Film Review: Battle Of The Bulge, 1965

NB - Another in my continuing series of archival posts. Drafted ages ago, but only finished now.

Hmm? I want this to be a good film, and I want to enjoy it. But it isn't, and I don't.

In terms of accuracy of any sort, it's pretty woeful. Only in the broadest of terms - the Germans luanched an offensive that ultimately failed - is it anywhere near the mark. Some of the detail chimes with certain events, such as the SS Malmedy prisoner massacre, and the German attempts to cause confusion behind the Allied lines (by using German troops disguised as Americans) [1]. It's obviously intended - as the original publicity materials, such as the poster below, make clear - to be a blockbuster in the mould of A Bridge Too Far, or The Longest Day. But those films worked much harder to achieve authenticity. And, particularly in comparison to this movie, they succeeded.

'Only Cinerama could give it to you the way it was.' If only! [2]

Col. Hessler (Robert Shaw) is introduced to wunderwaffen, the new Tiger. Eh? That's not a Tiger?

Hessler and his orderly, Conrad (Hans Christian Blech), singing the Panzerleied, with...

... the young tankers. [3]

It's also hard to watch a film in which not only is the history well off the mark, but the looks of the locations are wrong, and the materiél, in particular the tanks and vehicles of both sides, are wrong. Even the uniforms look too generic. They didn't have CGI back when this film was made, but then neither did the Russian makers of 'Osvobohzdenie' (Liberation), a truly epic five-part film about the counteroffensives on the Eastern Front that puts this lacklustre and innacurate drivel properly to shame. And the Russian's at least had the wherewithal to try to make some of their armour actually look like the Tiger tanks, or whatever else, they are standing in for.

An M3 masquerading as a German half-track.

M47 Patton tanks were used to stand in for Tigers. Poor image dubbing doesn't help.

There are a few films, Battleground, and parts of Band Of Brothers, for example, that cover aspects of the Battle of The Bulge, and do so far better than this movie does, but it remains a campaign ill served by western cinema. Sadly this film doesn't measure up to its own sense of self importance, which ends up making the rather portentous triple interludes - there are three bombastic musical segments, an overture, an intermission, and an exit - seem rather ridiculous. The stark red and black title graphics, as nice as they are, are scant consolation.

Telly Savalas as Guffy, an American tanker with a sideline in black market contraband.

Filmed in Spain, the landscape settings don't quite evoke the Ardennes.

In my view you'd have to be shamefully ignorant of the history of these important events to be taken in by this Hollywood gloss, which comes off more as a melodramatic Western, relocated to WWII, in terms of acting and drama. What a missed opportunity. And what a waste of plenty of decent acting talent.

This nice old poster makes the film look much better than it is. 

It's quite clear from the older posters that this was cast in the mould of star-studded epics such as The Longest Day, and A Bridge Too Far. It just goes to show that throwing big names into the pot with a turkey doesn't alter the fact it's a turkey.

----------
NOTES:

[1] This latter aspect, however, like so much of the history with which this film should've concerned itself, is grossly misrepresented, in this instance by being hugely overplayed.

[2] Introduced in the 1950s, Cinerama was an attempt by the cinemas to find new means of competing with TV, by offering a more spectacular immersive panoramic viewing experience. But by the time Battle of the Bulge was made it was already on the decline. And this film was shot in a single camera budget version of the format, where the original called for three cameras shooting simultaneously!

[3] This was one of the few scenes I actually enjoyed, as I felt it conveyed well the positive camaraderie aspect of the German war machine, something usually glossed over in big budget war films.

Film Review: Flags Of Our Fathers, 2006

Clint Eastwood and Steven Spielberg collaborated on bringing the book Flags of Our Fathers to the big screen. The book was written by James Bradley (with Ron Powers), son of John 'Doc' Badley, and tells the story of the six men - of whom 'Doc' Bradley was allegedly one (see further on this, below) - immortalised in Joe Rosenthal's famously iconic flag-raising photo, taken atop Mt. Suribachi, on the island of Iwo Jima.

