|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 17, 2023 2:36:57 GMT
Coming up:
Korea
May 6
THE STEEL HELMET (1951)
May 13
FIXED BAYONETS! (1951)
Vietnam
May 20
COMING HOME (1978)
May 27
BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989)
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 6, 2023 7:00:03 GMT
Essential: THE STEEL HELMET (1951)
TopBilled:
When viewing THE STEEL HELMET I had to keep reminding myself that this film was shown to audiences while the Korean War was actually in its earliest stages. It was released in January 1951, and the Korean War had only just gotten underway in June 1950. It would be a war that officially lasted until 1953, though what happened still affects us today, since north and south are still divided and the U.S. military presence is still needed in South Korea. Writer-director Samuel Fuller had already made two low-budget features for independent producer Robert Lippert. These included 1949’s western biopic I SHOT JESSE JAMES and the 1950 noir biopic THE BARON OF ARIZONA. Fuller was no stranger to provocative subject matter, which would be a hallmark of his story telling for the duration of his career in Hollywood. Originally, Fuller had been employed as a reporter; he segued into a career as a motion picture screenwriter. During the mid-1940s, like so many other men from his generation, he saw combat during WWII.Lippert only gave Fuller a minuscule budget to make THE STEEL HELMET. But that initial investment of $104,000 led to box office receipts in excess of $2 million. The film affected audiences profoundly, probably because it was showing on screen some of the idiosyncrasies and tragedies of what was occurring in Korea, before television took hold. Undoubtedly viewers wanted to know more than what they had heard on radio or seen in short newsreels. What makes THE STEEL HELMET such a classic is the way Fuller submerges a military hero (Gene Evans) into a situation that is fraught with danger and biased cultural attitudes. Fuller smartly depicts the relationship of the soldier and a Korean boy (William Chun) in a non-stereotypical, yet poignant way. The duo meet after Evans survives a massacre thanks to luck and the titular headpiece he’s wearing. The boy befriends him, and they soon meet up with a black medic (James Edwards) who had also survived recent attacks. They become an unlikely trio venturing forward in a time and place of great uncertainty. Some of it does get a bit too “message-driven” since Fuller’s script contains much dialogue about racism. And we also have Evans’ character using a Buddhist temple as an observation post, which was probably Fuller’s idea of inserting eastern religion into the mix and extolling some of its virtues over western religion. Later, the boy is killed, which provides one of the film’s most heartbreaking moments; and of course, we are supposed to feel wounded inside when this happens.Despite Fuller’s attempts at a clear and concise narrative, there are some loose ends in this picture. Aspects of the story leave the viewer with unanswered questions. For example, it may have helped to know more about what led one of the supporting characters, a conscientious objector, to eventually join the military. Also, viewers would probably like to know what it was like for the black medic to get drafted. His lines regarding segregation and sitting in the back of the bus give us a unique window into his particular culture and struggles. He has come upon foreign land with the hope that civil rights are not only valued back home in the U.S., but also in an Asiatic battlefront threatened by the encroachment of communism.***Jlewis:
July 27, 2023 marks the 70th anniversary of armistice day for the Korean War, sometimes dubbed a “forgotten war” and, thus, likely to be overlooked somewhat in the various media outlets. Yet it was a very important one on the world stage, despite ending as a draw with the Soviet and China influenced communist forces maintaining control over the northern half of the peninsula and the United States and fellow United Nations keeping the south capitalistic. Today, the latter nation, due in a small part to U.S. support but mostly due to the tremendous hard work and determination of the Korean citizens, boasts the sixth largest economy in the industrialized world (depending on fluctuating annual rankings) and, in the last four decades at least, has also enjoyed artistic and cultural impact internationally as well. (Trivial note: PARASITE was the first Oscar winner for both Best Picture and “International Feature Film” in 2020, a milestone that no other country has yet achieved with the Hollywood establishment.)Surprisingly, apart from M*A*S*H (more so the TV series than the not-so-gracefully-aged feature film that preceded it), there have not been many Korean War movies of high quality like there have been for other 20th century wars. The two that we are reviewing this month are among the better-profiled ones, made while the war was taking place when no outcome could be predicted.Side-note: Another one that we could potentially cover in the future is Owen Crump’s semi-documentary CEASE FIRE!, which was filmed at the tail-end of the conflict. It has two intriguing features: it was the very first 3-D shot-in-the-battlefield movie (1953 saw 3-D much the rage, although stereo-photography in still battlefield images date back almost a century earlier to the Civil War) and, secondly, its star, Ricardo Carrasco, died in combat and Crump was forced to do some important editing changes as a result. What made the situation strangely surreal was that Carrasco filmed a bogus “death” scene for Crump’s camera on the morning of July 6, 1953 and died at the front just before midnight the same day! But, back to our main feature here… THE STEEL HELMET was directed by Samuel Fuller in October 1950, just four months after the war began, and released in January 1951. It is a product of its time with one cast member Harold Fong playing a character simply titled “the Red:” such films do have some unintentional humor in their broad brushstrokes with Korea dubbed here in dialogue as a land of “rice paddies crawlin’ with commies.”On the plus side, there is some attempt to address all-American racism, even in our opening scenes when Sgt. Zack (Gene