Beauty and the Beast, Sports Illustrated and Lessons Learned

"For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light." ~ Jesus, Luke 16:8


I think it's safe to say Disney's marketing strategy promoting Beauty and the Beast was a runaway success. The movie opened with the biggest opening weekend ever for a PG-rated movie and the biggest opening weekend for any movie in March.

A big part of the that strategy was the quote a couple of weeks ago from the director about there being a “gay moment” in the movie. The article was perfectly timed so that the resulting furor would have maximum impact in social media in the week and a half prior to its release date. And a furor they got. It was impossible not to miss the impact of the quote in the week following the article's publishing.

I don't have any doubt that it was intentional. The media have learned their lesson well: get the Christians sufficiently riled up, and you're in for a bonanza. It's too bad many Christians haven't yet learned the same lesson.

One of the most striking examples of this phenomenon is the story of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. The issue is by this time an American institution for better and for worse, mostly worse. For those of us under the age of 60, it's just always been there. But its origins lie at a place where happenstance and Christian outrage met.


Sports Illustrated was not always the behemoth I remember when I was growing up. (Print magazines are so 20th century). In 1964 SI was struggling to find a focus and an audience. It was far behind the largest sports weekly of the day, The Sporting News. And it had difficulty in determining exactly what it wanted to be all the time.

When there wasn't any baseball or football to cover, the magazine looked more like an outdoors or a lifestyle magazine. There were cover stories on hunting, travel, outdoors activities, even yachting with John and Jackie Kennedy.


It was anticipated to be a slow news week in mid-January 1964 (the NFL playoffs were usually over by Christmas back then). The managing editor, Andre Laguerre, planned a Caribbean travel story and told the photographer to hire a model to pose in a bikini for the cover. It was a brazen choice at the time, but Laguerre liked to push the boundaries and had little taste for American moralism. 

The cover (see it at this link if you wish) featured the picture with the following caption: "A Skin Diver's Guide to the Caribbean - Fun in the Sun on Cozumel." There was nothing about "annual swimsuit issue" or anything like that. Inside was a travel story with one more picture of the model and some other pictures of beach scenery.

Three SI covers from the 50s
and 60s that have nothing
to do with sports.

The cover created controversy. The magazine received thousands of angry letters and cancellations. At the same time, newsstand sales of the issue exceeded all expectations for a slow news week. Whether those sales were directly related to the anger expressed I have know way of knowing, but that is what happened.

Any time there is reaction, that is gold to marketers. They really don't care if it is positive or negative, as long as there is a reaction. A single issue which generated this kind of controversy and sales made everyone take notice. In the weeks that followed it was Laguerre who came up with the idea to put another girl in a bathing suit on the cover next year and bill it as the "second annual swimsuit issue."

Thus was born one of the most influential publications in American history. By all rights it should have been another one of those early SI issues that seem so weird to us who remember the magazine's heyday in the 70s-90s. But it lives on because of a firestorm of negative reaction from well-meaning folks.

I'm not saying those folks were wrong about the particular issue. I'm sure it was a shock to many subscribers looking for stories about basketball, hockey or perhaps the upcoming Winter Olympics. But if enough of them had simply and quietly pitched the magazine into the trash can and went on with their lives, the Swimsuit Issue wouldn't be around today. 

More than 50 years later, many Christians still haven't learned this lesson while the world has. The world eagerly lays out plans, knowing many Christians will quickly share anything that irritates them on social media without ever considering if they are being manipulated by either powerful media moguls looking for free publicity or by struggling Web publishers looking for cheap clicks. Either way, the manipulation is real and, unfortunately, easy to pull off. If Christians would just once not take the manipulation bait, the people pulling the strings might think twice about it. Personally I think it'd be nice to see Christians be the manipulators for once instead of the manipulatees. 

Note: The information for this article came mostly from an interview I saw a few years ago on TV with Frank DeFord, longtime writer and editor at Sports Illustrated. Unfortunately I could not find a link with the interview, but the basics of what I remember from the interview are confirmed in this article.

TOMS Movies: A Hard Day's Night

I noticed going back through my blog archives that I missed a couple of movies I wrote about that I would like to revisit. So even though it is a few days off from exactly eight years ago, here is one of them:

For an introduction to this series, click here.

