23 May 2012

A very powerful movie

I first saw this movie more than 30 years ago and I have been looking for this in a DVD/Blue Ray format and for the US market. This is a very powerful movie and its message very relevant today. Everyone should see this movie and for them to make their own conclusions about it.Another movie I have been looking for is "The Naked and the Dead" based on a Norman Mailer novel.

benbrae76

23 May 2012

No music needed

This 1959 black and white WWII movie is one of the most realisticdepictions of jungle warfare I have ever seen. Wonderfully acted by allconcerned, and the script strikes a clever balance between duty andanti-war opinions. It is about a lost group of soldiers from the"forgotten army" in Burma, trying to reach their own lines, and whilstdoing so take over a Japanese held village.The tension is almost unbearable, and the movie never relies on musicto enhance that tension, for there is no music in it from start tofinish. (And to be truthful in this movie it's not missed.) It'simpossible to pick out a star performer. They all are, but I supposethe two that really stand out are Stanley Baker as the commandingofficer and Leo McKern as the cynical war-correspondent attached to thegroup.I have yet to see this movie screened on TV (although someone may setme right if it has), and considering the pap that is aired, I can'tthink of one reason why it hasn't. It's a terrific film and if youenjoy realistic gritty war movies, then this is the one for you.

23 May 2012

Brutal Look At The Forgotton British Army in Burma

This film has many fine English actors. Including Stanley Baker and Gordon Scott among others. The scene appears to be set in the early part of the Burma Campaign when the Japanese were ascendant. Stanley Baker is leading a desperate remnant of a British battalion that has been isolated and cut-off like the larger elements of its parent Brigade and Division. They come upon a Burmese village where a series of deadly and shocking events occur. The film portrays well the brutality of jungle warfare and the initial advantages the Japs had before the British caught on and later beat them at their own game. Great acting shows how circumstances force a humane British officer to make extreme choices. His Japanese counter part has few such scruples and and the film shows very well how brutal the Japanese were in their conduct of the war. The title of the film has a certain ironic twist to it. Implying how an enemy of yesterday may or may not be a friend today! A worthy classic which should be released in the USA as it has universal appeal. The moral issues raised in the film are very important even today.

dougdoepke

22 May 2012

Worth a Closer Look

When I first saw this movie in early 1960, I was almost literallybowled over. The film ran as the bottom half of an anonymousdouble-bill, so I had nothing more than routine expectations. What Igot instead was unlike any war movie I had seen. Like most of the post-war generation, I was reared on WWII flag-wavers and Cold Warplatitudes about that conflict. Not that these were necessarilydeceptive. But compared to the complexities of this film, theirconventional assumptions about god and country were made plain. Itstruck me then and still does that this is the least compromised of warfilms from that pre-Vietnam era.One key feature is the film's depiction of the logic of war. Bothsides, the British and the Japanese, apply it ruthlessly. That logic isa results-oriented morality. Essentially, it holds that whatever actionbest promotes the winning of the war is the correct action, whether ornot it violates traditional rules of morality. Thus, the Britishcaptain (Baker) executes the two innocent villagers in order to extractstrategic information from an unwilling informer. It makes nodifference that the Burmese natives are innocent villagers and thattraditional morality absolutely forbids the taking of innocent lives.Baker does it because as he says the information can save countlessmore lives that would otherwise be lost. Thus the logic turns out to bea kind of utilitarian head-count—better to lose a few lives, even ifinnocent, than lose a thousand that maybe aren't.Now, the depiction here strikes me as exactly the kind of logic thatgets applied all the time in theatres of operation regardless of theparticipants. As the movie points out, we tolerate "collateral damage"in bombing campaigns even when it predictably victimizes the innocent.Perhaps we tolerate these because the victims are not seen orpersonalized. The film draws its power from personalizing the twovictims and the agonized reaction of the villagers. The Japanese, inturn, are not exempt from the same logic, executing two non-combatants,the padre and the journalist, to further the aims of their side. If the film is anti-war-- and I think it is, though not obviously so(contrast with Paths of Glory (1958)—it's because this ruthless logicmakes sense given the methods and aims of warfare in general. Thus theonly way of not being overtaken by battlefield reasoning is by avoidingwar altogether. Baker's resolute captain is both chilling andcommanding because, once at war, he realistically accepts the logic asthe cost of winning. Moreover, by showing that both sides employ thesame ruthless logic, neither side is portrayed as being morallysuperior to the other. Thus, if one side claims to be morally superior,that advantage must lie outside the battlefield. For on the field ofbattle, the logic of winning, as I believe the movie shows, simplyoverwhelms peacetime conventions.One other distinctive feature is the presence of the tubby journalist(McKern). He presents a subtle counterpoint to Baker and the padre.He's a reluctant skeptic, unable to believe in either the claims ofreligion (note he doesn't participate in the group prayer) or thesacrifice Baker is demanding of them. Nonetheless, the screenplayplaces his skepticism on an equal footing with two pillars of Britishsociety, religion and the military. To me that was a particularly boldmove for its time. But it is also a provocative one showing that thefilmmakers were not about to take an easy or comforting way out.Considering director Val Guest's remarks (IMDB) about refusing topander to audiences, I guess that's not surprising.Something should be said about the ending that does in fact pay tributeto the sacrifices made by the British military to the war. Thesentiments, however, appear rather ironic when judged by McKern'searlier remarks on the inadequacy of such tributes when compared to thelives lost. Whatever the filmmakers' intent, I take the ending as achallenge to audiences to make those sentiments more than mere words.How that's to be done remains, of course, the challenge.All in all, the movie's distinction lies in its realistic refusal tosimply find new ways to repeat the patriotic war clichés of its time.It's fair to say, I think, that no American studio would have daredproduce such a provocative screenplay at the height of the Cold War.And that's not just because of the film's daring themes. The movie isalso an extremely non-commercial product, with both an unrelentinggrimness to think about and an unsurpassed ugliness to look at. Thatinfernal jungle remains a b&w creation from heck, almost sucking theair out of both what's on-screen and off. But then, that seemsappropriate. No wonder it was the bottom-half of an anonymous doublebill in America's commercial-minded theatres.Anyway, I expect in this post-Vietnam era, the movie has lost much ofits initial impact since that long ago day when I was lucky enough towander in and be forced to confront real life complexities.Nonetheless, the challenges the screenplay poses remain perhaps morepressing now than ever, regardless of how one may choose to respond.I'm glad TMC revived this obscure little gem and ran it at a popularhour. Perhaps someone in programming recognized its grim uncompromisingexcellence. I'm also glad to share the movie's lasting value withothers thanks to the virtues of the internet.

