Ike: Opération Overlord

Before I saw this film I'd never have thought Tom Selleck's body type or acting skill were remotely apt for him to portray General Eisenhower. But Selleck pulls off the role admirably: this is the best playing of a role I've seen him manage. Kudos, Mr. Selleck - you made me forget you were Tom Selleck and had me, from the get-go, believing you were General Eisenhower.

The film isn't about the war, the SHAEF staff, or even the invasion itself: it's about Ike's superb organizing and planning brain and his ability, unique in history, to manage what was, to that date, the most unwieldy and potentially fractious warfare coalition ever to have joined hands as allies. Selleck and writer Chetwyn tell quite well how Eisenhower dealt with the frustrations and burden of his critical command.

Sure there are bits of created dialogue not to be found in the historical record and compressions of events and characters necessitated by the limits of cinematic storytelling, but on the whole this is a worthy film that achieves exactly what it set out to do: tell about Ike's grasp of the task set before him and his unparalleled aplomb in carrying it off.

The only egregious gaffe in the writing was the line spoken by Group Captain Stagg in which he tells Ike and the senior SHAEF staff that the low pressure storm systems, which boded ill for the launch of the invasion, depended on how much they'd be propelled by the jetstream. In 1944 the jetstream had not been discovered. Some prewar and wartime high altitude fliers had experience of the jetstream's effects, but meteorology had not yet identified the jetstream by name, or learned of its constant presence as prime determinor of weather aloft or at ground level. (If you think me wrong about this, see the PBS 'NOVA' episode about the late-1940's crash of an Avro Lancastrian airliner in the Andes Mountains.)

The only other objection I have to ALL films, to many otherwise comprehensive books, and to nearly all of the media reportage about the Normandy Invasion is the complete absence of mention of OPERATION NEPTUNE. NEPTUNE was the co-equal naval component of OVERLORD - which was the land component of the total SHAEF plan and operation. Without NEPTUNE there was, and could have been, no OVERLORD. Indeed the NEPTUNE planning gave SHAEF and Ike as many fits and starts and moments of intense anxiety as did any of the factors in the OVERLORD planning and execution. The two operations were, from the start of the invasion planning through its execution, akin to two hands being necessary to wash each other.

A note to the IMDb reviewer who posted here that Field Marshall Montgomery was humorous and well-loved: this is simply not so. Most of Monty's associates - both senior and junior and both British and American - found him intolerant, rigid, insufferable, and the antithesis of humorous. It was also Monty's grave flaw that he prided himself as god's gift to generalship - a trait he shared with America's General Patton and which put Monty and Patton at loggerheads with each other throughout the war (Ike put up with much nonsense from both of them, and yet Ike's leadership managed to harness their talents to the task of achieving Allied victory). In his own plodding way Monty was a fine field commander, but he lacked completely what are today known as "people skills" - which lack disqualified him from being appointed supreme allied commander, which Churchill recognized long before it was necessary to appoint one. It was Ike alone among Allied commanders who had in spades all the people skills Monty and Patton lacked, as well as a near-perfect grasp of the leadership the Allied coalition, stacked as it was with prima donnas from every Allied nation, required in order for victory to be achieved over Nazi Germany.

(By the way: let's all learn to spell "martinet," okay?)

Quibble: Timothy Bottoms' work as Ike's able SHAEF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith is too easygoing. General Smith suffered from painful stomach ulcers and those who knew him did not mistake his ulcerous irascibility! Bottoms misplays Smith as a soft-spoken foil or private confessor to Selleck's finely etched Ike. Perhaps this soft Smith is artistic license since the film is not about Smith but about Ike, but I still feel that Chetwyn and Bottoms might have tried to give General Smith and his ulcers and his legendary suffer-no-fools-whomsoever wrath their historical due.

Most importantly 'Ike: Countdown to D-Day' succeeds in a way that most historical films fail: it gives the sense that none of what we now as history was preordained or a done-deal, that the events that Ike dealt with were not easy or inevitable - or glorious. There is here real drama given life by fine portrayals of characters facing up to and dealing with the gravest doubts and tasks.

