Men Must Fight

While MEN MUST FIGHT wars, it is the women who wait and strive for peace.

This is a fascinating film, all but forgotten now, which both pleads for peace yet urges action against violent aggressor nations. By supplying strong characters to voice both sides, sometimes changing their minds mid-film, MEN MUST FIGHT tries to please everyone without alienating anyone. Politics aside, it is possible to enjoy the film strictly on the basis of its good acting and compelling production values.

Beginning during World War One, the movie quickly jumps to 1940, where it tries to predict not only the fashions but also the geopolitics seven years hence from its production. Although the future enemy is called ‘Eurasia,' careful observation during the Coliseum anti-war rally clearly shows the Nazi swastika and the Imperial Japanese Rising Sun flag among the montage of dangers, eight years before America's entry into the still-distant World War Two, proving the prescience of the film's creators.

Distinguished English actress Diana Wynyard is a standout as the woman who has seen too much of war's death and tries valiantly to convince others to renounce all warfare. She is well matched by Lewis Stone as her pacifist husband who must rethink his beliefs after high governmental office forces him to confront real dangers. These two excellent performers ably show the full force their decisions have on their most intimate relationships.

Phillips Holmes gives a compelling performance as Wynyard's conflicted son--caught between pacifism & patriotism, he shows the stress going through the mind of any young man facing a really difficult decision. Ironically, considering the film's conclusion, this fine young actor would be killed in a midair collision in Ontario in August of 1942, preparing to fight the Nazis as a member of the Canadian Air Force

Elderly May Robson makes one of her typically energetic film appearances as Lewis' sharp-tongued mother. Pretty Ruth Selwyn does well with her undemanding role as Holmes' patriotic fiancée; stately Hedda Hopper plays her strong-minded mother. Robert Young makes the most of his very brief role as the flier who is the great love of Wynyard's life. Rotund Robert Greig steals a few scenes as Robson's spirited butler.

Movie mavens will recognize Arthur Housman as a shipboard inebriate and Mary Gordon as a spectator during the Coliseum rally, both uncredited.

The film's pre-Code status is well demonstrated by its gentle mocking of patriotism and the way in which the opening scenes frankly present Wynyard & Young as unmarried lovers.

A strange combination of political foresight, a moral philosophy debate and unchecked patriotic jingoism. This isn't a great dramatic film for a lot of reasons but is a great thought provoker. This film should be viewed in high schools and colleges precisely because it takes both side of the issue so strongly. For example, while the script blames the mother for making her son into a pacifist and goes about celebrating the men who go to a certain death defending their country, it lets the pacifist grandmother have the final word in the movie.

The foresight about Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan's war plans is very chilling. It's also interesting that this was around the start of the US pacifist movement that some say was partially financed by Nazi Germany to keep the US out of their way.

While the film is done in that creaky early thirties acting style, the script gives the characters quite a bit of nuance. By the end you can't tell what side the filmmakers were on. Almost all of the intelligent quotes come out of the pacifists but the US is attacked and thousands die because of them. The anti-pacifists frequently come off as very violent and crude. Triumphant military music plays when the troops march out and fly off.

This film should be seen with the more entertaining but similar "Things To Come"

Some technical notes: the sound is very bad at points during the last ten minutes on the TCM print which I assume came from the MGM vault. The destruction of the Empire State Building, which is very disturbing to look at these days, was ridiculous. It would have taken much more then the one dinky bomb that came off the enemy bi-plane.

The future (1940) as seen from the vantage point of 1933. A movie about preparedness for war, the main characters are woman who became a pacifist after her beau died in WWI; her husband, the Secretary of State, a pacifist who turns hawk when war is imminent; her son, also a pacifist, who disappoints his stepfather by refusing to use his knowledge of chemistry to create better poison gases ("the weapon of the future"); the boy's fiance, who refuses to continue the engagement because the boy won't join in the war effort; a dotty pacifist grandma; and Hedda Hopper as the girl's hawkish mom.

With a bizarre cast of characters like this, you can just imagine the plot. It takes the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, plus the revelation that his real father was a war hero, plus the abandonment by his stepfather, to make the pacifist son realize that he must fight, and likely die (as the enemy, Eurasia, has already invaded New York and seems to be equipped with deadly poison gas).

This is a gem, and thank god we have oddball cable stations that show such stuff in the middle of the night. It is a movie about patriotism that exalts ambivalence, which is the strongest feeling that most of us possess. Although ultimately the movie comes down on the side of the fighters ("Men Must Fight"), the notion that it would be better for all nations (led by the world's mothers) to refuse to go to war is a major theme of the movie. It is mildly based on Lysistrata.

The sci-fi elements stand out as particularly amusing from the vantage point of 2003: both television and picture phones are the norm, but nothing else (and especially the grand old prop planes) is the least bit modern. The prediction that whoever controls poison gas controls the world is in line with the misguided Sadaam-aphobia of our own decade.

For any number of reasons, this flick is well worth watching.

During the Great War (aka World War I), British-accented nurse Diana Wynyard (as Laura Mattson) suffers tragically. Understandably, she becomes a fervent pacifist. In 1918, many believed the "war to end war" had occurred. Decades later, it's 1940. Looking great for her advanced years, Ms. Wynyard is married to US Secretary of State Lewis Stone (as Edward "Ned" Seward). They have raised a pacifist son, handsome chemical engineer Phillips Holmes (as Robert "Bob" Seward). When a Second World War breaks out in Europe, the pacifist ideals of Wynyard and the draft-aged Mr. Holmes are tested...

From a short-lived 1932 Broadway play, this film predicts what many people once considered unlikely - that another "world war" would follow the "war to end all wars." There were fewer predicting this in the 1930s than the countless speculation about World War III. We don't use the "picture phone" depicted, but the writers and adapters were remarkably correct in some main events. However, this is not really a film about picture phones and chemical weapons...

Living up to its title, "Men Must Fight" is a pro-war story. The thesis is that pacifists are wrong...

Moreover, a clearly sexist attitude explains Wynyard and her ilk. Also representing the "weaker" gender are director Edgar Selwyn's pretty wife Ruth, and the inimitable May Robson. Holmes is brought up hating war, but this threatens to render him a spineless sissy; in order to be valued and accepted, the character must reform. Considering all this, the closing scene is despicable. The arguments for why people "must fight" wars, which the film makes more subtly, are undermined by the heavy-handedness. In an ironically sad postscript, Holmes enlisted in the real World War II and died in a 1942 plane crash.

****** Men Must Fight (2/17/33) Edgar Selwyn ~ Diana Wynyard, Phillips Holmes, Lewis Stone, May Robson

Old-fashioned movie of the kind no longer made. It is filmed like a stage play, which it was before brought to the screen by MGM. It is Pre-code, but there is nothing salacious or untoward in the screenplay which would raise objections. It is about a woman who raises her son to be a pacifist after her lover (his father) is killed in WW I. She marries a man who knows her secret, and who becomes adjutant to the Sec'y. of State. As the picture draws on the situation comes to a head with an agreeable resolution.

The characters are hyperbolic and this story would never go over with contemporary audiences as illustrated here, especially the story's preachy message. It is saved by skillful acting performances and by the introduction of some glimpses into the future; the film uses a primitive form of TV, but it is used only in telephone conversations. Additionally, the writer has correctly foretold the coming of WWII almost to the year. An interesting and absorbing movie to watch and reflect on how far motion pictures have come in 85 years.