User reviews

Men Must Fight is an interesting if somewhat dated look at the future of the world as seen from 1933. At that time the thought of another total war like World War I turned out to be was abhorrent in the eyes of civilization. In fact World War I was simply called the Great War when referred to, that we'd have another was unthinkable.

Diana Wynyard plays a nurse on the front lines in the Great War who's in love with flier Robert Young. When Young's killed, he's left something permanent for Wynyard to remember him by. But good and stout friend Lewis Stone will marry her and raise the kid as their own.

Flash forward 20 years and the future in 1940 has folks using television and cellphones where one can talk and text. Lewis Stone is the US Secretary of State and curiously enough his character name is William Seward like another of our greatest Secretarys of State. Diana Wynyard is a pacifist activist and the two seem to work in tandem.

The film is purposely vague, not telling us exactly who the US rivals are out there. It's an amorphous amalgamation of countries called, Eurasia. Our ambassador to there is assassinated and this means war because national honor requires it. Interestingly enough a few of our ambassadors in the past centuries were assassinated and the USA did not go to war for national honor in real life.

This causes a conflict in Wynyard's grown son played by Phillips Holmes. Stone falls in line with the war declaration, Wynyard still works for peace, Holmes doesn't know what to do though he leans in Wynyard's direction. Holmes also is in conflict with his fiancé Ruth Selwyn who says America must fight.

At that time the ultimate weapon was poison gas and the fear was that the chemists on both sides would make even more lethal varieties. And air raids. New York in fact is bombed by air.

Men Must Fight is old fashioned and melodramatic. At the same time it's a sincere plea for international understanding and peace. My guess is that Louis B. Mayer buried this one deep in MGM's vaults when World War II came around. We're fortunate to have TCM show it, especially since leading lady Diana Wynyard made so very few films.

... and by prescient when it concerns the next war, really, the only thing they got close to right was the date. In 1933, when Hitler was still considered just a buffoonish little man, this film predicts 1940 as the date of the next world conflict. They were only off by one year, so really not bad on the timing predictions.

The film begins with a real precode moment - a young flyer (Robert Young as Geoffrey Aiken) and a nurse (Diana Wynyard as Laura) are in the process of dressing in a dimly lit room, obviously after a session of love making. They are in love, but Geoffrey dies after his very first mission, before they can marry. Laura is pregnant, a fact discerned by Edward Seward (Lewis Stone). Edward has been tenaciously pursuing Laura up to this point. He knows she loves someone else, but after Geoffrey's death proposes marriage again to avoid scandal for Laura and her child, and be there to take care of her. She agrees. Geoffrey's son is born, and WWI ends.

The film picks up again in 1940, with Edward now Secretary of State, and the Seward marriage may not be a passionate one, but it does seem to be at least tender and loving. Laura's son (Philips Holmes as Bob) has grown up into a handsome young man who has already started to make a name for himself in the field of chemistry. This is where the trouble begins, and where the film gets the next world conflict wrong.

The film paints the next conflict - that of 1940 - as one in which all the countries of Europe and part of Asia have united into one country, and one that starts just as WWI began - with an assassination. It's all about patriotic posturing and defending one's honor and not about American interests being encroached upon. Maybe the advice given by the pacifists in this film might have worked in WWI, in which decades and even centuries of pointless bickering erupted into one pointless conflict, but as we all know, just refusing to fight would not have worked against Hitler or Japan.

There are several interesting pieces of futuristic technology including a video phone used by Secretary of State Seward when talking to Laura's now grown son. Yet when war erupts it is the old-style WWI prop planes that are being flown.

I'd recommend this as an offbeat kind of film, well done and well acted. Also, it is probably one of Philips Holmes' best roles and rather eery when you realize he would die nine years later in a mid-air collision while serving during the actual WWII. I just think this film is more about how people looked back on how WWI might have been prevented versus being helpful on how to prevent WWII. But then we all have the gift of hindsight.

Lewis Stone, Diana Wynyard, Robert Young, and Phillips Holmes star in "Men Must Fight," a 1933 film. The movie starts with a young nurse, Laura (Wynyard) and her lover (Young) as he prepares to go off to World War I. He's killed; she's pregnant, and a rejected suitor, Ned Seward (Stone) offers to marry her and give the child his name. Laura vows that no son of hers will ever fight in a war.

