100 BEST WAR MOVIES #88. The Red Badge of Courage (1951)

 

                In 1930, Erich Remarque took the greatest war novel and made possibly the greatest war movie.  In 1951, John Huston took the greatest American war novel and thought he had done the same.  Huston decided to make a film based on The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane.  He felt that he had achieved his finest movie up until then, but then the studio intervened.  Louis B. Mayer (the head of MGM) hated the production.  He did not think a war film that questioned war would be successful during the Korean War.  He did not think Audie Murphy was a big enough star.  He did not like the fact that there were no women in the film.  And the test screenings seemed to back him up.  (He may have rigged them.)  As a result of his belligerence and Huston being distracted by his next project which was “The African Queen”, the studio drastically cut the film down to 70 minutes (from an original two hours) and added a narrator.  To pile on, the studio released the movie as a B-picture and it bombed.  We’ll never know how good the movie could have been because the cut footage was lost in the 1967 MGM vault fire of 1967.  What about the movie we are left with?

                *** SPOILER ALERT:  Because the story is so famous, I’m going to analyze the whole plot.  (You’re welcome, high school students who do not want to read the book.)  The movie starts off with James Whitmore telling us what we should be able to figure out for ourselves.  Plus, we are dealing with a pretty famous novel.  The pompous narration (some of which comes directly from the novel) puts us in Henry Fleming’s (Murphy) head.  The Army of the Potomac is camped on the Rappahannock River in Sept., 1862.  (That would coincide with the Battle of Antietam.  The book is unclear about the battle but is more likely the Battle of Chancellorsville.)  The soldiers are sick of all the drilling and want to get into their first battle.  Tom Wilson (Bill Maudlin) hears a rumor that they are going to march up river and come in behind the Rebels.  Everyone hopes this is true, but Henry Fleming is nervous about how he will respond to combat.  He feels out his tentmate Jim (John Dierkes) who tells him he reckons he will stand and fight as long as everyone else does, but if everyone else runs, well…  This does not really comfort Henry because he thinks he might lead the stampede.  On sentry duty that night, a reb warns him to avoid getting a “little red badge”, a reference to being wounded.

                Wilson takes a lot of ribbing about his prediction, but it turns out to be true and the 304^th  Regiment marches toward the sounds of battle.  The men are enthusiastic, but sober up upon sight of the first corpses.  They are positioned behind breastworks and a Yankee unit retreats through their position, but even Henry sticks round for the show.  Through the smoke comes the Rebel Yell and the rebels yelling it.  The opposing units exchange volleys for a while until the Johnnies retreat.  Henry and his mates have seen the elephant and have acquitted themselves honorably.  Now let’s go have a beer.  Wait.  Those pesky rebels haven’t learned their lesson and come again.  This time Henry has his self-fulfilled prophecy and he runs.  He runs like the dickens in a long tracking shot.  He encounters a line of wounded soldiers and slides in.  One of the wounded is Jim who describes the battle as “law, what a circus, by jiminy”.  Jim runs off to have one of the great death scenes in war movie history.  Henry goes on to get his “red badge” when he is cold-cocked by a soldier doing what Henry had done.  He is roused from unconsciousness by a cheery soldier (Andy Devine) who escorts him back to his unit while spouting homespun about the fog of war and accepting death.  He lies to Henry about his wound and no one questions his bravery what with all the chaos of the battle.  He wakes the next morning more blustery than contrite.

                Surprisingly, he backs up the bluster by charging out in front of their line in their next battle.  He scolded by his lieutenant for taking on the hull durn reb army.  During a lull in the fighting, Henry and Tom overhear a general describing their regiment as a bunch of “mule drivers” who he is going to send in because he’s got nothing else.  The men are excited about taking it to the Rebs for a change and Henry is incensed about the general’s aspersion.  In the climactic charge, Henry grabs the flag and leads the unit to victory.  The cherry on top is his capturing a Rebel flag.  They march off abandoning the hard-won ground.  One of the men opines:  “After all the trouble we went to getting that wall, I’d like to set by it for a while.”   A sentiment that Vietnam War veterans can relate to.

