifty are killed and Angelo escapes with the help of a German deserter. His brother Arturo is one of the victims. One of the partisans is a traitor who aided the German atrocity. By the way, some Italians protested Lee’s decision to blame the partisans for bringing on the massacre when the official explanation is the evil Nazis did not need a reason.

     A partisan group led by the famous "Butterfly" arrives in town with a German prisoner. It’s the guy who saved Angelo! This seemingly solves their prisoner-to-interrogate problem until one of the partisans kills him and then the Butterfly. He’s the traitor and guess who Negron recognizes in line for stamps at his post office years later? Full circle, anyone?

     The plot thickens as our gang of future civil rights activists are caught between their arriving racist commander and the Germans assaulting the village. Rather than defect to the more black-friendly Nazis, our guys battle it out in the streets in a scene filled with action and desperately wanting to be the equivalent of the “Saving Private Ryan” beach scene. Everyone is killed except Negron who is saved by a good Nazi who gives him a gun. Before he dies, Train is identified as “the sleeping man”. The miracle of the title refers to whether you can figure out what the hell that means.

     Flash forward to the present where the out on bail Negron meets a wealthy patron on a beach. Guess who it is? Oh, and do not wonder what the incredibly guilty-of-murder Negron is doing out of jail. I guess he was freed because he was mistreated as a black soldier. Justice.

    There is naturally a debate about which is the better film – “Flags of Our Fathers” or “Miracle at St. Anna”. Anyone who chooses Spike Lee’s film is either black or wants to get into Heaven. Although Eastwood’s film is flawed, it is clearly superior historically and cinematically. For God’s sake, Lee has “Axis Sally” broadcasting live from the battlefield, asking the blacks why they are fighting for their racist oppressors. There is no such laughable moment in Eastwood’s flic.

     It is not surprising that Lee has an agenda in this undertaking. Commendaby, that agenda is film-worthy. There is no arguing that black soldiers have been short-changed in WWII movies. Lee makes his intentions obvious early as Negron watches “The Longest Day” (an Eastwoodesque film with no black actors) and says “Pilgrim, we fought for this country, too.” (Note to Lee, when you are making your first war epic, don’t start by reminding the audience of a truly great war film.) In typical Lee fashion, he beats the audience over the head with this theme. The scene in the Louisiana malt shop and the bigoted commander are examples, but they are accurate. The surprising theme is the religiousity of the film. This is overt and soggy.

     The movie is overly long and poorly written. Much of the dialogue is ridiculous, especially the words comin’ out the mouf of Cummings. The movie lacks realism. Renatta choosing Cummings over Stamps is illogical. The idyllic nature of the village is another example. The ending is twisty in a stupid way. Parts of the movie, starting with the title, make little sense and God help us if it takes the director’s cut to clear them up. The violence is over the top and reflects the desire by an inferior action director to match Speilberg’s groundbreaking “Saving Private Ryan”.

     One must give Lee credit for choosing to highlight the role of African-American soldiers. However, the movie is not really about the trials and contributions of the 92nd Division. It does piggy-back on the racism that unit definitely faced, but little of the combat trials of the unit are alluded to. In reality, the “Buffalo Soldiers” had a less than sterling record in Italy. A truly risk-taking director would have examined the dynamics in their treatment and performance. Hopefully, the upcoming “Red Tails” will do a better job.

#53 - Ministry of Fear

2011-08-27T12:35:00.000-05:00

BACK-STORY: “Ministry of Fear” is a classic film noir by the acclaimed Fritz Lang. It was based on the novel of Graham Greene which is noirier than the screenplay. The movie was released in 1944 and is black and white. It is partly Lang’s reaction to Nazis dominance of Europe. Lang, a German, had been offered a job in the Ministry of Propaganda by Josef Goebbels and immediately fled from Germany.

OPENING: A clock ticks on a wall (Lang liked clocks). Stephen Neale (Ray Milland) is waiting for release from Lembridge Asylum. His two year sentence for the mercy killing of his terminally ill wife is up and he is a free man.

SUMMARY: Neale stops at a charity festival hosted by the Mothers of Free Nations. He is urged to see the fortune teller. She tells him the correct weight of the cake in the cake-weight guessing contest. He wins the cake, but soon after a man arrives and accosts the fortune teller and insists the cake is his. Neale hasn’t had a good cake in two years so he leaves with it.

Neale boards a train and a blind man sits in his berth. Or is he blind? He steals the cake! I mean literally, he purloins the cake. Neale chases him through the moor and he is eaten by a giant hound. Whoops, wrong movie. He is hit by a bomb and the cake does not fare well either.

Neale continues on to London where he visits an eccentric private eye named Rennit to assist him in solving the puzzle of the cake. Neale goes to the offices of the Mothers of Free Nations with Rennit shadowing him, just in case. He meets Willi (Carl Esmond) and his sister Carla (Marjorie Reynolds) who appear to be nice people. He tells his story and Willi agrees to take him to the fortune-teller’s home.

Milland and Reynolds being stabbed by a shadow

The fortune-teller is not the same woman that was at the fair. She is a statuesque Mrs. Bellain. He is invited to sit in on a séance. The cake claimant, a man named Cost (Dan Duryea), is in the circle. A spirit accuses Neale of murder, the lights go out, a shot rings out, Cost is dead, Neale is standing with the murder weapon, he escapes. Cool scene, but not exactly ground-breaking.

     Rennit’s office has been ransacked and Neale is being tailed. He hooks up with Carla and they take refuge in the subway during a bombing raid. This gives them the time to fall in love and also the time for Neale to tell us the true story of his wife’s death. He was planning to euthanize her, but she actually took her own life. Carla takes him to a bookstore which will be a safehouse. Neale and Carla figure out the charity is a front for Nazi spies!

     The bookseller asks them to deliver a suitcase of books as long as they are going out. Unfortunately, the case is a bomb which nearly eliminates the couple. Neale awakens in the custody of Scotland Yard. An agent named Prentice is on the case. It seems someone has murdered Rennit. Neale (who is just out of an asylum) tells him an insane story about a cake. Prentice swallows it (the story, not the cake) and agrees to take Neale to the bomb site. There is a really fake bomb crater at the site, but no cake until Neale finds it in a bird’s nest. It turns out the cake contained some microfilm that reveals convoy embarkation plans and minefields. It is deduced that a tailor named Travers had access to super secret War Ministry information. It’s always the tailor!

