FORGOTTEN GEM? Sergeant Rutledge (1960)

                “Sergeant Rutledge” is a John Ford Western / court room drama / war movie.  It was filmed in Monument Valley and in a court room.  Sergeant Rutledge (Woody  Strode) is a member of the 9^th Cavalry – the famous Buffalo Soldiers.  Ford cast Strode in the title role because they were good friends.  (When Ford was dying, Strode slept on his floor for four months as his caretaker.)  But when you think about it, who else could have played the role?  Jim Brown was still playing football and Sidney Poitier would have been miscast.  Point is, there were not that many black actors that could anchor a war movie in 1960.  Woody deserved this role and it came during the greatest streak of his career.  “Pork Chop Hill” was released the year before and “Spartacus” came out the same year.  Those were supporting roles, whereas “Sergeant Rutledge” is more meaty.  However, he still does not get top billing.  Jeffrey Hunter and Constance Tower appear above him in the billing.  (Check out the poster and then push your jaw back up.)  Shame on you, Hollywood marketing! 

                The movie opens with the rousing song “Captain Buffalo” (also the title of the novel the movie is based on and the working title of the movie).  We jump straight into the trial.  Flashback alert!  It’s the young lawyer Lt. Cantrell (Hunter) vs. the veteran Capt. Shattuck (Carleton Young) with the crusty judge, Lt. Col. Fosgate (Willis Bouchey).  Don’t recognize the actors’ names?  If you’re of my generation or you like John Ford Westerns, you’ll recognize the faces.  (And the stereotyped characters.)  Throw in the obligatory romance between Cantrell and Mary (Tower) which begins with a bumpy stagecoach throwing them into each other’s arms, naturally.  We have no clue what the trial is all about at first.  We just know it has brought the entire local busybody society which makes for a very colorful courtroom until Fosgate evicts the women, including the head hen – his wife (played by Billie Burke in her last role).  In a neat trick of cinematography, the first flashback comes via a fade around the person testifying.

Sergeant Rutledge reporting for railroading

                It turns out that the trial involves Rutledge raping and murdering his commanding officer’s daughter Lucy and then killing him before escaping.  The flashbacks occur as each witness adds to the story.  Mary is not only romantically involved with Cantrell, but also is a witness because she encountered the on-the-lam Rutledge at a deserted railway station.  Will he rape the white woman?  Shame on you, 1960s audience, for even considering that!  In fact, he saves her from Indians. Take that, racists!  Mrs. Fosgate is called to remind us of how it was a male dominated society except for the fact that after you shut your wife up in public, you could expect to pay for it. 

                The plot manages to get some Indian fighting in.  Cantrell takes a squad to the station to arrest Rutledge and they run into trouble on the return.  Rutledge saves another’s life so even if you are moronic enough to think he’s guilty, he’s a hero.  As far as why he was fighting for the same whites who would assume he committed a heinous crime, he says “it ain’t the white man’s war, we’re fighting to make us proud”.  Rutledge takes the opportunity offered by the skirmish to escape, but returns to warn of an Indian ambush.  Why did you come back?  I ain’t a “swamp runnin’ nigger”.  (Sergeant Major Rawlins used that phrase when he reamed Tripp in “Glory”.)  I won’t give away the too pat conclusion, but I will tell you that Cantrell is a better lawyer than Atticus Finch.

Cantrell and his mother - oops, his love interest.

 

                “Sergeant Rutledge” has its flaws.  You’ve seen all the characters before.  The setting is a John Ford fort with its denizens.  But kudos to the black skin of some.  The film is Ford’s commendable effort to bring some recognition to the Buffalo Soldiers and to throw in a civil rights theme as well.  As a history lesson it is shaky.  For some reason, the screenwriter decided to use the 9^th Cavalry when it was the 10^th that was stationed in Arizona.   That is just nitpicking, however.  A bit more puzzling is Cantrell’s explanation that the Indians called the blacks “buffalo soldiers” because of their coats when most historians feel the name was a reference to their buffalo-like nappy hair.  In spite of this and the fact that is not meant to be a documentary, the movie is still better than the terrible “Buffalo Soldiers” (1997).  Speaking of which, that Danny Glover made-for-TV movie, had the African-Americans having empathy for their dark skinned foes.  “Sergeant Rutledge” has been criticized by some for depicting Rutledge and his comrades as being just like the white soldiers in their attitude toward the savages.  This is actually accurate as the Buffalo Soldiers showed no enlightened attitude.

