What Is It Good For? War Movies In June: The Flying Leathernecks (1951)

image host

Well, it is the 10th of June, and this is my first post for this month’s theme. It is only the third war movie I’ve watched this month (and technically I watched this one at the end of May). Hopefully, I’ll get a few more in before the month is out.

I love me some John Wayne. The dude had some questionable politics and his views on race relations (amongst other things) were pretty horrid, but damn if he wasn’t a great movie star. He had a screen presence like few others. I’ve mostly seen him in westerns, but he made lots of other movies, including a good number of war films.

I’ve always heard his World War II films were not very good, and if Flying Leathernecks is any indication, I heard right.

Directed by the great Nicholas Ray, Flying Leathernecks finds Wayne playing Major Dan Kirby, who, as the film begins, is assigned command of a group of Marine Aviators on the island of Guadalcanal. This is a surprise to everyone, as Captain Carl “Grif” Griffin (Robert Ryan) was the presumed next in command.

The two have very different leadership styles. Kirby is gruff and tough; he takes no stuff from anyone and demands a lot from his men. Grif is friendlier, kinder. He has a genuine concern for the welfare of his men and is willing to let a little discipline slide to boost morale.

The film is clearly on Kirby’s side. He’s more than willing to sacrifice his men for the greater good. The whole middle section of the film finds him pushing his men to the brink. They go on mission after mission, well after they are completely exhausted. Grif argues they need a break, that maybe some of the reserves can take on some missions. But Kirby is unrelenting.

Seen through my modern (and very much non-military eyes,) I found myself agreeing with Grif. Yes, war is hell, and sacrifices must be made. A commander does have to make tough choices. But also, burned-out soldiers don’t make good fighters. Drive them to the breaking point, and sooner or later, they are going to break.

But that isn’t this movie, and by the end, he learns to be more like Kirby.

Honestly, that argument would be more interesting if this were a good movie, but it isn’t. Wayne and Ryan do their best, but the script lets them down at just about every moment. The actual battle scenes don’t help much. There are a lot of shots with our pilots sitting in model aircraft with fake-looking backgrounds spliced into actual war footage that doesn’t really match.

The whole thing is rather dull, and the fact that I could never buy into the argument it was making just made it worse.

Westerns in March – Day of the Outlaw (1959)

day of the outlaw poster

One of the things I love about Westerns is how they deal with taming the wild frontier, and how they depict small societies forming miniature communities. As Europeans settled across the Western United States they formed embryonic societies outside the confines of the Eastern cities. Certainly, they brought with them Western ideas of society (while destroying many of the native cultures around them) but they could literally create their communities in the ways that they saw fit.

The television series Deadwood does an amazing job of bringing forth what I’m talking about.

Obviously, Western movies take a great many liberties with history and the societies that they depict are often in the shape of (what was then) modern ideas, but it is still a fascinating concept.

Day of the Outlaw begins with a man, Blaise Starrett (Robert Ryan) who helped found and make safe the tiny, isolated community of Bitters, Wyoming. He killed and ran off various outlaws and badmen from the area to make it safe for women and children. He figures that gives him a say in how things are run now.

But while society sometimes needs men like Starrett, it likes to forget them once their jobs are done. Homesteaders have come to town, farmers, and they want to put up barbed wire fences (someday I want to do a study on the use of fences in Westerns) to keep their livestock from running away. Starrett runs cattle across the open land and fences get in his way.

It is this conflict that the film begins. Starrett has come into town to either force the homesteaders to not put up their fences or kill them. It doesn’t help matters that the head homesteader is married to Helen Crane (Tina Louise) whom Starrett loves. Just as the fight is about to happen Jack Bruhn (Burl Ives) and his band of outlaws bust in.

They are on the run from the cavalry but need a place to button down for the night. The men are raring for a good time and figure copious amounts of whiskey and a few turns with the women would be just about right. Bruhn is a tough man, and not opposed to murder when it suits him, but he forbids the men from indulging their basest instincts. Not so much because he has a soft heart for the women but because he knows the men will wind up fighting over the small number of women in this burg, and that’s not good for anybody.

