DUELING MOVIES: Gung Ho! (1943) vs. Darby’s Rangers (1958)

VS.



                I like small unit movies, especially when they bring light to actual units that performed ably in war.  “Gung Ho!” and “Darby’s Rangers” are two of those types of movies.  Each covers the formation, training, and combat involvement of two storied World War II units.  “Gung Ho!” is the story of the Second Marine Raider Battalion led by Lt. Col. Evans Carlson and its raid on Makin Island.  “Darby’s Rangers” is the tale of the 1^st Ranger Battalion led by Maj. William Darby and its involvement in the Battle of Cisterna in Italy.

                “Gung Ho!” is based on a magazine article written by one of the participants in the raid.  One of the technical advisers was Carlson.  It was directed by Ray Enright.  The Marine Corps cooperated with the film, but insisted that Carlson not be singled out.  The main character is Col. Thorwald (Randolph Scott).  His call for volunteers results in the usual Hollywoodized heterogeneous unit that includes a hick, a Brooklynite, a minister, and two dysfunctional brothers in love with the same girl.  It also is multi-ethnic with a Greek, an Irishman, an Hispanic, and a Chinesese-American.  Each volunteer is asked “why do you want to kill Japs?”  One of the correct answers in the montage is: “I just don’t like Japs”.  Carlson adopts the Chinese motto of “gung ho” which means “work in harmony”.  He is a “players’ coach” who cares about his men and listens to them.



                The training montage has Chet Huntley (if you know who that is - hail, fellow baby boomer) as its narrator and sounds like an instructional film as he describes why they are learning certain things.  The men are taught unsporting methods that feature dirty tricks like spitting in your opponents face.  Thorwald counsels his men that they will have an advantage because the Japs lack initiative.  (Actually true.)  The training on Hawaii allows the film to remind the audience of the destruction of Pearl Harbor with some actual footage.  They are assigned a mission to raid a Japanese held island.  They get there via two submarines. The assault is action-packed.



                The movie is as accurate as could be hoped for.  Thorwald is pretty close to Carlson in personality and tactics.  Carlson had learned guerrilla tactics while serving in China.  He did adopt his slogan from the Chinese.  None of the other characters in the film are based on real people.  This was a dubious decision as one of the Raiders was Sgt. Clyde Thompson whose valor in the battle resulted in him becoming the first Marine to earn the Medal of Honor in WWII.  The final assault on Butaritari (one of the Makin Islands) is highly fictionalized.  They did get there via submarines, but there was no depth charging.  The ridiculous painting of the American flag to lure the Japanese aircraft to fratricide was obvious bull crap.  The movie was not interested in portraying the fact that nine men were accidentally left behind and the difficulties with the egress in high seas. The movie ends with the impression that the raid was an unqualified success.  In reality,  the goals of acquiring intelligence and bringing back prisoners were unfulfilled.  Not surprisingly, the movie makers were not interested in surmising that the raid actually had the unintended consequence of waking the Japanese up to the weaknesses of their island defenses.      



RANDOLPH SCOTT!

                “Gung Ho!” is surprisingly good.  There is lots of action and if you like stabbings, this movie is for you.  The acting is fine, if a bit earnest.  Randolph Scott is his usual stolid self and Robert Mitchum makes the last of his seventeen acting credits for 1943.  There’s nothing special about the cinematography, but what would you expect from a standard 1940s war movie?  Similar could be said about the unexceptional score.  The sound effects are good, however.  The screenplay does avoid clichés which is refreshing and the linear plot flows well.  Also refreshing is there is only one romance and it is minor (just enough for the movie poster).  It is propagandistic and patriotic, but not cloyingly.  Although the movie does close with Thorwald giving another speech about the fight for freedom as patriotic music swells.  The themes of teamwork, showing initiative, and fighting for American values are clearly advanced.

                “Darby’s Rangers” was released in 1958.  William Wellman (“The Story of G.I. Joe” / “Battleground”) supposedly made it in exchange for studio funding for his pet “Lafayette Escadrille”.  The studio insisted on a movie similar to the wildly popular “Battle Cry”.  The screenplay was “suggested” by the eponymous book by Maj. James Attieri.  The movie was bizarringly titled “The Young Invaders” in the United Kingdom.    The choice of black and white was done to help with the blending of archival footage.