     When Prentice and Neale go to the tailor’s shop it turns out that Travers and Cost are the same guy. When he is confronted, he runs away and commits suicide (a very un-Duryea thing to do, in my opinion). Neale escapes and goes to see Carla who he now suspects as a spy. However, she is innocent, but Willi is not. Willi pulls a gun, but Carla throws a candle stick which disarms him. Two stunt men fight. Willi flees but Carla shots him through the door. Nice touch.

CLOSING: Neale and Carla are chased by the Nazi spy ring to the roof-top. A gun battle ensues which ends when Prentice appears and takes out the Nazis. The brief concluding scene has Neale and Carla on the way to their wedding. Neale insists the ceremony be cakeless. Ha ha!

RATINGS:

Acting – 7

Action – 5

Accuracy – not applicable

Realism – 5

Plot - 5

Overall - 5

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Yes. Especially if they are into film noir or wacky mysteries. Neale and Carla make a nice couple. The villains are tame. The violence is 1940s style. No blood.

ACCURACY: The movie is not based on a true story, so accuracy is not an issue. I can comment on its accuracy in depicting the novel. The movie differs from the book in significant ways. The hero in the book is named Arthur Rowe. I have no idea why his name was changed. In the novel, he does poison his wife to put her out of her misery, but he is partially motivated with the desire to be free of her. Hence, the novel’s character is torn by guilt feelings. Clara is not as innocent in the book. In fact, the book goes beyond the exposure of the spy ring to show that Arthur and Clara are not exactly living happily ever after. In fact they are constantly watching over their shoulders. There is no gun battle at the end of the book and Willi commits suicide. It appears to me that being more faithful to the book would have made the movie better and more film noirish. It looks like Lang went with a tamer, Hollywoodized crowd-pleaser.

CRITIQUE: Sadly, “Ministry of Fear” is nothing special. It is not a great war movie and it is not a even great film noir. The acting is satisfactory, but not up to the great film noir classics. Arguably the most interesting actor (Dan Duryea) is underused. Marjorie Reynolds is a light weight. She is good looking, however. The music is typical film noir dark. The cinematography is also on the dark side, but not noteworthy.

     The plot has holes and bizarre aspects, but you expect that from film noir. There are several why? moments. Like why did the original fortune teller give him the incorrect weight of the cake and then give him the correct weight when Cost was supposed to win the cake? For that matter, why didn’t they just slip Cost the cake to begin with? Why did the microfilm have to be in a cake? You could hide it in the palm of your hand and slip it to Cost easily. Why send Neale and Clara to deliver a suitcase bomb when they could have been killed so much more simply? Last, but not least, what kind of security does the British War Ministry have when a tailor can steal super secret documents?

     It is a fun movie and entertaining. There is some suspense as to whether Carla is a spy. Unfortunately, everyone else is obvious. For instance, the blind man and Cost (did Duryea ever play a good guy?) It is easy to empathize with Neale. Milland does a good job making him likable, but hardly an action hero.

CONCLUSION: Once again I eagerly anticipated a highly ranked war movie only to find that it is a war movie only in the loosest definition of war movie. This is another head-scratcher. It is clearly film noir and not even a great one. Even Fritz Lang was not happy with it. Here is my final comment to the “experts” on the Military History magazine panel. Casablanca is #65 and “Ministry of Fear” is #53. WTF

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!

2011-08-23T20:30:00.000-05:00

     This blog recently marked its one year anniversary. This started off as a simple project to watch consecutively the Military History magazine's Greatest 100 War Movies. See my mission statement. I got the idea from the movie "Julie and Julia". Ironic that a chick flick inspired me to watch so much testosterone! Later, I realized that just doing the Greatest 100 was too limiting, so I altered the mission statement to allow me to branch out. This includes going to war movies in theaters to do "now showing" reviews. This is so cool, but unfortunately a rare experience these days.
     I went back and counted the number of war movies I have watched since starting this project and was surprised to find the number was 172. That is close to one every other day for the last year. You would assume I have no life, but I did manage to teach six history classes and coach a high school soccer team, among other things, during that year. It has been fun and I look forward to the next year as I continue to view and review the Military History 100 Greatest War Movies and others. I should be in the top ten by this time next year. Hopefully the quality of the top fifty will be better than the bottom fifty.
     I have to thank my wife Rachelle for putting up with this obsession of mine. She does not share my love of war films, but she puts up with me. She does sigh and shake her head a lot, however. This is what she did when I took her to our first war movie ("The Thin Red Line"), by the way.
     I also owe a debt to my colleague Caroline of All About War Movies. Her advice and support has been important to this blog. She was my blog's first "friend" and is still its best. You meet the coolest people in the blogosphere (at least in the parts I hang out in). That's a shout-out to all my other bunkies.
     In honor of my anniversary, I thought I would share my favorite movies over the past year, and my least favorites.

TOP TEN FAVORITES
1. Waltz with Bashir
2. Last of the Mohicans
3. Oh! What a Lovely War
4. In Which We Serve
5. Dr. Strangelove
6. Where Eagles Dare
7. Three Kings
8. Cross of Iron
9. Enemy at the Gates
10. Black Hawk Down

WORST CRAP I SAT THROUGH
1. Braveheart
2. The Tin Drum
3. Castle Keep
4. Beach Red
5. Siege of Firebase Gloria
6. They Died With Their Boots On
7. Army of Shadows
8. Journey to Shiloh
9. A Wing and a Prayer
10. Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence

#54 - Ulzana's Raid

2011-08-20T09:07:00.000-05:00

BACK-STORY: “Ulzana’s Raid” is a revisionist Western by Robert Aldrich which was released in 1972 toward the end of the Vietnam War. It was filmed on location in Arizona and Nevada. It is not based on a true story.

OPENING: On the San Carlos Indian Reservation sometime in the 1880’s, a group of Chiricahua Apaches led by Ulzana (Joaquin Martinez) steal some horses (considering their need for horses later, maybe they should have taken more than one each) and leave on a raid. A messenger arrives at Fort Lowell and the word spreads that “Ulzana’s gone out!” Grizzled Indian scout MacIntosh (Burt Lancaster) is sent to the agency to gather information.

