SUB MOVIE: We Dive at Dawn (1943)

                “We Dive at Dawn” is possibly the best British sub movie.  It was directed by Anthony Asquith and released mid-war.  The Admiralty gave full cooperation and the exterior views are of two S-class boats.  The interiors are reconstructions of those boats.  Star John Mills went on a training run on a sub, much to the discomfort of his innards when the sub crash dived.  The movie has been overshadowed by films like “49^th Parallel”, “In Which We Serve”, and “The Cruel Sea”, but belongs in their company.

                The HMS Sea Tiger returns from an uneventful patrol and the crew is looking forward to leave.  As with “In Which We Serve”, the movie concentrates on three of the men.  Lt. Taylor (Mills) is the skipper and he has a little black book that he plans on utilizing for recreation over rest.  That’s right – John Mills as a ladies’ man.  Corrigan (Niall MacGinnis) provides comic relief as the sailor who is scheming to avoid his impending nuptials to the Coxswain’s sister.  Hobson (Eric Portman) is attempting to repair his broken marriage.  All this will have to wait when the sub gets an emergency mission to sink a German battleship.  “Leave?  I nearly ran into myself coming back”.  On their way to intercept the warship, they have to crash dive to avoid a plane.  Taylor records the following in the log:  “Spotted plane approaching.  Looked like one of ours.  So dived immediately.”  Sly smile.  They rescue three German airmen from a rescue buoy.  Surely the only time this device has appeared in a movie.  I discovered that these buoys were placed by the Germans for succor for downed crews.  They were like a floating dorm room with supplies and a radio.  Interesting.  The sub has to pass through a mine field with the obligatory mine cable scraping along the side.  They ram their way through a submarine net.  Another unique moment.  They find their target, fire at it, get depth charged and escape with the usual cinematic trickery.  Unfortunately, running low on fuel, it looks like they will have to scuttle the boat and accept internment.  Unless some jilted seaman with no will to live, a captured German’s uniform, and an ability to speak German comes up with a bold plan.

                “We Dive at Dawn” is one of the better sub movies.  And it was made in 1943.  Frankly, the only weakness of the film is the sub warfare.  The special effects are rudimentary.  You don’t see the depth charges, but the jostling about is nicely done.  The traversing of the minefield lacks suspense and the ramming of the net is on the silly side.  The movie’s big set piece in the enemy harbor is equally silly, but rousing.  It is probably the best commando scene in any sub movie.  The post script of the sub returning to the acclaim of the fleet is the cherry on top.  The strengths of the movie are in its characters.  The movie has an excellent cast.  Everyone knows Mills’ work in war movies, but it is easy to forget what a player Portman was back then.  He was coming off of “49^th Parallel” and “One of Our Aircraft is Missing” and would later appear in “The Colditz Story” and “The Bedford Incident”.  Hobson is a great character who goes from being a jerk to a hero realistically.  The decision to introduce the main characters by way of the shore leave was a good one and it is a shame the leave was cut short because those scenes are among the best in the movie.  The dialogue is excellent, although unless (and even if) you watch a lot of British films, you might wish for subtitles.  The sailor banter is fun, provided you can decipher the accents.  Speaking of which, you can tell a lot about the intelligence level of a movie by whether it subtitles the Germans.  This movie does not.

                Although the movie has a documentary look to it, it is not based on a true story.  There was no German battleship named Brandenburg.  No German battleships were lost to subs in WWII.  The commando raid is clearly fictional.  This means the movie is pure entertainment and achieves its goal of being a crowd-pleaser.  Especially if it’s a British crowd during the war.

GRADE  =  B+    

SUB MOVIE: Submarine Command (1951)

                “Submarine Command” is a movie that bridges WWII and the Korean War.  It uses the cramped confines of a sub to advance a plot that deals with post-traumatic stress disorder.  It was one of the first movies to take on this topic.  The movie was directed and produced by John Farrow who had won Best Director for “Wake Island”.  Star William Holden put $20,000 of his own money into the film.  It was not money well spent. The production had the cooperation of the U.S. Navy. 

                The movie tells us right off the bat that it is the "story of Kenneth White”, so it is going to be dominated by Holden’s character.  Commander White rescues a downed pilot named Morris (Don Taylor).  Kudos for showing a common role of subs in the Pacific.  The war is almost over and the Tiger Shark has an impressive record of 18 sinkings (including five warships).  There’s time for one more convoy.  It’s night, but White reverses established tactics and dives to make his attack.  The firing sequence is well-done.  They sink two merchantmen and surface to pick up survivors.  None of them will avail themselves of rescue.  For their act of humanity, they get caught on the surface by plane and the crash dive leaves a wounded sailor on deck.  White obviously did the right thing, but CPO Boyer (William Bendix) blames him for the deaths.  With the war over, White seemingly has no opportunity to redeem himself.  Not that he needs redemption since only Boyer is critical of his decision.  Oh, and also himself.  A series of desk jobs gives White time to stew in his PTSD.  Any reminder of the death turns White into a whiny little bitch.  This is putting pressure on his marriage to his cinematically perfect spouse Carol (Nancy Olson).  Hanging around and roiling the soap opera is the wolfish Morris.  What this relationship needs is another war.  Luckily for White, here comes Korea.  For unexplained reasons the Tiger Shark is recommissioned.  Guess who is returning as her captain.  Guess who will be on board to learn respect for him.  The sub is given a special mission to land commandos to take out shore installations.  Guess what flyboy is suddenly a commando leader. 

                It is commendable that “Submarine Command” tackles the issue of PTSD.  But being one of the first movies to deal with this subject means it is in uncharted territory.  Holden’s depiction of White’s turmoil is not believable.  He made the right decision and yet one blowhard sends him off the deep end?  That is not the only unbelievable aspect of the script.  The continuing presence of Morris is typical Hollywood bull crap.  You’ve seen it all before and not because you have seen sub movies.  Because you have seen war movies.  The character who is more wedded to the military than his spouse.  The warrior who is adrift without a war.  The redemption theme.  All of this would be acceptable if the execution was better.  As a sub movie, it is merely competent.  The interiors are realistic, but they are not used to advance a view of life on a sub.  There is little on submariner behavior.  The action is lacking in suspense and the effects are not noteworthy.  The climactic commando raid is full-on stupid.  It requires the sub to surface to send a message (which in actuality would not be required) and duel with shore batteries.  All this because to earn Boyer’s respect, White must do the wrong thing this time!

 

                The movie is more of a character study and it is trite in taking White from hero to desk-bound mope to hero again.  Holden is not at his best in a role that requires him to be morose.  (Oddly, the movie is so focused on White’s character arc that it forgets to be patriotic and pro-Navy.)  Jane Olson appears for the fourth and last time with Holden.  She is typecast as the understanding wife.  Taylor brings some verve in the role he perfected – the cocksure, lounge lizard pilot.  He and Holden were drunk through much of the production.  At one point, they snuck into a crowd scene in another picture.  When told he would be receiving a check and asked what charity to make it out to, he responded “make it out to my favorite charity – Bill Holden”.  The movie only hints at a love triangle.  Carol is too 1950s to be lured by Morris, so the movie does not go full soap opera, thankfully.   At least the cast was well-dressed, as Edith Head was credited with the costumes. Is that where Holden’s $20,000 went?

                “Submarine Command” is a lesser sub flick.  It’s the kind of movie that you seek out after you have seen a dozen other sub movies.  This way you don’t expect much.

GRADE  =  D

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