 

                The movie is a forgotten gem mainly because of Woody Strode.  This is probably his best role and it plays to his minimalist acting style.  It was the role he was proudest of.  He is stoically charismatic as Rutledge.  He behaves as you would expect a black sergeant in a white army to behave.  When asked why he ran away from the murder scene, he responds that he had “walked into something none of us can handle – white woman business.”  As you can see, he gets some cracking dialogue.  Being a courtroom drama, the movie is dialogue driven, but there is some well-placed action to keep fans of Indian-killing happy.  The rest of the cast is adequate.  Hunter does well in a stock role, but Bloom is too old for Mary.  There is some nice humor – part of it from the drinking habits of Army officers and part from Mrs. Fosgate.  The cinematography by Bert Glennon (who did “Stagecoach” and “Rio Grande” for Ford) is excellent.  Lots of through the doorway shots and effective use of Monument Valley.  The fade to flashback is a neat effect.  The flashbacks work as a device and the plot is unpredictable until a shocking, but pat ending.

                Watch it for Woody.

GRADE =  B+   

   

FORGOTTEN GEM: Too Young the Hero (1988)

                “Too Young the Hero” is the true story of Calvin Graham.  Calvin became the youngest serviceman in WWII when he volunteered at age 12.  The movie was made for TV and appeared on CBS in 1998.  It was the last film directed by Buzz Kulik (“Sergeant Ryker”). 

                The story is told in flashback form.  In 1943, Calvin (Rick Shroder) is arrested for desertion and thrown in the brig at a naval air station.  He has time to revisit key moments in his life.  He and his friends were in a theater when word of the Pearl Harbor attack arrived.  He and his brother leave home because their stepfather is an abusive alcoholic.  They are staying in a seedy hotel and doing odd jobs to survive the Depression when his brother enlists.  A few months later, Calvin forges his mother’s signature and enters the Navy.  He is only twelve and does not look much older than that, but the Navy is desperate for recruits.  Boot camp features the clichéd DI and montage.

                Calvin is assigned to a gunnery crew on the battleship South Dakota.  He is wounded in the Battle of Guadalcanal when the ship is pummeled by shells.  Calvin bravely helped with fire control and the wounded.  He himself was wounded, suffering a broken jaw.  When the South Dakota returns to the States, Calvin is given a pass to return home with the understanding that he will turn himself in as underage.  Unfortunately, when he turns himself in, it is assumed that he is a deserter and he is arrested.  A sadistic guard is thrown in because Hollywood requires it.  Only intervention by his sister gets him released.

                “Too Young the Hero” is low budget, even for a made for TV movie.  It looks cheesy and drab.  The music is sappy.  The acting is terrible.  Shroder was coming off “Silver Spoons” so this was his first adult role and he is very shaky.  The supporting cast is low rent.  The film does use quite a bit of archival footage and that is a cool aspect of the movie.  A lot of planes get shot down in this movie.  It’s shoot down porn.  However, the blending of the footage is not seamless. The movie is admirably accurate.  There are no ridiculous enhancements of the true story.  A romance is not shoehorned in (that would have been creepy since Calvin was only 12).  I question the sadistic guard episode, but it could have happened I suppose.

"That's right, ma.  It's a real movie, not a TV show."

                Calvin Graham’s story begged to be covered in a made for TV movie and Rick Shroder was the logical choice to play him so the movie was a natural.  It’s a shame that the production was so lame, but at least it was made and it is truthful.  You do learn the facts behind this forgotten hero.  (That is the only thing that keeps the movie from getting an F.)  This was the first time I saw this film, but for years I have been giving a reading assignment about Calvin Graham in my America History classes.  The movie covers all the events in the reading, which is cool.  All things considered, I would have to say that the reading is a much better use of time than watching the movie.

                The movie’s post script informs you that Graham finally got an honorable discharge in 1978.  What it does not mention is that after being released from the brig, he went back to school for a while.  At age 17, he entered the Marines and was disabled in a fall off a pier.  For years he campaigned to get the discharge rectified and get his medals back.  He did get all the medals back in 1978, except the Purple Heart (for what reason I do not know).  In 1988, he was finally given a disability and back pay, but still no Purple Heart!  Two years later, after his death, his family received the darned medal.

