Revolution Revisited (1985/2008)

 

                    Irwin Winkler was an award-winning producer.   He won an Oscar for “Rocky” and was nominated for three other pictures.  In the 1980’s he had the same idea as many war movie lovers.  He wanted to make a movie about the Revolutionary War.  He had trouble getting financing, but eventually he basically paid for it himself.  It was not a wise decision.  He got Hugh Hudson to direct.  The movie was filmed in Great Britain.  The film’s release was rushed to make the Christmas season and to qualify for Oscars.  That seems laughable now.  The movie was met with universal scorn and was a huge bomb.  It cost $28 million and made less than $360,000.  Instead of Oscars, it was nominated for four Golden Raspberrries – Picture (losing to “Rambo”), Director, Actor (Stallone topped Pacino), and Score.  Hudson blamed the disaster on the rush to release.  23 years later he released his director’s cut as “Revolution Revisited”.  It has narration by Pacino.  Hudson trimmed ten minutes from the original.  Let’s see if those ten minutes were the reason the original version sucked. 

                    The movie opens in July, 1776.  A statue of King George is pulled down and the Declaration of Independence is passed around.  But that does not concern Tom Dobb (Pacino).  The fur trapper has no dog in this fight.  He encounters the upper-class lady Daisy (Nastasska Kinski) who is a patriot.  She and other rebel women demand Dobb give his boat to the patriot cause.  He refuses.  He leaves his son Ned (Dexter Fletcher) behind when he goes into town for business.  Before you can say “Yankee Doodle”, he enlists as a drummer boy.  This drags his father into the war.  When the British attack NYC, the father and son are in the front line.  And soon they are running away from the vaunted Brits.  Five months later, Ned is still a drummer boy, but for the Redcoats.  He has been conscripted by the evil Sergeant Major Peasy (Donald Sutherland) and daddy is determined to get him back.  Their paths keep intersecting with Daisy.  We get stops at Valley Forge, Philadelphia, and Yorktown.  Spoiler alert: the colonials win in the end.  Symbolized by a plucky fur trapper with great hair. 

                    I have not seen the original, but if it is worse than the director’s cut, it must be really bad.  But then again, the added narration is possibly the worst I have ever heard.  If Pacino thought it would distract viewers from his acting, he was wrong.  He was miscast as Dobb and suffering from pneumonia during the shoot didn’t help.  His hair does the best acting in the movie.  He has no chemistry with Kinski (who was another odd casting choice).  Speaking of which, Daisy’s story would have been more compelling than the Dobbs.  Donald Sutherland is wasted as a stereotypical villain.  In a smack of stunt casting, Annie Lennox plays Liberty Woman.  In a strong omen that the movie sucked, she was dubbed for a song at the end!

                    The actors are not helped by the truly revolting dialogue.  The plot matches the dialogue and acting.  It was a huge mistake to cover five years.  There are large gaps in the chronology and we are left to wonder what is happening to the characters in the gaps.  (We do get the impression that Dobb doesn’t age.)  The scenes that we get often drag on and on.  Occasionally a battle scene is thrown in.  The first big set piece looks like it was based on the Battle of Brooklyn.  The tactics are fairly well depicted, but since the Continentals are routed quickly, there is not much to it.  We get to see Peasy wield a pike!  That may have been appropriate for a Sergeant Major, but we waited years for a Revolutionary War movie to get this?  The movie closes with Yorktown and the inevitable showdown with Peasy.  By this time, the reluctant rebel fur trapper is a sharpshooter.  Talk about full circle.  If you’re expecting to learn about the British taking of NYC, Valley Forge, and Yorktown, forget it.  The movie does little to inform about its title.

                    If you are unlucky enough to have seen the original, I would suggest you don’t stay on the opposite of a roll by watching “Revolution Revisited”.  The project was ill-fated from the beginning.  The filmmakers who green lit it are still scratching their heads.  The fiasco did severe damage to the British film industry.    And to Pacino’s career.  He was so impacted by the disaster that he took a four- year hiatus from movies.  Most people forget that he was the Nick Cage of the 1980’s in his inability to make good choices in his roles.  And his inability to avoid the enticing lure of scenery to be chewed.