Flash forward to 1940, and Seward is now Secretary of State, working on a peace treaty, with Laura's help. Their son Robert (Holmes) is a talented chemist and in love with Peggy (Ruth Selwyn). Unfortunately, the peace treaty fails, and the country is going to war with "Eurasia." Seward advises Laura that she will have to stop her peace-making attempts and objections to war, but she refuses. Having raised her son as a pacificist, Robert refuses to enlist, to the disgust of Peggy.

The film was made in 1933, but obviously the signs of conflict were already in the air; if one looks carefully at an anti-war rally that takes place in the film, one will see the Japanese sun and the Nazi swastika. Pretty amazing.

The acting by today's standards, with the exception of Stone, is quite melodramatic, as is the dialogue. The handsome Holmes, who himself died right after flight training in Canada, is good as the conflicted Robert. Diana Wynyard, too, is very good, but both actors have very over the top dialogue to say.

Very, very interesting film, and well worth seeing, with some excellent battle scenes.

I enjoyed some of the anti-war sentiment in this film, despite a muddled point of view that also included strong hawkish sentiments. The bombing of New York in 1940, with special effects showing the collapse of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, was interesting but clearly done with miniatures. Considering this was a 1933 film, it came pretty close to predicting the actual start of WWII. And it must have been fun for 1933 audiences to see a television set and video telephones on screen. Performances were excellent, with Lewis Stone a standout as Secretary of State, Diana Wynyard as his dovish wife who lost her lover (Robert Young) in WWI, and Phillips Holmes as their son, caught in the middle of his parents' beliefs. Ironically, Holmes was actually killed in WWII from a mid-air collision.

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.

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.

This brilliant film deserves to be re-discovered. Made in 1933 it predicts a world war in 1940, and even shows a catastrophic air-raid on a major city (in this case New York, but it certainly echoes the destruction soon to be unleashed on London, Berlin etc). The film carefully presents the pacifist and nationalist arguments in an amazingly contemporary way, embodying the argument in the character of a young pacifist man who must decide whether to fight or not. The irony that the actor playing this part, Phillips Holmes, was later to die in the real World War 2, adds to the power of this remarkable film. Diana Wynyard is extraordinary as his mother - indeed the strength of the female characters is one of the film's greatest achievements - few people will not applaud the sentiments of the final scene. Great futuristic design too - including televisions and video telephones. It is very sad to see this film now, knowing that the warning it gave to the world went unheeded. I urge you to watch it. I imagine that the reason it is so little known today is that MGM found its anti-war themes embarrassing when they found themselves having to support the war effort, and buried it in the vaults. Now it should be seen to warn others not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

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

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.

It's WWI. Nurse Laura Mattson (Diana Wynyard) loses her beloved fighter pilot Geoffrey. She is pregnant with his baby. Edward Seward (Lewis Stone) knows this and offers to marry her. It's 1940. The world is once again at the brink of war. Laura had raised her son Bob Seward (Phillips Holmes) as a pacifist. Edward Seward is now United States Secretary of State and he negotiates a treaty to end all wars. It does not work out that way.

This is most interesting for what it predicts. The old film style and its near future realism do not quite fit. The political takes vary. Some hit the mark while it misses on other big ideas. This is an interesting film with interesting ideas and predictions. I'm not as sure if it's a good movie.

Nurse Diana Wynard is expecting a child from an affair with dead World War One pilot Robert Young. Lewis Stone knows this and marries her anyway, raising the child as his own. He grows up to be Phillips Holmes. Meanwhile Stone becomes a diplomat, rising to Secretary of State, while his wife becomes involved with the peace movement. By the time it's 1940, there's a crisis, and war is declared. Holmes refuses to join up, angering fiancee Ruth Selwyn (married at the time to the film's director, Edgar Selwyn), Stone, who reveals to him his true father..... everyone but mama.

This being a pre-code movie, it is frank and honest about many things that the Production Code would banish from consideration. Oh, you could show the devastation of war, but you couldn't talk about it; War would an accepted and irreproachable constituent of decent society until deep into the Second World War, where even John Wayne might be killed, but his death proclaimed a good one. Here, the devastation from the First World War, and the horrors of its new and scientific means of destroying life was still fresh in everyone's mind. But this is 1933, and it is still open for debate. And everyone does a good job of it, except for Holmes, who's a bit stagey in his line readings. Even if the end is a normative one, at least the debate goes on. With May Robson, Robert Greig (as the butler, of course!), and Hedda Hopper.

This movie made in 1933 predicts World War II, and the 9/11 attacks but except in 1940.

