Les nus et les morts

It's 1943. A group of men set off for a Pacific island in a campaign headed by General Cummings (Raymond Massey). He's dictatorial and wants his men to fear him more than the enemy. His aide Lt Hearn (Cliff Robertson) is an idealist living under the shadow of his legendary father. Cummings sends Sgt Croft (Aldo Ray) and his men into the jungle on a seemingly pointless mission to test a mountain pass that should be easily defended by the Japanese. Croft is a hard-nosed leader who kills prisoners and has his men dig gold from the dead's teeth. After a dispute with Cummings, Hearn is also sent on the mission. Cummings goes off to headquarters to argue for more troops to stage a big attack. However the small pointless mission may actually hold the key to the island.

This is based on Norman Mailer's novel which he infuses with some of his war experiences. First off, I don't like the start in Honolulu and the flashbacks. They take the audience out of the war experience. It feels melodramatic and old school like a bad 50s war movie. At its best, the movie has a feel of Malick's film 'The Thin Red Line'. The wide field of grass and shots that come out of nowhere give the movie a feeling of foreboding. The cast of characters get scattered in the mission. There is a message being delivered but it's a bit muddled. The movie needs to narrow the focus.

"The Naked and the Dead" is a film based on a novel by Norman Mailer, which was based on his experiences fighing in the Pacific during WWII. I expected the movie to stink, as Mailer hated the final film and thought it the worst movie he'd seen. After seeing it, I assume he felt that way because they bastardized his story...not because the film was bad in any other way.

"The Naked and the Dead" is a HUGE counterpoint to the average war film made during WWII. The WWII era movies were all very patriotic...and featured men who were dedicated and loved serving their country. The film, on the other hand, shows that overwhelming patriotism is NOT what all soldiers feel...most just want to do their job and survive. And, in a HUGE departure from the war era films, some are just sadists who love killing!

The story is set on some island in the Pacific and for much of the film there are two parallel stories. One is about a company of soldiers serving under a competent but sociopathic sergeant (Aldo Ray). He knows is job, is good at it but also is obsessed with killing...even birds, captured prisoners and his commanding officer!! The other is about a lieutenant (Cliff Robertson) who is serving as the adjutant for a sadistic jerk of a general (Raymond Massey). Eventually the two stories intersect.

I hate films that glorify war or make it look fun...so I appreciated this movie because it never even came close to doing either! The acting and script are very good...though I have no idea what the source novel is like by comparison. Apparently Mailer thought the difference was huge.

By the way, one part of the film I hated. A man is bitten by a poisonous snake...something that I am sure happened occasionally. First, the men cut open the wound and try sucking out the poison (something you should NEVER do). Second, the guy literally died in a minute or two...something that just doesn't happen...even with the most dangerous of snakes. It was a sloppy scene, that's for sure.

This movie seems like one made because of a much hailed and overrated author, in which the director has the nerve to actually make changes to give a novel look at war and life.

The book is exactly like a Hollywood movie. Bullets cannot find bad guys, and if you're evil enough, you live forever. We get this from 99% of films. No wonder Americans bend over backwards to be sadistic. In short, that's about all the book is. Very Hollywood.

This movie gives a fresh look for the viewer. Instead of the mass depression we're used to, we get an intelligent look at war. The hero is caught between two equally vicious men, one higher in rank, and one lower. Much of the rest of the movie deals with the characters, like in the older war movies.

Not to give away the ending, but you will be shocked and surprised. The film still shows the horror and depravity of war without getting preachy, as many later films did.

A platoon of marines led by callow, idealistic Lieutenant Hearn (Cliff Robertson) and battle-hardened, cynical Sergeant Croft (Aldo Ray) are sent on a dangerous recon mission by vainglorious but insecure General Cummings (Raymond Massey). Published shortly after the end of the war, Norman Mailer's book was a crude, unflinching, and critical view of war in the Pacific theatre. The much more superficial movie version, released 10 years later, returns to the usual Hollywood redemptive war narrative in which the good, while they may suffer, are ultimately rewarded, and the bad, while they may seem to succeed, are ultimately punished. The movie limits the book's philosophical dialogue between egalitarian Hearn and rank-conscious Cummings but then tacks on a final 'uplifting' exchange that is not (and could not be) in the book. The marine platoon is a little less stereotypical than in earlier war-era films but the soldiers still seem more like 'characters' than people. Ray is good as hard-assed Sgt. Croft (although the character has been toned down a bit from Mailer's sadistic sociopath). The film's combat scenes are a mixed bag: the scenes of fighting between the platoon and the Japanese defenders aren't bad (although the marines seem to be able to lob a hand-grenade pretty far), but the 'showpieces' rely largely on non-period footage and equipment (with the Japanese using easily recognizable American equipment). While pre-CGI filmmakers can be forgiven for not always being historically correct, I tend to watch these kinds of films for the 'combat' scenes and find the anachronisms distracting and disappointing. By the end of the 1950's, despite the Cold War jingoism, there were a number of good antiwar films but the producers of this film seem to have been unwilling to give vision to Mailer's harsh voice. Note: there are a number of IMDB reviewers more familiar with the book than I who have commented in depth about the differences between the two versions (which inevitably includes 'spoilers').

I saw this movie on a local PBS station about the same time I was writing a Term Paper on the novel. I have already read the novel several times, but I still thought that the movie perspective might be helpful. Needless to say I was wrong. The movie turns a book about the futility of the individual's role in war into a boiler plate feel good war movie w/ a happy ending. One of the most important parts of the novel, where Hearn is betrayed despite his best efforts to be a "good" leader, is scrapped. Hearn not only survives, but the movie goes on the kill the ass hole, Sgt Croft. In the book we see a group of individuals who all want to singlehandedly make a difference and who all end up failing because modern war has grown beyond the control of the individual. In the movie we see a division of good guys and bad guys where where good guys win and the bad guys get what's coming. Finally I would like to point out that this movie is a waste of time or unpleasant to watch. If its going to be on TV by all means watch it, but if you've read the book brace yourself to be VERY disappointed.