 ACTING:                      B

ACTION:                      C   3/5

ACCURACY:                  N/A

PLOT:                           A

REALISM:                    A

CINEMATOGRAPHY:  nothing special

SCORE:  nothing special                    

BEST SCENE:  the final battle

BEST QUOTE:   soldier:   I'm thankful I'm still in one piece!

Bill Porter:  Me too, I got holes in my cap, holes in my pants, but there ain't no holes in me except the ones that was intended!

                Considering the tortured back-story, you would expect to see what the test audiences apparently shit all over.  In fact, the movie that opened for Esther Williams’ “Texas Carnival” is quite good.  We can assume that Huston’s uncut version would have been better, but what we ended up with a classic anyway.  It’s hard to imagine what was cut because the movie covers all the important scenes in the book and even adds some.  We do know for sure that the scene after Jim’s death where Henry continues on with the Tattered Soldier (Royal Dano) ended up on the cutting room floor.  Trust me, no big loss.  Perhaps the combat scenes were fleshed out more, but they are already some of the best from a 1950s Civil War movie perspective.  Huston uses plenty of smoke and lots of pyrotechnics.  It’s not “Glory” or “Gettysburg”, but it’s pretty visceral.  The actors load their muskets properly and the tactics are fine (although Huston is big on two-line volley firing).  You feel the confusion and trepidation Henry faces.  You can see why he runs.  Unfortunately, the weakness of the movie is it’s hard to believe he completely changes overnight.  But that’s the novel’s fault.

                It’s hard to fathom what a 1951 audience would have found to loathe in this movie.  The acting is not the problem unless you are requiring all-stars.  Maudlin, Dierkes, and Dano were making their debuts.  Maudlin is amazingly good for a cartoonist.  He was a natural in the role as the “loud soldier”.  He made only one more movie.  The key is clearly Murphy’s performance.  It was his first significant role and first non-Western.  Most critics consider it his best performance.  He got the role because Hedda Hopper pushed Huston to give him a chance.  The role is difficult because the character in the novel goes through so many moods.  He does as well as anyone could have (and much better than Richard Thomas from the 1974 version).  The dialogue should not have been a problem.  It’s less hokey than you would expect for 1951.  A lot of it is from the novel and if you haven’t read the book, you might shake your head.  There’s a lot of dialect (see below), but it’s realistic for soldier banter.  The very first line is “well, I reckon…”  There are some memorable lines and some of them are quite witty.   Normally in a war movie from the 1950s I might comment on how sanitized the language is compared to a modern script.  Here is the rare exception.  One of the soldiers tells the following joke:  “A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree – the more you beat em’, the better they be.” (That line does not appear in the 1974 version.) The big caveat to the dialogue is the terrible narration.  It may be mostly quotes from the novel, but it insults the audience.

                Supposedly, Mayer sabotaged the test screenings by implying the movie was a comedy.  That is hard to believe, but the movie is not without humor.  After Wilson spreads his rumor, but before it comes to fruition, his mates rag him mercilessly in formation.  A general passes by several units boosting morale by promising to come by and eat “hard tack and sowbellies” with them.  When he passes the 304^th one of the men yells: “Having supper tonite with us, General?”  He responds with “go to blazes, corporal!”  That exchange wittily tells you a lot about command in the Civil War.

                “The Red Badge of Courage” is not nearly as famous as “All Quiet on the Western Fron” and is not as good.  However, it is a classic and holds up surprisingly well.  It does justice to the famous novel.  It makes no significant changes to the novel. I watch it with sadness for what might have been if it had not been savagely edited, but at least we have it.

