Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #53: Malcom X (1992)

 

We get into the Civil Rights Era with Spike Lee’s three and a half hour biopic Malcolm X. Malcolm X is one of the more misunderstood figures of American history, often framed as the violent alternative to the more deified Martin Luther King, Jr. While his language was definitely harsher and he had his few truly questionable statements (such as saying that President John F. Kennedy’s assassination was brought upon himself), he never actually preached violence as a general rule and when he did it was in the context of self-defense. He was more likely to call black people to build themselves up into dignified persons than keep begging for white approval.

While the movie is heavily identified with Spike Lee (who has made many movies on the topic of racism), it was actually the final product of a quarter century dream of producer Marvin Worth. Worth admired Malcolm X so much that he quickly bought the rights to The Autobiography of Malcolm X (which the civil rights leader co-wrote with Roots author Alex Haley). This book was still being written when Malcolm was assassinated, so Haley added on a final section to detail the end of his life. Actually, he at first produced a 1972 documentary which got an Oscar nomination for that category. It was 1992 when the story would get a proper dramatic treatment.

The movie follows the book closely, so any inaccuracies or exaggerations are really a byproduct of some of the liberties that Malcolm X and Alex Haley took. Surprisingly, Spike Lee is able to cover the subject’s entire life without the major pitfalls of biopics that attempt this. To be fair, his life was cut short before he was 40. The movie starts hard with footage of the police beating Rodney King while Malcolm X delivers one of his more incendiary speeches about the white man. The movie then makes an intentional mood whiplash by showing a young Malcolm X (when he was Malcolm Little) go with his friend Shorty to the barber’s to make his woolly African hair straight like a white man’s. As in real life, Malcolm X stands out for having red hair, unusually for an African-American, because of inherited genes from a white man who raped his maternal grandmother.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #52: Thirteen Days (2000)

 
Thirteen Days covers the greatest crisis of John F. Kennedy’s presidential administration, and that is the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Cuba had just become a communist nation under Fidel Castro in 1961 (two years after Castro took over). In 1962 the Soviet Union moved nuclear missiles there. This was a horrifying prospect for the United States, as communists could now launch the weapons from a relatively short distance. Even a prepared defensive response would likely not be swift enough to prevent all of the missiles from making contact.

Thirteen Days, a movie I didn’t even know existed until I was putting together my watchlist, is not based on the same-named memoir by Robert F. Kennedy (who like his brother was tragically assassinated in the same decade). Instead it’s based on The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis by diplomacy historians Ernest May and Philip Zelikow, which would naturally have several decades more of research and revelations. Critics liked the movie, but despite the significance of the historical event not enough people went to see it. I guess it’s more interesting watching a war actually happen than be prevented.

The movie could have gone for more of a documentary feel, but director Roger Donaldson and writer David Self opted to make it more dramatic, playing up several aspects to create more tension and interpersonal conflict. Trevor Jones’ musical score definitely goes for a more emotional route. While some historians may chide the movie for such dramatic inflation, I have no problem with it as even with global nuclear Armageddon on the table it can be hard to generate viewer attention with accurate political discussions.

The cast is headed by three characters. One of course is JFK, played well by Bruce Greenwood. Though Canadian, he does the Boston accent without veering into unintentional parody. His character understandably feels a lot of weight and he comes off as very human. He definitely wants to do the right thing, but the American government is large and the president is not a dictator, so even some of his direct commands are easily ignored, with tensions between America and the Soviet Union rising as a result. This is actually something I wish American voters would understand. The president is just one cog in a system not just separated into three branches, but a ridiculous number of governmental departments and military organizations. Thus electing one guy who shares your ideas isn’t going to mean anything if you ignore Congress, local government, etc. Greenwood’s JFK is heroic, but he doesn’t have as firm a hand on the steering wheel as many would think.

Left to Right: Robert F. Kennedy (Steven Culp), John F. Kennedy (Bruce Greenwood), and
Kenneth O'Donnell (Kevin Costner) (https://www.reelingreviews.com/thirteendays.htm)

Steven Culp plays Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who naturally is going to be involved with his brother’s many big decisions. Culp convincingly makes him look like a sibling to JFK, in large part thanks to the Boston accent. Though heading the legal department, RFK eventually finds himself having the big meeting at the end that makes the crisis go away. While the Kennedy brothers loom large in history, the actual main protagonist is special assistant Kenneth O’Donnell (Kevin Costner). O’Donnell was another Irish Massachusetts man who was a friend of the Kennedys. In addition to having the few family life scenes, he spends the movie running around the government trying to get everyone on the same page, and he also helps set up important meetings (as well as social events). This is the first historical liberty of note. O’Donnell was definitely close to JFK, but he was hardly the major political player who was able to advise and influence policy. Notably, many of the major phone calls he makes to politicians and military officers are not on the records and were handled by other people. The writer made this change so that we could have a less famous central protagonist to glue all the threads together.

The movie understandably has quite a large cast and it’s here that we get our second major deviation from history. The roles of the characters are largely accurate, but many are certainly more hawkish than they were in real life, with almost everyone advocating firm aggressive military action to take out the missiles. One character who was very much a hawk is General Curtis E. LeMay (Kevin Conway), who historically was notorious for his widespread bombing of Japan during World War II. He advocated a quick overpowering bombing mission on the Soviet weapons installations and also opposed the blockade of Cuba as being too soft and appeasing. In contrast to other leaders who felt they had scored a major diplomatic victory, he felt that the JFK administration had lost its one great chance to show the communists America wasn’t kidding around and to oust Castro from power. In the movie he definitely comes off as a little antagonistic. For the most part, though, military figures were actually cooperative with civilian leaders in real life.

