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 #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.

Louis Allen's Burma: The Longest War, 1941-1945 (Book Review)

 

Allen, Louis. Burma: The Longest War, 1941-1945. Harry N. Abrams, 2019. London Phoenix Press, 1984.

The Burmese front in World War II is called the “Forgotten War”. In fact it was referred to as this even while it was still being fought. In Southeast Asia, it was the lowest on the Allies’ priorities in supply and strategy. Thus it is often overlooked, though there is sizeable literature on the subject. One of the most valuable sources on this front is Louis Allen’s The Longest War. Allen actually served there as an intelligence officer. With his wartime intelligence work and knowledge of the Japanese language, he not only relied on British sources, but also delved into Japanese ones through archival material and interviews with veterans (there were more survivors from continental than island fronts, as soldiers had somewhere to withdraw if defeated). Thus, unlike many other works on the Burma Campaign, the Japanese side of the story is exhaustively covered.