Here are some of nice accurate touches the film has:

the soldiers spend a lot of time waiting and drilling to the point that they can’t wait to get into battle

soldiers gripe and insult each other a lot

sentries from both sides would talk to each other

they cross a river at a ford

when they stopped they dug in, but soon after they were on the move again

a failed attack is followed by a counterattack

on the attack,  the attackers would stop and they would exchange fire

an officer leads on a horse and is killed

the Rebels use the rebel yell

the reloading process is accurate

Here are some of the slang terms used by the soldiers:

by jiminy -  emphasis on what you said

much obliged -  thank you

mighty white of ya -  thanks

thunder! -  damn

durn good thumpin’ -  beaten badly

lick ‘em -  beat them

I reckon -  I think so

skeedaddled -  ran

shucks -  damn

little cuss -  small jerk

a gone goose -  dead

Jim dandy -  cool dude

hurts like blazes -  very painful

wallop -  beat

the whole kaboodle -  everything

kicked around from pillar to post -  badly beaten

squawking like a group of old hens -  complaining

BOOK/MOVIE: The Red Badge of Courage

                The Red  Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane was published in 1895.  It is considered by many to be the best American war novel.  The novel is about a soldier in the Civil War named Henry Fleming.  He is nervous going into his first battle and rightly so as he ends up going through a gamut of emotions that run from cowardice to heroism.  The book is lauded for its vibrant prose which is rife with symbolism.  Crane described his take on war as “a psychological portrayal of fear”.  It is also acclaimed for its realism, including its depiction of combat.  It comes as a surprise to many that Crane did not fight in the war and in fact, was not even born at the time.  He researched the war through the “Battles and Leaders” series.  Although the book is not specific, it is apparently based on the Battle of Chancellorsville. Crane got his feel for combat partly by listening to the stories of veterans of the 124^th New York Regiment.  It first saw action at Chancellorsville.  He was aided by an article from “Battles and Leaders” entitled “Recollections of a Private” by Warren Lee Goss.  I recently read Goss’ recollections and can see where some feel it was the genesis of the novel.  Goss was a reluctant enlistee.  He complains about all the drilling.  He does a lot of thinking about what battle will be like (although he is not really pondering how he will perform).  His first experience is similar to Henry’s except it was a “friend” who ran.  (Yeah, right – a friend, wink, wink).  Here is his description of the first time he “saw the elephant”:

The constant hissing of the bullets, with their sharp ping or bizz whispering around and sometimes into us, gave me a sickening feeling and a cold perspiration. I felt weak around my knees a sort~of faintness and lack of strength in the joints of my legs, as if they would sink from under me. These symptoms did not decrease when several of my comrades were hit. The little rifle-pits in our front fairly blazed with musketry, and the continuous snap, snap, crack, crack was murderous. Seeing I was not killed at once, in spite of all the noise, my knees recovered from their unpleasant limpness, and my mind gradually regained its balance and composure. I never afterwards felt these disturbing influences to the same degree.

               

                  How does the novel compare to the 1951 John Huston movie?  The movie covers most of the iconic scenes from the book.  And it borrows extensively from the dialogue.  It has the same main characters and their personalities are the same as in the book.  The movie does omit some scenes, but this may be due to the extensive cutting the studio did on Huston’s finished cut.  Notably, Huston decided to make some minor changes in details.  The changes included:

                -  Henry writes a letter to his father saying he will attempt to make him proud.  In the book, Henry’s father is deceased.  There is a flashback where his mother counsels him to behave himself against the temptations of soldiering.  Huston’s letter idea does a better job of conveying Henry’s fears of how he will perform in battle.

                -  Tom Wilson learns the rumor of the unit moving forward from another soldier.  In the book, Jim Conklin comes running into camp to proclaim the news.  The movie does a better job of conveying how rumors get spread in the army.

                -  The foraging soldier is trying to steal a pig, not a horse.  His mates make amusing remarks at his expense as the woman fights to get her property back.  The book plays the scene for more physical humor.  Huston adds some typical soldier humor with the change.

                -  Tom gives Henry a watch, not letters like in the book. 

