The Thin Red Line (WWII movies)
Simon Juncal
portrayal of the horror, and chaos of war, it's "realism" in the
sense of historical detail has been argued at length, with points
on both sides. One thing remains, there is no more impactful, or
compelling WWII movie, at least, that I've ever seen. "A Bridge
too Far" would get my nod as runner up, for delivering at least some
fraction of how unromantic, how far from "black and white", and
emotionally chaotic war is--to the laymen who have never experienced
it. That, when it's all said and done, is what I search for in War
movies. I know they can't show me the true reality, but I look for
it none the less. In those two movies I think glimpses can be had.
If SPR communicated the the brutality, the "gray area" and emotional
impact. Thin Red Line (TRL) must be commended for brutally
communicating the boredom, tedium, and toil that is also widely
reported to be "what war is about". Unfortunately I doubt very
seriously that this is what the director intended. TRL is (being
brutally honest) 3 hours (or is it days?) of fanciful (beautiful,
for the first half of the movie, then merely mind numbing)
photography, pseudo intellectual philosophy sprinkled liberally
with anti-war-Hollywood-in-crowd-new-age sensibility (And I
use that word loosely).
Technically the movie suffers from direction and editing by someone
who very clearly had (or continued on) one too many "consciousness
raising" LSD trips. A monotonous rambling internal dialog, by actors
who unfortunately for the audience sound too much alike, long
drawn out focus on suffering wild life while "philosophizing" most
done by non coms and privates, using words they could barely fit
their mouths around, let alone use in the proper context. Sean Penn
sounds like he swallowed a thesaurus, as does the "Jesus archetype"
main character, who mixes contrived (unnatural) "slang" and/or
idioms (southern dialect)--with words most english professors would
flinch at, if their students were to use them in the _CORRECT_
context.
The cast is a parade of familiar faces, so much so that it detracts
from the movie. Your "suspension of disbelief" will be challenged
(if not immediately thrown out the window) the moment you see "Woody"
attempting to look like "one of the guys" on the landing craft. TV
personalities (who don't belong in a serious role, let alone the
very end of the movie), has-beens, and Sean Penn and Nick Nolte, who
comprise--along with the main character (a quasi conscientious
objector) and his Captain--the ONLY solid performances. John Travolta
a General? I don't buy Travolta as anything other than a "sweat hog"
or an armed heroin addicted thug.
"realism" or accuracy suffers, as much as you would expect from most
movies... One example is; Woody at one point pulls the pin on a
grenade, a key scene (if there can be said to be ANY key scene's in
this movie; the plot is paper thin) the grenade stays on his webbing.
Which affords Woody the chance to be a hero, I can't for the life of
me figure out how a grenade would stay on webbing, hung by a spring
loaded safety lever. To pick at the realism more, would require me to
drop 3 bucks to rent it. I'm not willing to invest that much money
and free time.
The enemy, Japanese forces appear more like Viet Cong, I may have
misconceptions about them but I wouldn't expect, rudimentary
encampments, disheveled, and unorganized defenses and soldiers,
let alone the whimpering totally demoralized rabble, that the
director spends long minutes isolating in close up. I could be
totally wrong but can't believe that once US forces "broke out"
it was a simple matter of WALTZING from hill to hill casually
throwing grenades down camouflaged pits holding one or two soldiers
each. Or that these soldiers would simply wait their turn as pit
after pit was grenaded.
The movie preaches at you, throws essentially meaningless popular
psychology and philosophical buzz words at you, bombards you with
imagery in the visual equivalent of a non sequitur. The narrative
is pretentious and self absorbed to an extreme I'd expect from
a new age cult "indoctrination" movie. Some will say "you don't
get it" I would rebut that there's nothing to "get" that some
people pretend that there's something "to get" for fear of
appearing less than artistically or intellectually observant.
I'd like to ask s.h.wwii their recommendations for good (ground
based) pacific theater war movies. And of course what others
thought of TRL (assuming anyone got this far into the post,
or the movie, for that matter. =)
--
______________________________________________
) Simon co List Admin Capi...@his.com )
( Aka Alhazred (
) http://capitals.washington.dc.us/ )
( http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/ (
)_____________________________________________)
Help fight spam check out http://www.cauce.org
Stuart Makagon
[Interesting commentary on the Thin Red Line snipped for brevity]
>I'd like to ask s.h.wwii their recommendations for good (ground
>based) pacific theater war movies. And of course what others
>thought of TRL (assuming anyone got this far into the post,
>or the movie, for that matter. =)
Movies are an excellent medium for showing action. The novel, particulary
one written by a skilled practitioner of the art like TRL's James Jones,
will do a much better job of showing inner thoughts, feelings, conflicts,
etc. The film director's efforts to show the "inner life" of the characters
despite the inherent limitations of his medium is what made the film seem
long and drawn out. But that was the heart of the story. I think the film
did as good a job as possible with that aspect of the story. The film
contrasted the peaceful existance of the primitive Solomon Island natives
with the savage brutality of modern war as practiced by the more
sophisticated and civilized Americans and Japanese. I thought the film was
good at showing the randomness of death in combat, the terrror experienced
by men in battle, and bonds that develop between members of a combat unit.
