Im Westen Nichts Neues (All Quiet On the Western Front).

 

He fell in October, 1918, on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to the single sentence: All quiet on the Western Front.

He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come.

The last two paragraphs of All Quiet On The Western Front. 

I've never reviewed All Quiet on the Western Front, even though I'd long ago seen the prior two versions.  I just saw the newest, German made, production of the book, which in Germany was released under the novel's German title, Im Westen nichts Neues, which literally translates as "in the West nothing new".*

All Quiet On The Western Front has a reputation as being the greatest anti-war novel ever written.  I'm sorry to say that I haven't actually read it, which I'll have to do.  Indeed, the recent German made version of the novel sort of compels me to do so.

The novel was first adapted to film in 1930 in an American version, which is a great film in its own right.

It was later adopted to a television in 1979, in another version that is very well regarded.  In 2022 this German version was released and shown on Netflix.  My original intent was to review just that version, but you really can't.  You have to review all three.

The best of the three is frankly the first one, although it does suffer from being a film that, due to cinematography, and due to pacing, hasn't aged as well as it should have.  It's hard not to watch the 1930 version and not, at least at first, appreciate that you are watching an old film.  

Still, this version sets the story at well, and perhaps with more than a degree of unintended irony in that the film came before the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1932, and therefore the early scene of enthusiastic school boys being eager for the war were ominous, retrospectively.  It's a gritty, good protrayal.

The 1979 television version is good as well, but frankly I just couldn't quite get around Richard Thomas in the role of the main protagonist, Paul Bäumer.  Lew Ayres was better in that role.  For that matter, Ernest Borgnine, who almost always turned in a good performance, did in the 1979 version as well, but he's just way too old for the German NCO Stanislaus Katczinsky he portrays.  For that matter, Louis Robert Wolheim really was as well, at age 50, but he carries the role off better, even though he was within a year of his own death at the time.

Anyhow, Thomas was so whiny, in a way, in The Waltons that I just can't get around that in this film, which really isn't his fault.  I just can't see him going from a green, naive recruit to a hardened combat veteran.

Which takes us to the new production.

This is the first German production of the film, and it shows it.  The production values in the film are absolutely excellent.  the material details are superb and. . . . the plot massively departs from the novel.

And for that reason, frankly, it suffers.  

This film really carries the post World War Two German guilt/excuse into a World War One work that was a novel.  It doesn't, therefore, really get Remarque's warning about militarism across, so much as it portrays average Germans as victims of the Great War and future victims of the Second World War.  The death of Katczinsky, which is a completely pointless combat death in the novel and first two films, is a weird murder by a French child in this version.  

And the ending of this movie departs massively from the novel and looses the point of it.  The protagonist dies on a quiet day, like thousands of soldiers did.  In the new German version he died in a  massive late war German assault at the end of the war.  That's completely different.  

For that matter, that's a major departure from actual history and it ties in, just a tad, to the Stabbed In the Back myth. The Germans had an ongoing revolution at home and the Frontsoldaten were collapsing. You couldn't have ordered them into an attack in late 1918 no matter how hard you tried.

So, the first version is the best.  I don't think I could get through the second again, and the third version is worth watching, once.

*This review was started in October, 2022.

El Alamein, (Tanks of El Alamein)

This is a 1957 Italian movie that's almost completely unknown to English speaking audiences.

It's surprisingly good.

The film surrounds the raising of, and training of, an actual well known Italian paratrooper unit, going through the early training of the film and the personalities of the soldiers followed in the film.  Some are conscripts, some are men who have been recalled from earlier service, including the first character who is introduced who is a monastic friar, and some new recruits. Their airborne training is explored and well done.  After they are fully trained as paratroopers, they are deployed to North Africa, which the actual unit really was.  It fights to its destruction at the Battle of El Alamein.

In some ways, the movie is a typical 1950s war movie, but more effort was expended on the prolonged tank battle scenes than normal.  Clearly making use of the Italian army at the time, the tanks depicted are a mix of M4 Sherman's and M47s.  Large numbers of tanks are used, and period fighter aircraft (although I could not identify them) are as well.  The movie is very well done.

In terms of historical accuracy, here too I don't know enough about Italian, or Axis units in general, at El Alamein to know how accurately this is depicted, but it does involve a real unit that was in fact basically destroyed in the battle.  Other armies, including the German and the British Army, are nearly dealt within the abstract, a fact assisted in that the British, with some exceptions, are depicted principally as armored formations so actual encounters with identifiable human beings are fairly rare.  Equipment wise, the movie seems largely accurate on the Italian side, although the number of submachineguns used by the Italian paratroops is presumed to be heavily exaggerated.

This is an almost loving portrayal of the unit that is completely apolitical, which may be one of its faults.  These men, in real life, were fighting for Mussolini, but in the movie neither Mussolini or fascism are ever mentioned.  They're basically portrayed as men doomed to a tragic fate, which in a way they were, but in wars, there is always a larger picture.