SUMMARY: The commanding officer at Fort Lowell assigns a green Lt. DeBuin (Bruce Davison) to lead the pursuit with twenty troopers and two scouts – MacIntosh and a Chiricahua named Ke-Ni-Tay (Jorge Luke). Ke-Ni-Tay happens to be Ulzana’s brother-in-law. Besides pursuit, there are settler families that need to be warned. One crusty codger sends off his wife and son, but stays to defend his homestead. The woman and boy are ambushed at the same time a trooper arrives on the scene. He shoots the woman and then himself to avoid the inevitable torture. The Indian braves do the next best thing by cutting out his heart and tossing it around. These are not noble savages. Later, DeBuin’s unit finds the husband’s body tortured.

DeBuin is new to the West and wants to learn about the Apache’s and their culture. He is empathetic at first. After seeing the tortured corpse, he asks Ki-Ni-Tay “Why are your people mean and cruel?” The response is “it’s how they are.” Torturing a man means you acquire his power. Why did Ulzana leave the reservation? "Ulzana is at agency long time. His power is very thin. He had old smell in the nose. The smell of dog, of women, of children. Man with old smell in the nose is old man. Ulzana wants new smell. The smell of bullet. Pony running. For power!" (We married fathers have Hooters, they had the open plains.) MacIntosh encourages DeBuin to be realistic. “Hating Apaches is like hating the desert for not having water.” He also tries to teach the young LT how to fight the Apaches. “Remember the rules, first to make a mistake gets to bury some of his people.”

MacIntosh and a dead horse

     Ulzana is a classic guerrilla warrior. He tries to get an advantage over his pursuers by dismounting most of his men and having two warriors run the ponies in a loop to exhaust the bigger cavalry horses. This would probably have worked except that not only do the whites have the Yoda of Indian scouts in MacIntosh, but the T1000 of trackers in Ke-Ni-Tay. They see through the Indian ploy and do not fall for it. In fact, MacIntosh heads off the pony string killing one of the braves and depriving Ulzana of his horses. Although he has lost his empathy for the Apaches, DeBuin does stop some troopers from mutilating the Indian corpse.

     At another farm, they find a raped woman who has been left alive by Ulzana so that the cvalry will be forced to split, sending some men with the woman back to the fort. Since MacIntosh sees through this strategy, he and DeBuin come up with a counterplan. MacIntosh and a few men (and the woman) will walk into the inevitable ambush and then DeBuin will swoop in and catch Ulzana with his loin cloth down. The humane DeBuin seems unconcerned with sending this distraught rape victim into an ambush which will be suicidal for at least some of the bait. Considering she is dressed as a soldier, you would think a soldier could have masqueraded as her.

     The plan hinges on Ke-Ni-Tay eliminating the Indian who will be watching the main group. He is so good he is able to follow tracks over bare rock! Due to miscommunication, DeBuin moves prematurely and Ke-Ni-Tay has to catch up to the Indian before he warns Ulzana. Being super-tracker as well as super-warrior, Ke-Ni-Tay kills his prey in time.

Jaekel as the Sarge

     Meanwhile, MacIntosh is ambushed in a canyon with predictable results for the poor bastards that are the bait. Mac, the sergeant (the ever-reliable Richard Jaekel), and the woman are forced to take refuge under a wagon. The sarge is killed and Mac is gravely wounded. Ulzana, who holds all the cards, orders two of his men to charge in the open and they are gunned down by MacIntosh. Wait, aren’t they guerrillas?

     DeBuin arrives with bugle blaring (so much for surprise). Instead of flanking the Indians, he comes charging up the canyon. However, this tactic is sufficient to win the “battle” and rescue the few survivors.

CLOSING: Ke-Ni-Tay tracks Ulzana, but can’t locate him. Just kidding. The two confront each other and it looks like it will be a classic Western duel, except with Indians. Think again. Ke-NI-Tay shows Ulzana his son’s (and Ke-Ni-Tay’s nephew’s) bugle. This is the Apache way of saying I killed your son. Opting against vengeance, Ulzana sings his death song and kneels for Ke-Ni-Tay to shoot him in the back of the head. MacIntosh insists DeBuin leave him behind to die.

RATINGS:

Acting - 7

Action - 6

Accuracy - 6

Realism - 7

Plot - 5

Overall - 6

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Highly unlikely. There are no significant females in the movie and those that appear mostly have very bad things happen to them. This is very much a guys’ movie. It does not have a lot of violence, but some of it is graphic. It is definitely not a feel-good movie. If you took a date to it when it was in the theaters, the dinner better have been outstanding and even then don’t expect much after you leave the cinema.

ACCURACY: The film is not based on a true story which is a crying shame. Why make up Ulzana when there were similar and better actual historical figures like Cochise, Mangas Coloradas, Geronimo, and my choice – Victorio? Any one of their stories would have been more interesting and given Aldrich the opportunity to explore the same themes.

     As far as Apache culture, the movie is fairly accurate although it does not cover anything but warrior culture. The discussions between DeBuin and Ke-Ni-Tay are enlightening as to how the warriors thought and fought. Their guerrilla tactics appear to be realistic, but if they were the great guerrilla warriors respected by historians, some of Ulzana’s decisions seem weak. The Apaches certainly knew the value of horses so the decision to go on the warpath with just one mount per raider is suspect. The ploy of dismounting and leading the pony string around looks like a Hollywood plot invention to me. Ulzana was well ahead of his pursuers and lengthening the distance. Giving up that gap does not strike me as something an intelligent Apache would have done.

     There is little doubt that the Apaches could be hard on prisoners. They certainly tortured and mutilated prisoners, including other Indians. I cannot vouch for the “take their power” explanation. I do know that Indians tortured their foes because they expected the same treatment and saw it as a way to show their bravery. I have never run across reference to cutting the heart out and tossing it around. They did tend to cut off genitalia and stick it in the victim’s mouth, however. (You're welcome for that fun fact.)

     The Apache did have a tendency to leave the reservations to conduct raids which were hard on white settlers. Geronimo and Victorio were good examples of this.

CRITIQUE: “Ulzana’s Raid” has the feel of a made for TV movie. It looks low budget and the cast (other than Lancaster) is underwhelming. Lancaster is his usual strong force and gives the film gravitas. Davison is surprisingly good as the naïve lieutenant. Jaekel is his reliable self and gets a meaty supporting role. Luke stands out as the stoical Ke-Ni-Tay. The rest of the cast is below average.