I disagree about the language used by common soldiers. The WWII US military
consisted of a broad cross section of our population. Education in former
years was better in many respects to that of today's TV besotted youth. I
have seen articles written by historians who have read diaries and letters
written by common soldiers and express amazement at their facility with
English. James Jones himself was an enlisted man who hailed from Robinson,
IL. However, the main character was supposed to be a simple country boy,
Jones obviously lent his considerable skill to verbalizing that characters
thoughts.
I agree with your description of the performances by the various actors who
seemed to be playing themselves rather than their characters. However, I
think this was due to the limitations of this particular story. Normally, an
actor has dialogue, action, and plot to help him present the character he is
trying to portray. In TRL the actors delivered long soliloquies that were
supposed to represent a character's stream of consciousness, i.e. their
inner thoughts and feelings. Still I think the performances of Sean Penn,
Nick Nolte, and the actor who played the main character were outstanding.
Though I am an ex-Navy man and don't know much about ground combat, I agree
with you on how the combat scenes were presented. I know that very few
Japanese in WW II ever surrendered.
One of the areas where the film departed from the novel was the portrayal of
C company's Captain as of Greek ancestory. In the novel he was Jewish. One
of Jones' themes was anti-Semitism in the pre- and early WW II Army.
I think TRL was a good movie despite its shortcomings and recommend it to
those with an interest in WW II history.
Woodley
>or the movie, for that matter. =)
however, I have read the book written by James Jones. The story follows C
for Charlie company from the day they arrive on Guadalcanal to the day they
leave.
I still cannot make up my mind about whether the book is good or
bad. On the one hand it gives a good account of life in a combat zone -
fear, boredom, exhilaration. But the way it portrays some of the main
characters I found hard to believe i.e. Pfc Bead - coward, Pfc Doll -
brave to the extreme, Sgt Welsh - almost insane.
Another thing I found hard to believe is the conflict within the
company. There seemed to be no evidence of the camaraderie which veterans
often talk about.
In the end the book trys to hard to be philosophical.
John Becich
TRL:
1) career officers move up the ladder by taking objectives, without regard
to cost in lives of their men. The non-career types are more likely to
consider the cost.
This may be Hollywood propaganda...I can't say, as I was not in the service.
Even if I had been in the service, I think it would have been difficult to
estimate the accuracy of this theory from the experiences of one individual.
2) common soldiers are very expendible. The colonel used them like pawns
on a chessboard.
Points (1) and (2) are supported by common sense, thus are believable to the
average viewer.
John
George G.
I could not agree more on your assessment of the TRL,I found it
boring in the extreme. Try to find the movie Attack,with Jack
Palance & Eddie Arnold,one of the best. As a Navy vet of WW2, and
having taken part in operations at Okinawa,I must say,the guys I served
with were not philosophers,but we did talk about home and,lied mightily
about girls we though we had.I was 17 at the time,and still a virgin,
but I lied with the best of them .LOL
Great Post
George BM 2/C
((((((GO NAVY))))))
George G.
MakinKid
[regarding The Thin Red Line by James Jones]
> I still cannot make up my mind about whether the book is good or
>bad.
> the way it portrays some of the main
>characters I found hard to believe i.e. Pfc Bead - coward, Pfc Doll -
>brave to the extreme, Sgt Welsh - almost insane.
>Another thing I found hard to believe is the conflict within the
>company. There seemed to be no evidence of the camaraderie which veterans
>often talk about.
Agree with all these points. While my war was a generation later, Jones' book
just did not carry the "feel" of rightness that a really great novel does, and
I was not able to find anything of value in it to carry me through my
experience. JJ's From Here to Eternity did have the right ring to it, however,
but I think Jones was a one book author who should have retired after
"Eternity."
I also did not think Norman Mailer's The Naked and the Dead was very good, and
did not portray the reality of war well. I read both these books while in
Vietnam in 1965 and that may color my view of them. I do recall reading in
Mailer's book a character thinking that the arc of an artillery shell reminded
him of a woman's breast. When I read that I said out loud, "This man is an
ass." The division S-2 happened to be within earshot at the time and upon
explaining my comment he agreed. He was a veteran of the second Philippines
campaign and had nothing but contempt for Mailer's book.
Authors intent on writing a landmark book seem to believe that great truths can
be gotten out of the experience of war that can't be gotten anywhere else. I
don't believe that is true. War is, thank God, an aberration--civilization
having an accident. Great truths aren't usually discovered from accidents.
They are discovered through insight, which can come from a careful examination
of the ordinary. That's why such authors as Willa Cather and Hamlin Garland,
who did not write war novels, are more original, more thought-provoking and
more insightful than either Jones or--especially--Mailer.
My two cents.