Worth seeing, and something that we rarely actually see portrayed, that being a unit history, like that given in Platoon, of an Axis unit in World War Two.

Movies In History: The Wild Geese

Some time ago I started listening to the excellent Fighting On Film podcast by two British gentlemen.  It's excellent.

This 1978 movie is one of the first movies they reviewed, and apparently it has an enormous cult following in the UK, particularly amongst military movie fans and British servicemen.  It's a guilty pleasure of mine, and I was surprised to find that I'd never reviewed it.

Set in the 1970s at the tail end of the mercenary era in Africa, the plot involves a group of British mercenaries, all with British Army backgrounds, who are recruited to serve in a commando mission to free a secretly imprisoned African leader.  Outfitted with merchant banker money, the band assembled in the UK and trains in Africa, outfitted in period British uniforms (but with the members retaining the berets and cap badges of their old units), and generally European NATO firearms of the era.  They preform their mission of rescuing the president, only to be betrayed, and then must fight their way, basically, to Rhodesia.

Coming just at the end of that period in time in which there had been in fact a lot of European mercenaries with roles in Africa, and in fact advised by "Mad" Mike Hoare, who was one of the more famous ones, the film had a certain air of credibility to it.  It's loved, as noted, by British military film aficionados.

Frankly, the film ain't great.

It has a good cast, including Richard Burton, Roger Moore, Richard Harris and Hardy Kruger.   The rough outline of the plot, taken from a novel, isn't bad.  The equipment is fascinating.  

But, the production values are frankly low, and the actors, save for Kruger and Moore, are past their prime and not credible in their roles at all. Burton, as Col. Faulkner, was well into his alcoholic demise at the time and looks like he'd not make it more than a few 100 yards into the bush.  Harris, who looked vibrant a decade prior in Major Dundee, doesn't look much better.  It just doesn't work.

Still, like Major Dundee (which is much better), there's just enough there, there, that the film is worth watching and somehow compelling.  It's heavily flawed, but you can almost see the move that might have been.

In terms of historical accuracy, we'll just note that there was a lot of mercenary action in Africa in the 60s and 70s as the old European empires fell apart.  Professional European soldiers, not all of them the most reputable, found roles in those wars, most notably in the Congo.  A certain cache developed about them that found itself expressed in novels and films, with this being one of the better known ones.

In terms of material details, the producers of this film chose to outfit the actors as if they were a British army unit of the time, and they look like one.  That probably isn't how an actual mercenary outfit would look, but as is often noted about this film, these guys do look good in the uniforms, physical decline aside.  The weapons chosen are a mixture of older British pattern uniforms and selective fire FALS, which are clearly not being really fired, as the recoil from a FAL on full automatic is pretty heavy.

All in all, it's entertaining, but not great.

Movies In History: Quo Vadis

I was recently forced to spend some semi idle time in front of the television.  For reasons, I can't really explain, if I'm sick or injured, I don't read much.  I will listen to things like podcasts, and I'll watch television, but I don't do much reading.

Anyhow, during that period, I watched this 1951 "epic".  The plot surrounds a returning Roman general, Marcus, during Nero's reign who comes back from a long extended campaign just in time to experience, over a few weeks, the arrival in Rome of St. Peter and the great fire of Rome.

Condensing years of history into a few weeks, the plot is frankly improbable.  Marcus returns from campaign and stays at the house of a retired Roman general who has converted to Christianity.  He meets St. Paul there, but doesn't appreciate who he is.  He also meets Lygia, a captive in the household who was raised by her captors as their adoptive daughter, who is also a Christian.  In a matter of seeming hours, Marcus falls deeply in love with Lygia and vice versa, which leads to some drama.  Marcus is present when St. Peter preaches, having just arrived in Rome, but remains unconvinced.  Nero has Rome torched when he's at his out of the city estate, and Marcus races back, ending up being thrown in confinement with the Christians blamed for the fire. He saves Lygia and causes a Roman army to revolt against Nero.

This film was well regarded in 1951, but it's really just too thin on plot now.  Indeed, darned near any Roman epic save for Ben Hur really suffers in viewing.

Usually, I review these films for historical accuracy and material details. I really can't do that in regard with Roman material details, as I don't know enough about ancient Rome of this period to do so.  In terms of historic accuracy, Rome did suffer near destruction in a fire during Nero's reign, and he was blamed for it.  The Christians were too.  It was frankly most likely just a fire that spread by accident that was inevitable, given the conditions of the city at the time.  Nero, who became Emperor at an absurdly young age was emblematic of what was wrong with Rome at the time, but he was probably not as weird as portrayed in the film by Peter Ustinov, who really does steal the show with his depiction.  Christians were persecuted under Nero, but Nero's demise didn't come about in this fashion.

