‘In Harm’s Way’: Imperfect Greatness on the High Seas

by Schizoid Mann

The United States Navy is in the news and on my mind lately. The events off the coast of Somalia are surely one very good reason for this. Heroism and service. Ordinary people under extraordinary circumstances. Another not nearly so dramatic, but nonetheless exciting reason, for me at least, involves the very recent honor I’ve had of contributing my prose to a citation to confer on Mr. George Herbert Walker Bush the degree of Doctor of Social Science, honoris causa.  His own history, his willingness to serve, to sacrifice and risk everything for a cause, for others, is something we should never underestimate. It’s something we, as Americans have always been good at.

It’s also something our movies used to portray well. We don’t get to see too many of these kinds of movies anymore. Nope, they don’t make them like they used to. That can be said of both the men and women of Bush 41’s generation, as well as the films of that era. But sometimes, in more recent times, we’re graced with shining examples of tarnished excellence, of battered beauty in our citizens and in our favorite art, the movies.   

“In Harms Way” is such a movie. It’s a great film. Imperfect, but great. When I ask learned friends of mine about Preminger’s films, they usually omit this one in their list of Otto’s greats. I’ve seen it a few times now, and I’m not sure why they leave it out. I’ve speculated it’s because they haven’t gotten around to seeing it yet. Nope, they’ve seen it, they assure me. So, when I delved deeper as to why it gets left out, I was a bit surprised to see a full spectrum of opinions expressed in describing the film and its flaws, real and imagined. It’s a good sign, though. If a work of art – and this film is art – can evoke such divergent opinions and emotions in an audience, then it’s working. Boy is it ever! 

A couple of things seemed to surface far more than others in the criticisms of this flick. Even Kirk Douglas, one of the stars of “In Harms Way” was somewhat vocal at the time in his opinion on some of these same perceived shortcomings.

Basically, he didn’t like the boats. 

With all due respect to Kirk, I think he’s wrong on this one. Recent comments I’ve heard about this film miss the mark, too. So, don’t listen to the technologically-dependent reviewers who say that the “special effects are lame.” I’ve seen plenty of worse special effects in newer, bigger budget films. But that’s not important. Because if you look for flaws, you’ll find them. To those who so easily do, I ask the following question: Have you ever had the pleasure of watching Shakespeare performed by a talented acting company on stage? Would you walk out because the stage lighting was lame or a backdrop wasn’t a perfect rendering of a landscape or village street?  It has long been my opinion that the folks who complain about special effects being “lame,” “bad” or “cheap” are missing the point.

The entire phenomenon of drama, of film is an “effect,” a cheat, an illusion, pulling the wool over our eyes twenty four times a second. The sum total of cheats and tricks are intended to transport the mind to another place, the setting of the film. The acting, scenery, effects are there to help us imagine, to aid our mind on its journey. So, when I hear one complain that the acting in a film is great, but that the effects stink, it simply tells me that the viewer’s mind is too weak to make the jump, to connect the dots, because, perhaps, some of the dots are not as boldly written as others. Either that or they just came out of a Roger Corman flick. 

As an alternative, would those critics of cheaper effects prefer to have Otto Preminger go out sink actual cruisers, torpedo boats and the real battleship Yamato for his film?  I almost expect the answer to be ‘yes’, judging from some of the commentary I’ve read on this subject and others like it. Let’s get serious, folks. Without a doubt, there seems to be a trend, more prevalent as the tooth gets long and the days go by, to confuse narrative drama with documentary. Even the Italian Neo Realists knew where to draw the line. Maybe it’s because documentaries of late have been produced like narratives, manipulative and with a clear and present intent on affecting the heart and mind of the viewer, politically and ideologically. Or maybe it’s because audiences are more sophisticated now and demand more technical prowess for their buck. Forget it. Give me a break. If the folks coming out of American Pie II are to be described as more sophisticated as compared with those exiting a screening of Bicycle Thief, then I’m in the wrong business and I need a new dictionary.  

When an old war film like this is shown on television or released on DVD, the usual suspects come out and take their hackneyed pot shots over the bow, criticizing the film for being too tame in the graphic violence department, or for using “cheap models” and other “not realistic” effects. These misguided critiques are often accompanied by the ubiquitous phraseology that goes hand in hand with such complaints, such as, “if you can get past the bad effects….”. This kind of unimaginative discourse is about as useful as Facebook in a knife fight. Often these criticisms rally together an alliance to hit the easy and much targeted Hays Code and Hollywood’s era of so called ‘censorship’, which just so happened to result in the best darn moviemaking ever seen in human history. Nope, that’s coincidence, they say. Mere chance that the obstacles, such as not having a fleet to sink, nor being allowed to show the fact that sailors when hit by the explosive force of artillery are turned into nothing more than steaming stains, actually produced better cinema.

Obstacles help.

