The Red Badge of Courage

Keep in mind that many people involved with this film were WW2 vets. That's important, as I think it made a HUGE difference in how the film came out. Audie Murphy was the most decorated American soldier of WW2. Bill Mauldin wasn't a line soldier, but he'd been in the infantry before the war. He knew what the daily life of a grunt was all about. And director John Huston had directed films in WW2, standing at the front lines in Italy to do so. They all knew what war should look like. Had these people not been involved, I think this movie wouldn't have rung true as it did then and does today. Sure, the weapons, most of the uniforms and equipment are horribly wrong (this was in the days when a "trapdoor" Springfield rifle and Indian War era equipment was just fine for a Civil War film), but this film must be viewed on it's acting and photography. They got it across what it was like to be SHOT at, and how it felt to be terrified in battle, better than any film since, "All Quiet of the Western Front." Yes, it's seriously abridged and condensed (quite a feat when you consider how short the book is), but it gets the spirit across just fine. It's not perfect by any measure, but you'll never be able to get such a group together to re-make this film and have ring as trued as this classic.

This is really a very fine film and after seeing it on has to wonder why Audie Murphy never had more substantial roles in his career, as he was quite good in this film. As was mentioned in a previous post he was playing himself in the movie To Hell and Back and was essentially a B-Western actor the remainder of his career. This films shows that he was much more talented than one would ever know from watching the bulk of his films.

Such a darn shame so much of the film was lost during a power struggle at MGM. What remains is a strong drama adapted from the Crane novel. Some call it an anti-war film, but that's a stretch since Audie Murphy's youthful soldier proves himself in battle after a cowardly initiation, and receives the admiration of his buddies. The sequence is more like a rite of passage than a denunciation.

The somewhat amateur cast is outstanding. I expect the untrained Murphy felt a personal commitment to his role and comes through just as professionally as he did in real life. Untrained cartoonist Bill Mauldin also looks and acts the part of callow youth maturing under pressures of life or death situations. His big ears are especially persuasive for a Hollywood setting.

And what burst of inspiration led the normally glamor-obsessed Tiffany of Studios to cast such affecting unlovelies as John Dierkes and Royal Dano in key parts. It's Dierkes's ill-fated salt-of-the-earth soldier that injects real tragedy into the sparse dialogue. With his craggy face and towering body he's every inch the early American primitive. And, of course, there's Dano with his gaunt face, wasted body, and graveyard voice, who helps make that line of wounded soldiers (the real core of the film) an unforgettable procession. Nor should that genuine face of war, the battle-shocked soldier deliriously bellowing The Battle Hymn of the Republic as he trudges along, be overlooked. And for a little humorous relief, who can forget the general whose pep-talk to each unit sounds like a broken record with a big stomach, but whose humanity shines through anyway.

The sweeping battlefields are effective in their look and feel, even if it is the scrublands of SoCal in the distance. Note all the dust and smoke obscuring vision, along with the chaotic criss-crossing of other units going here and there, but we don't know where. The effect is that of focusing our concerns on the familiar faces rather than on who's winning or losing the battle, which, I gather, is the way most infantry experience battle. It's been called understandably "the fog of war".

I like the brief lyrical moments that remind us of a larger world outside the stage of human conflict. Actually, Murphy is quite good at portraying sensitivity, as for example when he turns away from the raucous byplay at the farm house. The quiet moments with him and Mauldin are rather touching in that they look like two average Joe's showing the personal side of war. But, as Murphy proved in both the movie and real life, you never know the depths that may be concealed under that ordinary appearance.

I believe it was critic Andrew Sarris who pointed out that John Huston's career was never the same after MGM got through editing out an hour of his version and throwing the rest away. Now we can only guess how many other affecting scenes were tossed out in the process. Obviously, the project was close to Huston's heart being an adaptation of a great American novel from its most wrenching national conflict. I don't know whether to be happy or sad that this severely truncated version was finally marketed. It's good, but then there's the promise of so much more. Too bad the production didn't migrate to a less image-conscious studio.

Deserves more credit than it currently receives. The directing alone is awesome, with the number of unique and different shots that Huston came up with really takes this Pic away from the norm.

Some of the realism in the portrayals that would be lost on some American viewers include the scene where the General talks to the troops before the battle, asking them what they are going to eat for dinner. He goes from group to group asking the same questions - why? Remember (duh), no radios, no public address system. Commanders had to spread their message by repeating it over and over - inspiring a different group each time.

A very enjoyable 69 minutes. Sad that the studio had to meddle with the original cut (what else is new?).

F

The original cut of THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE has never been seen--and probably does not exist--but this is the truncated version of the John Huston film and it's still powerful stuff.

It's an examination of courage among men under intense fire--such as the infantry men in the Civil War, about whom writer Stephen Crane wrote with almost poetical finesse. So that some of Crane's writing is maintained on screen, we get a narration by James Whitmore that succeeds in helping us understand the central character (AUDIE MURPHY) and his motivations.

Judging from photographs of the Civil War, the film has a gritty, realistic look as it goes from battle to battle with a group of men we get to know and recognize as vulnerable human beings caught in the tragedy of impossible battle situations.

AUDIE MURPHY is not noted for being an actor capable of deep characterization, but he's been guided by Huston to give a very effective, deeply felt performance, no doubt helped by the fact that he's been in the midst of battle before (he's a real life war hero), and must know the inner conflicts that face any man in battle.

The supporting cast of actors are fine, especially BILL MAULDIN as Audie's friend, both of them confessing moments of cowardice during battle fatigue and then able to go on with their mission.

But the real credit has to go to John Huston for writing and directing a film that he was never especially proud of, but which is stunningly photographed and directed with great skill.