Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘NCO’

A Man Should Be What He Can Do

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 4, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“From Here to Eternity” (1953) — movie review
Today’s review is for the World War II romantic – military – drama “From Here to Eternity”, directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Burt Lancaster as First Sergeant Milton Warden, a career NCO (company First Sergeant) trying to keep his unit running while juggling a dangerous affair with the wife of his company commander;  Montgomery Clift as Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt, a stubborn, principled bugler / ex-boxer who refuses to box despite pressure from above;  Deborah Kerr as Karen Holmes, the company commander’s wife, trapped in a loveless marriage and drawn to Warden;  Donna Reed as Alma “Lorene” Burke, a “club hostess” who becomes Prewitt’s emotional anchor;  Frank Sinatra as Private Angelo Maggio, Prewitt’s loyal friend whose run-ins with the stockade system drive much of the film’s tension;  Philip Ober as Captain Dana Holmes, the ambitious, morally compromised company commander who abuses his authority to get what he wants;  and Ernest Borgnine as Staff Sergeant James R. “Fatso” Judson, the brutal stockade sergeant whose cruelty toward Maggio becomes one of the film’s key conflicts.  The film mixes military life, personal choices, and the looming / eventual attack on Pearl Harbor into a story about people trying to hold onto personal dignity in a system and time which doesn’t make it easy.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film as an adult.  I’ve known about it for years (and I believe I saw it as a child when it didn’t mean anything to me) mostly for the beach-kiss scene with Lancaster and Kerr and the bar fight scene between Sinatra and Borgnine — but I just never sat down to watch it in its entirety in the last 50-60 years.  LoL.  This film is one of the “highly recommended” films of two of my high school friends whom I have lunch with a couple of times a year.  Released in 1953 and based on James Jones’ novel, the movie was a major critical and commercial success.  It received thirteen Academy Award nominations and won eight, including Best Picture, Best Director (Zinnemann), Best Supporting Actor (Sinatra), and Best Supporting Actress (Reed).  It’s historically significant as one of the defining Hollywood dramas of the 1950s, remembered for its performances, its frank (for the time) treatment of adult relationships, and its depiction of Army life just before the attack on Pearl Harbor.  The film helped revive Sinatra’s career and cemented Lancaster, Kerr, and Clift as major dramatic actors.
Plot:  The story takes place in Hawaii in the months leading up to December 7, 1941 and the Japanese attack on the American military bases.  Private Prewitt transfers into an infantry company and immediately runs into trouble when Captain Holmes pressures him to join the regimental boxing team.  Prewitt refuses (out of principle, but mostly guilt over a past injury he caused a friend) and the company leadership retaliates with a steady stream of “treatment” designed to coerce him.  Prewitt’s only real support comes from Maggio, a fellow private whose run-ins with the sadistic stockade sergeant (Ernest Borgnine) escalate into tragedy.  Meanwhile, Sergeant Warden begins an affair with Karen Holmes, the captain’s wife, and the two wrestle with whether they can build a life together despite the risks.  Prewitt finds his own connection with Lorene, a club hostess who dreams of a different future.  As tensions rise, both personal and military, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor crashes into the story, forcing each character to face the consequences of their choices.  The film builds toward a mix of personal loss, wartime chaos, and the realization that some battles are internal long before the guns begin to fire.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes (duh);  excellent;  clean, grounded filming;  a few;  yes.
