“Hellcats
of the Navy” claims to be based on the nonfiction book by ComSubPac Charles
Lockwood and Hans Christian Adamson. The
book is about Operation Barney which was the attempted infiltration of Japanese
waters with the American equivalent of a wolfpack. The movie is loosely based on the mission. It
was directed by Nathan Juran and starred Ronald Reagan in his second to last movie
role. The movie is famous for the
pairing of Reagan and his second wife Nancy (billed as Nancy Davis). It was their only movie together. The screenplay was by blacklisted Bernard
Gordon, which is ironic considering Reagan’s pro-blacklist stance. The production had the full cooperation of
the Navy. It was allowed to film at the San
Diego naval base and on board a submarine.
To emphasize the cooperation, Chester Nimitz introduces the film with
some vague reference to America taking the war to Japanese home waters.
The
USS Starfish is off the coast of Japan on a mission to disarm a mine and bring
it back. A frogman named Barton (Harry
Lauter) is abandoned when Commander Abbott (Reagan) has to crash dive because
of a Japanese destroyer. It’s the right
decision, but it is complicated by the fact that Lauter was putting the moves
on Abbott’s ex-girlfriend. The exec, Lt.
Commander Landon (Arthur Franz), feels Abbott was personally motivated by his
decision to leave Lauter. When they
return to Guam, Abbott is reunited with nurse Helen (Nancy) who is not upset
that her new beau is gone. She prefers
the mule to the wolf. The Starfish’s
next mission is to take out an island via commando raid. Ridiculous explosions ensue. Explosions for explosions sake. They have an
ill-fated encounter with a Japanese sub, but Abbott manages to bring back
charts of a mine field so it’s all good.
Back at base, Abbott turns in a scathing fitness report that wrecks
Landon’s career due to the belief that he is a wimp who cannot make tough
decisions. This from the man who just
lost his boat and sixteen men because he disobeyed orders. In spite of the bad blood, Landon will
continue as his exec so he can redeem himself.
The
brass sends a trio of three-sub wolfpacks to Japan’s inner waters. Abbott’s sub traverses a mine field with the
obligatory cable scraping. He sinks
seven ships in five minutes in a harbor.
Elect this guy President! But
wait, there’s more. On the way out, the
boat gets a net wrapped around the propeller.
Guess who strips down to untangle the net? And yet Nancy has to keep her starched white
nurse’s uniform buttoned to the chin throughout the movie (and probably through
the production). While Ronnie may have
thought of himself as being the equivalent of Burt Lancaster, he would be
damned if Nancy was going to be Deborah Kerr. In one of the silliest scenes in war movie
history, Abbott gets caught in the net.
An approaching destroyer gives Landon the chance to redeem himself by
diving with Abbott still entangled. Just
doing what you dared me to do, skipper.
Plus payback, sweet! In a “screw
you, cliché” development, Abbott survives to continue his zombielike romance
with Helen. Hurray?
In
my recent binging of sub movies, I have come to the conclusion that the
percentage of sub movies that are below average war movies is very high. This is surprising because you would think
the cramped confines of a sub would lend themselves to dramatic tension,
character development, and ensemble acting.
Interiors should be relatively easy to recreate, although filming in
cramped quarters can be hell. The
special effects are a problem and it is difficult to avoid the look of fakery,
but the audience is usually understanding of that. The subgenre lends itself well to the action
followed by exposition format of many war movies. It has the advantage of combining the
visceral thrill of sneaking up on an enemy and stabbing them by way of a
torpedo and land combat in the form of commando raids. In other words, you can
see ships blow up and stuff blow up. And
depth chargings work much better for drama than artillery bombardments. And yet, so many sub movies blow it. Since there are so many well-established
clichés, it is difficult for a sub movie to be original and high quality. Most sub movies do not achieve either of
these. “Hellcats of the Pacific” is especially bad because it does not even try
to be creative or top-notch.
There
is nothing quality about the film. If
not for the pairing of the Reagans, it would be totally forgettable. The acting is terrible. Reagan is stiff and Nancy matches him. You can see why Helen was attracted to
Barton, but not what he saw in her. This
love triangle is reminiscent of the equally lame one in “Operation Pacific”.
The Reagans’ scenes together are hard to bear.
The dialogue is atrocious. The
plot makes little sense. In this case,
the movie cribs from “Torpedo Run”.
Don’t ask why you would want to steal from two bad sub movies. The effects fit the film well. They are terrible, too. The models are particularly fake
looking. As usual, the depth charges
are incredibly accurate. They result in
“Star Trek” type jostling of the crew.
There
would be some compensation if the movie was historically accurate. You would think the involvement of Lockwood
as technical adviser would have insured an acceptable degree of accuracy. Not to
mention the rare appearance of Chester Nimitz himself. So how accurate is it? There was an Operation Barney. In July, 1943, Lockwood sent three subs in to
the La Perouse Strait and then into the Sea of Japan. They charted the mine fields, but did not
find much to hunt. Later the acclaimed
Wahoo under the command of the famous “Mush” Morton was sunk in the area. It was assumed the loss was due to a
mine. Lockwood vowed revenge and put
Operation Barney into motion. Hydeman’s
Hellcats (a trio of three-sub wolfpacks) would take advantage of the new FM
sonar tech that allowed them to detect mines.
The operation took place in June, 1945 and resulted in a disappointingly
low total of 28 Japanese ships sunk. One
sub, the Bonefish, was lost. As you can
deduce, the movie is not exactly a documentary.
If
you have not seen “Hellcats of the Navy”, only watch it if you are insane
enough to try to watch every sub movie.
Who would do something like that?
You might also watch it if you want to get drunk. Take a drink every time you groan.
GRADE = F
I liked the harbor attack sequence. The sub was at in a position to do damage and it was satisfying to see the captain take advantage of the opportunity.
ReplyDeleteOne of the themes that should make submarine movies good is the tension between risk and achieving success, the tension between glory and duty, and how the very human captain of the sub handles these tensions. I think that Hollywood is aware of this because most sub captains are given some kind of unique personality trait that affects their decisions.
The problem with this may lie in the difficulty of the audience - or indeed, anyone - to grasp extent of the actual danger or opportunity. The captain makes a decision based on limited information. The crew may think he's reckless or cowardly, but will also acknowledge that there's a chance that the actual situation will fully justify the captain's course. The audience has no idea. There is usually a long delay between the submarine's action and the resulting consequences, and the result feels arbitrary, the result of chance.
In effect, many submarine movies are like watching someone else play poker. Like the "let's watch someone play a video game" movies of the 21st century it is hard to make these into compelling cinema.