Category Archives: Genre: War

1970s, Article Type: Reviews, Country: United States, Genre: Drama, Genre: War, Media Type: Movies

Apocalypse Now (1979) Theatrical Cut Review

Leave a comment
A shot from the film.

Apocalypse Now is gorgeous. Its budget doesn’t go to waste, with the long shots of helicopters looking almost like ants surrounded by terrain and water being cinema at its core; lush, ambitious, and excessive. This is exactly the problem. The film is light on a critique of war, but is clearly going for being against it, despite not always being clear on that. While we see many deaths, they are either from dubious characters or no names. If you are to look at the deaths as inherently anti-war, then every war film is, which is obviously not the case for many romantic installments of the genre. In one scene, some American soldiers act like unhinged fools. Other scenes depict more cruel behavior. While the film includes these moments to tell us what it’s about, the story doesn’t care to humanize its victims or treat them outside of the lens of the protagonist, someone who seems disinterested in the whole matter. On top of that, the filmic look of the picture removes from the ability to empathize as it treats everything as a spectacle, pieces of a giant event instead of covering real people. Regardless of the implications of such violence and spectacle, you can’t deny how good it looks. Around ninety minutes in, the leads leave a battleground in the dark as colorful explosions and gunfire go off, feeling like fireworks. Whether or not this works for the story is up for interpretation. It can be seen as overly theatrical, or like it’s suggesting that this brutality is inherently American and disguised with patriotism.

Beyond this, the intended tone, or should I say shift of tone, certainly could have been portrayed better. We start with a declaration that we won’t be getting realism because of the surreal vibe of the opening sequence. We start on the Doors’ unsettling “The End”, with the psychedelic qualities fitting with the dreamlike nature of part of the movie. The silent and distant explosions make them feel like a memory. Our first look at the main character comes when he is overlaid on top of these explosions upside down. Martin Sheen as Captain Benjamin L. Willard is brought to us immediately disoriented and consumed by unnoticed and uncaring destruction. In the film itself he barely seems to comprehend or take seriously his or anyone else’s mortality, as if he is not all there. A visual comparison between helicopter blades and a ceiling fan crucially shows that no matter where Willard goes he can’t get his past experiences out of his mind.

The quiet subtlety of these shots makes them so impactful, so unfortunately they’re followed with many grotesque displays of Willard screaming and covered in blood, like we need it spelled out in large letters that he’s under stress. Here, we’re thrown into something aggressively human, the suffering of the main character. The juxtaposition between the two is extremely sharp. While this could be looked at as a positive, the entire point of the film, and part of the justification of its long run time, is to show a gradual dissociation from reality. Throughout the film, the protagonist is pulled further and further away from any sort of comfort. The climax is set in an area of rich colors and intense moodiness. The motif of the further you go, the more lawless everyone becomes is a bit muted due to one of the more famous shots of the film being a massacre early on. Even the opening scene of Willard, while not fatal, shows deep emotional tragedy, which would be more impactful if seen later. Would anything be lost if we jumped from the opening to Willard being told of his mission? The film as a whole is far more concerned with the set pieces and not detailing a true change with Willard, usually not bothering with his emotional state. His appearance in the very end is filmed as if to suggest the end of a long and complex tale that has changed him to his core. This is suggested due to the empowering lighting and dank atmosphere, as if it connects to a new state of mind the character has. However, the more significant problem with this picture is the narration.

Lines like, “And if his [Kurtz’] story really is a confession, then so is mine” take what could be an underlying theme and instead just throws it in our faces. The narration also tends to wax lyrical, as if Willard is a poet impersonating how a soldier would write. The strengths of the story are in what’s unsaid. Early on, the achievements of Marlon Brando’s character Colonel Kurtz are spoken with a slight unease, as if the military men discussing him are unsettled by the fact that someone so honorable and noble could fall so far into insanity. In turn, Willard is almost emotionless, not seeming to care. This tells us about Kurtz, Willard, and some military leaders with mostly vocal inflections, unlike something like, “charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500”. That only serves to give the narrow lead character more to say. Other than to draw a comparison between him and Kurtz, what does the wordy narration even tell us? We learn a lot about Kurtz’ past through Willard reading about him, but nothing that helps or changes Willard’s journey, or informs us on what is in store for when we see Kurtz. The intention seems to be to have Kurtz weigh over the various scenes, but we see so little of Willard’s feelings that Kurtz effectively doesn’t matter. If the intention is to draw comparison between the two, we don’t learn much of Willard’s past. He seemingly is not nearly as distinguished as Kurtz.

One of the worst verbalizations is, “How many people had I already killed? There was those six that I know about for sure. Close enough to blow their last breath in my face. But this time it was an American and an officer. That wasn’t supposed to make any difference to me, but it did.” This is just telling instead of showing. The score here is almost manipulative in trying to enhance the intended emotions the audience should feel, pushing these words past breaking point. While filmmaking can be inherently manipulative, it shouldn’t be done so nakedly. Willard explains himself to death comically often. Further reducing the impact of scenes of American soldiers being brutalists is the line, “No wonder Kurtz put a weed up command’s ass. The war was being run by a bunch of four-star clowns who were going to end up giving the whole circus away.” Why spend so long letting their behavior seep in if it’s going to be spoon fed to the audience like this? Even outside the narration, the on-the-nose dialogue and scenes pop up at many points, like when Willard shows up somewhere and asks someone firing a gun, “Who’s the commanding officer here?” He receives, “Ain’t you?” Later he admits to being afraid of something. This is delivered the same as the rest of the cold narration. Imagine how much more powerful this could have been if his fear was either shown through a certain behavioral choice or through a confession of sorts? Considering his otherwise unphased attitude, what is the point of his fear?

Marlon Brando’s weight is unsuccessfully hidden by the relentless shadow. While there is the positive impact of making his character seem especially reclusive and unknowable, this intense darkness would’ve made a stronger impact if the earlier scenes of intense darkness were removed. We’d be seeing something we never saw before. Brando’s dialogue is plagued with similar issues as Willard’s narration, like when he calls the protagonist an errand boy, implying that Willard had thought more of himself. Despite all his talking, we don’t get much of what Willard thinks of himself, but his heart and mind obviously never reeks of patriotism or righteousness. He is blank to murder, so why would Kurtz’ comment have any impact?

Willard at the beginning being given a taste of what goes on with Brando’s character and then his mission are very reminiscent of military or spy films of old where a character is recruited for a dangerous mission, with descriptions letting the audience know what they’re in for and that the antagonist is dangerous. Especially when considering its use in World War II films where the American hero was extremely uncomplicated and righteous, this old trope is immediately put on its head considering the messy state Willard was shown to be in and Kurtz’ decorations. You could almost imagine Kurtz as having previously been the hero of an old World War II film. This scene and the first with Willard seem made for each other, showcasing many contrasting themes. A broken man who has no place going back in the battlefield, especially because he was traumatized by said battlefield, having to do so. You have supposedly highly intelligent individuals who don’t seem to understand the brutality of the situation. Most importantly, despite the fact that Willard is being trusted and Kurtz is being demonized, both are clearly cut from a moderately similar cloth. Kurtz is just as broken a man as Willard. Kurtz’ ramblings are on record while Willard’s are probably just in his head. That is the key takeaway of the opening, though sadly their comparison would mostly be drawn through dialogue instead of seeing similar behaviors.

