The Lost Battalion

For a production which boasts of having military cooperation, of having access to the very maps and documents involved in the events of 1918, and of having partly been filmed in the very lands in France where the battle raged, it's a weird flex to also proclaim that the servicemen who appear before the camera were not paid. Yet, sure enough, producer Edward A MacManus provides a foreword in which he connotes that the cinematic reenactment includes participation by survivors of the events being depicted, and in the same breath in which he waxes poetic about the honor of these troops, he notes with an air of misplaced pride that these survivors received no compensation for their participation. How patriotic! Indeed, how very American!

Beyond this - believe me, I understand that "the war to end all wars" had concluded only months before this picture was released, and the world was still taking toll of the wreckage. Yet it also strikes me that this bears wisps of unthinking, chest-beating jingoism familiar to modern kindred figures (the sort who would exclaim "support the troops!" in one breath, and in the next, take away veterans' hard-earned benefits). That's to say nothing of passing casual sexism (dismissively and pointlessly referring to women as "the fifty percent" of the population before showing us women only in the context of their relationships with men, or treating them as pretty, frivolous playthings), questionable treatment of non-white people (according to writer Charles A. Logue, all that the Chinese know how to do is fight), and among other things, approving language toward state violence and abuse of power (what else is the draft if not coercion, primarily of those who are already disadvantaged?). And that's still not all, for the first considerable portion of the length is so light and unbothered that very little alteration would have been necessary to make the first half (more than half, really) fit for a comedy starring Buster Keaton or Laurel and Hardy, or a 50s sitcom in that brand new medium for home entertainment, the television.

I sat to watch 'The Lost Battalion' with high expectations, for I love silent movies, this was highly recommended to me, and the nature of the premise and the participation of survivors should surely count for something. Instead of an absorbing war film, however, or a captivating war drama, let alone a prized feature about World War I, a full half of these reels are wasted with uninteresting exposition and characters (some of them literally real people) that the title can't make us care about. Mind you, after taking so much time to introduce these supporting characters in the first place, the feature ultimately doesn't do anything meaningful with them except to show them to us again in the last minutes with an equal lack of import. Now, maybe I've been spoiled, because Abel Gance's 'J'accuse' - released in France only months before this premiered in the U. S. - is such a staggering, haunting, impactful war drama that I've thought about it almost every day in the two years since I first watched it. And don't get me wrong, human drama and tinges of humor and levity are essential for any war film so as to drive home the great cost of the inherent violence; I wouldn't have it any other way. Once the action kicks in here, a little over halfway through, the flick finds more strength as filmmaker Burton L. King aims to capture the ugliness of what the 77th Division endured in Argonne.

Yet because so much of the preceding length was treated so lightly, we're greeted with an inappropriately jarring tonal shift as the violence kicks in. Moreover, though I take issue with the tone and content of that portion, in writing and in execution it can claim cogency and cohesiveness, and a unity of vision that is commendable in and of itself. Truthfully, I don't necessarily think the same can be said for the back end, at least not to the same extent. I love silent movies and I therefore love intertitles, but here the intertitles are especially heavy with text, and the animated maps that appear before us are exercised in place of more fluid, natural storytelling. There are times when these elements so thoroughly break up the visual experience of the battle, and soldiers' struggles, that the artifice of the depiction is reinforced, suggesting college students mimicking combat for a class project. Elsewhere I'm sadly unimpressed with King's direction, and with the editing, if not also Arthur A. Cadwell's cinematography, for scenes of violence feel disjointed to the point of struggling to capture the danger and the stakes of what the soldiers faced. To read by ourselves of the real-life "Lost Battalion," even on paper the scenario is gripping and dramatic as the division fought desperately to survive against incredible odds and grave circumstances. To watch the portrayal in 'The Lost Battalion,' it feels less that the battalion is lost, and more that the ardor and gravity of their ordeal has been. We do technically see these events reenacted, but as we see them in these 100 minutes, they carry no real weight.

I appreciate the work that everyone put into this, by all means. That above all includes the stunts and effects, the artists who created the illustrations for the intertitles - indeed, the fundamental labor of everyone who contributed from behind the scenes - and the troops who effectively relived their ordeal without apparently getting anything for doing so. While limited by the manner in which the whole was shaped, I think the cast give admirable performances. I don't think the sum total is altogether bad. Unfortunately, it does leave me kind of nonplussed at best, and for a story that should be engaging and riveting, that indifference might well be worse than outright disfavor. At the same time that I want to like 'The Lost Battalion' more than I do, I also wonder if I'm not being too kind in my assessment. I'm glad for those who get more out of this than I do, and if nothing else is true, then it deserves to be remembered as a surviving picture of the silent era. For my part, however, I find the end result to be no more than a mixed success, and with so many other works that one definitely could or should be watching, this one becomes a relatively low priority.

I suspect that anyone who enjoyed the 2001 television film of the same title and on the same subject would be rather disappointed by this film featuring the real people concerned. On the other hand many people who would be totally uninterested in the 2001 film will enjoy this. Burton King really rather brilliantly turns the whole story into a kind of allegory of "melting pot" America (less than half the film is concerned with the famous battle) - and bear in mind that the term "melting pot" had only come into use in 1908 but proved vital to US propaganda during he war. It is actually a remarkable social docufiction as, amongst the existing reviewers, only the Geman Count sems to appreciate (as he would), for which the wartime tale of derring-do simply provides the occasion.

