Fountainhead | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Fountainhead’

Seeing Too Clearly, Too Soon

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged 12 Angry Men, Charles Bickford, Col. Billy Mitchell, Congressman Frank R. Reid, Dayton Lummis, Eddie Rickenbacker, Elizabeth Montgomery, Fiorello LaGuardia, Fountainhead, General Comments, General Douglas MacArthur, insubordination, Jack Lord, Lt. Cmdr. Zachary Lansdowne, Major Allen W. Gullion, Major General Charles Pelot Summeral, Major General Jimmy Guthrie, Major General Robert Lee Howze, Movie Reviews, Mrs. Margaret Lansdowne, New York City, Pearl Harbor, Ralph Bellamy, Reviews, Rod Steiger, Sergeant York, Strong To Highly Recommended Movie, Texas, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army Air Service, USS Shenandoah, War Department, WWII on August 20, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell” (1955) — movie review
Today’s movie review is for the historical / biographical military courtroom drama: “The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell” (1955), starring Gary Cooper as Col. Billy Mitchell (a decorated World War I veteran and a passionate advocate for a strong, independent U.S. Air “Service”, predicting the future of air warfare), Charles Bickford as Maj. Gen. Jimmy Guthrie (based upon Maj. General Charles Pelot Summerall and Maj. General Robert Lee Howze – who represent the old guard of the military which believes air power is an unproven and unnecessary expense in a time of “lean” budgets), Ralph Bellamy as Congressman Frank R. Reid (Mitchell supporter and civilian defense attorney), Rod Steiger as Major Allen W. Gullion (special attorney brought in to help prosecute Mitchell), Elizabeth Montgomery as Mrs. Margaret Lansdowne (widow of Naval Aviation Officer, who testifies in Mitchell’s defense), Jack Lord as Lt. Cmdr. Zachary Lansdowne (Naval Officer who dies on USS Shenandoah and friend of Mitchell), Dayton Lummis as General Douglas MacArthur (one of the presiding judges at the trial).

Background: I first saw this film as a child (pre-10). As best I can recall, this is my third viewing of the film since then. I have a fairly distinct memory of three main take-aways from this film: 1) that if you are an expert in your special field, it is possible to “reasonably” predict certain aspects of the future; 2) that some men will stand up and defend the country and their honestly held principles irrespective of the consequences; and, 3) that Rod Steiger is one heck of an actor. This was one of the first times I KNEW the actor was an actor in a role, but also that he was portraying the character brilliantly.

Plot: The film opens with Billy Mitchell demonstrating the power of air attack by successfully sinking a former German battleship from the air, a feat that defies the skepticism of his superiors. When his efforts to modernize the air service are continually rebuffed, he is demoted and exiled to a desk job in Texas. After a series of ignored reports (by Mitchell) and bureaucratic stonewalling (by the War Department), there are a number of fatal accidents involving outdated aircraft and airships, which includes the death of his friend Zack Lansdowne, Mitchell gives a scathing interview to the press publicly accusing the War Department of “incompetence and criminal negligence.” The result: a court-martial for insubordination.

The trial becomes a battle of wills (and integrity) between Mitchell, who uses the platform to champion air power, and the military establishment, which seeks to silence him. With Congressman Reid’s help, Mitchell’s defense shifts from a legal argument to a moral one, bringing in witnesses military and civilian pilots like Eddie Rickenbacker and Fiorello LaGuardia (future mayor of New York City) to prove his point. Despite a passionate defense, Mitchell is found guilty of insubordination with subsequent loss of rank and suspended from the service. The film concludes on a bittersweet note, with Mitchell’s conviction leading to a posthumous vindication of his ideas and a legacy that helped establish the U.S. Air Force as a separate branch of the military.

So, is the movie any good? How’s the acting? The realism / FX? Problems? Did I like the film? Short answers: Yes; solid to very good / exceptional (Steiger); surprisingly sharp; yes, but minor; and, yes I did like re-watching this film.

Any good: IMHO – This is a dramatically compelling film. It builds Mitchell’s case through dialogue, conviction, and historical weight. The pacing is deliberate (may seem slow to some) and the stakes feel real (even 100 years after the actual trial). The film is neither a court room or military “thriller” as much as it is (in context) a biographical tip of the hat to an outstanding officer who was willing to sacrifice his career for the defense of the nation. The film follows the structure of a classic courtroom drama: opening salvo, procedural maneuvering, witness testimony, and final summation. What drives the film is the tension between an officer’s duty to his service and the dissent with policy he expresses which is driven by his conscience. As stated repeatedly in the course of the film, Mitchell isn’t trying to escape punishment — he’s trying to force an acknowledgement that the very nature of warfare has changed and the “official” position will weaken the country’s defense in future war. The courtroom becomes a proxy battlefield for the future of military doctrine.

Acting: Gary Cooper plays Mitchell with “command” intensity / authority — not as a firebrand, but more a principled career soldier. His performance is “to type” and reminiscent of a cross between “Sergeant York” and “Fountainhead“. The supporting cast, including Charles Bickford and Rod Steiger, bring gravitas to their roles, especially in the courtroom scenes. The film’s true acting powerhouse is Rod Steiger as Major Guillion, who brings a searing intensity to the courtroom scenes. He is a truly menacing and formidable opponent / prosecutor against Mitchell.

Realism / FX: The film sticks close to the historical record. The core events are factual. The courtroom scenes feel authentic, and the military bureaucracy is portrayed with maddening precision (in and out of court). You can feel the weight of protocol pressing down on principle. The aerial footage is minimal (and primitive), but the film isn’t about dogfights — it’s about doctrine, policy and funding. The use of actual historical footage, particularly of the destroyer sinking, adds a layer of realism. Given the cinematic technology of the era, the special effects are limited, but the film’s strength is in dialogue and drama, not visual effects.

Problems: For me the plot’s primary “problem” comes from its historical simplification of defense budgetary processes in order to fit a two-hour film. Basically, there is none. Up until WWII, the US Government ALWAYS demobilized and then underfunded the military for political reasons that had nothing to do with defense of the nation. This is mentioned, but simply glossed over. Also, some viewers (as previously mentioned) may find the movie slow going leading up to actual court-martial. I didn’t have this problem, but I recognize some might. Neither of these are really “problems” in the normal sense of film continuity or outright factual errors.

Did I like the film? Yes. I have seen this film a couple of time since my initial viewing and it continues to hold up as well as my memory of it does. (LoL) Mitchell’s story isn’t triumphant in the conventional sense — he loses the trial, is stripped of rank, and dies before his vindication (Pearl Harbor and WWII). The film honors his foresight and integrity. It’s a reminder that being right isn’t always enough — and that sometimes, the system punishes truth before it accepts let alone embraces it.

Final recommendation: Strong to Highly recommended. This is a film for fans of historical drama, military ethics, and courtroom tension. It’s also a film about about vision, sacrifice, and the lonely cost of being an individual with honor and a sense of duty who is ahead of your time. As a piece of film-making from the mid-1950s, this film is a strong, if somewhat stolid, courtroom drama. It’s not “12 Angry Men“, but it’s also not far from it.

Addendum: On reviewing my alphabetical listing of reviews I note I have already reviewed this film back in 2019. Not much change, but the original review is here…

Addendum 2: (21 Aug 2025) On further research, it turns out Col. Mitchell did not receive a Congressional Medal of Honor. In fact, he received a “Congressional Gold Medal” (which I had never heard of before). Apparently there was some mix-up between the title of the award and the actual award of record (in Congress). The U.S. Force still lists Col. Mitchell as a recipient of the MoH, but Congressional records do not.

.
Click here (20 August) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.