GRADE  =  D- 

John Paul Jones (1959)

 

                    There had been talk of making a John Paul Jones movie starting in the 1930’s.  James Cagney, John Wayne, Glenn Ford, and Richard Basehart were all considered for the lead.  It was finally made by director John Farrow (“Wake Island”).  It was his last film.  He treated it as a family affair as his son played the young Jones and his daughter Mia made her film debut.  The screenplay was based on the story “Nor’wester” by Clements Ripley.  Max Steiner did the score.  The movie was made in Denia, Spain.  It had the cooperation of the U.S. Navy which provided the USS Des Moines for the opening and closing scenes.  The movie opens with a dedication to Chester Nimitz for his “unflagging encouragement and inspiration”.  The movie was a box office bomb.

                    In 1759, the young John Paul throws a rock at a British officer enforcing the law against Scots using bagpipes and wearing kilts.  A few years later, he goes to sea and a montage shows him doing various jobs as he works his way up to captain.  In 1773, he kills a mutinous sailor who has connections, so the governor of Tobago suggests he flee to Virginia.  He adds Jones to his name and starts a new life as a businessman.  He inherits two slave boys, but frees them because he abhors slavery.  He attempts to win the hand of a local upper-class beauty, but her father feels Jones is too disreputable.  His lawyer is one Patrick Henry and they share a dislike for British rule.  When the war breaks out, he gives up farming and heads back to sea.  He is successful, but unrewarded similar to Benedict Arnold.  He goes to Valley Forge to resign to Washington himself.  The End.  But wait, Washington convinces him to take dispatches to Benjamin Franklin (Charles Coburn) in Paris.  Franklin tosses him a French girl worthy of the movie poster and gets him a ship from the king that Jones names after his benefactor.  The Bonhomme Richard is destined to sail Jones into history.  And a quote is going to make him a superstar.  This being a biopic, not a battle movie, the film covers Jones’ post-war career in Russia and concludes with his death.

                    As a biopic, the movie is a bit too stiff.  Stack plays Jones as a blunt and cheerless.  This may be accurate, but means the main character is a bore.  It does not delve into the controversies surrounding his style of command.  He was often at odds with superiors, subordinates, and crews.  This is no “Patton”.  It is much closer to “PT-109”.  And unlike those movies, but like every other 1950’s biopic, it shoehorns romances into the plot.  His romantic moments with Dorothea (Erin O’Brien) have dialogue straight out of a romance novel.  His two romances are both chaste and unconsummated, so there is not chance for passion.  That may be for the best since we are talking about Robert Stack here.  The rest of the cast is fine with the cameos by historical figures like Washington, Henry, and Catherine the Great (Bette Davis) being a treat.  Coburn gets the juiciest role as Franklin and it is a shame Jones did not have his charisma.                 

                    The biggest problem with the movie is the lack of action.  Jones’ greatest hits are handled montage-style and this is supposed to tide us over until the Battle off Flamborough Head.  Even this set-piece is truncated.  There is no lead-in.  The Bonhomme Richard and Serapis go straight to grappling with no preliminary broadsides.  However, from there the scene is vibrant and gets the basics right.  Other than no reloading of muskets.  There are grenades for crowd-pleasing explosions.  Stack handles the “I have not yet begun to fight” moment with enough verve to justify its fame.  Naturally, the rest of the movie is superfluous, but credit the screenwriters for carrying the biopic to its depressing end.  While that end is accurate, the rest of the film shows a lot of historical license.

                    “John Paul Jones” is an acceptable tale of a patriotic legend.  But if you want the truth over the legend, it is a misfire.  Jones comes off as one-dimensional and has no warts.  Stack was a good choice given the screenplay that portrays Jones as a prickly patriot.  The movie surrounds him with other heroes in what impresses as stunt casting.  These cameos are part of the reason the movie has whiffs of bull crap and it turns out that reading about Jones’ life confirms this.  It’s a shame the production was not postponed until the new wave of biopics like “Patton” came along.  But when you are buried at Annapolis, it is unlikely the Navy would have approved a script that included frolicking.  With that said, Jones was a great man and deserves the title “Father of the Navy”.  He was so great, he could have handled a truer story of his life.