Evans) is rescued after battle by a bare-foot teen boy (William Chun) whom he sarcastically mocks but, then, is greeted by the passionate response of “I am no gook. I am Korean!” Unfortunately, he is referenced by the nickname of “Short Round” instead of his correct name. One pleasing aspect to Korean War movies, including those made in the fifties, is that the U.S. military was no longer segregated by race by that time and we get to see multiple skin shades fighting alongside each other. Obviously the Caucasians still get the bulk of the screen time but it is still a welcome change over the countless World War II films competing during the same era.Of course, this gives us another moment to question Zack’s racial opinions: when meeting Corp. Thompson (James Edwards) for the first time, he asks if he has any “chocolate” to give the hungry locals. (There is an interesting twist to the ol’ watermelon cliché in one key scene with a different race finding them for the others to eat.)After Zack, Thompson and Short Round unite after separate disastrous battles, they join forces with Lt. Driscoll (Steve Brodie) and his team. Zack and Discroll have unhappy history together so we get plenty of tension between them for dramatic effect. For a considerable period, our heroes spend time in a Buddhist temple that is quite visually pleasing in a Hollywood art-deco sort of way.I guess audiences back then found scruffy unshaven Gene Evans’ constant wise-racks quite funny, but modern viewers may just consider him yet another old-time variation of the many talking alt-right figure-heads we see so often on cable TV news networks today. The intentions of both director and key screenwriter Fuller is to present him as a man who is destined to change his ways after his war experiences. His “steel helmet” is one that gets him through conflict but may also harden him a little too much until others (including the heroic deaths of Short Round and Driscoll) provide him The Light. As hinted in my comments, I went into this film with higher expectations than I probably should have, considering the director’s reputation. It hasn’t aged well but…OK, I must confess that it is still quite entertaining overall. Among my favorite moments involves Short Round singing “Auld Lang Syne” in Korean, which takes on a more emotional tone in hindsight when he later gets killed at such a young age.A few supporting cast members have good performances to provide, like Robert Hutton as Bronte, Richard Loo as ex-Japanese warrior Sgt. Tankaka (and there is some rival Asian disputes between him and the captured North Korean fighter in a key scene) and Richard Monahan as “Baldy” (due to his bald head). This is essentially a B-picture distributed by Lippert Pictures. Local California terrain poses as Korea here with overly bright sunlight to match since, I guess, movie viewers assume trees look the same all over and rocks are all over in battlefields. There are also some studio bound faux jungle settings that appear left over from earlier WW2 Pacific adventures that seem out-of-place but also quaintly nostalgic at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 13, 2023 7:00:46 GMT
Essential: FIXED BAYONETS! (1951)
TopBilled:
 Strip what we need, roll him in a blanket, bury him and mark him
In a way this film feels like a wartime version of Agatha Christie’s AND THEN THERE WERE NONE. Only we know the identity of the assassins…they’re the communists who have boxed in a rearguard of the U.S. Army on Korean soil. And one by one, they pick off the commanding officers. First to go down is a Lieutenant Gibbs (Craig Hill) with his bayonet, who dies almost immediately. Then a Sergeant Lonergan (Michael O’Shea) is killed, followed by the appropriately named Sergeant Rock (Gene Evans)…which requires the platoon to be led to safety by a Corporal Denno (Richard Basehart) who just so happens to be suffering from a bad case of nerves, or shall I say cowardice?Going into the film, we don’t know the order in which they die, unless we look at the cast listing. Usually the one who is top billed will survive, and the ones who die off first are listed towards the bottom of the cast list, since they will inevitably have less screen time. Despite the predictability of the outcome– not just who dies and who lives, but also the idea that Basehart will probably overcome his fears– this is still a gripping and suspenseful motion picture. Director-writer Sam Fuller had previously scored a hit with Lippert’s low budget Korean War tale THE STEEL HELMET which also featured Gene Evans. While HELMET was the little B-picture that could, FIXED BAYONETS is a Fox A-picture that also could. My only gripe is that while Fuller is obviously aiming for realism in the combat scenes, it is quite evident this was all filmed on the Fox backlot.All the snowy mountainous backdrops seem like the artistry of set designers, not actual footage of Korean exteriors. Plus none of the actors’ breaths can be seen, despite all the (artificial) snow and considerable dialogue about how cold it is and the fact some of the men are suffering from frostbite and practically shivering to death. In one shot, snow is carefully placed on a soldier’s helmet, yet the guy next to him (Basehart) isn’t wearing gloves…because they’re really making this movie in warm southern California. Since the film was produced in 1951, this was before the studio had invested resources in CinemaScope. In my opinion, the making of this story would have benefited from on-location filming in a wintery region like northern California or Oregon (think how well it was done in the western DAY OF THE OUTLAW). And the story would also have benefited from wider lens photography so we could get a more panoramic view of the terrain, and how bleak it all is…what the men are truly up against.Part of the drama takes place inside a cave the men have found while under siege. This hole in the side of the mountain comes with hanging icicles and a small pond of water, which for some unexplained reason is not frozen, though the icicles overhead are not even melting. The cave becomes their “home” if you will, and it’s interesting to see how the men bond and how they deal with various calamities that befall them while battling the commies. It is a group of 48 men, from individual