SPOILERS

William Kilgore, played by Robert Duvall, is among the least faint critiques of America. The women and children being mowed down by the American helicopters are at one point called “Savages” by him due to defeating one of the copters. One person in particular is targeted and killed running and screaming, being treated not unlike a video game villain, with the gruesomeness betraying those that would look at her as less than human. All this man cares about is surfing, with his actual job an afterthought to him, as well as the lives of those he ends or at least harms. The famous phrase “Charlie Don’t Surf” seems to function as both a future piece of pop culture that can be used outside of the context of the story and as an internal justification to not care about his victims, as they don’t partake in this supposed American pastime. Even the group we follow are brutalists… George Phillips “The Chief”, played by Albert Hall, responds to light sticks being thrown at him and his crew by firing his machine gun at the source. In a surprising moment of reason, Willard tells him not to do that. This is foreign considering how often he doesn’t involve himself in that which is not his business. Eventually, Chief is struck with a spear fatally. Two interpretations that can be drawn from this are that the throwing of sticks was meant to catch them off guard, or that their intentions were innocent until they started getting fired on. No matter what, Chief’s actions didn’t ultimately do him any favors and not different from what was ultimately done to him.

While the roles of Willard’s companions on the boat have led to many different views on the story. On the face of it, Chief is uncomplicated in his anger and opposition to Willard. He even tries to kill Willard as his dying act, like it is the most important thing in the world. The purpose of this seems to be for revenge instead of an ideological difference, like that is what matters about the character. One of the better scenes of the film is when Laurence Fishburne’s character of Tyrone “Mr. Clean” Miller is killed. Everyone gets to perform a bit, especially Chief, who is stunned. Both of these characters are mostly defined by their demises, as if the take away is perhaps that both the bossy and the teenaged are not to be spared. Another takeaway is that they matter as imprints on two of the main elements of the film they are involved with, the war and Willard. However, the only arguable effect they have on him is in detaching him more from society, which he already was. With Chief, it is suggested that going against Willard is what does him in, like he is not to be threatened.

As memorable scenes that will lead viewers to reflect on and discuss the war, these are more effective, but seem to matter little to the story. Seeing as both of these characters are black and the most violent of the leads, this isn’t the best look. Note that the brutal Kilgore and Kurtz are both white, but we don’t see them nearly as much. On top of this, if you look at the main character as someone to relate to, then these black and prominent characters look worse by comparison. Neither makes it all the way to the climax, matching the stereotype of black characters dying relatively early in movies, and one is portrayed as brutal in a way the others aren’t due to his attempt on Willard’s life, even if in a way that obviously wouldn’t work. Considering the opening and ending’s focus on the lead, and all the monologuing and narrating that puts us in his mind, it seems probable we are supposed to relate to him and thus see Chief trying to kill him as somewhat comparable to if he tried to kill the audience. By this logic, Chief’s end could be seen as a clue that his death is supposed to be acceptable because he wanted to kill us.

The main clue that Willard connects to Kurtz in the final act is that he has camouflage-esque paint on himself, green eyes, and in other ways seems taken into the abstract and colorful world, shown when he is bathed in darkness, unlike in most of the rest of the movie. Willard emerging from the swamp is gorgeously cinematic, especially when lightning strikes, illuminating his face. It’s rightfully one of the most iconic parts of the movie and emphasizes this main theme. It seems designed to be pictured in a book on film analysis. The actual confrontation with Kurtz is disappointing. Instead of comparing the two more closely, we mostly hear Brando ramble as he literally refused to learn the script or take any of this seriously. “If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral… and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling… without passion… without judgment… without judgment. Because it’s judgment that defeats us.” Brando is clearly stumbling over his words during this speech. This is also ridiculous considering that in this war and many previous ones, America committed numerous war crimes and other dehumanizing acts. The soldiers in this film, such as Willard, are portrayed as savages. Kurtz’ killings, like of Chef, don’t even have the pretense of serving a purpose. Is the intended connection between Kurtz and Willard supposed to simply be that they both are traumatized and seemingly despise America, despite doing similar acts of violence? Was that the payoff of the build up? We don’t even get a clear view of what Willard thinks of the country. Even in other ways, the two are quite different, like how we never learn what Willard wants to do with himself after the war, while Kurtz does to at least a degree. Some proposed endings for the film and the ending of the book this story comes from rectify this, so it wasn’t strictly desired for Willard’s fate to be mysterious.

The most crucial difference between the two is the crosscutting from the death of a buffalo to the death of Kurtz, which is reminiscent of the death of Mr. Clean and the dog Lance B. Johnson, played by Sam Bottoms, adopts going missing. Both compare a soldier who in theory is supposed to be honored and respected with an animal. Note that Willard personally is not compared to an animal. He even seems beyond the other characters due to his distance from the actions that take place and ultimately leaving unharmed physically and possibly not anymore emotionally damaged. We don’t see signs of him being traumatized by his escapade looking for Kurtz. Willard emerging from the mud is like a baptism that leads him to fulfilling his goal all movie, extinguishing both the main generator of the threat the military was worried about and the American ideal Kurtz used to represent. Kurtz’ cult ultimately bowing to Willard logically is confusing, but works at communicating that Willard is not just a person. He’s killed a figure viewed as holy by both them and in a different way America. The thing that America looks up to is God. Seeing as Willard is above this American figure, he is above everyone else. He’s been embraced by this society as a new God. Him rejecting it could be viewed as him being a humble God. Chief’s attempt on his life in turn could make him a Judas-like role.

Of the five characters that go on Willard’s journey to find Kurtz, Lance is the only one to live other than Willard himself. While all five show some degree of jadedness, the survivors are to a greater degree. Lance is often high on LSD and is thus attracted to the psychedelic and similarly unworldly society Kurtz has created. Having someone we follow to embrace Kurtz’ cult is probably the reason why he was written to survive, matching the “Richard Colby” character, but taking the text on its own he is the only one that seems to respect Willard in any way by bowing to him with the others at the end. Taking LSD has also been considered by some to take the user to a higher level of existence, where maybe he would “see” Willard as a holy figure, or at least see beyond the war. They feel there’s more important things than to stress over their surroundings when they’re at a different level of being. Admittedly, Mr. Clean and Chef weren’t really given a chance to either look up to Willard or hate him, but they also weren’t LSD users or enlightened in the way Lance may be. There is a mild continuity error where Lance doesn’t seem to care about Mr. Clean’s death, but later shows solace for the Chief’s eventual death. The reason for this could be that this symbolically shows Willard upstaging Chief and being the one with authority here, so Lance is commemorating this turnover.

