Jump Into Hell

One of the Vietnamese characters, a troop on an airplane, pretty much sums up the overall issue in Indochina: they didn't want outsider Russians and Chinese, nor did they want the outsider French unless the French granted them some autonomy (he used the much-overused phrase "democracy"). Later, the vast majority of them didn't want the outsider Americans, either. After the departure of WWII Japanese occupiers, French Colonialists, anti-communist Americans, Russians and Chinese, and after fighting yet another border war with China after the Americans left, Vietnam finally became a sovereign nation. Whew, what a long slog they had.

Many heroic and brave French military and Foreign Legion troops were sacrificed in Indochina and the film properly credits their bravery, with some well done military depictions.

The Americans ended up seeming rather two-faced to everyone, having at one time sided with the Vietnamese nationalists during and after WWII only to drop them, later supporting the French because they were anti- communist, only to just simply abandon the French along with any and all representations expressly made or implied to them. I mention this mainly because some one-sided American cold war jingoism is used to an almost laughable extent throughout the movie.

Diplomacy is given lip service but actually played an important part in all of the Indochina conflicts. A Geneva conference is mentioned, and in fact a later Geneva Agreement reached by U.S. Ambassador Averill Harriman in 1961/62 effectively ham-stringed subsequent U.S. actions in the region. Constant conferences went on for decades regarding the Indochina situation.

The lessons of the conflict depicted in this film should not be forgotten but I believe it is a travesty that the word "Colonialism" is not emphasized in the film or in most reviews and discussions of it. I prefer to remember this film as a jump into Colonialism, which is was.

This decent war film starts out with a tribute to a fight against slavery. Unwittingly, the tribute actually described the struggle of the North Vietnamese against all foreign invaders and colonialism by the West. It was meant to imply the French were against slavery. Tell that to the colonials under their rule in various African and Asian countries, and they would laugh in your face. It has taken the world several decades to learn that colonial powers were the real slaveowners. And some have still not learned. The battle sequences are good, but, once again, one-sided. There is no character development of anyone except French people. The other soldiers are just mechanical men because they are communists. As if colonialists were morally superior to communists. I wonder why it did not occur to these people why the communists fought so bravely; as bravely as the French.

In 1992, The French made "Diên Biên Phu" a movie about the battle. It was their "Apocalypse Now". It's pretty impressive. The only other movie I have seen about the event is "Jump into Hell". However it is anything but impressive, and although there are some facts in there, the filmmakers didn't let them get in the way of the drama.

When I was a kid in the 1950s, I used to like this film. At the time it seemed a novel war movie set in an obscure place called Indo-China, and as it didn't involve our guys, it could be viewed with a certain amount of detachment. But of course a few years later it morphed into the Vietnam War and did involve our guys very much indeed.

Looking back, the views in the film seem awkward - Russian and Chinese communism is presented as the main reason the French are having such a hard time rather than any nationalistic spirit on the part of the Vietnamese.

The look of the film is patchy. Grainy documentary footage is mixed with scenes shot for the film and it isn't seamless. The acting is of the emphatic variety with exposition issuing from all and sundry.

The key points of the battle are touched upon: the outgunned and outnumbered garrison; the isolated forts all named after women that fell one by one, and the fact that reinforcements bravely parachuted in.

Long after I saw "Jump into Hell", I read Bernard Fall's history of the battle, "Hell in A Very Small Place". It left me with respect for the French soldiers, especially the paratroopers.

Jacques (Jack) Sernas plays one of the soldiers who parachutes in along with characters who were Hollywood's version of typical Frenchmen - wine and women being a big focus.

A recurring motif is the interaction between the commander, General De Castries (Arnold Moss), and defeatist Major Maurice Bonet (Lawrence Dobkin). Each time the major suggests surrender, instead of popping him against the wall and spraying him with bullets, the general sprays him with high-minded speeches about how they are sacrificing themselves for the freedom of the world. However after a gallant stand, the garrison of Diên Biên Phu did surrender.

"Jump into Hell" is a hard one to recommend to an audience these days, but it does reveal the mindset of the 1950s and in a way helps explain why the next phase of the war in Vietnam was probably inevitable.

Well done look at the French loss at Dien-bien-phu which some historians believe led to their withdrawal from Indo-China. Demonstrates the difficulties in fighting a committed enemy on his own ground long before US faced the same problems. French efforts to reinforce and save their forces in an enclave surrounded by soldiers that would, in later years, be described as Viet Cong prove to be unsuccessful. Loyalty to comrades on the ground leads French paratroopers to jump into a death trap.

Stars Jacque Sernas who later played Paris, Prince of Troy, in "Helen of Troy" with Rosanna Podesta as Helen. That 1956 movie should be a good measuring stick for the new Brad Pitt version.

The narrative follows the 1954 battle of Indo-China's Dienbienphu, as the French try to prevent their fortress from falling to the indigenous Viet Minh.

Strictly as a war movie, the results are not very good. Outside of the stock footage, the small battles are not well staged. For example, there's that dreadful scene where three French troops dive into a Viet Minh foxhole, the battle being filmed more like a Three Stooges comedy than a matter of life or death. That's not surprising since director Butler's credits shows a distinct preference for comedy. Then too, the acting, particularly Van Eyck, is uninspired, to say the least. I agree with the reviewer who notes the movie's best parts are those in Paris. Also, note how brief the women's parts are even though they're given the kind of billing that misleads audience expectations.

All in all, it's not possible to discuss this nakedly propagandistic movie without a few observations. The Viet Minh are consistently vilified, while the French colonialists are consistently lionized (with one exception). Nowhere, however, does the film acknowledge the French as an army of foreign occupation, in service to what remained of the French empire post-WWII. Nor does the film distinguish between nationalism, anti-colonialism, and communism. Yet all three were in play among the Viet Minh. The political landscape was, in fact, much more complex than this simple-minded, reductionist screenplay acknowledges. As propaganda, the movie is clumsily obvious, at best. Too bad, we Americans had to find out the complex realities of Indo-China the hard way. At the same time, it's movie screed like this that helped grease the skids.