GRADE =  D  

WAR SHORT STORY READALONG: “The Crime of the Brigadier” by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

                “The Crime of the Brigadier” is a short story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle from a series about a fictional French officer named Brigadier Gerard.  At the time of the story he is serving in Spain during the Peninsular War.  This particular story first appeared in Cosmopolitan magazine in December, 1899.  An alternative title was “How the Brigadier Slew the Fox”.  Doyle modeled his protagonist after the light cavalry hero Baron de Marbot.  Marbot first made a name for himself on the peninsula and went on to further distinction in the Russian campaign.  He was a brigadier general by the time of Waterloo and was wounded in the battle.  Doyle’s version of him inspired the Harry Flashman character in the George McDonald Fraser novels.  He is not the coward that Flashman is, but he does exhibit the vainglory.  He may be a supreme egotist, but he is an excellent and brave warrior and quite the ladies’ man.  He doesn’t mind telling you.  Doyle uses him to satirize not only the French, but also the British.  In this particular tale, he is poking fun at the upper class British officers.

                Doyle hooks the reader immediately by identifying Gerard as the only officer the British army had “deep, steady, and unchangeable hatred”.  This is because he committed a crime “which was unspeakable, unheard of, abominable;  only to be alluded to with curses late in the evening”.  I’ll bite, what did he do?  The year is 1810 and the French have pushed Wellington back to Portugal.  With Lisbon in sight, the French are rudely confronted with Wellington’s defensive line of Torres Vedras.  The French commanding general Messena has a bright idea for a reconnaissance and who better to conduct it than the dashing Gerard?  Gerard cannot dispute Messena opinion that he is the greatest horseman in the army.  He gives him the best horse in the army so he can ride around the British lines and scout out the weak spots.

                Gerard tells the story in flashback from retirement as a cabbage farmer.  Things start off satisfactorily until the greatest horse is felled by a sentry’s bullet.  Gerard hides in a stable, but manages to get an upgrade horse-wise when he steals the best horse in the British army.   The scout continues until the new horse hears the call of a fox hunt and cannot be deterred.  What happens next earns Gerard the undying enmity of the entire British officer corps. 

                    

                “The Crime of the Brigadier” is the best story so far.  I had no idea Doyle had written this series.  Being a big fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories, it is no surprise that he could successfully delve into a different subgenre.  The story is very well written and thoroughly entertaining.  It is satire at its wittiest.  Doyle would have us believe that British officers even in a siege, cannot do without their fox hunts.  The fox hounds have been brought over from England by special ship.  Gerard lucks into a thrice weekly hunt.  He may be pompous, but his foes are upper class twits.  I prefer Gerard to Flashman.  He may have a giant ego, but there is some reason for it.  He is quite the braggart warrior, but not a buffoon.

                The best thing about the story is you can’t wait to find out what terrible act Gerard has committed.  When it becomes apparent (and it is unpredictable), it is a cracking good punch line.  I definitely will read more of the series.

GRADE  =  A    

Westfront 1918 (1930)

                “Westfront 1918” (“Vier von der Infanterie”) is a German war film that came out the same year as “All Quiet on the Western Front”.  It has been overshadowed by that behemoth, but they are both great war films.  “Westfront” was directed by the renowned Georg Pabst.  He was the leading practitioner of the New Objectivity style of filmmaking in Germany.  The style was noted for its sober realism.  Its bleak, down-to-earth take on trench warfare got the film labeled “cowardly defeatism” by Josef Goebbels and it was one of two dozen films banned by the Nazis.  Another was “All Quiet”.  The movie was an adaptation of the novel by Ernst Johannsen.  The cast included several well-respected German actors including Gustav Diessl who was held prisoner for a year during the war.

                “Westfront 1918” follows four soldiers in the closing days of WWI.  They are the Student (Hans-Joachim Moebis), Karl (Gustav Diessl), Bayer (Fritz Kampers), and the Lieutenant (Claus Clausen).  This is not a heterogeneous small unit movie.  None of the four has a memorable personality or background.  Pabst is profiling the war, not the soldiers.  The movie is a series of episodes that could have happened to any soldiers, but specifically to these four.  Only the Student and Karl get arcs and they are romances that cover the two extremes of male/female relationships in a war.