OVERVIEW

The ending is clearly trying to be open to interpretation, which implies that the movie, or at least the ending, isn’t trying to say anything specific, contrasting the more “realistic” approach of most of the movie, with its graphic violence and shots of victims screaming. By the finale, the deceased are treated as props which serve to develop Willard, not having the personality or visceral nature of other deaths. While this can be interpreted in many ways, as I’ve done here, this along with the tonal shifts make for a story too muddled to be strictly pro-war, anti-war, or much of anything. The inconsistent tone is noticeable with a role like Chef, played by Frederic Forrest, who can’t decide if he wants to be comic relief or a representation of the story’s main themes. Apocalypse Now still benefits from being something that can cause discussion, which was probably its main point anyways, and bringing a cinematic grandness that most war films can’t pinch the pennies for, as more of an experience than most movies can hope to be.

1940s, Article Type: Reviews, Country: United States, Genre: Comedy, Genre: Romance, Genre: War, Media Type: Movies, Media: LGBTQ+ (A Little)

I Was A Male War Bride (1949) Review

Leave a comment
Sleeping

I Was A Male War Bride is a strange animal. Its objective is seemingly to be a wacky comedy, though it kills a lot of time on little stories that serve no purpose other than to squeeze out some laughs between Cary Grant as Henry and Ann Sheridan as Catherine. While their comedy is good, it’s not so necessary as to make these parts of the movie feel worthwhile. To keep the structure as similar as possible, this would work better as a mini-series or show, where each episode the leads get into a new adventure. There’s really no stable plot throughout, with things just happening. Even Sheridan’s character suddenly becomes far less important around the halfway mark.

This seems like it was all based around the absurdism of Cary Grant being a “bride”, with a big dose of satire for bureaucracy with an unnecessary romance and plot before it. Even the leads’ antagonism doesn’t amount to much as they eventually almost are perfectly aligned. Still, their confrontations are so much fun. The movie gets a lot better in the second half, where everything gets more and more wacky. 

Catherine often seems determined to take a moral high ground over Henry while saying and doing things that annoy him. She comes off as extremely unlikable as a person, but is very funny. One of her best lines is, “Y’know, I’m sorry I thought when you came in here you were behaving like a stinker, but you’ve been a stinker for so long I just-” Grant has more good stuff. “Well I’d be delighted. I’ll explain to them. I think you’re repulsive.” Later there’s, “You wouldn’t.” “Yes, I would.” “I think you would.” Then, “Who is it?” “Cinderella.” “What do you want?” “My slipper.” The motorcar detaching from the bike is good, same with the gag of Henry by the train. There’s something very charming about Henry covering himself up in the rain.

At one point, Henry is really mad at Catherine and is laying into her. The intensity makes it especially funny, as well as one of Grant’s best moments in the film. He shows a less goofy side of himself. It’s amusing seeing how often Henry is frustrated about feeling like he’s not manly enough. One example is not liking being in the side motorcar. His manliness is often a theme of the film and arguably drives his stress and insecurities. Nothing is directly said about how this plays into his dynamic with the more “masculine” Catherine, unless one is to look at the subtext so hard as to risk making it up.

Miscellaneous comments include: It’s always a laugh to see women sleep with makeup on in movies, especially how none of it looks smudged or gets on the pillows. The kids with the motorcycle is another funny moment. Same with when Henry is asked questions about if he’s pregnant. Bizarrely, a woman trusts her baby with Henry, who is a complete stranger to her. The last few minutes are definitely the best of the film. Sheridan makes for a great straight man in them.

SPOILERS

Why would Henry sleep on the chair instead of knocking on the door to leave? Even if he was worried about waking Catherine, that would be the better option. It’s really creepy of him to then get in her bed. Why would he even do that? Henry, seeming determined enough to not disrespect Catherine that she wouldn’t tell him he’s trapped in her room, hilariously keeps knocking on the door with a housekeeper on the other end. Catherine thinks he’s the only one knocking.

Catherine letting Henry get arrested is really cruel. Henry seems way too quick to be forgiving of Catherine after all she’s done. With basically no setup as to why they’d want to do this, they start to admit they like each other, kiss, then get married. Are they just going to ignore all their conflict? Briefly, Catherine gets mad at him and just decides to not get married, then almost immediately changes her mind. Why include these weird turns that don’t amount to anything? We don’t really ever get a good reason why they wouldn’t be hating each other.

When Henry talks about turning “a man into a woman”, I wonder if the writers had been aware of, or were referencing, the few documented cases of transgender people. This was before the well known Christine Jorgensen came out. Henry’s look of “what am I doing?” on his face as he’s dragged up is golden. His adventures pretending to be a woman are a riot. People that recently saw Henry as a man now seem to not realize who he is in his wig. There is a wonderful anarchy here that “bureaucracies are so nonsensical that it can make men have to pretend to be women”. It’s so ridiculous as to be delightful.

OVERVIEW

While there’s not much of a point to anything, as things essentially just end unceremoniously at the finale, the experience is still solid, especially with Grant’s constantly annoyed attitude. That element is more prominent the further you go, with a great final joke that plays off of just how sick of everything Henry obviously is, making it more clever than your average last laugh. I Was A Male War Bride is structurally poor, but otherwise has a lot to like. As an example, all of Ann Sheridan’s outfits here are stunning.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

This movie has some personal significance to me. All on that I really can say is, “We’ll meet again. Don’t know where, don’t know when, but I know we’ll meet again some sunny day.”

1930s, Article Type: Reviews, Country: United States, Genre: Comedy, Genre: War, Media Type: Movies, Media: The Three Stooges

Half Shot Shooters (1936) Review // The Three Stooges #18

Leave a comment

After a series of some of the funniest Stooges shorts so far, Half Shot Shooters suggests a new normal. There’s fewer standout moments than the best of the series, but the short still does offer many laughs. The group dynamic is also noticeably improved over the first few shorts. Some say that the second Columbia adventure, Punch Drunks, sets the formula perfectly, but that does feature some early installment awkwardness. We’re at a much better point now, with Larry getting more lines and Moe treated as the focal point instead of Curly. The boys now seem like they know each other as well as their back hands, so it’s extremely enticing to just see them perform. This short does unfortunately fall a little flat due to the lack of good comic ideas that sometimes afflicts these films, especially coming off of one like Movie Maniacs and before Disorder in the Court.

Favorite moments of this installment are the gang’s funny introduction of them sleeping. It’d be nice if every short of theirs gave them a potent entrance to the action, especially because the first three Columbias, for all their problems, do give us a fantastic first impression. Larry gets a quality line with, “Pipe down, you guys, you’re spoiling the whole war for me.” Curly later has, “For two cents I’ll punch you right in the face!” “Well, here’s the two cents.” “Well, I raise my price.” The scene of the Stooges singing is another highlight, both comedically and in demonstrating an obvious real talent for music. It would’ve been nice to hear them record songs, even serious ones.