Any good?  Duh…  Eight Oscars out of thirteen nominations!  Yes.  “From Here to Eternity” is a strong, character-driven drama that holds up much better than I expected for a film from the early 1950s.  The story is straightforward, but the emotional beats land cleanly, and the film doesn’t shy away from the darker corners of military life:  hazing, infidelity, ambition, and the pressure to conform.  The pacing is steady, and the film balances its multiple story lines without losing track of the characters.  The Pearl Harbor attack isn’t the focus so much as the backdrop that forces everything to a head.  It’s a well-made film that earned its long-standing reputation.
Acting:  Montgomery Clift gives the standout performance.  His Prewitt is stubborn, proud, and quietly hurting, and Clift plays him with a kind of internal tension that makes every decision feel personal.  Prewitt has one of my favorite lines (which I’ve used as a quote):  “Nobody lies about being lonely.”  Burt Lancaster brings authority and presence to Warden, and his scenes with Deborah Kerr have more heat / chemistry than I expected from a 1953 film.  Kerr is excellent — sharp, wounded, and believable as someone trying to claw her way out of a bad marriage.  Donna Reed surprised me;  she brings warmth and sadness to Lorene, and her Oscar win makes sense.  Frank Sinatra is terrific as Maggio — funny, loyal, and heartbreaking when things turn.  The supporting cast (including Borgnine as the brutal stockade sergeant) fills out the world convincingly.
Filming / FX:  The film is shot cleanly and simply, with a focus on faces, barracks life, and the physical environment of the base.  The black-and-white cinematography works well, giving the story a grounded, almost documentary feel at times.  The beach scene is iconic for a reason — not just for the kiss, but for how the pounding / rushing waves and framing underline the characters’ emotional / physical relationship.  The Pearl Harbor attack sequence is brief but effective, using practical effects and tight staging rather than spectacle.  Overall, the attack filming supports the story without calling too much attention to itself.
Problems:  A few.  I’ve never read the novel the film is based on, so I have no way to know how close the film tracks with it.  Captain Holmes is drawn a bit broadly as the “bad officer,” and some of the Army politics feel compressed.  The romance between Warden and Karen, while well-acted, moves quickly, and the film doesn’t always give their choices enough space to develop.  The pacing dips slightly in the middle, and a few scenes feel melodramatic by modern standards.  None of these minor issues affect the overall impact of the film.  If I had any “REAL” objections to the film it would be Lancaster / Warden holding a machine-gun and firing it from the hip while holding the barrel with towel to prevent burning his hand.  This makes for good cinema, but it’s pretty much absolute nonsense.  LoL.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s a strong, well-acted drama with memorable characters and a clear sense of time and place.  The relationships feel lived-in, the military setting feels authentic enough, and the emotional beats land.  The film balances romance, camaraderie, and tragedy without tipping too far into sentimentality.  Watching it now, I can see why it made such an impact in 1953 and why it still gets referenced today (especially the “beach” scene).  It’s not a film I’d re-watch constantly, but I’m glad I finally saw it (as an adult, when it meant something to me) and I will almost certainly watch it again.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended.  “From Here to Eternity” is a historically significant, multi-Oscar winning drama with excellent performances and a grounded sense of military life on the eve of Pearl Harbor.  Its eight Academy Awards — including Best Picture, Best Director, and two acting wins — reflect the quality of the work, and the film remains an important piece of 1950s Hollywood.  If you’re interested in classic cinema, wartime dramas, or character-driven stories with emotional weight, this one is a must see.  It’s a film which earned and retains its place in movie history.
.
Click here (4 April) 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.