     The score is stereotypical Western music. If you only heard the music, you would know immediately you were watching a Western. Some of it borders on ridiculous. The cinematography is fine, but although the terrain is similar you will not mistake this for a John Ford oater. The vistas are impressive.

     The movie has been described as revisionist. This is spot on. Before you give it too much credit on this account, remember this was the seventies when most Westerns were outside the box. By revisionist, I mean it portrays both sides as shades of gray. However, there is no doubt who the bad guys are. The same bad guys as in most previous Westerns – the Indians. The revisionism is in the respect they are shown in their depiction and the less than saintly portrayal of the cavalry. Ulzana’s motives are briefly outlined, but not really debated. The torturing of victims dilutes any sympathy the audience might have for him.

     Davison’s character is supposedly the conscience of the film. He is the opposite of the clichéd Indian hating officer. He wants to understand the Apache. As the film progresses his Christian principles are challenged by what he witnesses. Aldrich does a good job of not predictably going all the way down this path. DeBuin ends up a realist, not a racist. It is telling that at the end, instead of bringing Ulzana’s head back as proof or a trophy, he insists on burying the corpse.

     The most memorable aspect of the movie is the relationship between MacIntosh and Ke-Ni-Tay. Their laconic friendship is like that of an old married couple. A nod is enough some of the time. Their mentoring of DeBuin is refreshing. They do not treat him as a rube, but there is some head-shaking. Ke-Ni-Tay is a strong character in his own right. He is loyal to his employer – the U.S. Army. He is super-Indian when it comes to tracking. I can’t help but point out that he is a traitor to his own people and chose the wrong side. He helps track down an Apache leader (and his own nephew) who are fighting for their way of life. And he kills them.

     The film has been described as an allegory on the Vietnam War. I do not know if this is something the critics deduced or was an intention of Aldrich. If he intended the movie to comment on the war, he missed the target. Ulzana does not do a good impression of a Viet Cong. They did torture and mutilate, but I would think that is not the point Aldrich would be trying to make. A liberal, anti-war statement would have portrayed the Indians in a more positive light and the whites as more imperialistic and racist. It seems more likely that Aldrich was more interested in making an iconoclastically realistic Western.

CONCLUSION: I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but… Just as with "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon", this movie is a Western first and nothing else second. Perhaps the critics that decided it was an allegory on the Vietnam War insist that it then has to be a war movie. Sadly, regardless of what genre it is placed in, it is not a particularly good movie.

CRACKER? Hamburger Hill

2011-08-13T10:22:00.000-05:00

“Hamburger Hill” is a war movie about the famous Vietnam War battle. It was released in 1987 and chronicles the 101st Airborne’s assault on Hill 937 in the Ashau Valley in May, 1969. The script was written by a “Screaming Eagles” veteran who served in Vietnam in 1968-69. The director, John Irvin (who did the stylistically similar “When Trumpets Fade”) had done documentaries in Vietnam. He cast a group of unknown actors, some of whom have gone on to big careers.

Dylan McDermott playing army man

The movie opens with Company B evacuating the Ashau Valley with their tail between their legs. Five replacements (FNGs) arrive to the typical cold shoulders, but they quickly blend in. The movie fits squarely in the who-will-survive sub-genre. It is also a typical small unit dynamics film. It displays some similarities to "Platoon" in this respect except that the unit is not divided. The squad has some black/white issues, but realistic to a front line unit they are tamped down by the more pressing need for group respect for survival purposes. There are two sergeants like in "Platoon", but they are not adversarial. One is gung-ho (Worcester – Steven Weber) and the other is cynical (Frantz – Dylan McDermott), but they are best friends. There is also a green LT, but he is not a worm and does not figure in the film.

the face of "Nathaniel Victor"

The first half of the film is basically a tutorial on the indoctrination of a “cherry”. The five FNGs are taught hygiene and to respect “Nathaniel Victor” (the North Vietnamese). They are taken to the local brothel. They quickly learn a second language – the grunt slang combined with Vietnamese phrases. The unit even has its own pet phrase – “It don’t mean nothin’”. (To be followed by “Not a thing”.) This phrase is said seventeen times in the movie. This dialogue includes most of the greatest hits of grunt slang. The movie should have captions for those who are not familiar with Vietnam War lingo, however.

one of these actors was ill-used, but had the last laugh

The second half deals with the assaults up Hill 937. This is combat at its rawest followed by periods of down time for more camaraderie. Each post-assault scene has a defining moment. One of these is the tuning in to “Hanoi Hannah”. Another has Biletsky (Tim Quill) listening to a tape from his patriotic girlfriend (apparently the only pro-war civilian left in America). More typical of the film’s theme is a “Dear John” letter to Bienstock (Tommy Swerdlow) from an ex who has been brainwashed by hippies. The film hammers away at the implication that the soldiers have been abandoned by the home front.

Frantz is bayoneted

The battle begins on May 11 and it is obvious from the start that few in the squad will survive. The movie covers the battle by days. The fighting each day is tragically similar. Frontal attacks uphill against a fanatical enemy who has the advantage of the high ground and bunkers. Although the full force of American firepower is brought to bear in the form of aerial and artillery bombardment (this is a loud movie), every assault except the last is thrown back. The deaths are brutal and graphic. Heads blown off, etc. Most of them are random and quick, but the medic “Doc” (Courtney Vance) gets an old school send-off that is well played. One of the assaults is memorable for its slog up the muddy hillside and the subsequent sliding back downhill by the men. Finally, the hill is taken in an “I’ve had enough of this shit!” charge. Our surviving three main characters sit exhaustedly under what’s left of a tree. One of the survivors is Biletsky who two days earlier had been evaced for a serious wound.

NVA in a bunker

HH is considered by some to be the best Vietnam War movie. It isn’t, but it is certainly in the top five. It is also lauded by many as the most accurate Vietnam War movie. It has a stronger claim to that title. The recreation of the battle is as close as you could ask for. It even has one (there were at least three) of the friendly fire by choppers incidents (although in reality the fire was rockets, not machine guns). Although you might assume the high casualty rate was Hollywoodized, the battle was actually very brutal and costly. Read about it and wonder if we would accept a repeat in Afghanistan. Irvin gets the sights and sounds right. One flaw is you get none of the big picture. What is the plan? Why this hill? What are the other companies doing? The movie also does not put a face on the enemy. They are obviously tough and worthy opponents, but that is all we know. Another similarity to "Platoon".

