Drums Along the Mohawk (1939)

            “Drums Along the Mohawk” is a John Ford (“The Horse Soldiers”) film set in the Revolutionary War. It was based on the novel by Walter Edmonds. It was nominated for one Academy Award – Best Supporting Actress (Edna May Oliver). The movie was a box office hit.

            The movie begins in 1776 Albany, New York. Lana (Claudette Colbert) marries Gilbert (Henry Fonda) and she leaves her upper class urban life for life on the frontier on a small farm. Her new home is a log cabin. It’s quite a contrast to the civilized life of the cities. It is a rough transition and she wants to go home. Next scene we see her as a proper frontier woman. We all know she is going to get there so why bother using film to show how she evolves?  It’s tough life even if they didn’t have the Indian and Tory problems in the valley. They are going to have to deal with Indians led by the dastardly Caldwell. How do we know he is a villain? He has an eye patch and he is played by John Carradine. Caldwell is balanced by a friendly Oneida Indian named Blue Back (Chief John Big Tree). He’s a “good” Indian. (I won’t get into the fact that Blue Back was a fool to support the Americans.) The naïve Gil wonders why this is happening. “I don’t know why we’d have trouble with the Indians.” Duh, you are taking their valley! There are times when the pioneers have to take refuge in Fort Schuyler. It’s built of lincoln logs. One of those times, Gil and Lana return to a burned out farm. They are forced to live and work for a feisty widow named Mrs. McKlennar (Oliver).  It’s on now. Gil’s militia unit marches off to get revenge. They should have taken their drilling more seriously become back with their tail between their legs. This was the Battle of Oriskany, but we don’t get to see it for obvious reasons. Gil claims that the whupped the Indians, but in reality they got their asses whipped. For a while, the valley is quiet and the farming is good, but that would be a boring ending act, so we get another Indian/Tory siege of the fort.

            “Drums Along the Mohawk” is very much a John Ford film and is very much of its time. It is basically a western set in the east. The Indians are evil, whooping savages being used by the British. The only good Indian is the one who warns them about Indian attacks. Ford directs many of his stereotype characters. The cheerful drunk, the crust old widow, the anti-pacifist preacher, the pampered young woman who is forced to adjust to frontier life. The cast is full of recognizable character actors. Surprisingly, the cast includes an actual Indian playing Blue Back. Chief John Big Tree appeared in over 50 movies. Fonda and Colbert are excellent as the central couple. It can be argued that Lana is the central character. The movie does not go to war with Gil. It stays with Lana. She’s the one who is most impacted by life in the Mohawk Valley.  The film is stolen by Edna May Oliver. The Best Supporting Actress category was created for perfomances like hers. It reminds me of Margaret Wycherly as momma York in “Sergeant York”.  Oliver lost to Hattie McDaniel in “Gone With the Wind”. No shame there.

            Ford gives a taste of life in colonial America. There is a church scene with a hymn. We see a birthing. There is a wedding. All of this in vibrant Technicolor (Ford’s first use of it.)  It is a beautiful film to watch. Ford interjects his trademark humor. The soundtrack fits the film well and pushes emotional buttons to enhance the visuals. Although it has the feel of an epic, it is actually only 104 minutes long. There is little action, but there is a great chase scene (I bet you did not see that coming) where Gil has to outrun three Indians to go for help. That’s right, Henry Fonda outruns some Indians. (Thank God none of them had a bow and arrow.)

            The movie is actually based on historical events, even though it is based on a novel. It has the feel of a chapter in a 4^th grade American History textbook. Some of the characters are historical persons, including Caldwell who was a British agent who was a British officer who fought in several places during the war. Sometimes he commanded Indian allies. He survived the war and fought in the War of 1812. He probably did not wear an eye patch. Herkimer did die after his leg was amputated after the Battle of Oriskany. The fort was not actually in the center of the farmland. When it was besieged, it was garrisoned by Continental Army soldiers, not militia. And it was attacked by British soldiers. Because of the timing of the movie, it was determined that the British could not be the bad guys at a time when America was looking at the possibility of fighting on their side in the upcoming world war. The movie resonated with audiences who could imagine the men going off to war in the near future, just like Gil was forced to do.