One of the many large meetings

I can’t vouch for the portrayals of the numerous diplomatic figures. Dylan Baker does alright as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who is calm for most of the movie but then gets to berate Admiral George Anderson when disregards Kennedy’s wishes. The one who made the biggest impression on me was UN ambassador Adlai Stevenson (Michael Fairman), who’s older than the other advisors and politicians and is dismissed as something of an over-the-hill softie when he’s the only major voice to advocate diplomacy rather than military force. Then in a verbal joust with a Soviet ambassador at the United Nations he shows he can go hard against the communists.

Overall, the many characters are all trying to decide when or if military action is appropriate, and as diplomacy takes over they have to find a solution that allows both sides to save face. The solution involves the removal of American missiles from Turkey. To my surprise, the missiles don’t come up until later in the movie as a possible negotiating chip. Many believe that the installation of nuclear weapons in Turkey, right by the Soviet Union, was what encouraged the delivery of similar weapons to Cuba. Funnily enough, superhero movie X-Men: First Class was the one to bring this up.

The movie does feature a lot of hardware for aviation and military
geeks. F-8s, which play a significant role, line up on an airfield.

While of course no war occurred, the movie tries to get more excitement out of the limited military operations. In one scene a plane is sent to photograph the weapons. It gets shots at, but despite the obvious bullet holes the pilot does not report that he was fired upon, as this would necessitate a full military response by America. However, another reconnaissance mission ends more tragically, with Rudolf Anderson becoming the only person to actually die during the Cuban Missile Crisis. On the naval front the movie takes more liberties. The ships are shown getting close to each other, with one American ship firing a warning shot close to an enemy vessel. In real life the ships were much further apart, and warning shots were sometimes fired close to non-Soviet vessels trying to run the blockade, but further away Soviet ships while still being visible.

So the movie is largely accurate, and most of the few creative liberties do add some excitement, but I wouldn’t say it’s a great historical film, just a good one. I feel like you could get one good viewing out of it. One problem is that much of the tension could be stronger. Because it isn’t, Thirteen Days comes off as more interesting than exciting. Also, the number of meetings, phone calls, and diplomatic maneuvers can get a little hard to follow, even with the addition of some exciting military scenes. A solid one-time watch with some pretty good performances.

Rating: 7/10

JFK's thought are elsewhere during Catholic mass. His wife Jacqueline "Jackie" Kennedy (played by former model Stephanie Romanov) has a small role since O'Donnell gets the main character spotlight and thus all the family drama.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #51: The Right Stuff (1983)

 

I began my watchlist with Europeans exploring North America and now America is trying to explore and conquer space. The Right Stuff, based on Tom Wolfe’s great book (I’ve read it) and directed by Philip Kaufman, details the beginnings of the space race, from the breaking of the sound barrier to the launching of space craft that can orbit Earth multiple times. Specifically the protagonists are test pilots from various branches of the US military who made up Project Mercury, the first run of missions conducted by the newly created NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). With the communistic Soviet Union launching a probe into space, Americans grew concerned over what would happen if they effectively conquered space. Using the know-how of German rocket scientists and decades of aircraft development, the government got to work putting Americans in space. Over three hours long, The Right Stuff unfortunately flopped, but remains a highly regarded piece of work to this day.

I remember rewatching the movie long ago after reading the book and thought it wonderfully reflected Wolfe’s prose. I was thus surprised to later learn that Wolfe actually disliked the movie and felt it diverged too much from what he was going for. I guess he has a point. While Wolfe writes with a colorful wit, the movie does delve much further into comedy at several points. The most glaring example is when two lower-level officials suggest to President Dwight Eisenhower and others types of people they believe can be shot into space, such as circus performers and deep-sea divers. They pretty much suggest everyone except test pilots, whom Eisenhower angrily demands to the chagrin of the other officials in the room. Surprisingly such people were suggested, but not in such a goofy manner.

On the topic of humor, there’s a bit of a satirical edge to much of it. Interestingly it never really goes into cynical or full-on comedic territory, and the movie is still celebratory. After all, astronauts finally breaking out into space are cool. The more biting satire is directed at the press and a plethora of politicians and officials trying to generate their own reputation and fortunes off of the astronauts. The press in particular is accompanied by a locust-like sound, as they won’t stop bugging the Mercury Seven and, worse, their wives trying to have a peaceful time at home.

Chuck Yager (Sam Shepard) spends time
with his wife Glennis (Barbara Hershey)

Though Kaufman’s movie charts the beginning of America’s space program, none of the astronauts actually appear until almost half an hour in. The opening protagonist is Chuck Yeager (Sam Shepard), who is one of many test pilots at the Muroc Army Air Field. This was a dangerous job, as the pilots had to really test the limits of new planes. In 1947, Yeager suffered two broken ribs during a horse riding accident, but managed to hide his injury and break the sound barrier in the Bell X-1 rocket jet. When the space program is launched a decade later, declines to try out for the Mercury program, as like many other pilots he realizes that he wouldn’t actually be in control for most of the flight thanks to the design of the spacecraft. He appears now and then to make comments, then gets another big scene at the end. While the astronauts get a big party full of politicians, dancers, and piles of food, he goes out on his own to fly a Lockheed jet. In the most badass moment of the film, he pushes it all the way to the edge of space, then is forced to eject. He is then seen walking nonchalantly with burns all over his body while the crashed Lockheed blazes in the background. Though he was unable to break into space since airplane controls fail at too-high altitudes, he still displayed the titular Right Stuff better than any astronaut. He notably escapes any of the embarrassments and press insanity the other pilots experience. Chuck Yeager is considered one of the greatest pilots of all time for a reason.