"Hello, I'm calling to confirm my 10 o'clock hair appointment"

The acting is satisfactory. One head-scratcher is the waste of the best actor in the group (Don Cheadle) in a small part. One thing you will notice is the compromise made on battlefield griminess. The men do sweat and have dirt on their faces, but nice hair. (Memo to the make-up artists: don’t touch the hair.) The actors relay what a screenwriter thinks a grunt would say, but you get the impression they do not understand all the phrases. They're just mouthing phrases. The movie works best in this respect if you have not seen a lot of Vietnam War movies. I found some of the dialogue to be forced and cringe-inducing.

There are some clichés as is to be expected from a movie of this type. We get the “a fight breaks out because a guy make’s a sexual remark about a girlfriend picture”. However, the guy who showed the picture does not end up dying so that cancels it out. Unfortunately, someone violates the rule about bragging about their future plans with predictably dire results.

war is a dirty business

One thing that sets this movie apart from most other Vietnam War movies is it is anti-anti-war. There are several sledgehammer moments where the home front is crucified for not supporting the troops. In one piling on monologue, Worcester recounts a trip back home. 1. He had dog feces thrown on him by hippies. 2. His wife was screwing a pacifist. 3. His friendly bartender was being harassed as the father of a deceased “baby killer” and became a heroin addict. We get it! The proof of this thematic goal is the unbelievable lack of a post script explanation that after all the effort to take the hill, it was abandoned to the enemy. Since most of the audience would not have known this, the omission is a clear admission by Irvin of his political agenda. In this respect, it strays furthest from its cousin “Pork Chop Hill”.

“Hamburger Hill” is a good movie. Unlike most of its competitors (Platoon, Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket), it deals with an actual battle. This makes its main rival “We We Were Soldiers”. In that respect, it does a better job on grunt life. The combat is not as good, however.

Cracker? Probably. It is much better than some of the crap I have had to watch.

7/10

"It don't mean nothin'"

#55 - She Wore a Yellow Ribbon

2011-08-08T13:13:00.000-05:00

BACK-STORY: “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon” is a western/war movie released in 1949. It was the second of John Ford’s cavalry trilogy and the only one in color. The other two were “Fort Apache” and “Rio Grande”. All three starred John Wayne. The movie was set in Monument Valley. Ford used the paintings of Frederick Remington for inspiration and ideas. The title is a song associated with the U.S. Cavalry and alludes to the cavalryman giving his love a yellow ribbon. One of the stars is the horse “Steel” ridden by Ben Johnson. This horse was popular with western stars. The movie was awarded the Oscar for Best Color Cinematography to Winton Hoch. The film was a big hit.

OPENING: The movie opens with the iconic theme song. A narrator informs us the story takes place after Custer’s Last Stand. Word spreads via the telegraph and Pony Express. The Indian tribes are in rebellion and are uniting “in a common war against the U.S. Cavalry”. At Fort Stark, the elderly Capt. Nathan Brittles (Wayne) is only six days from forced retirement. Sgt. Quinncannon (Victor McLaglan) is also near the end. He is Irish so he drinks a lot, but in a humorous way.

SUMMARY: The death of the paymaster by Indians clues the fort in to the fact that the Southern Cheyenne are on the warpath. They know it’s the Southern Cheyenne due to the markings on their arrows. That night Brittles make his nocturnal visit to his wife and kids’ gravesite. In a touching scene, he talks to her. The commanding officer decides his wife Abby (Mildred Natwick) and niece Olivia (Joanne Dru) need to go back east via the stage coach. He orders Brittles to escort the ladies to the stage station and shoo the Indians back to their reservation. Olivia is wearing a yellow ribbon, but for who? Her suitors are Lt. Cohill (John Agar) and Lt. Pennell (Harry Carey, Jr.). Cohill is the career trooper who is not romantic and Pennell is the wooing easterner who is willing to leave the Army for Olivia. The one time they are going to duke it out over her, Brittles breaks it up. Guess which one she ends up choosing? Hint: the one she argues with the most. Snippiness = love in Hollywood.

Cohill and Olivia hating each other

The mission takes the unit through some beautiful scenery and they even encounter a buffalo herd. The Indians feel the return of the buffalo is a sign that their medicine is working. Brittles sends ex-Rebel Sgt, Tyree (Ben Johnson) and his horse (Steel) to locate a patrol. When asked for his opinion on matters, Tyree famously responds with: “My mother didn’t raise any sons to be makin’ guesses in front of Yankee captains.” Surprise, Tyree runs into a passel of whooping Indians (the Indians whoop a lot in this movie). There is an exciting chase scene that ends with Steel jumping over a canyon. The patrol also gets chased by Indians, but finds refuge with the column. One of the men is wounded which requires a bullet extraction in a moving wagon with the back drop of a lightning storm. This was not part of the filming schedule, but Ford insisted over the protest of Hoch that the situation be used. Great call!

"Troop, halt!"

The stage station has been raided, so no stage coach for the gals. One of the dead is an ex-Confederate general serving as a private. The U.S. Cavalry was an institution of reconciliation after the Civil War. Brittles and a few others sneak up on an Indian camp to witness the Indian agent selling repeating rifles to the warriors. Things go bad for the villainous whites and Brittles stoically watches the torture of one of them. Does anyone want a chaw of tobacco?

The mission is a failure and the unit has to cross a river to return to the fort. Brittles leaves Cohill and two squads behind to guard the ford. The unit slogs back into the fort and the next day Brittles awakes to his last day in the Army. The movie needs a dose of humor and fisticuffs so Brittles has Quinncannon put on his “monkey suit” and go to the canteen for a drink and then orders his arrest for being out of uniform and drinking. (I did not quite follow the reasoning behind this – something about Quinncannon would be better off spending the rest of his enlistment in the brig. Anyway, it was an excuse to have a barroom brawl). The Quinncannon versus six fight is entertaining and worth the ridiculous setup.