St. Peter did suffer execution, it is more than worth noting, following the great fire in 64.  The title of the film comes from St. Peter's encounter with Jesus outside of Rome, as he fled persecution there, with his encountering the risen Christ and, in the Latin translation, asking "Quo vadis?", to which Jessu replied "Romam eo iterum crucifigī", or "Where are you going", and "I am going to Rome to be crucified again".  This caussed Peter to return to Rome.

A much better film could have been made out of all of this, but at the time this one was highly regarded.  One thing of note is that it would be hard to make a Hollywood blockbuster of this type now, as this film was 100% Christian in outlook.

The Professionals. A second review.

As recently noted here, Fighting On Film just dropped a podcast episode on The Professionals.  I reviewed that film back in 2015, along with a collection of others, in which I stated:

The Professionals

This film from the 1960s is in the star packed genera, which many films of this period were.  Featuring Lee Marvin, Robert Ryan, Woody Strode, Burt Lancaster, and others, the film is set in the Mexican Revolutionary period, with a plot centered on American soldiers of fortune being hired by a wealthy rancher to retrieve his kidnapped wife.

All in all, this film is pretty entertaining and is done pretty well.   In terms of history, it has some interesting features including the fluid nature of the border and the confusing  nature of Mexican revolutionary forces. The film has an offhand referenced to the "Colorados", who were an actual faction in the Mexican Revolution and who were followers of Pascual Orozco, and who fought for Modero at first and then switched to Huerta against him.  This would also place the film in the 1913 to 1915 time frame and would place the revolutionaries generally depicted in the film into some category of Villistas, more or less. 

The firearms in the film are period correct, and small details, such as Marvin's clothing (he's supposed to be a former professional soldiers) show some surprisingly small scale correct details that are generally omitted in films in this period.  One of the better films of this type.

I try to go more in depth in my reviews now, which is why I'm never current on them, sad to say.  

This film is one of my favorites and it sort of stands, in my view, as a bookend to The Wild Bunch, which was reviewed in the same original collective post.  In looking back, I notice that I noted what Fighting On Film did about Lee Marvin's "drip".  I didn't notice, but it's very evident in the film, how realistic, period correct, and almost acrobatic Marvin's handling of firearms is in the movie.

Fighting On Film places this movie in about 1920, which is likely correct, which makes it a true Fin de Siècle, passing of the frontier west film.  Indeed, it's really almost past it.  It's an excellent film, one which I've watched many times.  Given that, I'm surprised to see that I didn't mention, when I originally reviewed it, that the movie, based on a novel serialized in the Rocky Mountain News (A Mule for the Marquessa) and features bombshell Italian actress Claudia Cardinale in it.  Fighting On Film hardly mentioned her either, FWIW.  She's the one weak role in the whole film and is frankly there as window dressing.  There was no effort at all to do anything about her extraordinarily thick Italian accent, even though Jack Palance, playing "Raza", a Villa like character, has an affected one, and Marie Gomez, a Mexican actress who also played roles in American television, a genuine one.  Indeed, Gomez's English, while accented, is crystal clear, whereas Cardinale's English is not.

The Fighting On Film website has a link to an original poster or theater card from the movie, which would lead to protests today, as it depicts Cardinale so stripped down that it's effectively a poster emphasizing her breasts over anything else.  It probably realistically demonstrated why she was in the film in the first place, however.  Indeed, in at least one scene the film toyed with Gomez's portrayal in this fashion as well, going further than it did with Cardinale, but so briefly that it's almost not noticeable.  This latter fact is more than a little 60s misogynistic, but the casting of Cardinale was simply silly.  It's notable that in films today, moviemakers at least cast real Hispanic actresses in Hispanic roles and wouldn't get away with the Italian bombshell thing today.

In contrast, Woody Stroke, who was elevated to star status by this movie, was amazingly 52 years old when it was released.  I note this as he was clearly cast in part as he was a remarkable physical specimen, the only male character to be shown shirtless. At 52, he appeared much younger than his actual age.

Anyhow, this move is very well done.  The clothing, as noted, shows real attention to small details. The firearms are mixed and period correct.  Horses are shown not to be free of fatigue.  It's a good watch.

Dog Fight

I haven't seen Power of the Dog.

I started to watch 1883, but I quit watching it as I couldn't get over the historic improbabilities.  That's why there's no review of it here.

As to 1883, my interest in it started to wane when it showed one of the protagonist engaged in a relatively short range gun fight, after being ambushed, using a scoped rifle.  Yes, there were scope rifles at the time, but they were exceedingly rare, quite delicate, and not really suitable for snap shooting.

But what really did it is when the Sam Elliot character is being recruited to lead a part of overland immigrants north from Texas.

In 1883, you could take the train. And why would you start from Texas in any event?  You would not.

Indeed, railroads leased out freight cars to immigrants, so they could dump whatever implements they had in them, and ride with them.

