Ike - O Dia D

• thank God. The closest we come to a battle scene in "Ike" are the quotes from Laurence Olivier's "Henry V". I do believe that's a small mistake, though: I don't think that film hit the theaters until 1945, somewhat too late for D-day. However, it's justified, artistically: we think of Henry's bombast (one of the greatest speeches at that) when Ike pays his own, humble tribute to the airborne troopers just before D-day. And there is a more subtle reference to Henry V when Ike has to sacrifice an old friend (and nearly sacrifices Patton, too, another old friend.) His thoughts on that also bring Shakespeare to mind.

I loved the film. It stayed true to its purpose, the portrayal of a general making a very tough decision. Selleck was great, and so were they all. Montgomery had a human face to him, and so did DeGaulle (although 90% of it was nose) and he was just as irritating as he is supposed to have been, power-greedy and quite oblivious to the fact that most of his France had in fact sold out to Nazi Germany. The script is great - philosophical and well-written to a fault. Now, why did I think I would be bored? I wasn't, for even one second.

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.

Tom Selleck is improving with age. While always likable from the Magnum days, he never seemed to elevate himself, or perhaps his characters, beyond that of "TV Guy." Then came some surprisingly solid movies performances. Well, maybe not a complete surprise considering his workmanlike approach to each and every role.

With "Ike" Selleck reaches a high-water mark. Serious and determined, the character seems to flow from this actor...never wooden or stilted, but competent, complex, and natural. The firm determination when meeting with staff officers on the eve of the invasion. The restrained exasperation/rage during the DeGaulle encounter. The free-wheeling charm when mingling with the airborne troops.

It remains Tom Selleck's best performance to date.