"The Dam Busters"

    
      Does the film "The Dam Busters" belong in the Top 100?  It is the true story of Operation Chastise - the attempted breaching of three Ruhr Valley dams during World War II.  The Royal Air Force cooperated with the film, including providing Lancaster bombers.  The movie is basically two parts: the development of the bombs by Barnes Wallis (Michael Redgrave) and the training for and carrying out of the mission led by Wing Commander Guy Gibson (Richard Todd).

Redgrave as Barnes Wallis

     The first half is your typical "brilliant scientist bucks the bureaucracy" cliche.  By the way, the screenwriters exaggerate the road blocks placed in his way and piles the credit on Wallis' back when in reality he did not do it alone.  The development of the bomb with its trial and error aspects is interesting and Redgrave is good as the obsessive, eccentric inventor.  He eventually convinces "Bomber" Harris to green-light the project with the enthusiastic support of Churchill.

Todd as Guy Gibson

     The second half covers the selection, training, and execution of the mission.  Todd plays Gibson, who had flown 173 combat missions.  He is your typical British officer as seen in countless movies.  Upper class, stoical, stiff upper lip, etc.  Gibson has a black dog with the cringe-inducing (but accurate) name of "Nigger". (He gets to ride in the front of the car because this is England.)  At the crew briefing they are told the mission will shorten the war, was top secret, and would be dangerous (flown at extremely low level).  Every air mission movie has to have the briefing where those three points are made. We get montages of low level flying and killing time.

a Lancaster as a Dam Buster

     The mission begins at the 1:26 minute mark.  There is realistically little dialogue.  The flight cinematography is good, including shots through the front of the bombers.  The flak is decidedly fake, however.  When they reach the dams, we see each of the bombers go in one at a time.  The tension builds as the first four fail until the fifth creates the breach that floods the valley.  The second dam is similar.  The effects are pretty good for 1955.  One more montage of the survivors (8 bombers did not make it back) returning.  Wallis and Gibson have the obligatory "they knew it was risky" conversation and then Gibson walks into the sunset as patriotic music swells.
     The movie had a great influence on the attack on the Death Star scene in the first Star Wars movie (episode IV).  Even some of the dialogue was used.  Speaking of which, Peter Jackson is apparently planning a remake.  Why? Wasn't "King Kong" enough of a lesson in redundancy?
     Does it crack the Top 100?  I doubt it.  It is historically accurate in the main points.  It is pretty realistic for its time.  It was a huge hit in England, helped by the thrilling opening theme.  It glamorizes the RAF like "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" recruited for the U.S. Air Force.  The two parts are both interesting and the raid itself is thrilling.  However, it is definitely old school in its quaintness and Peter Jackson's version should be much better, although unnecessary.

  
   

SHOULD YOU READ IT? "YOJIMBO"

   

 
      This is part of my series of possible Top 100 movies that appear in my "Video Hound's War Movies" guidebook that received 4 "bones".  Is it worthy of viewing even though it has subtitles?
      The director is the acclaimed Akiro Kurosawa, who also made "Seven Samurai".  It is based on two stories by Dashiell Hammett.  Although not a true story, it is set in 1860 during the period after the fall of the Tokugawa Dynasty in Japan.  The samurai were unemployed now that their royal employers were no longer in power.  Many became "ronin" which were warriors who wandered around selling their services. "Yojimbo" means "bodyguard".
      The movie opens with a ronin named Sanjuro (meaning "Mulberry Bush") tossing a stick in the air and then heading in the direction that it points to.  He enters a town which is seemingly deserted.  He realizes this is his kind of place when a dog walks by with a severed hand in its mouth!
      The town is divided between two gangs of "gamblers" (subtitle translation error?) which are led by loathsome brothers.  Sanjuro befriends an innkeeper and decides to play the two sides against each other.  He proves his prowess by quickly dispatching three villains.  He is good.  The film moves back and forth as he schemes with each faction.  The dynamics change when the son of one of the gambler-leaders returns to town sporting a revolver.  He is a psycho named Unosoke.  The firearm symbolizes the omenous future for the sword-wielding samurai.
      Sanjuro gets captured and tortured after aiding a woman who was a sex slave to Unosoke.  He kills six guards in a bloodless, but violent scene and reunites her with her family.  It seems Sanjuro has a heart of gold and is one tough dude.  He survives the torturing and of course gets his revenge.
     It was remade as "A Fistful of Dollars" and if you have seen that Clint Eastwood movie, you definitely should see "Yojimbo".  It is fascinating to see the parallels - especially the final showdown.  I kept trying to see if Sanjuro had a iron plate under his kimono.  I have to admit that I prefer Leone's movie.  And by the way, "Yojimbo" is much more in the western genre than the war movie genre (mysterious stranger comes to town, dusty streets, townspeople hiding indoors, showdowns, etc.) .  For this reason, I will not be considering it for entry into my Top 100.
     I recommend this movie.  Sanjuro is one cool dude.  Toshiro Mifune (one of my favorites) does a great job as the anti-hero.  Kurosawa is his usual brilliant self.  Lots of stationary, wide screen shots.  Interesting characters, if a bit clownish.  The humor is cartoonish and a little out of place.  It is a good history lesson about a Japan in transition and a warior class growing obsolete.

