Monday, April 15, 2024

THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES: #66. Andersonville (1996)

 


 

                Ted Turner is a Civil War buff.  “Andersonville” was his third foray into the time period.  Most people forget that he produced “Ironclads” in 1991, two years before “Gettysburg”.  Like “Ironclads”, “Andersonville” was made-for-TV.  But unlike the earlier film, a lot of effort went into “Andersonville”.  Turner got John Frankenheimer (The Manchurian Candidate, The Train) to direct.  Turner also opened up his check book so Frankenheimer could make the film as authentic as possible.  Frankenheimer won an Emmy for Best Direction of a Miniseries or Special.  The movie was nominated for six other Emmys.  The screenplay was loosely based on Andersonville Diary:  Life Inside the Civil War’s Most Infamous Prison by John Ransom.

            A group of Yankees is captured during the Battle of Cold Harbor in June, 1864.  They are shipped to Camp Sumter outside Andersonville, Georgia.  Their first taste (smell) of the camp includes vicious tracking dogs, dead bodies, and stockades with prisoners in them.  The camp has a fifteen-foot wall around it.  When they enter the camp, they are greeted by a seemingly empathetic character named Munn (William Sanderson).  He offers to befriend the “fresh fish” and help them survive.  Fortunately, Pvt. Josiah Day (Jarrod Emick), Sgt. McFadden (Frederic Forrest) and their mates are reunited with a former comrade named Dick (Gregory Sporleder) who clues them in on Munn’s fellow travelers known as the “Raiders”.  The Raiders are led by a bully named Collins (Frederick Coffin).  They prey on the other prisoners. They live fairly well in their sector of the camp by stealing from the vulnerable captives.  Besides the depredations of the Raiders, the camp is a hell hole because of things like lack of food, lack of shelter, lack of clothing, inadequate medical care to deal with diseases, horrible sanitation, and inhumane guards. Do not step across the “dead line”, you won’t be handed your baseball glove and get a stay in the cooler.  To make matters worse, the camp is run by the mentally unstable Capt. Henry Wirz (Jan Triska).  Day, McFadden, and the others hook up with a group led by Sgt. Gleason (Cliff DeYoung).  Gleason’s boys are digging a tunnel and let the new guys in on the digging.  If escape does not work, they will have to deal with the Raiders sooner or later.

ACTING:                      B

ACTION:                      N/A

ACCURACY:               N/A  there is one great fight and one gigantic brawl

PLOT:                          A

REALISM:                   B

CINEMATOGRAPHY:    B

SCORE:                        forgettable

BEST SCENE:  the battle

BEST QUOTE:  Limber Jim:  Who’s with me?!  Whoooo?!  

            For a made-for-TV movie, the amount of effort that went into the production is incredible.  The movie was filmed on location on a farm about one hundred miles from Camp Sumter.  A less than scale model of the camp was constructed.  It covered nine acres.  A panning shot reveals the painstaking effort to recreate the officers’ quarters, the stockades, the walls, the stream, and the “tents” of the captives.  The fact that it rained consistently during the sixty day shoot helped create the muddy environment that added to the horror of the story.  It was a difficult shoot for the cast and crew.  Plus the 4,000 extras that participated.  Many of them were reenactors, some of whom came from all over the country.  They lent an air of realism to the movie, although it was hard to reenact the emaciation of the prisoners.  You can’t expect reenactors to starve themselves for their hobby.  For the bigger scenes, 3,000 cardboard cutouts of men were used at a cost of $150,000.  (You can’t tell the fakes in the movie.)  Speaking of cost, several reels of film dealing with the trial were lost in transit to the studio and the trial set had to be rebuilt and the principal actors brought back in at a great expense.  If you watch the trial scene, you cannot tell the original footage from the new.

            The laudatory effort goes beyond the production.  The cast is outstanding.  Emick was making his first movie, but he had won a Tony on Broadway.  He does not take acting honors.  Those go to Forrest, Sanderson, Sporleder, and Triska.  Sanderson’s Munn and Coffin’s Collins are great villains.  Triska (a celebrated actor in Czechoslovakia) manages to create some sympathy for Wirz, a man who clearly was in over his head and lacked the personality to be humane.  Special mention goes to Jayce Bartok, who was so good as the drummer boy Billy that his role was expanded.  There is not a single woman in the film.

            David W. Rintals wrote the script and he deserves kudos.  The characters are memorable and the dialogue is fine.  The movie does not slump into melodrama.  The plot builds nicely to the battle between the Raiders and the Regulators.  The ensuing melee is provoked by the charismatic “Lumber Jim” (Peter Murnik) as he calls the victims to arms with his cry of “who’s with me?  who?”  I wanted to jump into the screen and join in.  The brawl is one of the best in cinema history and very satisfying.  It may be the biggest fight in war movie history.  The movie could have ended here, but the decision was made to tell the whole story.  Naturally, there is a denouement after the fisticuffs, but the trial does bring closure and more importantly, is based on fact.  The score is excellent and visually the film is intriguing.  Frankenheimer made good use of the Steadicam. There is a remarkable long take of the camp. The makeup is excellent in giving the actors the look of men deprived of humanity.

