Force of Arms

People keep comparing this film with "A Fairwell To Arms" (1932). If that is true, then it can also be seen as a stepping stone to "The Americanization of Emily" (1964) — highlighting how changing American attitudes toward war have become gradually more cynical.

Seems like the "Emily" team — writers and director — might have been influenced by Sgt. Joe 'Pete' Peterson (Holden character), transposing Garner's Charlie Madison to be an updated version of same. 1932 > 1951 > 1964.

All three successfully integrate Romance and War, ably supporting the theme that Love is the stronger force. So why do we keep on making war?

Just caught it on Turner. The reviews calling it "routine" show how dull-normal some people are. In fact, the old pro Michael Curtiz (look him up) brings an extraordinary sensibility to the film. Gone are his romantic stylings of Casablanca and Robin Hood, his lush, overdone Warner's agreeable foolishness. Instead, he portrays war as bitter and without glory, full of random death and meaningless violence. The three combat sequences are superb, and Holden, as he would later demonstrate in "Bridge on the River K" is brilliant as a reluctant soldier who has no sense of glory and no wish to be a hero, but is nevertheless the everyman Infantryman, who knows he must do his duty. Curtiz doesn't turn this evocation of battle into boy's fantasy; it's hard, bitter, terrifying and brutally unfair to children and especially young American men who never thought they'd be dying in the slopes of Mt. Casino. The romance is nicely done, even if the ending is trite (but, in the way that cheap melody can be, amazingly satisfying). Olsen and Holden have great chem (as they proved in three other films as well) and all in all, the whole piece is kept in a register of near-realism that's very affecting. A neglected minor gem from the great Curtiz.

Some have called this an updated version of "A Farewell to Arms," but if the time has been moved forward from World War I Italy to World War II Italy, the quality has also been moved down from "memorable" to "routine." There's really nothing much wrong with this production but there's little to distinguish it, either, and one sometimes gets the uncomfortable feeling that the death and destruction of the greatest war in human history is simply being used as the background for yet another boy-meets-girl story.

William Holden has a shower scene which shows he was still, at this point in his career, in his "hairy-chested" mode. Just a few years later, beginning with "Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing," he entered his "shaved chest" period.

Dick Wesson supplies some "comic relief" which is just as grating as his work in "Destination Moon."

Forget San Pietro. The real conflict in this early 50s combat film is between anti war cynicism and patriotic effusion. The later wins out, as it almost always would in a pre 1960s Hollywood war movie, but the fact that there is even a spirited contest between the two ideologies shows just how far in the rear view mirror WW2, our only morally justified foreign engagement, had receded by 1951, especially once Korea had taken its place.

So if only as a marker of American society's changing views on war and flag waving this film would be worthy of notice. It is also the last good work of its director, the great Michael Curtiz*, who has at least two films in the top Hollywood 100 of the twentieth century (three if you're a "Yankee Doodle Dandy" fan, which I am not) featuring very realistic, hard bitten battle scenes.

Unfortunately, as previous reviewer planktonrules noted, the film is marred by some of the worst, gushy, mushy, cloyingly romantic dialogue, in the love scenes between William Holden and Nancy Olson, this side of a Fanny Hurst novel. I mean, Holden is a legitimately great actor but not even he can survive such lines as "With you I will live forever", spoken sincerely. And Olson, a much less skilled thesp, is completely done in by the lovey dovey twaddle composed by scenarist Orin Jannings, a scribe with whom I am thankfully not familiar.

Bottom line: Give it a generous B minus 'cause I'm a big Curtiz fan.

*There are some who regard 1958's "King Creole", with Elvis, as good. I am not among them.

It would be easy to pass off Force of Arms as just another post-WWII action/romance movie until you're a few frames into viewing it. Surprisingly realistic with actual combat footage interspersed with filming. Strong yet sensitively-understated performances by Holden, Olson, and, in a supporting role, Frank Lovejoy. An inspired and superior script helps convey the chaos of combat, its effects on those who are scarred by it, and the powerful force of love that can somehow emerge in the midst of the sheer will to survive. A classic that feels as real in 2017 as when it was filmed.