Yes, cattle were being driven overland, and some immigrants still took the Oregon Trail that late, but trailing up from Texas?

Anyhow, 1883 was a big deal with some viewers as Yellowstone, which I also have not seen, is a big deal with some viewers.  Sam Elliot reprised a role he's now typecast in as aged cowboy, with cowboy loosely defined.

Following that, Elliot was interviewed about the movie Power of the Dog, which I haven't seen and which I'm unlikely to.

More specifically, Elliot called the movie "a piece of shit".  He further noted, "They’re running around in chaps and no shirts. There’s all these allusions of homosexuality throughout the movie.”

I've read the synopsis of the movie, which is billed as a "psychological Western", and it frankly reminds me a bit of Legends Of The Fall, which was an awful movie.  Maybe Elliot is right, and it is a "piece of sh**".  I have no idea, but I'm not going to bother with it.

But what I will note is that Elliot is right about shirtless riders. Wouldn't happen.  Then, as now, cowboys cover up, even in hot months.  You very rarely, at least up here, see a working cowhand wearing a short sleeve shirt.  Television cowboys might work in t-shirts, but real ones don't.

Going further, in one of the photos from the film, the protagonist is wearing overalls.  You won't see cowhands wearing those, either. That's strictly a farmer thing. They're not appropriate for riding, frankly.

As for his other comments, I'll leave them there, as I haven't seen the film.

The director, New Zealander Jane Campion, did react to Elliot, noting that he's not a real cowboy (true) and defended her work by stating:

The west is a mythic space and there’s a lot of room on the range. I think it’s a little bit sexist… I consider myself a creator and I think he sees me as a woman or something lesser first. And I don’t appreciate that.

As a Westerner (and a stockman) that's part of the problem  The West is no more a "mythic space" than New Zealand is and ought not to be treated that way.  Yes, it's been mythologized, and often badly, but that process is part of an instinctive way of preserving history.  It happens, we'd note, in all cultures, on some topic.

Power of the Dog, I'd note, was written by one Thomas Savage, whom I'd describe as a minor novelist.  But for this film, I've never heard of him, and I've never heard of any of his works.  To some degree, it seems like his career was sort revived by Anne Proulx, which is interesting.  Proulx gained  a following as a regional novelist from the Northeast, but then briefly lived in Wyoming, during which time she produced Brokeback Mountain, which I also have not seen. Even when she lived in Wyoming, apparently Saratoga, she spent part of the year in Newfoundland.  From here she went on to New Mexico, always a favorite haunt of artists, and is now in Washington state.

I note all of this because Proulx is prominent, or at least her one work is, in what might be regarded as an "anti-Western", which Power Of The Dog seems to be as well, perhaps.  That is, the authors of these works, in some ways, take Western themes and seek to turn them on their head.  In Savage's case, it seems he had an early exposure to ranching as a youth and young man, but never took to it, and then as a writer used it as a setting of criticism, with the dysfunctional family being the primary topic.

This stands out, I think, from works by authors like Larry McMurtry.  McMurtry wrote some very gritty novels, but they're quite true to life.  McMurtry also grew up on a ranch, in Texas, and while, like most novelist, his themes exaggerate, they're also fairly accurate as a rule.  His book Horseman, Pass By, is probably the best book written set in a modern setting, with its descriptions being incredibly true to life.

Less so, but still notable, are those of Cormac McCarthy, who tends to write things set in Texas, and has spent much of his life there, but who is from Rhode Island originally, showing that a person doesn't have to be from a place from infancy in order to pick up the feel of a place.

I guess what this gets to is three things, one is historical accuracy, a second is love of place, and the  third is love of subject.  In order to produce a really outstanding work, written or filmed, all three have to be there.

Now, I may be going further than I should on some of these works, as I haven't seen them all, but that's lacking, it seems to me, on some of these, and perhaps on the two ones that started this dog fight.  I know that people have been fawning over 1883, but frankly it just fails in the first category at least.  I think people love it as they love sappy dramas and from what I can pick up about it, without watching it, that's what Yellowstone is. People love Yellowstone, so they love 1883. Beyond that, some people love Sam Elliot and will watch anything he's in, and others love Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, and finally some viewers, while they won't put it this way, find Isabel May hopelessly hot.  None of that makes the film great, or even good.  Nor does just simply taking Western stereotypes, which at least to some degree are stereotypes as they're based on reality, and turning them on their head. That can be done, to be sure, but just to do it, just does that, and not much else.

Monday, January 9, 1922. Éamon de Valera loses his bid for reelection.

Éamon de Valera narrowly loses the gamble he made on January 4, and fails to survive a vote to reelect him as President of Ireland.  The Dail nonetheless rises to cheer for him in recognition of his central role in the path to Irish independence.  