                -  The Cheery Soldier’s monologue is shortened and given the themes that war is confusing and death has to be accepted as God’s will.

                -  Henry captures the Rebel flag, not Tom.

             Most significantly, Huston added some scenes for entertainment purposes.  The more important ones were:

                1.   Huston introduces the concept of a battle wound being referred to as a “red badge of courage” by way of a conversation Henry has with a Rebel sentry.

                2.  After Wilson spreads the rumor that they are about to march off to battle, but before the orders come, his mates toss jibes at him while in formation.

                3.  Before battle, a general rides down the line motivating his troops and promising each unit that he will have supper with them that night.

Those last two added some nice humor to the humorless novel.  And Huston added the line “After all the trouble we went to getting that wall, I’d like to set by it a while.”  This serves as the last word on their battle experience and adds a note of irony to the conclusion.

                I strongly belief that movies should be better than the books they are based on.  Notice I used the word “should”.  Just because some directors and screenwriters are incompetent does not refute my theory.  Unless the book is perfect, it can be improved upon.  A good screenwriter and director may not be able to make the story more literate, but they should be able to make it more entertaining.  “The Red Badge of Courage” is a difficult case study.  First, it is considered to be one of the great American novels, so it would be tough to beat.  Second, we don’t know what Huston’s uncut movie would have looked like.  We only have his word that he considered it his best film up until then.  Even with 50 minutes cut, the movie is still a classic.  An underappreciated classic.  The additions and changes Huston made did result in a more entertaining film than if he had adhered more closely to the book.  (If you don’t agree with that assessment, watch the 1974 version which is very close to the book and sucks.)

                It is my policy to watch a movie based on a book before reading the book.  This is the reverse of what most people do (if they do both).  My reasoning is that the movie very seldom has more to it than the book, so if you read the book after seeing the movie you will get the story fleshed out.  In this case, I would have to recommend that you read The Red Badge of Courage before you see the movie.  You haven’t read one of the most famous novels and the most famous American war novel?  Shame on you.  It’s brilliant, and short!  Then watch what one of America’s greatest directors did with it.  You can do this in one night.  Try it.

ADAPT or ADOPT: The Red Badge of Courage (1951/1974)

                The second most prestigious Academy Award should be the Best Original Screenplay Oscar.  To create a great motion picture out of nothing is an amazing accomplishment.  There have been only five war movies that have won for Best Original Screenplay.  There have been 33 that were nominated.  The winners were:  “Battleground” by Robert Pirosh (who was also nominated for “Go for Broke!”), “Father Goose”(!) by Peter Stone and Frank Tarloff, “Patton” by Francis Ford Coppola, “Coming Home” by Robert Jones, Waldo Salt, and Nancy Dowd, and “The Hurt Locker” by Mark Boal (who was also nominated for “Zero Dark Thirty”).  Adapting a screenplay is not as impressive.  You already have the source material and you turn it into a script.  I’m not saying it’s easy, I am saying that it is not as difficult.  As I scanned the Academy Awards list of nominated Adapted Screenplays they even had some plays that were converted into movies.  Are you kidding?  And sometimes it was the same writer!  There have been nine war movies that have won for Adapted Screenplay (out of 34 nominees).  The winners were:  “Mrs. Miniver” (inspired by a character in newspaper columns), “Casablanca”  (play), “The Best Years of Our Lives” (novel), “From Here to Eternity” (novel), “Bridge on the River Kwai” (novel), “Judgment at Nuremberg” (teleplay), “MASH” (novel), “Schindler’s List” (novel),  “The Pianist” (memoir),  and “The Imitation Game” (biography).  Of these, the last two are the most impressive because they are based on nonfiction.

                Why do I bring up this topic?  Because recently I spent an evening watching the two movies based on The Red Badge of Courage and then read the book again.  Along with my theory that an original screenplay is better than an adapted one, I have a belief that a movie based on a book should be better than the book it is based on.  This makes for an interesting case study because the first movie adapted the novel’s plot and the second adopted it.  The first is a very good movie so it can be logically compared to the acclaimed novel.  I have already reviewed it here.  Let’s look at adopted first.