The film, like the book, tells the story of combat and its aftermath, and how society celebrates and comes to terms with war, as much as it tells the story of the action on Iwo Jima itself. As wargamers and the like, it's perhaps this latter that may be of chief interest to us. 

Personally I find the other threads just as fascinating, although I will admit it's the, um... 'war porn' side (sorry, that's a horrible idea/phrase, but it kind of fits), that attracts me to the movie in the first place. But this in itself just goes to show the moral complexities of these fraught issues!

The movie starts, rather oddly - to my ears at least - on first hearing, with Clint Eastwood himself singing, in a ragged, thin, broken voice, partial lyrics to the song 'I'll Walk Alone'. This isn't his only musical contribution; Eastwood not only directed this picture, he also composed the soundtrack!

The initial scenes ...

... show Dreamworks CGI ...

... used to stunning effect.

Spielberg's Dreamworks fingerprints are all over the technical side of this film, which is truly spectacular in its CGI-enhanced depiction of the massive invasion flotilla, and the explosive and bloody combat scenes. And whilst Eastwood and Spielberg both undoubtedly have their own personal political axes to grind, and their views doubtless seep through in their work, it's also clear that this picture aims to be as even-handed and authentic as they could make it. [1]

Rosenthal's celebrated photograph.

Perhaps not unsurprisingly, the six figures in this iconic image, two of whom are barely visible, have not always been identified consistently. After an investigation in 1947, the Marine Corps themselves settled on the following, L-R: Ira Hayes, Franklin Sousley, Michael Strank (behind Sousley), John Bradley, Rene Gagnon (behind Bradley), and Harlon Block. Block Was initially identified as Henry Hansen, but the 1947 enquiry decided that it was indeed Block, and not Hansen in the picture. 

Subsequently, more recent amateur investigations suggested that the figure identified as Bradley is in fact Sousley [2]. This eventually lead to a second Marine Corps review board investigation, at which it was decided that Harold Schultz and not Bradley, was in the photograph of the second flag raising, which has become such a famous symbol of the US military at war.

The 1st flag raising.

There were actually two flags raised, with Bradley participating in the securing of the first, and present at, although not pictured in Rosenthal's most famous photo of the second. The first flag was raised by a slightly different group, which did include both Hansen and Bradley, being replaced later the same day (Feb. 23rd, 1945) by the second larger flag.

Harlon Block, above, was initially misidentified as Henry Hansen.

Ira Hayes, the unhappy 'hero'.

Rene Gagnon points himself out.

John 'Doc' Bradley.

Schultz, only identified as a flag-raiser long after his death, in 1995.

As already alluded to above, this movie isn't just a depiction of the fight for Iwo Jima. It uses Rosenthal's famous photograph, the darkroom discovery of which starts the film, and the effect this image has on the war-bond and propaganda drive back home in the U.S, to explore themes of the psychological effects of combat, and how we rationalise war, both for those involved - and in the context of this film that means, primarily, for the three surviving flag-raisers and their combat buddies - and for those at home.

Joe Rosenthal, signing copies of his famous photograph.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, given the Spike Lee imbroglio (see footnote [2], below), Eastwood's decision to start the movie with 'I'll Walk Alone', and the way he focuses on the story of Native American marine Ira Hayes - who some time after the war literally walked alone 1,300 miles to visit the family of a fallen comrade (Harlon Block) - is a clear effort to redress the injustices in a young nation, seen from the European rooted perspective, that is, that has certainly struggled with issues of racism.

Bradley, Hayes and Gagnon, movie style ...

... and the real trio: Gagnon, Bradley, Hayes.

Hayes, along with John Bradley, is one of the core trio, rounded out by PFC Rene Gagnon, who are brought home and fêted as heroes, to be utilised, in conjunction with Rosenthal's iconic image, as means to raise war-bonds.

This is akin - but here as more of a central narrative plank - to the segment of the Hanks/Spielberg Pacific series in which John Basilone, another hero of Iwo Jima, is brought home to help raise war revenues. Basilone, as depicted in that series at any rate, tired of the hero role, requesting that he be sent back to fight (and to die, as it turned out) with his buddies.