Read Full Post »

Refreshing My Look Ahead (Back)

Posted in 2022 Book Review, Book Review, History, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 2, 2022| Leave a Comment »

[Another LONG post…  You’ve been warned!  (LoL)    —    kmab]
The Third World War:  August 1985  (1978©)   —   book review
This review is for the fictional portrayal (as a “future history”) of a “realistic” invasion of NATO allied European countries by the Warsaw Pact in August of 1985.  The book was “written” primarily (et al) by (Ret.) British General John W. Hackett in consultation with a number of experts gathered to discuss how such an invasion might occur, what might lead up to it and what might be the end-of-war results.  The “advisors” were listed as:  John Barraclough (Air Chief Marshal), Kenneth Hunt (Brigadier), Ian McGeoch (Vice-Admiral), Norman Macrae (a deputy editor at “The Economist“), John Strawson (Major-General), and, Bernard Burrows (British Diplomatic Service).
The book was a best-seller in England back in 1978.  It was published in the U.S. in early 1979 as a hardback and then released as a paperback in 1980.  I initially read the paperback version.  I believe it was shortly after I was released from the Active Reserves, but my memory isn’t that precise anymore.  In any case, this review is of a re-reading of the book after my reading of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” earlier this year.  (review here:  A Novel War).  The author of that book, (ret) Admiral James Stavridis, cited this book as a primary inspiration for his work.  This prompted my re-interest in the original…
During my (almost) two years in the Reserves I was assigned to a unit which tested and evaluated the readiness of National Guard units from California, Arizona and New Mexico.  The officers would establish “war-game” scenarios for the Guard officers and I (as an NCO) would embed with the line units to evaluate actual field performance.  We were artillery evaluators, so I watched Guard batteries fire cannons / howitzers, but I gained an understanding of scenario development and large scale tactical war-gaming.  This led to a post-service interest in military style board games which carried on for most of the ’80s.  I lost interest when gaming shifted to computers and became “mostly” shoot-em-up’s instead of (IMHO) about strategy.
Basically, the plot of this book is the leaders of the USSR feel their position as a superpower is being threatened by political and economic factors which are worsening (for them).  They feel there has been a significant / progressive decrease in NATO’s readiness over the last decade and this may be their last / best opportunity to remove a potential military threat (NATO) and further subjugate the buffer countries of Eastern Europe who are members of the Warsaw Pact.  The plan is a crushing invasion of Western Europe (West Germany and the low-lands) which leaves the USSR in command up to the border of France.  The invasion fails because in the years between the book’s publishing (1978) and the date of the “future-history” event (August 1985), Europe (specifically Great Britain) comes to its senses and reverses the general military decline of the late ’60s to ’70s.  The NATO forces are able to slow the advance of invasion (without the use of tactical nuclear weapons) and allows reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. just in the nick of time.
In a striking foreboding of the current (2022) invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion portrayed fails because of (in no particular order of importance):
1)  an inability to dominate the air despite superior numerical assets;
2)  a failure of logistics (fuel and ammunition) by the Warsaw Pact, (it is believed the invasion will take less than two weeks AND there will not be enough time for the U.S. to resupply NATO forces);
3)  resistance by the native forces (in this case, the West German army / reserves) is surprisingly effective;  and,
4)  the centralized command and control characteristic of authoritarian political systems, does not promote the flexibility / initiative of junior officers (and NCOs) to seize military opportunities when they arise, so opportunities for significant breakouts are lost.
When the war quickly (the “war” lasts weeks) devolves into a war of attrition, failure is viewed as inevitable and hard-liners in the Politburo decide to consolidate their gains for future armistice negotiations by the use of a limited (against only one city) nuclear strike.  The result, however, is not fear and negotiation, but instead, fury and retaliation via a similar limited nuclear strike by Great Britain and the U.S. against a Russian city;  (and like falling dominoes) the Warsaw Pact allies turn on the USSR to avoid nuclear annihilation;  the Soviet military / security services stage a coup, over-throw the hardliners, and cease further combat;  the non-Russian border states (the “-stans”) declare independence from the USSR;  and, the rest of the world struggles with the effects of a new world order.  The “war” is barely a month old before it is over.  Because the book is written as a “recent” history of past events, it does not attempt to forecast / describe long term results of the war except to relate the world has to deal with unaccounted for Soviet nuclear weapons / warheads and large stocks of conventional weapons scattered around the global (mainly Africa).
Is this a “good” book?  Is it realistic as a predictor of future conflict (lethality, if not participants)?  Is it entertaining or interesting?  Do I recommend this book?  With the exception of the final question, the answer to all of these is (are):  yes to so-so…
The book is not a “good” novel.  There are no specified individual characters driving the action, so you cannot (as a reader) identify and grow with anyone.  In this sense, although fictional, the book is written with more of an academic or journalistic feel.  It is very much an military style “after-action” report.  If you are comfortable with this writing style, you will enjoy the writing / book.  If you are not, you will not.  I did.  Was the book able to realistically describe combat and the results (devastation) of war?  Yes!  Although, saying this, there was an obvious Western bias of vivid description of the destruction of the British city and virtually nothing about the similar (or much worse) destruction of the Russian city.  (Very much:  “Yeah, we took out one of theirs as payback…”)  Is the book entertaining or interesting?  This is the toughest question because every reader’s tastes varies so much… I was not “entertained”;  but, I did find the book interesting.  I particularly “enjoyed” the parts the authors get terribly wrong, because as a reader I (we) have 40+ years of hind-sight.  There is no China – Japan alliance;  the Shah is no longer in charge of Iran (or, rather, wasn’t in 1985);  South Africa did not fall to external forces;  and, East Germany did not resist consolidation with West Germany after the fall of the USSR.
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation.  I think most veterans (particularly my age group) will find this book relatable.  I think most civilian “military” readers / historians – and quite a few regular historians – will, too.  For political science readers, the “states” interests, goals, and stances will seem Machiavellian / Kissinger-ian (is that a real word?).  Yet, they ring true – even 40 years later.  It is entirely obvious why this book could seem as an inspiration for a future – updated version (a la “2034“), and I believe (I read) this book served as a similar inspiration for several of Tom Clancy’s works which followed.  At any rate, I do remember “enjoying” the initial read from “way-back-when”, and don’t feel the re-read was less so.  My reaction to “2034” was reinforced:  this version is much better than the more recent book.  If you have read “2034“, I recommend you read “WW3:1985” for the comparison value, if nothing else.
Final disclaimer:  I purchased this book at normal / sale price (for an old / used book) and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.
.
Click here (2 May) 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.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started