Director Andre de Toth ratchets up the tension as the outlaws grow increasingly impatient and Starrett learns to become the good man. Matters take a turn for the worse as storms blow in making it nearly impossible for anyone to leave.

Cinematographer Russell Harlan fills the screen with wide vistas of the on-location snowy mountains. The stark black-and-white photographer emphasizes the isolation and frozen hardness of everything.

Robert Ryan and Burl Ives are terrific as two hard men sizing each other up in an impossible situation. It all comes to a boil with Starrett leading the men through the mountains in a suicidal trek that he hopes will at least keep the townsfolk safe.

I liked it a lot and I recommend it to one and all.

Noirvember: Berlin Express (1948)

berlin express movie poster

A group of strangers, from a wide variety of backgrounds and nationalities board an American Army train in France bound for post-war Frankfurt. One of the men is a German scientist headed for an important peace conference.

A bomb explodes in the scientist’s train car, killing the man acting as the scientist’s decoy. When the train stops at the next station the real scientist is kidnapped. His assistant Lucienne (Merle Oberon) convinces the other passengers (at least the ones the film has introduced us to) to help find him. An American, Robert Lindley (Robert Ryan) leads the way.

Filmed on location in a very bombed-out Frankfurt and Berlin the film blends a documentary style with film noir. This works both for and against the film. It is fascinating to see these cities lying in ruins, giving us a real sense of the utter destruction the war laid on Europe. It gives the film a heft that studio sets could never accomplish. But the film’s narration constantly comments on it taking us out of the drama and into the classroom.

The film also lays its morality on us a little thick. This is understandable as the film was made so close to the end of the war, the wounds were still fresh. It seems to be pleading with us “Can’t we all just get along?” which is a fine sentiment, but one that cheeses up the otherwise pretty terrific thriller aspects. The bad guys turn out to be underground Nazis which is a unique spin and highlights how even after the war was officially over Europe was far from a safe and peaceful place.

Director Jaques Tourneur gives it his usual noir feel with lots of great camerawork. Cinematographer Lucien Ballard keeps things locked in shadow. Merle Oberon is terrific and I always love Robert Ryan.

In the end, it is well worth watching if you are a fan of film noir and post-War thrillers, even if it doesn’t quite live up to its potential.

Act of Violence (1948)

cover

Robert Ryan was made to play tough guys and villains. He just had that look about him. In Act of Violence, he plays a guy who is menacing another man played by Van Heflin. At first, Ryan’s character seems like a villain, he’s stalking Heflin’s character for no apparent reason. Heflin’s character seems like good guy, he’s helped the community and has an ice wife (played by a young Janet Leigh). We’ve seen that sort of thing a million times in movies.

But this film has something else in mind. Ryan’s character is more complex, he’s more justified in his acts of terror. While the seemingly nice guy Heflin is playing has a dark past.

It is a terrifical little crackerjack film noir and you can read my full review here.

Film Noir: The Dark Side of Cinema XIX

cover

I’ve reviewed a bunch of these film noir sets from Kino Lorber over the last few years. Not all of the films are great, some of them are pretty lousy if I’m being honest, but I love that these films are getting released in HD.

This set features stars such as Charlton Heston, Barbara Stanwyck, Lizabeth Scott, Robert Ryan, and Ida Lupino (those last two are in Beware, My Lovely a film I reviewed last Noirvember).

All three films are pretty good if not exactly true classics. You can read my full review here.

Noirvember: Beware, My Lovely (1952)

beware my lovely

Ida Lupino plays Helen Gordon a widow living in a great big house who takes care of children after school. We see her being kind to the children, and teaching them. Loving them. She has a big heart. She takes care of an old lodger as well. She’s a practical person, but also a bit scatter-brained and not very good at the housekeeping.

One day a man pops by. He says he’s in need of work and he’d be happy to help around the house. His name is Howard Wilton and he’s played by Robert Ryan. She says she’s got plenty of work for him to do and hires him on the spot.

What she doesn’t know, but we do, is that Howard is mentally unstable. We watched him at the beginning of the film working for someone else, someone we saw lying dead in her cupboard. Someone who, when Howard saw her dead, caused him to flee in terror.

