The Steel Helmet.

Review #2234: The Steel Helmet.

Cast: 

Gene Evans (Sergeant Zack), Robert Hutton (Private Bronte), Steve Brodie (Lieutenant Driscoll), James Edwards (Corporal Thompson), Richard Loo (Sergeant Tanaka), Sid Melton (Joe), Richard Monahan (Private Baldy), William Chun ("Short Round"), Harold Fong (The Red), Neyle Morrow (First GI), and Lynn Stalmaster (Second Lieutenant) Written, Produced, and Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row)

Review: 

"I hate violence. That has never prevented me from using it in my films. It's part of human nature." - Samuel Fuller

It isn't too surprising that there were a few films made about the war effort in Korea while the war there was occurring, particularly one made by a veteran of the last World War. Samuel Fuller had served in the United States Army within the infantry. He went from working on screenplays to offering his services to direct with I Shot Jesse James (1949), which worked well enough to get him to continue as a director, which led to The Baron of Arizona (1950). With this film, he added producer to his line of credits (each of these first films were produced in some way by Robert L. Lippert). In his autobiography, he stated that he wanted to make a movie different from the usual stuff seen involving war, such as seeing the "genuine hardship of soldiers" to go with the fact that war in its confusion and brutality needed to be shown more so than straight heroism. Fuller cast Evans (an actor who had done only bit parts after returning from U.S. Army after having served as an engineer) on the strength of his actions when he approached for the role: when Fuller tossed an M1 rifle at him, he grabbed it, complete with racking it back when asked to by Fuller. He was kept even when suggestions were made to cast Larry Parks (of course, bigger studios earlier had thought of making it with John Wayne as the lead). Fuller shot exteriors for the film at Griffith Park in Los Angeles. His attempts to show the "organized insanity" that comes in war managed to ruffle feathers on each side (lefty or not), particularly with a visit with Army officials because of certain actions depicted in the film that, well, matched with actual events seen by Fuller, such as the shooting of a prisoner of war. The resulting film was a general hit (incidentally, the war would enter a period of stalemates that lasted until the 1953 ceasefire) that saw Fuller get a contract with 20th Century Fox for a time, for which his next film in Fixed Bayonets! (1951) also was a war film.

What we have is a straight-to-the-point story that manages to achieve the brilliance of looking like a thoughtful movie about the madness that arises in war that struck differently from the angle of the time within budgetary limitations that do more than if it had been a multimillion-dollar film. One gets an honest movie for 85 minutes with a worthwhile ensemble that shows the worry that arises from being packed in such a rough situation without turning it into a mark for eventual ra-ra heroism. In fact, the end of the film merely has a card saying, "There is no end to this story", which one doesn't usually get from their war films. It stokes curiosity for seeing strangers in a strange land rather than just being a mark for patriotism. Of course, they also don't usually see people asked about why they maintained their service even in the face of racism back home (such as the prior internment of Japanese Americans less than ten years prior). Fuller acts on his instincts to make a pulpy war film (dedicated to the U.S. infantry, as seen in the intro) that likely will leave a cutting impression on its viewer after it is finished. It doesn't take long to see the wisdom of having casted Evans (who would feature in a few more Fuller films) when it comes to his naturalistic performance that we follow along with in great interest in its gruff glory from the word go. The melting pot within the people around Evans is a curious one (one even is a conscientious objector) that consisted of actors who either didn't get many chances to get their due that do pretty well, such as the weariness played by Loo (a Hawaiian-born actor with Chinese ancestry that did plenty of stock roles) and Edwards. The bond of Evans and Chun is a curious one because of how each fit in the loosest of senses with the others, particularly since most of it is spent in a Buddhist temple with tension bubbling among these strangers that probably match the quote stated best in the film involving two kinds of soldiers, "those who are dead and those who are going to die." Aside from its partial time with Fong, one is mostly here with these shaky band of brothers before that fateful climax (as skillfully done with a handful of extras in a park) that drifts to a sobering conclusion for those who survive as opposed to the ones that did not get killed that day. As such, this is a worthwhile hard-nosed war film that rises above expectations with a useful cast and director all working in stride that results in an honest winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Home of the Brave (1949).

Review #1797: Home of the Brave.

Cast: 

Jeff Corey (Doctor), James Edwards (Private Peter Moss), Lloyd Bridges (Finch), Douglas Dick (Major Robinson), Frank Lovejoy (Sergeant Mingo), Steve Brodie (T.J. Everett), and Cliff Clark (Colonel Baker) Directed by Mark Robson.