Makin
Simon Juncal
<snip>
> I disagree about the language used by common soldiers. The WWII US military
> consisted of a broad cross section of our population. Education in former
> years was better in many respects to that of today's TV besotted youth. I
> have seen articles written by historians who have read diaries and letters
> written by common soldiers and express amazement at their facility with
> English. James Jones himself was an enlisted man who hailed from Robinson,
> IL. However, the main character was supposed to be a simple country boy,
> Jones obviously lent his considerable skill to verbalizing that characters
> thoughts.
My point on this isn't that Soldiers can't be smart, in fact I'm
reading "Eye-witness D-Day" and I would whole heartedly agree with
you that many Soldiers PFC. to General were well educated. Though
I'd say, as in life, that that wasn't representative of the
average "dog face".
The problem (and in terms of the movie it interfered with my
enjoyment and "suspension of disbelief" greatly) was that all
the internal narrative abused it, and most distracting, often
mixed "10 dollar words" with contrived "dumb talk" along the
lines of 'ain't no' and 'I gotst', if anything this (in combo
with the big words) was the contrived part of the narrative dialog.
I just didn't buy it:
'Cause, well; ain't nobody in real life talk with such linguistic
contrivance.
:)
John
> I'd like to ask s.h.wwii their recommendations for good (ground
> based) pacific theater war movies. And of course what others
> thought of TRL (assuming anyone got this far into the post,
> or the movie, for that matter. =)
Well Simon, you have a true knack for movie reviewing. Thin Red Line was
truly awful from any point of objectivity. Sorry but there are no good
Pacific Theatre movie in existence. I was around then, and I see a lot
of movies too. This deficit has something to do with (a) the PTO was
small potato's compared with the ETO, of passing interest only to
academics and folks whose people died there, (b) national angst over
atom-bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and 'relocating' many thousand
Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the west coast has kept us from a
real confrontation with Japan over their unthinkable atrocities during
WW II,and (c) national interests in good ties with Japan as a US trading
and defense partner, hence reluctance to dig in to the horrors of the
Pacific war, (the fighting as well as the treatment of captive peoples)
and bring insult to a new friend. Actually, TRL's depiction of Japanese
prisoners was insulting to the Japanese and out of context in terms of
(c) above. Go figure.
There are ongoing threads around this subject on this NG, trying to get
those either too young to know, or older but fixed on the ETO, to pay
attention to the PTO. Maybe your post will help.
Regards,
John Brookes
Dragoon695
not a war movie, and vehicle for everyone who missed out on saving private
ryan. Read the book, it's much better
Alita's Sniper
blows his ass off with his grenade and left. Actually that scene sums up the
movie so far. The director really blew the film with his poor directing.
It was until that point one of the most pretentious, convulated, patchy, and
poorly directed movies I've seen so far. It reminds me of some of the high
school essays I used to read when I was a teenager.
I recommend watching the movie after taking LSD, a 500ml of cough mixture or
whats your fancy.
Simon Juncal wrote in message <37a910ee...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>...
[snip a good summary of A Thin Red Whine]
Rob Davis
>truly awful from any point of objectivity. Sorry but there are no good
>Pacific Theatre movie in existence. I was around then, and I see a lot
The Caine Mutiny rates a mention.
=====================
Rob Davis MSc MIAP
Telford Shropshire UK
Francis Hoang
>based) pacific theater war movies. And of course what others
>thought of TRL (assuming anyone got this far into the post,
>or the movie, for that matter. =)
Actually I quite liked this movie. Moreso then Saving Private Ryan.
The problem with most war movies I find is that they try and make
it an action film with a unit facing battle all the time, but from what I've
read, for most units its mostly about waiting around
to fight. I think in that TRL does this well.
As for the poetry and things, well I didn't mind them. I've read
some pretty nice poems written by soldiers in times of war.
Anyway if you didn't like TRL what did you think/like about
All Quiet on the Western Front.
Thanks.
Francis.
mvil...@my-deja.com
it a movie about WW2.
This is a movie (and so was the book) about the conflict and ambiguity
of nature's inherent peacefulness against man's destructive power. It
is a movie about the paradox between man's ability to be one withnature,
and his ability to destroy it and himself. Guadalcanal was merely a
backdrop. WW2 was merely an instrument that the author, and director
used to try to examine this subject.
Simon Juncal
>
> This is becasue Thin Red Line is NOT a movie about Guadalcanal. Nor is
> it a movie about WW2.
For my purposes it is, and it fails miserably on that score, it also
fails when it comes to this "philosophy" You see the premise
that you "get" is built on a romanticized and fundamentally flawed
view of nature (and War as something unnatural).
> This is a movie (and so was the book) about the conflict and ambiguity
> of nature's inherent peacefulness against man's destructive power. It
The problem comes with such popular contrivance as "nature's inherent
peacefulness" Briefly (without straying too far off topic) Such a
statement is patently absurd. One needn't observe "nature" for a
life time to realize that it's not inherently peaceful. Something as
basic as the food chain itself is a description of a far from
peaceful reality. In short everything save inanimate objects on earth
feed on something whose short term interest isn't served by being
consumed (from plankton to cows). It's popular, I think it was the
movie "Patch Adams" which stated recently "in all of nature only man
kills his own species", but the popularity of a thing is not proof of
it's reality. Many insects (Spiders, Ants, Mantis') and animals
(Rodents, Fish, Reptiles, Sharks, Simians, and of course Humans) will
in various circumstances kill it's own kind, even it's own direct
relations.