The picture concerns about the previous ninety days to the D-Day invasion , known as ¨Overlord operation¨. Dwight H. Eisenhower confronts problems and odds and designs splendidly the most sensational military operation of the history . He must deal and convince to the most prestigious world leaders as the intelligent Winston Churchill (Ian Munne) , an arrogant General Montgomery (Bruce Philips) , an obstinate General DeGaulle ; besides he resolves the complications on subordinates as a rebel General Patton (Gerard McRaney) or a General who publicly speaks about the operation . Ike is finely played by Tom Selleck who makes a brilliant speech explaining to various politicians and authorities , as the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth , the developing of the Normandy Landing , but he exposes the following :

¨Five beaches -codenamed Utah, Omaha, Gold,Juno and Sword- were selected as the landings points for the British and US Corps , the operation will be preceded by a month-long bombing campaign to disrupt communications , preventing reinforcements from moving quickly into the threatened area and destroy vital bridges and gun positions . The landing depended of the weather, when the forecast was cool, began the operation D-Day 6 June 1944 . The landings commenced at 0630 hrs, and by midnight 57.000 US and 75.000 British and Canadian troops and their equipment were ashore and the beachheads were being linked into a continuous front . The General Omar Bradley (James Remar) commanded US 1st Army ,a post he handled with considerable efficiency breaking out from the bridgehead . The German response to the landings was hampered by the damage done to their communications ,by a rigid structure which required a personal directive from Hitler before any significant move could be made and by belief that the landing the major Allied attack would come in the Pas of Calais,a belief fostered by Allied deception operations . Allied casualties during the day amounted to 2.500 killed and about 8.500 wounded.Allied air forces flew 14.000 sorties in support of the operation and lost 127 aircraft¨.

This famous event from how was orchestrated the dangerous , risky landings maneuvers is well photographed by David Gribble and magnificently directed by Robert Harmon . This TV picture will appeal to history buffs . Well worth seeing .

I have to say I think this may be Tom Selleck's best acting performance. He doesn't necessarily deserve an Emmy, but I'm also not being sarcastic; this is definitely a quality performance, not because it is some scene-chewing piece of grandstanding, but because it is subtle, honest, and to the point. The way Selleck shows Ike's moments of anguish over his awful responsibility are understated but no less compelling, and actually give some sense of what the actual man had to go through.

Although there are some inaccuracies in the film (Ike visits the paratroopers in the DAYTIME on June 6th? Those guys had dropped into France some 12 hours earlier!), I think we still get a good sense of how things were happening around Ike before D-Day. And contrary to some other opinions, I thought the portrayals of Churchill and Montgomery were both well-done and totally fair.

There must be an unwritten rule in Hollywood that any movie about Eisenhower must demean George Patton. They did it 20+ years ago with the mini-series by the same name, taking a real incident in which Patton, to Ike's surprise, had a contingency plan for the battle of the Bulge and whipped his troops into a 180-degree turn to come to the rescue of Bastogne. In the movie, Ike coaxed an extremely reluctant Patton into it; in every historical account, Patton practically begged for the chance.

Now we have a new one in which the always likable Tom Selleck plays Eisenhower (a happy choice of actors, although Selleck really should've dyed his hair) and we get to see anew his struggles with Churchill, Montgomery and other Brits, not to mention the loathsome Chuck deGaulle. But does Patton fare any better? Nope. Not only did this movie manage to combine the Sicilian slapping incident--which had happened a year earlier--in with the "Knutsford incident," but it, like some newspapers of the day, manages to misquote Patton again (he really DID mention the Russians, even the Knutsford witnesses say so) in order to throw in a 21st century politically correct diatribe about "racialism". And what happens? Blood 'n' Guts Patton trembles at the mighty Ike, promises to be good, and when graciously forgiven, pulls a scene straight from Blazing Saddles ("Mongo have deep feelings for Sheriff Bart!") and throws his arms around Ike, hugging him so violently he (Patton) loses his helmet in the process. It made me laugh to hysterics.

The rest of the movie isn't bad. Thankfully, the Summersby romance thing seemed to be ignored or at least irrelevant in this movie, concentrating on the tensions among the leadership. The part where Ike talks to the airborne troops shortly before they depart is very well done.

But Eisenhower was a decent enough general and politician to stand up to scrutiny on his own. It isn't necessary to make him look better by making George Patton look worse. Patton was infinitely capable of making himself look bad, and he did plenty of times on his own. Fictionalizing Patton doesn't make Ike look better. It just makes the writers look cheap.

• thank God. The closest we come to a battle scene in "Ike" are the quotes from Laurence Olivier's "Henry V". I do believe that's a small mistake, though: I don't think that film hit the theaters until 1945, somewhat too late for D-day. However, it's justified, artistically: we think of Henry's bombast (one of the greatest speeches at that) when Ike pays his own, humble tribute to the airborne troopers just before D-day. And there is a more subtle reference to Henry V when Ike has to sacrifice an old friend (and nearly sacrifices Patton, too, another old friend.) His thoughts on that also bring Shakespeare to mind.

I loved the film. It stayed true to its purpose, the portrayal of a general making a very tough decision. Selleck was great, and so were they all. Montgomery had a human face to him, and so did DeGaulle (although 90% of it was nose) and he was just as irritating as he is supposed to have been, power-greedy and quite oblivious to the fact that most of his France had in fact sold out to Nazi Germany. The script is great - philosophical and well-written to a fault. Now, why did I think I would be bored? I wasn't, for even one second.