            “Drums Along the Mohawk” is a must-see movie. It is Ford at his best with a top notch cast. Like many of his westerns, it passes on the myths of frontier life. That makes it a shaky history lesson. So watch it as a novel brought to the screen in vibrant color.

GRADE  =  B-

           

The Great Waldo Pepper (1975)

            My brother Jason recommended I treat this movie as a movie about the making of a war movie. I had remembered it fondly as a teenager and was happy to revisit it. It was directed, produced, and co-written by George Roy Hill. It was a passion project for him. As a child he loved WWI aces and a famous barnstormer named Charles “Speed” Holman.  Holman set a record of 1,433 consecutive loops during a five-hour flight.  Hill himself had been a pilot and flew transports for the Marines in the South Pacific in WWII. In the Korean War, he flew night fighters. He reached the rank of major.

            The movie is set in the 1920’s in the waning days of barnstorming. Robert Redford plays Waldo Pepper. He makes a living giving country folk rides in his biplane and then joins a barnstorming troupe. After getting in trouble with new safety regulations, he becomes a stunt pilot for a “Hell’s Angels” type movie. There he meets a famous German ace (Bo Brundin).  (He was modeled after Ernst Udet who had 62 victories in WWI and then became a stunt flyer for airshows and the movies.) The movie concludes with a dogfight between the two.  It is arguably the best dogfight ever put on film.

            “Waldo Pepper” is a must-see for aviation movie fans. The aerial scenes are some of the best ever filmed. And we are not just talking about great stunt flying, we are also talking about great stunt work like wing-walking. The planes are awesome with the final duel between a replica Sopwith Camel and a replica Fokker triplane.  The sounds that are matched to the aircraft are realistic. 

             The acting is fine, with surprisingly the best performance by Brundin. The cast includes Bo Svenson, Susan Sarandon, and Edward Herrmann. Redford is his usual charming self. He’ll remind you of Tom Cruise in “Top Gun”.  Coincidentally, this movie boosted recruitment for barnstorming.  That’s a joke. 

             What keeps the movie from being great is it is not sure what it wants to be. It starts as a whimsical comedy and then has a major tonal shift midway through when a major character is sacrificed.   From that point on it becomes a psychological drama revolving around the old trope of men who can’t let go of their glory days.  What’s odd about this is Waldo did not even fly in the war.  He wants the adrenaline that guys like Kessler got.  And he wants to experience the mano-a-mano of a dogfight.  And he doesn’t want to wait for WWII.  Neither do we. 

               “The Great Waldo Pepper”  is not a war movie and it could have used a deeper dive into the filming of a WWI aviation film, but it is an entertaining film if you can overlook the flaws.  It is an excellent homage to barnstormers and stunt men.  You’ll be amazed how far pilots would go in the 1920s to earn a little money and entertain crowds.

GRADE  =  B

De Vijanden (1968)

            The movie was directed by Hugo Claus (“The Lion of Flanders”). It takes place during the Battle of the Bulge. Since I strongly suggest you don’t watch it, I will summarize what you should avoid. An American platoon pulls back because of the German offensive, but they forget to wake one of the men.  Harrison hooks up with a boy named Richard and an old Belgian named Alfonzo. They are making their way to American lines while trying to avoid the krauts. It is a war road trip picture. On the way, the meet a mother who Harrison rapes after she flirts with him and then has a change of mind. Harrison is something of a dick. Richard talks the daughter into showing her breasts. There are no heroes in this film. There are some fake German tanks they have to survive. They end up being captured by a rogue American group led by a woman. At one point, Harrison shoots a dogs and they eat it. By this time, you won’t care what happens to them.

