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.