backgrounds, and they display extreme bravery. Yes, this is a pro-Korean War propaganda piece. The guys in the rearguard are told by a colonel to delay the reds, so that thousands of American troops can circumvent enemy forces, refortify, then circle back to re-attack. The brave rearguard must act like a real regiment, but efforts are stymied by a lack of coordination, bad luck and tragedy.The best sequence is the one where O’Shea’s character heads off to rescue a missing soldier. The soldier makes it back to the cave, but O’Shea has been hit and is bleeding to death in the snow. Another soldier then takes off to bring O’Shea back but is blown up when stepping on a landmine. This means Basehart must summon the strength, against the insecurities and demons that plague him, to go retrieve O’Shea. We know Basehart will be able to avoid stepping on any unexploded bombs, but the scene is still very suspenseful with expert use of close-ups and fine acting.By comparison, the death scene for Evans a short time later seems anti-climactic. He dies when a stray bullet ricochets inside the cave and fatally wounds him. Evans’ demise puts Basehart now officially in charge. The last ten minutes of the film belong to Basehart. His character foils a communist tank so he and the rest of the men can escape being ambushed and join up with the rest of the Army on the other side of the river. All in all, I felt this was a very satisfying and engaging war film…and it was interesting to see how Fuller could retell a story about Korean warfare on a larger budget, with more polished production values. One of the things I like about Sam Fuller is how idiosyncratic he makes the characters, with memorable dialogue. Much of it is heightened, naturally, but his people and situations still feel real.***Jlewis:
 20th Century-Fox backed Samuel Fuller on this follow-up to his quite successful indy production, THE STEEL HELMET (earning close to two million with a budget of just 104 thousand), this one being “dedicated to the Queen of Battles: the United States Infantry.” In addition to the same director, Gene Evans and Richard Monahan a.k.a. “Baldy” return in supporting roles as Sgt. Rock and Walowicz.The working title of OLD SOLDIERS NEVER DIE was inspired by a speech General MacArthur made at the time of his notorious forced retirement (which prompted President Truman’s approval ratings to dip astronomically in political polls), but was dropped by studio brass to avoid getting too involved in the polarized debates at the time. Retreating in defeat, a platoon led by Lt. Gibbs (Craig Hill), Sgt. Rock (Gene Evans) and Sgt. Lonergan (Michael O’Shea) make use of a mountain pass as stationary “rearguard action” to avoid the enemy knowing their actions and building up a mine field as safeguard. Center focus in our drama is a could-be-coward who must show he can be heroic, Corp. Denno (Richard Baseheart).Just as our previous title reflected a brave but stubborn fighter named Sgt. Zack, this one involves a man who worries too much about killing others with his bayonet. (His personal fears go back to an incident back in officer’s school.) That is, until fate forces him to. Our previous pic involved major characters seeking refuge in a temple. This one involves a cave, which becomes a more important refuge after key look-out posts are attacked by the enemy. Upon the death of Gibbs, Denno realizes he may have to take command soon with only two others ahead of him in leadership positions. You can easily predict the deaths of the other two ahead of time, but there is still a highly involved storyline that leads up to all of this.The enemy tries to manipulate our American troop with psychological bugle noises in the night so Rock decides to send two, including arrogant Whitey (Skip Homeier), to snatch the bugles undercover. In another unfortunate twist of fate, the medic (Richard Hylton) treating the injured one gets killed. Also killed unexpectedly by a sniper is Lonergan, whom Denno tries desperately to save in their mine field booby trap so that he doesn’t have to take on all of the responsibilities he fears.As expected, Rock is also killed (but his scene is especially good cinematically as he talks all through his way to The Other Side) so Denno must take command with a “what choice do I have?” attitude. This involves an epic battle highlighted by the blowing up of an enemy tank in the mountain pass. Our heroes make a final wade up a river to safety in our climactic finale. Denno redeems himself by overcoming all that blocks him. I did like THE STEEL HELMET in parts, but found this bigger production a bit more satisfying as a whole.Although many sets are studio-bound, the wintery snowy forests are a trifle more more believable as Korea, if in a surreal Yukon Rockies sort of way. It wasn’t made in color because the pretty obvious painted backdrops would have been even more obvious. Yet all of this heightens the claustrophobic feelings of our central characters. It also feels less dated than the earlier one, probably because it focuses less on moralizing (like the racial differences emphasized in the former) and more on warfare as a collaborative human experience. Then again, this one curiously features a virtually all-Caucasian cast (anybody looking “Asian” having brief non-speaking enemy roles), going against the trend among other Korean conflict pics.Not certain if this one was quite as successful at the box-office as the other, with its slightly increased production costs and too many WW2 epics resembling it in competition. However, its reputation has grown over time and it has enjoyed some modest success on TV, increased by eagle-eyes trying to spot an unbilled James Dean among the two welcoming soldiers in the final scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 20, 2023 8:34:29 GMT
Essential: COMING HOME (1978)