Now on to the actual space race. As in real life the Americans are at first constantly beaten out by the Russians. The Soviet Union was first able to send Sputnik into space in 1957 and later on sent the first man, Yuri Gagarin, up while NASA was still testing the waters with chimpanzees. Not mentioned and often forgotten is that the Soviets were also the first to get a manmade object, the rocket Luna 2, onto the moon, but with no people. The American response is framed by humorous scenes where officials, headed by a cantankerous Lyndon B. Johnson (Donald Moffat), try to decide how to catch up and then get ahead of the enemy. As NASA operated from Texas, Lyndon Johnson had a heavy role getting legislation and funding to support it, first as a congressman during the Eisenhower era and then as vice-president under President John F. Kennedy. Despite his real-life help getting NASA quickly operational, he’s portrayed rather negatively in the film, trying to catch the publicity glow of the astronauts and reacting badly when he’s prevented from seeing John Glenn’s wife Annie (played by Zooey Deschanel’s mother Mary Jo Deschanel) during his big rocket trip. Because of her stutter, she didn’t want to be exposed like that. While Johnson could be crude and temperamental, he did not react to the rejected meeting with such a lack of grace.

The German scientists are also played as comedic foils. They often butt heads with the astronauts, as they are more interested in scientific function while the astronauts want to make it more like a proper piloting mission. Perhaps it’s because of this that the filmmakers chose not to actually use Wernher von Braun, instead having Scott Beach played an unnamed man who looks suspiciously like him. By the way, the montage of failed rocket launches is taken straight from Wolfe’s book and reflected reality. America was so engrossed in getting into space that the test launches were televised, creating the sense that America’s space program was inept. Actually, the fact that they failed was normal because of all the numerous little things you need to get right to have a functioning space shuttle. Shout-out to the bit where the top of the rocket flies off with a popping cork sound. Witnesses say that it literally sounded like that.

Left to Right: Alan Shepard (Scott Glen), Deke Slayton (Scott Paulin), Scott Carpenter (Charles Frank), Gus Grissom (Fred Ward), Gordon Cooper (Dennis Quaid), Wally Schirra (Lance Henriksen), and John Glenn (Ed Harris)

The Mercury Seven are not equally given the limelight, even in such a long film. Gordon “Gordo” Cooper (a young Dennis Quaid) seems to be the overall representative, appearing earlier than the other astronauts and finally having his first space flight at the end. Like the others, Gordo has to keep up a wholesome, All-American persona because of the constant publicity (even though it’s suggested he has personal issues and is prone to spending time with women other than his wife). Quaid does a great job giving Gordo a constant, not-often sincere smile as he plays along and finds amusement in the fact that the astronauts are hailed as heroes well before any of them even make into space. Donald “Deke” Slayton (Scott Paulin) often appears alongside Gordo joining in on the ironies of their situation.

The first American to go into space was Alan Shepard, so naturally he gets considerable screentime. Reflecting Tom Wolfe’s book, Scott Glen plays Shepard as a highly competitive, thrill-seeking test pilot who’s undaunted by the dangers of going into space, though he does get victimized by some toilet humor early on (such as the famous real-life urination he undertook while delays kept him trapped in a rocket). Interestingly, the movie only shows the launch of the shuttle and not Shepard’s actual time in space. Either this was because of a need to keep the budget in check or it was decided that the actual wonder of orbiting the earth should be saved for the climatic flight later on.

Also not shown is the time Virgil “Gus” Grissom spent in space. Played by Fred Ward, Grissom did not receive the glory of the rest of the Mercury Seven because the hatch in the capsule blew after it landed on the surface of the ocean. Water entered the capsule, drowning it, and cameras caught Grissom flailing, creating the impression that he had panicked in reaction to the bobbing of the waves and then begged for help when he ended up in the water. As in the book, Grissom’s mishap is often accompanied by the term “Screw the pooch.” The movie doesn’t get into it, but Grissom was later absolved of blowing the hatch. To do it, the astronaut would have needed to punch the right panel, which was theorized would have left bruises on his hand. Grissom had no such bruises, and after his first flight fellow astronaut Walter Schirra made a point of blowing the hatch himself. True enough, Schirra got bruises from the action. On that mention, “Wally” Schirra (Lance Henriksen) and Scott Carpenter (Charles Frank), have to serve more as supporting players, though in real life Carpenter did really well in the stressful series of initial conditioning tests (a rather funny section of the film).

Gus Grissom looks ignoble as he's lifted out of the ocean.

Ed Harris plays John Glenn, who was a decorated pilot, astronaut, and then Democrat senator. Glenn’s personal integrity is really played up here. His first appearance is him on a game show with a boy scout, showing how he is already an all-American hero in contrast to the other astronaut characters. Unlike the others, he doesn’t have to pretend and wear a fake smile. He doesn’t swear, is never tempted to cheat on his wife, and often reins in his compatriots as they now represent America as a nation. In a moment of unplanned timing, the movie came out just as Glenn was making a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Members of Glenn’s staff tried to tap into the movie to enhance their candidate’s appeal. This move backfired. First of all, it focused on Glenn the astronaut rather than Glenn the politician. Secondly, many people began to suspect that Kaufman and Glenn were in cahoots and that The Right Stuff was actually a propaganda piece for the latter. This contributed to the movie’s problems at the box office and Glenn’s failed presidential aspirations.

The Friendship 7 orbits the night side of earth.

Back to the movie proper, Glenn piloted the Friendship 7, which had a particularly significant mission. It was to actually orbit the earth over a long period of time. Shepard and Grissom didn’t actually orbit the planet, while Gagarin had. After this flight, the Americans had truly caught up to the Soviets and would end up surpassing them as time went on, with the landing on the Moon being a particular milestone (and done just twelve years after NASA got started!). Aside from the historical significance, there was a present danger involved as something went awry with Glenn’s heat shield. This is the only time in the movie where we get an extended sequence actually showing a space flight, and the moment is enhanced by uses of Gustav Holst’s Planets suite.

This is the first and probably only time that a supernatural occurrence may literally show up on my watchlist. Glenn confused mission control when he reported something like fireflies dancing outside his ship. Initial concerns were that they were bits of the ship flaking off, portending doom for Glenn’s capsule, or that Glenn himself was hallucinating. The movie offers the potentially incredible explanation that Australian Aborigines performed magic that sent specks from a fire out into space to support the astronaut. In real life, NASA’s current explanation was that ice crystals on Friendship 7 heated up and flaked off the hull of the ship.

