The Ten | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘The Ten’

A Different Time, A Different World

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged A Few Good Men, Abigail St. Croix, An Officer And A Gentleman, Barbara Babcock, Carolina Military Institute, Charleston, Col. “Bear” Berrineau, Dante “Pig” Pignetti, David Keith, Dead Poets Society, G.D. Spradlin, Gen. Bentley Durrell, General Comments, Good Movie Recommendation, John Alexander, John Lavachielli, Mark Santoro, Michael Biehn, Mitchell Lichtenstein, Movie Reviews, Reviews, Rick Rossovich, Robert Prosky, Taps, The 10, The Lords of Discipline (1983) – movie review, The Ten, Tradd St. Croix, USMA Prep School, Will McLean on November 12, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“The Lords of Discipline” (1983) – movie review
Today’s review is for the Southern Gothic quasi-military drama: “The Lords of Discipline” (1983), starring David Keith as Will McLean (a principled senior cadet tasked with protecting a vulnerable freshman), Robert Prosky as Col. “Bear” Berrineau (the gruff but fair senior cadre officer of – fictional – Carolina Military Institute), G.D. Spradlin as Gen. Bentley Durrell (a manipulative power broker with a vision of purity), Mark Breland as freshman cadet Tom Pearce (the first African-American admitted to CMI), Michael Biehn as John Alexander (Will’s “enemy” and the leader of “The 10“), Mitchell Lichtenstein as Tradd St. Croix (Will’s roommate, aristocratic, enigmatic and a secret member of “The 10”), Rick Rossovich as Dante “Pig” Pignetti (a boisterous cadet whose fate becomes a turning point), and John Lavachielli as Mark Santoro (the fourth member of McLean’s four cadet cell / room). Barbara Babcock appears as Abigail St. Croix, Tradd’s mother and a symbol of Charleston’s genteel rot. The ensemble is rounded out by a cadre of cadets and faculty whose faces blur into the institutional machinery of honor, secrecy, and sanctioned cruelty.

Background: I came to this film with moderate expectations and high interest. I had seen the previews and they reminded me of my own time at the USMA Prep School back in the 1970s. My first (only prior) viewing of this film was on the big screen in its original release. Also, I’ve seen David Keith in other roles (most notably “An Officer and a Gentleman”), and I was curious how he’d handle a lead that’s more moral compass than romantic lead. (Not that Keith was the romantic lead in that movie, either.) And, finally, Mark Breland was an American Olympic boxing champion in real life and I wanted to see if he could also act. This was my second viewing of the film, and it still delivers a compelling, if uneven, portrait of military tradition as both crucible and curse.

Plot: Set in 1964 at the fictional Carolina Military Institute, the film follows Will McLean, a senior cadet, who is assigned to protect the school’s first Black freshman, Tom Pearce. Will’s assignment is not just about mentorship — it’s about shielding Pearce from “The Ten,” a secret society of cadets who enforce purity through intimidation, violence, and expulsion. As Will investigates the group’s activities, he uncovers layers of complicity that reach into the school’s leadership and his own circle of friends. Tradd’s betrayal, Pig’s moral compromise, and Alexander’s brutal hazing all converge in a climax that exposes the cost of silence and the price of integrity. The film ends with Will confronting Durrell and walking away from the institution — not in triumph, but in weary defiance.

So, is this movie any good? The acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; mixed; competent; several; yes — with caveats.

Any good? Yes. “The Lords of Discipline” is a brooding, atmospheric film that tries to balance thriller mechanics with layers of moral inquiry and racially motivated personal violence. It doesn’t always succeed — the pacing is uneven and the tone veers between melodrama and menace — but it’s a sincere attempt to dramatize the tension between loyalty and conscience. The film explores themes of institutional complicity, racial integration (hatred), and the seductive power of belonging. It’s not subtle, but it’s not hollow either. It asks: What does it mean to be honorable in a system that rewards cruelty and promotes hatred?

Acting: David Keith anchors the film with a performance that’s more reactive than expressive — his Will is principled, haunted, and increasingly isolated. Keith’s physicality works, but his emotional range as an actor is limited. Biehn is solid as a sadistic / hateful Alexander, though his arc is underwritten. Lichtenstein’s Tradd is appropriately slippery, and Rossovich brings energy to Pig. Prosky and Spradlin play their roles with institutional gravitas — one warm, one cold. Babcock is underused. The supporting cast is serviceable, though the film leans heavily on archetypes: the loyal friend, the sadistic enforcer, the noble outsider. Note: Mark Breland was surprising effective although his role was mostly limited to the object of “The Ten’s” torture as they tried to drive him to resign from the Institute. I found his line about having to stay because of what it will mean to those who would follow him at the Institute to be (personally) moving and thematically effective. So, kudos to Mr. Breland!

Filming / FX: Visually, the film is competent. The cinematography captures Charleston’s decaying grandeur and the historic / claustrophobic oak and stone interiors of the Institute. The lighting favors shadows and muted tones. The hazing scenes are brutal but (mostly) not gratuitous — filmed with restraint and dread. There are no special effects to speak of, but the film’s atmosphere — uniforms, rituals, and whispered threats — is its own kind of production design. There is one notable exception which greatly strained my credibility: “The Ten” carve “10” into the back of the Pearce character and it “heals” up as scar tissue, which he later shows to McLean. Had this actually happened, Pearce would not have been able to stop the bleeding on his own which means he would have had to get the cuts treated and it would simply have been impossible to hide / cover-up these wounds. An “official” investigation would have to follow and blah, blah, blah – good-bye plot.

Problems: Several. The film struggles with tone — it wants to be a thriller, a character study, and a social critique, but it doesn’t fully commit to any. The pacing is uneven, especially in the middle, where exposition stalls momentum. The racial integration subplot — ostensibly the film’s moral center — is underdeveloped and ultimately sidelined. Pearce is barely a character (merely an object of violence), which undermines the racial / societal stakes. The secret society trope feels dated (for a modern day viewer) and occasionally cartoonish. And the film’s resolution — Will walking away — feels barely earned / understandable. There’s power in the gesture, but not enough buildup to make it cathartic or “feel” true.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes — with reservations. I found it thematically rich and atmospherically compelling, even if it didn’t fully deliver on its promise. The film made me think about institutions, complicity, and the cost of silence. It’s not a great film, but I found it a powerful and a meaningful one — especially if you’re interested in stories that interrogate tradition and power. It reminded me of other films that explore institutional rot — “Taps,” “Dead Poets Society” and “A Few Good Men” — though it lacks their polish and emotional clarity (the last two anyway).

Final Recommendation: Good Recommendation. “The Lords of Discipline” is a flawed but earnest film that tries to dramatize the moral price of doing what is right as an individual over the social benefit of institutional belonging. It’s worth watching — especially if you’re interested in military culture, Southern Gothic themes, or the psychology of hazing and hierarchy. It doesn’t offer easy answers, and it doesn’t fully develop its most important questions, but it’s a film you will remember because of what it says about the United States at that time and in that place. It’s a time capsule of the 1960s when viewed in 2025 – only snapshots of reality. Watch it for the atmosphere, the tension, and the reminder that honor — real honor — frequently requires standing alone.

.
Click here (12 November) 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.