                The movie opens with the core group in an inn enjoying some time away from the front.  Note the tilted portrait of Jesus.  There is a saucy serving girl named Jacqueline (Jackie Monnier).  This is the first inkling that this movie established some standard tropes of WWI movies.  One of the soldiers refers to coffee as “Negro sweat”!  A character develops as the Student falls in love with Jacqueline.  It is his first experience with love, so he is all in.  They will get married after the war, if all goes well.  All does not go well.  Their rest is interrupted by orders to the front.  There they undergo a bombardment that features Karl, Bayer, and the Lieutenant having to hold up the ceiling of their dugout with their heads and hands.  The Student digs them out when the roof collapses.  Ironically, they are being bombarded by their own artillery.

So here is proof the old knife in the teeth came before
the old pulling the grenade pin with the teeth

                As is realistic for this war, combat is followed by down-time.  The men attend a stage show that includes a girl leading a singalong to a risqué song, a comedy routine, and a brass band.  (This scene has the only appearance of a xylophone that I have seen in a war movie.)  The scene will influence the famous cabaret scene in “Paths of Glory”.  Karl gets his first leave in eighteen months.  On the home front, civilians are forced to wait in long lines for food.  When his mother sees him, she decides not to lose her place in line.  This is not the clueless home front that Paul Baumer returns to in “All Quiet”.  Karl’s wife is not having to wait in line at the butcher shop because he catches her in bed with the butcher.  Awkward!  She begs forgiveness (“It’s not my fault”), but Karl is stoically unforgiving.  There is a definite chill for the whole of his leave and he returns to his real home with his marriage on the rocks.  The whole trip home is totally believable.

Did I mention it is anti-war?

 

                It’s time to get some characters killed and the rest of the movie is bleak and bleaker.  There is a great long combat scene that includes lots of grenade throwing, poison gas, and some really cool tanks lumbering toward the German lines.  The movie has some of the best bombardment effects of any war movie.  One character gets shell shock.  25% seems about right.  Three of them end up in a charnel house of a hospital.  An indelible image is of a damaged crucifix in the midst of the horrific wounds.  Karl summarizes the theme of the film when he says “It’s everyone’s fault”.

                This is an amazing movie.  The film is a technical marvel for an early talkie.  Pabst uses tracking shots (one of soldiers moving through the trench inspired a similar shot in “Paths of Glory”), but also allows the French soldiers to move across the face of a stationary camera for the big battle scene.  The tanks come to the camera for a striking effect.  It contrasts well with the modern style of making the camera part of the action.  It is one of the great combat scenes in war movie lore.  The action is realistic, as are the sets.  No man’s land, the dugouts, and the trenches are well constructed.  There are nice little touches that you will see in few if any WWI movies.  For instance, a message is sent by a dog.      Since the movie is not character driven, the acting does not stand out.  In a sense that is a compliment because the actors do not overact like you see so often in the early talkies.  There are no scene-chewing moments like in “All Quiet”.  Even the shell-shocked Lieutenant is effectively played based on actual cases.  Needless to say, the movie is strongly anti-war.  There are no heroics in the film.  The violence is not exhilarating like in other so-called anti-war movies.

happy ending - not

                In comparison to “All Quiet”, “Westfront 1918” covers some of the same ground but in a more depressing way.  Keep in mind that the time frame for the two are very different.  Paul and his comrades go to war in the naïve early days and gradually learn  that war is hell.  The home front does not reach that point at all.  In “Westfront”, the war is already lost and the home front is suffering as evidenced by Karl’s wife and mother.  Another way to see the different perspectives is to compare the two hospital scenes.  The hospital in “Westfront” is a horrific and not orderly with nice rows of cots.  Also note that in “All Quiet”, the dugout roof does not collapse.  On the other hand, “Westfront” has four songs including two in a row!  Both movies have powerful scenes, but “All “Quiet” is more epic in scope.  It has more of a flow to its plot and this is mainly due to it following the Baumer character.  None of the characters in “Westfront” are memorable, but that was not Pabst’s goal.

                “Westfront 1918” is probably the second best WWI movie.  It is obviously a must see. I have to admit I am embarrassed to admit it took me this long to watch it.  In my defense, it is not an easy movie to find and is criminally underappreciated.  I found little information on it from my usual sources.  At least the readers of this post will now know a bit about it.  My work is done.

GRADE  =  A