On the subject of the ship and space scenes, Kaufman utilized quite a few realistic models for the spacecraft, as well as the Lockheed when it falls from the sky. One innovation was the use of fog machines and literal insecticide to create the real-life misty upper atmosphere through which the models would fly. Kaufman also wanted the camera to shake, to show the real stress that test pilots and ascending astronauts felt. Vibrators and drills were attached to the cameras and turned on, creating the chaotic POV of the pilots and the shakiness the astronauts felt as they were blasted into the sky. In some cases the cameramen would just do the shaking themselves, with one reportedly getting a black eye by accident.

This movie popularized the big team walk that would crop up in many a movie from Armageddon to Tombstone to Monsters Inc.

The Right Stuff has a lot in it that I didn’t delve into, mostly funny little scenes and filmmaking flourishes. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it even if I spoiled most of the big points. It gets into all the details of how America began to conquer space and injects a lot of personality and humor to make sure you don’t tune out during its three hours plus runtime.

Rating: 8/10

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #50: MacArthur (1977)

One of the largest figures of 20^th Century America is General Douglas MacArthur. The son of a Medal of Honor winner from the Civil War, he had quite the military career, achieving the spotlight in three major wars and even in peacetime. He was also a highly controversial character. Imbued with a massive ego, he had nothing less than presidential aspirations and was sure to promote himself, sometimes at the expense of others. At the same time, he was highly regarded by many Asians for his tenure in the Philippines and his governance of post-war Japan, as he was free of the negative racial views that many whites held at the time. Of course, nothing in his career is as divisive as the end of it, his command in Korea when he clashed with President Harry Truman over how to wage an actual hot war during the larger Cold War.

Shockingly, there has only been one proper biographical film on MacArthur, a relatively low budget affair from 1977. One of the challenges of making a movie on MacArthur is that there is much ripe material. Even before World War II he stirred controversy when he used force to quell the Bonus Army of Veterans (the government had refused promised payments to the veterans in the midst of the Great Depression). But there are three parts of MacArthur’s life that would each make a great movie on their own. First is his generalship in World War II, bookended by his humiliating exit from the Philippines and his later triumphal return. Second is his virtual control of Japan right after the war, where he made sweeping western changes to Japan and managed to win respect from the defeated people. Third is his command in Korea, where he reversed disaster, but then provoked a Chinese counterattack and then butted heads with Truman over how to respond.

So which of these great stories did the 1977 film choose? Well, it chose all three. Not only did it do this, but the movie was a mere two hours long. For comparison Patton, which covered just three years of World War II, was three hours. Furthermore, most of the film was shot on backlot sets, not on location. The result is that MacArthur feels like a TV film. The star of the film, Gregory Peck, expressed disappointment with the script and lack of location shooting, feeling that both undercut the scope and complexity of MacArthur’s career. Fortunately Peck himself puts in a fine performance, revealing the figure’s ambition without overplaying it.

Gregory Peck gets into character with
MacArthur's distinctive pipe

Of course, with so much crammed into two hours, the film fails to deliver on its opening text, which states that contemporary and historical opinions on MacArthur widely diverged, some people seeing him as a great American hero, and others as a harmful egotist. Instead of presenting an ambiguous figure you can read into ala George C. Scott’s Patton, MacArthur only has room to show him as a hero with the occasional whiff of failed higher ambition. When MacArthur butts heads over strategy, we don’t get the sense that he might be very wrong except for perhaps his desire to use nukes in Korea. Every now and then we’ll get a little scene with side characters making snide remarks about MacArthur’s ego and the way he surrounds himself with yes men, but we don’t get to see these flaws in action (except perhaps the way he makes sure his return to the Philippines is filmed in inspiring fashion, but Jerry Goldsmith’s music at this moment is approvingly heroic. In real life MacArthur also had the moment staged and filmed several times to get the best shot!).

Furthering the TV movie feel, many of the supporting actors had extensive work in television. MacArthur’s wife Jean is played by Marj Dusay, a regular on soap operas. Ed Flanders, who serves as an antagonistic President Truman in the last act (as the real Truman did in real life) was known for his many Emmy nominations. Dan O’Herlihy, who portrays Franklin Roosevelt, also did quite a bit of TV work, but did have a good movie career as well. His Roosevelt is a jovial figure, often making cracks about MacArthur while still taking the war seriously. It’s hard to latch onto any of MacArthur’s many staff officers. There is one with a mustache (frustratingly I can’t remember the actor or the officer he portrays) who seems to have the job of making sure MacArthur and his plans receive proper promotion.

The film begins with MacArthur making a speech at West Point. As the camera zooms across the listening students, it transitions to the tunnels of Corregidor in the Philippines. This begins the World War II section, which takes roughly half of the movie. By this point the Americans had already fumbled in their response to Japan’s multi-pronged and swift offensives at the end of 1941. Military historians themselves have criticized MacArthur’s response at the start of the 1941-1942 Philippines Campaign. MacArthur wanted to stay and fight it out as the situation grew increasingly desperate, but much to his chagrin was forced to evacuate while most of his army, Americans and Filipinos alike, were captured by the Japanese.

Unlike Patton, MacArthur actually shows parts of the titular
character's family life. This just adds more elements to juggle.

For a while the movie focuses on MacArthur’s desire to get back to the Philippines and rescue the inhabitants. There’s even a fairly lengthy scene where he and Admiral Chester Nimitz are both arguing their cases with Roosevelt. The Navy wants to take Formosa (Taiwan) as it would be a better strategic point from which to hit Japan and quicken the end of the war. MacArthur says the Philippines would work just as well. The movie fails to delve into the idea that MacArthur was putting his personal desires ahead of actual strategy, and may have been trying to feed his ego by fulfilling his promise to return.

