SAC | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘SAC’

Hope You Are Well

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Air Force Reserve, America, Anthony Mann, B‑36 Peacemaker, B‑47 Stratojet, Frank Lovejoy, Gen. Hawkes, General Comments, Harry Morgan, Hollywood, James Stewart, June Allyson, Lt. Col. Robert “Dutch” Holland, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Movie Reviews, Mrs. Sally Holland, Reviews, SAC, St. Louis Cardinals, Strategic Air Command, Strategic Air Command (1955) — movie review, Technicolor, The Cold War, Time Capsule, U.S. Air Force, VistaVision, WWII on June 3, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Strategic Air Command” (1955) — movie review
Today’s review is for the Cold War military drama “Strategic Air Command”, directed by Anthony Mann and starring James Stewart as Lt. Col. Robert “Dutch” Holland, the former WWII bomber pilot turned professional baseball player who is recalled to active duty; June Allyson as Sally Holland, his loving but increasingly worried wife who struggles with the strain of military life; Frank Lovejoy as Gen. Hawkes, the no‑nonsense commander who believes in Holland’s abilities and the mission of SAC; and Harry Morgan as a fellow crewman who adds a touch of humanity and camaraderie to the flight scenes. The film follows a successful major-league third baseman who is pulled back into the Air Force Reserve and into the emerging world of long‑range nuclear deterrence, forcing him and his wife to confront the personal cost of constant readiness, dangerous training flights, and the possibility of never coming home.

Background: This was my first viewing of this film. I approached it knowing only that it starred James Stewart and that it was often described as a semi‑propagandistic collaboration between Hollywood and the U.S. Air Force during the early Cold War. Stewart himself was a decorated bomber pilot in WWII, so his casting adds a layer of authenticity that few actors of the era could match. The film was a box‑office success and received praise for its aerial photography, which was cutting‑edge for 1955. Historically, the movie sits at an interesting intersection: part recruitment film, part domestic drama, part technological showcase. It reflects a moment when America was shifting from conventional warfare to nuclear deterrence, and the Strategic Air Command was being positioned as the backbone of national security.

Plot: Dutch Holland is a star third baseman for the St. Louis Cardinals, enjoying a comfortable civilian life and a stable marriage when he is unexpectedly recalled to active duty in the Air Force Reserve. He and Sally uproot their lives and move from base to base as Dutch is retrained to fly the massive B‑36 Peacemaker and later the sleek B‑47 Stratojet as part of SAC’s around‑the‑clock readiness posture. The long flights, harsh schedules, and constant relocations put increasing strain on their relationship, even as Dutch becomes more committed to the mission and the men he serves with. A serious in‑flight emergency forces Dutch to confront his own mortality and the toll his service is taking on Sally. The film ultimately resolves with a compromise that tries to honor both his sense of duty and his responsibility to his family, reflecting the era’s belief that national security required sacrifice not just from service members, but from their spouses as well.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Pretty good; solid; excellent aerial photography; a bit slow and preachy; yes, mostly.

Any good? Yes, this is a good film, though not a great one – even by the standards of its day. It works best when it leans into authenticity: the procedures, the aircraft, the sense of duty, the quiet professionalism of the crews and the commitment of the families. The story is straightforward and a bit stiff, but there is a sincerity to the way it treats service and sacrifice that still comes through. The domestic drama gives the film emotional grounding, even if it occasionally feels like it is there to underline the message rather than to complicate it. IMHO, the movie is most interesting now as a time capsule of early Cold War anxieties and confidence, showing how America wanted to see its strategic forces and the people who manned them.

Acting: James Stewart carries the film. His performance as Dutch feels natural and lived‑in, and knowing his real‑life background as a bomber pilot makes his calm professionalism and occasional flashes of doubt feel even more believable. June Allyson does a good job as Sally, even though the script mostly gives her variations on worry, frustration, and loyalty. She manages to make the strain of repeated moves and long absences feel real. Frank Lovejoy brings authority and a certain stern warmth to Gen. Hawkes, the kind of commander who is tough but not cartoonish. Harry Morgan and the other supporting players add small touches of humor and humanity around the edges. Overall, the acting is solid and very much of its time: restrained, earnest, and focused on selling the seriousness of the mission.

Filming / FX: This is where the movie really shines. The aerial photography of the B‑36 and B‑47 is impressive, even by modern standards. The film takes its time showing takeoffs, formations, cockpit procedures, and in‑flight refueling, and you can feel the size and weight of the aircraft. VistaVision and Technicolor are used to full advantage, with bright skies, gleaming aluminum, and wide shots that make the bombers look both beautiful and intimidating. The interiors feel reasonably authentic for the period, and the base locations give a sense of the scale of SAC’s operations. There are no “effects” in the modern CGI sense, but the practical flying footage is the real star here, and it holds up remarkably well.

