She Goes to War
greta de groat
the thread on Alma Rubens and She Goes to War. I just saw the Grapevine
video last night and was bursting with questions for you all.
I found it a very powerful film, even though it was very clear that it
was a severely edited version (50 min., and i see that IMBD lists the
original running time as 87 min., for whatever that's worth). It looked
like a later reissue where someone decided to make it look less like a
silent by removing all the intertitles--so basically you have no idea
who the characters are and why they are doing what they are doing (i
loved it when the credits came on at the end identifying the characters
by name-- i had no idea of anyone's name!). Does anyone know if a
longer version survives?
That may in fact have made it seem even more disturbing--i'm thinking of
the scene where Al St. John and another man are harrassing the disguised
Eleanor Boardman in a fox hole. With no dialog titles or sound i
couldn't tell what was being said, but concluded that they assumed she
was a gay man and were tormenting her (despite the fact that they were
in the middle of a battlefield). She jumped out and ran away and they
followed after her--why? Were they trying to save her from danger or
were they still threatening her? I couldn't tell, but it was a very
disturbing scene.
Was that Alma Rubens singing? If she could sing like that, why didn't
she get anything to sing in Show Boat? She did look at death's door,
which made her big scene all the more affecting.
Also, not being an expert of WWI incendiary devices, i was puzzled by
the barrels that were being rolled down into the lines of soldiers and
detonated. Instead of merely exploding, they ignited huge walls of
flames which billowed after the fleeing soldiers. It looked like a
firestorm, which i hadn't heard about until the massive WWII bombings.
Anyway, it looked very frightening. I was even more puzzled, though,
when the troops got into tanks and drove back through the flames.
I always like Eleanor Boardman's intelligent face, but thought her
rather plain by Hollywood standards--but somehow in this film she seemed
to morph into a major beauty. I have to admit that was the only
pleasant thing about the film. I was really surprised i could sleep
last night.
So what do the rest of you who have seen this think about it? I've
never heard it mentioned anywhere but the Grapevine catalog.
greta
steve fisher
good film thought alma rebens singing and acting made the film
but two points for me :
1 almas powerful singing and the fact it has ablues feel, with the
words did she know she was not going to come off the morphine which
killed her a year or so later
2 did the us army in world war one really have tanks?
steve
William Hooper
Yes, at least one movie, THE TANKS, seemed to be built around
footage of the tanks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Article poste via Voila News - http://www.news.voila.fr
Le : Tue Dec 24 13:01:20 2002 depuis l'IP : uslec-cust.66.255.117.146.uslec.net [VIP 9946225]
Frederica
"steve fisher" <Stph...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:28af0ecc.02122...@posting.google.com...
> steve
Sure did, although they tended to tip over a lot.
Frederica
Brent McKee
> 2 did the us army in world war one really have tanks?
Yes. Mainly these were the small Renault tanks built by the French
rather than the huge British "landships" that one usually thinks of
when one mentions World War I tanks. They tended to be slower than
even early World War II tanks (moving at walking speed for infantry)
but were more efficient for exploiting a breakthrough than cavalry.
Patton had his first exposure to tanks on the Western Front during
World War I.
--
Brent McKee
To reply by email, please remove the capital letters (S and N) from
the email address
"If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly,
in one which is infinitely worse."
- Margaret Atwood
"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more
constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of
openness to novelty. "
- Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002)
William Hooper
>
>footage of the tanks.
Whoops!
Apparently it was the British tanks:
http://www.geocities.com/rotoflex/misc/tanks.htm
And likely some of the footage shot by Geoffrey Malins.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Article poste via Voila News - http://www.news.voila.fr
Le : Thu Dec 26 09:21:21 2002 depuis l'IP : uslec-cust.66.255.117.146.uslec.net [VIP 9946225]
Rodney Sauer
Doesn't one of these early tanks appear in the battle in WINGS?
--Rodney
Frederica
"Rodney Sauer" <rod...@mont-alto.com> wrote in message
news:3E0B3C01...@mont-alto.com...