> is a movie about the paradox between man's ability to be one withnature,
> and his ability to destroy it and himself. Guadalcanal was merely a
> backdrop. WW2 was merely an instrument that the author, and director
> used to try to examine this subject.
You (and many others) seem to view this destructiveness as *apart*
from nature, as if mankind's nature is an ugly appendix to "real"
nature. War (along with mans other destructive tendencies) is just
as natural as the Birds and the Bees, or Chimps killing their own
(in some cases their own young). Nature you see is NOT inherently
peaceful, in fact it's inherently the polar opposite of peaceful,
it's quite violent.
War at it's most basic level, is the struggle for territorial
control--nothing could be more natural.
--
Simon co List Admin Capi...@his.com
http://capitals.washington.dc.us/
http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/
John
> For my purposes it is, and it fails miserably on that score, it also
> fails when it comes to this "philosophy" You see the premise
> that you "get" is built on a romanticized and fundamentally flawed
> view of nature (and War as something unnatural).
I think he meant his criticism to be from a literary rather than the
more fundamental biological viewpoint. Of course you are right, 'war' by
higher primates is as natural as the lady mantid chewing the head off
her recent mate or the male polar bears eating their cubs in order to
bring the mom into the mood to mate again. Few subscribers to this NG
will take your Huxleyian view however.
John Brookes
MakinKid
>'war' by
>higher primates is as natural as the lady mantid chewing the head off
>her recent mate
Anyone wishing to pursue this topic might enjoy The Biology of Peace and War by
irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt. One arresting illustration in the book is a foto of a
battle scene painted in a cave in Spain during the Paleolithic era.
Makin
woodley
Mailers - The Naked And The Dead ( I'm talking about the books) is the
almost continual bickering amongst the men. Surely that is'nt a real
reflection of what it was like. Obviously a group of men living under such
stressfull conditions would produce some ocassional friction, but when
hearing veterans speak of the war, they so often fondly remember the
camaraderie which they shared.
Woodley.
mvil...@my-deja.com
> fails when it comes to this "philosophy" You see the premise
> that you "get" is built on a romanticized and fundamentally flawed
> view of nature (and War as something unnatural).
>
For my purposes, the author of the book, and the director of the movie
"The Thin Red Line" were trying to convey the ideas I say below.
And I'm not about to get in to a philosphy debate here, but you are
rebuting my argument about the movie from a biological POV. I totally
agree with you, nature is cruel. But the movie and book clearly, or at
least want to convey that specific thought about the subject of War.
And besides, that director has a similar style through his other movies,
and it's a very foreign style that what American movie audiences are
used to.
> The problem comes with such popular contrivance as "nature's inherent
> peacefulness" Briefly (without straying too far off topic) Such a
> statement is patently absurd. One needn't observe "nature" for a
> life time to realize that it's not inherently peaceful. Something as
> basic as the food chain itself is a description of a far from
> peaceful reality. In short everything save inanimate objects on earth
> feed on something whose short term interest isn't served by being
> consumed (from plankton to cows). It's popular, I think it was the
> movie "Patch Adams" which stated recently "in all of nature only man
> kills his own species", but the popularity of a thing is not proof of
> it's reality. Many insects (Spiders, Ants, Mantis') and animals
> (Rodents, Fish, Reptiles, Sharks, Simians, and of course Humans) will
> in various circumstances kill it's own kind, even it's own direct
> relations.
I am merely saying, from a literary and cinematographic standpoint, that
the subject I said above is (or could be) what the movie and the book
were trying to convey. Or at least to examine and ponder about. My
point was that poeple were complaining how slow and boring it was. I
think they were misled by the advertising, and the advertising portrayed
the movie as something comparable to "Saving Private Ryan", a movie more
along the lines of the historical action genre.
The Thin Red Line is far from that, and therefore should be examined
from a different, more avant-garde viewpoint.
> You (and many others) seem to view this destructiveness as *apart*
> from nature, as if mankind's nature is an ugly appendix to "real"
> nature. War (along with mans other destructive tendencies) is just
> as natural as the Birds and the Bees, or Chimps killing their own
> (in some cases their own young). Nature you see is NOT inherently
> peaceful, in fact it's inherently the polar opposite of peaceful,
> it's quite violent.
>
> War at it's most basic level, is the struggle for territorial
> control--nothing could be more natural.
>
And not to get too philosophical here, but if war is so natural, then
why do we feel bad about it? Why do we feel so guilty about it? Why do
we regret and cry when we see bodies brought home from war?
Why are we sickened when we watch footage of Jews who are basically
living skeletons, being bulldozed into a pit that will be their grave?
What stops me from killing a man driving a Lexus and taking his car and
his money?