Brittles with his watch

     Brittles gets a sentimental farewell from Company C that includes a silver pocket watch. Touchingly, he has to pull out his spectacles to read the inscription. He is off to California (with just the clothes on his back?), but ends up joining Pennell who has been sent to rescue Cohill. Cohill doesn’t need rescuing (in a missed opportunity for gratuitous shooting of whooping Indians off their horses), but there is still that Southern Cheyenne problem. Fortunately, Brittles still has four hours available. He rides into the Indian camp to smoke the pipe with old friend Pony that Walks (Chief John Big Tree in an endearingly eccentric performance). The chief tells Nathan that he has no control over the young men. Oh well, enough talk.

     Brittles locates the Indian pony herd and stampedes it through the Indian village that night. Although it is a surprise, the Indian braves come running out of their tepees fully clothed. No troopers are even wounded and I did not see any Indian casualties either. Indians without horses must return to the reservation. Insurrection over.

CLOSING: Brittles rides off into the sunset (literally) which would be an appropriate ending, but a letter arrives promoting him to Lt. Col. of scouts and Tyree rides off to bring him back. His return interrupts the celebration of the engagement of Cohill and Olivia. Brittles goes to update his wife on his promotion.

RATINGS:

Acting - 8

Action - 6

Accuracy - 6

Realism - 6

Plot - 6

Overall - 6

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Probably. It is definitely not hard core. What little violence there is, is tame. The love triangle is lame, but it does not consume the movie. Millard Natwick as Abby is feisty and has some good moments (e.g., the wagon operation scene). Joanne Dru is out of her league here, but is adequate.

ACCURACY: The movie is not based on an historical event, but the opening narration could give that impression to a gullible audience. The narration starts the movie off on a shaky historical footing. The only thing it gets right is Custer was defeated. The Indian tribes seem to be randomly selected. The Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache were not involved in the Battle of Little Big Horn and the statement that the various tribes were united against the U.S. Cavalry is laughable considering the inability of the tribes to unite on anything. There was no Indian uprising. The Indians were simply fighting against white encroachment into their lands.. Custer’s Last Stand did not result in tribes leaving the reservations. The ones that were at war either were already off their reservations or, more likely, had never been confined to one (yet). The reference to the Pony Express spreading the word is very sloppy history. It had ceased to exist fifteen years earlier.

     The depiction of the cavalry is pretty realistic, although a bit idyllic. Ford is paying tribute to the “dog faces” and their thankless task of taming the West, but it is a no warts portrayal. All of the troopers are respectful gentlemen who are dedicated to their duty. They all are dressed for parade. There is no salty soldier talk and that’s not just because Quinncannon tells them to “watch them words”. (Followed by an anonymous “watch them grammar”.) There are no negative characters in the unit. The two suitors are respectful of each other. Brittles gets along well with his commanding officer. There is little tension. The ex-Confederates don’t even get teased. Only one trooper is a drinker and he is shown in a positive light. A typical western fort would not have been as “clean” as this.

     As far as the Indians, they are typical John Ford caricatures. They are all dressed for the Hollywood warpath. Lots of reds and war bonnets. These are the best dressed Indians on the Plains. No poverty here. One accuracy is the inability of the elderly chiefs to control the young men. And there is a travois in one scene.

"Is that whiskey on your breath?"

CRITIQUE: “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon” is a good Western. Ford is Ford. Wayne is not Wayne. Both of those statements are a good thing. This being a typical Ford movie, the use of Monument Valley is awesome. The theme of the selflessness of the cavalry is well done, if a bit overdone. The characters are stock, but entertainingly so. The movie does not force a heterogeneous, multi-ethnic unit on the audience (which is actually not realistic to the post-Civil War Army, by the way). Wayne fans will be comfortable with the familiar faces in the cast, especially McLaglan.

     The movie is well acted. Wayne is outstanding in playing against type. He was only 41, yet plays a 61 year old. Brittles is a grizzled veteran, but he has not been hardened by his experiences. He is a father figure to his men. He takes Olivia under his wing and mentors Cohill and Pennell. He is a loyal friend to Quinncannon. He was obviously a caring husband and father. There is no strutting here and in fact Wayne adds nice touches like arthritis in the joints.

     The score is hit and miss. Invariably, when the Indians appear, we get generic Indian music. You could have your eyes closed and be able to tell who is on screen. However, the music is tempoed according to the action which adds to the scenes that have movement. The theme song is effectively used at strategic moments.

     The movie is beautiful to watch. The cinematography is outstanding. The reds are a bit distracting though. The use of the lightning storm was clever and it is ironic that Hoch complained about the lighting considering that scene probably helped win him the Oscar.

     It is commendable that Ford does not go for mindless action and wanton killing of redskins, but he perhaps went too far. Other than the Indian agent, I cannot recall anyone getting killed. He strands Cohill and the forlorn hope at the river crossing with the implication of dread, then there is no payoff. The stampede of the herd through the village is thundering, yet bloodless. Even the fight between Cohill and Pennell is aborted. The only real fight is a comical one.

CONCLUSION: “She Wore Yellow Ribbon” is an entertaining Western, but it is not a war movie and does not belong on this list. I have a problem with taking a movie that is firmly in one genre and then putting it on a list of great movies in another genre. There are few Westerns that I feel can clearly be considered war movies and Westerns. A rare example of this hybrid would be “Son of the Morning Star” which is specifically and accurately about a battle in the Indian Wars (the Battle of Little Big Horn).

CRACKER? Oh! What a Lovely War

2011-08-05T18:50:00.000-05:00

“Oh! What a Lovely War” is a different kind of war movie. It was released in England in 1969 and has an all-star cast of familiar British faces. It is based on a play and was directed by Richard Attenborough in daring style. It is without doubt the best war musical ever made, not that it has much competition. The script uses actual songs and quotes from World War I.

     The film opens with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and we know this will be a different movie because it is depicted via a group photograph of the leaders of Europe. The photographer hands the royal couple red poppies and they fall dead. It is a not a good thing to get handed a poppy in this film. It helps to know the basics of the war, but the movie works hard as a tutorial. For instance, one scene has the world leaders discussing the run up to the war while standing on a map of Europe. Actual quotes are used very effectively and chillingly.