#83 - "Sahara"

BACK-STORY: “Sahara” was released in 1943, two months after the surrender of Italy. It is dedicated to the IV Armored Division which was training in the Borego Desert of California where the movie was filmed. The Army provided equipment for the production including the M3 Lee tank. Most of the Germans are played by American tankers. The movie is based on an incident in the Soviet photoplay “The Thirteen”. It earned three Oscar nominations – Sound, Cinematography, and Supporting Actor (J. Carrol Naish).

OPENING SCENE: In the Libyan desert, a lone tank named “Lulu Belle” gets a radio message to retreat southward in the face of the German (Rommel) breakthrough after the fall of Tobruk. “Good luck and scram!” They come under realistic artillery fire. The engine breaks down (cliché alert - #25), but being Americans they fix it with a wrench. The tank crew is led by Sergeant Joe Gunn (Humphrey Bogart) and he loves his tank saying that Lulu Belle is “like a dame, if you don’t feed her she doesn’t go anywhere”. They head south.

SUMMARY: They encounter the survivors (five Englishmen and a Frenchman) from a field hospital who decide to go with them. The movie now becomes a “who will survive?” suicide mission war film. At one stop, to change the fuel mixture, a young Lloyd Bridges shows off a picture of his girlfriend (cliché #1). Guess who is the first to die? They pick up a Sudanese soldier named Tambul (Rex Ingram) who has an Italian prisoner (Naish). Gunn is unmoved by the Italian’s pleading and showing of pictures of his family. They leave him behind, but Gunn changes his mind soon after (cliché #18).

A German plane strafes them, but misses the tank on all four passes. They fire once and shoot him down! The pilot is captured. He is your stereotypical arrogant jerk Nazi. He does not want the black guy to frisk him because he is inferior. (Could this foreshadow something? Stick around) Guess who is mortally wounded by the strafing? Hint: his pretty girlfriend will be very sad.

They plunge on to take refuge at the ruins of an old water hole through a realistic sand storm. This is possibly the driest movie ever. Make sure you have water handy while watching it. There is a well at the ruins, but it has only a slight drip of the precious liquid. They collect it in mess tins and each gets three swallows, including the prisoners (message: we are humane no matter what). We get the typical soldier talk about back home.

They ambush a German scout car capturing two Germans and Joe bribes the weaker with water to reveal an entire battalion is heading their way desperate for water. (Guess what his fanatical Nazi comrade does to him when he gets a chance?) Should they commit suicide by staying to defend the no-water hole against 500 Germans or turn tail and run? Gunn argues for staying. He insists that the audience will feel short-changed if there is not a big fight with lots of Germans getting killed. Just kidding. He actually plays the patriotic card by mentioning London, Moscow, Bataan, and Corregidor. (If you don’t recognize these references, a 1943 audience sure did).

Waco (Bruce Bennett) goes off in the scout car to get the cavalry. Meanwhile, our heroes prepare for the siege by digging in and placing German mines. The Germans come swarming forward and don’t even have to step on the mines for them to explode. They are forced to retreat. Gunn offers to trade water for food and later water for weapons in order to buy time and fool them on how much water they have. In one of the lulls, the German pilot (blonde, blue-eyed Kurt Krueger) argues with Giuseppe. The Italian claims that Italian soldiers only wear the uniform, they don’t give their souls. He speaks passionately about the evils of Hitler and the enslavement of his people. The German stabs him, naturally. He tries to escape but Tambul kills him in an appropriate way (in actual filming Ingram almost killed Krueger before “cut” was called).

The siege continues including mortar fire from the Germans. One by one, the good guys go down as we approach the over/under number. Joe keeps spirits up with statements like “we are doing it because we are stronger than them…They have never known the dignity of freedom.” Occasionally we cut away to the now on-foot Waco gamely pressing on.

FINAL SCENE: The Germans launched their last assault that will overwhelm the only two survivors (one is Bogart, of course), but instead of attacking they throw down their weapons and beg for water! Too bad there is no water. But wait, it turns out that a mortar explosion opened up a vein of water and it is now gushing out. The cavalry finally arrives. The movie closes with Joe reciting the names of the dead heroes as sappy music swells. A reference is made to the British holding at El Alamein.

RATINGS:

Action - 6

Acting – 9

Accuracy – 7


Realism – 6


Plot – 8


Overall – 8

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Not if they insist on female characters. The acting is good. It stars Humphrey Bogart as Humphrey Bogart. It has moments of talkiness. It is not non-stop killing. In general, I would have to say it does not have a lot of appeal to modern females.