TopBilled: It’s interesting to look at this film now, given that its star Jane Fonda, sometimes still referred to as Hanoi Jane, had been vehemently opposed to U.S. military operations in Vietnam. She was politically radical in her opposition to the war, and she wasn’t the only one. In fact, director Hal Ashby, costars Jon Voight and Bruce Dern, screenwriters Nancy Dowd and Waldo Salt (who’d been blacklisted in the 1950s) were all anti-war advocates. So this was their collective, artistic form of protest without being too un-American. Fonda wanted to make the film after she befriended vet Ron Kovic five years earlier. Kovic, like Harold Russell of THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, had lost limbs and struggled to regain mobility after his discharge. Like Russell, Kovic made pals in Hollywood and he was able to tell his own story.Oliver Stone would directly adapt Kovic’s tale for the screen in 1989. That’s more of a he-man exploration of the tragedy. But COMING HOME is an indirectly inspired version with Voight as the disabled vet. However, this is really Fonda’s film, a feminist treatment of the subject. And though she has found a gentle lover (Voight), she is still married to a sadistic husband (Dern). It’s an unusual triangle and an ironic one, since both men served in ‘Nam. The triangle means this telling is quite melodramatic ins pots. Yet COMING HOME manages to adequately explore the pain and struggles faced by all three main characters, as well as a few supporting characters (played by Penelope Milford and Robert Carradine). The characters’ struggles are physical and psychological.When all was said and done, COMING HOME did extraordinarily well for United Artists at the box office. It earned ten times its production cost. Just as importantly, it received Academy Award nominations in eight categories, winning three– an Oscar for its screenplay, as well as Oscars for Fonda and Voight. Ironically, the Best Picture Oscar would be given to THE DEER HUNTER, another drama about the after-effects of the Vietnam War. In some ways this film is too long. But as a prolonged “study of time and place,” it is worth the time spent watching it. The story takes us into the intimacy that is experienced by Voight’s character. By comparison, Harold Russell’s character in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES could not be seen having sex in 1946 due to the enforcement of the production code.But here in 1978, the filmmakers are not restricted in such a way…so we do see Voight getting his needs met after coming home from the war. It’s a bit exploitive, but I suppose the main idea was to show how a man (and woman) could be functional again after all that had happened. ***Jlewis:
 I was watching some of the old Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert broadcasts on YouTube, which brought back memories of when I used to watch that duo on both PBS and in syndication back in the ’80s. Never cared for Siskel all that much because he was as fixed in his opinions as the Rock of Gibraltar, if often hilariously so. (One of my favorite moments involved him discussing Disney films, both praising his childhood favorite DUMBO and damning SLEEPING BEAUTY in the same breath due to their contrasting animation styles, while harshly staring down Ebert so that he doesn’t even attempt to defend the latter.)One special hour show previewing the 51st Oscars is particularly worth revisiting, with its inclusion of categories often overlooked in similar specials (cue clips of non-Disney SPECIAL DELIVERY and RIP VAN WINKLE for best animated short subject consideration). In a battle between two Vietnam War epics, Ebert predicted that THE DEER HUNTER would nab Best Picture and, for the top acting performances (not supporting), Jill Clayburgh for AN UNMARRIED WOMAN and Robert DeNiro for THE DEER HUNTER. Siskel figured that COMING HOME would likely sweep those three categories, just as ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST had three years back, with Jon Voight and Jane Fonda winning. As it turned out, both were partially right. Both personally favored COMING HOME over THE DEER HUNTER and I feel the same, although I have never been particularly enthusiastic about either. The winning pic does have some memorable performances and a nice epic sweep to it, but I disliked how the Cascades of Washington substituted for the Pennsylvania Appalachians in key scenes and also found much of the drama heavy handed. On the plus side, we get scenes actually set in Vietnam rather than just the home front, which probably accounted for it winning the Best Pic award. COMING HOME has its flaws too, but is slightly more subtle in approach.Well…kind of subtle. We do get… spoiler alert!…a very un-subtle leap-into-the-waves suicide in the end. Both films had plenty of anachronisms in their attempts to recreate the years 1968-70, despite less than a decade separating the time period and actual filming (both being made in ’77 and released ’78). Filmmakers tend to put more effort into recreating history when multiple decades or even centuries have passed.With COMING HOME, the issues are more with the rock song selection (it tries too hard to be like AMERICAN GRAFFITI in its Beatles and Rolling Stones selection, regardless whether or not the songs relate at all to what happens on screen) and the more seventies-ish than sixties-ish fashions, including longer hair than usual for military personnel still enlisted. (By the way, when did bell-bottoms and hot pants come into fashion? I guess they were in style in the early seventies, but were filling up the bargain bins by 1977 and the wardrobe department simply needed anything “old” to put on their additional cast members.) Intriguingly, this was director Hal Ashby’s second seventies trip back to the previous decade: SHAMPOO was another groovy journey but more heavy on the Beach Boys. Curiously, it didn’t reference Vietnam at all. Its primary focus was on election night ’68 to provide extra commentary on President Nixon who resigned from office while filming was taking place.Yet it still resembled COMING HOME in Ashby’s depiction of women liberating themselves through their constantly changing hair styles. Just as Jane Fonda goes all Carole King Tapestry curls and earth-brown colors in this picture, Julie Christie and Lee Grant have their own coming out moments under the blow-dryer. Although the characters here are all fictional, the basic story is influenced by Ron Kovic’s auto-biography as a disabled Vietnam vet. Jane Fonda had met him in 1972, the same year she won her first Oscar and then became a polarizing figure with the media when she visited Hanoi and made the ghastly mistake of posing for a photo in front of an