A Nave da Revolta

Overall, this is an entertaining, if not instructive, rendition of what Wouk got onto paper. It's well worth watching for everyone who loved Wouk's novel. The richness of what he wrote has led us to the world of private imagination, and films can seldom satisfy the complexity here. The problem seems to be miscasting in several directions. One is expecting a little more gray and perhaps a bit more subtlety in Davis's performance of the paranoid Queeg; this constant rolling of steel balls is probably overdone. That is to say, perhaps, there is only one Bogart, but there is a certain plausibility missing here. Bogosian makes a capable Greenwald, but once more, there is no solid grounding here of a wounded flier -- and so we also have a puny Keifer and a Maryk without the hue of seamanship. The callow Willie, however, fits the bill, as does Ken Michels as Dr. Bird, the smug psychiatrist. That, we found entertaining. We agree with the first reviewer that the director stepped on some lines with background noise, and we'll never understand why Greenwald had to fight to be heard at the party. In addition, everyone seems about the same age in this movie, like a fraternity costume party. Wouk's work has much to tell us about our own times. We'd like to see someone do this again, with a deeper commitment than what Robert Altman has provided.

The story will probably be familiar to most, as it is a famous work that has been done many times over, both on the stage and screen. Unfortunately most of the other variations are probably better. It is a tribute to the original work that a flawed production like this can still capture an audience's imagination and manage to entertain even when 99% of the film takes place in a single, sterile location. The production relies on the strength its acting, with such standouts as Jeff Daniels, Brad Davis and Peter Gallagher delivering stellar performances. The film undeniably suffers from its spartan set though when it comes to the final act and Greenwald finally confronts Keefer. His anger seems so out of place because we've only seen Keefer in one brief scene and we are given nothing to hold against the character. Bogart's version at least had the benefit of flashbacks to the actual events to lend context to trial. Yet if one is a fan of the original play or movie you can do far worse than to see the material plays out like it would on the stage.

We have a phrase in England, a 'curate's egg', which means, good in parts.

On the positive side, this is very much a Robert Altman film in the best sense, He displayed again here to best advantage how he can create not just one backstory but a whole world of backstories just in a converted naval gym which is serving as ad hoc courtroom for a court martial. There were the stories of the principal characters, to be sure, to be given time and attention in the script - the Caine officers, crew, judges and advocates - but what Altman did even better I think than in his other films was make each person on screen, even in the background, and I stress every person you can see either in background or foreground, appear existentially real and three dimensional. They all appear more than just either a principal actor or an extra, as we know them variously to be as members of a cast, but in Altman's subtly shifting focus on screen, in what they are shown doing, even if we can't hear what they are saying or not quite sure what they are doing, they come across as real people, mostly naval personnel, of course, with real activities and real lives taking place simultaneously with the people and events staging in the foreground. I am not sure that any other director ever has managed that as well as Altman.

Focussing on the trial itself, the script is highly literate and gives a fascinating insight into naval protocol, attitudes and tradition, and, of course, into the conflict of personalities and within personalities, of men at war, with the advantage of the extra detail that such focusing allowed, in comparison with the 1954 Edward Dmytryk original film which had to cover both the actual naval action and the court room drama. Though, I want to say here, that the Edward Dmytryk film managed to portray with admirable faithfulness and admirable economy a long book, and with first class acting and production values of its own.

On the negative side, and it is no reflection on Brad Davis, but I have seen the film with Humphrey Bogart and also the stage play in London with Charlton Heston and none of them quite manages right the moment when Captain Queeg starts slipping from a reasonable officer, if something of a martinet, into one who, it turns out, has been over-promoted, probably because of the exigencies of war, to the point where he presents clear symptoms of mental disintegration. That is maybe a weakness of the writing in what is otherwise a very fine war drama by Herman Wouk which perhaps no actor can overcome.

I do miss the drama of the actual scenes aboard ship. As I say, the original film managed to portray the gripping action of the sea drama and then with well-judged economy the trial and compressed it successfully into about the same length of time as Altman's film concentrating almost solely on the trial. Also, the final party scene is far better handled in the 1954 film with the confrontation between the defending advocate, played by Jose Ferrer, and Fred MacMurray as the barrack room lawyer Keefer striking a far more dramatic note. After an otherwise taut film, Altman's ends on rather a flat note.

However, I am glad of this new adaptation of the Caine Mutiny, because it is fascinating to compare the two films which nicely complement each other. I think Herman Wouk's Caine Mutiny is one of the best ever World War II stories ever written and subsequently screened, not just for its action but its psychological subtlety and depth. Sadly, his Winds of War is a let-down but that is matter for another review.

I love Robert Altman's persona, a kind of hippy apres la lettre. He'd be fun to have dinner with. But I can never get with his movies. No matter how carefully he explains why he constructed them as he did, it always comes out sounding to me like a burglar's explanation of why the victim brought it on himself because he should never have left the windows wide open in the first place. This TV production is better than most of his movies, though. As a courtroom drama it almost has to be since the focus is almost always on exchanges between two or three people in an otherwise silent courtroom. (When Altman gets a chance, as in the party scene, he lets everything go so that when Barney Greenwald gives his climactic speech, the signal is almost buried in the surrounding noise.) I hate to be negative because, as I say, I like Altman and think the novel is marvelous -- I reread it every two years or so. But the production seems underlighted and unnecessarily dark, which casts a gloom over the exciting proceedings. The performances are okay but they don't always fit the part. Bogosian is nice as Greenwald. Daniels is a bit trim and comes across as more intelligent than he might be. (He ought to be like a brown bull getting the banderillas placed.) The Keefer character is miscast, period. Here, he is soft-spoken and deliberate, completely in control of himself, whereas Keefer knew very well that he was tanking his close friend during his testimony and was nervous and guilty. (His right foot danced all during his testimony in the novel, and he could not meet Maryk's intense gaze.) Keefer is always nervous -- except when he's lambasting the navy, then he comes into his own. These nervous tics are here given to the psychiatrist, a guy who definitely should NOT have had them, so that his frosty complacency could be more effectively destroyed by Greenwald. Altman turns the shrink into a complete fool with big pursed lips and thick glasses, which is extremely amusing, whether it fits or not. Just looking at this poor neurotic is a treat! Much of the success or failure of the production devolves onto Brad Davis's performance, and again the results are mixed. He is the person whose presence undergoes the most dramatic change, and Davis delivers during the breakdown scene. When I first saw this, in 1988, I was somewhat surprised at a particular twist Davis gave Queeg's character, especially during his first court appearance, a kind of wispy lisping quality, and I thought, "Geeze, is Davis trying to suggest Queeg was a homosexual?" I worried that he was going to wind up in a snit when he went to pieces, but Davis in the end projects a genuine-enough paranoid anger. Maybe if I'd never read the novel I'd have enjoyed the movie more, although I did in fact enjoy it. At least it was never insulting. I'd happily watch it again if it were on.

Excellent dramatic rendition of the final segment of Wouk's great novel. All the players made this picture come off looking like a real court marshall. Davis' portrayal of the oddball Queeg showed a man with a skewed personality and totally obsessed with an authority complex. Finally, Bogosian's Barney Greenwald's rant at the celebration party was the high point of the film. Courtroom enthusiasts should go for this one.