Guest Review: Act of Valor (2012)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

To my knowledge, this is the only movie ever to use active duty Navy SEALS in major roles, although they are not even individually identified in the credits. But, their participation permits a degree of realism not attainable with actors such as Charlie Sheen or Demi Moore. What the film may lack in budget, “name” actors, or production values is more than offset by authenticity. This alone makes Act of Valor virtually mandatory viewing for fans of the military film genre, and highly recommended for anyone who simply wants to better understand and appreciate the ethos of these rare and special people whose job it is to constantly risk their own lives to protect us.

The production is the brainchild of Michael “Mouse” McCoy and Scott Waugh who co-produced and co-directed. McCoy, a former dirt bike champ and film extra, developed The Bandito Brothers production company along with fellow stunt man Waugh. The movie’s genesis may be found in a short feature they produced for the Navy in 2007. During filming, they got to know several SEALS. Conversations with that group led to the citing of numerous true acts of heroism, some of which were chosen as the basis for a possible future feature film. The producers hired screenwriter Kurt Johnstad to develop a screenplay that would contain these specific actual acts of valor.

The Plot

The story follows seven of the members of the fictional “Bandito” platoon from SEAL Team 7 based at Coronado Island in San Diego, and includes four separate but interrelated military actions. After a brief introduction, the film grabs your attention with some great footage of the team conducting a training HALO jump near San Diego, then quickly switches to Manilla where we witness a suicide bombing that kills, among others, the American ambassador and his son. The mastermind, Abu Shabal, a Chechan jihadist, escapes. The scene again shifts-- this time to Costa Rica where CIA covert operative Lisa Morales is posing as a pediatrician while investigating drug smuggler Mikhail “Christo” Troykovich. Recent communication intercepts have indicated a possible relationship between Christo and Abu Shabal.

Morales’ cover has been compromised, however, and she is kidnapped, and her colleague murdered by Christo’s thugs. The mission becomes one of “personnel recovery”, and the team prepares for deployment (referred to as “going down range”) by assessing intelligence, tactics and contingencies. The platoon is lead by Lt. Rorke, and his platoon chief, Steve. Members are “Weimy” (the sniper), Ray (communications), “Sonny,” “Mikey,” and “Ajay.” They work with
Senior Chief Miller, the operations officer. After a hotly contested, ultimately successful action, the team gathers sufficient intelligence to tie Christo to Abu Shabal, and Christo is subsequently taken down on his yacht by SEAL team 4.Through interrogation, specifics are revealed of a plan to smuggle terrorists onto U.S. soil through a tunnel provided by Christo’s smuggling connections. The team enters into a desperate race against time to intercept and stop them.

So What Really Makes It So Authentic?

The decision to use active duty SEALS works well on many levels. Like the re-enactors in the film Gettysburg, the group insisted on accuracy above all else. This resulted in two key elements impacting the film making process. First, the SEALS planned the actual operational tactics used in the fictional engagements just as they would in real life. Second, they literally reworked significant amounts of dialogue so that the spoken words were more reflective of what might be expected of actual participants.

Much of the “Costa Rican” fire fight was filmed on the “live round” range at the John C. Stennis base in Mississippi. The filmmakers were initially scared to death, but eventually agreed it created a level of intensity or adrenaline rush that could not be otherwise duplicated. By working with the actual team, the latest in weapons technology is fully displayed. The viewer cannot help but be awed when viewing the sniper, tracer, and artillery fire instantly turning bad guy’s pick up trucks into swiss cheese. Watching the SEALS silently rise out of the water, rifles at the ready is a thing of beauty as is the night HALO jump into Costa Rica. In another film first, two of the Seals who are headed to Somalia to monitor Abu Shabal’s movements get picked up by an actual active duty nuclear submarine.

The Theme

The point of the film is to more closely explore the bond of brotherhood, code of honor, and sense of duty developed by these guys. They are completely squared away and the very best in the world at what they do. In an “extra” feature from the Blu-Ray disc containing interviews with the SEALS featured in the film, the individual who played “Lt. Rorke” makes a statement that really stood out to me, and is extremely telling. During the all too frequent funerals he has attended for lost comrades, there is always a small part of every survivor that is secretly a bit envious of their fallen brothers because there is no more honorable way to meet one’s death. Much of this is stated quite eloquently at the end of the film in a quote from the great Tecumsah about the code of the warrior, and was touched upon in my earlier review of the film The Duellists.

So Why Did Some Critics Pan It?

The film received numerous negative reviews from the “mainstream” reviewing community. A quick stroll through Rotten Tomatoes yields a 4.5 of 10 rating although 76% of readers liked the film. The consensus comments from so called “big name” reviewers such as Richard Corliss, Peter Travers, and Roger Ebert are couched in terms of cliched script, stilted acting, and jingoistic or non-nuanced point of view. Others called it nothing more than a recruiting film. That kind of comment more likely masks an anti-military orientation or a given reviewer’s personal political agenda. Perhaps they were happier with anti-war films such as Rendition, Lions for Lambs or In the Valley of Elah all of which bombed at the box office.