anti-aircraft gun in enemy territory. Dubbed un-American at the time, she apologized later for being so naȉve as many Hollywood liberals then often were.Still passionate in her views that the war was a mistake, she needed a vehicle to show her support for those who fought the war to demonstrate that the war itself and not those fighting it represented what she was against. She even co-founded IPC films to help back such a project, releasing it through United Artists. Her Oscar win in COMING HOME was Hollywood’s way of patting her on the back for redeeming herself…at least partly. The story really isn’t all that much. It is basically a love triangle involving an officer Bob Hyde (Bruce Dern, Oscar nominated), his wife Sally (Fonda) and the paralyzed veteran Luke Martin (Voight) whom she meets when doing charity work at a hospital. Husband gets jealous but also suffers from post-war trauma (I guess that makes it his excuse to go crazy Jekyll-Hyde style…errr), ultimately over-doing it on a trip into the ocean in spectacular A STAR IS BORN glory. Yes, this is yet another rehash of past Hollywood tropes for the sake of drama with a capital D. Today, Jon Voight is known mostly as Angelina Jolie’s right-leaning and slightly nutty (on social media, that is) daddy just as Bruce Dern is even less familiar to the current generation apart from his biological connection to Laura Dern of JURASSIC PARK-WORLD fame. Yet both give good method performances here. Intriguingly, the latter lost out to Christopher Walken with a very similar, eerily so, unhinged soldier role in THE DEER HUNTER.I don’t think the actresses are quite as impressive by comparison, even Fonda in her Oscar win, but we must be fair here: they are basically vehicle support systems for THE MEN (to reference another oldie from way back with Marlon Brando) and can only express an inner restlessness to their womanly duties. Penelope Milford plays best gal-pal Viola Munson and is much more forward-trendy in her swinging seventies (very seventies and un-sixties-ish) fashions than Fonda’s more conservative Sally here, but she too is here to support her husband (if not join him in Hong Kong) and her drug addicted brother Billy (Robert Carradine) at the veterans’ hospital where Sally also assists as a nurse. My favorite scene is the opening credits that contrast Dern’s Bob jogging consistently along the street stripe pavement with his attention all disciplined in orderly fashion. This is mixed with shots of disabled veterans, including Luke, looking lost and scattered in the hospital settings. Although the music selection is all over the place, the use of the Rolling Stones’ “Out of Time” does, in a roundabout way at least, match the visuals pretty well here. Mick Jagger seems to sing to Bob in words that Sally may in the future: “You don’t know what’s going on / You’ve been away for far too long / You can’t come back and think you are still mine / You’re out of touch, my baby…” The song also closes the same film as Luke finds structure in his life talking to high school students about the war while Bob goes all Hyde-like.(Trivia note of interest: That song at least predates the actions on screen. Later we hear “Hey Jude” a couple months ahead of its recording date, considering that Bobby Kennedy is still alive on a TV screen much later and we get a big 4th of July picnic further along which, in typical meandering zig-zag fashion, occurs before Kennedy is mentioned getting assassinated.) Poor Bruce Dern. In so many movies like THE GREAT GATSBY, he is the one who can not satisfy a woman in the same way the Robert Redfords and Jon Voights of the world can. Sex is a big deal here. Sally needs as much emotional satisfaction as physical so, of course, Luke brings her to the almighty O instead. Both lovers confront the husband in a climactic…err, I better refrain myself here…encounter as Luke quietly removes the bullets from Bob’s rifle before he shoots off the instrument he struggles using.O…I noticed something else when re-watching this. Where did Luke get his handsome California surfer tan so early on in this movie while being in indoor medical facilities all that time? This is the point where I start getting even more nit-picky here, more so than with the music. There are occasional missing limbs on display at the hospital and overweight folk too to represent “reality” and give this film its occasional documentary flashes. However, Fonda and Voight are still The Pretty People that we would rather join in their journey than anybody who looks like ordinary us. Naturally, they are the two still alive at the end of this in case moviegoers can speculate a happily-ever-after for them. We get no Vietnam scenes but some lovely tourist shots of Hong Kong when Sally and Bob have some leave R&R time together. Much of the talk between the married couple involves his anger that she is a working woman. Again, this and other aspects makes COMING HOME a far more interesting time capsule of the seventies, the era when millions of women were allowed to join the workforce in droves and become their own person rather than be defined as wives and mothers exclusively, than the actual decade it is set in.I am assuming Ashby and the key screenwriters were all sober at the time, but so much of the New Hollywood product had a meandering not-sure-where-to-go next vibe that was, no doubt, due to all of the drugs being taken in Tinsel Town at the time. The upcoming reviewed BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY has many faults of its own but is a more structured, better planned out production than this one, maybe because it was made after much of the drug haze had lifted from the industry by the later eighties. On the plus side, the frequent wartime coffins on display give us a good jolt on occasion to wake ourselves up to reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 24, 2023 20:55:19 GMT
Interesting takes. I'm a fan of Coming Home, it's well acted and addresses the challenges of soldiers returning home, physically or psychologically scarred. I had an older brother who spent some time in a VA hospital. It was tough visiting him there but also seeing a ward full of young men and thinking how different their lives could have been. How different the lives of their contemporaries were.