                “The Red Badge of Courage” (1974) is a made-for-TV picture starring Richard Thomas (who also starred in the very underrated TV version of “All Quiet on the Western Front”).  The movie adheres more to the plot of the novel than the 1951 Audie Murphy version.  It includes several more scenes from the novel and does not have any added scenes like in John Huston’s film.  You would think that would make the screenplay for the 1974 version better than the original because the closer you adhere to a great novel, the better.  Right?  But before I take on the two screenplays, let me make it clear that I do not believe either movie is better than Crane’s novel.  It is the rare war novel that probably cannot be improved in a movie rendering.  That is mainly because of Crane’s way with words, which no script can match.  Both movies borrow extensively from dialogue in the book and both stick closely to the plot.  It’s a similar situation to “All Quiet on the Western Front”.

                If you have seen Huston’s movie, be aware that the changes that the 1974 film makes are all in the direction of the novel.  Here are a few examples.  Jim Conklin (the Tall Soldier) spreads the movement rumor, not Tom Wilson (the Loud Soldier). The main character Henry (Audie Murphy) moves on with the Tattered Soldier after the death of Jim and eventually runs off to escape his ramblings.  Their unit is taunted as it comes away from the final battle.  And the finale is different because instead of leaving in good spirits, a general reams their colonel for stopping their attack too soon and calls them “mud diggers”.  The Thomas version adds some flashbacks that occur in the book.  Henry remembers his mother sending him off and the girls ogling him in his uniform.  (This version does manage to get some females in – something the original did not.)  It includes a bizarre surreal scene where a general tells the cowardly Henry that he was wise to run away.  This is not in the book, but pretty much everything else is.

 

                If you don’t want to read the book and still need to write a book report, watch the 1974 movie.  If you want to watch a good war movie, watch the 1951 version.  The 1974 version is terrible.  The acting is horrible, even Thomas, who was very good in “All Quiet…”.  He does not have a grip on the character and cannot match Audie Murphy’s portrayal of the conflicted Fleming. The supporting cast is low rent and it shows.  There is a lot of scene chewing.  When Bill Maudlin kicks your ass, it’s time to stop acting.  What good is it to pull lines from the book if you don’t have actors that can deliver them?  At least it does not have the insulting narration of the original.  You would think the combat would be better, but it is competing against John Huston and his cinematographer Harold Rosson.   The cannons do recoil, so point goes to 1974 on that.  And there is blood and it’s in color.  However, the combat scenes are mediocre and played by poor actors.  It does not help to slo these dudes down. 

                The script is poorly executed in the 1974 version, but it is closer to the book.  So why is the screenplay worse.  The reason is John Huston adapted his screenplay better.  He was handed a script by Albert Band that closely conformed to the novel and Huston rewrote a good bit of it.  We’ll never know if that just means he added some scenes because his original cut of the film has been lost.  It may have had the same scenes that the 1974 version decided to enact.  (We do know for sure that the studio cut the scene where Henry is walking with the Tattered Soldier.)  It’s the additions to the book that Huston put in that separate the two scripts.  Huston does not exactly tamper with the novel (like “Full Metal Jacket” did with The Short Timers), but he Hustonizes it.  Mainly that refers to adding some humor.  Two of the most memorable scenes in his movie are not in the book.  The scene where his mates clown Wilson for promising they would be moving up and the scene where the general promises to have dinner that night with several units.  He shortens and tightens the monologue of the Cheery Soldier.  He also makes subtle changes like having the feisty Wilson spread the rumor instead of the sober Conklin. More importantly, he has Fleming capture the Rebel flag instead of Wilson.  I feel that these changes are improvements over the book.  He also chose (or the studio did) to consolidate the last two attacks and omit the scene where the general berates them.  The decision of the 1974 version to end with this was perplexing, especially since the book does not end with it.  I suppose you could theorize that Huston was making his movie in the middle of the Korean War and the other was made after the Vietnam War.  Discuss.