CRITIQUE: “Sahara” is very much a product of its times. It is a classic black and white, made during WWII war movie. It fits solidly into the “small unit fighting against great odds” sub-genre. It is also a good example of a siege movie (similar to “The Alamo”). Although it was filmed at a time that the Allies were still unsure of victory, it is not heavy on propaganda. It does have its preachy moments and certainly taps into patriotism, but it is not heavy-handed.

One of the fascinating aspects of “Sahara” is the Italian character Giuseppe. One wonders if the timing of the movie (it was filmed during the Italian army’s collapse in North Africa and just prior to Italy’s surrender) led to the rather sympathetic treatment of Italians. It appears that the film-makers realized that the Italians were no longer a threat and the healing process could begin with this movie. Contrast the fanatical Nazis who are robotic followers of Hitler to the pitiable Italian who was merely a dupe of Mussolini. Naish’s nomination as Best Supporting Actor is also a statement about attitudes toward Italians in 1943. Another intriguing character is Tambul. Here we have a black man portrayed in a positive light. He is intelligent and brave - rare for a 1940s movie. Kudos to the screenwriter.

One flaw in the movie is the numerous clichés. (See my post on war movie clichés.) I found six classics in this movie. Some cannot really be faulted because they were so ingrained in old-school war movies that thinking outside the box would have been highly unorthodox. For example, having soldiers get shot with no bullet hole or blood is just the way it was in 40’s movies. Asking for the actors to sweat realistically in the desert is another pipe dream. (I read about how the make-up artist gave them a sweaty look, but I saw little evidence of this on the screen.) Hell, the actors in “The Thin Red Line” are not sweating on tropical Guadalcanal and that movie was made in 1998!

ACCURACY: The movie is loosely based on the fact that in June, 1942 a small detachment of American tanks joined the British 8th Army to get experience in desert warfare. I doubt any got into any combat implied by the opening of the movie. But when I saw the movie I assumed Hollywood had forced an American tank into the British army, so I was pleasantly surprised to find there was some justification for the scenario.

Since the siege was not based on an actual battle, I have no complaints about it. It is highly unrealistic, however. A very small group holding off 500 (equipped with mortars) can only happen in Hollywood. Also, I would assume any competent German commander would have maneuvered his force in a way that would have made it impossible for a few men to defeat attacks at several points. I admit that if enemy commanders used this common sense tactic, there would be no “siege against great odds” movies. That would be a shame because it is an interesting sub-genre.

CONCLUSION: “Sahara” is the rare made-during-wartime war movie that holds up years later. Its strengths are in the acting and the plot. It does not go overboard in patriotism and propaganda. The characters are interesting, if a bit stereotyped. Gunn’s trickery in faking the German commander into thinking they have plenty of water is fun. Although unrealistic in the outcome of the siege, most of the good guys don’t survive which is logical. Joe Gunn is a good role model for leadership. He is strict, but not stubborn.

I do not know where “Sahara” will end up on my list, but I think Military History magazine was justified in including it in the top 100. It is well worth the watching.

Next:  #82 - A Walk in the Sun

CLASSIC OR ANTIQUE? "Gunga Din"

    
    "Gunga Din" was the second biggest box office hit of 1939, coming in behind only "Gone with the Wind".  It was based on the poem by Rudyard Kipling.  (Students, use Cliif's Notes instead).  It is the tale of a trio of British officers in India circa 1880.  We meet them brawling in a village which establishes that they are BFFs.  The leads (Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., and Victor McLaglen) are attractive and seem to be enjoying themselves immensely.  Gunga Din is an Indian water-boy (played creepily by 47 year old, decidedly non-Indian Sam Jaffe) who has aspirations of being a British soldier.  You could wear black-face in a 1939 movie as long as you were not playing a black, apparently.

      The movie features stirring music and beautiful scenery.  The plot revolves around an uprising by the Thuggee cult  ("the most fiendish band of killers in history").  This allows for lots of action including old-fashioned fisticuffs.  A typical action-filled scene ends with our heroes escaping by diving into a river.
      Being best buddies, Cutter (Grant) and McChesney (McLaglen) naturally go about sabotaging Ballentine's (Fairbank's) marriage and subsequent retirement from the military.  They know what's best for him!  He tries to do the logical (right) thing, but when Cutter goes off and gets himself captured by the Thuggees, he joins McChesney on a rescue mission to the Thuggee temple.  Cliche alert: a warrior will always choose his best buds over any woman, even his fiance.
     The chief priest at the temple is a typical 1930's villain.  He is imminently hissable which goes a long way toward deflecting attention from the fact that the Thuggees are rebelling against foreign occupiers.  But then again, Gunga Din is a servant of those colonialists and he is the hero of the movie!  Don't let these facts get in the way of your enjoying the movie. 
      This is a good old-fashioned action film, but it is not really a war movie although there is a huge chaotic battle at the end.  There is lots of humor and some it holds up.  Most of it comes from Grant, but give the forgotten Victor McLaglen some props.
     In spite of the paternalistic and racist overtones, I would have to classify "Gunga Din" as still a classic.  Watch it and then watch "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and let me know what you think.