He lost by two votes, with three members of the Dail not voting, including de Valera. The abstentions were in recognition that a yes vote would have rejected the treaty, creating an added irony to the entire matter.  The entire matter is hard to reconcile, but had the three votes been ones to reelect, it would have amounted to throwing the entire country into chaos over a single vote.

Of course, as it would turn out, it was merely a prelude to violent chaos.  De Valera and Sinn Fein were about to take the country into a civil war over the distinctions between dominion and full republic status for Ireland.

In Laramie, they were not only reading about the situation in Ireland that would lead to war, but had the chance to see a film that depicted American troops, including it was claimed local Laramieites, fighting i the recent Great War.

Monday, December 15, 1941. The filmed murder of Lativan Jews at Liepāja

War photographer Robert Capa with a 16mm movie camera, something we don't associate him with. 8mm film was literally 16mm cut in half for economy.

Mass murder of over 2,731 Jews at Liepāja Lativa was commenced by Einsatzgruppen, assisted by Lativan militia.  It would run for two days.  

The event was filmed by Kriegsmarine Sergeant Reinhard Wiener with his privately owned 8mm film camera.

Twenty-three communist party members were also murdered.

Amateur photography was a huge deal with Germans, and had been since cameras had become portable.  But movie film was another deal.  Sgt Wiener's film is accordingly unique. There is film of German authorities murdering Jews, but his was extensive and showed their full humiliation and abuse before being murdered.

The location itself was being used by the German Navy and many German Army soldiers were there.  The mood was festive by the Germans.

Things like this make it plain that by the early stages of Operation Barbarossa Germans knew what was going on and, while the recent meeting of German high officials emphasized their desire to complete the destruction of European Judaism, the program of mass extermination was fully in swing.  It was, moreover, already quite efficient.  And the attitude taken by the Germans was the plain acceptance of it. Authorities made no effort to stop it from being filmed here, and in other locations.  As film had to be processed commercially at home, it also meant that this was being done and was not being restrained.

So, in an event like this, regular German soldiers and sailors witnessed it, some filmed it, and some took their stories back home with them.  Others effectively published it by having what they recorded in film processed.

Things like this also make it plain that in much of Eastern Europe at least some percentage of the local population was willing to participate in Germany atrocities aimed at the Jews.

The Red Army retook Klin.

The following, from Today In World War Two History:

The American Federal of Labor adopted a policy of abstaining strikes in war industries for the duration of the war.

Universities started to go to three year courses of study for Bachelor degrees by full year courses of study.  This must have kicked in during the Spring, as the Christmas break was commencing.

The Soviet government returned to Moscow.  Stalin had never left.

Today in World War II History—December 15, 1941

The British Army encamped at Bir Halegh el Elba.

The British allowed 600 Japanese nationals to leave Singapore on a ship chartered by the Japanese government.

The Japanese attempted to land a reconnaissance party across the Lye Mun Channel at Hong Kong but were completely repulsed.  Japanese artillery strikes commenced.

Showing that yesterday's Coast Guard depth charge run wasn't as absurd as it might have sounded, a Japanese submarine shelled Kahului, Maui.  Another shelled Johnston Island, striking fuel at a seaplane base there.

The decision was made to hold this year's Rose Bowl at Durham, North Carolina.

All four American radio networks broadcast We Hold These Truths.

The radio program was in celebration of the anniversary of the Bill of Rights and had been planned prior to December 7.  An inquiry to the government on whether it should go forward brougth a reply that Franklin Roosevelt thought the program more important than ever.

Admiral Kimmel's illustration appeared on the cover of Time.  He'd already been relieved of his command in the Pacific.  Newsweek had a cover photo of a battleship noting that the "U.S. fleet's guns blaze", which wasn't true at the time.

A "Junior Miss" appeared on the cover of Life, which had obviously been laid out prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

A test air raid drill was held in New York City.

California 1940s, Burbank Residential Area in color [60fps, Remastered] ...

Lancaster PA, 1946. Bob Hess Dodge Plymouth receiving a shipment of new vehicles.

It was the first shipment of new vehicles since the start of World War Two.

And the first with the brand new Power Wagon.

California 1935, Wilshire Blvd in color [60fps, Remastered] w/added sound

A Day in New York 1930's in color [60fps, Remastered] w/added sound

New York 1920s in color, Street Life [60fps, Remastered] w/added sound

New Jersey 1920's in Color! [60fps,Remastered] With New Sound

September 12, 1920. A Restoration

Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church at the point of its reunification, Dimitrije Pavlović 

On this date in 1920, the Serbian Orthodox Church was reunified after a long period of separation due to its members being in various empires.  The aftermath of World War One changed that situation.  The church is the second oldest Slavic Orthodox Church, second only in that status to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.  The church today has over 8,000,000 members, mostly in Serbia, and is one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with Constantinople.

Residents of Cheyenne were disappointed by the failure of the mail plane to arrive, which was front page news.  The headline seemed to blame the failure on an errant pilot, but it was engine trouble in Utah that caused the delay.