Of the three men depicted in Eastwood's movie, it's Ira Heyes who has the greatest struggle adjusting to post-combat life, and in particular the idea of himself as a war hero.

Eastwood directs.

Personally I think Eastwood deals with every aspect of this complex and difficult subject superbly well. The film is by turns exciting, inspiring, harrowing, and always moving. And within this impressive range there's everything from light humour to heavyweight seriousness. Not bad!

Mt Suribachi, Iwo Jima.

Recovering the wounded.

Detritus of the amphibious assault litters the beach.

Having given some of the more sociological and psychological - perhaps even philosophical? - aspects of this superb film some consideration, let's turn now to the depiction of the combat. Well, the first thing to say is that, despite coming in well under budget - according to figures I've seen on't interweb (prob. Wikipedia) [3] - this is a stunning film. The depictions of the invasion fleet, its deployment, and the initial attack on the beaches, are all jaw-droppingly impressive. 

The desaturated colour is near monotone...

... and adds a kind of gritty period feel.

Resulting in a green tinged near black and white look.

The naval bombardment, the use of waves of carrier-borne aircraft, and the huge deployment of landing craft (500 in 10 waves) are all beautifully and very dramatically rendered, with an excellently judicious mix of CGI and 'real' hardware, etc.

The black volcanic sands, and indeed all the terrain, none of which was shot on Iwo Jima itself, are superbly recreated. And the combat scenarios, which focus predominantly on the initial landing and subsequent fate of the 3rd Platoon, Easy co, 2nd Battalion, 28th U.S. Marines, as they attack and eventually reach the summit of mount Suribachi, are brilliantly recreated. 

This film is told expressly from the American side, and as such the Japanese are - perhaps surprisingly, given the situation - a relatively minor presence in the narrative. Mostly they're dug in and sniping, remaining nigh on invisible to both their 'dogface' adversaries and us viewers, except for occasional (and very brutal) moments of hand to hand combat, or when flushed from their defences, or populating the battle-scarred island as corpses.

The Japanese perspective, companion to Flags.

With respect to the Japanese perspective Eastwood shows his credentials for even-handedness not so much in this film itself (although that is indeed visible to the discerning eye), as in its companion piece, Letters From Iwo Jima, which film - made entirely in subtitled Japanese - expressly tells the Japanese side of this momentous and bloody battle. 

But even in Flags of Our Fathers Eastwood doesn't flinch from this balanced position, witness the poignant scene in which 'Doc' Bradley, attending to a wounded American in a dug-out, dispatches a Japanese soldier who attacks them: there's no old-fashioned Hollywood style instant, silent, painless death for the latter. Such scenes force the viewer to face the horror and insanity of the most brutal aspects of war.

A Higgins boat near the landing site.

Men and machines, casualties of war.

Eastwood does everyone involved the best honour anyone could really do, as Bradley junior also set out to do (at least according to the quotes from his work with which this film ends), not by whitewashing the story in a propagandistic style, but by accepting and depicting it all in its unresolved - and perhaps unresolvable? - complexity. 

I'd say this is a really excellent film. It manages to handle complex issues without dumbing down, and at the same time it's a rip-snorting good war movie, that shouldn't fail to entertain and inform lovers of the genre.

----------

NOTES:

[1] This didn't stop Spike Lee wading in with criticism of the movie for what he deemed to be under-representation of African-American troops in the film. Pictured above, three African American soldiers on the beach at Iwo Jima, found here.

[2] For those interested, I found an article here, that delves into this issue!

[3] With a projected budget of $80 million, the film actually only cost $55 million. 

Film Review: Decision Before Dawn

Crikey, it's been ages since I last posted!

I recently acquired a stash of new war films, mostly WWII (but a few from other eras), including such well known blockbusters as Saving Private Ryan, and the Clint Eastwood Pacific theatre companion pieces Flags Of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima. But as well as these better known movies, I also got a a few less well known ones, including A Time To Love & A Time To Die, and the one under review in this post, Decision Before Dawn.

