Ah… The Longest Day was released in 1962, I believe that was before the anti-war movement. It was also based on a book written in 1959.
Cite for movie
(Changed made to released for accuracy)
Who_me?, Hypno-Toad’s complaint about being an anti-war film was referring to A Bridge Too Far, not The Longest Day. As a 1977 film, I think it’s quite fair to assume that there is an influence from the anti-war movement in that film.
It’s easy to allege such a thing, but I personally don’t recall anything close to what HT’s asserting. The film goes into painful detail about all the screw-ups, miscommunication, poor judgment, and failed opportunities of the Allied plan. They were talking constantly about objectives and approaches and strategies that would lead to a quicker end to the war; in fact, I’d argue the film isn’t particularly good because it goes to such efforts to show as many sides of the operation and the myriad ways it went wrong, at the expense of a more focused story. Simply conveying important history doesn’t automatically make great drama.
I have no idea what he’s talking about in calling the film myopic; if anything, it’s overly generous in portraying as many angles as possible. The problem is that most of those angles went badly; true, most campaigns have their share of confusion and futility, but most don’t have the reputations that Market Garden has as a total mishap in the final tally. I don’t remember any gratuitous “War Sucks” propaganda, but their fidelity to the historical record means the bad things are going to outweigh the good ones. It’s like trying to make a film about Dunkirk and calling it myopic because it doesn’t have a happy ending.
I think any agenda one reads into the film is self-generated. It seems clear to me that the film was trying to show a part of WWII history that’s often overlooked, as well as (a) capitalize on an extremely successful book, and (b) impress the world with an epic-scale film with an international cast. Classic Oscar bait when it turns out well, ABtF just didn’t have any real reason to exist other than its own self-important ones.
I’ve not seen ABtF, so I wasn’t trying to comment on the content of the film, at all. Just trying to refute Who_me?'s specific comment.
I don’t know that AbtF has an anti-war message, but the timing is such that I find it credible to suggest that the anti-war movement may have influenced the film makers. That’s all I’d meant to say with my post.
For the specifics of his argument Hypno-Toad is on his own.
Oh, I know–I was just using your response as a springboard. Still, if you look at film history at that time, WWII was being used largely as a safe haven for people who liked the genre and didn’t want to get sucked in with the Vietnam baggage. After all, there were plenty of Vietnam films from that period (Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, Coming Home, Go Tell the Spartans) that more explicitly dealt with anti-war themes. Films from that same period like ABtF, Midway, Inchon, MacArthur, etc. (none particularly good), while not overtly pro-war, were buffered with nostalgia about a war that was worth waging at a time when pro-American sentiment was easier to valorize. Just because Market Garden was a disaster, all the troops (particularly American) are never portrayed in the film as anything less than brave and resilient in the face of heroic self-sacrifice–hardly something that’s consistent with overtly anti-war films.
Would you care to elaborate? Why the fighting was happening? Do you mean to say that there should have been some sort of “last good war” disclaimer to show that all the useless idiocy attendant to Operation Market Garden was part of a larger, just war? Because they do show the “why” of Market Garden as a strategic operation.
Quite frankly, if what you’re saying is that every movie about a military disaster must also address the larger context of the war, then you’re being unrealistic.
I suggested to my dad, who flew B-17s, that the remakers of Memphis Belle had composited together the worst parts of several missions to make one particularly bad one.
“No, that was pretty typical.”
:eek:
It looks like I’m going to have to give it another viewing tonight. I don’t think I can produce specific examples of the filmmakers explicitly stating that war sucks. There wasn’t anyone saying, “Damn this war! It’s so senseless!” The anti-war/millitary/authority feel of the film is something in the atmosphere of the setting and action. And I like the film.
But apparently I’m fighting the masses on this one.
For a fraction of a second it almost made the monster seem human.
I might do the same, just to look for this ( I have the film on DVD and rather like it myself ). I have to say that based on memory I’m leaning strongly towards ArchiveGuy’s position. As an aficianado of fucked up military disasters( I have several books dwelling on them 
), I think this one stands as a reasonably faithful adaptation, without too much sermonizing.
The best I can come up with off the top of my head to validate your point might be Gene Hackman’s Polish paratroop commander’s doggedly negative scepticism and the poor nerve-addled British intelligence officer’s cautiousness about intelligence reports. With the futility of war note maybe from the most extraneous little piece - James Caan trying to retrieve his wounded buddy and get him treated.