How far Hollywood seems to have fallen from the days of support for the troops in WWII. This story moves along at a brisk pace, and I cannot really think of any wasted scenes. It seems absurd to complain about a script being a cliche when it is taken from a composite of real events, and there was not one point in the film where I felt like any of the lines being spoken were awkward, cheesy, or stilted. In fact, using real SEALS to speak them makes scenes with family and friends all the more touching.The people who made this film truly deserve our thanks and I highly recommend it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Battle: Los Angeles looked like a big blockbuster film designed to attract an audience for two weeks and then be forgotten. Imagine my surprise to find a truly inspired film. And do you know what makes this film stand out? An utter lack of cynicism and a strong sense of patriotism. This IS a conservative film!

** spoiler alert **

Battle: Los Angeles is the story of a platoon of Marines who are called in from Camp Pendleton to defend Santa Monica when aliens begin an invasion of the Earth. The squad’s initial orders are to rescue civilians who are trapped in a police station which was overrun. But things get complicated as the aliens grow in strength and numbers and the squad finds itself stuck behind enemy lines.

Everything works in this film, from the effects to the acting to the writing. For example, when they fly to the battle, you never once doubt they are in actual helicopters looking down on a burning city. Explosions are realistic. There is no wire fighting. The battles are believable as well. They don’t overdo the damage to the city or the power of the weapons, nor do they downplay it to give the characters an easy out. Indeed, the battles feel entirely real and the city looks like a city that’s been under attack -- the level of damage even increases as the film advances and the battle spreads. Even the use of the shaky cam (something I normally HATE) is done well here to add to the sense of motion rather than just annoy the audience.

The aliens are great too. They are original looking and yet also completely believable, and we are constantly given little moments of insight, such as when we learn their weapons are surgically attached to their bodies. The story also does an excellent job of ratcheting up their threat level as the film progresses, and neither side ever acts stupidly to create drama.

Moreover, the film does a very credible job of presenting a realistic portrayal of how the Marines would deal with these aliens. Too often, films like this pretend that none of the characters has ever heard of an alien, a zombie or a vampire and thus has no idea how to deal with them. Not here. These Marines know what aliens are, just as you and I know, they just haven’t seen a real one. And when they do, their reactions are realistic, particularly with regard to how the Marines gather the knowledge they need to fight them. There is one particularly brilliant scene where the lead character, Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) tries to figure out where to shoot the aliens to kill them without wasting a lot of bullets. That’s the sort of thing Marines really would do.

Indeed, the military procedures throughout are highly accurate. The characters never ignore military protocol, rank, or the chain of command. They also use their weapons realistically, and not in cool “Hollywood” ways, e.g. standing out in the open machine gunning down dozens of aliens while firing two guns at once. In many ways, the procedures are so accurate this feels like it could have been a documentary about a real operation.

But where this film really hits it out of the park is in the writing. Modern war films have become cliché-ridden and are laced with noxious liberal messages: the military is power hungry, the military murders civilians, the military kills for oil and tortures prisoners, and our officer corps is full of stupid, arrogant racists. This film has none of that!

The platoon is made up mainly of minorities, which is the liberal myth that the poor and minorities do the fighting for America, but a funny thing happened after that starting point. Not one single character ever mentions race. . . not even in jest. These characters hang out with each other, care for each other and fight and die for each other and there isn’t one single hint in this film that they ever consider the race of their comrades. Moreover, the officer in charge of the platoon, Lt. William Martinez (Ramón Rodriquez), is an Hispanic character (several officers are minorities) -- something Hollywood rarely shows.

And while Martinez is fresh from Officer Training School, he’s not cowardly, stupid or unprepared as such officers are usually presented. And even though his veteran staff sergeant has to shake him out of his initial shock, he doesn’t fall apart or abandon his training. Indeed, unlike other movies that use this premise, the staff sergeant doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t overstep him, and doesn’t try to take over the platoon to save everyone else. He does what he’s been trained to do: assist Martinez to be a better officer.

None of the other liberal clichés are here either. None of these soldiers is power hungry or bloodthirsty. They are instead proud professionals who do their job without complaint. No one whines about not knowing why they are fighting or tries to surrender or betray the unit. They don’t rape or loot or plunder or engage in an orgy of violence. Not one of them is shown to be a coward. The same is true of the civilians who prove to be heroic in their own right. In effect, everyone is shown acting their best at the moment of crisis.

The film also avoids all of the toxic geopolitics which pollute other films. There’s no politician or oil company trying to exploit the crisis. There’s no CIA operative who wants to sneak home an alien body to create a bioweapon. There’s no general who really, really wants to nuke American cities. And there are no gangs who suddenly appear to create apocalypse kingdoms. There are just good people doing their best.