Review:

1949 was an interesting year for showing Black Americans. A quartet of features came out with varying levels of interest from Hollywood in telling an interesting story involving African Americans that differed from previous years (i.e. roles percieved as demeaning): Intruder in the Dust (1949), Lost Boundaries (1949), Pinky (1949), and this film. The first film was a crime drama adaptation of a William Faulkner novel, while the second one was based on a nonfiction account of a doctor who had passed for white in the 1930s/1940s, and the third was a drama adaptation incolving a woman passing for white that finds purpose in the South while re-claiming her identity. It should be mentioned, of course, that the latter two featured white actors in the starring roles. Home of the Brave (1949) does not do that here, if only because it is a film with a small cast that utilizes James Edwards with enough screen time to essentially make him the star focus in a medical war drama, filmed on modest sets over the course of a month.  The film is adapted from the 1945 play of the same name, which had been written by Arthur Laurents. He had served in the United States Army under the Pictoral Service. While the play did not run well with audiences to merit a long run, critics liked it and its themes of friendship, loyalty, and dealing with antisemitism. Producer Stanley Kramer latched onto making a film about the play, although it was the decision of screenwriter Carl Foreman to change the main character from being a Jewish person to an African American in an attempt to avoid comparisons to recent films such as 1947's Gentlemen's Agreement and Crossfire (ironically, that movie only had a theme of racism/anti-Semitism because the novel's theme of homophobia was not allowed to be shown for a film). Mark Robson had started directing with Val Lewton's unit at RKO Radio Pictures in 1943 before he directed Foreman's script in Champion (1949).

Of course, one thing that seemed to slip by at the time was the fact that the U.S. Army was segregated until 1948. At any rate, I should not be surprised that Kramer and Foreman were behind this film, because they would do another film involving the plight of recovering from the scars of war with The Men (that film dealt with paralyzed veterans as opposed to psychoanalysis), particularly when stuff like The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) was an audience favorite. Atbany rate, this film ended up being a modest success by making over $2.5 million. This was the first starring role for James Edwards (who had appeared in The Set-Up earlier in the year); the Indiana native had studied psychology at Knoxville College before moving onto Northwestern University in drama, and he served in the Army as a first lieutenant. While it ended up being his most well-known role, Edwards would appear in over two dozen feature films while also writing a number of books before his untimely death in 1970 at the age of 51. Edwards proves to be the highlight of the film, wrapped with encompassing sensitivity and tension that doesn't buckle when with a crowd (read: group of five). Basically, he makes a solid lead to follow with for a war movie with semi-effective accuracy in trying to draw raw emotion onto the screen when it comes to treating folks the way one wants to be treated (particularly in war). Bridges is the warmest presence around the group (as one would expect from a sentimental favorite), but he still pulls attention without soft depth, at least when compared to the hard nosed guys like Lovejoy or the heavy in Brodie. Corey makes a decent figure in the "analysis" parts, which don't drag the film longer than it needs to go in flashback before its 88 minute runtime is up. One could see why this certainly seemed more fitting for the stage than film (setting aside one character reading poetry at times), but it manages to be just entertaining enough with its sense of interest in making a worthwhile hard-hitting story that doesnt fall prey to soapbox moments. Among a year filled with attempts at telling different stories involving African Americans, this is a solid winner that tackles prejudice with dutiful conviction and a solid lead in Edwards to make it work.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Next Time: No Way Out (1950)

Patton.

Review #1434: Patton.

Cast: 
George C. Scott (Major General George S. Patton), Karl Malden (Major General Omar N. Bradley), Michael Bates (General Bernard Montgomery), Edward Binns (Lieutenant General Walter Bedell Smith), Lawrence Dobkin (Colonel Gaston Bell), John Doucette (Major General Lucian Truscott), James Edwards (Sergeant William George Meeks), Frank Latimore (Lieutenant Colonel Henry Davenport), Richard Münch (Colonel General Alfred Jodl), Morgan Paull (Captain Richard N. Jenson), Siegfried Rauch (Captain Oskar Steiger), and Paul Stevens (Lieutenant Colonel Charles R. Codman) Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner (#347 - Planet of the Apes and #580 - The Best Man)

Review: 
Acting changes the inner spirit. It's fulfilling, but psychologically very costly. You can't steal enough money in a lifetime to make up for the damage. I'm ashamed for the bitterness it created in me, but it exists. Even when you're successful it's hard to rise above it. It's like a growth.