Nov. 2, 2006

Photo Credit

Here's another black and white movie, one that I hadn't seen before now. This movie is hilarious. If you are not aware, this movie is a "day in the life" style movie about the Beatles, one of my favorite bands. The Beatles never took themselves too seriously, especially early on. The movie is kind of a deconstruction of celebrity life, but with much snappier dialogue than a genuine documentary.

It's funny in the ironic British sort of way.There are all sorts of quips and one-liners. On the train in England there is a cranky old man who is constantly complaining about the boys' antics. "I fought in the war for the likes of you!" says the exasperated man. "I bet you're sorry you won," comes the quick reply. The press conference scene in America is nuts. "What do you call that hairstyle?" "Arthur." "How did you come to America?" "We turned left at Greenland." Also, at the end, when they are performing on an Ed Sullivan-style show with a theater full of screaming girls, they walk on stage through a big door that says "Quiet- Television Sound Stage." 

Then there is this character who is portraying Paul's grandfather. He loses tons of money gambling, gets engaged to two filthy rich widows, he gets arrested for starting a riot with fake autographed pictures of the band, and he has this weird knack for getting lost in the theater and finding himself raised onto the stage in the middle of the show. He even interrupts the Beatles' finale.

The Beatles never let themselves be boxed in, which is the reason they were successful in the long term, and why their music is still relevant today. At the time this movie came out, their biggest hit was "I Wanna Hold your Hand." This song is not performed in the movie. However, one song in the movie says, "I don't want to hold your hand," and another says "Love is more than holding hands."

I'm a bigger fan of the Beatles' later music, when they weren't as saccharine, but the music in this movie holds its own. And it's a rollicking good time.

TOMS Movies: King Kong (1933)

For an introduction to this series, click here.

Oct. 30, 2006

Photo Credit

This is the best ever Halloween movie, in my humble opinion, but I'm going to be working tomorrow night, so I decided to watch it and comment on it tonight. I hate horror movies, so I don't like all that gross stuff. This is exactly my speed.

This is has to be among my top 5 favorite movies of all time. I am so glad they finally put this out on DVD last year. It is one of the most iconic films of all time. Even if you've never seen the movie, you know the scene where the natives tie Ann up on that frame and then Kong comes and gets her, you know the scene where Kong climbs the Empire State Building with Ann and then is shot down by double-decker airplanes.

The special effects in this movie are stunning. There was never a man in a suit: it was all animation with a model. The special features on the second disc go into a lot of detail about how the movie was made. The movie was shot one frame at a time, similar to claymation. That's why Kong seems to jerk at times, and his hair moves in strange ways. The puppet was covered in rabbit fur, and there was no way the crew could manipulate the puppet without messing up the fur. It also uses amazing visual effects, such as miniatures and projection. That is how they could have an 18-inch tall model reaching down the side of a cliff to get a full-grown man and have it look realistic. What's really sad to think about is that this movie was made in 1933 and 40 years later special effects in even the biggest Hollywood movies were not as good as this.

I could go on and on about the effects in this movie, but if you didn't already know that stuff you could read about it on Wikipedia. The reason this movie is great is because it is about people: people who are motivated by greed, people who don't respect nature for what it is, and about people who are just trying to get out of a bad situation. Also, Kong himself is imbued with a pathos that makes you feel sorry for him before he dies.

If you have not seen this movie, you need to go see it very soon. One word of warning: this movie is not for little kids, especially the unedited version found in this DVD. Almost 20 years after its release, the powers that were (isn't that the past tense of the powers that be?) cut some controversial scenes from the movie, including several shots in which Kong eats people and a scene where Kong partially disrobes Ann. There is no nudity - the disrobing is more implied than explicitly shown. But the shots of Kong eating people would be quite disturbing for little kids. These scenes were not shown in theaters or on TV for about 30 years. That goes against what we think is the natural progression of things: that society's tastes get more and more crude. Guess that goes to show you these things come in cycles. I, for one, would be in favor of a more restrained cycle. Maybe it will happen someday.

TOMS Movies: Saints and Soldiers

I noticed going back through my blog archives that I missed a couple of movies I wrote about that I would like to revisit. So even though it is a few days off from exactly eight years ago, here is one of them:

For an introduction to this series, click here.