                In conclusion, let me show some love for the adapted screenwriters - in this case, John Huston. He did not equal the brilliance of Stephen Crane’s prose, but he did add and tweak to make improvements on the story.  On the other hand, we have a screenplay that was too respectful of the source (and poorly executed).  It may be better as a Cliff’s Notes version of the novel, but no one should watch the 1974 version ahead of the 1951 version.  In virtually every parallel scene, the Huston movie is superior. 

GRADE:  1974 version  =  D

CLASSIC? The Red Badge of Courage (1951)

                In 1930, Lewis Milestone took the greatest war novel and made possibly the greatest war movie.  In 1951, John Huston took the greatest American war novel and thought he had done the same.  Huston decided to make a film based on The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane.  He felt that he had achieved his finest movie up till then, but then the studio intervened.  Louis B. Mayer (the head of MGM) hated the production.  He did not think a war film that questioned war would be successful during the Korean War.  He did not think Audie Murphy was a big enough star.  He did not like the fact that there were no women in the film.  And the test screenings seemed to back him up.  (He may have rigged them.)  As a result of his belligerence and Huston being distracted by his next project which was “The African Queen”, the studio drastically cut the film down to 70 minutes (from an original two hours) and added a narrator.  To pile on, the studio released the movie as a B-picture and it bombed.  We’ll never know how good the movie could have been because the cut footage was lost in the 1967 MGM vault fire of 1967.  What about the movie we are left with?

                *** SPOILER ALERT:  Because the story is so famous, I’m going to analyze the whole plot.  (You’re welcome, high school students who do not want to read the book.)  The movie starts off with James Whitmore (the narrator) telling us what we should be able to figure out for ourselves.  Plus, we are dealing with a pretty famous novel.  The pompous narration (some of which comes directly from the novel) puts us in Henry Fleming’s (Murphy) head.  The Army of the Potomac is camped on the Rappahannock River in Sept., 1862.  (That would coincide with the Battle of Antietam.  The book is unclear about the battle, but is more likely the Battle of Chancellorsville.)  The soldiers are sick of all the drilling and want to get into their first battle.  Tom Wilson a/k/a the Loud Soldier (Bill Maudlin) hears a rumor that they are going to march up river and come in behind the Rebels.  Everyone hopes this is true, but Henry Fleming is nervous about how he will respond to combat.  He feels out his tentmate Jim (John Dierkes) who tells him he reckons he will stand and fight as long as everyone else does, but if everyone else runs, well…  This does not really comfort Henry because he thinks he might lead the stampede.  On sentry duty that night, a Reb warns him to avoid getting a “little red badge”.

                Wilson takes a lot of ribbing about his prediction, but it turns out to be true and the 304^th  Regiment marches toward the sounds of battle.  The men are enthusiastic, but sober up upon sight of the first corpses.  They are positioned behind breastworks and a Yankee unit retreats through their position, but even Henry sticks round for the show.  Through the smoke comes the Rebel Yell and the rebels yelling it.  The opposing units exchange volleys for a while until the Johnnies retreat.  Henry and his mates have "seen the elephant" and have acquitted themselves honorably.  Now let’s go have a beer.  Wait.  Those pesky rebels haven’t learned their lesson and come again.  This time Henry has his self-fulfilled prophecy and he runs.  He runs like the dickens in a long tracking shot.  He encounters a line of wounded soldiers and slides in.  One of the wounded is Jim, who describes the battle as “law, what a circus, by jiminy”.  Jim runs off to have one of the great death scenes in war movie history.  Henry goes on to get his “red badge” when he is cold-cocked by a soldier doing what Henry had done.  He is roused from unconsciousness by the Cheery Soldier (Andy Devine) who escorts him back to his unit while spouting homespun about the fog of war and accepting death.  Henry lies to Tom about his wound and no one questions his bravery what with all the chaos of the battle.  He wakes the next morning more blustery than contrite.