GRADE  =  C

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  The opening with young John Paul assaulting a British officer was clearly invented to give him anti-British bona fides.  He did go to sea the next year at age 13 from Whitehaven.  He served on a series of merchant ships and slavers.  He did develop a disgust for the slave trade.  By  1770, he was captain of his own ship.  He flogged a sailor who was accused of plotting mutiny.  The sailor died a few weeks later, probably unrelated to the whipping, but Jones was in trouble for it.  He was forced to get out of town.  Three years later the incident depicted in the movie occurred.  Jones murdered a mutineer with a sword.  The Governor of Tobago did let him escape.  He went to Virginia, where his brother had settled, and changed his name.  I found no evidence for his knowing Patrick Henry and almost surely the slave boys were invented for the movie.  Although Jones was a noted ladies’ man and had many paramours over the years, I found nothing about a Dorothea.  He did go to the Second Continental Congress to offer his services and was endorsed by Richard Henry Lee.  He was made 1^st Lt. on the Alfred, which became the first Continental Navy ship to sail.  He performed with distinction at Nassau and returned to command the small 16-gun Providence.  He took numerous prizes in a couple of cruises, but fell into disfavor for disputes with Commodore Esek Hopkins.  Because of this he was inactive from late 1776 to early 1777.  I found no evidence he visited both Hancock and Washington to try to resign, although he undoubtedly was frustrated.  The scene where he goes to Valley Forge is pure bull shit.  In 1777, he was given command of the Ranger.  He sailed for France, but not with dispatches about the Battle of Saratoga because before landing at Brest, he cruised the British Isles taking enough prizes to arrive in France a hero.  He did meet Franklin and Ben was probably influential in his getting the Bonhomme Richard.  But first, he cruised again in the Ranger and made the raid on the British seaport shown in the movie.  This was Whitehaven, the same port he had sailed from as a teenager.  The movie gives the patriotic version of unqualified success when actually the raid was mostly a failure with the intended burning of the ships a fizzle and Jones and his men having to high-tail it back to their ship.  Perplexingly, the movie skips his subsequent capture of the HMS Drake in an hour long gun duel.  It was one of the few significant victories for the fledgling navy.  The movie chosing not to depict this rousing battle was a big mistake.  In 1779, King Louis XVI gave him the Bonhomme Richard. 

                    The Battle of Flamborough Head is fairly accurate.  The movie does not tell us that Jones was in command of a fleet and was trying to reach a British convoy when the HMS Serapis  and another ship interposed themselves.  The battle opened with some broadsides, but Jones realized his ship was outgunned so he grappled.  Jones did not lead a boarding party.  Neither side attempted to board.  The battle was basically an effort to clear the deck of the opposing vessel to allow boarding.  The Bonhomme Richard took the worst of the gunfire and grenades.  At one point, his flag was knocked down and the British captain asked if he had surrendered.  In an apocryphal rejoinder, Jones said “I have not yet begun to fight!”  You can not expect the movie to have not gone with the legend.  Most likely, he actually said “I am determined to make YOU strike!” or (according to some of his crew) “I may sink, but I’ll be damned if I strike!”  Regardless, he should have lost, but for a lucky grenade that landed in British powder and blew surrender into the British.  The movie has the Bonhomme Richard sinking soon after when in reality it was a day later.

                 After the war, Jones may have argued for a larger fleet, but he did not quit because they pish-poshed that.  He was sent to France to get this thorn out of their side.  In France he was given the unglamourous job of dealing with prize money claims.  In 1787, he jumped at employment with the Russian navy.  He did meet Catherine and was made a Rear Admiral.  He participate, but not by himself as the movie implies, in the actions against the Turks in the Black Sea.  Jones’ prickly personality and his naivete about Russian politics made enemies of other admirals and he was accused of sexual misconduct with a twelve-year old.  While he was probably framed, he did admit to “frolicking with the girl” and was clear this meant sex.  Although technically still in the Russian navy, he ended up in France where the U.S. government appointed him Consul to Algeria.  He died of a kidney inflammation before he could assume a role that he was ill-suited for.   

BOOK/MOVIE: April Morning (1961/1988)

This post is in honor of the anniversary of "the shot heard around the world".

                I am a big fan of Howard Fast’s novel “April Morning”.  I used to assign it in my American History Honors classes.  Although not intended as a young adult novel, since the protagonist is high school age  it has become a standard assigned reading in middle and high schools.  Fast is an excellent writer and the novel has the theme of coming of age, so it is a good choice for English classes.  For my purposes, it is a great history lesson.  Fast has set his novel in Lexington at the start of the Revolutionary War.  We also get a nice dose of colonial life.  It took twenty-seven years to bring the book to the small screen.