They force the filmmaker to go around them, to be resourceful and creative with what they are able to show. Obstacles force the the creators of film art to use the power of their imaginations, and thus spark the viewer’s imagination of what they thought they just saw on the screen, but actually didn’t. By using the effects of association, montage and the art of lighting in creating a desired sensation, whether for suspense, doom or elation, great filmmaker can make us believe what we were seeing, and not seeing. And during that golden age of Hollywood, by not showing, they showed us far more than we can see now in the unbridled Hollywood of CG and anything goes. Take a modern pre CG visual masterpiece such as Blade Runner, for example. If made for the first time, in the near tomorrow of Los Angeles, 2010, Roy Batty’s “I’ve seen things” speech would be omitted in favor of simply showing computer generated attack ships burning off the shoulder of Orion. Cool, though it may be. Roy’s description sparked a fuse that still burns so very, very brightly to this day. Unwavering. The same cannot and would not be said if, the production began tomorrow, and we did see what he saw with Chew’s eyes. It would not be timeless, masterpiece of moviemaking history, but a dated and forgotten one faster than you can say, “you’re talking about memories.”  Because, over time, all effects become lame, outdated and clunky. Bar none. No exceptions. The only thing that never becomes outdated is our imagination. What we think we see. 

Others, not in favor of the CG answer, and though still not keen on how the battle action was portrayed in “In Harm’s Way” might prefer that grainy newsreel footage be used, as seen in the Pearl Harbor sequence at the outset of the film. No one can argue that such material is not real enough. The process of using stock footage can be convincing if done sparingly, for only seconds on screen, such as in the cold war classic, “Fail Safe”. Personally, I love to see war footage. But not in a feature film.  I’d rather see imperfect models than mismatched newsreel footage, which, for obvious reasons, all too often substitutes different vessels and aircraft type for those depicted in the story, usually in mid-scene! Some experts out there familiar with the cold war classic might fire back at me here and state that a movie like “Fail Safe” fails in this regard, as well, and by this very same sin. True, but the insert of stock footage happens so quickly that its somewhat inaccurate characteristics (I won’t say more) goes unnoticed by most viewers not versed in war machinery, leaving us safely undistracted and in the story. 

Also, it must be noted that though there is battle action, “In Harms Way” is not a war film, as such. It is a film that uses the war as its setting. Other critics who are able to “get past” the so-called lame effects, charge that there isn’t enough action in the film. This is a valid point. It’s based on a novel. Characterization is of prime importance. But, like From Here to Eternity and Farewell to Arms (both film versions from novels), the setting of the war is only a setting, a backdrop, a time and place to situate the activity of our characters and what kinds of messes they get themselves into. Sure, cinema by definition is about visuality and what happens next, what we see happening next, not about the written word. But there can be a very nice blend of literary greatness, storytelling and visuality that all movie classics from Hollywood’s golden era share. You show me a timeless classic film from the 30s, 40s, 50s and I’ll show you a dense script.  

Preminger deserves more credit for doing a fine job in transforming the story from the written word to the big screen. He doesn’t do it alone, of course. To help him are John Wayne, Kirk Douglas, and Patricia Neal with many fine smaller roles filled by Burgess Meredith, Dana Andrews, Franchot Tone and Henry Fonda as well as some other familiar faces I’ll let you enjoy noticing on your own. 

I won’t comment on each of the actor’s performances here either; you can see for yourself how fine or poor their acting is by your own standards after watching this admirable film. It’s my opinion, though, that you won’t be disappointed. You’ll find in at least one of them, something you can relate to, in another something you can empathize with, one you can love and maybe one you can honestly hate. 

I will add one point about the actors, though, and that is that John Wayne did a tremendous job in this film. Some say his understated performance was due to his having been diagnosed with cancer at the time. I’m in no position to say if that’s true or not. There are probably only a handful of people who still alive who are. But I can say this: if that’s the case, if his suffering from cancer was a reason why his performance was the way it was, then, rather than discredit, it says even more about the man’s strength and character and his ability to perform under such conditions than anything I can even begin to think of.

Another thing about Duke. It’s been my experience that the critics of John Wayne, of his acting, are similarly cynical concerning the topic of U.S. foreign policy and America’s role in the world. Such people, it’s been my experience to note, who resent his “John Wayneness” are often unreceptive to him as a figure of tough, no nonsense America, much more than his skills in acting. They despise what he represents, and therefore, anything he does or stars-in regardless of quality. This is a behavior we’ve all seen in the last several years with regards to George W. Bush. Those eager to mock the decisions he’s made ignore the fact that those same or similar decisions were made by other politicians which the critics themselves celebrated with nothing less than high regard and glee. 

Here’s an experiment: next time you hear someone making jokes about John Wayne’s acting, particularly if they aren’t good-natured jokes, or impressions – who doesn’t do a John Wayne impression? – discreetly inquire about their stance on U.S. foreign policy. Don’t be obvious, just see if you can wrangle it out of them delicately. I don’t think you’ll be surprised to find an overly negative and similarly cynical attitude in this area as well.

Watch the film. Ignore the shortcomings. A strong mind can do this easily. A weak mind will dwell on them. It’s your choice. Like Bush ‘41 and his generation depicted in the film,  ”In Harm’s Way” is an example of imperfect greatness that perhaps only history can appreciate completely.


Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | | Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted Apr 16th 2009 at 5:33 pm in Military, Politics, Reviews | 154 Comments