Regardless, his passionate arguments win and he makes his grand return. Soon he arrives at a POW camp, where several characters from the start are liberated after years of grueling captivity at the hands of the Japanese. It was here that I realized that the movie had hit a high note, completing MacArthur’s arc, yet it was only half over. As with Patton, the action scenes are small bits thrown in here and there to show us that men are indeed fighting and dying. They’re not bad, but obviously have a lower budget feel to them.

The Japanese surrender delegation on the USS Missouri. Naval aviation officer Mitsuo Fuchida argued that Nimitz, not MacArthur deserved to have the primary American seat at this moment as the Navy was more essential to Japan's defeat.

The film starts to move too quickly with the next section, MacArthur’s rule of Japan. Many consider this to be the actual high point of MacArthur’s career. His command in Korea was rife with controversy and led to his dismissal, and in World War II it was arguably the Navy and the Marines, not the Army, that arguably pulled off the most critical operations (not to say he and the Army didn't have their big moments). But MacArthur showed remarkable political acumen in Japan, perhaps justifying his desire to become president. He was able to be soft where he needed to be, letting the Emperor stay in place to avoid needless incitement, but at the same time could be hard as he forced through changes such as giving women more equality and opening up more land to the lower classes (the latter point draws much attention in the movie, as his subordinates marvel that a devout Republican anti-Communist is practicing land redistribution).

Then it’s on to Korea when Soviet-backed communists in the North Korea launch an attack on the South. The Korean War is sometimes called the Forgotten War in America, and indeed it has received far less attention than World War II or Vietnam. This is reflected in its Hollywood filmography. There are few American films about and half are B-movies made during the war. MacArthur doesn’t have enough time to really focus on it, and the short battle scenes especially feel cheap (the Chinese intervention is a bunch of Communist troops barging into American tents and killing a bunch of guys, hardly the feel of a grand assault). The grand landing at Inchon, where MacArthur flanked and then routed the North Korean Army, is just a light show in the distance while characters on a ship explain what's happening. The script tries to delve into MacArthur and Truman’s arguments about Cold War Policy. As in real life, MacArthur believes that the Americans need to hit back hard, even widen the war or utilize nukes if it has to, or else the Communists will be emboldened by American weakness. Truman believes that the war must be limited, or else the world will suffer an even worse world war. Truman is the president so ultimately he wins, much to MacArthur's extreme disgust.

President Harry Truman (Ed Flanders) visits an airbase with a sour expression.

MacArthur is the type of movie you might show to your kid to quickly introduce them to some history, as it is a fairly accurate picture and not very long. But again, it’s doing too much in too little time. I can’t imagine anyone clamoring to rewatch it unless they’re a massive Douglas MacArthur fan.

Rating: 6/10

I did discover that there was a television film made just the year before called Collision Course: Truman vs. MacArthur. I haven't seen it, but it sounds like it would be a much more in-depth look at the general's Korean War Service. Also, if you want some good Korean War movies, South Korea actually has made a few (they can get really melodramatic, but I do like Taegukgi: Brotherhood of War and The Front Line).

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #49: Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

In the early 2000s Clint Eastwood chose to direct a duology about the Battle of Iwo Jima, one from the American perspective and the other from the Japanese. The Battle of Iwo Jima, fought in February and March of 1945, was one of the last major battles of the Pacific War (with Okinawa later in the year being on a much larger scale). Thanks to General Tadamichi Kurabayashi’s insistence on fighting a drawn-out defensive battle without the suicidal banzai antics, the Japanese were able to put up a lengthy defense and for the only time in the war inflict more casualties on the marines than they themselves received (though they themselves were almost completely killed off). Eastwood’s two movies on the battles were literally released two months apart at the end of 2006. The second, the Japanese-centric Letters from Iwo Jima, is a highly regarded film that humanized the Japanese soldiers (often portrayed as untranslated antagonists from reasons ranging from racism in older movie to the lack of survivors’ sources) and particularly gave western audiences a rare perspective.

Flags of Our Fathers, on the other hand, has gotten a mixed response. We’ll get into the why of it momentarily, but first I want to get to the real reason Iwo Jima has stood so tall in the list of American battles. It was here that the famous photo of the marines planting a large American flag was taken. This image became so iconic that there is a monument in Washington DC based on it. Eastwood’s movie is based on the book by James Bradley, the son of one of the men who helped raise the flag. It turns out that this simple, empowering image of American victory has a very complex and not too shiny history behind it, and that’s what the book and the movie explores.

As shown in the movie, the Marines fought a grueling battle to get to the top of Mount Suribachi, the most commanding height on the island. There was a dramatic moment where a group of six men raised a flag. However, Colonel Chandler Johnson believed the flag was too small, so another larger one was raised. This is the one that entered popular consciousness. Also, while six men raised each flag, they were not all the same. Confounding matters, none of their faces were visible. Thanks to the repeated flag raising and typical issues with memory, it became unclear who was actually in the latter photo.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #48: The Bird Red One (1980)

Samuel Fuller was a pulp writer, journalist, and film creator. In the last category he both directed and wrote screenplays. His films were usually low budget affairs. This was necessary when he felt the need to work outside the Hollywood system and dodge some of the restrictions of the Hays Code (for example, he had an interracial romance between a Japanese-American detective and white blonde in The Crimson Kimono). However, there was one dream project he needed more money for, and that was a war movie based on his own experiences as a 1^st Division infantryman in World War II. The movie almost got into production several times, starting in the 50s, but it was not until 1980 that Fuller got the time and funding to finally bring his vision to life.

Fuller was keen to depict World War II without the typical Hollywood sheen. He avoided the typical route of having a unifying character or plot arc. Instead he simply followed a squad of men throughout America’s involvement in Europe, particularly in the Army’s 1^st Division. The 1^st Division’s red insignia is the reason for the film’s title The Big Red One. Negative critics have not been too keen on this aspect, feeling that the movie rambles from scene to scene. However, this was intentional. A veteran himself, Fuller knew that war was a grind for the soldiers, who moved from one battle and incident to the next until the whole thing was over. Many of the more unusual incidents in the movie actually occurred, with Fuller himself having been involved in an incident where GIs helped a French woman deliver a baby inside a tank.