What stops me from killing another man's children so that I could seed
his mate with my own children?
Shouldnt we cheer when we kill an enemy soldier? His genes are out of
the genepool, now we have the opportunity to pass on ours.
I'm not Jewish, so shouldnt I be happy that 6 million Jews were killed
in WW2? That way, MY christian genes could now be passed on much more
easier...
So what stops us? Why do we feel guilty about these things?
Is it laws and regulations?
If so why were those laws put in in the first place?
Think about it in those terms. There are some things that science
cannot explain (and I'm an engineer)...
Nevertheless, talk to the director and the author about your argument
against what they are saying, or trying to put forth. They are the ones
who need to hear it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
trekk...@mailcity.com
> control--nothing could be more natural.
On a personal level, neither the American or Japanese soldiers
were in their own territory, so their fight over that island
might be considered unnatural.
Donald Phillipson
The core question may be whether books and movies guide behavior
or whether actual behaviour is truly reflected in books and movies.
E.g. all American movies about troops in wartime show at least
one fist-fight sooner or later, sometimes a knife fight. Fights
of any sort are exceptionally rare in British movies about troops.
Just possibly, the movies are realistically true, i.e. represent
a real difference between the "social culture" of American and
British enlisted men. (But there is a lot of fake sociology
in this. In the 1950s the RAF prepared aircrew for training in
Canada by teaching them "unarmed combat" to defend themselves
in inevitable fights in Canadian bars. None of the Canadian-
trained men with whom I served ever reported having to fight
to defend himself.)
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
John
>
> This is becasue Thin Red Line is NOT a movie about Guadalcanal. Nor is
> it a movie about WW2.
Quite so. If it was taken as a revelation on military behavior/events on
Guadalcanal, (or anywhere else in the island-hopping PTO or anywhere
else in history), the viewer was doomed to disapointment. Technically it
was an absolutely awful movie, but stepping aside from technical flaws,
> This is a movie (and so was the book) about the conflict and ambiguity
> of nature's inherent peacefulness against man's destructive power. It
> is a movie about the paradox between man's ability to be one withnature,
> and his ability to destroy it and himself [snip] WW2 was merely an instrument
that the author, and director
> used to try to examine this subject.
Absolutely. That the movie may have fallen short of the authors, (&
directors,) intent is too bad, but that's Hollywood for you.
John Brookes
Simon Juncal
> And I'm not about to get in to a philosphy debate here, but you are
> rebuting my argument about the movie from a biological POV. I totally
> agree with you, nature is cruel. But the movie and book clearly, or at
> least want to convey that specific thought about the subject of War.
> And besides, that director has a similar style through his other movies,
> and it's a very foreign style that what American movie audiences are
> used to.
So your point is that, there is something to "get" out of this movie
even if it is only a fanciful romanticized view of man versus nature?
A message that requires a willfully skewed view point, to accept and
is without any practical merit...
In that sense, I'll give you that there was indeed something to "get"
It just isn't worth getting IMHO.
FWIW I never saw any advertisements for TTRL, my sole introduction to
it was a positive review, I didn't have preconceptions, besides the
(totally understandable) expectation that there would be at least
good story telling, competently fleshed out characters, and some
pertinence to war in the pacific. Unfortunately it failed on those
three counts, AND preached a heavy handed fantasy, while boring me
with visual repetition and contrived dialog.
> And not to get too philosophical here, but if war is so natural, then
> why do we feel bad about it? Why do we feel so guilty about it? Why do
> we regret and cry when we see bodies brought home from war?
Why do some women feel depression after having a child? Why do some
soldiers feel guilty that they lived while their buddies died? Why
do people "feel bad" when a relative dies of old age? Ever heard of
post coital depression? What could be more natural than: Sex, Birth,
survival, and death?
Surely you aren't arguing that feeling guilt (or bad) is some how
indicative of "unnaturalness"? Again you seem to think that nature
is inherently good, that we should feel good about anything that
is natural, and that by extension anything we feel bad about must
be unnatural.
trekk...@mailcity.com
> Actually I quite liked this movie. Moreso then Saving Private Ryan.
> The problem with most war movies I find is that they try and make
> it an action film with a unit facing battle all the time, but from
what I've
> read, for most units its mostly about waiting around
> to fight.
That is what I think caused some younger people to walk out on the
film- it's portrayal of the intense boredom , of men caught in
a situation in which they have little control.
At first I thought C for Charlie was part of a nationalized
National Guard unit. The book says it was regular army.
They were involved in mopping up rearguard actions- after the
real heavy fighting was over. The Japanese soldiers they were
up against, I assumed, had been left isolated for quite a while
and were already dispirited.
Travolta, playing a general in the beginning of the movie, I
had assumed- had been promoted by some governor prior to the
war.
BryanL
> I'd like to ask s.h.wwii their recommendations for good (ground
> based) pacific theater war movies.
Although it's been a long time since I've seen it, I thought "Bridge On
The River Kwai" was pretty good.