Sgt. MacGillicuddy, played by Stanley Blystone, is very effective as what could pass as a “straight man”. He is good at working off of the Stooges’ energy, with him going through a subtle, but powerful character arc. If this episode was longer or more focused, it would’ve been nice to have more of his “arc”, as this really interesting idea of the state of his character is seemingly an afterthought. A good way to change up the formula of the series is to have things like a short that is more about “how the Stooges affect someone’s life” or treating the leads more as individuals. Probably because they lacked knowledge of where things would go, the first two Columbias benefit from this. Especially Larry stands out, due to being emphasized as the straightest man of the three…

Curly thought it a good idea to hit a fly on Moe’s face with a frying pan. This, and other moments, implies that Curly likes being hit by Moe. Moe and Larry kiss, which proved to just be setup for another gay Curly joke. Despite that, Larry ultimately got that kiss. Thus, the body count for the boys this time around is zero for Curly, one for Moe, and two for Larry. Moe criticizes someone for slapping faces, seeming morally opposed to it. The obvious contradiction is never acknowledged and may have been the result of poor writing, but it still really works here. It’s funny and in-keeping with the character that he’d be so blind to this. Don’t ask me how, but it really tickles me that Moe is a democrat.

SPOILERS

Sadly, the rule of three isn’t used after Larry and Curly get black eyes. I was expecting Moe to get one, probably as the final joke. Headcanon could prevail and say he got one after he was killed, not that the state of his eyes is made explicit. It’s a little surreal to see the Stooges casually die, especially when tropes like that are more associated with the more explicitly anarchic comedy of something like The Young Ones. That being said, that sense of pure insanity is definitely present in The Three Stooges. There’s also the impression that no one is aware of just how different this is, as if they weren’t trying to be anarchic, that just happens to come off. In some ways, they even are crazier than the Marx Brothers, because they have that sense of innocence and also far more installments, so more chances to change things up. This is the eighteenth Stooge film and that’s more than there are Marx films.

There arguably is a message here, about power dynamics between desensitized authority figures and the people hurt by them. A common fantasy of the latter, which is shown here, is to get revenge and beat up that leader. Later on, the leads are prompted to steal food from someone, because they’re hungry. The person then retaliates by getting them signed up for the army. This represents the mentality of hot heads and lack of empathy causing these sorts of problems to escalate. When Curly discovers that they’re all signing up for the army, he tries to stop the others, but the brash temperment of Moe keeps him from doing it. If you say he was afraid of getting hit, he is constantly doing things that get him hit, so it might be more down to not wanting to break routine.

MacGillicuddy is able to do torturous things to the boys, because they have no power. He only gets in trouble when he accidentally hurts another official. Thus, the rules aren’t about protecting people as they are punishing those that hurt the wrong people. The Stooges being made hard of hearing shows how pointless and cruel this behavior often is, simply making life harder for everybody. We’re reminded at the two-thirds mark that what they’ve really wanted is food. It gets to the point where they seem willing to do anything for it, even be tormented. That being said, you could say that if they understand that they’ll be tormented no matter what, why not eat? Thus, MacGillicuddy’s punishment stops meaning as much. This dynamic also pushes him to psychopathy, where he is ultimately delighted to kill the group, as if they aren’t products of their circumstance and instead are inherent creatures of evil that deserve to suffer.

OVERVIEW

The more dramatic change in scenery, with it feeling like gags from multiple scripts were culled together here, makes for a film that feels strange pacing-wise, but this is in fact an advantage. It serves as a curve ball to make the Three Stooges and specifically Half Shot Shooters a little surreal. It’s only a shame that the material wasn’t better, though it’s perfectly fine for what it is and if you like the Stooges and want at least decent comedy, there’s no reason not to watch this one.

The two-Stooge kiss is obviously the superior one.

1930s, Article Type: Reviews, Country: United States, Genre: Comedy, Genre: War, Media Type: Movies, Media: The Three Stooges

Uncivil Warriors (1935) Review // The Three Stooges #12

Leave a comment

Despite a very strong premise, Uncivil Warriors needs some time to get started. It starts a little slow. The Stooges have generally been funnier with outsiders to work off of, while the opening here mostly shows them bouncing off each other. This story would make sense as part of a Three Stooges feature film, where the setup would be very short in comparison to all the scenes that carry along the humor and narrative. As is, it feels too slow.

Moe and Larry get far too little to do, especially in the beginning. Scenes that incorporate all three Stooges are some of the best. A little after the five minute mark, Moe gets to be his grouchy self and it reminds you that he wasn’t very defined this short until then. It’s great seeing things like the group dressing their voices or changing their body language in an attempt to trick someone. Larry seems to get the bare minimum of said moments, or scenes in general. Larry, as well as Curly, dress up at one point in some of the sharpest moments of the short. Larry does well with what he’s given, so it’s a shame he didn’t get more. There’s closeups and interjections of Moe and Curly eating the cake a-plenty, while Larry is almost forgotten about, getting far fewer.

Bud Jamison as General Buttz interacts with the gang well, often being oblivious to their idiocy and strangely trusting of them, for great comedic effect. Maybe he’s only like that for plot laziness, but it fortunately has value for laughs. The joke about Charlie and how he walks is good, with some nice little touches such as with the gun. That gag was used in the Harold Lloyd film Feet First. A highlight is when Curly tricks Buttz by taking a piece of paper and pretending to burn it by accident. It is a little weird as it portrays a Stooge as smart. At one point, Curly says a dumb joke to someone and preemptively covers his face, used to getting hit by Moe. Later, Larry gets a great line after, “Pardon me, how long have you had a weak back?” “Oh, ‘bout a week back.”

There’s a scene of Curly lighting a smoke that goes on forever. Who needed this? Curly’s wooing and ‘victim of circumstance’ line comes off incredibly forced and stale. They really aren’t needed here, only really working when they did several shorts ago due to being unexpected and quirky, which they no longer are. The editing as always has issues, and they’ll be discussed more in…

SPOILERS

The interspersing of closeups of the group coughing up feathers feels so random and careless, showcasing the poor editing of these films. This problem is worse at the start of the scene, cutting from Moe with the others to a closeup to the previous shot, with this then being repeated a few times. A gag like that might’ve sounded great on paper, but this sort of execution is so haphazard that you can’t settle on it and get the right impact, being more focused on how strange it’s edited. That being said, it is very amusing seeing the feathers spray out their mouths, like fountains.

Where did Moe get a baby from? How did he not realize they were the wrong color? More laughs include, “Do you know what that paper was?” “Hot!” At one point, Curly says a joke off camera and we hear the slap he receives. The final joke is solid, but the short ends so suddenly that you have to believe there was a deleted scene after. There’s also no resolution to the plot. How did the leads back at base go? There could’ve been some fun jokes there.

OVERVIEW

Reference is made to an Operator 13 that isn’t seen. Apparently this is a reference to the movie Operator 13, which stars and is titled after Marion Davies’ character. A comic adaptation of this short demonstrates the character as an attractive blonde, which may very well be modeled after Davies. Thus, Uncivil Warriors should be considered canon by Davies aficionados.

1930s, Article Type: Reviews, Country: United States, Genre: Comedy, Genre: War, Media Type: Movies, Media: The Marx Brothers

Duck Soup (1933) Review – I Will For The Rest Of My Life!

