A Hill in Korea (1956)

               “A Hill in Korea” (“Hell in Korea” in American theaters) is the first British film set in the Korean War. It was based on the novel by Max Catto (“Murphey's War”). He was inspired by a true incident in the war. The movie has a cast of recognizable British thespians, including Michael Caine in his first credited film role (eight years before “Zulu”, his third film). Caine was a veteran of the Korean War and saw Chinese hordes up close and personal. He was a conscript or as they were called in Great Britain, a “National Serviceman”. Most of the characters in the unit are these soldiers famously known for being old enough to fight, but not to vote. He remembered his performance in the film with self-deprecating humor. He said he had only eight lines and screwed up six of them. Being the only Korean War veteran in the cast, he tried to be an unofficial technical adviser, with no success. He pointed out that a patrol would have been more spread out, but was informed the camera could not cover a wide formation. His suggestion that officers would not have worn insignia that identified them as targets was ignored for obvious reasons. He did not bother to point out that Portugal looked nothing like Korea because he wanted to go on location there.

               The movie is set in May, 1951 during the period when the United Nations forces are dealing with Chinese offensives. A British patrol of 17 men is trying to avoid being cut off by Chinese forces. It is obvious from the start that the movie will fit squarely in the “who will survive?” subgenre. The whittling begins immediately with one of the men dying from a booby trap. Other deaths will be from a grenade, a minor scratch, falling rubble, sniper, friendly bombs, and a suicide attack. Sadly, one of the first deaths is Robert Shaw as Lance Cpl. Hodge. Green Lt. Butler (George Baker) leads the unit with help from Sgt. Payne (Harry Andrews).  The patrol is going to have to fight its way just to get to its Alamo which is a temple on a hill. There are plenty of “gooks” or “chinks” to slaughter.

               “A Hill in Korea” benefits from a good cast without a lot of stereotypes. You do get the unseasoned leader who grows into the job with the help of his sergeant, but there is little dysfunction over his leadership. One of the men is a coward who gets redemption. Stanley Baker plays his usual hard-ass. The deaths are not predictable and there is a variety, although some are unrealistic. One stands out. They get bombed by American planes! You don’t expect friendly fire in a movie like this.

               The action is as close to combat porn as you could expect from a 1956 British war movie. And this was eight years before “Zulu”. The Chinese are depicted as savages similar to the Zulus or Indians in old westerns. Only worse, they are commies! Watching this film gives you a clear idea of how China was viewed in the 1950s. Michael Caine did not try to correct that facet of the film. In a biography, he mentioned that he was sympathetic toward communism until he fought in Korea where he encountered the brainless attacks by indoctrinated Chinese. He must have agreed with quotes like “They seem to want to die.” Or:  “Chinks don’t know the joys of living so they fight like it’s a joy to die.” However, it is a fact that the Chinese did use frontal attacks that led to heavy casualties. The movie is one of the more realistic Korean War movies in its depiction of combat. The Chinese use bugles and whistles to signal attacks. The Brits respond with Bren machine guns and they do reload. They put out aircraft recognition panels, although that doesn’t work in one occasion. They use covering fire to get a bazooka close enough to take out a tank.

               “A Hill in Korea” is one of the better Korean War b-movies. It is noteworthy as one of the few British movies set in the war. Americans should watch it as a reminder that the Brits did help us in the war, including young British who were drafted to help us save South Korea. You might want to note that they did not do the same thing in Vietnam. Because of this movie?

GRADE  =  B

The Devil’s Disciple (1987)

               In my opinion, “The Devil’s Disciple” (1959) is one of the 100 best war movies. It is also one of the top five movies about the American Revolution. Based on a play by George Bernard Shaw, the dialogue is excellent and so is its cast that included Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster, and Sir Laurence Olivier. There was absolutely no reason to remake it. The new version could not equal, much less exceed, the original. I can only assume that someone thought there were enough people who had not seen the 1959 version and were not aware of it, to justify a reboot. At least no one spent money in a theater to see it. It was made-for-tv and it shows.

