Une minute avant l'heure H

Love and war are a favored show theme in a number of films... Love often brings people of completely different backgrounds together, as in Huston's "The African Queen," Hemingway's "A Farewell to Arms," Arthur Hill's "The Americanization of Emily," Douglas Sirk's "A Time to Love and a Time to Die." Also Anatole Litvak's "Act of Love" explores the relationship between an embittered GI (Kirk Douglas), and a lonely, helpless French girl (Dany Robin) fearful of becoming an outright tramp...

"One Minute to Zero" uses love to make the Korean War acceptable... Ann Blyth is a nurse who has already lost a lover to the war... She is deeply hurt and cannot bear the though of falling in love with a soldier... However, she does, with a fighter pilot played by Robert Mitchum... In the end she becomes convinced that he is doing the right thing...

One interesting point about the film is the scene where Mitchum (evacuating American civilians) strafes a column of refugees because it was feared that some guerrillas had infiltrated among them...

One Minute To Zero is a cold war film about Korea, very typical of its time. President Truman called it a police action, like we were going there to arrest Kim Il Sung and his cronies. It sure looked like a war from the point of view of the World War II veterans and their younger brothers who fought it.

Robert Mitchum plays one of those veterans, a career army man who rose from the ranks to become a Colonel. He's training the South Korean Army when the North attacks. His personal story is interwoven with the progress of the war from the initial attack until the landings at Inchon. Mitch is every inch the combat soldier in this film.

And Mitch falls big time for widow Ann Blyth, a United Nations worker. When the UN was founded post World War II a lot of people put hope and faith in it that it would prevent future wars and it would deter aggression with force if need be. The only reason it got into Korea was because the Russians were boycotting the Security Council at the time and couldn't veto anything. A gambit they never used again. Ann is a World War II widow who believes she's carrying out the ideals her husband fought for. Lots of folks felt that way back in 1950.

Director Tay Garnett did a good job editing in real combat footage with his actors. The film has a good sense of realism.

But it's a good romantic story as well, helped along by one of the most durable popular songs in history. When I Fall In Love came from this film, heard in the background but never sung. Curious because Ann Blyth is an excellent singer. Nat King Cole and Doris Day had hit records of it when the film was first out. Later on Etta James, The Lettermen, Donny Osmond, Natalie Cole all did well by this song. And right up to the present day Celine Dion and Clive Griffin did a duet record back in 1993. The good ones always survive and I wouldn't bet against a future hit single for some artist with this one.

There is one scene in this that would definitely jar today's audiences. At one point Mitchum directs his men to fire into a group of refugees who the North Koreans are using as a blind to smuggle men and arms into the South. And the movie makes sure you see that that was the case. I don't doubt such things happened. They're happening today. But the movie verdict acquits Mitchum and assuages Ann Blyth that she shouldn't doubt her man. What CNN would do with that today.

The supporting cast includes Charles McGraw, Wally Cassell, and William Talman. All do a good job.

It's a double treat. Lots of action for the men and plenty of romance for the women, or the other way around if that's what floats your boat.

Mitchum is the U.S. forces colonel, trying to train the Korean army in warfare, while Ann Blyth is the interpreter "Linda". Of course, they disagree on everything, but naturally they fall in love, in spite of themselves. Even back then, they make the comment that "Nato will just pass some more strongly worded resolutions." This is extra interesting, since the war was still going on when this film was released. Viewers will also spot William Talman, in an early role here, who would go on to be the DA on Perry Mason. He died young at 53. Great flick, overall. They toss in joking one-liners, although they sometimes feel out of place, since there's so much death and dying all around them. Directed by Tay Garnett. He had a great track record, making some of the great films of Hollywood. Showing on Turner Classics.

In 1999 there was a big to-do about a supposed atrocity during the Korean War, the strafing of civilians fleeing fighting during the initial push by the North Koreans down the Korean peninsula at No Gun Ri. It turned out that the main eyewitness for the story was a liar who was not even in in-country in 1950. The fuss would have been no surprise to viewers of this movie. Here it was artillery fire rather than air attack that caused civilian casualties, but the situation was basically the same. The film depicts the sad necessity of firing on a column of refugees, driven at gunpoint by communist soldiers hidden among them in civilian clothes, who were trying to get past U.N. lines. The blame in the movie is clearly on the commies, but there is no attempt to gloss over the ugly necessities of war. This movie was the first time I ever heard the phrase "Fire for Effect", a phrase I was to utter myself frequently years later as an artillery officer in Vietnam and Cambodia.

Rather dreary Korean War drama where everybody appears to be performing "by the numbers". There's none of the intensity expected of those life-and-death situations that distinguish the era's better war films (Bridges of Toko-Ri; Pork Chop Hill; Retreat, Hell!). The action never really gels, which I suppose is the fault of director Garnett who appears disengaged from what's on screen. It doesn't help that the screenplay also appears stitched together from a host of war movie clichés, few of which stick around long enough to establish themselves--- the wives, the ethnic grunts, the lonely orphan. It's like a runner in baseball thinking he has to touch all 100 bases before he can score.

Of course, the film does contain one dramatic highlight that caused considerable controversy at the time, but has since proved revealing--- the intentional shelling of civilian refugees by American forces. The screenplay tries to soften the impact with North Korean infiltrators holding refugees at gunpoint, but the destruction occurs anyway. Now, that was really a pretty gutsy move on somebody's part since the war was still going on when the movie was released in 1952.

Though not publicized at the time, we now know from proved incidents such as No Gun-Ri (There was more than one eye-witness, and the only dispute is over the number killed) that such atrocities did occur on our side as well as the enemy's. And though not included in highschool history texts, there was considerable sympathy for the North from the peasantry of the South because of the landlord-dominated government of the South, many of which had collaborated with hated Japanese occupiers during WWII. As a result, considerable guerilla activity occurred in the South both before and during the war itself. Details such as these cast light on the basic accuracy of the movie's depiction. Ironically, the problem for GI's was the same here as in Vietnam--- how to distinguish friendly civilians from the enemy, while too often the solution was to kill them all. But when your own life is on the line, what do you do? That's why Mitchum's Col. Janowski is so torn.

Apparently studio honcho Howard Hughes had high hopes for the production since his name appears above the title. And even though the seams from stock footage are pretty obvious, the film is well produced with locations at Fort Carson, Colorado, where the terrain was said to resemble that of Korea. But background and special effects can hardly compensate for the general listlessness of the results or the ill-conceived Ann Blyth role. Nonetheless, the movie does remain memorable for its one revealing episode.