Ike: Countdown to D-Day

I have to say I think this may be Tom Selleck's best acting performance. He doesn't necessarily deserve an Emmy, but I'm also not being sarcastic; this is definitely a quality performance, not because it is some scene-chewing piece of grandstanding, but because it is subtle, honest, and to the point. The way Selleck shows Ike's moments of anguish over his awful responsibility are understated but no less compelling, and actually give some sense of what the actual man had to go through.

Although there are some inaccuracies in the film (Ike visits the paratroopers in the DAYTIME on June 6th? Those guys had dropped into France some 12 hours earlier!), I think we still get a good sense of how things were happening around Ike before D-Day. And contrary to some other opinions, I thought the portrayals of Churchill and Montgomery were both well-done and totally fair.

I would really recommend seeing the DVD due to the excellent commentary by Selleck, the writer and director.

Argument about the Second World War - what went wrong, what went right, why things were done - and of course about the historical accuracy of any depiction in film - is one of those great indulgences of mankind.

But I think this movie very faithful to history - and those who say that a single particular meeting with Churchill at which Y was decided did not occur, because instead there were a dozen meetings in which Y was gradually decided -- or that there were also A, B and C people at other meetings - are simply not dealing with every movie's need to compress a true story.

I think this movie (though it does acknowledge that there was some condensing of character and incident) is truly excellent.

There is a maturity about the playing (and Selleck is really superb - a tribute to the seriousness with which he took the task of playing a hero who had an obviously immense impact on history) and sober approach to the issues -- that make it very moving.

The movie does a wonderful job at showing Ike grappling with:

a) the difficulties of others' personalities (DeGaulle, Patton, Miller, Montgomery),

b) the tactical decisions (how near to the landing do you have the paratroops drop - and do you change your mind as you learn of German troop movements? The need for a full or half moon as well as good weather; the likelihood of further delay to see if things improve -causing a loss of German surprise about place of invasion).

It's just superb in every way - it will make you wish this were part of a 12 or 14 hour series about Eisenhower in wartime.

Selleck (with his Midwestern accent and - for this movie - very deliberate in movement and speech - makes a superb Eisenhower).

There must be an unwritten rule in Hollywood that any movie about Eisenhower must demean George Patton. They did it 20+ years ago with the mini-series by the same name, taking a real incident in which Patton, to Ike's surprise, had a contingency plan for the battle of the Bulge and whipped his troops into a 180-degree turn to come to the rescue of Bastogne. In the movie, Ike coaxed an extremely reluctant Patton into it; in every historical account, Patton practically begged for the chance.

Now we have a new one in which the always likable Tom Selleck plays Eisenhower (a happy choice of actors, although Selleck really should've dyed his hair) and we get to see anew his struggles with Churchill, Montgomery and other Brits, not to mention the loathsome Chuck deGaulle. But does Patton fare any better? Nope. Not only did this movie manage to combine the Sicilian slapping incident--which had happened a year earlier--in with the "Knutsford incident," but it, like some newspapers of the day, manages to misquote Patton again (he really DID mention the Russians, even the Knutsford witnesses say so) in order to throw in a 21st century politically correct diatribe about "racialism". And what happens? Blood 'n' Guts Patton trembles at the mighty Ike, promises to be good, and when graciously forgiven, pulls a scene straight from Blazing Saddles ("Mongo have deep feelings for Sheriff Bart!") and throws his arms around Ike, hugging him so violently he (Patton) loses his helmet in the process. It made me laugh to hysterics.

The rest of the movie isn't bad. Thankfully, the Summersby romance thing seemed to be ignored or at least irrelevant in this movie, concentrating on the tensions among the leadership. The part where Ike talks to the airborne troops shortly before they depart is very well done.

But Eisenhower was a decent enough general and politician to stand up to scrutiny on his own. It isn't necessary to make him look better by making George Patton look worse. Patton was infinitely capable of making himself look bad, and he did plenty of times on his own. Fictionalizing Patton doesn't make Ike look better. It just makes the writers look cheap.

There are no combat scenes in this wartime drama, yet it offers a compelling portrait of Ike and a gripping depiction of all the strategy meetings involved in the Allied landing in Normandy. I'm one of the few who has not yet seen Saving Private Ryan, and think this might be a useful movie to have watched first. The film chronicles the complicated planning meetings during the three month build up to D-Day, the operation masterfully orchestrated by the American General Dwight D. Eisenhower in his position as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force.

Tom Selleck is positively brilliant in his portrayal of Ike. Like every other viewer, I knew what the real Eisenhower looked like but while watching this movie, I didn't see Tom Selleck or Magnum. I saw Ike. The movie gives a moving portrait of this confident and decisive but not egotistical general. Fortunately, it avoids any depiction of an alleged romantic affair with his chauffeur Sommersby, best not to cast needless aspersions. It especially provides a touching glimpse into this leader's inner turmoil, secret doubts, and emotional anguish at sending soldiers into a dangerous battle bound to involve high Allied casualties. The battle depicted in this film is truly Eisenhower's inner one.

The most wrenching scene is definitely the one in which Eisenhower himself visits the paratroopers on the eve of the landing. As this group is expected to suffer especially high casualties, he realizes that he is undoubtedly sending many of them off to their deaths. However, given the dire wartime situation, he realizes he has no choice. His unpretentious friendliness with these paratroopers is touching as he tries to put them at ease, shares a cigarette with them, and shows genuine interest in their personal lives...uncharacteristic of a military commander in his position.

