Gift Horse (1952)

 

            The British WWII movie “Glory at Sea” was shown in American theaters as “Gift Horse”.  The American title was more appropriate because it is a reference to the phrase:  “don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.”  This fits a WWI American destroyer that was loaned to Britain in the destroyers for bases deal.  With the Battle of the Atlantic raging, the British could not be particular when it came to convoy escorts.  The film was directed by Compton Bennett.  It did not do well at the box office in America.

            The movie was dedicated to the 50 destroyers given to Great Britain before the U.S. entered the war.  The now HMS Ballantrae was turned over at Halifax, Canada.  It will have an inexperienced crew with a hard-luck captain.  Capt. Fraser (Trevor Howard) has been pulled from retirement.  It was a forced retirement due to a court-martial, so we have a redemption arc.  The ship is put on convoy duty.  The convoy has to leave it behind because an engine breaks and for hours they are a sitting duck for u-boats.  And it leaks.  Fraser is your typical strict captain that insists on the crew busting their ass to make the ship perform better than it looks.  He postpones shore leave to make the ship ship-shape.  Naturally, he is not popular with the crew.  And there is dysfunction with his executive officer.  If that’s not enough cliches, the crew gets into a bar fight with another crew. Hey, only we can say bad things about our shitty captain.   (There’s going to be another bar fight.) 

            The narrative follows a standard British destroyer template.  It is similar to “The Cruel Sea” which means it covers a series of realistic convoy escort incidents.  The Ballantrae deals with a u-boat and is attacked by German planes.  What sets it apart is the ship is a Jonah with a captain that doesn’t exactly have a stirling reputation.  In spite of this, the captain and crew volunteer for a suicide mission!  The Admiralty believes that because the ship is good at running into things, he will be used to ram into German dry dock in France.  Although the ship needs to be put out of its misery, it would seem an unlikely choice for an important mission.  And you would think Fraser would not be high on the list of potential captains.  But this is a war movie, not a documentary.  The final 20 minutes is based on the famous St. Nazaire Raid with the Ballantrae playing the role of the HMS Campeltown. 

            “Gift Horse” is not as good as “The Cruel Sea” and “In Which We Serve”, but it is a worthy example of the Battle of the Atlantic subgenre.  It is full of the cliches that mark the nautical subgenre and war movies in general.  Besides the strict, but fair captain in need of redemption and the bar fights, we get the hard-luck ship that dies heroically.  One of the crew loses his family to the Blitz.  It’s competently done by a great cast.  Howard is fine as the captain.  He could do stiff upper lip in his sleep.  Fraser has an interesting, if predictable, back-story.  The crew gets some coverage because the movie is not all about command.  There is a pair of mates that provide some humor, or what passes for humor in a British WWII movie.

            The main reason for watching it is for the raid.  The convoy duty is realistic, for an old tub.  There is not a whole lot of it.  “Greyhound” it ain’t.  It saves most of the action for the raid.  The concluding act is exciting.  It is about as good a reenactment of Operation Chariot as you could hope for using models.  The sound effects and explosions are nicely done.  It’s worth the wait, but we still do not have the definitive movie on the St. Nazaire Raid.  However, “Gift Horse” is better than “Attack on the Iron Coast”.  It is an entertaining film with a lot of quality British thespians, including James Donald, Richard Attenborough, and Bernard Lee.

GRADE  =  B   

THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES: #93. Mister Roberts (1955)

 

            “Mister Roberts” was based on the novel by Thomas Heggen and the subsequent play written by Heggen and Joshua Logan.  Heggen based the novel on his experiences as a young officer on a supply ship in WWII.  Henry Fonda starred in the play, but he was not the studio’s first choice because he had not made a movie in eight years and he was considered too old at 49 to play a lieutenant.  The studio wanted William Holden or Marlon Brando, but John Ford insisted on Fonda.  He would live to regret that decision.  Ford was a notorious tyrant and he and Fonda did not get along partly because Ford insisted on dictating Fonda’s performance.  He added scenes to the screenplay, put in more broad comedy, and enhanced Jack Lemmon’s role at the expense of Fonda. It all came to a head when Ford confronted Fonda and punched him.  Ford was contrite, but at that point, it was Fonda’s film and Ford could not take being second banana.  He started drinking heavily, even on the set.  He drank two cases of beer a day.  The studio probably would have sacked him if not for his emergency bladder surgery taking him out of the picture.  Mervyn LeRoy took over and endeavored to shoot the picture the way Ford would have.  Fonda brought his play director, Joshua Logan, in to reshoot some pivotal scenes.  Logan shot the laundry scene and the final scene where Pulver stands up to the Captain.  Because of Fonda’s age, older actors were cast around him.  Cagney was 56.  He got the role when Spencer Tracy turned it down.  Cagney also had trouble with Ford who warned him on day one that they would “tangle asses”.  When that day came, Cagney told Ford it was go time and Ford backed down.  Later, Cagney described Ford as a “nasty old man.”  Cagney got along great with Lemmon and they struck up a friendship that lasted until Cagney’s death.  William Powell was 63 when he played Doc.  He was in poor health due to cancer bouts and had trouble remembering his lines.  It was his last film, but he lived almost 30 more years.  The exteriors were filmed on a Navy ship at Midway, the place where Ford had filmed his acclaimed WWII documentary.  Partly because of Ford’s service with the Navy, he had full cooperation.  The movie was a big hit and finished third at the box office that year.  It was nominated for Best Picture and Best Sound and Lemmon won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.