                The book and movie cover about twenty-four hours involving the “shot heard round the world”.  The movie opens with a gun smuggler named Solomon Chandler (Rip Torn) being stopped by a British patrol and beaten up.  He arrives in Lexington to spread his tale. Moses Cooper (Tommy Lee Jones) is skeptical and wants to avoid confrontation with the British.  The issue will be brought up at the committee meeting held that evening.  Moses has a teenage son that is a thorn in his side.  Adam (Chad Lowe) seems to make a habit of chafing Moses’ posterior.  For instance, he says a pagan oath when drawing water from the well. That night at supper, Moses questions Adams maturity and makes clear his disappointment in his son.  A theme of the movie and book is that Adam feels his father does not love him and only finds faults.  Adam feels he is mature enough to be getting busy with his girlfriend Ruth (Meredith Salenger), but she is literally puritanical about it.  At the committee meeting, the adult men discuss the abuse of Chandler and the ominous signs that the British might be getting more repressive.  Moses, who loves the sound of his own voice, is against any provocative acts, but does insist on the minutes of the meeting being kept.  He is a man of principal, but basically loves playing devil’s advocate against anyone taking any position.  Later that night, the pleasant dreams of the Lexingtonians are interrupted by a rider (Paul Revere?) with word that “the regulars are out!”  The debating moves on to what to do about the imminent arrival of British soldiers.  And on a personal note, Moses must decide what to do about a teenage son who wants to use the crisis to jump into manhood.  The day will bring Adam the opportunity to come of age, but at what cost?

                The movie has a movie-of-the-week feel to it.  In other words, the production values are low budget.  They did manage to find a trio of colonial looking buildings to stand in for Lexington and the interiors of the Cooper home have 18^th Century décor.  The clothing is era appropriate.  The British uniforms are lobsterbacky, but some of the reenactors are a bit old (which is not unusual for cinematic reenactors).  The cast is fine, but the acting is spotty, Chad Lowe is wooden as Adam and the character comes off as unlikeable.  Teenage boys can possibly relate to him, but most adults will find him whiny.  He is upset that his father does not show him love and is hard on him, but you would think he would have noticed that every father in the village was that way.  Tommy Lee Jones does not do any heavy lifting as the one dimensional Moses.

                 If you don’t want to force your class to read a book (God forbid!), the movie stands in well.  As a history lesson, it does a good job covering the incident at Lexington.  You get a taste of the debate that led to the Revolution, but the committee meeting discussion is not a pros and cons debate by historians.  As far as students watching the movie in lieu of reading the book, be careful.   The movie follows the book closely and retains much of the dialogue, but it substantially changes Solomon Chandler’s arc and tampers with Adam’s experiences once the fighting begins.  These changes are not for the better.  And there is no Levi!

                *** Spoiler Alert!  The book begins with the well oath and the family dinner where Moses’ character is established with his grace that demands better weather from God.  He proceeds to ream Adam, establishing his tough love policy.  The committee meeting does not discuss the British situation.  This debate waits for the arrival of Revere.  Four positions are outlined (but not in the movie):  Parker is in favor of mustering the minutemen to be prepared, the Reverend wants to wait for more information, Moses argues for calling another committee meeting, and Sam Hodley feels that the rider was spreading fake news.  Not long after, the disputative Moses argues against the Reverend’s wait-and-see approach and convinces the men that they must stand up to the British as a matter of principle.  The movie condenses all this arguing.  It covers the British arrival and subsequent spark closely to the book, with the major addition of Solomon Chandler firing the first shot from behind a wall.  (That’s ballsy as we still don’t know who fired the first shot.)  This is a follow up of the movie starting with Chandler being abused by the British and thus having a grudge.  In the book, Chandler does not appear until he runs into a fleeing Adam after he leaves his refuge in the smokehouse.  Speaking of which, Adam is not discovered in the smokehouse by Ruth.  In the book, it is his bratty little brother Levi.  The movie completely dispenses with Levi.  The Solomon Chandler of the book shares personality with the Solomon who comforts Adam and takes him under his wing.  Except that at this point in the movie, we know he is a jerk.  Adam’s experiences during the British retreat is much tamer (and cinematically boring) in the book. He does hook up with Cousin Simmons and the Reverend and they do take some shots at the British, but he does not get flanked by three British soldiers as depicted in the movie.  Chandler does not die in the book.  Adam actually whines more in the movie.  He does not close out his day by falling asleep in some bushes. In he movie, he convinces Cousin Simmons that he has had enough and they go home.  The movie closes with Adam’s mother giving him his father’s watch and comes full circle with Adam saying that evening’s grace. The book closes more logically with Adam discussing with Ruth and the Reverend whether he will join the rebel army.

