John Ford Goes to War

When the Second World War broke out, the Navy and Wild Bill Donovan, director of the Office of Strategic Services tapped director John Ford as head of their movie-making units. This documentary covers that period.

With a mixture of people who knew him (Peter Bogdanovich), admired him (Leonard Maltin), and who wished he were still alive so they could fight him (Oliver Stone), excerpts from the films he was in charge of, andshots of Ford himself, it offers a firm basis of understanding not only the films, but Ford himself. Other works offer contradictory views of himself: a painter and poet of failure who purported to despise artistry; a celebrator of community who made location shooting a chance to humiliate his cast and crew. I think Ford viewed the making of films as a sissy activity. He wasn't alone in this. Spencer Tracy claimed to despise acting. This documentary left me with the impression that Ford felt that by involving himself in the War, he was doing something of actual value.

On the other hand, one of the cameramen who shot film on the Beaches on D-Day spoke about watching the soldiers fight and die and accomplish something, and all he was doing was crouching behind a bush and taking pictures. So maybe that's wrong.

This is almost a textbook example on how to take a fascinating subject and make a boring poorly made documentary out of it.

John Ford Goes to War highlights Ford’s extraordinary service during World War 2 when he and his various crews filmed the war from Midway to India to Burma to Normandy, and the war trials afterwards. It’s like a real life Winds of War. Ford himself carried the hand held camera on Midway as bombs landed just feet away from Japanese planes. He had a telephone in one hand calling in enemy positions to headquarters while he filmed with the other.

A fascinating story like this should make for a fascinating documentary... it doesn’t.

For one thing the movie seems to be under the mistaken impression that World War 2 took place in the 1840’s not the 1940’s. Now I know Ford was best known for his westerns but this film isn’t about his westerns it is about his work during WW2. In addition Ford’s personal life at this time was more Jimmy Buffet than Eddie Dean. So who do they get narrating the film? Kris Kristofferson.

Kristofferson’s slow around the campfire drawl hits the viewer like a fistful of barbiturates and the along the trail Civil War era musical score doesn’t help either. And then we have the talking heads. The endless talking heads.

You would think that a film that can use dramatic footage from “The Battle of Midway or “December 7th” or moving footage such as the smiling faces of the doomed crew of “Torpedo Squadron” wouldn’t cut away every minute, from the hours of available footage, to show some guy talking... and you would be wrong.

Peter Bogdanovich and Leonard Maltin come across the best (though would it have killed Maltin to shave? I have I High Definition Television I really appreciate some personal hygiene before you get on camera.) Most of the others are people who wrote books and honestly should continue to write books.

They do interview an actually cameraman who shot footage for Ford during the war. His experience is insightful, touching and moving so of course he is only on once for less than a minute.

Anytime the documentary does show footage of Ford’s work, it seems to realize you may be getting interested and quickly swerves into another talking head. This teasing us into a complacency of enjoyment and engagement before another talking head breaks the mood is a strange form of torture. It’s as if the movie has a strange puritan streak that wishes you not to actually enjoy yourself.

Speaking of a strange puritan streak... I have left the best for last. Apparently John Ford ran over Oliver Stone’s kitten while backing out of his driveway in 1971. There is almost no other explication for Stone’s bizarre vitriol against the man. Apparently if Stone was a filmmaker in 1940 he would have been doing documentaries on how the Japanese are victims of American Expansionism and how the D-Day invasion at Normandy was yet another example of American Colonialism.

I would normally say hearing Stone rail against Ford for being historically inaccurate would be worth the price for admission. But alas no. The viewer is better off... much better off finding Ford’s original documentaries uncut. (And if you want to see Stones version of historical accuracy I believe Alexander has a new 240 minute cut available on DVD)

I saw this on Encore earlier this a.m. I was just channel surfing and had only missed a few minutes.

Oliver Stone was accusing John Ford of what he himself does. Twisting history. John Ford's work is stirring and I agree with the other comment that not enough was shown. They did include some footage of the trivia sort--clips of the sex hygiene film Ford made that was shown to the armed forces.The men who made comments sort of sounded like little boys in the schoolyard telling dirty jokes.

One of the most moving film clips they showed was of a group of men who were going to go out on a mission. Ford had no way of knowing that none of them would return. To see those young men, smiling and so alive is really affecting. It brought a lump to my throat.

They should have shown more of his war films and had fewer "talking heads", especially the ones who had nothing to really contribute.

John Ford Goes to War (2002)

*** (out of 4)

Pretty good documentary discussion director John Ford's years in WW2. Peter Bogdanovich, Oliver Stone, Leonard Maltin and Dan Ford, the director's grandson, are just some of the people interviewed. We get to hear stories on why Ford wanted to do those documentaries during WW2 and we also get clips from the films as well as stories behind their making. The Battle of Midway, December 7th, Sex Hygiene and Torpedo Squadron are just a few of the films discussed. Also discussed are a few films he might have directed that no one has seen yet but the best talk comes about the production of December 7th and the differences between the two versions. I guess it goes without saying but Stone has some very harsh word about Ford over the making of these films.

John Ford was a great filmmaker--that cannot be denied. He had a knack for creating a very sentimental view of life that was very appealing and he received several Oscars for this work. However, I also know from some documentaries on the guy that although he was talented, he also could be a complete son of a .....well, you know what I mean. At times, he seemed to take delight in bullying some of his actors for kicks and often mistreated actors to get great performances. As a human being, he seemed to be quite lacking at times--yet others have described him as being gruff but sweet. I am not sure who the man really was--I suspect he was indeed a little of each. However, one aspect of his life that is just glossed over is his involvement with the US Naval Reserves--not just during WWII but in the years that followed. This film makes up for that omission and discusses this very interesting part of his life. And, in the process made me respect and appreciate Ford as a human being...at least more than I had.

The film is made up of lots of archival clips, clips of Ford's propaganda documentaries for the Navy and various interviews--most of which seem second-hand since the film was made so many years after Ford's death. In fact, this is the biggest weakness of the film--had it been made decades earlier, it could have featured more interviews with folks who actually knew Ford well. Still, it's well worth seeing.