I think the first two are obviously meant to be the voices of reason and bias you against Market Garden, despite the shallowness of the respective character’s info ( Hackman just has what is essentially a gut suspicion, the intelligence officer is piecing together scanty info and working on a semi-informed hunch ). Caan is more of your standard “tragedy of the common soldier” and perhaps a nod to the 1970’s trend of not glamorizing the heroic self-sacrifice of troops in the field.
But the fact is that Market Garden was a risky idea. A very risky idea that required some good luck, which the allies didn’t get. It might have succeeded brilliantly, but like a lot of fancy maneouver-style battles was probably far too risky to have ever been green-lighted in the first place. Hackman’s character is right to be suspicious, the intelligence officer is right to cautious - the idea was inherently flawed to start with. That they are used to bias against the idea is just good story-telling, really. Afterall we know in hindsight what’s going to unfold. Besides I’m guessing they came straight out of Cornelius Ryan’s book ( which I’ll admit I haven’t read ) and represented very real opinions, not fabricated ones.
As for Caan’s little set-piece piece - I suppose you could argue that it is mildly anti-military. But really I think it is more an attempt at a more realistic portrayal of battlefield angst than you wouyld have gotten in earlier war movies. Just a vignette in a tragedy, like the failed little attempt to retrieve that fallen supply cannister by the besieged British paratroopers. Influenced by the changing notions of telling war stories in the 1970’s? Probably. But not inherently anti-military IMO.
Now a fucked military disaster film that IMO probably veers just a bit closer to a general anti-war sentiment, might be Gallipoli, another film I like.
Have there been any good WWI (or II) movies depicting the Italian POV? I just finished reading A Soldier of the Great War and would like something visual as dessert.
Ken Burns’ WWII series on PBS starts on Sept. 26. I’m expecting a more poetic World at War. Burns has the best commentators. I don’t know if they’re biased, but they’re sure interesting to listen to.
Just too add another point on the above, I’ll also note that ALL of the divisional and brigade-level officers are treated respecfully and well in the movie as men trying to do their best. Unlike Gallipoli, none are shown recklessly throwing lives away for nothing.
The only one who gets a bit of a negative cast is Montgomery’s chief of staff, but then he had the explicit job of cheerleading for the campaign. As it is even he is shown to have a sense of humour and to respect and praise the young, nervous officer he relieves from duty. In other words he is painted as being in the wrong, but nonetheless is given some humanity.
Tamerlane, the way you describe the film is very same thing I would use to justify the anti-war spin. The air of foolishness that hindsight instills in the operation seems to me to be extended by the film to the millitary establishment and authority in general. To me, it carries that implied criticism of generals who sit behind a big desk and send men to die on harebrained schemes (not that that is necesarily incorrect). You’re right about the fair and balanced portrayal of the men and the story. But it still has that air of “war aint good for nothing” about it.
Never seen it, but Mediterraneo won the Academy Award…
I would not, however, suggest Captain Corelli’s Mandolin.
This movie (by Spike Lee, of all people) looks like it might be interesting.
Glad to see this thread didn’t die…I have a list I’m taking to Blockbuster now…
Have you any reason to think that that wasn’t the feeling held by a lot of people at the time including the people caught up in Market Garden. You don’t have to be all positive about the idea of war to fight in one or organise one. The movie is a very good recreation of te book which was written by Cornelius Ryan who also wrote TLD.
The movie may well be accurately recreating the attitude of the people involved. This doesn’t change the fact that the movie has that anti-millitary feel.
I guess it’ll be pretty hard to film Market Garden without it becoming anti-military in the sense that it’ll have to show generals making pretty crappy decisions; and anti-war in the way that every realistic war movie will show why war’s not a good thing. But short of simple not making movies about badly planned operations, I do not know how that could be avoided. Would you suggest that only well-planned operations should be the subjects of movies in the future? (That’s not a rhetorical question.)
Incidentally, I agree with the previous posters who said that while the top echelon may be portrayed as bad generals in the movie, that protrayal pretty much ends when the Allies are actually on the ground – from Sean Connery’s character on down, I believe all the action shows dedicated, courageous, and usually efficient men (on both sides, as I recall).
One can be anti-stupidity without being anti-military, and I don’t think anybody before this thread had ever called anything by Cornelius Ryan anti-military. Just anti-stupidity.
Ninety years before Market Garden:
Or, more succinctly,
I agree with that. It’s part of where the anti-millitary feel comes from. The top commanders make foolish decisions and the dedicated men below them suffer while doing their best to carry them out.
And I’ve never siad that it’s a bad film. Nor have I said that films of millitary blunders shouldn’t be made. All I’ve said is that ABTF has an anti-millitary feel to it. That does not make it a “bad” film.