I’m sure some would argue this film is actually a veiled metaphor for America as a resource plundering nation that exterminates indigenous people. But that’s just not the case. There’s never once a sense of irony that the aliens are now doing it to us and no one suggests this is turnabout. Moreover, the aliens attack the whole world, not just America. And the American military saves the day. That’s not anti-Americanism.

Reinforcing all of this are a handful of truly stirring speeches. Nantz was brought to the platoon because their regular sergeant was away. There is resistance to Nantz initially because it is believed he got some Marines killed in Afghanistan in a raid. . . he did not get them killed through cowardice or incompetence as is usually the case in recent war films. This issue gets resolved later in the film and when it does, Eckhart gives a deeply moving speech about the responsibility officers feel for their men. This is not a speech anyone who hates the military could ever have written. In fact, the film is strewn with excellent speech where the characters explain why they fight. None of these fit the cynical modern mold. Indeed, unlike Tom Hank’s horridly defeatist speech in Saving Private Ryan, these speeches are deeply patriotic, such as when Lt. Martinez tells his squad they are “fighting for our families, our homes, and our country God dammit!”

All of this is highly patriotic in the best sense of the word. These characters don’t wrap themselves in the flag and then dishonor it, instead they honor the spirit of our nation through their every action and their love of the country, its people and their sense of duty. This is a film about people who believe in America and who will never surrender or dump their duties on others.

That’s why this film is so fantastic. It’s populated by good people doing their best for all the right and noble reasons. There is no cynicism and no irony and none of the defeatist, disheartening hallmarks of modern Hollywood war films. It is thus no surprise that liberal reviewers hated this film, because it rejects their ideological expectations about how the military, patriotism and race should be presented and it is an affront to those who want to hate America, Americans and the American military. That’s why they trashed it.

I very much recommend this film.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: No Way Out (1987)

You wouldn’t think I would like No Way Out. It relies on some huge coincidences and the characters all act in some pretty outlandish ways. But I love this film. This is probably the top political thriller I’ve seen on film. Here’s why.

** Spoiler Alert -- If you don’t know the ending, see the movie before you read this review. **

No Way Out stars Kevin Costner as Navy Lieutenant Commander Tom Farrell, who seduces Susan Atwell (Sean Young), who turns out to be the mistress of his boss Secretary of Defense David Brice (Gene Hackman). Atwell is Brice’s kept-woman, but falls for Costner, until Brice kills her in a jealous rage. Enter Brice’s assistant, Scott Pritchard (Will Patton), who covers up Brice’s involvement with the death by blaming Pentagon boogeyman “Yuri,” a supposed deep-cover Russian sleeper agent. When Pritchard puts Costner in charge of the investigation, things spiral out of control. Oh and there's a twist.

Why I Buy The Coincidences

I hate to admit it, but if someone pitched me the above as a film, I would have turned them down. Why? Because it’s all based on massive coincidences. It’s a coincidence Costner gets called in to work for Brice. It’s a coincidence Brice and Costner fall for the same woman. Then Brice picks Costner to lead the investigation? Come on. Also, Costner just happens to have a friend who can protect him when they find a photo incriminating Costner? Not to mention the coincidence that Hackman, Pritchard and Atwell are all morally vacant to begin with. And then following the twist we learn that Costner just happens TO BE the Yuri they’re looking for? Give me a break.

But you know. . . none of this bothers me. Why? Because they explain it all.

The movie goes to great lengths to point out that Costner is a social climber. He went to the right schools, got to know the right people, and attends the right functions. He befriended Pritchard long before these events, and thus it’s no stretch to see Pritchard reach out to Costner when he and Brice need a new point man. That Costner has a friend at the Pentagon isn’t such a surprise either as he’s moved up through the Navy and likely has friends everywhere. With regard to Atwell, we learn at the end that Costner was ordered to seduce her. Suddenly the coincidental love triangle involving the Secretary of Defense isn’t so coincidental. That Atwell falls for him makes sense too, as Costner no doubt has been given inside information about her. And the fact Brice and Atwell are immoral isn’t hard to accept because that’s precisely why Costner came after them: because they’re susceptible.

The only real coincidences seem to be that he is Yuri and that Brice kills Atwell. But we accept those. The fact he’s Yuri makes sense because who but Yuri would take the risks Costner takes to inject himself into these events. Most people wouldn’t seduce their boss’s mistress and most would go to the police once the murder happens. Costner could have gone to the CIA for protection and ended the story there, but he doesn’t because he is Yuri and he’s playing a dangerous game to destroy Brice. It is somewhat coincidental that Pritchard tries to use Yuri for cover, but who else would he use except the Pentagon’s boogeyman? Nor does Costner getting appointed to run the investigation seem coincidental because that’s precisely why he was brought into the fold -- to protect Brice. Atwell’s murder doesn’t bother us either because we see it as an accident and it’s just how the story plays out. Had she not died, Yuri would have tried something else to disgrace Brice.

So even though the film is packed with incredible coincidences, you never really feel like they are coincidences because enough explanation is given to let you believe these events flowed logically from the intentional actions of the characters.