                The movie opens with Maj. Darby (James Garner in a role originally meant for Charleston Heston) taking command of a new unit intended as an American version of the British Commandoes.  He describes the Rangers as the “tip of the javelin”.  On his wall are slogans like “Danger to a Ranger is no stranger”.  He picks a heterogeneous unit and then makes the head-scratching decision to billet the men with British families.  How this will toughen them for suicide missions is perplexing.  It does put them is in contact with British females for some truly gag-worthy romantic subplots.  One of these has a recruit courting the daughter of their crusty British drill instructor.  The highlight is when the designated unit villain leers at a British wife and says “I hope I can fit in” while holding a phallic symbol!  The training montage features the most pratfalls I have ever seen in a war movie and this is not even supposed to be a comedy.  Good drinking game – take a drink every time someone falls. 



"To be an effective fighting force, my men must
have a lot of sex!"

                One hour into the movie we get our first taste of combat in North Africa and it lasts two minutes.  That’s right, we sat through an hour of lame-ass romantic subplots and this is our reward!  From there it’s on to Italy for an extended battle with a sniper and some laugh out loud deaths.  Again, I had to check to make sure this was not a comedy.  We get the clichéd appearance of Axis Sally:  “Don’t get caught, Chicago gangsters.  You’ll be shot.”  A Lt. Dittman (Edd Byrnes – if that name does not cause a flutter, you were not a teenage girl in the 50s) to be a book-following foil to the lenient Darby.  And to show that just because you are fighting in Italy does not mean you can’t have great hair.  This also allows the movie to add one more romantic subplot.  Arrrgh!  Join the Rangers – get a dame.  The film “builds” to the big set piece which is the Battle of Cisterna (part of the Anzio campaign).  If you think this is going to pull the movie out of the trash can, think again.



                The First Ranger Battalion deserved an historically accurate movie.  This movie is not it.  The reason for its creation is accurate, but not the specifics of how it was Gen. Truscott’s idea.  The training was intense, but it was highly unlikely they had a lot of time for wooing British birds in their own homes.  The movie skips over the unit’s involvement in Dieppe, Algeria, and Tunisia.  It was noted for raids behind enemy lines.  Then it was sent to Italy and its mission changed.  Similar to the 1^st Special Service Force (The Devil's Brigade), which also fought at Anzio, Darby’s Rangers were improperly used as shock troops.  Its mission at Cisterna was to capture the town and hold it until the main force arrived.  Seventeen Panzer IVs had something to say about that.  The battle lasted seven hours and only 6 of 767 members survived and the unit was disbanded soon afterward.  The disaster had no silver lining as the movie claims. 

                This is a terrible movie.  One of the worst I have seen.  It is also very disappointing because the 1^st Ranger Battalion did not get the recognition it should have.  The ridiculous plot is degrading.  The acting is poor.  It has the usual pompous Max Steiner score.  (Is there anything in war movie history that has stood the test of time worse than Max Steiner scores?)  The sets are back lots and decidedly fake looking.  The movie is tedious and the action is anemic and very unrealistic.  All ten minutes of it.  At one point, they attack an 88 and the Germans leave their trenches to make a banzai attack.  Dittman uses a mortar like a grenade launcher.  Wellman clearly did not have his heart in the movie and sadly his “Lafayette Escadrille” was not the career capper that he hoped for.  Wellman stopped making movies in 1958 and when you look at this 1940s crap stuck in the late 50s when war movies were making the transition to cynicism, you can see that he had overstayed.  Most of the blame must go to the studio who insisted that audiences wanted war soap operas.

                  In conclusion, although "Gung Ho!" is an average WWII film, it is superior to the lame-ass "Darby's Rangers".

GRADES:

Gung Ho!  =  C

Darby’s Rangers  =  F-

Gung Ho! trailer

   

WAR CHICK FLICK: The Americanization of Emily (1964)

                 “The Americanization of Emily” was a black comedy released in 1964.  It was loosely based on the novel by William Bradford Huie.  Huie was a Seabee who participated in D-Day and based the plot on his experiences.  Paddy Chayefsky wrote the screenplay and made it more of a comedy.  The whole cowardice theme does not appear in the book.  The film was directed by Arthur Hiller (“Tobruk”).  It was a commercial and critical success.  It was nominated for Academy Awards for Art Direction, Cinematography, and Music Score.  Both Julie Andrews and James Garner claim it is their favorite film.  The “Americanization” of the title refers to British women giving sexual favors in exchange for American stuff like Hershey bars.  The movie is set in London in 1944.