            This is one terrible movie. Its 5.8 rating on IMDB might have been inflated by perverts. Much of the actions by the characters is ridiculous. It does have a lot of unintentional laughs. The battle scenes are surprisingly big for such a miniscule budget. There are even some flamethrowers which would have been used better to incinerate the film. The characters are all unlikeable and very poorly acted. Rivet counters will have heart attacks if they take the movie seriously. Insomniacs might like it. The only thing I can say positive about my experience is that it lasted only 1 hour and 31 minutes. However, I was begging for it to end before the hour mark.

GRADE  =  F-

Young Washington (2026)

            “Young Washington” is the new biopic of George Washington’s early military career focusing on his role in the French and Indian War. The film comes from Angel Studios which has become known for films that have a tinge of religion to them. Its movies are “values-based”. It was co-written, produced and directed by Jon Erwin. I taught American History for decades and most of those years my American History course covered from after the Civil War to recent American History. When the change was made to just covering post-Civil War, I decided I could not teach an American History course without covering the most important American. So, I started my course with a unit on George Washington. My students knew more about George Washington than 90% of the people in our city. It seems trite to call him the “Father of Our Country”, but it certainly fits. The movie has a couple of instances where the young Washington could have died, which will hopefully cause viewers to contemplate how lucky America was that this “indispensable man” was not killed before the Revolution.

            The movie opens with a taste of the Battle of Monongahela which basically tells the audience to stick around for Washington (William Franklyn-Miller), the action hero. It then flashes back to the 11-year-old George mourning his father’s death. He is forced to forgo a formal education because he is now the man of the plantation. His half-brother Lawrence (John Foss) becomes his mentor. George is determined to become a British officer. The film hammers the fact that Washington’s social status will make that impossible. He flirts with Sally (Mia Rodgers), but she is a rung above, so it is doomed. Thomas Fairfax (Kelsey Grammer) hires George to survey his lands. He has his first brush with death. Then Governor Dinwiddie (Ben Kingsley) sends him off into the wilderness to tell the French to cease and desist their fort-building. This is British land. (George does not argue in favor of the Indians.) This leads to an incident that starts the French and Indian War. It should have ended Washington’s career, but he seeks redemption by volunteering to serve as an aide to Gen. Braddock (Andy Sirkis). His attempt to share his hard-won experiences in the new Indian style of warfare falls on snooty British ears. The Washington we know was born in the debacle of the Battle of the Monongahela which closes the movie.

            Lets get the most important stuff out of the way first. Is it an historical atrocity similar to “The Patriot”? No, but I would not show it in class. Franklyn-Miller portrays Washington as an ambitious young man whose career is not always upward. He occasionally gives a glimpse of Washington’s temper. He has a tendency to speak in platitudes and is “value-based”. Young Washington is debonair and adventuresome, not  the imposing, stoical older Washington. One recurring theme is “a pawn can take a king” which is cringe-worthy since Washington was more of a knight on the chessboard. His lower-class status is exaggerated, but the important point the movie makes is colonial soldiers were looked down on by the pompous British. The movie makes no connection to Washington’s later espousal of independence.  

Until the final act, I found myself hoping “Young Washington” will be the first of a few films covering Washington’s life. And then came the last act which was so silly, my enthusiasm waned. Until then, the coverage of Washington’s career was acceptably improved for entertainment purposes. However, the Battle of Monongahela is laughable. Washington makes three rides through the battlefield and one run (in slo-mo, of course). He leads a charge. He saves his men. He is targeted by Indian sharpshooters, but miraculously survives. As usual, the silliest thing in a historical war movie turns out to have some validity. That is if you consider Parson Weems to be a valid historian. 

