Battle Cry

As I recall, our small town's prestige theater was packed, even to the back row of the balcony where I had to sit. But who cared. Word was that shapely Dorothy Malone (Elaine) did a strip tease in a chair, and just the thought of a girl bra-less on screen was enough to bring out every horny high school guy in town. Plus, the title promised all the neat battle scenes that teens in the '50's confused with real war. I don't think any of us were disappointed after leaving the theatre. Then again, a little Malone skin went a long way.

Seeing the movie again, I realize how many years have passed and how people change. Now the 2-hours-plus seem tedious and transparent, a typical Hollywood whitewash of the time, with stock characters and clichéd situations. It's like the producers wanted to touch every boy-girl base possible, and they do. I'm just puzzled the movie wasn't titled "Mating Cry" since that's where the screen time really is; only the last 10-minutes or so involve battle scenes and that amounts to either artillery explosions or fixing bayonets.

I'm sure enlistments went up following the film's release. Looks like Warner Bros. got maximal assistance from the Corps at Camp Pendleton—lots of massed troop scenes and colorful beach landings. And why not since the film's sum total plays like a recruitment poster. The trouble is this was just this type of Hollywood hokum that helped create the disconnect 10-years later between what Americans expected in Vietnam and the stark realities of what they got. And therein lies the irony of that long ago theater night—the glamorized deceptions of a Battle Cry plus its many 50's kin ended up costing a lot of folks more than what they paid at the box office.

The title of Raoul Walsh's film would indicate a high level of visual war action, but the action in this film is more like a television soap: Peyton Place Meets Boot Camp. Battle Cry is not a bad film by any means, but a mainstream 50's romance, and because it is Walsh, there are excellent things to be found, as long as you don't expect superior battlefield heroics; Aldo Ray and Van Heflin both turn in finely-tuned performances, Ray as a macho player evolving into a loving husband, Van Heflin as a commander who fails to maintain distance from his charges; a young Tab Hunter caught on with teens when he was cast as heartthrob Danny Forrester, and acquits himself nicely.

Three years later, Stanley Kubrick would make the stunning Paths of Glory, a WWI film that revealed the true brutality of battle, and Spielberg would change mainstream war films for all time with Saving Private Ryan; Battle Cry involves the willing viewer in an intelligent adaptation of a best-selling novel and as such, succeeds.

My rating of Battle Cry has more to do with my disappointment with the plot than the actually quality of the movie. I knew nothing of the movie before I watched it, but with a name like Battle Cry, I was expecting a war movie along the lines of Battleground (with which it is paired in the double feature DVD I bought). Instead, Battle Cry has more in common with a soap opera than a real war movie. The movie spends over two hours of its time on relationships and love affairs. When the real battle scenes finally begin, they're over and done with in less than 10 minutes. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the stories of the Marines and their women, it's just not what I was expecting.

I am sure that on repeat viewings my enjoyment of the movie and rating I've given it will increase. Most of the movie is very well done. Like most other reviews I've read, I am especially fond of the scenes involving Pfc Andy Hookens (Aldo Ray) and Pat Rogers (Nancy Olson). I found it a very believable, heartfelt story that's played perfectly by both actors. The rest of the cast is solid and their plot lines are almost as enjoyable.

I was shocked at the frank presentation of some of the subject matter in Battle Cry. I can't think of another movie from the 50s, especially a flag-waving war movie, where sex, pregnancy, drinking, and adultery are dealt with so openly. It's a nice change-of-pace from the sanitized WWII movies I've come to expect.

It's not surprising many war veterans like this film. Dramatically framed with a voice-over by James Whitmore as the epitome of a Marine Sergeant who cares about his men but knows the mission is all, the film quickly draws us into the lives of these men and their women in a suspenseful and satisfying way. There is enough good acting by Whitmore, Van Heflin, Dorothy Malone, John Lupton and others to get us past the less well acted and more cliched moments. Some scenarios, such as the tragedy-to-triumph of the lumberjack womanizer(Aldo Ray)and the New Zealand farm widow (Nancy Olson)are superbly plotted and played. There are many memorable moments in the film and Uris' varied characters are well represented.(Please note that Navaho code-talkers are credited here.) Combat and training imagery and sound is generally high quality, but the outstanding aspect of the film is the way it explores the human qualities of those men and women who face the tests of war.

Let me start by saying I really enjoyed this film and have watched it perhaps a half dozen times. The comments by Mr. Glassey do seem unfair to me. This movie doesnt show us the guts and bloodshed and realism that is accepted and maybe even expected by todays standards but it does show the loss of war. The fear of war and the heroism that was a part of being a marine in WWII. It shows us 3 dimensional characters like "High Pockets" who loves his men as much as he loves the Marines. Yes, I suppose some of the situations are glossed over but that is to be expected when you are trying to tell a story this big in the time alloted. The beginning and middle of the film which focus' on training and shipping over seas to New Zealand is first rate entertainment. The last third where we go into combat with the cast is not as realistic as modern films, but how can it be? It is 1955 when this movie was made and the technology to show how war really looks was not possible then. And even if one may argue that it was, the desire and allowable limits of the day would have precluded that sort of realism anyway. All in all, this is a fair if not excellent portrait of marines going to war.