            The USS Reluctant (nicknamed “The Bucket”) is a supply ship in the Pacific during the last days of WWII.  It is far from the action.  It’s not just the heat that is sapping the men, it’s also the monotony.  And the captain.  Captain Morgan (Cagney) is a martinet who believes efficiency trumps morale.  He has a palm tree that was a reward for efficiency that he cares more about than he does for his crew.  His executive officer is Doug Roberts.  Roberts is desperate to see some combat before the big show is over, but the Captain won’t endorse his transfer requests.  Until he gets off this slow boat to nowhere, he is determined to act as a buffer between the captain and the crew.  In order to get the crew shore leave, he promises Morgan that he will stop requesting a transfer.  But the crew can’t know about the deal. Roberts sudden deference to the captain disturbs the crew.  (The movie has them unrealistically turning on Roberts quickly, but it is necessary for the plot.) The other officers are Doc (Powell) and Ensign Pulver (Lemmon).  Doc is your stereotypical elderly father figure that you see in movies like “The Dawn Patrol”.  Pulver is the ship’s morale officer, but he is a slacker who is all talk when it comes to standing up to the captain.  He is the requisite wolf and has his own theme song -  “If I Could Be With You”.  If you’ve seen the movie, right now you can hear him sing it in your head right now.  And if you have seen the movie, you have already been gut punched by the ending.  Actually, an end scene that goes from tragedy to torch-passing conclusion.

ACTING:  A+                      

ACTION:  N/A                     

ACCURACY:  N/A 

PLOT:  A                  

REALISM:  A                      

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   B

SCORE:  not memorable                  

BEST SCENE:  worshipping the palm tree planter 

BEST QUOTE:  Captain, it is I, Ensign Pulver, and I just threw your stinkin' palm tree overboard! Now what's all this crud about no movie tonight?  

            Usually, when a play is made into a movie, it has a stage-bound vibe.  Although it takes place almost exclusively on the ship, there is enough action to transcend that feeling.  However, although the big four are comfortable in their roles, the rest of the cast act like they are in a play.  Their emoting smacks of playing to an audience.  When I watch it, I keep waiting for them to break out in song like in “South Pacific”.  If you are a baby boomer, you’ll recognize a lot of familiar character actors on board.  But they are there to react to Mister Roberts and to get drunk on shore leave.  The movie is not memorable because of the crew.  It’s the quartet that carries it.  All four are perfect, with Lemmon stealing the show.  He earned his Oscar with one of the great comedic turns in a war movie.  I personally did not find their ages distracting.  It’s fairly common to see actors in war movies who are too old for their character.

            “Mister Roberts” is one of the best service comedies.  The plot flows smoothly and avoids the common laugh drop-off in the last act.  The plot devices work well.  The most famous palm tree in war movie history, the letters, Pulver’s fear of the captain are all memorable.  Ironically, it is a letter that leads to a poignant moment that belies the humor.  And then the movie closes with one of the greatest redemptions which whiplashes the viewer and restores smiles.  It is one of the greatest final scenes in movie history.

            How realistic is it?  Although we can’t hold it to a high standard because it is a comedy and it is based on a fictional ship, it is not unrealistic.  After all, Thomas Heggan served on a cargo ship in the war.  He would have experienced the monotony of that duty.  It was dangerous, if you were in submarine waters, but most of the time you were far from the battles.  Obviously, setting the movie in the Pacific substitutes fear with boredom.  There were certainly captains like the one in the movie.  There are always leaders who are unfair and uncaring about their crews.  The other officers are archetypes, but realistic ones.  There will always be rear echelon officers who crave a combat assignment.  Some do it to enhance their record for promotion purposes.  But some are like Roberts, they legitimately feel they will have missed the chance to test their mettle in the furnace of combat. 

            “Mister Roberts” is a must-see movie.  Its humor may be firmly stuck in the 1950s. but it holds up well and while you may not laugh out loud, you’ll certainly enjoy it.  The acting alone is worth the look.  It will come as no surprise that the movie was very popular and still is.