I agree that this movie was a way for Fonda to redeem herself from the Hanoi Jane mess she had gotten herself into. That moniker continues to follow her. It's too bad that Voight, who continues to act, is now regarded as a right winger. He was (is?) a talented actor.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 27, 2023 14:19:22 GMT
Essential: BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (1989)TopBilled:
American history carved in Oliver Stone
 I am just going to make a few introductory remarks, before turning it over to Jlewis. Several things stand out in my memory about this film…first, it took an in-depth look at the struggles of a veteran returning from Vietnam (based on Ron Kovic’s autobiography); and certain scenes were not easy to watch, but were necessary to watch.I recall all the Oscar hoopla surrounding the picture, especially how Tom Cruise was the odds-on favorite in the Best Actor category. However, there was an upset at that year’s ceremony, and Daniel Day-Lewis won for MY LEFT FOOT. Lewis would receive other Oscar recognition for later roles, and Cruise would only get another nomination, in the supporting category for MAGNOLIA, ten years later. Do I think Tom Cruise should have won? That’s neither here nor there, but it’s probably his best performance, and it would’ve been nice if he had tied with Lewis, who was also deserving.Another thing I recall is how the success of this film led to director Oliver Stone’s subsequent explorations of Jim Morrison, JFK and Richard Nixon. Some of those later productions were flashier, as in the case of THE DOORS, or were increasingly political and cynical like Stone’s presidential biopics…but I think BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY while not quite ‘restrained,’ is considerably balanced in terms of telling a character-driven story that can be regarded as an anti-war statement as well as a statement about human conditions. ***Jlewis:
 The eighties saw an explosion of nostalgia for the sixties, this being a trend in popular culture each decade: to go back two decades for a bit of reflection. For example, the sixties themselves were dominated by WW2 epics, the seventies was all about HAPPY DAYS and GREASE, the nineties produced THAT ’70S SHOW and BOOGIE NIGHTS, etc. Of course, the memories tend to be blurred since most of the new media resembles more of a Valentine homage than an actual attempt to recreate the past. DIRTY DANCING, with its poofy hair styles and cut jeans worn by half of the cast, certainly would not qualify as an authentic recreating of a typical upstate New York summer resort back in 1963. Director Oliver Stone may have remembered the sixties himself (turning twenty in 1966), but he was just as guilty in his four revisions of the era cranked out between 1986 and 1991: PLATOON, BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY, THE DOORS and JFK. In the second title of this batch, the musical track is as casual as it was in our previously reviewed COMING HOME.Apparently, Stone felt Don McLean’s “American Pie” fit a particular scene with Tom Cruise’s Ron Kovic struggling in a veterans hospital in spirit even if there was no way that song could have possibly been heard on the radio two-to-three years before it was recorded. (For fun, check out the imdb.com long list of goofs.) Views of that lost war in Vietnam were changing as the decades advanced. Stone experienced it himself so one must judge him accordingly, but his intentions are not to create a docu-series like Ken Burns’ and take on different perspectives, analyzing the whole “why” certain events and historical figures taking charge operated the way they did. He simply wants to address that all wars are bad regardless (and many of us do agree with him, as have generations before i.e. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT). In a very coy but implied way, he is using a Vietnam War movie to add commentary to then current events like both the Reagan and elder Bush administrations frequently intervening in other countries to enforce their patriotic American way of life in the “name of democracy.” War usually boils down to keeping major artillery manufacturers in profit and the military busy at all times, but the humans who must provide the physical man-power are still often as disposable as Dixie Cups. Tom Cruise needed a change from his pretty boy image post-TOP GUN so this great “method” performance, channeling his own inner Marlon Brando of THE MEN, was right up his alley. I am hardly a fan of Cruise like millions of others but even I must admit that his performance is the best feature here. Plus Cruise and the real-life person he plays, Ron Kovic, have birthdays just two days apart. Not that we all take astrology that seriously, but both have similar enough personalities in regards to how they expressed their emotions.The story is your standard, straight forward biopic, all presented in slushy fashion by its John Williams (of Spielberg fame) music score… We open with little boys playing war games in Massapequa, New York sometime in 1956 and a subsequent birthday/4th of July parade (probably the following year based on the ’57 Chevy on display and THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN on the theater marquee) as Daddy emphasizes patriotism to Junior Ron and Mickey Mantle becomes his idol. He sees disabled veterans from previous wars (both WW1 and 2) and doesn’t think too much of it. Has his first kiss with little girl Donna.Flash-forward to him seeing Pres. Kennedy on TV in early ’61 asking what you can do for your country; mommy telling junior that he himself may someday become famous and talk to large crowds too. Football in high school (we are at ’62 and the 10 year old child actors are replaced by Tom Cruise…huge growth spurt?), mommy getting angry about Playboy magazines and teenage Ronny feels the calling when sergeants visit school to talk about the U.S. Marines. Graduation ’64 and he decides on a future in the marines, disrupting the prom with a declaration of love for Donna (Kyra Sedgwick) after a big rain storm (cue Henry Mancini’s “Moon River”). He is also willing to die there if he has to, although the thought of being injured permanently does not occur to him, a situation repeated with Lt. Dan in FORREST GUMP.Idealism is shattered in combat. Fierce fighting in October 1967 prompts an unexpected massacre of Vietnamese villagers, followed by the accidental shooting of a fellow private named Wilson. Emotionally distraught, Ron reports everything to his superiors but the general attitude is that war is hell and men must deal with it. (He later visits the deceased one’s family in Georgia for closure.) Four months later, he himself gets shot the day before the great Tet offensive and is paralyzed from the waist down. He then spends a year in recovery at a Bronx, NY vets hospital, full of rats and neglected patients. Apparently he is regaining much of his strength by the eighth month as the upheaval at the Democratic convention in Chicago is broadcast on TV, but he still can’t walk again.Family welcomes him home in ’69 but the world is changing on the home front and Ron must deal not only with his handicaps but the changing attitudes towards his servicing an unpopular conflict. Even brother Tommy (Josh Evans) is against the war. Close friend Timmy (Frank Whaley) provides some much needed support with shared war experiences. Protests at Syracuse where girlfriend Donna resides are quite a shock to him. In Mexico, he sees a contrast to his personality in a most bitter veteran Charlie (Willem Dafoe). Eventually he finds his voice as an anti-war activist and gets his words addressed at the ’72 Republican and ’76 Democratic conventions for better recognition of Vietnam vets.There are various military figures here, but their appearances on screen are fleeting (John Getz plays a marine major and Ed Lauder is legion commander) so that we can stay focused on Ron’s story told from his perspective. However, despite this being a man’s-man’s world, as James Brown used to sing, a man is nothing without a woman or girl by his side.Alas…mommy dearest (Caroline Kava) and girlfriend Donna are mostly there as Ron’s support system. Except that mommy disapproves of sex (“Don’t say penis in this house!”) despite Ron being handicapped post-war and such issues no longer being an issue. There is a key scene with a Mexican prostitute when Ron must confront his handicap, but we never get her or the other ladies’ true personalities fleshed out. This was also a feature in COMING HOME despite Jane Fonda’s Oscar win playing the sympathetic supporter of Luke and Bob.Just as the music selection is kinda off, so are most of the historical recreations. One particular scene set at Syracuse University in 1970 after the wheelchair bound Ron is back home got considerable criticism by those who remembered the event in reality, including prominent politician Larraine Hoffman. Oliver Stone wants viewers to think America was in constant, never-ending chaos on the home front but that strike was among the more peacefully staged ones.The ’68 Democratic Convention clashes between police and protestors in Chicago (as showcased in MEDIUM COOL) and the Kent State tragedy of ’70 have become poster images for the Vietnam Era, but many film-makers, Stone in particular, overdo it by trying to make every historic event of that time-period equally violent. Also because of Stone’s personal feelings towards Reagan, Bush and other Republicans then in power, he presents Ron’s protest at the ’72 Republican convention with far more aggression from the politicians there than necessary.In reality, Ron was actually welcomed in a cautious way, according to the book accounts. (One interesting side note is that Abbie Hoffman enjoyed a bit part in one such scene, despite his passing before his scenes made the big screen.) I liked this movie better as a re-watch recently than I did in theaters back in early ’90. Three and a half decades tend to mellow your attitudes towards movies that age slightly better with the times. Yet it does feel over the top at times.Oliver Stone reminds me a lot of Cecil B. DeMille (never-mind their different generations and politics separating them) since both get their characters to over-emote and like to present everything with broad arm-strokes. Sometimes it is hard to take a movie as seriously as you should when the music score is pounding in your ears and Tom Cruise is yelling at the top of his lungs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 27, 2023 18:29:54 GMT
I haven't seen this since it came out. One thing that I remember at the time was that Cruise's transformation from clean cut to scraggly hair and droopy mustache looked like a costume rather than a natural transformation. It was distracting.
"There is a key scene with a Mexican prostitute when Ron must confront his handicap, but we never get her or the other ladies’ true personalities fleshed out. This was also a feature in COMING HOME despite Jane Fonda’s Oscar win playing the sympathetic supporter of Luke and Bob."
I'm not quite sure but this reads as if you are equating Fonda's character (and her sex scene with Voight) with the Mexican prostitute. If so, I completely disagree. I think a big part of Coming Home deals with Fonda discovering her sexuality and generally finding out what is important to her rather than living her life thru her husband.