                I usually find movies based on novels to be better than the source material. The screenwriter has the luxury of having the plot laid out for him or her and then they can make improvements for the movie presentation.  Obviously, this theory does not apply to books that do not lend themselves to cinematic treatment. This usually refers to sci-fi and fantasy novels.  This caveat does not apply to novels like “April Morning”.  The movie version of the novel is an exception to most of my book/movie postings because this movie is not as good as the book.  The changes made were not improvements.  Chandler is the most intriguing character in the book and although I found his sudden transformation from wise old man to bloodthirsty killer off kilter, I could see where Fast was coming from.  It was heavy-handed and beneath Fast, but he had only a few hours to point out that war corrupts.  The movie’s decision to make Chandler a villain from the start simplified him.  Making Adam less likeable was also a bad choice.  The book is told in first person, so it is easier to empathize with the teenage boy.  On the other hand, the movie adds a ludicrous action scene where Adam shoots two British soldiers and has Chandler sacrifice his life to save Adam from a third.  And the decision to eliminate the Levi character, while understandable, sacrifices the most realistic dynamic in the book.

                in conclusion, I normally counsel my readers to watch the movie and then read the book to get more depth.  In this case, I would say that it would be better to read the book first and then see how the movie depicts it.

BOOK  =  A-

MOVIE  =  C   

4TH OF JULY: The Devil’s Disciple (1959)

                “The Devil’s Disciple” was based on the George Bernard Shaw play.  The play was a strange choice for a movie considering Shaw did not like the play and never staged it in England.  Considering the Irishman’s view toward England, Shaw probably would have appreciated the movie.  The film was directed by Guy Hamilton and stars Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, and Laurence Olivier (billed in that order).  Olivier did not enjoy the experience and did not get along with his co-stars.  He would purposely get their names mixed up.  The movie was not a success.  Possibly because of the egregious tag line:  “Burt, Kirk, and Larry are coming – by George!”

                The movie opens with a nifty animated map explaining Burgoyne’s campaign to separate New England from the rest of the colonies by invading New York.  It summarizes the Revolutionary War as the “suppression of a rebellion” versus “the pursuit of liberty”.  Reverend Anderson (Lancaster) attempts to prevent the execution of a rebel and then is prevented from giving the victim a Christian burial.  That night the rebel's son Richard Dudgeon (Douglas) steals the body.  He’s a rogue who dresses like a dandy.  The title refers to him.  He is the opposite of the pacifist, moral Anderson.  Anderson’s wife Judith (Janette Scott) is repelled, yet intrigued by this bad boy.  When Gen. Burgoyne arrives, he insists on arresting Anderson for burying the rebel.  Dudgeon claims to be the Reverend and is found guilty in a trial.  Anderson leads the militia in an assault to rescue him.  Judith is torn between the two.

You have violated the law against colonists
being more handsome than Banastre Tarleton

                This is not your typical war movie.  However, it is certainly more warlike than the play.  The movie does  a good job fitting some action in that the play did not have.  The movie is undoubtedly better than the play.  The acting is stellar as can be expected.  Lancaster and Douglas made seven movies together and it looks like they are enjoying themselves.  While Olivier may not have enjoyed the experience, his mood was perfect for Burgoyne.  He probably found a kindred spirit in “Gentelman Johnny”.  He is snarky (a word not yet in use back then).  Janette Scott is in over her head and if the movie was remade today, Lancaster and Douglas would go riding off into the sunset at the end.  The plot is fine even if Shaw was not proud of it.  Even lesser Shaw is still pretty darn good.  It is a bit predictable and simplistic.  When Anderson changes his personality to action hero, he also changes his clothes to buckskin.  The dialogue is outstanding, of course.  At the end of the film, someone asks Burgoyne what history will say about the events and he responds with:  “History will tell lies, as usual.”  Dudgeon gets some great lines in the trial.  The movie is a deft blend of romance, comedy, and action.  The action is surprisingly vigorous.   The rebel assault includes some effective cannon fire. 

