La route des ténèbres

This was one of the better or best WWII movies of its time. It hasn't been shown on TV in quite a while and am wondering why. John Garfield was perfect as Al Schmid, the blinded hero of Guadalcanal. The action sequence of him holding off a superior Japanese force with a machine gun was spellbinding. He was awarded the Navy Cross although I thought he should have gotten the Medal of Honor. Why isn't this movie on VHS or DVD? He was one of the real heroes of the Pacific war and his story should be available to today's generation. Instead we were bombarded by the media of Pvt Jessica Lynch who never even fired her weapon at anyone and came home a hero. Where is the justice?

Having seen this film about 20 years ago, but I was impressed to find it even more moving when viewed today. John Garfield and Dane Clark gave two of their finest performances in this movie about a Marine blinded on Guadacanal. This story of survival is told in a realistic mixture of the brutal, the bitter and the enduring spark of hope that make living, rather than dead heroes. Some would surely disagree, but I can't help but think that some of the guys who find themselves in Walter Reed and other veteran hospitals recovering from their today's war wounds might get a great deal out of this beautifully acted--and seldom shown--"period piece". It's a pity it's not on dvd/vhs. WHY??

Though not central to the story of Al Schmid's difficult rehabilitation, the short segment depicting his combat on Guadalcanal is superbly done. It is so technically accurate that it might serve as an instructional film on use of the Browning M1917 heavy machine gun. This level of authenticity was extremely rare in the 1940s and bespeaks a serious commitment by the director and (presumably) the marine corps. Apart from that, however, the tension and terror of nocturnal combat is extraordinarily well depicted. Such realism was rare in the decades before "Saving Private Ryan."

Of the many fine talents in the Warner Bros. "stock company," the three leads in "Pride of the Marines" may be considered the "cream of the crop." John Garfield, Eleanor Parker and Dane Clark really never gave a bad performance. Each seemingly could take on any role and make it his/her own.

No matter how weak the script may be, these professionals could work wonders with their honed skill and formidable natural talent. In the case of this film, they had very good material to work with, and their chemistry is invigorating.

Garfield, Parker and Clark are at the peak of their careers here, and it's a pleasure to watch them move from light comedy to serious drama effortlessly. Franz Waxman's score is likewise to be commended, along with the secure direction and razor sharp cinematography.

A most enjoyable and moving film.

I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the "Pride of the Marines" were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?

Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, "Al Schmid, Marine" by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical "war movie" where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about "glorifying" war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.

What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a "dream" sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story.