Leave a comment
Pants

After watching Duck Soup for the first time, I didn’t get it. The Marx Brothers’ antics didn’t make sense and it was overall disjointed. After talking to people and looking up its reception, they say it’s a satire of dictatorships and incompetent leaders. Now that I’ve watched it again, I see that satire in the film, though it’s subtle. It’s subtle as there are many scenes not focused on the satire.

The mirror scene and the last eight and a half minutes are deservedly famous for showcasing the various talents of the brothers. The first is slow, simple, and quiet while the other is loud and bombastic, being jam packed with humor. Other highlights are the alarm clock gag and the very opening. Opening on a shot of ducks in a pot is slightly unsettling, which is representative of the film’s general feeling. Furthermore is the opening credits where a duck quack signals each of the brothers’ names appearing. It’s like they’re the chauffeurs for a cinematic experience that’s concerning in its uniqueness and sense of humor. Even with the knowledge of the earlier films, this stands among them due to the lesser amount of musical segments and superfluous elements so as to stay focused on comedy. Now, the comedy punctuates having an effect on a whole society, with it reacting to the brothers’ rationale, creating something amusingly horrifying. Scored by of all things, quacking.

Groucho Marx continues to provide intensity and power to his characters, consistently being a riot. “Never mind that stuff. Take a card.” “Card? What’ll I do with a card?” “You can keep it. I’ve got 51 left.” His wit is overpowering in its anti-social and well-crafted glory. You can tell he’s completely invested in his role of Rufus T. Firefly, a parody of dictators. Chico and Harpo do quite a bit of scene-stealing, possibly because they’re less so part of the system, while Groucho’s role is inside it. “He gets mad because he can’t read.” “Oh, I see.” Chico Marx as Chicolini and Harpo Marx as Pinky function as a tuned-to-perfection duo act. Chicolini and Pinky with Trentino around the beginning is a favorite sequence, as is their later one with Edgar Kennedy. Speaking of a 1910s film star, the park setting looks like ones from 1910s and early 20s Charlie Chaplin and Harold Lloyd films. Sadly, there’s no harp or piano solo. It’s understandable why. The pacing and humor is so razor sharp that that might hurt the flow. Similarly strong was Monkey Business, and its musical segments felt pretty forced in.

The tropes of the Marx’s are deconstructed and parodied. When Firefly meets Mrs. Teasdale, in no time he rushes through what by now would be an expected bit of him trying to propose to her for her money. Here, he just asks if she has money and when she says yes, he says he loves her. In one scene, Chicolini and Pinky simply drive a man insane for no real reason. In the impersonation sequence, Pinky is hurting his own goal by doing what he does, but that makes sense from the view of Harpo being such a clown that only wants to destroy. The last scenes feature the main performers in these films, the four brothers and Margaret Dumont. All do a distillation of their main shtick (including Zeppo who expertly does nothing).

What are Chicolini and Pinky supposed to represent if this is a “satire”? If it’s about incompetent people being given these important jobs by corrupt politicians, then they spend more time under Firefly’s enemy than Firefly himself. If they’re supposed to represent the two people least likely to get a high position of power, then why these specific character-types? That’s not to say I, a fan, would have them any other way, as they deliver brilliantly in terms of comedy in these roles, but these extremely out-of-nowhere types can make the story not work on the level of just being a story. A new viewer would be wondering what their deal is.

As an aside, Chicolini and Pinky being hired by Firefly doesn’t serve much purpose. It feels like something to explain their appearance in the ending. Their function in the story, being with Trentino, contradicts what’s established in that scene, being with Firefly. Raquel Torres’ character is set up as having some importance, only to do very little. Margaret Dumont as Mrs. Teasdale and Zeppo Marx also could’ve done more. You can imagine they did in earlier drafts. Zeppo has the least prominence in this film of any so far. Instead of introducing Firefly with a photo in a newspaper, it’d be funnier to have a little more buildup to who he is, then we first see him in live action. As is the case with most of the Marx films, the film ends pretty suddenly.

Some issues are more consequential: Continuity errors like the mirror glass disappearing and everybody being in a noticeably different state in the ending sequence suggest an extreme lack of care in presenting a cohesive work. As is the scene where after the film progressively escalates in tension and an intense altercation occurs, we get a little pointless Pinky shenanigans that could’ve gone essentially anywhere, then we go to the finale. That bit sacrifices the pacing for nothing. Later, there’s a bit of stock footage within the last minutes that makes you think someone let Ed Wood in the editing room for a moment. What was the point of that? It’s unfortunate these admittedly minor issues weren’t cleaned up.

SPOILERS

The humor is too scatterbrained and eclectic to make this an effective satire. The Marx Brothers’ style seems to defy being able to stay focused on tackling a certain subject long enough to last a whole film. The bits about the war, with Mrs. Teasdale trying to calm tensions, mostly happen offscreen. A proper war film would focus on the actual conflict more. Every moment should play into Firefly and Trentino. Instead, they go from zero to hundred in a single scene where it seems they are only arguing out of necessity for the sake of the story. Next there’s matters that deal with Chicolini and Pinky, then Mrs. Teasdale essentially tells the audience what happened offscreen. Thus, we’re not focusing on a mad person in power, more mad people in various comedic situations. There are moments that seem obviously intended to be satirical, like Mrs. Teasdale getting Firefly elected by using her wealth. The ending sequence showing Firefly in recognizable military uniforms demonstrates that this sort of behavior can arise in real life, not just absurdist fiction. The people Firefly rules over act like exaggerated versions of how real people can act in these situations.

OVERVIEW

Many films are criticized for having scenes that don’t go anywhere. The most acclaimed films are praised for having no pointless scenes. Duck Soup is filled with pointless scenes. It’s easy to forgive this due to what we are seeing being so hilarious and simply not take it as a satire in the first place, but that doesn’t mean the story is very cogent.

My 2018 review was merely, “I guess I didn’t “get it”.” In tandem with it was a negative rating, as such madcap humor wasn’t to my liking. I have now seen the error of my ways. This film is one of the great laugh riots of cinema and if you can forgive its shortcomings, it’s just a delight. The only real issue is it leaves you wanting more. There appears to have been high quality material on the cutting room floor. Hopefully one day we can get an extended edit. From least to best, I’d rank the Marx at Paramount films, The Cocoanuts, Horse Feathers, Animal Crackers, the I’ll Say She Is short, Monkey Business, and in first place Duck Soup. If I was ranking these by my favorites, simply move up The Cocoanuts to be in-between Say and Business.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

Here’s a modified excerpt of my 2019 review:

To give praise, the ending is great. All four main characters, the Marx brothers, are involved and the pacing is a lot faster. I may have liked the film more if the pace was that fast throughout the whole movie. This picture is very funny and I enjoy it a lot, but there’s just so much detracting from the brilliance…

1930s, Article Type: Reviews, Country: United States, Genre: Comedy, Genre: War, Media Type: Movies, Media: ZaSu and Thelma

War Mamas (1931) Review // Applying To ZaSu Pitts And Thelma Todd Films Part 4

Leave a comment

War Mamas is unfortunately quite a step below what’s come before. It feels like a feature film that had to be cut down to twenty minutes, with everybody trying to make the story make sense at the sacrifice of including humor, or even making sense. While there generally are the logical scenes to make the story not have holes, there’s no room to breathe and thus you can’t really get invested in the story. The pacing is so hectic. There is a point where an intertitle explains something that could’ve been a good joke. As is, it comes across like such a scene was planned, but not filmed. Despite the apparent desire to avoid holes, there are many.