-BL
Vincent H Bartning
woodley wrote in message <7o31hh$ros$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>> One thing that stood out for me about both TRL and Norman
>Mailers - The Naked And The Dead ( I'm talking about the books) is the
>almost continual bickering amongst the men. Surely that is'nt a real
>reflection of what it was like. Obviously a group of men living under such
>stressfull conditions would produce some ocassional friction, but when
>hearing veterans speak of the war, they so often fondly remember the
>camaraderie which they shared.
Woodley:
I thought of "The Naked and the Dead" as I watched the movie.
By the way, was Guadacanal the turning point for the Pacific theater or
Midway? I remember a test I took had Guadacanal, but a recent National
Geographic claims Midway was the turning point it seems.
Vincent
Tom Ensminger
> >>One thing that stood out for me about both TRL and Norman
> >almost continual bickering amongst the men.
Yes, it is real, and pervasive, and depends largely on
the mix of men, but much more likely to exist in a
draft army than a volunteer one. Sometimes the
game becomes "who can we drive nuts today". As
weaknesses and soft spots are discovered, they are
exploited as new territory, to kill the boredom.
Vets fondly remember things because 50 years
are between the reality and the remembrance. The
human brain has a remarkable capacity for dropping
off the unpleasant memories and constantly refreshing
the few pleasant ones....
Vincent H Bartning
for accuracy as "Saving Private Ryan" did. What about the scene where they
take the pill box with the machine gun fire after Nicholson comes to the
front personally? There's a lot of shelling after they call it in by
walkie-talkie; contrast that to where the radio's shot-up in "Saving
Private Ryan."
Vincent
Thomas E. Myers
At any point in the war up to Midway, Japan could have won.
At any point up to Guadalcanal, America could have lost.
Midway was certainly a critical victory, but Guadalcanal represented the
first time in memory that an advancing Japanese military was beaten & pushed
back onto the defensive.
Jet the Cat
the post. My rebuttle and elaboration:
1. PPA was merely one "private outfit" that bloomed in the Western
Desert. Provided it delivered demonstrable results the top brass were
willing to turn a blind eye - at least in the earlies.
2. Its progenitor were the Jock Columns - akin to desert cruisers - big
enough to give a lesser foe a pasting but mobile enough to speed off if
the big lads were in the offing.
3. The LRDG did excellent work as primarily a recon unit in the W.D. -
but found it extraordinarily difficult to redefine its role once the
front shifted to Italy and the Balkans. Took really special efforts to
maintain its resources and to find itself a role. Even then, once the
front shifted out of the W.D. there's a distinct feeling that the gilt
was off the gingerbread.
4. Star of the show was the SAS - and then it took someone with the
drive, focus, and discipline of David Stirling to make it a long-term
goer. The main strength was its early ability to deliver really
significant outcomes and having a depth of leadership so that it was
always able to "fight two battles ahead" - Stirling in 1942 was already
thinking in terms of what the SAS would, could, should be doing a year
down the track.
4. PPA was a distant 3rd cousin. It was so tiny that it's impact in the
W.D. could readily make good media but little more. Popski was more a
short term doer rather than a solid planner (like Stirling). The net
result was a situation like an unbalanced family business - if the
environment changes and the old man loses the touch the place goes down
the gurgler. Not unsurprisingly Popski tended to attract a small group
of 20 year olds who wanted to get into the war and none can blame them:
who wants regimental bull when you can bomb around the desert blowing
things up? However the ballast just wasn't there once the war was wound
up in the W.D. and PPA ended its days as a basically low-grade outfit
whose contribution could be matched maybe 6 times over by one Halifax
making a weapons drop, a series of photo-recon sorties, or three well
spotted SOE agents.
2 Euros.....
mvil...@my-deja.com
That pillbox scene contained FIVE machine guns in one pillbox...
You dont make strongpoints that way...
You make MANY pillboxes for every ONE machine gun...you fall back and
retreat to ready made pillboxes as the enemy advances, inflicting as
much losses on them as you could, then fall back again...
historically, the japanese did that in their islands...especially iwo
jima...
that sequence in the movie was terrible, and as far as the inderect fire
being called in...that was dumb also...
you need a map and compas an protractor to call in fire, the guys just
shouted off numbers...kinda dumb...and who would call in fire when they
were that close...and once they did, only one squad attacked, kinda
dumb...should've had a lot of guys waiting to charge once the mortars
shot...
and it wasnt a lot of shelling...i would've used incindiary rounds...
In article <37ba54f...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
Darryl Gibbs
Thomas E. Myers wrote in message <37c2482b...@news.usenetserver.com>...
>A historian I know put it this way:
>
>first time in memory that an advancing Japanese military was beaten &
pushed
>back onto the defensive.
>
Not quite.
The Japanese were still sending re- to Guadalcanal in November. The
Japanese conceaded defeat and withdrew their forces from Milne Bay in early
September.
