Siete contra la selva

Indeed, I believe this is the best movie ever made. I saw it first when I was a teenager, and its effect on me was astounding, although I didn't know the title. Twenty years later I learned the title, and it is still the most profound war movie ever made. It proves you don't need a gigantic budget and special effects to have a super story, and a script, in my opinion, is the biggest reason to see a movie. If you don't like great scripts, profound themes, believable characters, great acting and directing, you won't understand what makes this movie great. The characters and fight scenes are uncannily realistic, with human blows and emotions instead of the silly choreography look you get in the modern "dork" fight scenes that leave your eyes wandering in disdain. I won't give away much except to say the plot is much like The Ox-Bow Incident and Southern Comfort. Probably not for right wing war mongers, but it may be just what they need to see.

"The Long and the Short and the Tall" is a 1961 war drama by director Leslie Norman. Dated and plodding, the film watches as a platoon of British soldiers apprehend a Japanese scout during WW2's Malayan Campaign. The platoon then wrestle over questions of ethics. Some soldiers abuse the prisoner, some want him executed, whilst others rush to his defence. Laurence Harvey, who plays a gruff private, becomes the platoon's voice of conscience.

"Long" was once renowned for its foul language and gritty tone, but such things are passé today. The film's "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" plot ends with a handful of British soldiers captured by the Japanesese, a "shocking" twist which is meant to jolt us into contemplation. This, unfortunately, has little to do with contemporary warfare. Today the shoe is never on the other foot, and it's no longer an issue of populaces failing to "empathise with the enemy", but rather, something far more toxic; the ability of men to rationalise war as something just, necessary and humane, the apathy of populaces, the designed distortion of history and the ability of leaders to remain at a state of perpetual war yet hide such conflicts from prying eyes. The philosophical questions "Long" poses have little bearing upon either modern warfare or WW2 itself. The film costars Richard Harris.

4/10 – Slow and unconvincing. See "The Burmese Harp".

Looking at this bunch out on patrol in the China/Burma/India theater of World War II I was reminded of what Clark Gable said to Charles Laughton about the impressed seaman on the Bounty, them not being king and country volunteers. Sergeant Richard Todd has his hands full keeping good discipline and order with crew in The Long And The Short And The Tall. Using that British wartime ballad as a title tells about all the different types one gets in the Armed Services.

So it is in this film where Sergeant Richard Todd has a mission which he figures is a light one. Just go out to get background recordings of jungle sounds to be played in real battle to confuse the enemy. But the Japanese are also full of tricks. This patrol is drawn into enemy held area and then the idea is for the British soldiers to get out alive.

Based on a stage play and the stage roots of his project aren't all that well concealed, the patrol captures a Japanese scout. Just his presence among them brings a breakdown in discipline that spells disaster. It is inevitable in war that one does not see the enemy as human. If you did you couldn't kill them. The more popular the war, the more that spreads to the civilian sector.

Standing out among the patrol members are Richard Harris and Laurence Harvey who would dislike each other intensely in civilian life in any event. Harvey in fact has no kind words for anybody. With him it's like is Joe Lampton character from Room At The Top went off to war, most likely drafted.

The Britsh whose island nation was threatened far worse than continental USA have this film as being the first at least I know of to show their fighting men as less than heroes. The film's main weakness is not successful transition to the screen from the stage. But the acting is vivid especially from Todd, Harris, and Harvey.

What at first seems to be your typical British war film about a squad of soldiers behind enemy lines in Burma actually turns out to be something far, far different - and better. THE LONG AND THE SHORT AND THE TALL is actually a morality play about the importance of human life, the nature of warfare, and mankind's humanity towards his own kind. It was based on a play and occasionally feels very staged and studio-bound, but it overcomes these flaws to become something very compelling.

What's especially good about this film is that it takes careful time to develop each of the main characters in turn. So we get Richard Todd as the tough, incredibly ruthless sergeant, and Richard Harris as his volatile corporal. Ronald Fraser does well as a man conflicted between kindness and brutality, and David McCallum is a delight as the coward of the group. Best of all is Laurence Harvey, who plays a racist on the outside but at the same time becomes the most humane one of the lot.

THE LNG AND THE SHORT AND THE TALL doesn't pack a great deal of action into the running time, but when it does occur it's incredibly hard-hitting due to the aforementioned characterisation. Kenji Takaki also deserves kudos for playing the Japanese soldier; without a single word of English, he manages to create a thoroughly sympathetic character. Less is more, and this underrated war movie is a great example of that ethos.

A group of soldiers are in the jungle recording sounds and testing levels for sonic warfare to be tried out on the Japanese at a later date. However, when radio operator private Whitaker can only pick up Japanese signals on his radio, he surmises that they must be within 15 miles of a Japanese camp.

Tensions between the soldiers are raised as they start to protect themselves and plan to withdraw back to base – plans that change when they capture a lone Japanese soldier on patrol. As they debate what to do, the true characters of the men start to come out.

I came to this thinking that this would be a low-key war movie and, in a way, I was right but it is less about war than it is about the true nature of its characters. In this way it is almost better described as social realism set in the Burmese jungle rather than anything else. The plot moves quite slowly and some modern audiences will likely struggle with the lack of fireworks in terms of acting and action for the majority of the running time but for my money I appreciated that the film took its time and developed broad characters only to then dismantle them when they are under pressure. In some regards the film isn't logical as it is more likely that the soldiers would have fled once the enemy closed in as opposed to fighting, but the play simply takes the struggle in all our souls and puts it into several different men, all making sense but not all making moral sense. It broods for a while but the point is there, building to a fine ending where the fireworks are supplied. The fact that the whole issue of treatment of POW's has come up yet again in Iraq (albeit more torture than necessity) ensures this film is still relevant but, even without the POW issue, the debate over morals and the question of 'what would you do' makes it interesting enough.

The film feels a bit stagy due to the material and limitations of the time and budget but more due to the fact that this is a play. As a play, the material serves the actors well and they rise to meet it. Their performances are roundly strong even if they occasionally overplay it as if they were projecting to the back of a theatre where they really should have used the intimacy of cinema a bit better. Laurence Harvey is powerful in the plum role of Bamforth, the man who is anti-establishment etc but turns out to be the moral core of the group, Harris has a small role but is quality throughout. Todd has the most difficult role and manages it well even if he is given fewer acting 'high points' than some of the others. Support is good and everyone has their character, including good performances from McCallum, Ronald Fraser and the less well-known Meillon and Rees.

Overall this is a dated, stagy film that may put off modern audiences unable to handle its slow pace and lack of action (for a war movie!) but this was an intelligent and interesting play and it has been put on the screen well. It is heavily cut of language and content due to the period it was made but this doesn't matter too much as it keeps the moral debate, with the men representing the various thoughts and impulses in all of us. It doesn't have a firm conclusion but to me that was part of its strength – with issues of some moral complexity there are rarely definite answers or solutions.