ZaSu is given a little personality in how she is fluttery and talks to men, but she hasn’t really come together to feel like a character. Pitts feels like she doesn’t know what character she wants to be, so she’ll be very muted as to not contradict herself when she figures out what she’s doing. Thelma on the other hand presents a whole person in how she moves and acts. She is able to be very sugary sweet and sentimental, which can be a ploy to trick people, but also sincerity on her part. Sadly, she and ZaSu aren’t given as much comedic material as they should. Too much of the film isn’t really trying to be funny and sometimes moments are given to elements other than the girls. This series called The Girl Friends would benefit from just sticking to them, at least long enough to make them feel more rich and compelling to watch.

The two finally have some duo-interactions. As an example, Thelma helps take ZaSu’s tight boots off. They even hold hands at one point and Thelma calls ZaSu her “girlfriend”. Despite this, more concrete moments would sell them better. There’s even some boyfriends that feel really forced in. For whatever reason, one leaves early on. Why include him? The girls don’t have much romantic chemistry with the guys. It’s as if the people making these would mind the girls not having a romantic attraction every film. About thirty years later The Lucy Show would be released. People joked about the unmarried female leads being lesbian. Maybe someone here thought that conclusion may be drawn? As an aside, I’d like to think Guinn’s character in Catch-as-catch-can is the same as here.

This short emphasizes the disposability this series sometimes has, for better and for worse. You can respect something that just wants to make you laugh, but not when such a task is failed at so badly. The storyline being so broken and hard to follow and the short seeming to care more about that than jokes makes it feel like something that could only appeal to someone that wants a quick twenty minutes of 30s fluff that has humor and tropes and women. A lot of the films in this series dabble in that, though usually with something more to offer, which is at least more or better jokes than in War Mamas. It’s literally busy setting up a plot… in a twenty minute film! Hurry up! This short probably could’ve been a feature with the amount it wants to do. Certain scenes feel very rushed and like there wasn’t the time to script or direct them properly. The various bit characters could’ve had a purpose in a longer version of this story.

SPOILERS

One of the strangest gags is when Guinn pretends to shoot an annoying woman. It’s not really funny and seems almost like some writer venting about something. That woman disappears from the story soon after. Most of the minor characters show up either for humor or plot and then disappear. Due to them being focused on with some detail, like establishing the woman’s relationship with our heroes, you’d expect pay off that doesn’t come. Later, Guinn William’s character explains why he will leave the other main characters and then is never seen or mentioned again. He provided setup with no payoff. Why have him mention having to return to the American line so suddenly if nothing will happen with that?

The movie slows a little bit so it can make fun of Germans, then it slows a lot for a scene of strip poker! Welcome to pre-code cinema. The strip poker scene is one of the few times this short can stop and breathe. The pacing is good, with the film not trying to immediately move on to the next thing. It’s slightly jarring to suddenly go from a fast-paced story to something normally paced. It doesn’t rhythmically play well and more like we’ve decided to stop. This few minutes-long sequence is very funny, with Thelma and ZaSu tricking the men they’re playing by making up certain rules to poker so they can’t lose.

OVERVIEW

While a lot of these Thelma Todd comedies sacrifice all, including good storytelling, for the sake of humor; now we get a directionless bit of nothing that could pass for an incomplete script written for a different series. By the fourth Thelma and Patsy short, the pieces were about together, but this feels yet again like an experimental installment, to put it nicely. “We don’t know what we’re doing, so let’s take some random elements and throw them together, so we can assess what works.” Unless you’re a super fan, you should only watch the last few minutes. It has the best gags and Thelma Todd looking cute in that suit.

1940s, Article Type: Reviews, Country: United States, Genre: Comedy, Genre: War, Media Type: Movies

To Be or Not to Be (1942) Review

Leave a comment

To Be or Not to Be is a delightful little comedy-drama that manages to have its cake and eat it too. The film begins with some very strong humor before seemingly forgetting to be funny, then to surprise with more humor, and all the way to the end. While most films couldn’t handle such a shift, this one knows exactly what it is and pulls it off. You must accept the danger of the Nazis in order to more expertly make fun of them, thus they initially are threatening, exemplified by how many there are. A lesser film would have two such drastically different styles depending on the genre of a scene that it feels like you accidentally put on a different movie. Here, there’s a through line due to the progressive building of stakes and the various scenes being and feeling necessary.

As a Mel Brooks fan, it’s interesting that there’s this little earlier film that jokes about Nazis with such class, though here the Nazis are portrayed as threatening and stupid instead of just the latter. If you didn’t know who the Nazis were and you watched Brooks’ The Producers, you may think they were not as bad as they were. The Producers’ portrayed them as too incompetent to be taken seriously, which isn’t entirely the case in reality. The Nazis are consistently portrayed as blindingly loyal to absurd degrees. Some World War 2 films of the time want their Nazi villains to be intimidating while also incompetent, so as to satisfy the Ally audience. This film finds a clever work around. The Nazis are never portrayed as very bright, but simply have power in numbers. If you get a mob without a mind in a car, they can still run you over.

Some of the funniest jokes involve picking on or fooling the Nazis. Those that have seen this film may recall the simple command, “Jump.” Any scenes of the Nazis being tricked are formulated as great bits of snow that roll into the giant ball of comedy that is perpetuated as the film gets more and more intense. These scenes further the plot and the stakes. Other World War 2 films have the problem of someone’s in power and we’re supposed to take them seriously, but they are portrayed as far too incompetent. Here, we also focus on a real phenomena of Nazis (or Fascists in general) being idiotic and contradictory in their logic and actions to the point that they create problems for themselves. Anyone with their eye in the political sphere could see how people manipulate information for the sake of gaining power, at the cost of not making sense. This movie serves as a good reminder of how the Nazis were as we inch closer to a world where no one alive at this time will still be.

The main characters consist primarily of a group of actors. All get a little moment to shine and are progressively less seen as unlikely heroes. Interestingly, the protagonist of this story is initially unclear. At first it could be said to be the down-on-his-luck Bronski, played by Tom Dugan. The first moment where we are to sympathize with a character is given to him. We get a sense of what he wants and that he doesn’t have it. After no time, this character loses the limelight, probably having more lines in the first few minutes of the film than the rest combined. We move to the somewhat egotistical and beautifully charmed Maria Tura, played by Carole Lombard. She has many little moments between her and male characters, with the men drawn to her by her beauty. While the trope of devolving women to just their looks is sexist, the trope is not as bad here. A lot of the characters, including the ones that ogle her, are portrayed as having problems to one degree or another. That being said, Lombard shows quite a few comedic chops left unappreciated and it wouldn’t shock if someone involved in conceptualizing the film held the biases of the time that a pretty woman is little more than a stylish body.