Why I Buy The Outlandish Characters

On its surface, this story also contains some pretty outlandish characters. A Washington, D.C. socialite with multiple lovers? The Secretary of Defense having a murderous affair? Brice’s assistant killing people to cover up Brice’s crime? Really? Yeah, really.

Atwell is a kept woman, which means her morality is already questionable. She clearly doesn’t love Brice and it’s easy to see why she would fall for Costner, especially if he had help from his Russian friends. As for the Secretary of Defense having an affair, we’re long past the point that should surprise us. Killing his mistress is pretty extreme, but he didn’t intend to kill her. He got upset and smacked her and she died in an accidental fall. This is believable because we’ve already seen that he’s an abusive man because of how he treats Pritchard. And cover ups are always in fashion in Washington.

Pritchard is the real question mark. Would he really kill to save his boss? Actually, he would. Pritchard is gay and is infatuated with Brice. He worships Brice. That doesn’t make him a killer, but there’s more. Brice is abusive. He screams at Pritchard, throws things at him, strikes him, and humiliates him. Yet Pritchard responds by blaming himself. This is classic battered spouse syndrome and battered spouses often become insanely devoted to their abusers. Add in some instability and a sense by Pritchard that he’s above the law, and it’s not a stretch to see Pritchard turn the Pentagon upside down, kill the people who can hurt Brice, and make the ultimate sacrifice to save Brice. What’s more, both Patton and Hackman sell this perfectly, with Hackman never once showing a hint of kindness to Pritchard and Patton giving an incredible performance as a man desperate to obtain Brice's approval.

Why This Twist Is So Great

Finally, we come to the twist. The twist is great because it is organic to the story, it completely changes the meaning of the story, and it’s foreshadowed constantly. Why are we shown his bag being stolen overseas? Who does he keep calling on the phone? Why is his neighbor a Russian? (As an interesting aside, the Russian safehouse is a block from a home I owned in Virginia.) Heck, the coincidences alone should have tipped us off something was wrong. This is excellent foreshadowing.

Moreover, the story works completely even without the twist. Indeed, the depth of this story is astounding. You get a solid glimpse into Washington politics, with the Secretary of Defense trying to kill a weapons program favored by a powerful Senator. On the Senator’s side you have the CIA snooping around. Against this, you have a solid love story between Atwell and Costner. The love story is made all the more interesting because the lovers are kept apart by the fact Atwell has another lover, upon whom she relies to maintain her lifestyle. Adding intrigue, it turns out that lover is Costner’s boss.

Then Brice kills Atwell. This injects all kinds of suspense as only Costner knows the truth, but he can’t tell anyone or he will be murdered. What’s worse, Brice has the power to pull this investigation into the Pentagon where he can control it. Then Costner gets put in charge of the investigation, which puts Costner in an impossible situation as he's leading an investigation which will cause his own destruction. To add even greater suspense, we are given the “ticking clock” of the Pentagon computer slowly deciphering a Polaroid which will incriminate Costner.

This is a powerful story. Costner’s emotional rollercoaster goes from happiness as he falls for Atwell, to jealousy as he learns he can’t have her, to anger as he learns his boss is the man standing in his way. Then she dies and we see Costner suffering with his grief while feeling his revulsion at having to work with the very people he wants to expose and his fear at learning they will kill him if they discover the truth. At the same time, we have an intensely emotional performance from Patton who goes from abused-spouse to insane dictator to reckless and desperate murderer. Hackman simultaneously shows us a man we think is trying to do his best for the nation, but who has brought himself down with his tragic flaw and who falls apart as the scandal overwhelms him. . . only to throw our sympathy back in our faces when he realizes he’s found a way to save himself.

What more can you ask for? Even without the twist, this is a heck of a story.

But adding the twist was a masterstroke because it changes the meaning of everything we just saw. We saw Costner as an innocent victim of circumstance. But now we know he’s the manipulator behind it all. He’s the instigator, playing a high stakes game of political intrigue. He never cared for Atwell, he even calls her “the Atwell woman” when speaking with the Russians just so we know she meant nothing to him. All that fear and disgust we thought we saw in Costner -- which made us so sympathetic -- wasn’t because of the death of Atwell or concern for her friend, it was fear he would be exposed as Yuri. And the whole time we were rooting for innocent Kevin against evil Brice, we now realize we were rooting for a traitor, whose real goal was the destruction of Brice, an apparently effective Secretary of Defense. That is an incredible transformation and a great twist.

I highly recommend this film.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: The Caine Mutiny (1954)

The Caine Mutiny is a classic. It’s also one of my favorite films. This movie does everything right, including having a fantastic twist long before twists were cool. It is an acting tour de force. And what makes this movie work, believe it or not, is subtlety.

** Spoiler Alert -- If you don’t know the ending, see the movie before you read this review. **

The Plot

Adapted incredibly well from Herman Wouk’s novel of the same name, The Caine Mutiny is the fictional story of a mutiny aboard a United States Navy destroyer-minesweeper during World War II. The story begins with the arrival of self-centered, spoiled Ensign Willie Keith aboard the Caine. Keith resents being assigned to the Caine, an ancient, beat up minesweeper, because he saw himself as more important than this. What’s worse, the Caine’s captain is a slob who has let discipline fall apart.