Movie goers on this date were apparently up for a massive serving of turgid.

The Restless Sex follows the story of a young adventurous woman who is in love with her step brother, whom she grew up with, and whom she's been in love with since her youth, until he travels afar, and she's pursued by another.

Plot spoiler.

The step brother wins.

Hmmmm. . . . 

Movie goes who may have been pondering the "ick" quality of Restless also had the option of seeing Homespun Folks, also released on this date.

In that one a young lawyer makes good by getting the position of district attorney only to be accused of murder.

 

September 3, 1920. Stepp appointed postmaster.

1920 Alonzo Stepp was appointed the postmaster of Fontenelle, Wyoming.  He was an area rancher.

That may not seem remarkable, but Stepp was an African American who was exceptional for his era in numerous ways, one of which was that he was one of few black ranchers in the state at the time, with there remaining few today.  The Kentucky born Stepp was college educated, having received a classical education, but immigrated to Wyoming with his wife, whom he'd met in college, to pursue ranching after having worked on a Wyoming ranch one summer while in college. That introduction to ranching came through the invitation of a college friend, who was a white student.  Lon Stepp ultimately moved back to Wyoming and into ranching, working on area ranches and purchasing land over the years until he had a full time operating ranch.  By 1920, he's already served as an elected district road supervisor.  He occupied the postmaster position until December 15, 1941, when he died.

The Stepps would continue to ranch in the area until their ranch was one of the ones that was taken over by the government for Fontenelle Reservoir in 1963.  The Stepps fought the condemnation for the reservoir in court but ultimately lost.  

Fontenelle Reservoir in 1972.

Perhaps ironically, the dam for the reservoir on their land which they had opposed has proven to be leaky and the reservoir has had to been hurriedly drained twice.  Irrigation from the reservoir never really developed due to the difficulties of doing that in a high desert region, and therefore the lake has principally been used for recreation.

Stepp family members remain prominent in the area today.

More on the Stepps can be found on the WyoHistory.org page on them.  This entry is based on that one.

From here.

Also on this day, Way Down East was released.

You've seen part of it at least. The scene with the protagonist, played by Lillian Gish, on ice flows heading toward a waterfall.

Movies In History: Jojo Rabbit

When Jojo Rabbit won a bunch of awards last year I looked it up and frankly it didn't look like anything I wanted to see.  The Nazis aren't funny and neither was World War Two.  It just looked weird.

Well, last week I watched it, and its great.

It's also nearly indescribable.

Set in the very last days of the Third Reich, the film takes a look at those times in a German town or small city through the eyes ten year old Johannes Betzler.  Betzler is an enthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth whose father is absent in a somewhat mysterious fashion (we know that he was a German soldier, but we don't know what became of him. . . he's missing in Italy but we don't know exactly what that means).  He lives with his mother in a nice apartment/house on an archetypical German street.  He has an imaginary friend, with that figure being Adolph Hitler through the eyes of a ten year old who really doesn't know the true Hitler.  Hitler is vivid to him.

Things soon begin to take an odd direction.  Betlzer acquires the name "Rabbit" when he can't kill a tame rabbit at a Hitler Youth training session ran by sadistic fantastic teenage boys.  Soon thereafter his Hitler Youth organization is taken over by an unhinged alcoholic German army Captain played perfectly by Sam Rockwell who has been assigned that role as he's lost an eye in combat.  Captain Klenzendorf is assisted by a League of German Girls leader who has completely lost her moral compass, played perfectly by Rebel Wilson.  Jojo is wounded in training in an accident with a hand grenade, but his mother, played by Scarlett Johansson, puts him back into the organizations service seemingly to give him something to do, or perhaps to divert his attention from her own activities.   In the meantime his best friend, Yorki, goes from being a member of the Hitler Youth to being a boy soldier.

And, on top of it all, it turns out that his mother has been hiding fifteen year old Elsa, a Jewish girl who was the friend of Jojo's sister, who has died, in the walls of his sister's old room.

None of this sounds like it would be funny, but it is strangely funny and tragic at the same time.  Jojo discovers Elsa and doesn't know what to do.  Largely on his own for large hours of the day, and around adults who are either opposed to the Nazis, such as his mother, or completely unhinged, such as his youth organization leaders (Captain Klenzendorf is not only drunk most of the time, and clearly mentally unbalanced, he's extraordinarily cynical), he struggles with what to do with his discovery, which he learns could result in his mother's execution.  Moreover, in interacting with Elsa, he falls in love with her.

To go beyond this would be to reveal plot details, so I won't, but the entire thing is masterfully done.  In retrospect its really easy to forget that the average German didn't really realize that the war would e completely lost until January, 1945 and for young people it must have been extraordinarily confusing.  For somebody in hiding, such as Elsa, the lack of knowledge must have been often complete.  For junior  military officers who had seen combat, the last days must have been surreal.