This deals with same social issues we have dealt with from the Vietnam War to the Gulf War, to now.

The movie also shows the "future" American watching Television, even though Television doesn't take off until 10 yrs after 1940. It also tried to depict future fashions and people using "video phones."

The eerie part is when a airplane with a bomb on board smashes in to the Empire State building on a attack on New York City.

This movie was way ahead of its time for 1933!

Quite amazing in its prophetic way. And how did they conceive of a telephone with a screen showing the person with whom you are speaking - back in 1933? Did they really believe we would have that by 1940? I thought I was seeing things.

Ah, if only everyone could have taken this movie's message to heart between the two wars. I lost two cousins in WWI; my aunt lost all five of the fellows she dated in high school in Quebec. Her brother who did return was forever changed - he and his pal had taken a German officer into custody who was showing them his timepiece. Suddenly the officer pulled a small handgun and shot dead my great-uncle's friend. The family barely recognised Uncle Russell on his return.

These stories continue today - never ending.

Diana Wynyard is quite impressive. TCM showed three of her performances back-to-back this morning. Excellent casting. Read Ms Wynyard's bio on IMDb and found due to her death I just missed seeing her in 1964 in Ibsen's "The Master Builder" with Laurence Olivier when the National Theatre Company came to Oxford.

When this movie was on TCM I almost turned it off as it was described as Science Fiction. Not being a fan of SciFi but having read the description of the movie, I decided to give it a try. I felt it really confronted some very important details that are often overlooked in the patriotic bravado associated with decisions of going to war. Eerily prophetic in my opinion. I think the many topics including unwed birth, that were presented in this movie make it a very timeless and "real" story. The very startling irony for me is that Philip Holmes who played the son died in 1942 at the start of WWII in a mid-air collision after having joined the Royal Canadian Air Force!!

Well Acted Prognostication and Warning About the Next "Great War". An Even Handed Dual Purpose Picture that Tries and Mostly Succeeds to Have it Both Ways.

The Movie Starts in the Middle of WWI and Sets Up the Illegitimate Relationship of a Nurse and a Flyer Before it Leaps to 1940 and then Sets the Stage for the Beginning of WWII (remember, the Film was made in 1933) and the Clash Between Pacifists and Patriots.

Noble and Notable as a Glimpse Into a Possible Future that Really Did Happen. The Film Also Manages to Foreshadow a Few Technological Advancements.

Poison Gas was the Contemporary Horror and the Scariest Watch Weapon of the Period and it is Included Here Quite Forcefully. The Battle Scenes that Take Place Above the Air and In New York City are Chilling.

Some May Consider the Ending a Lean Toward Pro-War, but there is Enough Anti-War Sentiment Throughout to Make This a "Fair and Balanced" Contrast of Philosophies. A Little Known Film that is a Gem of its Kind and is an Undiscovered, Utterly Thought Provoking Exercise of its Time and Any Time for that Matter.

This film is a goody. I knew nothing about it going in, but it packs a punch!!

Diana Wynyard (who borders on over-acting but is able to keep it low key enough to keep it real) plays a woman who loses her lover in WWI (known as the Great War at the time). She finds she is "with child" and Lewis Stone, who has been pursuing her for years, convinces her to finally marry him to keep the illegit child as a secret from the public.

The film then fast forwards to 1940. I had to check my information and make sure I was not seeing the wrong film but, sure enough, they are moving the story into "the future". The world has been at peace. Wynyard has a full grown son who she has raised as a pacifist. She herself is going around giving speeches and rallies imploring the world to never go into battle again. Her pleas and speeches are quite good.

The 1940's that they present has televisions and even video phones. Some of the sets are slightly futuristic but nothing too silly or extreme. The bizarre part is this 1933 film has the threat of a new war about to start with gas bombs and invasions. They don't call it WWII but that is what is happening. It was interesting that this prediction in the film would come true in real life.

Wynyard refuses to let her son (Philip Holmes) go to war. Lewis Stone is ashamed of his son and in anger even reveals that he is not really his son. Holmes has a girlfriend who also dumps him because he is seen as a coward.

Wynyard has given her life to promoting and marketing peace. Everyone now is against her as she tries to stop her son from going off and being killed like her lover from the past. From her lectures, she has some great viewpoints and lines such as: "War must stop, or we (the women of the world) will stop making men for you!"

This film is really a moving and thought provoking one. I would love for you to see it and hear your thoughts on its message.

Be Classy and see this Classic!