     The movie uses a ballroom for the upper class and leader scenes, but the most important set is the Brighton West Pier which stands in for the home front and the jumping off point for the war. On the pier, Gen. Haig sells tickets to the war including to the five Smith brothers who we follow through the movie. The film jumps between these sets and the Western Front. It also jumps into songs – all of which are authentic to the period. The first is cavalry on a merry-go-round. The best is set in a music hall where beautiful girls sing patriotic songs encouraging young men to enlist. “We don’t want to lose you, but we think you ought to go.” Maggie Smith seals the deal by coming on and crooning sexily “take the king’s shilling and I’ll make a man out of you.” It turns out that sex sells war as well as tooth paste. By the way, when the new enlistees go up on stage they find out Maggie is not so beautiful and in fact is caked with make-up. Get it?

     The movie is very harsh on the upper class. They are twits who are out of touch with reality. They watch fireworks and drink champagne and the movie transitions to the trenches. But it’s the brass that are damned and by their own words at that. When Haig discusses the Battle of the Somme, it is chilling. He watches the war through binoculars from the pier. A scoreboard tallies the casualties. The lower officers do not come off well either. They are callous and clueless. On the other hand, the Tommies (including the Smiths) are the heroes of the movie. They literally sing their way through the maelstrom of the war. Interestingly, several of their songs are depicted as they may actually have taken place (unlike when the leaders are singing).

Haig (Mills) with some of his boys

     The film is a series of vignettes. The ones with the soldiers are the best, the ones with the generals and upper class are the most incisive. The vignettes include the Christmas Truce which is nicely done. There is an extended religious scene which makes fun of the role of religion in condoning the war. It turns out that all the various religions blessed the killing. There is a powerful scene of anti-war activist Sylvia Parkhurst quoting George Bernard Shaw to a heckling crowd of naïvely patriotic civilians. The Americans arrive via the pier singing “Over There”. “And we won’t come back – we’ll be buried over there.” Guess how many of the Smith brothers survive the war.

     The songs are wonderfully rendered and there are a lot of them. It’s like the greatest hits of WWI. The acting is good, especially John Mills as Haig. Laurence Olivier was nominated for a BAFTA for portraying Gen. French. In fact, the movie was nominated for six BAFTAs. It is a very British movie so it is not well known in America even though you would think it would have struck a chord with the anti-Vietnam War crowd. Most war movies are anti-war, but few are as anti-war as “Oh! What a Lovely War”. Kudos to Attenborough for going out on a limb to bring the play to the screen. He managed to recruit an outstanding cast. The sets are amazing. The use of the pier is genius. The scenes set on the Western Front are appropriately hellish. The movie concludes with an awesome tracking shot of a white cross laden cemetery. Attenborough had 16,000 crosses hammered into pre-dug holes for the shot.

     I am a big fan of this movie. If you have seen a lot of war movies, you need to watch it because it is so different. If you don’t see a lot of war movies, watch it because it is not a typical war movie.

the Christmas Truce

CRACKER? "The Beast"

2011-08-02T13:27:00.002-05:00

“The Beast” (also known as “The Beast of War”) is a war movie set in Afghanistan in 1981 in the second year of the Soviet invasion. It was directed by Kevin Reynolds. It is based on an off Broadway play. William Mastrosimone adapted his play entitled “Nanawatai”. The movie opens with a poem by Rudyard Kipling; “When you’re wounded an’left on Afghanistan’s plains / An’ the women come out to cut up your remains. / Just roll to your rifle an’ blow out your brains. / An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier”.

Soviet tanks assault a Pashtun village. The scene is intense with lots of explosions and violence. Besides using HE on the buildings, the Soviets employ flame throwers and satchel charges. Innocent civilians get targeted including a captured Afghani who is executed by being squashed by the tank. The movie shows just enough to convince you to never get run over by a tank. The tank driver, Koverchenko (Jason Patric) reluctantly obeys the orders of his hard-ass commander Daskal (George Dzundza). The women of the village witness this atrocity and vow revenge. One is killed by poison gas while banging on the turret with a rock.

Next thing we know, the tank is by itself and lost. Meanwhile, the local mujahadeen return to the village to find the destruction. Taj (Steven Bauer) is now the village Khan (leader). His cousin insists they get revenge on the tank. Akbar (Kabir Bedi) is a guerrilla leader akin to the early Bin Laden (back when he was our boy). He wears sun glasses which symbolizes he has been corrupted by modernity. Taj does not like him, but agrees to the chase. The vengeance-minded women, led by Sherina (Shoshi Marciano), are forbidden to come along.

The tank crew is your typical Hollywood heterogeneous small unit. Daskal is hardened by his war experiences which go back to Stalingrad where he was called “Tank Boy” for his teenage tank destroying exploits. Korvachenko is the conscience of the group. He is Elias to Dansel’s Barnes. Also onboard is Kominsky (Don Mooney) playing the psycho Bunny role. He drinks the brake fluid to get high. Golikov (Stephen Baldwin) is the sniveling coward ala Junior (to stick with our “Platoon” analogies). They are accompanied by an Afghani collaborator named Samad. The tank is the real star of course and hopefully was paid more than Baldwin. It is appropriately grimy, claustrophobic, and mechanically challenged. Technical adviser Dale Dye made sure the workings are realistic. The movie also gets the noises right.

     Samad plays a crucial role in explaining the code of Afghani honor. There are three key concepts: 1. hospitality 2. revenge 3. sanctuary (“nanawatai”) – which must be given if requested. Samad has turned his coat because he wants Afghanistan to move into the modern world (like the Spaniards who collaborated in the Peninsular War). Daskal distrusts him as a traitor, plus he just plain hates Afghanis. His attempts to put Samad in harm’s way fail so he murders him.

     Because Korvalenko threatens to turn Dansel in, Daskal has him chained to a rock with a grenade behind his head as a booby trap. He is discovered by the women (who being Hollywood’s version of Afghani women) have disobeyed orders and joined the pursuit. They start stoning Korvalenko who vainly yells “nanawatai”. Taj arrives and rescues him. He ingratiates himself to his captors by repairing the RPG-7 that they will use to “ kaboom tank”. Taj and Korvalenko bond as Korvalenko does not take long to experience Stockholm syndrome. He joins in the chase.