In my humble opinion, this is a really good film, made even better by the fact it was filmed amidst the postwar ruins of a vanquished Germany. Purportedly based on real events, Oskar Werner steals the show as 'Happy', a decent German soldier (actually a medic, attached to an anti-aircraft unit), who, having been captured by US troops - where he acquires his nickname - decides to work towards hastening the German defeat by acting as a double-agent.

Germany in ruins. 'Happy' runs the gauntlet of a military checkpoint.

In many ways this is more thriller than gung-ho all-action war film. And for me the setting makes it enough of a war film to keep this war-movie buff very happy.

Sure, this film isn't perfect - the American perspective (and it's an American film) on the narrative thread concerning the theme of 'traitors' feels somewhat chest-thumping and leaden, and the romantic interlude with Hildegard Knef (that's her in the German poster below) feels contrived - but by and large it's very successful. 

The central themes of divided loyalties, suspicion vs. mistrust, bravery vs. treachery, pragmatism vs. idealism, and so on, particularly in the context of the crumbling Reich, and largely from a German perspective, make this a fascinating and quite unusual film.

More stress for 'Happy' at yet another checkpoint.

It's nicely shot in starkly evocative black and white, and some of the settings are absolutely incredible. Most of the actors and the characters they portray are pretty convincing (we get a glimpse of the young Klaus Kinski in one scene), even if some err towards the hammy here and there. 

Oskar Werner's character is great, as is the less idealistic 'Tiger', played by Hans Christian Blech. Both of the American leads, Richard Baseheart and Gary Merrill, are strong charismatic actors, although their roles are somewhat less interesting than those of the more 'conflicted' German protagonists.

A young Klaus Kinski has a very minor (and uncredited) cameo.

The poignant drama inherent in a world of collapsing belief in eventual victory, alongside the endemic paranoia of a totalitarian militaristic state, even flows over into the fates of some of the more minor parts, such as Happy's wounded comrade, with whom he's originally captured, and the young boy who plays an ardent member of the Hitler Youth, who's both a dedicated juvenile Nazi, and also a relative of 'Tiger', as the Germans struggle with their place in the side that is both morally compromised and losing.

The German poster for the movie.

As the pic. of 'Happy' at the checkpoint at the top of this post shows, uniforms, locations and vehicles are largely authentic. Sadly for equipment buffs - show me a wargamer who isn't one! - the tanks used in the film are American, but most of the other materiel is genuine German stuff, which is nice and unusual in a film of this vintage.

I'm deliberately steering clear of a plot synopsis, as that might spoil the fun of seeing the movie. Suffice it to say that this is a thrilling, moving, well directed, well acted film, depicting a highly interesting scenario, set amidst the actual ruins of the debacle of the closing stages of WWII itself. Much lauded at the time, although it's less well remembered now it's certainly worth seeing.

Film Review: Gettysburg (1993)

Having recently made a small digression, a flanking manouevre, perhaps, into ACW territory, with my post about the National Geographic ACW 100th anniversary series, I feel inclined to follow it up with a review of (or if not quite a review, then thoughts arising from watching) the Gettysburg movie.

My return to things ACW was begun with a purchase of Ken Burns' utterly magnificent epic documentary The Civil War. After watching this superb series I started adding ACW titles to our Lovefilm queue. We started with Glory, in which Matthew Broderick is a touch unconvincing (there's an irony here, in that the character he portrays was beset by self doubt) as Col. Robert Gould Shaw, a white officer tasked with leading the first black infantry regiment - the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers - into the fray.

Then Lincoln came out, so we saw that at the cinema. Shortly thereafter - and I mean very shortly, i.e. immediately - I decided the time was ripe to watch The Civil War series again. After this second viewing I felt it was high time I overcame my aversion to the very obviously fake beards that had formerly put me off giving Gettysburg a punt. One of the chief reasons being that I fancied the actions of Little Round Top and Pickett's charge, both of which are so stirringly covered in the Burns' doc., would be certain to feature. 