 

The One Hundred Best War Movies: #94 The Missiles of October

 

        The Missiles of October  

            The war movie genre can cover a lot of subgenres.  I am a bit expansive in my determination of what movies are war movies.  For instance, I do accept sci-fi movies if they have combat in them.  This is why I consider “Aliens” to be a war movie. It features combat between Colonial Marines and Xenomorphs.  I am actually stricter when it comes to Cold War movies.  Although it has the word “war” in the name, I don’t include most war movies with Cold War settings to be war movies.  Most of the contenders are espionage related.  While I include espionage movies from WWII, I don’t usually include ones that are in the Cold War.  It’s not a shooting war, after all.  I made an exception for “The Missiles of October”.  It is clearly a Cold War movie and it has no combat.  Thank goodness.  But it is the best war movie when it comes to showing how a crisis can escalate into war.

            “The Missiles of October” was a television movie directed by Anthony Page (“Pueblo”).  It was based on Robert Kennedy’s book “Thirteen Days”.  The original showing in 1974 was popular and it was critically acclaimed.  It was nominated for eight Emmys.   Technical director Ernie Buttelman won for Outstanding Achievement in a Drama or Comedy Special.  It was nominated for Best Drama or Comedy Special, Supporting Actor (Ralph Bellamy as Adlai Stevenson), and Outstanding Writing in an Original Teleplay (Stanley Greenberg).  The title is a reference to Barbara Tuchman’s landmark book “The Guns of August”.  In the movie, Kennedy mentions the  book as an example of how nations can careen to war in spite of no government desiring it. 

            The movie begins with Kennedy (William Devane) giving a speech promising no aggression by Cuba will be allowed.  This throws down the gauntlet that tells the audience that if anything was to occur, JFK will have to wimp out or go to the brink of war or beyond.  He gets his chance to man up when it is discovered that the Soviets are secretly installing offensive nukes in Cuba.  They will be only minutes away from most of the U.S.  We then cross the globe to see Nikita Khrushchev (Howard Da Silva) claim to the Politburo that the missiles are purely defensive.  This establishes the format of intercutting between the White House and the Kremlin.  (Except in the case of the Kremlin, only Khruschev is ever seen, appropriate for a dictator.)  Kennedy, on the other hand, interacts with ExComm consisting of valued advisors.  What follows is a master’s class on weighing the pros and cons of actions.  In the Kremlin, the thankfully sane Soviet leader is faced with determining how far the President, who he humiliated at a previous conference, will be willing to go.  His is a gamble that could lead to nuclear war.  Kennedy, seemingly the leader less likely to fire the first shot, is pressured by the realities of American politics. Plus, he has to deal with a hawk/dove divide in ExComm.  Not surprisingly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA are pushing for a military solution whereas the politicians are pushing diplomacy.  Obviously, if you have any historical literacy, you know how this ends.  What the movie does is show you how we got there. 

ACTING:  A                         

ACTION:  N/A                     

ACCURACY:  A     

PLOT:   A                 

REALISM:  A+                    

CINEMATOGRAPHY:  B

SCORE:  none                      

BEST SCENE:  the first meeting of Kennedy with his advisers

BEST QUOTE:  General:  You’re in a pretty bad fix.  JFK:  You’re in it with me.

            “The Missiles of October” has the look of a play taped for television.  A modern remake might even do it live.  It is very dialogue driven.  And most of the dialogue is actual quotes.  The cast is full of recognizable television veterans and the acting is excellent.  The standouts are Devane and Da Silva.  Devane is one of the best Kennedy portrayers and he gets the personality and accent right.  (Contrast this with Martin Sheen as Bobby who took a lot of grief for his inconsistent accent.)  I must mention that no actress has a significant role and only one woman speaks (Kennedy’s secretary Lincoln.)  But this is an accurate reflection of the government in the 1960s.

              If it wasn’t a recreation of the Cuban Missile Crisis, one would think a movie that is mostly politicians talking would be boring.  However, the crisis has the tension built in to where it can forego a soundtrack or a variety of sets and still be edge of your seat.  There are no subplots to get non-famous people into the mix.  None of the characters are fictional.  This teleplay is one of the most historically accurate TV movies ever made.  There are few significant examples of historical license.  There are some historical sources that were not available at the time, so the movie does not have some of the more recent scholarship, but even today it is still the best coverage of the crisis aimed at a mass audience.  It is a reflection of current state of historical movies that the movie “Thirteen Days”, which had access to all the records, is less accurate.  That’s because it sacrifices some historical veracity for a more melodramatic presentation.  The main character (Kevin Costner’s Special Assistant to the President) is given a much bigger role than the actual person.  I am a fan of “Thirteen Days”, but I went with “Missiles” for my 100 Best because it is more true to the crisis.  It gives us a look at both sides, so if you want to see how a crisis can escalate, you need to see the decision-making by both sides.    

            If you had seen this movie when it debuted in 1974, you most likely would have come away with the impression that we sure dodged a bullet in 1962.  And we most likely would run out of luck (and sane leaders) by the 21^st Century.  Well, we’re still around and I’d like to think that both American Presidents and Soviet/Russian leaders have studied the Cuban Missile Crisis (and maybe have seen this movie, if they don’t believe in reading).  We may not be in the Cold War anymore, but we’re bound to have more crises.  Let’s elect someone who has seen this movie.

GRADE  =  A