Darryl Gibbs
Jukka Raustia
> you need a map and compas an protractor to call in fire, the guys just
> shouted off numbers...kinda dumb...and who would call in fire when they
At least in the Finnish Army one didn't (and doesn't) necessarily
have to use map for mortar call for fire, he can alternatively call in
fire by telling bearing and range from the mortar firing position to
the target, and IIRC, that was the method FO used in Thin Red Line.
OffCandidate Jukka Raustia
Recon Troops FO
1st Btry/Satakunta Artillery Regiment
--
Pääoma pelkää työväen yhtenäisyyttä!
1026...@my-deja.com
John <jbro...@pacific.net> wrote:
> Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> > I'd like to ask s.h.wwii their recommendations for good (ground
> > thought of TRL (assuming anyone got this far into the post,
> > or the movie, for that matter. =)
>
was
> Pacific Theatre movie in existence.
Simply not true!
I have seen "Father Goose" several times, and love it more each time!
Good, clean film-making from the good old days!
And I think there was another good navy one, but can't recall the name,
with James Cagney as commander of a supply ship who wouldn't let a
young officer transfer. The key (near end) scene has the LT throwing
the Captain's palm tree overboard.
======
Moderator's Note: The Movie in question is "Mr. Roberts"
======
Of course, for those of you who think the war was only about killing
the enemy, these might not be of interest....
All the best,
Tom
1026...@my-deja.com
John <jbro...@pacific.net> wrote:
> Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> > I'd like to ask s.h.wwii their recommendations for good (ground
> > based) pacific theater war movies. And of course what others
> > thought of TRL (assuming anyone got this far into the post,
> > or the movie, for that matter. =)
>
> Well Simon, you have a true knack for movie reviewing. Thin Red Line
was
> truly awful from any point of objectivity. Sorry but there are no good
> Pacific Theatre movie in existence.
Simply not true!
I have seen "Father Goose" several times, and love it more each time!
Good, clean film-making from the good old days!
And I think there was another good navy one, but can't recall the name,
with James Cagney as commander of a supply ship who wouldn't let a
young officer transfer. The key (near end) scene has the LT throwing
the Captain's palm tree overboard.
Of course, for those of you who think the war was only about killing
Iam436
>And I think there was another good navy one, but can't recall the name,
>with James Cagney as commander of a supply ship who wouldn't let a
>young officer transfer. The key (near end) scene has the LT throwing
>the Captain's palm tree overboard
Prehaps you are thinking of the Caine Mutiney, but it was Humphrey Bogart not
James Cagney
Rich Rostrom
> A small addo. I was chastised by a poster for critiquing PPA but deleted
> the post. My rebuttle and elaboration:
>
> 1. PPA was merely one "private outfit" that bloomed in the Western
> Desert.
PPA did not bloom in the Western Desert. It was established in
November 1942, and did not even get into action until January 1943,
in the area of Tripoli.
> 2. Its progenitor were the Jock Columns...
Peniakoff never mentioned the 'Jock columns'. HIs model was the LRDG,
which he worked with extensively when spying in Cyrenaica earlier
in the war.
>
> 4. PPA was a distant 3rd cousin. It was so tiny that it's impact in the
> W.D. could readily make good media but little more.
As mentioned above PPA never operated in the Western Desert.
> ... Not unsurprisingly Popski tended to attract a small group
> of 20 year olds who wanted to get into the war and none can blame them:
> who wants regimental bull when you can bomb around the desert blowing
> things up?
Since PPA never did that, why would such men join PPA? Peniakoff
created PPA as a reconnaissance force, not a commando squad. (OK,
there was a period of about two weeks in Tunisia when PPA found
an unguarded track through the Western Dorsals, and used it to make
several raids on German supply lines.)
Peniakoff's policy was to avoid combat as much possible because
it interfered with PPA's reconnaissance mission.
As for PPA being a gang of 20 year old enthusiasts, Peniakoff
turned down over 90% of the men who volunteered for PPA.
> However the ballast just wasn't there once the war was wound
> up in the W.D. and PPA ended its days as a basically low-grade outfit
> whose contribution could be matched maybe 6 times over by one Halifax
> making a weapons drop, a series of photo-recon sorties, or three well
> spotted SOE agents.
I have the feeling you don't know much about what PPA was doing in
the latter stages of the war.
For example - PPA was attached to 1st Airborne Division for the
Taranto landing (Operation SLAPSTICK) on September 9, 1943.
During the next few days PPA scouted as far as Bari, 75 km to the
north. With the aid of a helpful Italian, they stole a German
supply officer's papers and provided 1st Airborne with a complete
order of battle for all German forces in the area. During this
operation they never fired a shot, BTW.
On the other hand, in the last days of the war, they became more
aggressive. PPA achieved the surrender of the German garrison
at Chioggia (700 men on a fortified island), among other successes.
According to Peniakoff PPA captured 1,300 prisoners altogether.
This was not just rounding up stragglers - PPA lost 11 killed
through the war, and 3 of them were in the last two weeks, in
fights with German rearguards.
This is all taken from Peniakoff's memoir - but since he is brutally
honest about his own and PPA's failures elsewhere, I tend to take
his word for the achievements.