The 'hinge' of Chamberlain's fateful, decisive (and possibly legendary, in the mythical sense) 'gate', on Little Round Top.

When I did finally get the discs from Lovefilm, I initially failed to twig that it was a two-disc affair, or that both discs had been, unusually in my Lovefilm experience thus far, sent together (this remains, at present, the first and only time this has happend). The upshot was that I hoiked out disc two first, and watched that. It was good, but I really felt like something was missing! Only when I returned the disc to its wallet, intending to return it, did I see the other disc, and realise I'd goofed. So, I started again, this time with disc one. Unsurprisingly it was a far more satisfying viewing experience!

Having finally watched Gettysburg, in which my hopes were rewarded, in that Little around Top and Pickett's charge are not only covered, but are the two central features of discs one and two respectively, I realised it was high time I watched The Civil War again. And after that I felt I was ready for just one more viewing of Gettysburg, before returning the discs. The ACW bug had bitten deep! 

'If'n all a maw hayer turns white, wall, reckon I kin get me a job as Santy Claws...'

Chinwiggery

One thing I've gotten into a habit of doing with quite a lot of the books and DVDs and other sundry stuf I read, watch (or whatever), is posting reviews on Amazon UK about them. This is partly a by-product of having written a classic album column for Drummer magazine for over a decade, which allowed me to develop the penchant I already had for writing about stuff I like, into something of a paid hobby. I also find that keeping notes on stuff as I watch or read, and then writing a review when I finish, helps me focus my thoughts, and thereby remember more about the book, film, or whatever it may be.

When I posted a review of Gettysburg I was kind of not surprised to find the movie getting something of a panning, for numerous reasons, the most obvious being the most obvious-ness of much of the chinwiggery (my predictive text function doesn't like me minting this new term, and suggests 'chinwag grey'!): Gettysburg was clearly a big budget enterprise, and it wouldn't surprise me to find that the GDP of a small developing nation was expended on fake beards and moustaches. 

'Don't shoot me. I'm only the beard!'[1] Berenger as Longstreet, and Sheen as Lee. Thinks a passing Johnny Reb grunt: 'I do declayuh, them thar southen gennel'men, they sho' knowed how to dress.'

I feel tempted to say 'I've seen it done better', but when I think about it, one can usually spot false beards, 'taches, mutton-chops and the like, quite easily. I think Ian McKellen did a sterling job as Gandalf (tho' I have a soft spot for Sir Michael 'Paddington Bear' Hordern in the role, and even dig the fabulously named Heron Carvic in Ye Olde BBC radio verison of The Hobbit version) - and it, meaning his beard, etc., probably was done better - but I could still see it was fake, and that did occasionally niggle.

The problem facing the make-up dept. on Gettysburg was that there were almost as many acres of facial hair to be prepared for every shoot as there is wheat in all the massive monoculture cash crops of the entire US of A today. I mean, this was, after all, the conflict that gave us - so I've been read - the term 'sideburns', in honour of Ambrose Burnside, who, as can be seen below sported admirable, one could almost say 'benchmark', examples. As well as being a general in the Union army, and gifting us this new word for the face-fuzz lexicon, ol' Burnside was also the first president of the NRA!

Burnside, egg-headed 1st president of the NRA and the original Mr Sideburns!

Actually, when they show the characters, as they do during the titles for the movie, placing actors in make up against vintage photos of the original protagonists, you realise that it's not just that the fake beards and suchlike look a bit ridiculous, but that the real McCoy takes some believing in. The Remington fuzz-away was some time off, and these guys, real men's men, appear to have had beards on their whiskers. Anyway, that's probably enough about the beards and whatnot. 

Sam Elliot as Buford, giving one of his trademark looks, a kind of super-distilled semi-crazy intensity. Perfect for a high ranking C19th military type in the field, methinks. Elliot is such an excellent 'lean and rangy' cowboy-type, and - what a bonus - that's a real 'tache!