The film builds the tension slowly. Because we know Howard is unstable we know he will eventually turn violent towards Helen, but the movie is in no rush to get there. At first, Howard exhibits some little quirks towards Helen. He’ll say something a little odd, or do some little something out of the ordinary. He might even call attention to it but Helen treats him like one of her kids.

As those quirks turn more sinister she’s still polite, still kind. She should just run, but she doesn’t want to hurt his feelings. When she finally realizes she must get out, it is too late. Howard keeps her from leaving.

The movie never quite boils over in the way I wanted it to. The tension stays on a low simmer, and I wanted it to explode. But the filmmaking is good. Ida Lupino is wonderful in everything she does and she’s terrific here. Her company The Filmmakers produced it. She was an extraordinary woman, I recommend reading up on her sometime.

Robert Ryan likewise is quite good. He’s always good as the heavy. There was something menacing about his presence.

Westerns In March: The Wild Bunch(1969) & Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

butch cassidy movie poster the wild bunch poster

While the western was a hugely popular genre (some figures have the genre comprising up to 1/5th of the total output from Hollywood through the 1950s – call it the MCU of the classic era) it declined sharply in the 1960s. About that time the Europeans, especially the Italians, picked up the western handle and made many more films in the genre – some were great like Sergio Leonne’s Man with No Name Trilogy, but many were pretty terrible.

But in America, the western pretty much died out. Oh here and there a new western would pop up, but they were no longer the preeminent genre and have never regained that title.

Somewhere between the peak of western popularity and the death of it, there began a new kind of western, call it revisionist western. Where classic westerns tended to side with the Europeans in things like Manifest Destiny and treated the natives with contempt – making them faceless, nameless hordes of blood-thirsty monsters – revisionist westerns saw things differently. They dealt in shades of gray instead black and white.

Last week I watched two revisionist westerns from 1969. While they both subvert the classic western tropes, they are vastly different in the stories they tell and the tone in which they take. Call them two sides of the same coin. I thought it would be fun to talk about them both in this post.

The Wild Bunch is a pessimistic, dark, and violent film. It begins with a group of children watching with glee some scorpions get devoured by a million ants. A little later they will set them all on fire. In between those moments, we watch The Wild Bunch (led by William Holden and Ernest Borgnine) rob a bank. A posse (led by Robert Ryan) hired by the railroad to stop the Bunch opens fire as soon as they come out. They kill some of the gang, but a bunch of innocent citizens as well.

The movie, as directed by Sam Peckinpah, seems to announce, This is Not Your Daddy’s Western. Classic westerns were violent – there was plenty of gunplay and death – but they tended to not be particularly bloody. When a man was shot rarely do you see a bullet hole in his clothes, much less blood spurting out. I reckon half The Wild Bunch’s budget was spent on squibs and fake blood.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid begins with a card game. Sundance (Robert Redford) is winning but is accused of cheating. Butch (Paul Newman) tries to tell him to just let it go, but Sundance can’t. The confrontation ends with Sundance literally shooting the pants (or the belt, rather) right off his accuser. It is a completely unrealistic maneuver (the bullet would easily go through the belt and into the man, but doesn’t) but it sets the playful, humorous tone of the entire film.

Butch and Sundance spend most of the film wisecracking and generally having fun being outlaws. The Wild Bunch often laughs, but it is a desperate laugh, the laugh of men headed toward their demise.

Not to spoil both films, albeit ones that are more than 50 years old and such a part of the cultural zeitgeist you likely know how they both end, but all of these characters are headed toward their demise. None of our heroes live out their lives in peace and prosperity. Part of what revisionist westerns often did, and these two films in particular definitely do, is recognize that life in the Old West was often short and very violent. They also act as codas of sorts to the western genre itself.

It is fascinating how these two films are saying similar things but in such different ways. The Wild Bunch is realistic, dark, and gritty. Butch and Sundance is a light, buoyant, and joyful. I love them both, but on any particular day I’m gonna reach for Butch Cassidy far more often than The Wild Bunch.