Keith befriends the ship’s executive officer Lt. Stephen Maryk (Van Johnson) and its communications officer Lt. Thomas Keefer (Fred MacMurray). Maryk is earnest and loyal, but not very bright. Keefer is cynical and cowardly. Soon the Caine’s captain is replaced by Lt. Commander Phillip Francis Queeg (Humphrey Bogart), a no-nonsense career officer who has served in hard combat for several years. At first, Keith is happy that Queeg has taken over because Queeg demands regular navy discipline. But it doesn’t take long for Keith to resent Queeg because Queeg seems arbitrary and tyrannical. It also becomes apparent that Queeg’s nerves are shot. All of this alienates the crew and worries Maryk, who fears that Queeg is unfit for command. During an ensuing monsoon, Queeg freezes up and Maryk relieves him of command to save the ship. A court martial follows.

What Makes This Film So Great

At the core of The Caine Mutiny lies some truly spectacular acting. Van Johnson walked a tightrope with Maryk, between being a simple, earnest man we could trust and respect and being just dumb enough to be made a patsy. MacMurray had to be trustworthy enough that we believed Maryk would trust him, but cowardly enough to explain how he kept his hands clean, and cynical enough that his attacks on Queeg were sharp and eviscerating and would sway the audience. Both of these performances required real understanding of human nature and how to walk the fine lines that separate very different personalities.

But the real star was Bogart. The Caine Mutiny includes one of the greatest acting performance ever when Humphrey Bogart testifies at the court martial. Bogart’s portrayal of a man breaking down on the stand was so captivating the entire film crew actually gave him a thundering round of applause when he finished. It was well deserved.

This was an incredibly fascinating and subtle performance. We’ve seen Queeg throughout the film and in each instance, he was arbitrary or cowardly. Even when he tried to be jovial, he seemed tyrannical. Moreover, we know for a fact he froze up in the monsoon and put the ship in danger -- thus, we know Maryk was justified in his actions and has essentially been wrongfully accused by Queeg. Hence, we are predisposed to hate Queeg. But Bogart can’t let us hate Queeg because of the twist to come. So Bogart needed to find a way to make us sympathetic to both Queeg and Maryk, even though they are directly opposed.

Here’s how he pulls that off. First, when Queeg shows up at trial, he tries to diffuse the whole proceeding by being magnanimous and stating that he holds no malice against the mutineers. This teases the audience by suggesting he may recant. It also suggests mental instability because of the personality shift. But as he’s questioned by the prosecutor any pretense of honesty vanishes and he knowingly shades the truth. Bogart tells us Queeg knows he's lying, because he acts like a man trapped in a lie. He’s hesitant in his testimony, he shifts uncomfortably in his chair, and he seems unable to make eye contact with the defendants.

Bogart has done two interesting things here. First, he gives the audience hope that Queeg will break on the stand because Queeg is already falling apart. This raises the stakes for the cross-examination and heightens the tension. Secondly, by suggesting that Queeg feels trapped in his lie, Bogart starts to break down the audience's hate. When Queeg first walked into the room, the audience saw Queeg as a petty tyrant. Suddenly, there is the suggestion that Queeg can’t help himself. This introduces the idea that Queeg is actually a pathetic character rather than a genuine tyrant.

Then the cross examination begins. As defense attorney Barney Greenwald (José Ferrer) hits Queeg with a series of questions about seemingly minor incidents, Queeg begins to embellish. He doesn’t rant or rave or scream or challenge Greenwald, he simply changes his story as needed, each time adding more people to the list of people he’s calling disloyal. This reinforces the idea that Queeg has a problem, rather than being malicious. As the list grows, Bogart’s Queeg gets more and more nervous because even he realizes that while he might have thought he was right in each instance, the sheer number of instances and their similarity are starting to sound paranoid.

Then Bogart makes a key dramatic shift. Queeg is confronted with an incident where he is absolutely certain he was in the right and he jumps on it. Now he rants and raves and exorcises all of his frustrations about the disloyalty he felt he received. But rather than direct Queeg's anger at the mutineers, everything he says is aimed at proving he was right in his suspicions. In other words, Bogart transforms Queeg from a man accusing others to a man trying to justify his actions himself. This is a vital difference. If Queeg is accusing others, then we are happy when he fails. But if Queeg is trying to prove his own sanity, then we are sad when he fails. And when Queeg looks up and sees the shocked faces of everyone in the room, he stops. He knows he’s wrong.

At that point, we are relieved that Maryk and Keith have survived the trial, but we also feel a great deal of pity for Queeg. Then the film hits us with the twist.