|
|
|
|
Post by jlewis on May 28, 2023 1:58:24 GMT
I'm not quite sure but this reads as if you are equating Fonda's character (and her sex scene with Voight) with the Mexican prostitute. If so, I completely disagree. I think a big part of Coming Home deals with Fonda discovering her sexuality and generally finding out what is important to her rather than living her life thru her husband. The only similarities between the characters in the two films I was suggesting was that, in my opinion at least, the female characters were both playing a secondary role to the males. I did suggest similar ideas to yours regarding Jane Fonda in my comments on COMING HOME above, although maybe not as eloquently as I should have. Yes, she felt far more fulfilled with Voight's character than Dern's because she was allowed to be more like herself with him than with her husband, who expected her to play a "wife" role. This all ties into COMING HOME's theme of women trying to break out of their established roles, a common theme in many seventies films. I basically view COMING HOME more of a commentary on that decade than the sixties despite its setting. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 28, 2023 15:44:28 GMT
I'm not quite sure but this reads as if you are equating Fonda's character (and her sex scene with Voight) with the Mexican prostitute. If so, I completely disagree. I think a big part of Coming Home deals with Fonda discovering her sexuality and generally finding out what is important to her rather than living her life thru her husband. The only similarities between the characters in the two films I was suggesting was that, in my opinion at least, the female characters were both playing a secondary role to the males. I did suggest similar ideas to yours regarding Jane Fonda in my comments on COMING HOME above, although maybe not as eloquently as I should have. Yes, she felt far more fulfilled with Voight's character than Dern's because she was allowed to be more like herself with him than with her husband, who expected her to play a "wife" role. This all ties into COMING HOME's theme of women trying to break out of their established roles, a common theme in many seventies films. I basically view COMING HOME more of a commentary on that decade than the sixties despite its setting. Thanks for the response, jlewis. I guess I've always thought of Coming Home as Fonda's story. The characters are connected thru her, we follow her story from dutiful military wife, to seeing the realities of war by volunteering at the VA, to exploring a new relationship and what she might want out of life while her husband is gone. We see Voight and Dern's stories but I never thought that Fonda's character was secondary to them. Maybe a woman would have a different opinion but that's how I always thought of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by jlewis on Jun 2, 2023 11:53:48 GMT
You probably are right in that it is Fonda's story and maybe I was just overly nit-picky about her character being TOO focused on her two men and not enough on herself. I mean... she does discover her own self somewhat by finding fulfillment at her job assisting the recovering soldiers. Yet I was still thinking of how she as Sally was constantly trying to please both Bob and Luke. It is interesting that this movie came out in theaters in early 1978 within weeks of the very popular AN UNMARRIED WOMAN with Jill Clayburgh as Erica... and that lady is devastated at first losing her man, then finds another before she ultimately decides that life is not all about men! Whence the title. It was the sign of the times, punctuated by all of those cigarette Virginia Slims ads that symbolized the era in a nutshell: "You've come a long way, baby".
Regardless, COMING HOME is still a forward moving movie in its themes. Had it been made decades before in the BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES era, Fonda's Sally would have been even more intensely focused on her men. Speaking of that 1946 classic, remember how we the audiences all "hissed" at Virginia Mayo's Marie for trying to be her own independent woman and not stay focused on pleasing her returning hubbie Fred (Dana Andrews)? Granted, she wasn't faithful to him either, dating men behind his back and, yes, that was a HUGE No-No back in the day. At least Sally was allowed TWO men to be in cahoots with and not shamed by we viewers (if upsetting Bob, of course). These were more enlightened times. Yet, going back to the earlier '46 classic, the writers and William Wyler the director had little interest in exploring the whole "why" Marie felt so independent thanks to the war years and women fending for themselves on the home-front with manly occupations. Obviously all of the GOOD ladies in that movie were ALL 100% devoted to their men: Teresa Wright's Peggy, Myna Loy's Milly and Cathy O'Donnell's Wilma who... good grief! Was she in ANY scene WITHOUT Harold Russell's Homer? Peggy was a real sweetheart, but I always wanted her parents to smack her for being such a passionate "Homewrecker" and try to find some other hobby besides Fred to focus on.
This all brings me to BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. The Mexican scenes with the, ahem, "working women" are interesting from Tom Cruise's Ron's perspective and that he thought one could be a potential "girlfriend" and got all upset seeing the one he pleased with other clients. Again, we learn nothing about HER and the story is all about HIM. Then there's Kyra Sedgewick's Donna as Ron's main girlfriend and, yes, we see her doing her own thing as a college age protestor on New York campuses. Again, we ONLY see her on screen when Ron is with her and not see her in scenes without him. Fittingly, Kyra's next role after this one was as the rebellious and VERY independent daughter of MR. AND MRS. BRIDGE, another much-to-discuss classic that Topbilled and I have enjoyed reviewing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 2, 2023 22:08:28 GMT
I agree, An Unmarried Woman takes a more modern view of what happens to Jill Clayburgh after the breakup of her marriage. I believe he cheats on her/leaves her. She is the one who is blindsided. Her first foray into the singles scene is ...ack! Cliff Gorman. 😱 Jill, you can do better. I do remember liking the ending when she stays in the city while Alan Bates goes off to paint for the summer. Clayburgh's character does have a teenaged daughter so that's another reason to stay. Bates leaves her that big painting which suggests, I think, that he will come back. They are both secure enough to be apart for the summer.
It's been a long time since I've seen Born in the 4th of July. However, I think you are correct about the female characters here. They barely registered in my memories of the film. I forgot that Kyra Sedgwick was even in it. I remember that scene with the prostitute but not that he wanted more from her. So, yes I think I agree. The female characters are not well defined in that movie.
|
|