--
Rich Rostrom | "Ah, White Lightning, that splits the skull and
| encourages the body and the sentiments!"
R-Rostrom@ |
mcs.net | -- R. A. Lafferty, _The Reefs of Earth_
Simon Juncal
> Simply not true!
>
> ======
> Moderator's Note: The Movie in question is "Mr. Roberts"
> ======
>
> the enemy, these might not be of interest....
To be fair I was asking for good "ground based" PT movies, Nothing
against Navy, just had a hankerin' for ground war films to fill
out my collection.
To illustrate, there are those Marine recruitment films like "Retreat
Hell!" or "Hell Is For Heroes" (okay so they only looked like
Marine propaganda films ;) That I doubt anyone considers as
representative of the war, let alone war in the pacific. Hell I'd
settle for a PT movie that could hold a candle to "The Big Red One",
"The Longest Day" (which after I got past the cameo'itis and re-read
the book, was pretty good), or "Bridge At Remagen", let alone
masterworks like "A Bridge To Far" or SPR. About the only compelling
PT movie I can think of is "Marrel's Marauder's" and even that has
overly clean and fanciful "Yell/fling arms up/HOLD POSE/drop" combat
(not to mention that it's in SE Asia and not the Pacific).
Was the original "The Thin Red Line" any good? I'll have to give it
a look.
--
______________________________________________
) Simon co List Admin Capi...@his.com )
( Aka Alhazred (
) http://capitals.washington.dc.us/ )
( http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/ (
)_____________________________________________)
Nelson Haldane
> Peniakoff never mentioned the 'Jock columns'. HIs model was the LRDG,
> which he worked with extensively when spying in Cyrenaica earlier
> in the war.
> >
IIRC the LRDG was formed by some Kiwis. One of their outstanding
accomplishments was discovering the route through the Tebaga Gap so the
NZ Corps could out flank the Mareth Line.
--
Remove "**" from address for reply by e-mail
casita
not
>James Cagney
Perhaps he is thinking of the Caney, Fonda, Lemmon movie Mr Roberts.
It was about a USN Pacific supply ship in WW2.
Nelson Haldane
> >And I think there was another good navy one, but can't recall the name,
> >with James Cagney as commander of a supply ship who wouldn't let a
> >young officer transfer. The key (near end) scene has the LT throwing
> >the Captain's palm tree overboard
>
> Prehaps you are thinking of the Caine Mutiney, but it was Humphrey Bogart not
> James Cagney
It was "Mr. Roberts", starring Henry Fonda.. Jack Leammon was Ensgin
Pulver, the one that threw the palm tree overboard on hearing o the
death of Mr. Roberts. Leammon won the oscar for the role
Keith B. Rosenberg
>
> >Subject: A Good WWII movie (Was Re: The Thin Red Line)
>
> >with James Cagney as commander of a supply ship who wouldn't let a
> >young officer transfer. The key (near end) scene has the LT throwing
> >the Captain's palm tree overboard
>
> Prehaps you are thinking of the Caine Mutiney, but it was Humphrey Bogart not
> James Cagney
It was the movie "Mr. Roberts" starring Henry
Fonda, Jack Lemon
and James Cagney. It is a story of the rear
echelon Navy, their
boredom and their third rate officers. There was a
book of the
same name (author might be Thomas Hegin sp?).
James Cagney is
really good as a martinet officer with a large
chip on his
shoulder.
--
********************************************************************
enor...@ix.netcom.com (Keith B. Rosenberg) (EN][)
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck
him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the
guns begin to shoot;
Steve Ewing
Iam436 wrote in message <37dd50d2...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>...
>>Subject: A Good WWII movie (Was Re: The Thin Red Line)
>Prehaps you are thinking of the Caine Mutiney, but it was Humphrey Bogart
not
>James Cagney
>
>
I believe the movie being mentioned was Mister Roberts, which had Cagney,
among others. Heckuva movie. I'm not quite certain whether I'd call it
comedy or drama. There was a sequel, which was also pretty good, and which
I believe was called Ensign Pulver.
Steve Ewing
WalterM140
> truly awful from any point of objectivity. Sorry but there are no good
> Pacific Theatre movie in existence.>>
"Heaven only Knows, Mr. Allison" with Robert Mitchum and Deborah Kerr is a
wonderful film.
"Tora, Tora, Tora" is a great film for its scale and realism. It is boring in
spots but it does tell the story of the attack on Pearl Harbor well.
Gosh, but there aren't a BUNCH of war in the Pacific films that leap out at
you, are there?
One of my sentimental favorites I saw first as a small child was "Air Force"
about a B-17 caught up in the early days of WWII. It was made in 1943, and is
really hokie, but you gotta love it when they fire up those four Wright
Cyclones and escape from the Japs just in in the nick of time!
Walt
Lawrence Dillard
the Pacific, as well as "The Gallant Hours", starring James Cagney as Bill
Halsey. Thanks for the post.
ldil...@EnterAct.Com
WalterM140 wrote in message <37d70180...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>...