Interested in her is Lt. Sobinski, played by Robert Stack. The film initially focused most on Maria and decently on Sobinski. When he started getting more focus, it seemed he was the protagonist. He is portrayed as patriotic and too determined in his ways to respect those he doesn’t like or see things outside of his own bubble. At about the one-third mark, he suddenly becomes way less important, as the shift moves back to Maria. One thing he was supposed to do was ultimately done by Maria, symbolizing the shift. Maria has some good scenes before another symbolic shift occurs to her husband, the overly emotional and proud Joseph Tura, played by Jack Benny. Benny seems to delight in stealing the spotlight. His arrogance and desire for respect makes him a likable lead and depository of well written jokes, despite his faults. He can be a jerk, but you want him to get his way, even when factoring out that his enemy is the Nazis. Many of the funniest lines and concepts are given to him. He is the main character despite the movie taking its time to focus on him. The film’s madcap energy makes these shifts more palatable than they could be.

The humor is very rich, from the simple “How dare you call me a ham” to the weirder moments. A personal favorite is the over the top narration. The film starts by focusing on something and describing how strange it is, with sharp turns of the camera to focus on what needs to be focused on. The narrator gets a handful of good jokes. It’s such a delight to see two or so characters bounce their ridiculous personalities off of each other, as if the involved actors want to steal the other’s spotlight. Issues are minor, but still present. A movie so clever sadly has two exposition dumps. One is between Joseph and Maria, who describe their character’s dynamics. They are a married couple, why would they be explicitly saying this in this way and time and place, or even at all? What is communicated in this scene is also communicated in their actions across the movie, so just cut it out! Another depicts Bronski and another character, Greenberg, who wants to have better roles. While information they share isn’t repeated in their actions, it could be with a scene of more believable dialogue. Maybe Greenberg pleads for a better role and is denied or when someone announces that he’s been cast as an extra, he cringes or looks upset?

Near the beginning, the inciting incident leads to some time jumps and the narrator explaining what is going on. This scene, which is effectively a montage, has strange pacing. It’s mostly brisk, though it sometimes slows down. The “montage” being condensed would benefit the flow, though it ultimately is just a few minutes. The only point where the film was boring was in a scene of one character trying to think of things to say to keep a conversation going. It’s uncomfortable in its tedium and sudden lack of life, the scene being slower than most. It covers the character suddenly and strangely out of their element, despite their earlier scenes. Things quickly pick up, though.

SPOILERS

When impersonation is needed by the main characters at different points, Joseph insists on being the one to do it. Why would his colleagues let him? He is shown to have a temperament in the past and that very thing gets everybody in trouble later. Among a group of actors, you’d think someone else could be recruited? His ego even potentially got one of his colleagues killed, to exemplify the blunder. While this plot hole is never explained, there are reasons that could’ve been added. As an example, of all the actors, he has the strongest resemblance to Professor Siletsky, so it makes sense he’d be asked to play him. In terms of the other roles he plays, it could’ve been added that he has a certain piece of information or someone has heard his voice and thus he has to play the role.

An issue some may have is that the protagonists don’t face serious adversity. You’d expect for their plans to go wrong or for particularly bad things to happen more than they do. When Professor Siletsky discovers that he’s talking to Joseph in disguise and not the actual person he wanted to speak to, you’d think he might escape or in some way cause a problem. While unintended, that was ultimately the best thing that could have happened for our heroes, as the Professor was killed and Joseph could then pretend to be him. In another film, the Professor may have pretended to not discover the trick, leave, and tell actual Nazis about what’s going on. It’s impossible not to love the band of goofballs that we follow and thus their string of victories or minor misses is not a fault, as it would be for other films. The point is more to see them win and laugh along the way than to see trials and tribulations that may befall a person in a more realistic situation.

After the movie generally focused on her, Maria is literally forced to stay in a room, probably accidentally, representing her from then on having a less significant involvement. Her husband and the other male characters run around and get in adventures, with her usually missing out. Before the big final plan takes place, someone says to Maria, “We can’t use you, there’ll be no ladies.” More opportunities for Lombard to shine would be nice, but they aren’t needed other than one exception, as the film works well as it is. Putting her into the action would connect the first and second halves of the whole thing together. That would also be appreciated due to getting scenes where she’s not just being a man’s gaze.

Some moments have little-to-no pay off. At one point, Maria writes a letter for someone saying she’s going to kill herself, as part of some plan. We never learn what her plan is or what that was for. It literally never shows up again. Why include this? Was it part of a cut subplot that was accidentally kept in? A more crucial issue is that Maria’s relationship with her husband and Sobinski is never resolved. It is mostly covered in the first half with Sobinski confessing his love, then later Joseph finds out and tells his wife he knows in the second. Joseph and Maria never breakup and their last collective scene shows them seeming content. A more explicit ending of their plot thread would’ve given the film finality. Its lack of such an ending is strange and unfortunate, as the film has been good at having clever belated endings to jokes, yet it can’t remember to solve a recurring plot point between two main characters? Creating one would be so easy.

Maybe Maria admits to her husband that she likes attention from other men and her husband seems unbothered, more focused on performing Hamlet? That would serve as a great setup to the ending joke of the film, where someone walks out during his big scene, though it’s still very funny on its own. Due to Maria spending so much of her screen time being the affection of a man, an umph; either a subversion, a twist, or a final statement would give catharsis. Maybe she tells her husband she likes being the way she is or has had her thrill and won’t anymore? Maybe he says it’s okay as long as he can flirt with other women and she has a funny reaction? There are several possibilities to give the film a payoff. Could no one think of one or did no one realize the problem?

OVERVIEW

While To Be or Not to Be does have some issues, on occasion coming across as bizarre oversights, the rest of the film is an absolute riot. The cast is consistently excellent in a nutty and unashamed story about fighting Nazis. Despite the dark subject matter, there’s a perfect balance of lightheartedness and taking the matter seriously. Anyone who likes to laugh won’t be disappointed.

1950s, Article Type: Reviews, Country: United Kingdom, Genre: Drama, Genre: History, Genre: Thriller, Genre: War, Media Type: Movies

The Man Who Never Was (1956) Review

Leave a comment
Pretty house

I gained an appetite for an adventure, espionage thriller. This film seemed good enough. Decent reviews, decent plot, contained a favorite actor of mine, William Russell (who unfortunately wasn’t in the opening credits). Why not?

The Man Who Never Was is a very sharp film, though it does not give that impression initially. There’s plenty of scenes of people just talking about the plot. That scene ends, then the next is more of that. It’s honestly kind of incredible how much of that there is, but it’s never boring or fluff, though you’d think it would be. This is a movie filled with high ranking military members, so it makes sense this would occur. They basically leave a spot open for the audience member to dress up in one of those nice suits and discuss along. It’s very approachable.