Some things done with the film would seem to be unlikely to work, but in fact work really well.  The opening soundtrack recalls that of Valkyrie, but with the German language cut of I Want To Hold Your Hand by the Beatles, for instance, which actually really works well.  Lots of humor in the film is incredibly dark, but genuinely extremely funny.

Usually in these films we depart from conventional film reviews and look at the material and historical detail.  We would have expected to cut this film a lot of slack in that regard but it turns out, we don't have to.  Material details pertaining to the Germany army, SS, Volksturm, American Army and Red Army are incredibly accurate.  Probably the only departure in this context is the all black business suits and overcoats of the Gestapo, but at this point in time that's such a stock portrayal that a departure from that would have been unwise.  The Hitler Youth has been depicted before in various films but details such as the significance of Hitler Youth knife have not.  They are here.  The League of German Girls has almost never been depicted in film, but it's very weird associations with procreation have not been. They are here.

This film is really good and, even for a fan of serious historical movies, it's a must.  It depicts something unique that is worth watching.

Depicting Jesse James

There is very little to admire about Jesse James, and yet Americans for generations have.

Jesse James, 1876.

James, as everyone knows, was the Missouri born leader of what was essentially a family, and indeed an ethnic, gang based in Missouri that successfully operated for a time in the Post Civil War Missouri region.  James and his siblings had been exposed to extreme violence as Confederate guerillas during the war and were endowed with the "Little Dixie" region of Missouri's views on the world, none of which would draw sympathy from many people today, but which allowed them to operate relatively safely in the region in spite of their criminal activities due to the feeling that they were, in some ways, continuing the Southern cause.  Those views didn't hold up everywhere in Missouri and they certainly didn't outside of the state, which brought the end of the gang following an extremely failed attempt to raid a bank in Northfield Minnesota.

In spite of the fact that James-Younger gang is not admirable in any sense, they've been the topic of fascination of Americans since their very own time and therefore have been the subject of numerous movies.  Indeed, there are at least twenty screen depiction of James and his gang including one television series from 1965-66.  Numerous Americans claim to be related or descendant from James no matter how dubious their claims may be and, just like for Butch Cassidy, plenty of people claim that James didn't die from a bullet to the back of the head fired by Bob Ford in 1882.  He did.

I haven't seen most of the films that portray James, but there are three that really stand out that a lot of people have seen and which are worth mentioning.  I'll deal with them here, in chronological order.

The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid is a 1972 film limited to the raid on Northfield Minnesota and the events leading up to it.  It has a notable cast, including a young Robert Duvall as James and Cliff Robertson as Cole Younger.  It's a fictionalized version of the raid containing fanciful and strained elements but it's really notable for Duvall's portray of James as a homicidal maniac.  It's worth watching for that reason as Duvall, in a portrayal that perhaps could be regarded as an example of an early anti Western, portrays a really disturbing James which served to strip him from the heroic portrayal that was more common up until then.  Robertson, however, steals the show with a really eclectic portrayal of an intellectually curious Younger.

The film isn't bad in terms of material details.

Returning, however, to a more sympathetic portrayal is the sweeping 1980 The Long Riders which is really unique for casting actors who were in fact brothers to play characters in the true story who were actually brothers.  While this film is only eight years later than The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid it placed really close attention to material details and has the look and feel of mid 19th Century Missouri right.  

As noted, the film made use of actual siblings, with the Keach bothers playing the James brothers, the Caradine brothers playing the Younger brothers, the Quaids playing the Miller brothers, and the Guests playing Bob and Charley Ford.  In some odd way that makes the film feel that much more accurate.

This film starts before the Northfield Minnesota Raid and also features James Whitmore, Jr. as a Pinkerton agent.  It concludes with Ford's killing of James.

As does the 2007 film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.  The awkwardly long title of the film in some ways sets this film up nicely for what it is, a beautifully filmed and very accurate movie which starts after the Northfield Minnesota Raid and deals with the gang and its central post raid figures.  Extremely moody and presented almost like a narrated book, Brad Pitt's portrayal of James as a highly intelligent, charismatic, and mentally deranged figure is brilliant.  Casely Affleck's Robert Ford is really the main focus of the film and his portrayal of James "assassin" is likewise brilliantly done.  The portrayals are so effective that they risk actually defining the real individuals, which may not be fair in context.

This film is superb on material details and it has the look and feel of mid 19th Century Missouri, and then briefly late 19th Century Colorado, just right.  The film concludes with the death of Bob Ford, showing how its focus is really on the Ford character, not on James.  In some ways its a subtle morality tale which none of the other James movies are.  If a person was going to watch just one of these films, this one would be the one to watch.

The War Movies of 1970

1970, we've already noted, was the year the United States participated in an invasion of Cambodia with the Republic of Vietnam, while war protests raged across the United States.  In popular recollection, it was also the year that the nation was increasingly anti war and anti military.