               For those not familiar with the 1959 film, “The Devil’s Disciple” is set in 1777. Gen. John Burgoyne (Ian Richardson in the Olivier role) and his army are on their campaign to cut the New England colonies off from the rest of the colonies. He is frustrated with the unsporting rebels who are fighting a guerrilla war against the Brits. Into this historical event are thrust a trio of colonists. Reverand Anderson (Patrick Stewart in the Lancaster role) and his wife Judith (Susan Wooldridge) are living peaceful lives with no connection to the Revolution. Richard Dudgeon (Mike Gwilym  in the Douglas role) is a ne’er do well who some would call the devil’s disciple. Judith is repulsed by Dudgeon because he is the opposite of her stable, rule-following husband. Guess who falls in love with this bad boy. Dudgeon breaks character to admit to a rules violation by the rule-following reverend. Dudgeon, masquerading as the reverand, is put on trial for treason. The previously pious prior has to tap into his inner machismo to prevent an atheist from being hanged.

               I already mentioned there was no reason to make this movie. It pales by comparison to the original. This is especially apparent in the acting. Even Stewart does not acquit himself well. Gwilym has nowhere near the charisma to play Dudgeon. It is much more like a play than the previous film which means it has less action. Unfortunately, it does not even bother to be witty. Do not watch this movie instead of the 1959 version!!!

GRADE  =  D

 

Commissar (1967)

            The film is based on a short story by Vasily Grossman entitled “In the Town of Beroychev”. It is set in a small town in Ukraine. It was directed by Aleksandr Askoldov. It is his only film because it got him in hot water. Although it was released during the Khrushchev Thaw, it got into trouble with the government’s censors. Askolddov refused to change the portrayal of the Jewish family. It also did not fit the heroic realism expected of Soviet films. The timing of its possible release during the 50^th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution meant it drew special attention and was deemed not patriotic enough.  Askoldov lost his job, was kicked out of the Communist Party, branded a social parasite, and was banned from making any more films. It was finally released in 1988 due to glasnost. It was awarded the Silver Bear – Special Jury Prize at the 38^th Berlin International Film Festival.

            The movie takes place during the Russian Civil War. A Red Army unit moves into the town of Beroychev. One of the commissars is a woman named Klavdia (Nonna Nordyukova). She’s more manly than the men. When a deserter is captured, she has him executed. No man is going to be more communist than her. Suddenly, she finds herself pregnant. She is distressed. Having a baby that will interfere with her job of protecting communism is not very patriotic. She has tried hard to be considered just as good as the male officers and now this pregnancy is a clear reminder that she is still a woman. When the unit moves on, she is boarded with a Jewish family. The empathetic family softens her. The baby becomes less and less of a distraction from her career path. She ditches her uniform for civilian clothes and is accepted by the community. She bonds with the baby and even sings a lullaby, an act totally out of character. This idyllic life is threatened by the approach of the White Army. This is ominous for the Jewish family and reminds Klavkia that she is still officially a commissar. She has a decision to make.

            “Commissar” is made more interesting because of its back-story. I did not read up on it until after I had seen it. To tell the truth, I did not guess that the film was controversial. In fact, the film would not be considered controversial if it had been made and released during glasnost. I have seen a lot of Soviet films and this one does stand out. There are other portrayals of women in uniform, but this is the first one I have seen where there is a female officer as a main character. She is a commissar because the character must choose between the traditional life of a woman and the life of a dedicated communist. The other element that seems to foreshadow modern Russian cinema is the depiction of the Jewish family. Their ethnicity is not a major factor. Klavdia is not an anti-semite needing redemption. The film makes it clear that the arrival of the White Army will likely lead to a pogrom. The audience is not encouraged to root for this. “Commissar” has been credited with being the first Soviet film to show Jews sympathetically.  

It’s a bit pretentious. At one point, we see riderless horses running. Symbolism! There are odd camera angles and facial closeups. It’s a Soviet war film after all. So, you won’t be surprised that the main character is a respected officer. Spoiler alert: the main theme is motherhood or motherland. Kvadia is meant to be a role model for Soviet women. But is she a role model for mothers?  

“Commissar” is available with English subtitles on YouTube. While overrated, I recommend it because of the story behind it. I would not make it the first Soviet film you watch. There are plenty more that are better. 