Underscoring Fuller’s attempt at realism was the casting of Lee Marvin as the nameless Sergeant. Like Fuller, Marvin was an actual World War II vet. He had served with the Marines in the Pacific and was involved in many amphibious assaults, getting wounded at the Battle of Saipan. Marvin himself deeply appreciated The Big Red One, bonding with Fuller over shared aspects of their backgrounds. Marvin was in plenty of war films, but often found them ludicrous and far from what he had experienced, so a more authentic film was a big breath of fresh air for him. Marvin could finally avoid macho stereotypes of the heroic American soldier, instead using certain marine officers’ quiet, authoritative demeanor inform his role as the fatherly sergeant of the other lead characters.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #47: Saving Private Ryan (1998)

 
Saving Private Ryan is the last Spielberg movie to have a major cultural impact. Spielberg had tackled the World War II era several times already, but they were pulpy (Indiana Jones movies), comedic (1941), or dramas showing people overcome horrific conditions (Empire of the Sun and Schindler’s List). Saving Private Ryan was a full-fledged war film focused on the soldiers. The movie revived American pride in its soldiers, particularly of the Greatest Generation, and spawned several war films and shows. In the video game world it helped create a whole subgenre of historical WW2 shooters, with Spielberg himself helping to develop the Medal of Honor series. Several of these games were keen to feature the Omaha Beach landing, with obviously inspired by the start of Saving Private Ryan.

But has the movie held up? General viewers love it, but many history buffs think it has troublesome aspects. Well, let’s get into it. One of the aspects that made this movie so important was how it handled the battle scenes. The one that everybody knows is the Omaha Beach landing at the beginning. The historical context was that the Western Allies, with the US and Great Britain being the largest members, finally created a second western front in Europe when on June 6, 1944 they executed landings on five beaches along the Normandy Coast. Using deception and the cover of bad weather, they were able to face relatively light German resistance. However, this did not mean it was a cake walk.

Of the five beach landings, Omaha Beach has received the most attention. It was a long, horrid slog, with the American soldiers suffering the worst casualties of any Allied group that day. What struck me when rewatching the movie was how long the opening battle scene was. In reality it took hours for the Americans to finally escape the deadly beach and breach the German bunkers and pillboxes, but of course the movie has other things to get through. That being said, Spielberg really conveyed how difficult it was for the Americans to penetrate the defenses, using little tricks and tactics just to advance a few feet.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #46: Patton (1970)

Of the major American generals in World War II, few stand taller than George S. Patton. He was already a well-known and popular figure, standing out for his colorful personality, strange religious beliefs, and his very aggressive tactics. Of course, it helps that he became the subject of one of the best war/biographic films of all time. Patton was a movie that took almost two decades to get into production. Producer Frank McCarthy wanted a biopic made in the early 1950s, but Patton’s widow Beatrice wouldn’t allow it. Even after she died, it took years to finally get into production. This is perhaps for the best, because the fact that the movie was made at the tail end of the 60s allowed for more ambiguity and thematic exploration than was common in the 50s.

Patton’s screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola would ultimately be derived from two major books on World War II. One was journalist Ladislas Farago’s Patton: Ordeal and Triumph. Of more interest is A Soldier’s Story by General Omar Bradley. Bradley was a very modest and practical man, focused more on the welfare of his soldiers and developing effective strategies than getting good press. In the movie he’s the second most important character. Played by Karl Malden, his more everyman persona puts him in stark contrast with the eccentric and loud Patton. Because he’s closer to Patton in rank (subordinate earlier on, but advancing to a superior position when Patton is sidelined), he’s able to call him out while other characters are too cowed or awed. Bradley himself was still alive and kicking in the 60s, so he served as a consultant, though to what extent he influenced the film is unclear. He’s certainly friendlier with Patton than he was in real life, his criticism coming off more as a concerned friend than someone who wishes he wasn’t with the other general.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #45: Guadalcanal Diary (1943)

Most DVDs and blue-rays avoid using this image

The Battle of Guadalcanal was the first Allied offensive in the Pacific War. Guadalcanal was one of the larger of the Solomon Islands, the island chain northeast of Australia. Naturally, the Americans and their allies would first have to take these islands to begin the laborious process of beating the Japanese back towards their home islands. Though often referred to as a battle, it was more like a campaign with many land and naval battles. Unlike many of the later island battles, the Japanese still had a chance of pulling out a victory. Particularly at sea, the Imperial Japanese Navy scored its final victories over the American fleet before beginning a long losing streak. The battles on land were decidedly more in America’s favor, if still heavily contested, and are notable for being the first of many hellish slogs for the US Marine Corps.

I chose Guadalcanal Diary since I had never seen it before, but I must have mixed it up with some other war movie because I was surprised to see it was a black-and-white film released literally the same year of the latter part of the battle in 1943. The movie itself is also a quickly produced adaptation of an equally quickly produced book by journalist Richard Tregaskis. The movie’s opening credits even start on an image of the book, which opens up to reveal the cast and crew on its pages. There's also voiceover narration lifted from the book. Tregaskis accompanied the Marines during the campaign and diligently wrote down anything of note. He then compiled it into Guadalcanal Diary. Thanks to its factual presentation of events, free of dramatic license, the book was a smash hit, becoming Random House’s first major seller (I often see old copies of it working at an online bookseller).