Frank Ferry

22 May 2012

A great find

Obviously, TCM's recent showing of this film was an eye-openingexperience for many people, as it was for me. The other reviews (withthe exception of the one with the historical ax to grind, completelyunsubstantiated by the film) express all my own reasons forappreciating the film. The excitement I want to share is this: After 63years of movie-watching, chancing on a film entirely unknown to me...one that I have never even seen included in anyone's list of "Great WarMovies"... that is so well-produced, -acted and -directed... just sodamn GOOD. And to have that incredible feeling of DISCOVERY... anotherprize addition to my "collection" of film-going experiences.And it was gratifying to see Phillip Ahn, so familiar from the 40's,play a key role so effectively.

st-shot

21 May 2012

Uncompromising look at the cruelty of war.

Yesterday's Enemy is a taut claustrophobic war film about a whittleddown company of British soldiers caught behind the lines in Burma. Ittakes no sides other than to point out the absurd futility anddehumanization of individuals in war and the limited options they arefaced with. It is a sober unromantic and highly provocative work thatforeshadows the quagmire in Viet Nam and unapologetically addressesactions taken in the heat of battle far from the sideline moralizingout of harm's way. Captain Langford leads his lost patrol with a firm hand cajoling andthreatening members of the unit to remain disciplined and vigilant.When they stumble upon an austere Burmese jungle village they aresurprised by a fierce Japanese resistance attempting to protect asenior officer. With the village under control Langford seeks answersthrough intimidation, torture and finally execution of innocent locals.Eventually they are overwhelmed by the Japanese who adopt the samemethods to get answers about their missing general.Despite it's sound stage jungle locale Yesterday's Enemy director ValGuest attains a very atmospheric feel of heat and pressure with theuncompromising downward thrust of the film as reality trumps morality.Stanley Baker's Langford and Gordon Jackson's Sgt. McKenzie remainstoically impressive throughout as they address the reality they aregiven while Guy Rolfe's Padre and Leo McKern's journalist Max ablybring balance and debate to the picture in arguing the other side.Yesterday's Enemy (even the title points out the absurdity of war)unromantic and dark vision offers no solutions but raises dozens ofquestions about the ugliness of war without flinching remaining withyou long after the firing has ceased. It is Britain's Steel Helmet.