The plot thickens and intensifies not because of big spectacles, such as a Nazi invasion or big shocking twist. It intensifies as the plot just simply moves forward. “Let’s do “A”.” Okay, done. “Let’s do “B”.” Done. The film entices and intrigues its viewer. The conflicts come very, very naturally from just this type of situation. The kinds of problems you’d expect are shown and handled. Some of these scenes might come off as filler, but they serve to enrich the story and boost the importance of what’s being discussed. They answer questions an audience member might have. There’s a change in the film halfway, which leads to way less talking and more observing. The shift isn’t jarring at all as, of course, it’s just the sensible next step. There’s no reason to talk. There is a scene relatively close to the end that breaks from this. It’s not what you’d think would happen, but it’s dramatic. It works very well as it’s so unexpected that the tide would change at all that it doing so is engrossing.

The main character of the film (for most of it) is Clifton Webb as Lt. Cmdr. Ewen Montagu. His intelligence and way of speaking instantly draw one in the film as he’s so elegant. He’s directing and moving the plan forward the best he can. All the performances are very subtle. You say what you think or what you know, then you move on. There is one exception. There’s a subplot about a young woman named Lucy, played by Gloria Grahame, who is concerned over the safety of her fiancé, who’s in war. She loves him and wants the two to be happy together after the war. She has multiple monologues where she discusses her feelings as dramatic music plays. It’s incredibly corny and she is overacting, but not greatly. The movie wants tears jerked from the audience, but there’s no real reason to. The movie doesn’t need to do that to tell a compelling story. The scenes aren’t great diversions, but they are little annoyances.

There are a few other moments of “movie dialogue” as opposed to more realistic dialogue. “Please be quiet for a moment and let me speak. I got a gut feeling on something!” “No you listen to me!” Neither of these are direct quotes, but it’s the kind of thing you more or less get in tons of movies. It stings the ears as they’re cartoonish and over the top by nature.

SPOILERS

There’s a very large plothole in the film that is very frustrating. Lucy’s fiancé, Joe, played by William Russell, is going off to war. Some time later, she gets contacted about the death of The Man Who Never Was, named William Martin, who isn’t Joe and isn’t even named Joe. The plot is forwarded greatly by a scene where she cries over the death of William. She doesn’t even know who William is. How could she? As he was made up by the British to try to fool the Germans. It was wondered if there was a scene or line I had looked over or if something would be explained later. Perhaps Joe was killed (as backed by the Wikipedia page on the film) and she’s crying about that. Why is she crying about Will then? It was all quite baffling. I am quite curious if Joe is actually dead and if the two get a happy ending.

Before she showed up, we had probably the best scene in the film. A German spy pretending to be a friend of William, played by Stephen Boyd, discusses him with a woman involved with the British military. She knows he’s a spy wondering if this man is real and he knows he can find out from Lucy if William is real. As the tension releases very slightly, Lucy walks in. William Martin starts to feel more real as the film progresses. A backstory is given and it makes it sadder he died, even though he’s not real! The last scene is very touching and poignant on this. Montagu receives a medal and puts it on Martin’s grave, as he was buried by people who thought he was real. Montagu doing this satisfies the audience need to have some relief as there is that attachment to William. His death is accepted.

OVERVIEW

The Man Who Never Was is a very classy and sharply written, directed, edited, and acted film. There’s very suspenseful moments and good drama. It’s a great time for those that appreciate a great and well thought out story. Praise be to director Ronald Neame and writer Nigel Balchin!

1950s, Article Type: Reviews, Country: United Kingdom, Genre: War, Media Type: Movies

They Who Dare (1954) Review

Leave a comment
Dirk Bogarde and William Russell in a frame from the film

I’m a pretty big fan of William Russell. Most who know him, including me, know him as Ian Chesterton. This role was from the first cast lineup of Doctor Who. At 95 years old, he continues to act and keep a good health. I have a kinship to his acting ability, so I wanted to catch some films that might be worth a view. He appears in a quaint war film called They Who Dare. The film is about a group of rag-tag soldiers sent on a mission to destroy two German airfields that may threaten Egypt. Can they do it?

The pacing and editing is pretty good, but not phenomenal. Before getting to Egypt, some of the scenes are too long, but once they arrive, it’s pretty exciting. It’s so easy to jump in the movie and experience the goings ons. If the characters are thirsty, you can feel it; if they’re tired, you feel it. To nitpick, there are some keying problems where it appears the actors were in front of a blue screen with the proper background laid on later. It looks pretty bad. Contrarily, the cinematography is usually very good. I especially love the night scenes.

One especially good looking shot

There’s a seemingly incidental scene where one character sees the enemy soldiers. It’s good that we got a glimpse of what the antagonists look like early on, so they don’t need to be established later.

If this film should get one thing right, it should be the performances. We’re watching these same characters go through trials and tribulations for the whole 107 minute runtime, so if they can’t act, the movie sinks. Fortunately, they’re all quite good. As expected, William Russell, credited as Russell Enoch, gives a sharp, dignified performance as Lieut. Tom Poole. Despite him getting the most screen time of any character in the beginning, the actual protagonist is Lieut. Graham, played by Dirk Bogarde. The two lead the expedition and they get some good banter and scenes in the film. We meet the other characters from their perspective. Most of the characters get good scenes and lines and we see their different ways of handling the hardships of war. Especially when the group splits in two with Poole and Graham leading their own group.

This scene gives humanity to the characters by showing them overjoyed.

SPOILERS

One character, named Captain George, is injured not too long after the bunch arrive in Egypt. He is clearly depressed that he’s told to take a lesser role than planned, as his injury could be a hindrance. He ultimately sacrifices himself by getting captured so the others can escape. His actor brilliantly shows a man who wants to help and can’t handle not being useful and serving his country. He takes any turn possible to help.

There’s a confrontation near the end of the film where Sgt. Corcoran, played by Denholm Elliott, insults Graham, saying he hates that he won’t give up. This scene was baffling as we never saw Corcoran show disdain towards Graham before and Graham not giving up usually worked out for everyone. Right before the insult, Corcoran told Graham there was no supplies around, but he found some. It also confuses me as to why someone in their situation would give up. What else are they going to do? If they did give up, they’d get captured.

Corcoran argues at Graham in front of a blue screen

One of my favorite scenes is when Graham and Corcoran see Poole’s group from a distance while hiding. The audience thinks our heroes are the only ones there. A drum line starts playing and some Italian soldiers show up, capturing Poole’s group. The use of that music was brilliant. It was a quick and very effective twist, helped to no end by that dry and intimidating drum line. Oddly, one of the captured then picks up a gun and tries to shoot one of the many Italians and is shot himself. I had a feeling one of the protagonists would die, but it shouldn’t have been done so foolishly. That character didn’t show any signs of wanting to die or being willing to die for so little.

OVERVIEW

This film’s director, Lewis Milestone, insisted this film’s story was taken verbatim from the reminiscences of the two survivors of the events this film is based on. If this is true, the real life events make out a pretty solid film. It satisfies an itch one might have for good action, good war drama, and for me, good William Russell!