The movie itself is unique on my watchlist in that it was released smack dab in the middle of the war. This means two things. First, there is no ability to seriously reflect on the wider implications of the battle. In fact the movie is completely from the point of view of the lower ranks, so don’t expect much in the way of big picture strategy or major military leaders. Secondly, this is a pure propaganda piece, and it’s because of this that it feels a bit hollow as a dramatic story.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #44: Midway (1976)

The Battle of Midway was the great turning point of the Pacific War, just half a year after the Attack on Pearl Harbor that got America into the overall global war. The cause was the Doolittle Raid (discussed in my last review) which is featured in the opening credits of this review’s subject. The ability of the Americans to launch a raid on Japanese soil, no matter how pitifully small, actually gave Admiral Yamamoto approval from high command to draw the Americans into a decisive naval battle. Yamamoto had chafed at the failure to find and destroy the US aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor and had then been forced to use the Imperial Japanese Navy to support the Army’s conquests across Southeast Asia. A major Japanese victory could set back the American Navy months, buying Japan time to fortify its gains. On June 4, the Japanese and American fleets would clash near Midway Island in what turned out to be an important, perhaps decisive American victory. The loss of four Japanese carriers gave the Americans the momentum they needed to start driving their enemy from their conquests.

Understandably, the Battle of Midway has gotten three major filmed treatments, all historically accurate in terms of what happened. It was the only battle to receive full-fledged onscreen attention in the War and Remembrance mini-series (based on former navy man Herman Wouk’s World War II novels). In 2019 Roland Emmerich released his own movie that tried to be palatable to today’s attention-deficit general audiences, but still failed at the box office (I think it’s a fine film, but could use some extra oomph). This review goes back to the 1976 film, which was a box office hit, but hasn’t aged that well as a piece of movie-making.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #43: Pearl Harbor

We finally get to World War II, and we start with one of the more lambasted historical epics. Before we get into the movie itself, here’s a brief historical overview of Pearl Harbor. The United States, despite President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s desire to get involved, wanted to stay out of the large wars that had broken out in Europe and China during the late 1930s. By 1941, however, the nation was already starting to get entangled. For example, the US was appalled by the horrific atrocities Japan was committing in China, so it decided to cut off oil exports. Needing oil to continue its war in China, the Japanese decided to strike at the American and European colonial powers in a rapid, surprise onslaught. The date of the attack was December 7, 1941 (December 8 if you were in Asia).

Pearl Harbor is considered a great example of a bad movie, though also quite watchable for the most part. Much of the blame for it has been placed on the director Michael Bay, who’s known for many really stupid but financially successful films. However, while Bay does share some blame, it should be noted that Buena Vista Pictures (this is a Disney movie!) had a much bigger say in how Pearl Harbor turned out. Bay had originally wanted an R-rated update on Tora, Tora, Tora (1970), the highly regarded near-documentary on the famous Pearl Harbor attack, taking advantage of CGI and other modern technical innovations.

The studio had other ideas. James Cameron’s historical disaster epic Titanic had just made box-office and Oscar history. Since Pearl Harbor was also a great historical disaster (and one that involved ships, no less), Michael Bay was told to make something similar, a three-hour romance set amid the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #42: The Grapes of Wrath (1940)

 

Most films set during the Great Depression tend to focus on the criminals that were active at the time or just use the economic downturn as a background event for a fictional story (think King Kong). However, there is one major work, adapted from a book, that looks at the actual economic effects on the working class. John Steinbeck’s 1939 novel The Grapes of Wrath was a product of research he did for a series of articles on migrant workers in California during the Great Depression. He was struck by the plight of the migrants, their poverty, desperation, and struggle against limited jobs and exploitation. These migrants were perhaps the hardest hit people of the Depression, as just after the economic downturn the Dust Bowl, a series of dust storms, destroyed thousands of farms and livelihoods. Steinbeck decided to write the tale of the Joads, a tenant farmer family that, after being forced off their land by the company they work for, all pack into one overloaded car and head to California, where there is the promise of employment and thus food and dignity. Instead they find frustration and suffering.

The book was a big success and remains a fixture of top American novels today. 20^th Century Fox immediately decided to adapt it to the big screen with none other than John Ford at the helm. The resulting movie was released less than a year after the novel’s publication. Thus Grapes of Wrath the first case on my watchlist where the movie was released amidst the same historical event it was covering, as thousands of migrant farmers were still struggling in southern California (albeit with the worst of the Dust Bowl’s effects having passed). As with the novel, the film is highly regarded and is no stranger to greatest films lists.

The first half of the movie is very accurate to the novel. Thomas Joad (Henry Fonda), is a paroled prisoner who heads to his family’s farm in Oklahoma. He finds the farm abandoned and inhabited by one of the neighbors, Muley Graves. Using narration and flashback footage, we learn that the farmers, now unable to pay the landowners, are being evicted. In some cases the homes they grew up and lived in have been bulldozed. Tom finally finds his family and they head west to California.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #41: Public Enemies

 

There were so many famed outlaws during the early 30s that I chose to do another one. My choice is John Dillinger, and the movie is Michael Mann’s Public Enemies. It originated as a book by journalist Bryan Burrough’s Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI. It encompassed all the great criminals and Burroughs hoped to see it turned into a dramatic miniseries. After a few twists and turns, however, it became a theatrical film with a singular focus on John Dillinger.

John Dillinger grew into a troublesome youth in Mooresville, Indiana and committed a robbery. He was sentenced to a surprisingly harsh sentence of ten to twenty years in prison. Instead of turning him straight, his incarceration hardened him and kept him around experienced criminals who taught him all sorts of things. When he came out, he developed into the infamous bank robber. Like Bonnie and Clyde, he received exaggerated press and some romanticizing, but even professional historians and journalists note that he had his good qualities. This made him a good subject for Michael Mann, who specializes in showing the good and bad sides of cops and criminals alike.