 

                Surprisingly, he backs up the bluster by charging out in front of their line in their next battle.  He is scolded by his lieutenant for taking on the hull durn Reb army.  During a lull in the fighting, Henry and Tom overhear a general describing their regiment as a bunch of “mule drivers” who he is going to send in because he’s got nothing else.  The men are excited about taking it to the Rebs for a change and Henry is incensed about the general’s aspersion.  In the climactic charge, Henry grabs the flag and leads the unit to victory.  The cherry on top is his capturing a Rebel flag.  They march off abandoning the hard-won ground.  One of the men opines:  “After all the trouble we went to getting that wall, I’d like to set by it for a while.”   A sentiment that Vietnam War veterans can relate to.

    

                Considering the tortured back-story, you would expect to see what the test audiences apparently shit all over.  In fact, the movie that opened for Esther Williams’ “Texas Carnival” is quite good.  We can assume that Huston’s uncut version would have been better, but what we ended up with a classic anyway.  It’s hard to imagine what was cut because the movie covers all the important scenes in the book and even adds some.  We do know for sure that the scene after Jim’s death where Henry continues on with the Tattered Soldier (Royal Dano) ended up on the cutting room floor.  Trust me, no big loss.  Perhaps the combat scenes were fleshed out more, but they are already some of the best from a 1950s Civil War movie perspective.  Huston uses plenty of smoke and lots of pyrotechnics.  It’s not “Glory” or “Gettysburg”, but it’s pretty visceral.  The actors load their muskets properly and the tactics are fine (although Huston is big on two-line volley firing).  You feel the confusion and trepidation Henry faces.  You can see why he runs.  Unfortunately, the weakness of the movie is it’s hard to believe he completely changes overnight.  But that’s the novel’s fault.  (I’ll discuss the novel versus the movie in a later post.)

                It’s hard to fathom what a 1951 audience would have found to loathe in this movie.  The acting is not the problem unless you are requiring all-stars.  Maudlin, Dierkes, and Dano were making their debuts.  Maudlin is amazingly good for a cartoonist.  He was a natural in the role as the “Loud Soldier”.  He made only one more movie.  The key is clearly Murphy’s performance.  It was his first significant role and first non-Western.  Most critics consider it his best performance.  He got the role because Hedda Hopper pushed Huston to give him a chance.  The role is difficult because the character in the novel goes through so many moods.  He does as well as anyone could have (and much better than Richard Thomas from the 1974 version).  The dialogue should not have been a problem.  It’s less hokey than you would expect for 1951.  A lot of it is from the novel and if you haven’t read the book, you might shake your head.  There’s a lot of dialect, but it’s realistic for soldier banter.  The very first line starts with “well, I reckon…”  There are some memorable lines and some of them are quite witty.   Normally in a war movie from the 1950s I might comment on how sanitized the language is compared to a modern script.  Here is the rare exception.  One of the soldiers tells the following joke:  “A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree – the more you beat em’, the better they be.” (That line does not appear in the 1974 version.) The big caveat to the dialogue is the terrible narration.  It may be mostly quotes from the novel, but it insults the audience.

                Supposedly, Mayer sabotaged the test screenings by implying the movie was a comedy.  That is hard to believe, but the movie is not without humor.  After Wilson spreads his rumor, but before it comes to fruition, his mates rag him mercilessly in formation.  In another scene, a general passes by several units boosting morale by promising to come by and eat “hard tack and sowbellies” with them.  When he passes the 304^th one of the men yells: “Having supper tonite with us, General?”  He responds with “go to blazes, corporal!”  That exchange wittily tells you a lot about command in the Civil War.

                “The Red Badge of Courage” deserves a reassessment.  It is not even out on DVD.  You can see it on You Tube and I encourage American History teachers to show it in class.  After all, it’s only 70 minutes long.  Just check with the English teachers first.  They may be assigning the book.

GRADE  =  B+