     The tank’s problems are seemingly solved when they flag down a helicopter, but instead of abandoning the tank and flying to safety, Daskal insists on refueling and returning to base by reversing their route through a “please ambush me” ravine. Guess what happens? Although wheezing and leaking oil, the Beast is home free after the RPG round fails to disable it. Suddenly an explosion-induced avalanche wrecks the tank. It’s the women! Watch the movie to find out what happens next.

     It is hard to explain why this movie is almost unheard of. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has only one review. It made less than $1 million at the box office. It certainly looks like Columbia Pictures dropped the ball. It deserved better. Part of the problem may have been the stupid title. Although the tank does resemble a beast, the title must have thrown viewers off. The film is not great, but it is a good effort. It is well acted, especially by Dzundsa as the despicable commander. He has the best line when he summarizes Russian tank doctrine: “out of commission, become a pillbox; out of ammo, become a bunker; out of time, become heroes.”

     Any movie that is not sunk by Stephen Baldwin is noteworthy. The main characters tend to be stock, but they are well-played and appropriate to the tale. It has an interesting female character in Sherina. How often do you see a woman in a war movie who vows to get revenge? The Afghanis are sympathetically portrayed which is probably because the movie was made during the Cold War and not after 9/11.

    Although not based on a true story, Dale Dye saw to it that the military aspects of it are authentic. He personally purchased two old Soviet tanks from the Israeli army to stand in for the T-62 called for in the story. Dye insisted the tank have realistic recoil which was accomplished through the use of shells where water replaced high explosives. The weaponry is real.

     There are good action sequences that are placed efficiently throughout the film. The setting looks like the bleak mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. (The movie was filmed in Israel.) Actually, it looks like it was filmed in Monument Valley. In fact, in some ways it resembles a western. There’s even a watering hole and a thirsty trek across a desert. The electronic music veers from eerie to weird, but sets the mood fairly well.

     In conclusion, this movie could crack the 100 Best list. It is undoubtedly better than most of #60-100 on Military History magazine’s list.

Answers to War Movie Pictures Quizzes

2011-07-31T15:01:00.000-05:00

Here are the answers to War Movie Picture Quiz #1

1. A Bridge Too Far - Dohun with his "dead" captain
2. Battleground - Holley in his fox hole
3. Cross of Iron - Stransky, the Russian boy, and Steiner
4. Flags of Our Fathers - Ira Hayes
5. Glory - shooting practice
6. Hell is for Heroes - McQueen as Reese
7. Lawrence of Arabia - blowing up a train
8. The Patriot - Tavington
9. Sands of Iwo Jima - amphtracs
10. Tropic Thunder - Lazarus

Here are the answers to War Movie Picture Quiz #2

1. A Walk in the Sun - "got a butt?"
2. Breaker Morant - the firing squad
3. Von Ryan Express - at the tunnel
4. The Great Escape - at the cafe
5. Saving Private Ryan - Jackson's scope view from the tower
6. The Dirty Dozen - Maggot enjoys the Nazi bed
7. Patton - George shoots down a bomber
8. Flyboys - training
9. Letters from Iwo Jima - the capture of Saigo
10. The Hurt Locker - Ralph Fiennes as a sniper

ANTIQUE or CLASSIC? "Action in the North Atlantic"

2011-07-30T09:10:00.000-05:00

     “Action in the North Atlantic” is a propagandistic war movie from 1943 that praises the Merchant Marine. It stars Humphrey Bogart as Humphrey Bogart. It was shot entirely on the Warner Brothers back lot and sound stages. It was used as a recruiting film for the Merchant Marine and also as a training film. It was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. At one point during the filming, drunken Bogart and Massey replaced their stunt men for a dive from a burning ship.

     The movie opens strong with the S.S. Northstar being torpedoed by a u-boat. In one of the fieriest scenes in movie history (think “Backdraft” on a ship), they abandon ship. The dastardly German submarine commander rams their lifeboat and leaves laughing. It would be great if they could get revenge on that bastard!

     After eleven days on a raft (with no visible food or water), they are back in port and then home. Capt. Jarvis (Raymond Massey) reunites with his loving wife who understands that “to a sailor’s wife, war is just another storm.” Meanwhile, Lt. Rossi (Bogart) punches out a guy blabbing about convoys and then marries a singer. The rest of the crew frequents the union hall waiting for another ship. This is one of the rare references to unions in movies from that time period. One sailor reluctant to risk his life again is shamed into being a patriot.

     The new ship is a Liberty ship called the "Seawitch". It joins an international convoy heading for Murmansk. Anyone expecting it to be a milk run – think again. There is a new officer on board, Cadet Parker from the Merchant Marine Academy. He shows Rossi a picture of his girl – cliché alert! In a fog bank, they tow a big wooden arrow so the next ship can follow. Another ship scrapes them.

     A wolfpack attacks the convoy. There is frantic action as the torpedoes wreak havoc and the convoy disperses. The escorts depth charge their foes. There are plenty of explosions. The Seawitch gets to fire its deck gun at submarines that inexplicably are on the surface in daylight. When the battle ends, they are alone, but being stalked by u-boat-know-who. It is a cat and mouse game and during the night both go silent.

     The next day, they are attacked by two German flying boats (obvious models, but authentic). They strafe and both are shot down because in war movies anti-aircraft crews on cargo ships are unbelievably accurate. The second plane crashes into the ship in a very fake looking effect. Guess what soon to be married character is killed? Dude, never show a picture of your girl in a war movie!

     Suddenly they are torpedoed. Rossi (in command because Jarvis was injured in the plane attack) orders fires to be set and smoke made to lure the stupid Germans up. Sure enough, it works. Dramatically the Seawitch comes out of the smoke and rams the u-boat. Turn about is fair play. The pompous German commander drowns. High five! Somehow Rossi knows it’s the same sub.

     They arrive to cheering crowds in Murmansk. The Russians love us. We get a montage of merchant ships and some FDR quotes to swell the audience's pride a little more before they got in their Model As to go home.

     The movie is actually not that bad for a propaganda piece made during the war. It is preachy, but not overly so. The action is good as is the acting. The cast has a lot of recognizable faces and their sailor banter below decks is humorous in a 1940s way. The special effects are low grade, but what do you expect for the time period? The duel with the sub is a little ridiculous and unrealistic so the ending does not match the first set piece.

Classic or antique? Classic.

Rating – 7/10