Most of what’s in Public Enemies is true, but jumbled around chronologically for narrative purposes. For example, the Sioux Falls Robbery combines elements of three of Dillinger’s crimes, with Dillinger’s wounding and the incident of a teen jumping onto the back of one of the robbers before being thrown off through a window. In another example, the Little Bohemia hideout and shooting actually occurred after, not before, the arrest of Dillinger’s girlfriend Billy Frechette (Marion Cotillard, more on her later). Furthermore, Baby Face Nelson, while present, made his escape and would actually die four months later than Dillinger on November 27, 1934. While the chronology is mixed, Mann did go to a lot of trouble to shoot on real sites and even had some locations altered to look more like they did back in the 30's.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #40: Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

 

The cities saw the rise of organized crime in the early 20^th Century. Meanwhile, for a few years at the end of the 20s and into the early 30s, the small towns and rural areas of the American Midwest and South saw a collection of the classic outlaw, updated for modern times. Instead of gangs of robbers riding horses, the likes of Machine Gun Kelly, John Dillinger, and the Ma Barker Gang drove from town to town, hitting banks or in some cases pulling off kidnappings for ransom. The stars of this particular movie are Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, more simply known as Bonnie and Clyde.

Aside from their long string of crimes, the duo was widely known for the simple fact that they were a devoted romantic couple (Wikipedia doesn’t even give them separate pages). Also, like many of the highway robbers of the time, they displayed a “ride-or-die” attitude, engaging in illegal and violent activities with seemingly no actual exit plan. Eventually a posse of Texas and Louisiana lawmen ambushed them on the Louisiana State Highway 154 on May 23, 1934, riddling them with about 130 bullets. Over 30 years later, the famed villains were turned into antiheroes in Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde.

Bonnie and Clyde was one of the first New Hollywood films. By the late 60s, the stringent Hays Code was on its way out. At the same time popular culture was starting to grow more cynical and anti-authoritarian. As a result, Bonnie and Clyde (Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty) as well as their fellow gang members got a heroic lift. They can be chummy with random strangers (including hostages), openly sympathize with farmers struggling with the effects of the Great Depression, and are just all around likeable people when not robbing banks. Actually, one of the stranger aspects of the movie is that while romanticizing the leads it still presents a couple of their ugly moments, such as when Clyde blasts a civilian in the face for hanging onto their car in an attempt to slow them down. For the most part, though, their violence is directed at law enforcement, reflecting the counterculture of the time.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #38 and #39: Al Capone (1959) and The Untouchables (1987)

Of the many criminals who have become big names in American history, perhaps none has stood out more than Al Capone. Alphonse Capone was born and raised in New York City, where he soon got into that gang scene and then became part of what would later become the Mafia. During this time another hoodlum, angry at a remark Capone made to his sister, slashed his face and gave him the nickname “Scarface”. Capone moved to Chicago, where he rose to become the head of the mob. Unlike other mob bosses, he loved public attention and was practically winking at the Law as he managed alcohol bootlegging, gambling racketeering, protection rackets, and other illegal enterprises. Eventually he got nailed on tax evasion and went to prison, but not before helping establish the Chicago Outfit that would dominate the underworld for decades.

Originally the movie industry disallowed real outlaw figures on film, moreso later in the 30s with the Hays Code, but the story of Capone’s rise and fall inspire many crime pictures. Most obvious was Scarface, which used his nickname for an ambitious but violent Italian-American ganger named Tony Camonte (Paul Muni). This movie even has him in Chicago leading an Italian-heavy south side gang against the rival north siders. Late in the 50s, restrictions were loosened and finally Capone made it to the big screen as himself. I’ve decided to review two movies, one where he’s the main character and the other where he’s the villainous antagonist.

Al Capone (1959)

Of all the higher profile actors in Hollywood in the 1950s, Rod Steiger was the best choice. It’s hard to find someone who looks like Capone, but Steiger does have a rounder head like him. The makers of Capone’s first big screen outing certainly thought he was the guy, because they had to rewrite the script several times to gain his acceptance. Reportedly, earlier drafts softened up the gangster. It’s not clear why, but perhaps it was going to focus on his more sympathetic qualities. Steiger wanted people to understand how bad Capone really was and how he hurt people. With little more than 100 minutes to cover Capone’s entire criminal career, however, it was probably wise not to spend time on his soup kitchens and other charitable works, which might have been cynical ploys to deflect negative public perception anyway.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #37: Eight Men Out (1988)

While watching an enraged Al Capone talk about baseball while bashing in the head of a subordinate in the Untouchables, I realized I had no movie about baseball, the great American sport, on my 250^th Anniversary watchlist. Perhaps I should have gone for the more triumphal Pride of the Yankees, which focuses on New York Yankees star Lou Gehrig alongside the greatest of all time, Babe Ruth, but with all the crime movies I’ve been watching I found myself drawn to Eight Men Out, the story of how said octet colluded with gamblers and mobsters to throw the 1919 World Series.

Based on baseball journalist Eliot Asinof’s book of the same name, Eight Men Out tells the story of how the star-studded Chicago White Sox decided to purposefully lose the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds, and how the particular players involved were forever banned from the big leagues. One may wonder why a sports team would throw away an opportunity for fame and respect like that. First of all, virtually the same team had already won the Series in 1917, so they already had that feather in their cap. Secondly, and more importantly, baseball players back then were often not paid that well, so getting a big cut from a bet to lose was way more attractive. These days, when people argue that athletes are seriously overpaid, it’s hard to see such a thing happening. The White Sox in particular suffered from the cost-cutting measures of owner Charles Comiskey (Clifton James), who would pull stunts to get out of paying players bonuses. One such incident, featured in the movie albeit after a different game, was when instead of extra pay he awarded champagne. Said champagne was also flat.

I am far from a sports historian, so I had to take a crash course (this link helped with the inaccuracies). I won’t list all the little inaccuracies, but it should be noted that Eight Men Out exists in a strange place where it’s both very faithful yet inaccurate. This is because Asinof’s book was written at a time when sports journalism was less rigorous and based more on hearsay and not completely verified anecdotes. Still, it’s a compelling sad story.