“The
Americanization of Emily” was a black comedy released in 1964. It was loosely based on the novel by William
Bradford Huie. Huie was a Seabee who
participated in D-Day and based the plot on his experiences. Paddy Chayefsky wrote the screenplay and made
it more of a comedy. The whole cowardice
theme does not appear in the book. The
film was directed by Arthur Hiller (“Tobruk”).
It was a commercial and critical success. It was nominated for Academy Awards for Art
Direction, Cinematography, and Music Score.
Both Julie Andrews and James Garner claim it is their favorite
film. The “Americanization” of the title
refers to British women giving sexual favors in exchange for American stuff
like Hershey bars. The movie is set in
London in 1944.
The first time we meet Charlie
Madison (Garner) he is patting the rear of motor pool driver Emily Barham (Andrews). She is offended, but this is a Hollywood movie
so you can see where this relationship is heading in the end. The only suspense is how we get there.
Madison is personal aide to Rear Admiral Jessup (Melvyn Douglas) and an
ace “dog robber”. A dog robber was a
scrounger who could provide their superior with the finer things in life,
including females.
don't worry guys, she doesn't sing |
In spite of the rocky start,
when Emily shows up at a party looking ravishing, they are in bed soon enough with music
swelling. It turns out that although the
prim Emily does not want to be Americanized (she does not like Hershey bars),
she is attracted to the fact that Madison is a “practicing coward”. Having lost a husband, father, and brother in
the war, it’s time to try a hunk who is determined to live out the war. Very determined. When Madison meets Emily’s mother (who
refuses to admit her husband is dead), he proceeds to give her a sermon on the
joys of cowardice. Chayefsky riffs on
the glorification of war. ”It’s always
the generals with the bloodiest records who are the first to shout what a hell
it is. It’s the war widows [like you, Mrs. Barham] who lead the
Memorial Day parade.” He leaves his
future mum-in-law in tears, but she needed to hear it. Right?
The mentally unstable Adm.
Jessup has a brainstorm. Since the Army
will be getting all the glory from D-Day, the Navy needs a leg up if its going to survive the post-war demobilization. Wouldn’t it be great if the first serviceman
to die on Omaha Beach is a sailor? And
how about if it was filmed for a documentary?
Madison’s buddy “Bus” Cummings (James Coburn) is enthusiastic about the
idea and orders Charlie to go ashore with the combat engineers as the head of a film crew to get the money
shot. Charlie is less than thrilled with
the dangerous assignment, but is confident that he can weasel out of it.
When Charlie is giggly about his
efforts to avoid heroism, Emily suddenly decides she can’t be with a man with
no principles. It’s not like he’s been
hiding his feelings. He virtually yells
them from the Tower of London. When she
jilts him he lays into her so badly you begin to wonder if Chayefsky is going
to go off the reservation and not give us our normal reconciliation as part of a happy ending. (Clue: this movie was made in 1964, not 1974.)
that's the actual line |
Charlie arranges to be late for
the mission which is scheduled for June 5.
He is gleeful until the weather postpones the invasion to June 6 and now
he’s in for it. Damned fickle Mother Nature! Damn Eisenhower and his flexible timetable! Charlie and his camera crew (two drunken
misfits) are landed ahead of the invasion.
Since Bus knows his friend is a coward, he follows him with the real
camera crew and makes sure Charlie is the first American killed in D-Day. Hilarious!
That is one deserted beach.
Charlie is now the hero he fought so hard to not be. Ironic right? [See spoiler conclusion below]
RACHELLE’S TAKE: My wife could not tell whether the movie was supposed to be a
drama or a comedy. The movie is best
viewed if you know going in that it is a black comedy. She liked the acting, but was put off by the
changing moods of the main characters.
Emily, Charlie, and Bus whiplash from one extreme to the other at
various times in the film. She also
found the dialogue was not realistic for real people. Of course, this is not unexpected for a
Chayefsky screenplay.
KEVIN’S REVIEW: This is a strange movie.
It’s not clearly a comedy or at least it’s not that funny. The theme that war should not be glorified
and those who avoid dying in war have some justification for their cowardice is
interesting, but Charlie’s monologues bludgeon us with it. Charlie is also a repugnant character,
although we are supposed to empathize with him and view him as a loveable
rogue. The fact that Emily falls in love
with him is not believeable. Her
character arc is not satirical. It is
straight forward that she goes from abhorring this living-large-while-other’s-sacrifice
brash Yank to bedding this principled coward to jilting this unprincipled coward
to being devastated by his heroic death.
Julie Andrews must have loved being able to play a schizophrenic.
The movie should have ended with
Charlie’s “death”. What comes after
dilutes the satirical nature of the script and turns it into a farce. But then we
wouldn’t have a happy ending.
Chayefsky pulls his punches and should be ashamed for it. There is a difference between a farce and a
satire. Decide which you want it to be
and stick with it.
CLOSING: When Emily learns of Charlie’s death, she is despondent but
proud of her coward turned hero. The
admiral comes to his senses and is upset it was his loony idea that resulted in
Charlie’s death. However, he plans to use
the publicity to make sure there is a Navy forever. He envisions Charlie receiving a posthumous
Navy Cross from the President. Things
get complicated when Charlie turns up alive.
How inconvenient! Emily is thrilled
her coward is back. We get a run and
kiss reunion. Charlie insists on telling
the truth about his “death”. Suddenly he
is brave when it comes to his cowardice and will blow the lid off this scandal. Emily convinces him to embrace his cowardice
and be the hero who was the first American to land on Omaha Beach. He agrees and they live happily ever after.
grades:
Rachelle = C
Kevin = C
The movie, like its main character, doesn't quite have the courage of its convictions. The ending is a cop out. Maybe the studio insisted on a happy ending (especially since it appears that they marketed it as a romantic comedy). The anti-war theme is interesting, though. Garner, BTW, served in Korea and was wounded. That experience may have taught him that war is not something to glorify.
ReplyDeleteAgree. I did not know that about Garner. Good theory. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI've seen a number of movies that use WWII or Korea as vehicles for Vietnam-era cynicism; this movie seems to have all of that cynicism without the motivation of a contemporary war. Perhaps that cynicism was always there with some writers, waiting for a convenient cause to build upon (similar to how Madison's technique of shaming Barham into becoming sexually available by negging her as a prude anticipates an attitude that will appear more often in later films).
ReplyDeleteAll of your criticisms are well founded. The dialogue and scenes are very "theatrical" in the worst sense of the term. Characters are all over the place, and elements of the story seem implausible (for instance: were officers really talking about "D-Day" and "Omaha Beach" so freely among themselves, let alone in the presence of civilians?).
One thing that does resonate (and perhaps was part of the reason for the popular reception of the movie) is the sense that in war there are people who manage to get cushy, safe service positions and selfishly use military authority for their own benefit. This class is excellent fodder for a black comedy or a farce, but you are right to say that it would work best to commit to one or the other.