> >>2 did the us army in world war one really have tanks?
> >>steve
> >>
> >
> > Sure did, although they tended to tip over a lot.
>
>
> Doesn't one of these early tanks appear in the battle in WINGS?
>
>
> --Rodney
I wasn't aware of anything other than Gary Cooper in WINGS.
Frederica
Dr. Giraud
Frederica >>
Wow . . . 2 minutes out of 2 hours. Hats off to Coop, I guess. (Reminds me of
the Pscychotronic Film Encyclopedia's perfectly apt review of Fellini's ghastly
8 1/2: "With Barbara Steele.")
Shawn Stone
greta de groat
Brent McKee wrote:
The tanks in the film seemed to be largish tanks, at least ones large
enough to fit in at least a dozen people. They seemed to be using them as
troop transports, since they were transporting the soldiers through the
fires (which seemed to take a while) to a battlefield full of fox holes
where they got shot at. I did wonder about the point of it all, but i
guess i could say that about the whole war.
greta
Brent McKee
>
>
> Brent McKee wrote:
>
> > "steve fisher" <Stph...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:28af0ecc.02122...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > 2 did the us army in world war one really have tanks?
> >
> > Yes. Mainly these were the small Renault tanks built by the
French
> > rather than the huge British "landships" that one usually thinks
of
> > when one mentions World War I tanks. They tended to be slower
than
> > even early World War II tanks (moving at walking speed for
infantry)
> > but were more efficient for exploiting a breakthrough than
cavalry.
> > Patton had his first exposure to tanks on the Western Front during
> > World War I.
>
large
> enough to fit in at least a dozen people. They seemed to be using
them as
> troop transports, since they were transporting the soldiers through
the
> fires (which seemed to take a while) to a battlefield full of fox
holes
> where they got shot at. I did wonder about the point of it all, but
i
> guess i could say that about the whole war.
Indeed. Unfortunately my resources on World War I are limited, and my
personal interest is in the Canadian involvement (few tanks), but this
*sounds* like Hollywood invention. Yes there were big tanks -- a
search of the Chicago Daily News photos on the Library of Congress
website that has been mentioned elsewhere shows a couple of replicas
of large French Tanks in Chicago as well as a British Tank that
participated in a parade and demonstration (but no indication of how
badly the streets were damaged by the steel tracks) and some of the
small French Whippet (mis-spelled Whiplet, and actually a Renault)
tanks which are what I think of in reference to American tanks in
World War I. I do seem to recall reading somewhere that there was
some use of tanks as armoured personnel carriers (the role that you
seem to be describing) during the war, but these would have had their
guns removed. For all of their size a tank was and still is a very
cramped vehicle -- the big British tanks might carry six or eight men,
but the little Renaults only carried 2. Take out the guns and you
could probably fit more people in. The crucial part of your
description is how the tanks are used to bring soldiers forward to
some fox holes. World War I was noted for the trench lines which
stretched from Switzerland to the English Channel not for fox holes,
but these might have been meant to depict shell holes. Regardless,
the idea behind tank assaults in World War I particularly was to break
through fixed defences such as trench lines and into the open ground
beyond while at the same time to force the enemy out of his fixed
defences. In summation while the US did have tanks and there may have
been tanks adapted to carry personnel rather than guns, the use that
the tanks are put to sounds like pure Hollywood fiction.
greta de groat
Brent McKee wrote:
Probably they were shell holes, i'm not very good with my military
terminology. I believe they depicted the tanks as having guns, because
flames from the outside were coming in the holes the guns poked through
and they were beating them back while everyone inside sweltered and
someone panicked and ran outside into the flames. My guess is Hollywood
invention, based on what you all have been saying about the tanks. But
i'm still curious about the barrels they rolled into the lines which
detonated into fire rather than explosives. I've never seen anything like
that, and (if a hollywood invention) was much more dramatic (and scary)
than an explosive.
Maybe it was watching this film late at night by myself, but it was
certainly a nightmarish experience.
greta