Well. . . maybe, but it was one heck of a year for war movies.

Patton, a movie I've never reviewed here (until now), was released that year.  It goes down in cinematic history as a great movie and one of the greatest World War Two pictures ever made.  George C. Scott's portrayal of George S. Patton, for which he was awarded but did not accept an Academy Award, so defined the controversial American cavalry commander turned armored branch general that Scott's movie Patton is better remembered than the real Patton.  

It's interesting to note that Nixon watched the film in a private showing just before ordering the invasion of Cambodia.

The film is justifiably famous for a fairly accurate portrayal of Patton's personality, although it's portrayal of Omar Bradley is more charitable than Bradley deserved, perhaps because Bradley's memoirs of World War Two were used in part for the film, along with  Ladislas Farago's Patton:  Ordeal and Triumph.  Bradley worked as an advisor on the film which also no doubt influenced his portrayal.  Irrespective of that, it's a great film.  Taking the viewer from Patton's elevation after the Battle of Kasserine Pass to just after the war, it is limited, and wisely, to just his biography as an important American commander during the war.

It's not a very materially accurate film, however.  Armor for the film, as well as the numerous soldiers portrayed in it, were provided by the Spanish Army and the film was largely filmed in Spain.  M4 Shermans were Spanish M47s and Spanish M48s filled in for all German armor, giving the impression of more modern armored combat than World War Two actually featured, although the large scale combat scenes in the movie are very will done.  There's a reason that its recalled as a great film to this day.

In contrast to the material inaccuracy of Patton is the accuracy of the peculiar and appealing World War Two sort of drama/comedy, Kelly's Heroes, was released on June 23, 1970.  Filmed in Yugoslavia, the producers were able to make use of American M4 Shermans and other World War Two vintage hardware that remained there.  Not stopping at that, however, three Soviet tanks were carefully converted to be nearly dead ringers for German Tiger Is.  In terms of ground equipment (but not air) the film is the first materially accurate World War Two film made.  The depiction of the fluid nature of France in 1944 is fairly accurate, and the combat scenes are well done.

It isn't accurate, of course, in terms of the portrayal of soldiers and it wasn't met to be.  Donald Sutherland's portrayal of "Oddball", a hippie tank commander, steals the show but he portrays a figure simply impossible for the time.  The film's main star is supposed to be Kelly, portrayed by Clint Eastwood, but its really Sutherland who shines.  The film portrays an armored reconnaissance unit that goes rogue on a mission to loot a bank behind German lines under the leadership of former, and now demoted, officer Kelly.  The cast in the film is really impressive.

Released in 1970, the film anticipates the changing mood of the time, but it remains today a cult classic and its popular with careful students of World War Two for the reasons noted.  It's odd to realize that Sutherland's portrait of Hawkeye Pierce in M*A*S*H was actually from earlier the same year, as his portrayal here was a risky choice.  It's also odd to realize that Carroll O'Connor's portrayal of an Army general in this film was not intended to be a parody of Patton, even though it seems to be.

M*A*S*H was as noted, released earlier this same year, and its an awful film.  Ironically, it's one I've already gone over, so I'm not going really get into it again here.  I would note, as I did originally:

This movie is probably  the most famous movie set during the Korean War, but don't fool yourself, it's really about Vietnam.

Which doesn't make it a good film.

If M*A*S*H was heavily influenced by the country's developing mood, and Sutherland's Oddball at least had a cheerful character more out of 1970 than 1944, the other great war picture of the year was much more like Patton in nature, that being the great film Tora! Tora! Tora!, which portrayed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Tora! Tora! Tora! is one of the greatest World War Two movies ever made and is far and away the best film about the events of December 7, 1941.  The later effort Pearl Harbor is pathetic in comparison.  Getting the history and the material details correct, and filmed on location, it's a masterpiece which may be free of errors.  It stands as the greatest true depiction, quasi documentary, movie of its era and inspired more than one attempt to follow up in its portrayals of later events that were real failures.  Using a large number of actors and depicting sweeping events, it fits into a series of movies of that time, including The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far, that took real big picture and small picture looks at singular events in the war.  It's a great film.

So what does it tell us, if anything, that they were made when they were?  It probably tells us at least in part that our recollection of the country's mood in 1970 isn't very accurate.  M*A*S*H was an anti war film using the vehicle of the Korean War to discuss the Vietnam War.  But none of the three movies about World War Two, which had concluded just 25 years earlier, could be regarded as an anti war film.  Even Kelly's Heroes, which has an element of cynicism, had it only lightly.  So even as the country grew increasingly disenchanted with Vietnam, it didn't feel that way about World War Two. For that matter, of course, the youngest of the country's World War Two veterans were only in their early 40s at the time.

May 31, 1920. Memorial Day for 1920