GRADE  =  C 

ANATOMY OF A SCENE: Das Boot – Running the Strait

            “Das Boot” is the gold standard for submarine warfare movies. I have considered it to be a great movie, but not outstanding because of one scene. I have read several books on submarine warfare and the Battle of the Atlantic, so I know u-boat tactics. The tactics shown in the scenes depicting the attempt to run the strait of Gibraltar seemed puzzling to me, especially since the captain is portrayed as a good leader who would not make any stupid mistakes. Recently, my opinion on this flaw in the movie has reared its head again and has caused me to question whether I have been too harsh on the captain for this. So, I have rewatched the pertinent scenes and read the book version of the scenes to see if the movie followed the book and if so, was the captain wrong.

            In the movie, the sub is given orders to enter the Mediterranean Sea by way of the Strait of Gibraltar. The captain is well aware that this is a very risky mission because the strait is very well defended. It will take a good plan and a lot of luck. He decides to approach the strait in the dark on the surface. The boat will evade British ships to get close to the strait and then dive and use the eastward current to save fuel and safely run through the strait. No one on the crew questions the decision, but it is obvious some of the officers are skeptical. The boat manages to maneuver through several British ships and are within ten minutes of diving when the captain sends all the conning tower personnel below deck except himself and the navigator. A plane attacks and drops two bombs that damage the sub and wound the navigator. The captain orders “prepare to abandon ship”, but he stays topside and orders full speed ahead. The second officer guesses the captain is trying to reach shallower water off the coast of Africa. When the sub runs into several British ships, the captain is forced to dive. He plans to hold at 100 meters, but the damage causes the boat to continue its dive until it bottoms out at more than 280 meters, well below crush depth.

            Were the captain’s decisions good ones and do they conform to the captain in the book? In the book, the captain’s plan is the same as in the movie. No one questions them, but there is some doubt. Heading for the strait on the surface in the daytime, they are forced to dive three times because aircraft are spotted. None of the planes attacks. They are back on the surface when night falls. They are ten minutes from diving when the plane attacks. (In the book, the officers wonder how the plane was able to find them in the dark which is appropriate because in October, 1941 the RAF’s radar on planes would not have been known to the u-boat fleet.)  The conning tower is hit and the deck gun is destroyed. No one is wounded. The boat dives, but resurfaces due to the damage. However, star shells turns the night into day, so the captain orders a dive to 100 feet (I am not sure why the movie went with meters.) The boat continues to the bottom which is more than 825 feet deep.  

            The movie is close enough to the real incident, considering it’s a dramatization. Obviously, the director and screenwriter were not going to reenact three dives because of aircraft. And the dive to the bottom is close to what happened. They did have rivets busting, by the way. It’s not just a submarine movie cliché. However, the captain in the movie makes a very puzzling decision to stay on the surface after the plane attack that damages the sub. He does not explain his decision, but it seems like he would not have known the damage would cause the sub to sink. His order to race towards the African shallows is not explained, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he knew the boat might sink and he wanted it to be in shallower water. (That’s a big assumption.) This actually worked out because although the sub does go way below crush depth, if it had sunk where it had been damaged, it surely would have been crushed by the lower depth. Probably because of time constraints the movie does not show the boat diving after the attack (which would have been standard procedure), but having to surface because of damage. The captain is then forced to dive because the alternative is being a sitting duck. Because the movie edits out some of this, it makes the captain look like a gambler who loses his bet. In the movie, it is insane to stay on the surface after the plane attacks and clearly informs the warships about the sub. He does not know that diving will result in sinking. In fact, since the ship draws fire on the surface, it is likely the damage that causes the uncontrolled dive was due to a shell hitting on or near the boat.

            This analysis has led me to adjust my view on the movie’s depiction of the Strait of Gibraltar sequence. I still feels the movie captain makes a poor decision to stay on the surface after being attacked, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because we don’t know what he is thinking and the movie might have made decisions for dramatic effect. With that said, I still believe both the movie captain and the book captain were insane to go as far as they did on the surface, even at night. In the war, the u-boats that successfully ran the very well-defended strait did it submerged using the eastward current to narrow the speed loss from not being on the surface. 

            P.S. Let’s take the scenes a little further. The movie covers the repairs to the sub and its surfacing very close to the book. And I just want to add something that might not have been apparent to viewers. The sub would not have survived if the Chief had gotten his wish to go home and/or if the captain had shot Johann when he had his panic attack.