                The first time we meet Charlie Madison (Garner) he is patting the rear of motor pool driver Emily Barham (Andrews).  She is offended, but this is a Hollywood movie so you can see where this relationship is heading in the end.  The only suspense is how  we get there.  Madison is personal aide to Rear Admiral Jessup (Melvyn Douglas) and an ace “dog robber”.  A dog robber was a scrounger who could provide their superior with the finer things in life, including females.

don't worry guys, she doesn't sing

                In spite of the rocky start, when Emily shows up at a party looking ravishing,  they are in bed soon enough with music swelling.  It turns out that although the prim Emily does not want to be Americanized (she does not like Hershey bars), she is attracted to the fact that Madison is a “practicing coward”.  Having lost a husband, father, and brother in the war, it’s time to try a hunk who is determined to live out the war.  Very determined.  When Madison meets Emily’s mother (who refuses to admit her husband is dead), he proceeds to give her a sermon on the joys of cowardice.  Chayefsky riffs on the glorification of war.  ”It’s always the generals with the bloodiest records who are the first to shout what a hell it is.  It’s the war widows [like you, Mrs. Barham] who lead the Memorial Day parade.”  He leaves his future mum-in-law in tears, but she needed to hear it.  Right?

                The mentally unstable Adm. Jessup has a brainstorm.  Since the Army will be getting all the glory from D-Day, the Navy needs a leg up if its going to survive the post-war demobilization.  Wouldn’t it be great if the first serviceman to die on Omaha Beach is a sailor?  And how about if it was filmed for a documentary?  Madison’s buddy “Bus” Cummings (James Coburn) is enthusiastic about the idea and orders Charlie to go ashore with the combat engineers as the head of a film crew to get the money shot.  Charlie is less than thrilled with the dangerous assignment, but is confident that he can weasel out of it.

                When Charlie is giggly about his efforts to avoid heroism, Emily suddenly decides she can’t be with a man with no principles.  It’s not like he’s been hiding his feelings.  He virtually yells them from the Tower of London.  When she jilts him he lays into her so badly you begin to wonder if Chayefsky is going to go off the reservation and not give us our normal reconciliation as part of a happy ending.  (Clue:  this movie was made in 1964, not 1974.)

that's the actual line

                Charlie arranges to be late for the mission which is scheduled for June 5.  He is gleeful until the weather postpones the invasion to June 6 and now he’s in for it.  Damned fickle Mother Nature!  Damn Eisenhower and his flexible timetable!  Charlie and his camera crew (two drunken misfits) are landed ahead of the invasion.  Since Bus knows his friend is a coward, he follows him with the real camera crew and makes sure Charlie is the first American killed in D-Day.  Hilarious!  That is one deserted beach.  Charlie is now the hero he fought so hard to not be.  Ironic right?   [See spoiler conclusion below]

RACHELLE’S TAKE:   My wife could not tell whether the movie was supposed to be a drama or a comedy.  The movie is best viewed if you know going in that it is a black comedy.  She liked the acting, but was put off by the changing moods of the main characters.  Emily, Charlie, and Bus whiplash from one extreme to the other at various times in the film.  She also found the dialogue was not realistic for real people.  Of course, this is not unexpected for a Chayefsky screenplay.

KEVIN’S REVIEW:  This is a strange movie.  It’s not clearly a comedy or at least it’s not that funny.  The theme that war should not be glorified and those who avoid dying in war have some justification for their cowardice is interesting, but Charlie’s monologues bludgeon us with it.  Charlie is also a repugnant character, although we are supposed to empathize with him and view him as a loveable rogue.  The fact that Emily falls in love with him is not believeable.  Her character arc is not satirical.  It is straight forward that she goes from abhorring this living-large-while-other’s-sacrifice brash Yank to bedding this principled coward to jilting this unprincipled coward to being devastated by his heroic death.  Julie Andrews must have loved being able to play a schizophrenic.

                The movie should have ended with Charlie’s “death”.  What comes after dilutes the satirical nature of the script and turns it into a farce.  But then we  wouldn’t have a happy ending.  Chayefsky pulls his punches and should be ashamed for it.  There is a difference between a farce and a satire.  Decide which you want it to be and stick with it.

CLOSING:  When Emily learns of Charlie’s death, she is despondent but proud of her coward turned hero.  The admiral comes to his senses and is upset it was his loony idea that resulted in Charlie’s death.  However, he plans to use the publicity to make sure there is a Navy forever.  He envisions Charlie receiving a posthumous Navy Cross from the President.  Things get complicated when Charlie turns up alive.  How inconvenient!  Emily is thrilled her coward is back.  We get a run and kiss reunion.  Charlie insists on telling the truth about his “death”.  Suddenly he is brave when it comes to his cowardice and will blow the lid off this scandal.  Emily convinces him to embrace his cowardice and be the hero who was the first American to land on Omaha Beach.  He agrees and they live happily ever after.

grades:

Rachelle =  C

Kevin =  C