            The movie is not without flaws.  The characters are all good or bad, there is no in between. Heck, Dick is basically a Christ figure.  Rintals adds a visiting inspecting officer played by William H. Macy. Col. Chandler is highly upset with what he sees.   This may have been to show that not all Confederates were bad, but it does allow for a debate between Chandler and Wirz that foreshadows the war crimes trial of Wirz after the war.  The tunneling and escape are short-changed.  There are no underground scenes.  This movie is not “The Great Escape”.  There is no hospital scene, so the full bleakness of the camp is not shown.  It is a film that lacks humor, but having seen so many WWII prison camp movies that make the camp look like a summer camp for men, I can live with that.

            It is a shame that “Andersonville” is not better known.  It could not have been much better for a made-for-TV movie.  Not only is it an entertaining story that is well-acted, but it is a valuable history lesson.  Although fictionalized, you will learn a lot about the most infamous prison camp ever located in America.  I love movies that bring important, but not textbook-worthy stories to the public.  Sometimes those stories are botched and usually there is only one attempt at telling the story.  I’m talking about you “Windtalkers”.  This story was not botched.  It is definitely one of the 100 Best War Movies.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Camp Sumter was built in Feb., 1864 to handle the large number of Yankee prisoners that were being captured after paroling ended.  Gen. Grant ended the exchange of prisoners partly because it benefitted the Confederate Army and the South refused to repatriate black soldiers.  (The movie has some members of the 54th Massachusetts in it.)  The camp was originally 16.5 acres, but was expanded to 26.5 soon after.  At its max, the camp held 30,000 prisoners.  That was way above capacity.  Of the 45,000 total, 13,000 died.  Most of the deaths were attributable to diseases like scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery.  The diseases were amplified by the poor food, clothing, and shelter.  The lack of hygiene was mainly blamed on Stockade Creek which provided the water supply, but was tainted by human waste.  Thankfully, the movie only hints at the role of hygiene in the horrors of the camp.  It has been posited that membership in some type of social network was the most important factor in survival.  Loners tended to die soon.  The camp quickly divided into the Raiders and their victims.  The movie accurately depicts the Raiders and their methods.  Collins stands in for the group of “chieftains”.  Munn is based on another of their leaders.  He was not a lackey as depicted in the film, although the chieftains certainly had plenty of followers who were willing to do the dirty work.  This work included fleecing “fresh fish” and robbing others at night.  Sometimes they killed their victims.  The Regulators evolved in response to their depredations.  Matters reached a head when the Regulators went to Wirz and asked for authority to act as a police force.  Surprisingly, and to his credit, Wirz agreed.  The Regulators rounded up most of the Raiders, including a fight for control of the Raiders’ relatively cushy habitat.  Wirz allowed a trial where many were sentenced to stockades, ball and chain, or running the gauntlet.  Six were given the death penalty, including Collins and Munn.  In a reversal of the movie, Collins rope broke during the hanging and he tried to escape, but was reexecuted.  Munn expressed remorse on the scaffold.  As far as the tunnel, there were a 351 documented escapes, which is only .7%  Only a few avoided death or recapture.

            Henry Wirz was the only Confederate to be executed for war crimes after the Civil War.  The movie takes a balanced approach to this controversial figure.  While he undoubtedly could have done more for the prisoners, he was in a difficult position that he did not have the moral strength to deal with.  The food problem, for instance, was not his fault.  His own men were not eating well either.  However, he could have insisted on more humane treatment of the prisoners and more discipline from his own troops.  He appears to have been clueless to the internal dynamics of the camp.  The Chandler character is based on a Dr. James Jones, who spent a day at the camp and wrote a scathing report that got Wirz hung at his trial.    

Saturday, April 13, 2024

NOW SHOWING: Civil War (2024)

 


            The provocatively titled “Civil War” was released this weekend, on the 163rd anniversary of the start of the First American Civil War. The movie has secession in common with the first civil war, but little else.  The movie has been proceeded by rumors that it would be a commentary of the present political situation in America today.  There is a fear that America is heading for a civil war, especially if Trump loses in the upcoming election.  However, possibly in a move to not alienate half of its potential audience, the movie does not take a stand on current politics.  Writer and director Alex Garland made sure of that by crafting a movie that could not possibly happen in America in any foreseeable future.  There is more chance of a purge than of this type of civil war.