Perhaps it is not too hyperbolic to describe this as the military biopic to try and end all military biopics. The director responsible for such a grand portrait of a man bigger than life was Franklin J. Schaffner, a veteran of World War II for the Navy that worked for over a decade in television with programs such as such as Studio One and Playhouse 90 before adding films to his repertoire with The Stripper (1963). This film proved to be the pinnacle of his career, although he had (and would make) other noted films such as The Best Man (1964), Planet of the Apes (1968) and Papillon (1973). Adapting the larger-than-life general to the screen was a long process, not helped by being denied access to Patton's diaries. Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North would write the script based on two works: Patton: Ordeal and Triumph from Ladislas Farago (a Hungarian military historian and journalist) and A Soldier's Story, written by Omar Bradley (General of the Army and consultant for the film). At the helm as star was George C. Scott, who made a name for himself on stage, television and supporting roles in film starting in 1958 that eventually grew into further prominent work by the time the 1960s had ended. He had acquired the part after Rod Steiger rejected it (he stated that he did not want to glorify war, but he subsequently called it his "dumbest career move"), with this serving as the role Scott became best known for in his career, and he would later return to the role in a TV movie The Last Days of Patton sixteen years later. Schaffner, Coppola, North, and Patton would each win an Academy Award for their work (although Scott would famously refuse to accept the award, having objected to the voting process and competition for actors as a whole).

One thing that can immediately be said about the film that applies to Scott as well is the fact that neither ever seem to flinch for 170 minutes. Whether one sees an enigma with the person portrayed on screen or not, one cannot deny the gripping performance from Scott, who is relentless in conviction and stature that springs right from the opening scene with the speech to the Third Army, standing right by an American flag. The sequence (which utilized statements from the actual speech, albeit toned down in language) is a magnificent way to open the film, filled with no-nonsense bluster and rallying spirit for a war movie made in the midst of another war (perhaps one can infer something from this, as was the case with the other hit war film in M*A*S*H, which was beaten in the race for Best Picture at the Academy Awards that year). One doesn't think about the other members of the cast much when it comes to a film like this, nor do they really think about all the history leading up to Patton being where he is as the man of the moment - one might even believe that Scott and Patton have melded together to make for one encompassing performance that we care for in all of its imperfect perfections. Probably the one person who makes for substantial screen time to follow alongside Scott is Malden, who makes for a reserved but dignified contrast when he shows up from time to time, while the others fill their parts with care that don't fall prey to the contrivances that can sometimes pop up in a biopic (of course this is a movie that covers Patton from just 1943-1945). The battle sequences certainly work out in terms of scope, no doubt aided by being filmed in 65mm Dimension 150 and Jerry Goldsmith's sweeping musical score. While a film will never completely tell the tale of any one man (particularly one as colorful as Patton), this one manages to draw a composed picture on its subject with bombast and precision, which work out most of the time as an enigmatic but involving epic for the era.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962).

Review #985: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast:
Frank Sinatra (Maj. Bennett Marco), Laurence Harvey (Raymond Shaw), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Iselin), Janet Leigh (Eugenie Rose Chaney), Henry Silva (Chunjin), James Gregory (Sen. John Yerkes Iselin), Leslie Parrish (Jocelyn Jordan), John McGiver (Sen. Thomas Jordan), Khigh Dheigh (Dr. Yen Lo), and James Edwards (Cpl. Allen Melvin) Directed by John Frankenheimer (#559 - Grand Prix)

Review:
This film is often billed as a neo-noir along with being called a suspense thriller, and while I'd argue the latter label applies more than the other, I can't deny the quality of the film, which is tremendous. It manages to be a cohesive thriller due to how it utilizes its cast. Each of the main cast members shine in the roles that they play, from Sinatra and his capable heroism to Lansbury and her cold calculative nature. Leigh isn't as big of a standout, but she does certainly contrast with the weirdness of the characters that form the story. Dheigh doesn't have much screen-time, but he does a fine job in an adversarial role. But it is Harvey and how he portrays this complex character that truly stands out. His scenes about how "unlovable" he is particularly a good standout in understanding the nature of his character, where he isn't merely an unlikable dupe. His moments in the film with Parrish and McGiver aren't too long, but they contrast perfectly in comparison with his scenes opposite Lansbury and Gregory, and those scenes certainly do lend to an emotional payoff, for better or for worse. Speaking of which, Lansbury and Gregory are also finely cast, with one of my favorite scenes being their exchange over the latter needing a more memorable number to use in his speeches. There are numerous parts of the film that serve as fine highlights (such as Harvey jumping into a lake with Sinatra watching), but I think the scene with Harvey and his men is a particular good one in how it executes itself with a fine sense of cleverness even with a premise as odd as brainwashing (or the motives) seems. This is a film that manages to lure you in with suspense without being too obvious about it along with taking its time, with a riveting climax to boot. On the whole, this is a fine feature that has enough from its cast and its style of telling its story with thrills.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.