Le porte-avions X

The best characteristic of this film is the fine quality of the film in terms of cinematic depth-of-field and clarity. There is excellent camera work, especially in the complicated action scenes. Each scene is balanced and seemingly well-edited. The theme of the movie is somewhat weak relative to the fight/no fight stance of the U.S. Navy, and it is overpowered by the many action scenes which resemble a "Victory at Sea" format. The facts of the battle at Midway Island as presented in this movie are somewhat questionable. The superior forces of the Japanese Imperial Navy could best any navy in early June of 1942. That good fortune played a role in the American fleet's victory is not in question, that poor planning and accident forced the Japanese Imperial Navy's tactics is also accepted. Beyond these general facts it is difficult to accept the overstatement that the position of the U.S. Navy was that "This is the battle we've been praying for." There is also some question in the film as to the accuracy of the reports concerning the U.S. torpedo planes' success. In essence, the Battle of Midway was decisive, and very lucky for the Americans. To present the battle and victory as well planned and well coordinated is misleading. A word on acting: Don Ameche as Commander Bingo Harper is outstanding. His performance is solid in terms of the classic dramatic hero. As commander, he never wavers from his responsibility, he does what must be done, and he understands both how much victory means and what price must be paid.

The Movie was shot on the back lot of 20th Century Fox. The studio used sailors from NAS Longbeach Ca. as extras for about 2 weeks . In the Scene when a Bomb hits the Ship i am the first man on the fire hose . They had built part of a Carrier Deck over a lake and used SBD'S on this deck for close ups but then used film footage from actual battle scene's in between . This explains difference of planes and ships.

The movie itself is entertaining and rather predictable at times. Kind of like the movie mill war stories of that era. The roll played by Don Ameche was not a Don Ameche roll. Ameche is better known for his humor, IE: The Bickersons and Cocoon. The roll of a sad, by the book Navy officer must have been a stretch for him, but he did it in perfection. He became a dark shadow in scenes where he just walks through and always alone. The lonely man, hardly cracking a smile. Everyone hating him, tough to the point, lonely, misunderstood and doing the job he was appointed to do. It makes you wonder how many men had to be this way during any war.

Ameche should have won an Acadamy Award for his role in this movie.

It's 1944 and while the tide of war has turned in the direction of the Allied forces, the prospect of the invasion of Japan was still a deadly reality. Once again Hollywood did its part in the propaganda battle to bolster American morale. A Wing and a Prayer touched all the bases with studio stars, heroic sacrifices and plenty of action. I first saw this film as a kid in the 1950s and I still remember gripping my seat everytime a plane hit the carrier deck. Put into the context of the time it's a good film by a very good Director.

I'm intrigued by war movies, especially war movies within a country at war. This also happens to be my country, and in fact -- though I will never know the details -- my dad was in this action. This has the required swelling of patriotic fervor at the end, and does so with a minimum of racist demonization.

Its about the one really risky time in the war. There was never any doubt that the Germans (and Italians) would lose in Europe once the US entered the war; the only question was the cost. But in the Pacific, the situation was truly dire between Pearl Harbor and this battle. After this battle, it was a war of factories.

But before, it was touch and go. Everyone in the States would have known the pivotal role of the event and would have their stories about tactics and bravery.

There are three notable things about this movie.

The first is that it is nearly all wrong in terms of the history. The reason for this is that the US had broken the code (JN-25). This was not something that could be announced; the US knew the details of the Japanese plans and were able to stage an ambush. But that hardly explains the other, gratuitous historical inaccuracies. One can only think that no one cared what the actual tactics were as long as communal dedication was apparent.

A second rather shocking thing is that all the combat footage is genuine. These are real warriors in the real place, with less than half of the movie (obviously overlain) produced as a fiction. Looking at these men and operations deepens the experience, knowing how rare it is to see this before Vietnam.

But the most interesting to me is one character. He's pretty much the central character of the fiction: a torpedo plane pilot. Now picture this; you have a real story of national import around which history does swing. You have actual footage which in other, later, contexts with narration stands strong. You have all this and you want to insert Hollywood; what do you do?

Well, you insert a character who is a Hollywood actor, someone who has left Hollywood and enlisted but who still carries his Oscar on combat missions! Its yet another example of this phenomenon I call the narrative fold. Pretty cool.

Oh, the fictional parts are bad in nearly all respects, excepting one scene. An airman has been killed and his buddy is packing his effects for transport back to his girl. Going through things to place in a suitcase, he finds an empty tube of toothpaste and tosses it in the trash. Then he reconsiders -- a very poignant moment -- and pulls it out of the trash to send to the woman. Its one thing that works. All the rest would wait to be decoded.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.