As the mutineers celebrate their victory, Jose Ferrer shows up drunk. He’s upset because he thinks the mutineers were the real bad guys and he feels horrible about “torpedoing” Queeg to help them. Queeg was worn out, his nerves were shot. The crew fought him at every turn, and when you think about it, what seemed like humorous disobedience aimed at a tyrant really was a tantrum aimed at a man who was trying to hold together a United States Navy vessel that was falling apart. Ferrer even reminds us that we scoffed at Queeg when he came begging for help.

And like that, your view of every event in the film suddenly changes. Suddenly, we realize that the mutineers, and we the audience by proxy as we enjoyed their games, have been unfair to Queeg the entire time. We mistreated Queeg. We caused the very circumstances that led to the mutiny and we destroyed him. And that makes this one of the best twists of all time, because it fundamentally changes the meaning of the film and because the evidence was there from the opening frame. We just didn’t want to see it.

This is a classic example of everything that can go right with a film when you’ve got great actors, writers and directors who understand subtlety and how humans respond to certain behaviors. Every fact we needed to know was there all along, but we never saw the truth because our opinions about the characters were expertly manipulated so that we just didn't want to see it. This is how movies should be made.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guest Review: Gettysburg (1993)

By Tennessee Jed

Whatever else I may think of Ted Turner, I owe him a debt of gratitude for spending a fortune producing historical films like Gettysburg. Adapted from Michael Shaaraʼs 1974 Pulitzer Prize winning novel “The Killer Angels,” Gettysburg effectively conveys the horror of combat, while still laying out the strategies, tactics and motivations of the commanders by following several key participants in the battle. While not perfect, this remains the best depiction of civil war era military action to date.

Authenticity - What sets Gettysburg apart from prior Civil War films is the impact of the re-enactors. When casting calls went out for extras, the “hard cores” responded en masse. These guys have a passion for historical accuracy that borders on obsession. The most serious refer to themselves as “super hard core” and even soak the brass buttons on their uniforms in urine to gain an authentic “worn” patina they claim cannot be otherwise achieved. Their leader, the late Brian Pohanka (a nice cameo as General Webb, the Brigadier in command of union troops at the “angle”) was able to convince filmmakers of the wisdom of doing things accurately. Thus, virtually all pan shots down the lines, all marching shots, cannon fire, rifle volleys, and drum and bugle calls are as authentic as possible. When you see the strain of battle showing on the faces of members of the 20th Maine, you feel as if you are majestically transported back in time and plunked down inside the action. The director even does a wonderful job of creating the passage of time as they beat back attack after attack.

Where the film comes up a bit short is its inability to convey the magnificent sweep of the action. Made before CGI, it was just not possible to show a three day action involving over 150,000 combatants and 300 artillery pieces, and which produced over 50,000 casualties. Nevertheless, Director Maxwell did the best he could to frame shots to minimize the problem. Look closely at the forming of the ranks for Pickettʼs charge and you will see the nature of the problem and can judge how well it was handled. At Gettysburg, there were 150 artillery pieces in the “pont au feu” preceding Pickettʼs charge. “Pont au feu” is a term coined by Napoleon for one of his favored tactics. Literally meaning “bridge of fire” it refers to withering artillery bombardment focused on the point of attack to break up the defense preceding an infantry advance. It lasted over an hour and was heard as far away as Lancaster. They only had about 30 guns available for the film, but when you listen on a great surround system you can get at least some idea of what the 150 would have sounded like. Imagine, the terror of 150 pieces firing at you continuously for over an hour and knowing “luck” was the only thing keeping you from literally being blown to pieces.

The Story - The screenplay does a nice job adapting the novel. This was the largest Civil War action in terms of combatants and casualties, and to many, represented the Confederacy's best chance to win their independence. Thanks to Lincoln’s address, no Civil War battle is better known, and most Americans are aware of the names “Gettysburg” and “Pickettʼs Charge.” But surprisingly few beyond historians or “buffs” know many of the battle details. Gettysburg achieves a good balance between filmmaking and providing a historian's level of knowledge. Indeed, rather than trying to capture everything in the battle, the film follows a handful of key participants. There is nice coverage of critical moments, such as the role of Union Cavalry Commander General John Buford in holding back the enemy long enough to save the favored union position on day one, but the storyline primarily pivots around three individuals:

General Robert E. Lee, Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, is one of the best, most beloved military leaders ever produced in America, a true legend. After the war, some southern historians adopted a theory known as the “lost cause,” part of which assigns an unrealistic infallibility to Lee. As such, any failures had to be due to either impossible circumstance or the failure of subordinates. The person most often blamed was Lt. General James Longstreet, Lee’s most valued and senior Corp Commander. He is the second key character. Indeed, Gettysburg fairly accurately depicts the relationship between the two and the tension that created at Gettysburg. It also does a credible job of outlining tactics such as the “left oblique” utilized in Pickettʼs charge (masking the specific target point of the attack.) Longstreet did disagree with much of Lee’s strategy at Gettysburg, and he did fail to execute his orders in a timely and, in some cases, effective manner. Although his “certain knowledge of futility” is perhaps overplayed, the facts and the film tend to support Longstreet rather than his detractors. Certainly, other subordinates also made mistakes and random chance played a huge role as well. Lee, ever the gentleman, appropriately took bottom line responsibility for the failure of the campaign.