After a while you get used to it... kind of. Well, that is until Joseph Fuqua makes his belated appearance as Major General 'Jeb' Stuart (see the pic above 'Chinwiggery'). With his his eyes a-goggle, and his wayward whiskers looking like some biblical bush, this funny little Fuqua put me in mind of Michael Palin in some vintage Monty Python or Ripping Yarns type sketch. Was he about to burst out singing 'I'm a Lumberjack'?

Well, strange to say, perhaps, after that long opening ramble through the tangle of nun's hair* and glue that might plausibly constitute 'a world of pain', beard and moustache wise, it might come as a surprise if I do a swift volte face, and say, or confess, even, that I absolutely love this movie.

The cast assemble for a Union brass group shot.

Ham & Gravitas, with a side order of Stirring Music.

When I posted my Amazon review on the movie, I'd only watched it once or twice. I've now watched it four times, and I'm halfway through viewing number five. And I like it more with each viewing. 

After the first proper viewing, when I managed to start with disc one, it was Jeff Bridges' turn as Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain that sealed the deal for me, as well as the pure martial splendour of so many actors togged up so well, and the sheer pleasure of a double-disc axtravaganza dedicated to nothing more than a famous battle - there's no extraneous love sub-plots, nor even very much time set aside for the worthy themes that are the 'raisin detour' of (or could that be 'excuse for'?) Spielberg's Lincoln.

Indeed, I was so taken with the story of the 'textbook manouevre' by a College professor turned soldier, on Little Round Top, as portrayed in both the Burns doc. and this movie, that I ordered a copy of The Passing Of The Armies, which I'm currently reading (and loving), which is Chamberlain's narrative of the end of the ACW, and the role he and the V Corps, to which he belonged, played in the Appomattox campaign, leading up to the surrender and the end of the war. Chamberlain proves to be clever and articulate, as one hopes a college professor would, but, and better still, witty and independently minded.

'Chaaaarge!' Bridges' performance as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is pitch perfect, at least in terms of stirring drama, if not necessarily strict historical accuracy.

Watching the film again with a fuller insight into the man Bridges portrays only makes me enjoy the film more. Often a better literary understanding of a films sources does the reverse, and rather takes the shine off. Not here. Or at least not for me. I've also grown to appreciate some of the other portrayals more. Tom Berenger is superb as Longstreet, and whilst I initially thought Martin Sheen was the movies big casting mistake, as Robert E. Lee, the more I watch this, the better I think his performance is. Again, this can often be the reverse, esp. with modern mainstream films, especially of the Hollywood blockbuster type, where any initial charm (or indeed any recollection of anything at all about it) quickly fades.

The real Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

Reading Chamberlains memoirs of the Appomattox campaign ought to help any wargamer, or other student of military history, realise what a Godawful chaotic mess war generally is, and both Sheen's Lee and Berenger's Longstreet (and numerous others, as a matter of fact) do great jobs of showing how commanders have to work with unfolding events that aren't going quite as they'd like them to.

Right, well, time for bed now. This review is a work in progress by the way! I've not said enough about the film itself by half yet, and intend to return to this post, as I return to the film itself, several times, to tweak and develop it.

JLC in miniature

If or when I start collecting ACW miniatures, I'm pretty certain I'll want a little JLC figure. I'm aware of several out there: a W Britains 54mm old-fashioned 'toy soldier' type, a 40mm from figure from an American firm, and a 28mm figure that was, I believe, the free figure at a show like Salute some time back.

* Some years ago, as a poverty stricken longhair contemplating lopping off my locks, I had the brainwave of selling my abundant and perfectly straight sheafs of golden tresses to a wig maker. I was surprised to hear that when it comes to the supply of human hair, Huns... sorry, nuns (ah me, predictive text, you gotta love it!) had long ago cornered the wig market. Now, I thought I was being taken for a simple country lad, for such I am I guess, when told of the Burnside sideburns switcheroo thing. This nun-wiggery business sounded even more like I was having me lanyard yanked. I've never bothered to investigate, but I like the yarn!

[1] A quote (or possibly a slight misquote) from Woody Allen's wonderful movie Broadway Danny Rose.