The "real hero" was NOT Cher Ami. Cher Ami, although an incredible story of itself, arrived long after the damage had been done. In fact, during the First World War, pigeons took approx. 30 minutes to arrive at their roost, at which point the message was retrieved and either called in using the normal chain of command, or sent by runner to the normal chain of command. Cher Ami's message did arrive, but by the time it was acted upon the artillery barrage was being brought to an end.

The real hero's of the Lost Battalion - and this is one case where the word "hero" might truly be considered inadequate - were the men themselves. What they were put through is most likely the worst battle endured by a military grouping.

From the 2nd of October, 1918, to the 8th of October, 1918, these men were completely surrounded by the Germans and under constant attack by rifle fire,, machine gun fire, mortar attacks, and artillery.

Throughout this entire time, they had no idea if their own chain of command even knew of their condition or were attempting to get to them. There was no phone service, radio, ,or runners available to them. Pigeon service was the only way they could contact anyone, and that was only a one way direction without any assurance that the pigeon being sent actually got through.

Additionally, these men were sent out without overnight gear because General Alexander assured them that the entire AEF line would be right up there with them. They soon had no food, no water (the only available water was being watched by the Germans and any attempt to reach it usually meant the end of your life), and very little or none ammunition.

The Germans completely surrounded them, sending in everything they had, including gas attacks and flame throwers. Major Whittlesey, Captain McMurtry and Captain Holderman were exceptional, holding these men together and performing a virtual miracle in repelling each German attack. McMurtry was wounded 7 times, but refused treatment and remained on the line leading his men. Holderman was almost super-human in the things he was able to do. He was so shot up he often had to use the empty rifles as crutches, but still came out and after the Germans with each attack.

Whittlesey was the glue to held everyone together. His men often were in awe at the way he would travel up and down the line, in full view of the German snipers, the encourage them and give them hope. He never seemed to care one bit about his own safety.

This movie was released in 1919 and was huge. Whittlesey was known by virtually ever person in America at the time and was a national hero. Unfortunately, the events that took place in the ravine where the "Lost" Battalion was surrounded in never left him. Once he returned to the US, there was a downturn in the economy and there was almost no day that went by that he was not approached by former soldiers requesting money or widows and family members asking him how their husband/son/brother was killed. He never was able to get away from it and was - essentially - forced to relive (and see and hear) the horrors that took place during those 6 days.

Finally, quietly and without warning, he took passage on a steamer to Cuba at around midnight of November 26th, 1922, after being asked by yet another passenger to tell him everything about that horrible experience, Charles Whittlesey quietly climbed over the rail and slipped into the sea, never to be seen again. His demons had finally been silenced.

We're told at the start that the people who survived the actual "lost battalion" battle played themselves in this recreation, and without compensation either. The first 35 minutes introduces some of the men who formed the 77th Division, and some of the women in their lives. Included are two Chinese Americans fighting on opposite sides in a Tong war, a Jewish kid, a burglar, a thief, a wealthy merchant's son in love with his father's stenographer, etc. In short, the 77th had men from the melting pot that was America. We see them train at Camp Upton, Long Island and then finally shipped to France. The action then is riveting. Ordered to take the Argonne Forest, the American army faces formidable German resistance. By means of the actual map used by headquarters at the time and stop-action photography, we see on the map the dotted lines representing the German army facing the dotted lines representing the one-million man American army. The lines move as the push is on. Lt. Col. Charles W. Whittlesey (who plays himself) commands the left flank (the 77th division), which rapidly advances and breaks through the German lines into German-held territory, and winds up in "The Pocket" surrounded by the Germans. Cut off from headquarters without food and water for 123 hours, and nicknamed "The Lost Battalion," the men settle into a siege of dauntless defense. 34 runners to headquarters are killed; their only hope to contact headquarters is by means of a carrier pigeon called Cher Ami.

I thoroughly enjoyed the use of the map to detail the action, which made everything crystal clear. Modern films involving battles should use the technique to avoid the confusion so often present. The U.S. Government sanctioned this film and some footage shot by the U.S. Signal Corps was used in the film. The film also tells us that the drawings used on the title cards were by Lt. Augustus Kaiser (also in the film) and some of them were made while under siege in The Pocket. There was some comic relief even in the heat of battle. When a gun jams, the title card reads "The guy who invented this gun ought to be pinched for aiding the enemy." I also enjoyed seeing Tammany Young, the only actor in the film I recognized from films he made in the 30's.

It seems to be the earliest of the "Rainbow Division" movies I can recall. You know the type. Although traditionally, regiments were raised from small areas and from a cohesive group (New York's "Fighting 69th" springs to mind; it was composed of Irish Catholics from New York. My Civil War buff friends tell me that a New York regiment of Irish Protestants was also raised. When both were present at the Battle of Gettysburg, they were carefully placed at opposite ends of the line, lest they forget whom they were supposed to fight). The 77th claimed (and this movie features actual) members of many ethnoi and classes, including two Chinese troopers from warring Tongs.

The movie covers recruitment, training (including the same sort of incidents that would feature in the Abbott & Costello hit BUCK PRIVATES, and a recreation of the Battle of the Pocket, with battle maps.

In many ways it's a gimmick movie, with many of the actual combatants -- including the carrier pigeon Bon Ami -- recreating their role. As a piece of history, though it's of signal importance. The Battle of the Pocket, in which the 77th ran ahead of the units on its flanks and was besieged behind enemy lines, was certainly not terribly important in the winning of the war. It was important in the American mythos, and myths are why we do anything as crazy as go to war.