The third key character is Lt. Colonel Joshua L. Chamberlain, commander of the Union’s 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment. Just as they reached the field, it was discovered the left side of the union line had mistakenly been moved forward leaving the flank “in the air” with the tactically crucial position known as Little Round Top left unoccupied. The regiment is rushed to the top just in time and becomes the flank of the entire Union Army. They are ordered to “defend against all hazards,” in essence a fight to the death.

Despite continuous assault by elements of Hood’s Division, the line holds. Attackers from Col. William Oates 15th Alabama try to turn his flank. Chamberlain employs the tactic of “refusing the flank” (bending the line back at right angles to itself in order to prevent becoming outflanked.) Overcome by fatigue and running out of ammunition, Chamberlain orders a pinwheel pivot bayonet counter charge since he really has no other option. Flank secured, army and union saved; hurrah! Chamberlain is not a professional soldier, rather a professor of rhetoric at Bowdoin College. Awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his defense of Little Round Top, he would be wounded no less than six times later in the war, including a grievous wound through both hips. Thought dead, he miraculously survives and eventually returns to active duty. Promoted to Major General and a position of honor at Appomattox, after the war he becomes Governor of Rhode Island and president of Bowdoin -- a true American hero.

The Cast - Mixed results. Jeff Daniels is nothing short of superb as Chamberlain in what may be his best role. As evidence, I offer the speech he gives to the “deserters” early in the film. Almost worth the price of admission on its own. Despite being entirely too short for the role (not an insignificant problem) Sheen did a good job conveying Lee’s nobility and grace. When he finds Harry Heth has engaged Buford without knowing the extent of enemy strength, Lee is furious with him. Without raising his voice, Lee literally cuts him to shreds. Masterful! Tom Berenger is nicely cast as Longstreet. Big and raw boned, he accurately conveys the larger than life presence of Lee’s second in command.

Sam Elliot is made for these kinds of films and does a great job as Buford. The late Richard Jordon in his last role before succumbing to a brain tumor seemed a tad over the top as General Lewis Armistead. Brian Mantle, also suffering from a lack of physical stature, was unconvincing as General Winfield Hancock. As evidence, see the dialog when an aide tries to convince him to be less of a target (sounds like a high school play dialog.) Kevin Conway is his usual professional self as the fictional “Buster Kilroy.” Likewise, Cooper Huckabee did an interesting job as Harry Harrison, Longstreet’s Shakespearian actor turned master spy. Former James Bond actor George Lazenby has a great scene where he tries to present his academic treatise on artillery to Longstreet as they go into battle. Longstreet jokes that “he doubts he will have time to read it today.”

Other Factors - At over 4 hours, this is a long film. In its defense, it was originally intended to be presented as a mini-series on TBS, but Turner was pleased enough with the result to put it into limited theater release first.

The storytelling technique sometimes resembles a Shakespearian play. Major characters are permitted to launch into speeches that seem out of synch with modern conversational style. I understand how this can be somewhat off-putting, however, people actually did engage in more flowery rhetoric back then as normal course. The speeches also tend to serve as a device to convey deeper motivations of the combatants.

Finally, as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of arguably the defining period in our nation's history thus far, I urge people to see this film. I guarantee it will increase your appreciation the next time you hear Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address . . . “from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause to which they gave the last full measure of devotion.”

P.S. When I visit Gettysburg, I stay in the “Lee Suite” at the Cashtown Inn featured in the movie and in the painting by Mort Kunstler in this article. In the actual historical battle, it served as General A.P. Hill’s headquarters. During filming of Gettysburg, it served as Sam Elliot’s lodging. The second painting, also by Kunstler, depicts Chamberlain’s counter charge on Little Round Top.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Breaker Morant (1980)

You should all see Breaker Morant. Directed by Bruce Beresford (Driving Ms. Daisy), Breaker Morant is a gripping courtroom drama that centers on the real-life murder trials of three Australian soldiers during the Boer War. Not only is this an outstanding drama, but it raises complex moral issues that remain relevant today. Indeed, if you replaced British Lord Kitchener with Pennsylvania Democrat Frank Murtha, you would be half way to making a movie about Iraq.

** spoiler alert **

The Boer War

Before discussing the film, let’s start with a brief (relevant) history of the (Second) Boer War (1899-1902). Tensions between the British Empire and independent Boer republics in Southern Africa simmered for nearly two hundred years. In 1899, the South African Republic (Transvaal) and the Orange Free State declared war on the British and promptly routed the out-numbered and out-motivated British Army. But after heavily reinforcing their Army, the British easily conquered all the Boer lands by early 1900. At that point, the Boers scattered into small “commando” groups (yes, that’s where the term originated). These commandos roamed the countryside, blending in with civilians, ambushing British soldiers, blowing up trains and telegraphs, and raiding British settlements. Sound familiar?