The inner squabbling between the generals is also interesting, the various egos of those who disagree on strategy. It's obvious why there needs to be one leader with the final word! Ike exhibits both able tactical strategy but also admirable people skills, dealing respectfully with both the political leaders and the other generals, seeking their opinions, but unafraid to ultimately insist on his chosen course of action. Generals Montgomery, Patton, and Bradley are all highly involved in the planning operation. I'm no expert on the historical accuracy about any of these generals, so will leave such commentary to others better informed.

Charles DeGaulle is certainly cast as an irritating, unsympathetic, and uncooperative obstacle to the Allies' plans, though some have commented that this depiction is inaccurate. Hopefully. While I hesitate to disparage the dead, he comes across as quite despicable here. Churchill is also shown of course, behaving very Churchillian!

The planning operation of Operation Overlord makes a riveting story. I was especially taken with the operation's total dependence on the weather reports near the target date. The pressure must certainly have been on these meteorologists to get their forecast right! Sellick brought to life an historical figure I had previously really never thought much of, though Eisenhower must have been regarded quite heroically in public opinion for him so have gained such an endearing nickname. I hope his portrayal in this movie is accurate, because I would like to believe that Ike actually was in real life the very capable but unpretentious and compassionate man of integrity depicted here.

Before I saw this film I'd never have thought Tom Selleck's body type or acting skill were remotely apt for him to portray General Eisenhower. But Selleck pulls off the role admirably: this is the best playing of a role I've seen him manage. Kudos, Mr. Selleck - you made me forget you were Tom Selleck and had me, from the get-go, believing you were General Eisenhower.

The film isn't about the war, the SHAEF staff, or even the invasion itself: it's about Ike's superb organizing and planning brain and his ability, unique in history, to manage what was, to that date, the most unwieldy and potentially fractious warfare coalition ever to have joined hands as allies. Selleck and writer Chetwyn tell quite well how Eisenhower dealt with the frustrations and burden of his critical command.

Sure there are bits of created dialogue not to be found in the historical record and compressions of events and characters necessitated by the limits of cinematic storytelling, but on the whole this is a worthy film that achieves exactly what it set out to do: tell about Ike's grasp of the task set before him and his unparalleled aplomb in carrying it off.

The only egregious gaffe in the writing was the line spoken by Group Captain Stagg in which he tells Ike and the senior SHAEF staff that the low pressure storm systems, which boded ill for the launch of the invasion, depended on how much they'd be propelled by the jetstream. In 1944 the jetstream had not been discovered. Some prewar and wartime high altitude fliers had experience of the jetstream's effects, but meteorology had not yet identified the jetstream by name, or learned of its constant presence as prime determinor of weather aloft or at ground level. (If you think me wrong about this, see the PBS 'NOVA' episode about the late-1940's crash of an Avro Lancastrian airliner in the Andes Mountains.)

The only other objection I have to ALL films, to many otherwise comprehensive books, and to nearly all of the media reportage about the Normandy Invasion is the complete absence of mention of OPERATION NEPTUNE. NEPTUNE was the co-equal naval component of OVERLORD - which was the land component of the total SHAEF plan and operation. Without NEPTUNE there was, and could have been, no OVERLORD. Indeed the NEPTUNE planning gave SHAEF and Ike as many fits and starts and moments of intense anxiety as did any of the factors in the OVERLORD planning and execution. The two operations were, from the start of the invasion planning through its execution, akin to two hands being necessary to wash each other.

A note to the IMDb reviewer who posted here that Field Marshall Montgomery was humorous and well-loved: this is simply not so. Most of Monty's associates - both senior and junior and both British and American - found him intolerant, rigid, insufferable, and the antithesis of humorous. It was also Monty's grave flaw that he prided himself as god's gift to generalship - a trait he shared with America's General Patton and which put Monty and Patton at loggerheads with each other throughout the war (Ike put up with much nonsense from both of them, and yet Ike's leadership managed to harness their talents to the task of achieving Allied victory). In his own plodding way Monty was a fine field commander, but he lacked completely what are today known as "people skills" - which lack disqualified him from being appointed supreme allied commander, which Churchill recognized long before it was necessary to appoint one. It was Ike alone among Allied commanders who had in spades all the people skills Monty and Patton lacked, as well as a near-perfect grasp of the leadership the Allied coalition, stacked as it was with prima donnas from every Allied nation, required in order for victory to be achieved over Nazi Germany.

(By the way: let's all learn to spell "martinet," okay?)

Quibble: Timothy Bottoms' work as Ike's able SHAEF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith is too easygoing. General Smith suffered from painful stomach ulcers and those who knew him did not mistake his ulcerous irascibility! Bottoms misplays Smith as a soft-spoken foil or private confessor to Selleck's finely etched Ike. Perhaps this soft Smith is artistic license since the film is not about Smith but about Ike, but I still feel that Chetwyn and Bottoms might have tried to give General Smith and his ulcers and his legendary suffer-no-fools-whomsoever wrath their historical due.

Most importantly 'Ike: Countdown to D-Day' succeeds in a way that most historical films fail: it gives the sense that none of what we now as history was preordained or a done-deal, that the events that Ike dealt with were not easy or inevitable - or glorious. There is here real drama given life by fine portrayals of characters facing up to and dealing with the gravest doubts and tasks.