Le temps de la colère

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.

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.

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.

Considering that Cinemascope had been introduced only three years earlier, this is one of the outstanding examples from the 50s of a director and cinematographer composing shots for widescreen. I've been teaching film for almost 40 years and would unhesitatingly show excerpts from this in any basic course on movies. Just to sample some, check out Minutes 40-50, especially the quartets of lounging soldiers in medium shot. Sometimes the compositions seem a little self-conscious, but overall this is a remarkable film stylistically. It's wonderful to be able to see it again in widescreen format, as well as other movies that go back to my teenage years. That's why DVD is so great.

See it – A vastly underrated and reflective war movie starring Robert Wagner and Buddy Ebsen. This movie has been nearly forgotten over the years, and it's a shame. Much of the story is told in flashbacks. There's very good character development. And best of all, there was much more action than I expected. A bit slow toward the beginning, but there is a really cool action sequence in one of the flashbacks where Wagner and some of his men assault a cliff-side machine gun nest. When the current story picks back up after the flashbacks, there is plenty more action, including an exciting and desperate ending. 3.5 out of 5 action rating