                The movie is appropriate viewing for the 4^th of July.  John Burgoyne was an actual figure and his personality is portrayed based on his reputation.  The Anderson character finds a loose equivalency in Peter Muhlenberg – the “Fighting Pastor of the Revolution”.  Muhlenberg was an Anglican minister who left his pulpit to command the 8^th Virginia Regiment.  Muhlenberg had been active in rebel politics before this so he did not have the transformation that Anderson undergoes.  The background of his campaign is a fairly good tutorial on what may have been the most important event in the Revolution.  Burgoyne did flounder in the American wilderness due to the recalcitrance of the rebels.  The aftermath of the fictional events in Springtown is going to be the Battle of Saratoga.  The movie accurately reflects the divided loyalties among the colonists and the frustrations this created for the British.  Burgoyne is also frustrated by the lack of support from the British high command.  One theme that is very Shawian is the movie is critical of the clergy and religion.  It is a bit of a surprise that the screenwriters did not substitute action for the cynicism about religion.  Kudos on that.

                “The Devil’s Disciple” has its detractors, but I am not one of them.  To me it is a fun movie as evidenced by the unique animation.  Of course, it did not hurt that I am a huge fan of Lancaster and Douglas.  Throw in Olivier and I’m all in.  Besides, considering the paucity of movies about the Revolutionary War, you have to take what you can get.

GRADE  =   A

WAR MOVIE LEADERSHIP WATCHALONG: The Crossing

                “The Crossing” was a made for TV movie produced by A&E in 2000.  It is based on the book by Howard Fast and depicts events involving the Battle of Trenton.  The movie won a Peabody Award for excellence.  Jeff Daniels portrays George Washington in the film.

                The movie begins with the Continental Army at a low moment in the war.  It has just lost New York City and has been forced to retreat across New Jersey.  What’s left of the soldiers are dispirited and sickly.  All seems lost when they reach the Delaware River with the British in hot pursuit.  Washington orders Col. Glover to round up some boats and the army crosses the river into Pennsylvania at the last minute.

                Washington meets with his subordinates and proposes a daring plan to recross the river and surprise the Hessian garrison at Trenton.  The officers are shocked at the audacity of the plan.  Col. Glover is put in charge of the crossing which runs behind schedule, but is successful.  The march to Trenton is uneventful until Alexander Hamilton is tasked to take out an outpost.  The attack takes the Hessians by surprise and they are quickly surrounded in a meadow.  The Hessian commander is mortally wounded by the only musket fired by the Americans. Washington reluctantly meets with Col. Rall before he expires and then is informed of the amazingly low casualty figures for his men in the victory.

                The movie is quite good considering its low budget nature.  Not much was spent on the actors, other than Daniels.  All the others are B-list, but they acquit themselves well.  Daniels is outstanding and gets Washington’s personality right.  He portrays his dignity and barely controlled temper well.  The soldiers appear to be re-enactors, which is actually a plus.  The weapons and equipment appear to be authentic.  The camp life rings true, but the movie concentrates on command.  The plot does tend to be simplistic on tactics.  It makes a point of the necessity of using the bayonet due to wet powder and then emphasizes this with literally only one soldier firing his musket.  The strategy looks flawless when in reality Washington tended to make his plans too elaborate and rely too much on precise timing.  Although the Battle of Trenton was less complicated than many bigger battles, it was not as orderly as the film portrays.

On to the discussion:

1.  What leadership traits are portrayed?  Washington has moral courage.  He is willing to risk his men when he realizes doing nothing could result in the end of the Revolution.  He inspires his men during very trying times.  Although not known for a sense of humor, Washington lightens the tension by making a joke at Gen. Knox’s expense.  Washington is a hands-on general.  He does his own reconnoitering of Trenton and formulates the plan on his own.  Once he develops the plan, he refuses to back off on it.  The movie doesn’t mention it, but the password was “Victory or Death”.

2.  How does he handle his subordinates?  Washington is depicted as firmly in control of his officers, but willing to listen.  When Glover questions the boldness of the plan, Washington first praises his services and then tells him to do what Washington wants.  When Gates insults the plan and Washington himself, Washington controls his seething temper and orders the malcontent out of the camp.

3.  What adversities are overcome?  The film begins at one of the lowest moments of Washington’s career.  The army is down to less than two thousand men and they are a whipped group.  Many are planning on going home when their enlistments are up in the next couple of months.  He keeps their spirits up, but knows a victory is imperative.  They will be facing the dreaded Hessians, but Washington’s confidence and the surprise nature of the plan cancels out his men’s fears.  The weather is an adversity that is overcome by sheer willpower and the sturdy backs of Glover’s Marbleheaders.

                When you watch “The Crossing”, you are made aware that Washington was indeed the “indispensable  man”.  If the movie ended with his death instead of Rall, America as we know it would be very different.  He was not a great general, especially tactically, but he was a great leader and the perfect person for the situation.

               What say you?