Le temps de la colère

Another reviewer said it best when he called this film 'unpretentious'. Today, of course, most films are pretentious and overblown. Maybe it's because we now live in a pretentious and overblown country, one where people would never listen to the message of a movie like this.

This is one of those rare occurrences where a movie is so well done it seems to exist outside its era. This film was made in 1956, which is amazing, considering the outstanding photography and the striking characterizations. Nobody talks or acts like '50s characters. Things seem a little more dangerous, more savage, so that it would seem you were watching a film from the '80s instead. Of course, in the '80s they didn't make movies like this, they made pretentious ones. But they should have.

The big war films of the '50s were usually full of stock characters and unlikely situations, crammed with out of place stock footage. An example of that kind of mediocre war movie is 'To Hell And Back'. This movie is everything that 'To Hell And Back' was not. 'Between Heaven And Hell' has more interesting and unique characters, more authentic weaponry, and the photography is of a much higher standard.

The reasons why some rather dull movies become well known, while others, like this, remain obscure, has always been a mystery to me.

Never even heard of this movie until I was deployed to Somalia in 93. During down time we would watch it on VHS.

Very good war story. Buddy Ebsen stole the show, as did Broderick Crawford (in a hammie kind of way).

I liked it so much, that I stole the VHS after we returned...tell no one. For the record, the statues of limitation have passed.

I saw this film more than 40 years ago for the first time, and now I saw it again recently. This war film is not another one in my personal opinion, it shows many of the tragedies that usually are brought about by any war, innocent soldiers killed accidentally by their colleagues, soldiers afraid during and after the battle, reconsideration of past way of life during the war making statements for changing life after the war, and cruel officers like the one played by Broderick Crawford. The film indirectly touched the problems of exploitation of cotton growers, the way they worked and how they were mistreated by the owners of this business. Piece by piece, the film is positive in its messages, but colored by the usual Hollywood Happy End.

I expect this 1956 war movie was passed over by critics because its star, Robert Wagner, was considered just another light-weight pretty boy of the day. Nonetheless, the movie is better than just another celebrity vehicle, while Wagner is a much better actor than his good-looks suggest, and, I think, time has proved.

Two features distinguish this film from others of the day. First is the subplot of tenant farmers and the class barrier separating them from the land owners they work for. A number of pre-Vietnam movies dealt with racial differences in the military; this is the only one I know of dealing with white Southern sharecroppers and their difficulties. Wagner's unit is a National Guard battalion which means that the unit is made up of men from the same locale with the same class distinctions of civilian life carried over into the ranks of the unit itself. Thus, Robert Keith a patriarchal rich man in civilian life is in similar command of the battalion as the colonel, while Tod Andrew's land owner heads up a platoon as a lieutenant. In short, land owners make up the ranks of commissioned officers, while share-croppers make up the enlisted ranks.

Now, the screenplay departs from this logic in Wagner's case. Though a land owner, he's not an officer; instead he's a sergeant in the enlisted ranks. The reason I think is pretty clear. Officers do not fraternize with enlisted men. But for the plot to deliver its main message, it must break down the social barrier between tenant farmer Buddy Ebsen and land owner Wagner, and that requires that they fraternize. Hence, the screenplay makes Wagner an enlisted man. But this curious departure is for a good cause. Only by getting to know a man (Ebsen) personally can the haughty Wagner overcome the cruelty he has shown his share- croppers in civilian life. The lesson here is similar to that of racially inspired films—it's personal contact that ultimately humanizes and breaks down social barriers. Thus, once the social distance is overcome, the two can become friends and equals and be carried off to the same hospital ship, side-by-side. A humane message, well delivered.

The second feature is perceptively pointed out by Kayaker36. There's an unmistakable homosexual subtext to Broderick Crawford's command center scenes. Today, that wouldn't merit much mention, but remember this is 1956 when about the only thing worse than being a gay was being a communist. And to even hint that gays might be in the military—and in a position of command—is really quite remarkable. The screenplay is adapted from a novel, and I suspect the idea comes from the novel and was rather boldly adapted into the screenplay. But, whatever the source or reason, this is the only war film of the post-war era I know of to even hint at that forbidden topic.

Anyway, the movie is well produced by TCF, with just enough battle scenes to satisfy war- movie fans. The screenplay is also unusual in its depiction of death by friendly fire, a much more common occurrence among soldiers than movies led us to believe. On the other hand, note how, in passing, the script works in a love interest for Wagner so that Terry Moore's name could go up on the marquee and broaden audience appeal. Note too, how Crawford gets a rather lengthy and unnecessarily histrionic scene to justify, I suppose, his starring credit. Remember, he was only a few years past his Best Actor Oscar, at a time when his name still carried audience weight. Actually, combining this film with Tony Curtis's 1954 war movie Beachhead would make a revealing double-feature, showing again how slick and entertaining films from Hollywood's studio period could be. This may not rank with the best or most suspenseful war films of the period. But it does remain an interesting oddity.

Before he started making huge, bloated, disastrously money-losing films in the '60s (Dr. Doolittle, Che, et al.), director Richard Fleischer was responsible for some good, tight well-made little B pictures. "The Narrow Margin" and "Armored Car Robbery" in the early '50s were outstanding film-noir classics, made for very little money. Fleischer made this in the period between his low-budget black-and-white thrillers and his '60s monstrosities, and it's a good one. Robert Wagner is the callow, spoiled rich son of a Southern landowner whose National Guard unit is suddenly activated during World War II and sent to the Pacific to fight the Japanese. Wagner finds himself in the same company with the sharecroppers and tradespeople he scorned back home, and is sent to a base run by a power-mad, vengeful officer who treats his troops the same way Wagner treated his " 'croppers" back home.

This is one of Wagner's better performances. Unlike many of his earlier films, Wagner doesn't try to get by on his good looks and youthful charm; he turns in a first-rate performance here, as do most of the cast. Broderick Crawford as Wagner's crazed commander doesn't quite fit the part, and Skip Homeier--usually a solid, reliable character actor--goes a bit overboard as one of Crawford's goons, but Buddy Ebsen, as one of Wagner's sharecroppers who turns out to be his best friend, L.Q. Jones and Tod Andrews are fine in pivotal parts, and Fleischer stages some exciting battle scenes. Altogether, a well-made, exciting little B picture from 20th Century Fox--a bit garish in Technicolor (black and white would have been more effective)--but well worth your time to see it. Highly recommended.