The film is not low budget. We get a Fort Necessity that is actually a big improvement on the real one. The sets and costumes are appropriate for the period and we get some dancing which is accurately amusing. The dance choreography is matched by the combat scenes which feature the volley fire to make the reenactors happy and a melee to make the stuntmen happy. And the audience, too. Or so the studio assumes. It is willing to overlook the laughter from real war movie lovers.               

“Young Washington” is not a bad movie. It will be criticized because Angel Studios supposedly has a conservative, religious agenda. I found that it did not force that on the audience. It does have some religious references, but they are relatively subtle. It did not strike me as being propaganda. Although it obviously is meant to tap into the patriotism of the 250^th Anniversary, it does not avoid mistakes Washington made. However, the last act overwhelms the “nobody’s perfect” vibe. The movie actually spends more time convincing us the British officers were asses than that Washington was a hero. British arrogance oozes from the screen. We got independence from that! 

By the way, if you are interested in a more accurate portrayal of Washington’s early years, you can watch Netflix’s docudrama on Washington which includes historians discussing his life and actors reenacting key moments. The battle scenes are actually more realistic than those of the movie. 

GRADE =  C 

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Washington’s childhood in the movie emphasizes his being deprived a formal education in England, but implies he was self-taught by reading classics when in reality he did attend school. The role Lawrence plays as a pseudo-father is realistic. The movie does a good job introducing Americans to this key figure in his life. His flirtation with Sally is overblown as it did not reach the “I wish I could marry who I want to marry” stage. The surveying section is truthy, including his surviving a dunking in a freezing river. In a typical example of historical license, Washington’s life is not saved by his companion Christopher Gist because that would not fit the legend. There was a Native American called the Half-King that Washington had run-ins with. This gives the film the chance to imply the British were better for the Indians than the French, which was the opposite of the truth. The Jumonville Affair softens Washington’s role. In the movie, it seems the fight began with an unknown person firing the first shot, although it implies it is the Half-King or one of his men. In actuality, Washington gave the order to fire. The movie gets Washington’s loss of control of his men right. Jumonville was not the officer that Washington had dinner with in the French fort. The movie rightly assigns the blame for the “assassination” of Jumonville on Washington. He manfully accepts it whereas in real life he dodged the blame and made the excuse that the translator messed up. The section on Fort Necessity is well-done as far as the mistakes Washington made. The screenwriters deserve some credit for not omitting that. His location of the fort was indeed stupid. The battle is the first inkling that the combat in the movie is going to be enhanced. In reality, it was very one-sided, but at least the defeat is humiliating. One theme the movie presents, although probably not on purpose, is the British were very forgiving considering Washington started a war and then got his ass whipped. 

Gen. Braddock does not toss him out of his office when he offers to help him on his expedition. In fact, Braddock invited Washington by letter to join the expedition. The movie does not make it clear that Braddock’s army was slowly and painfully creating a road to the French Fort Duquesne. The movie is accurate in depicting Washington suffering from an ailment (it was dysentery and hemorrhoids), but he was not bedridden when the battle began. (He was riding his horse while sitting on a cushion.) The climactic Battle of  the Monongahela is where the historical license goes off the rails. The movie treats the battle as though there were two parts – an ambush of the main column in the woods and a separate engagement of the Virginia militia in a field. This gives Washington the chance to experience the chaos of the ambush and then lead his men to victory over their adversaries. In reality, Washington organized the rear guard for the retreat.  Washington did survive with bullet holes in his coat and hat. His bravery in the battle was true. However, it was the bravery of a man exposing himself to enemy fire while rallying the troops. It was not the bravery of a man leading charges. Braddock did put him in charge and Washington did step up under very difficult circumstances. The movie leaves the impression that Washington prevented the battle from being a disaster when it actually was. The movie is weak in the aftermath of the battle. It does not do a good job portraying how Washington came out of the battle famous as the best colonial soldier in the colonies. He was lauded for his leadership, not his fighting ability. Surprisingly, the movie does not have Washington ascribing his survival to divine providence, which is the way he explained it.