Problems: A few. The pacing is slow, particularly in the middle third, where the film repeats the cycle of flight, strain at home, and renewed commitment without adding much new information. The domestic scenes sometimes feel like they exist mainly to reinforce the idea that sacrifice is necessary, rather than to explore the characters in depth. The dialogue can be a bit stiff and speech‑like, especially when generals or doctors are explaining the importance of the mission. The film also leans heavily toward a positive, almost promotional view of SAC, which may feel simplistic or one‑sided to modern viewers. None of these issues make the movie bad, but they do keep it from being as emotionally rich or dramatically complex as it could have been.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes, mostly. I enjoyed the historical context, the aircraft footage, Stewart’s performance, and was surprised by Allyson’s even better performance. The movie has a calm, confident tone that fits its subject, and the flying sequences are genuinely engaging. The domestic drama did not always land for me, but it did give the story some needed human stakes beyond the hardware. It is not a film I would watch for thrills or surprises, but as a look at how the 1950s imagined and justified the new world of nuclear‑age air power, it is both interesting and, at times, moving.

Final Recommendation: A moderate recommendation for the average viewer. “Strategic Air Command” will be a stronger recommendation for fans of aviation history, James Stewart, or those who lived through the Cold War and the military films of that era. The aerial photography alone makes it worth seeing at least once. Allyson’s presence (more than Stewart’s) gives the story a powerful emotional center. It is very much a product of its time, with all the strengths and limitations that implies, but that is also part of its value. If you are interested in how Hollywood and the Air Force worked together to present the Strategic Air Command to the public, or if you simply enjoy well‑shot flying sequences wrapped around a sincere (if somewhat idealized) story about duty and family, this film is worth your time.

.
Click here (3 June) 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 »

An Eye For An Eye

Posted in History, Leadership, Movie Review, Movies, Philosophy, Reviews, tagged 12 Angry Men, colonel Cascio, Dallas, Dan O'Herlihy, Dr. Groeteschele, Dr. Strangelove, Edward Binns, Failsafe -- movie review, Frank Overton, Fritz Weaver, General Black, General Bogan, Henry Fonda, History, I Dream of Jeannie, Larry Hagman, Military Leadership, Moscow, New York City, On Golden Pond, Philosophy, SAC, Strategic Air Command, The Cuban Missile Crisis, The Grapes Of Wrath, The Ox-Bow Incident, Very Highly Recommended Movie, Walter Matthau on September 9, 2020| Leave a Comment »

“Failsafe” — movie review
Today’s movie review is for the 1964 military / political thriller “Failsafe“. The plot revolves around a falsely identified aircraft entering U.S. airspace and the nuclear destruction which follows. The premise is that both men and machines can fail when humanity trains specifically for world-wide destruction.

Henry Fonda stars as the (un-named) President of the U.S., a young Larry Hagman of “Dallas” and “I Dream of Jeannie” fame is the translator working for the President, Ed (Edward) Binns is the flight commander attacking Moscow, Frank Overton plays General Bogan (in command of the Strategic Air Command (SAC)), Fritz Weaver plays Colonel Cascio who believes the Soviets are actually attacking and tries to mutiny against Bogan and the President, Walter Matthau plays Dr. Groeteschele, an academic / Pentagon consultant who wants to use the “mistake” to initiate an all-out attack / war against “the Communists”, and Dan O’Herlihy plays General Black (“Blackie”) a college friend of the President who is called upon to bomb New York City to compensate for Moscow and to prevent a full-scale nuclear exchange.

To “understand” the movie, a little historical perspective is required… In the previous year (1963), the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. faced off in what would come to be known as the “Cuban Missile Crisis“. As far as we know, this is the closest humanity has ever come to nuclear annihilation. Earlier in the year (1964), another movie of a similar vein (“Dr. Strangelove“), but more of a political / military satire was also released. Both involved a rogue aircraft destroying a Soviet city. However, in the first movie, the Soviets have a world destroyer which is activated. In this movie, the President acts to placate the Soviets and save humanity from destruction.

So, is this movie any good? Is it realistic? Is it entertaining? Yes! Yes! And, yes! The film is an interesting throw-back to the days of the black and white drama. This role and Fonda’s role in “12 Angry Men” are the two signature roles which I remember Fonda for. “The Grapes of Wrath” and “On Golden Pond” are both equally memorable, but the former was before my time / interest and the latter was at the very end of his long career (he appeared in over 60 films). And, of course, in my day, EVERYONE was compelled to view “The Ox-Bow Incident” in high school. For me, the title is more memorable than the film – of which I have almost no recollection. (Just sayin’.)

Is “Failsafe” realistic? Yes, particularly compared to “Strangelove“. Aside from the B&W filming, the technology was “advanced” for its time and quite well done. The acting was tense and there were a lot of close, sweaty shots which brought the tenseness which real participants would have felt if we were approaching nuclear war. An interesting side note: the Air Force did not want to promote the idea such an event (“mistake”) was possible and therefore refused to participate in production. The film uses stock footage of planes to depict a fictional bomber and a mixture of other aircraft to represent U.S. and Soviet fighters.

Entertaining? Yes! I haven’t seen this film in over 40 years and I could still feel the “moment” of the film. The number of times you see actors with shaky hands and sweaty forearms really high-lights the nervous energy which the movie conveys with virtually no music score to “artificially” build emotional impact.

Final recommendation: Very Highly Recommended! This is a movie which should be viewed widely in America. In 2020, the world is racing to a different type of annihilation (climate change), but it is important to remember there are multiple nuclear powers in the world and any one of them could initiate the end of humanity through either human or technical failure. The moral of the story is one of personal responsibility and taking action to ensure nothing like this film portrays ever happens in real life.

.
Click here (9 September) 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.