To combat the Boers, Lord Kitchener, the British commander, implemented a scorched-earth policy. He ordered British soldiers “to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children.” This included systematically destroying crops and farms, burning homes, poisoning wells, and rounding up women and children into concentration camps -- the first recorded instance of concentration camps. Approximately 26,000 women and children eventually died in 109 camps of disease and malnutrition, and whole portions of the country were de-peopled (another 25,000 men were deported). This policy finally broke the will of the guerrilla movement, though it proved a political disaster, both for the British government and for Britain’s standing worldwide.

The Movie

In addition to the concentration camps, Lord Kitchener established small, mobile units to hunt the Boer commandos in open country. One of these units, the Bushveld Carbineers, is recognized as the first modern special forces unit. Breaker Morant involves three members of the Bushveld Carbineers: Lt. Harry “Breaker” Morant (Edward Woodward from The Equalizer), Lt. Peter Handcock (Bryan Cox from Cocktail), and George Witton, who are on trial for the murder of several Boer prisoners and a German missionary. Handcock and Witton are Australians, and Morant is Anglo-Australian.

The facts are these. When Morant’s commanding officer and friend, Captain Hunt, was killed (and mutilated and likely tortured) by a Boer commando group, an enraged Morant led the Carbineers on a search for the commando group. Soon enough, Morant came across a group of commandos, who sought to surrender. Several members of the group were wearing pieces of British uniforms, possibly including Hunt’s jacket. This caused Morant to conclude they killed Captain Hunt. As he considered what to do with the prisoners, the British Intelligence Officer assigned to the unit reminded Morant of Lord Kitchener’s standing verbal order that commandos should not be taken prisoner: “You know the orders from Whitehall. If they show a white flag, we don't see it. I didn't see it.” Thus, Morant ordered the prisoners shot.

Before the trial begins, it is made clear that the British government wants to make an example of Morant, Handcock and Witton. Lord Kitchener’s scorched earth policies caused a tremendous backlash against Britain, and the British hope to shift the blame from their policies onto “out of control” soldiers. To ensure a conviction, the army stacks the deck at the trial. The Australians are assigned an attorney (Major Thomas) who has never litigated a single case. Thomas is given no time to prepare. He is deprived of access to necessary witnesses, who are shipped to India. He faces biased witnesses. And he faces a biased judge.

Unlike a typical Hollywood movie, everything presented in this movie is well within the zone of what really happens at court. There are no impossible theatrics or last-second, mystery witnesses. The judge’s behavior, while infuriating, is nothing I haven’t seen many times in court. Indeed, while we despise many of the judge’s decisions, they are all well within what the law and the procedures allow. Moreover, Thomas does not suddenly transform into a super trial attorney who trips up witness after witness with an amazing wit that exists only in films. Thomas grows into his role as trial attorney, visibly improving as the trial progresses, but he remains only an average attorney at best -- though, as he grows, you begin to wonder if he just might pull it off.

That is all I can tell you about the ending without spoiling the tension for you, except for one interesting fact. The reason the story is constructed so realistically is that this is a true story. The film is based on a play, which was itself based on the book Scapegoats of the Empire, written by defendant Witton himself in 1907.

Issues Raised

Beyond being a great drama, Breaker Morant raises many issues that remain relevant today. During the trial, the movie delves into issues like: (1) can soldiers be held to the same standards to which we hold civilians; (2) does it matter that this was a new kind of war, with a new kind of enemy, that required new strategies to defeat; (3) does it matter that the defendant’s actions were militarily effective; and (4) does it matter that they were following orders or that they believed the were following orders? Indeed, right at the beginning of the trial, Major Thomas challenges the propriety of trying the defendants at all: "soldiers at war should not be judged by civilian rules."

And as for this being a new kind of war, Morant puts it best when he says:

"This is a new kind of war for a new century, George. I suppose this is the first time our enemies have not worn uniforms. Some of them are women, some are children, and some... are missionaries."

Thus, new strategies were called for. For example, Morant is accused of putting Boer prisoners in open carts at the front of trains, where they might be shot at by the enemy. This violated provisions of the Second Convention of The Hague, signed two years earlier, which prohibited soldiers from exposing prisoners to danger. But, as Thomas shows, this action stopped the Boer commandos from blowing up trains. So was this right or wrong? Also, is it relevant that Kitchener ordered that no prisoners be taken? Can they still be tried for shooting prisoners? Does it matter if this policy was the only way to break an insurrection that had already gone on for two years? What if they only believed such an order existed? And what are the moral implications of the same state that issued the “no prisoners” order being the prosecutor of Morant, Handcock and Witton? Should a state be allowed to cast off its own guilt on the people it ordered to carry out the order?

These issues all arise in Breaker Morant. They are not answered because there are no clear answer to any of these. But they are presented in interesting and thought-provoking ways that will give you much to consider, and that could challenge your views. I highly recommend seeing this film.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...