Jump Into Hell

One of the Vietnamese characters, a troop on an airplane, pretty much sums up the overall issue in Indochina: they didn't want outsider Russians and Chinese, nor did they want the outsider French unless the French granted them some autonomy (he used the much-overused phrase "democracy"). Later, the vast majority of them didn't want the outsider Americans, either. After the departure of WWII Japanese occupiers, French Colonialists, anti-communist Americans, Russians and Chinese, and after fighting yet another border war with China after the Americans left, Vietnam finally became a sovereign nation. Whew, what a long slog they had.

Many heroic and brave French military and Foreign Legion troops were sacrificed in Indochina and the film properly credits their bravery, with some well done military depictions.

The Americans ended up seeming rather two-faced to everyone, having at one time sided with the Vietnamese nationalists during and after WWII only to drop them, later supporting the French because they were anti- communist, only to just simply abandon the French along with any and all representations expressly made or implied to them. I mention this mainly because some one-sided American cold war jingoism is used to an almost laughable extent throughout the movie.

Diplomacy is given lip service but actually played an important part in all of the Indochina conflicts. A Geneva conference is mentioned, and in fact a later Geneva Agreement reached by U.S. Ambassador Averill Harriman in 1961/62 effectively ham-stringed subsequent U.S. actions in the region. Constant conferences went on for decades regarding the Indochina situation.

The lessons of the conflict depicted in this film should not be forgotten but I believe it is a travesty that the word "Colonialism" is not emphasized in the film or in most reviews and discussions of it. I prefer to remember this film as a jump into Colonialism, which is was.

This decent war film starts out with a tribute to a fight against slavery. Unwittingly, the tribute actually described the struggle of the North Vietnamese against all foreign invaders and colonialism by the West. It was meant to imply the French were against slavery. Tell that to the colonials under their rule in various African and Asian countries, and they would laugh in your face. It has taken the world several decades to learn that colonial powers were the real slaveowners. And some have still not learned. The battle sequences are good, but, once again, one-sided. There is no character development of anyone except French people. The other soldiers are just mechanical men because they are communists. As if colonialists were morally superior to communists. I wonder why it did not occur to these people why the communists fought so bravely; as bravely as the French.

It is so far the only American war film speaking of French war in Indochina, with also ROGUE'S REGIMENT and Samuel Fuller's CHINA GATE. Later, US movie industry will evoke this period of war for France, just evoke and will speak more about war in Algeria, another colony war for France just after Indochina; this movie is LOST COMMAND, from director Mark Robson, starring Alain Delon and Anthony Quinn. Back to this one, from director David Butler, for whom it is the best movie for me, with maybe KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS, a medieval film, and also THE COMMAND his unique western and not bad at all movie, it is not at the level of Pierre Schoendoerffer's DIEN BIEN PHU, far far more accurate and based on the actual battle, which was a defeat for French. But yes, from a director specialized in operette, and musical or other flat comedies, this is a good surprise. Much footage material for this anti red propaganda film, and for this reason I think US movie industry took advantage of the defeat of French army against Communist soldiers to "attack" this very same political system. As they did for Korean war.

Most of the reviewers here have been pretty spot on with their observations. It's worth noting that there were some exceptional stories of valour and gallantry at Dien Bien Phu. A good example is the Walker light tanks that were literally dropped in crates and built on-site by the Motorcar platoon at the fortress. The tanks are still there today. The action was more than a little 'faked' but not at all out of character for the 1950's. (See the Gene Barry-Angie Dickinson movie, 'China Gate' for a very comparable French Indochina picture.) It would have been far more compelling as a docudrama chronicling the events of the siege from the beginning until the tragic (at least for the Legionnaires) end. This is a movie that would be well worth a remake, however unlikely that is. All in all there are many worse war movies. The appearance of a young and beautiful Patricia Blair in her pre-Daniel Boone days is a plus. It's disappointing that she did not have a more expansive career.

The narrative follows the 1954 battle of Indo-China's Dienbienphu, as the French try to prevent their fortress from falling to the indigenous Viet Minh.

Strictly as a war movie, the results are not very good. Outside of the stock footage, the small battles are not well staged. For example, there's that dreadful scene where three French troops dive into a Viet Minh foxhole, the battle being filmed more like a Three Stooges comedy than a matter of life or death. That's not surprising since director Butler's credits shows a distinct preference for comedy. Then too, the acting, particularly Van Eyck, is uninspired, to say the least. I agree with the reviewer who notes the movie's best parts are those in Paris. Also, note how brief the women's parts are even though they're given the kind of billing that misleads audience expectations.

All in all, it's not possible to discuss this nakedly propagandistic movie without a few observations. The Viet Minh are consistently vilified, while the French colonialists are consistently lionized (with one exception). Nowhere, however, does the film acknowledge the French as an army of foreign occupation, in service to what remained of the French empire post-WWII. Nor does the film distinguish between nationalism, anti-colonialism, and communism. Yet all three were in play among the Viet Minh. The political landscape was, in fact, much more complex than this simple-minded, reductionist screenplay acknowledges. As propaganda, the movie is clumsily obvious, at best. Too bad, we Americans had to find out the complex realities of Indo-China the hard way. At the same time, it's movie screed like this that helped grease the skids.