            The movie begins with a red herring.  The President (Nick Offerman) rehearses for a televised speech that will proclaim “mission accomplished.”  It turns out that a series of hints tells us the President is blowing smoke. We are 14 months into the war.  Texas and California have formed the Western Alliance to depose the third-term President.  Those two states agreeing on anything is proof positive that the movie is a fantasy.  There is also an alliance led by Florida with the same goal.  But the movie concentrates on the Western Alliance and its advance on Washington, D.C.  The movie focuses on a quartet of war journalists that are on a mission to interview the President.  All four are stereotypes from war journalism movies. Lee (Kirsten Dunst) is the veteran photojournalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for a photograph of the Antifa Massacre.  We don’t know if Antifa was doing the massacring or the victim of it.  Like I said, the movie does not take sides.  She is calloused, but suffers from PTSD.  Jesssie (Cailee Spaeny) is the cub reporter who idolizes Lee and wants to be just like her.  Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) is the wise old print journalist who sees the trip as one last fling.  Joel (Wagner Moura) is Lee’s partner.  He plays the journalist who is an adrenaline junkie.  The kind that smiles when the bullets whiz by.

            The movie is a road trip.  It’s 857 miles to D.C. and there will be some stops along the way. Their car is the only one on the interstate and there is a stretch of highway that looks like the Highway of Death outside Kuwaiti City in the Persian Gulf War.  On the other hand, the movie informs us that much of the country is minding its own business.  (That’s the one thing that is predictive of the coming civil war.)  They stop at a gas station where they fill it up with $300 of Canadian money because U.S. currency will only buy a sandwich.  They are treated to two men being tortured.  They are journalists, so of course they just observe, they don’t get involved. Lee:  “We report so other people can ask.”  They take pictures in the middle of a firefight.  Prisoners are executed, but it makes for great shots.  They stay at a refugee camp.  They witness a sniper duel. They are confronted by some soldiers that question whether they are “real Americans.” And finally, they embed with the Western Forces army for its assault on Washington.  The now trio is still determined to get that interview.

            There is a subgenre of war movies that focuses on war journalism.  There are a few good movies in this group. Films like “A Private War”, “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot”, “The Year of Living Dangerously”, “Salvador”, “Under Fire”, “The Quiet American (2002)”, and “Welcome to Sarajevo.”  These films have created cliches that you see in most of the subgenre and “Civil War” is no different. Lee and Jessie are near a suicide bombing and Lee immediately starts taking pictures of the dead bodies. That evening the press is gathered at the hotel to party hard. War journalists are like fighter pilots, they drink a lot.  Lee and Joel always head in the direction of the gunfire. Lee has PTSD, but she is dedicated to getting the next great shot.  The quartet risks their lives getting as close to the fighting as possible.  They are not interested in helping anyone that is wounded.  That’s not their job.  The plot is predictable and breaks no new ground. If you want to see all the cliches in one movie, but with some great scenes, this movie might be for you. It concludes with a combat porn scene featuring the Lincoln Memorial and the White House.

            I made sure I did not read much about the movie before seeing it, so I was surprised that it avoided being topical.  In preparing this review, I read where Garland chose Texas and California to emphasize that the war was a war to overthrow a corrupt dictator that ordered the killing of American civilians.  Unfortunately, that is not apparent in the film.  We learn nothing about what brought on the war and how it got to the point that Washington was being attacked.  Even at the end of the movie it is not clear that the President is the villain.  The film is just a war journalism movie with a deceptive title.

            Obviously, the movie is not based on reality, but it still could have been realistic.  It’s this flaw that ruined the movie for me. I don’t mind the cliches and predictability because few viewers will have seen most of the movies I have listed so most will not shake their heads at another combat junkie, PTSD, cynical journalist.  The problem is that the third act goes off the rails with several plot developments that make no sense.  For instance, one of the quartet gets wounded in a place that could not possibly have happened. And to jump higher over the shark, the other three do nothing to try to save him. I know journalists aren’t supposed to care about victims, but this person was a friend of theirs.  The concluding scene in Washington is good combat porn, but it leads to a ludicrous climax in the White House.

            Garland’s script is structured around the old chestnut of the rookie journalist going from naive hero worshipper to cynical clone, all in a few days. Jessie’s character arc is too unbelievable and it’s embarrassing to see her evolution intersect with Lee’s sudden devolution.  The movie does have some strengths.  The soundtrack has songs that advance the gonzo nature of the journalists. It uses photos effectively to give us a camera eye view.  The two combat scenes are well-done and exciting.  And there is a lot of military hardware on display with the only obvious CGI being the flock of choppers.

            I can only recommend the movie to those who are not already familiar with the war journalism subgenre.  It is not one of the better movies in that group.  Go see it only if you want the entertainment. Don’t see it if you are looking for wish fulfillment or to confirm your worst nightmare.

GRADE  =  C