Battle Cry

My rating of Battle Cry has more to do with my disappointment with the plot than the actually quality of the movie. I knew nothing of the movie before I watched it, but with a name like Battle Cry, I was expecting a war movie along the lines of Battleground (with which it is paired in the double feature DVD I bought). Instead, Battle Cry has more in common with a soap opera than a real war movie. The movie spends over two hours of its time on relationships and love affairs. When the real battle scenes finally begin, they're over and done with in less than 10 minutes. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the stories of the Marines and their women, it's just not what I was expecting.

I am sure that on repeat viewings my enjoyment of the movie and rating I've given it will increase. Most of the movie is very well done. Like most other reviews I've read, I am especially fond of the scenes involving Pfc Andy Hookens (Aldo Ray) and Pat Rogers (Nancy Olson). I found it a very believable, heartfelt story that's played perfectly by both actors. The rest of the cast is solid and their plot lines are almost as enjoyable.

I was shocked at the frank presentation of some of the subject matter in Battle Cry. I can't think of another movie from the 50s, especially a flag-waving war movie, where sex, pregnancy, drinking, and adultery are dealt with so openly. It's a nice change-of-pace from the sanitized WWII movies I've come to expect.

Let me start by saying I really enjoyed this film and have watched it perhaps a half dozen times. The comments by Mr. Glassey do seem unfair to me. This movie doesnt show us the guts and bloodshed and realism that is accepted and maybe even expected by todays standards but it does show the loss of war. The fear of war and the heroism that was a part of being a marine in WWII. It shows us 3 dimensional characters like "High Pockets" who loves his men as much as he loves the Marines. Yes, I suppose some of the situations are glossed over but that is to be expected when you are trying to tell a story this big in the time alloted. The beginning and middle of the film which focus' on training and shipping over seas to New Zealand is first rate entertainment. The last third where we go into combat with the cast is not as realistic as modern films, but how can it be? It is 1955 when this movie was made and the technology to show how war really looks was not possible then. And even if one may argue that it was, the desire and allowable limits of the day would have precluded that sort of realism anyway. All in all, this is a fair if not excellent portrait of marines going to war.

It's not surprising many war veterans like this film. Dramatically framed with a voice-over by James Whitmore as the epitome of a Marine Sergeant who cares about his men but knows the mission is all, the film quickly draws us into the lives of these men and their women in a suspenseful and satisfying way. There is enough good acting by Whitmore, Van Heflin, Dorothy Malone, John Lupton and others to get us past the less well acted and more cliched moments. Some scenarios, such as the tragedy-to-triumph of the lumberjack womanizer(Aldo Ray)and the New Zealand farm widow (Nancy Olson)are superbly plotted and played. There are many memorable moments in the film and Uris' varied characters are well represented.(Please note that Navaho code-talkers are credited here.) Combat and training imagery and sound is generally high quality, but the outstanding aspect of the film is the way it explores the human qualities of those men and women who face the tests of war.

The title of Raoul Walsh's film would indicate a high level of visual war action, but the action in this film is more like a television soap: Peyton Place Meets Boot Camp. Battle Cry is not a bad film by any means, but a mainstream 50's romance, and because it is Walsh, there are excellent things to be found, as long as you don't expect superior battlefield heroics; Aldo Ray and Van Heflin both turn in finely-tuned performances, Ray as a macho player evolving into a loving husband, Van Heflin as a commander who fails to maintain distance from his charges; a young Tab Hunter caught on with teens when he was cast as heartthrob Danny Forrester, and acquits himself nicely.

Three years later, Stanley Kubrick would make the stunning Paths of Glory, a WWI film that revealed the true brutality of battle, and Spielberg would change mainstream war films for all time with Saving Private Ryan; Battle Cry involves the willing viewer in an intelligent adaptation of a best-selling novel and as such, succeeds.

My perspective of this movie is that of a Navy veteran of World War II. My ship landed Marines on Iwo Jima and I witnessed the flag over Mount Suribachi. I take exception to some who do not consider this realistic enough, but it was made in 1955 and for its time I thought the combat scenes were adequate. I read Leon Uris' book Battle Cry long before I saw the movie. He was there in the Pacificduring World War II not in some office in Hollywood and not long after the question of whether or not we would prevail was yet finalized. He mentions in his book and it is also mentioned in the movie that when the Marines left New Zealand they "boarded the ships known as the Unholy Four." Well, I served on USS President Jackson, an attack transport which landed the first Marines in an American offensive in WWII and this was 7 August 1942 at Tulagi in the Solomon Islands. An hour later the USS President Adams landed the first troops of Guadalcanal. These two ships plus the USS President Hayes and USS Crescent City made up what was known by sailors and Marines throughout the Pacific as the "Unholy Four." So, you see, Leon Uris knew a heck of a lot more about what went on in the Pacific than latter day critics of this movie whom I doubt were ever in the military let alone in the Pacific during WWII. I enjoyed the story, the characters, the love story woven through the plot. I and many veterans could well relate to a Marine on leave falling in love with a New Zealand girl and then going off to fight and returning in bad shape. Hey,pals of today, you really don,t have any idea of such things unless you experienced them. The battle scenes were not gory and perhaps not realistic; if they were you wouldn't be able to sit in the theatre without throwing up. The two Navajo indians portrayed were used to show how the Marines used the Navajo Codetalkers to thwart Japanese trying to listen in on their communications. Recently two real live Navajo Codetalkers where given medals at the White House and there is another movie to come out about the Code Talkers. The idea that a Marine Colonel might spend a long time training troops and then not being allowed to take them into combat may seem idiotic but if you trained hard for a long, long time for a job you wanted to get it done, at least that was they way men felt in those days. The training sequences were in my opinion quite good and showed how Marines were shaped into combat readiness. The story line about some of the Marines reflected just a little about the diverse nature of servicemen during the war. There were no blacks in the movie because during WWII all military services were segregated although the Navy had black mess cooks aboard ship. Whether you like it or not that was the real way it was then. The movie has James Whitmore as a top sergeant and does a fine job with one memborable scene when the Colonel asks if he is going to stay on base or base with the Old Man. He replies, "T think I'll go to town and see ikf I can scare up an Old Woman." He had previously done a fine job as a Sergeant with 101st Airborne in Battleground, in my opinion another very good war movie. Well, the movie ends with the Marines back hom on leave and what do they see as they get off the train but a newspaper with the big black headline: "Marines on Iwo Jima." If anyone thought this was a lousy movie they are entitled to their opinions, but for me, I say, "Tell it to the Marines!"