My
latest treadmill viewing was the Amazon Prime series “Three Days in the Life of
Lt. Kravtsova”.It is four episodes
totaling 184 minutes.It comes from Star
Media, the folks that brought you “Night Swallows” and “The Attackers”.It covers three days in the life of a young
officer on the Eastern Front in WWII.
Lt.
Kravtsova is green and this will be his first command.On the trip to his platoon, he is informed
that the average life expectancy for a lieutenant is three days.His platoon is a motley group who are
veterans.They don’t have high hopes for
their new leader.He wants to do right
and studies and memorizes his manual.They proceed to tell him how it really works at the front.He’s got some real learning to do and the
learning curve is steep.The platoon is
manning a trench with a no man’s land of about fifty yards separating them from
a German platoon.It’s basically a live
and let live situation, with occasional futile attacks.Kravtsova is told to stay low because snipers
only shoot at officers.The men are
skeptical of his leadership and when he leads an attack at first few follow
him.However, he is brave, if naïve, and
gradually earns their respect.Kravtsova
is caught between the platoon and his superiors.He has to follow orders from men who are
clueless about the actual situation at the front.When a major comes visit, he orders the
sniping of a German getting water from a stream in no man’s land.He is told this will break an unwritten rule,
but cares not.Meanwhile, romance is
brewing between Kravtsova and a local farm girl.This is building toward a suicide mission to
take out a forward observation post.The
mission happens on the third day.
“Three
Days…” is a typical Star Media production.It has a low budget feel to it.The trench set is fine, but small scale.No man’s land looks like a field and the village looks like a village
that was available for cheap.The
uniforms and weapons appear authentic.The acting is actually better than you could hope for.Alex Sparrow is well cast as Kravtsova.He is a rising star in Russian television and
music.Kravtsova is naïve, but sincere,
and he grows in the job.His wooing of
the girl (who is no beauty) is refreshingly chaste.The platoon members have distinct
personalities and you do care about their fates.As is true for Russian WWII television
series, the officer class is portrayed as mostly competent and empathetic
toward the soldiers.There is always a
villain, however.
The
weakness of the series is the confused nature of the combat.Most of the tactics make no sense.For instance, once they find out where the
observation post is, it would have made more sense to bombard it (which they
eventually do) rather than sending a squad.The combat is visceral and one no man’s land confrontation is combat
porn.At least with the action scenes,
you don’t have to rely on the subtitles.Star Media is notorious for its sometimes laughable subtitling, but this
series is the worst I’ve seen.Plus, I
often could not read them because they were set against a light
background.And often you would have to
be a speed-reader to keep up.
In
conclusion, I would recommend it for bingeing if you don’t require top flight
entertainment.It is short and the main
character is appealing.Just learn
Russian first.
“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 4th 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.
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.
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.
“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, notthe 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
250th 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 ofthe 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.