Co-stars: Sean Connery, Harry Andrews, Roy Kinnear, Michael Redgrave, Ozzie Davis, and Ian Bannen (Harris)
Well-acted movie that kept me interested from start to finish. Connery is good -as is Kinnear as the cowardly,selfish "Monty"- but the real star is Harry Andrews as the Sargent Major. Well photographed and directed. The best thing in the movie is the acting and the North Africa setting.
Despite winning critical acclaim and winning awards it was a box office bomb when released. Its an above-average movie and not a GREAT one, due to the flaws in the screenplay. Namely:
1) We can start with the Ozzie Davis character, one of the five prisoners we follow. He's a black West Indian - which is quite surprising given the British Army was 99.5% white in WW2. So why is he there? For anti-racism propaganda of course. Its 1965, and Hollywood wanted to help the Civil Rights movement.
Its a noble motive, but hurts the movie since Davis is not a real-life person but a racial symbol. All the other characters (except Williams) are a mixture of good and bad, but Davis is just plain good - all the time. Even his crime, stealing 3 bottles of whiskey, is harmless. Later, when Connery needs help, the two cowardly white prisoners refuse but Davis steps up and bravely supports him. And in terms of physical/ mental strength Davis is the equal of Connery- but accepts a subordinate role.
And of course, being a racial symbol and not a realistic character - Davis declines to be segregated and then accepts all the racial abuse with humor (scornful and otherwise), dignified silence, or knowing sarcasm. At the end, when the abuse becomes unbearable, he doesn't lash out but knowingly "goes crazy" and "quits the army".
2) The movie starts out well, but about half-way through degenerates into a stereotypical "Sadistic Guards vs. Rebellious prisoners" trope. The guards - especially Williams and Andrews - are the baddies. Connery and Davis the good guys. And the ending is unnecessarily bleak and unrealistic. After taking Williams' abuse for the entire movie, and then hearing that Williams is going to be sent up for trial, McGrath and Davis - for no reason - attack Williams while Connery tells them to stop. THE END. Really?
3) Clocking in at two hours, we get too much repetitive "marching up the hill" and sadistic violence.
4) Seemly "realistic" - its really not. Except for Williams every other non-prisoner from the Commandant on down is living a bleak unhappy existence. Only two officers exist, the Commandant who spends all his time in a depressing Egyptian brothel sleeping with a fat prostitute, and the Medical Officer, who drinks and appears to be a closeted Gay. Where are the 2nd second lieutenants? Meanwhile, Andrews and Harris drink themselves into a stupor every night. I'm sure that being a Guard in an isolated military prison wasn't a walk in the park, but millions had even worse jobs in WW2.
5) According to movie, Andrews has "reformed hundreds" of prisoners and has been running the prison for the quite some time. Yet when a "newbie" guard comes on board, Andrews gives him carte blanche and backs him over Harris who's been there forever, and is shocked when Williams screws up. And when a prisoner dies of sunstroke, Andrews acts like he's never dealt with a sadistic guard or prisoner death before. Really?
6) Finally, the "big show down" between Connery and Andrews is absurd. In the middle of WW 2, Connery, a 20-year regular army soldier, talks about how he "only joined the army because he couldn't get a real job" and is tired of "being a puppet and following regulations" and "killing and dying when ordered". This is 1960s anti-military talk being put in the mouth of a WW 2 soldier.
Summary See it for the acting. Harry Andrews over-the-top performance is worth the price of admission. But with a better script it would've been a great movie. It coulda been a contender" - too bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.