Quick takes on 5 war films

Been wanting to watch The Naked and the Dead because it is based on the book I read a couple years ago. It takes place during World War II in the Pacific campaign as a military unit tries to capture a (seemingly?) significant, small island. Obviously a lot was cut, as the book was a big one at over 700 pages, and the film clocks in just over 2 hours, but all the biggest scenes are there, including the nighttime defense of a river crossing, and the climactic reconnaissance mission of a small troop behind enemy lines. Unfortunately what is missing is the detailed character development. The book has a platoon’s worth of major characters, each with their own story and idiosyncrasies. The movie looks closely at 2 or 3 people, such as the hard-lined egotistical general leading it all, but the rest might as well be nameless, faceless soldiers, and as a whole, it is a pretty ho-hum war film. I think if I had seen the movie first, I’d have enjoyed it more, because it’s not like it is poorly done or anything, but it doesn’t hold a candle to Norman Mailer’s great work. ★★½

Stanley Kubrick made a name for himself with his first commercial success, 1957’s Paths of Glory, starring Kirk Douglas. Douglas plays French Colonel Dax in the trenches of World War I. His unit is ordered by General Mireau to advance on an impregnable enemy encampment known as “the anthill.” Everyone knows the majority of the group will die, but Dax does his best to carry out the orders. When the mission inevitably fails in a retreat, Mireau even orders his gunners to shoot on his own troops to try to force them to continue the attack. The gunners refuse, and Mireau tries to cover up his own order. To punish the unit for retreating, three random men are chosen to face trial for cowardice, and Dax offers to defend them. The trial, of course, is a farce, and the three are found guilty in just a few minutes, and sentenced to death by firing squad. Dax makes a latch ditch effort to save them with news to the higher-ups about Mireau’s order, but to no avail. Tremendous film, and in Kubrick fashion, amazing cinematography. The battle scene between the trenches is outstanding in its detail, and so real that it looks like it comes from a movie made today, not 60+ years ago. Even in those early years of Kubrick’s career, he was a talent far ahead of his time. ★★★★½

Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence comes from Japanese director Nagisa Oshima, whose controversial films include In the Realms of the Senses and Empire of Passion. This film is much different though, and not just because it features many English speaking actors. It takes place at a Japanese POW camp during World War II. Camp director Captain Yonoi (Ryuichi Sakamoto) is a fair but strict leader, often keeping his underlings in line, including Sergeant Hara (Takeshi Kitano). Yonoi’s carefully laid camp is thrown in disarray with the arrival of Major Jack Celliers (David Bowie), who has a penchant for pushing boundaries and standing up for injustices. Trying to keep the peace between the English prisoners and the Japanese guards is Lt. Colonel Lawrence (Tom Conti), who speaks fluent Japanese thanks to living there before the war. Lawrence and Hara share a kinship, as do Celliers and Yonoi, though in a much different way. Both Celliers and Yonoi are dealing with major regret from actions they did before the war, and also, Yonoi seems to hold some latent homosexual feelings for the rugged Celliers (it wouldn’t be an Oshima film without some pent-up sexual frustrations!). All this culminates in a powerful standoff in the final moments of the film. This picture has some truly great acting by all four leads, and a funky psychedelic soundtrack, and while there is a lot to dissect here psychologically, I found the whole of it to be just a bit better than average. ★★★

Overlord is a powerful and profound film from 1975, directed by Stuart Cooper. There’s not much of a story, but one isn’t needed for this short (80 minute) movie about a man pondering his place in the world during World War II. Tom is a young English man newly called to join up with the army as they plan their invasion of Europe. As we see Tom go through training, interspersed throughout is archival footage of actual battles during the war. We see planes dropping bombs, ship-to-ship battles, and fire brigades trying to save cities that are burning to the ground around them. While this is going on in the world, Tom envisions his own death and contemplates his small space in this wider world. Finally the order comes down for the D-Day invasion, an order Tom isn’t aware of because as a lowly private, he isn’t privy to what the plans are. Ultimately his premonitions hold true, and he dies from a stray bullet while on the transport to the beach, having never filed his gun. But then the filmmakers do something amazing: after they’ve shown you all of the death and destruction, they zoom out and show the world from above. It is peaceful and serene, and definitely worth fighting for. A beautiful film. ★★★★

Ride With the Devil is a newer film, from 1999, from director Ang Lee, whose long career has more hits (Life of Pi, Brokeback Mountain) than misses (Gemini Man, the original Hulk reboot). This one takes place during the Civil War and shows the bloody conflicts between southern Missourians and union-allied Kansas Jayhawkers, showing the war as a true neighbor vs neighbor conflict. In a rare move, the heroes of the movie are the southerners, and it vilifies the north, at least in the beginning (though as time goes by, the main character comes to realize things about his “friends”). It has a strong cast full of recognizable faces, with some who had recently achieved stardom (Tobey Maguire, Jim Caviezel), some whose best days were behind them (Skeet Ulrich), and some who had yet to hit their big break (Mark Ruffalo, Jeffrey Wright). The movie is beautifully shot with detailed sets and tremendous cinematography, but ultimately it’s not all that memorable. Not all of the actors are as great as those I’ve mentioned (I’m looking at you Jewel), and the large cast can’t hide the poorer ones. And there is some downright shoddy dialogue in spots. It also doesn’t get as contemplative as it obviously attempts to, such as scenes where a southern man laments the loss of their ways with the northerners attempting to provide schools to people of all ilk, and all this being said in front of a character who is far more educated than his immigrant father. I do appreciate that the film makes the conflict about much more than slavery, attempting to show deep-seated cultural differences. Its worthy of a single watch for lovers of historical films (of which I am), but that’s about it. ★★½