Oct. 24, 2006

Photo Credit

I love WWII movies, and tonight I saw an interesting one that tells a tale that I have never seen before, anyway. A group of four American soldiers from different units and an English pilot who bailed from his plane are trapped behind German lines during the Battle of the Bulge. The pilot has some important intelligence that could help the Allies turn back the German advance. They have to get back to a friendly base.

The two most intriguing characters are a cynical medic and a "goody two shoes" everyone calls "Deacon." The medic is convinced that God is not real, because of some of the terrible things that he has seen. "Deacon" is a missionary kid who lived in Germany before the war and speaks German fluently. I read on a web site that he was an LDS missionary, but that wasn't obvious to me seeing the movie. Anyway, when the group captures a German soldier who was a boyhood friend of Deacon, Deacon's comrades assume he is a German sympathizer, especially when the German sneaks away while everyone is asleep, including the medic, who was supposed to be on watch. But that German soldier comes back at a critical time at the end of the movie, and saves the lives of the medic and the pilot because they were good to him.

This was a very inspirational movie. It was not made by one of the mainstream studios, and it almost seems like a Christian movie, but the violence is too strong for a Christian movie, at least it is inconsistent with the other Christian movies I have seen. The violence is not extreme, but it does justly earn a PG-13 rating. This one is definitely worth your time, especially since it does not take much of it. It tells a good story in just over an hour and a half. I will try to see "Flags of our Fathers" very soon. Looking forward to it.

TOMS Movies: Facing the Giants

For an introduction to this series, click here.

Oct. 10, 2006

Photo Credit

I promised Priscilla (a friend from college who commented on the old MySpace blog) I was going to go see Flyboys next, but they dropped it from the closest theater. That is a good sign. Usually the better the movie, the sooner it gets dropped out of theaters. But the stupid ones stay forever. (I still haven't seen Flyboys, and it's been eight years. Oh well. Sorry Priscilla.)

So I went to see Facing the Giants instead. Facing the Giants is a story about a Christian school football team. Most sports movies are very predictable, and so are most Christian movies. This movie certainly doesn't stray too far from those expectations, but it's not bad. Most of the story focuses on the coach, a young husband struggling to make it. It brought back a lot of horrible memories from when I was teaching in Christian schools. He has to deal with a lot of politics between administrators, parents, students and fellow coaches, and he's likely to be fired. But with the help of a strange man who walks the halls praying by each locker for the student it represents, he begins to turn the team's fortunes and the lives of his players around. The school sees a spiritual revival followed very closely by a revival of the football team's success.

There are a lot of positive messages in this movie, about trusting in God and praising Him even when things are going bad. One of the memorable lines from the movie is when the man I mentioned above tells the coach about a farmer who prayed for rain, and then went out and plowed his fields preparing for rain. Later in the movie, when the team is in the state championship game, the coach makes a strange strategy decision, and the assistant asks, "What are you doing?" And the coach replies, "I'm preparing for rain."

There are a couple of really bad deus ex machina plot twists (I guess this sort of defines the term, since it is a Christian movie) but they don't detract too much from the overall message. Yes, this is clearly a movie with a message. It's certainly not as specific as I would like to see, but it's about as specific as you can get from a mainstream Christian movie. Even though it was distributed by Samuel Goldwyn Pictures, which I assume is a division of MGM, you could tell it wasn't quite as high production value as most Hollywood movies. The sound was stereo instead of surround. Maybe it was just the theater I was in, and maybe it wouldn't matter to most people, but I noticed it, and I doubt I am the only one who would have noticed such things.

TOMS Movies: All the King's Men

For an introduction to this series, click here.

Oct. 5, 2006

I thought I was cynical. This is the most cynical movie about politics I have ever seen.

Photo Credit

For those of you who don't know, "All the King's Men" is the original movie of which the remake is in theaters now. (I know that's confusing. Hollywood hasn't come out with a truly creative movie in a long time. Everything is either remakes or sequels or adaptations, at least that's the way it seems to me.) This movie is very loosely based on the real-life Huey Long, who was governor of Louisiana, later a U.S. Senator, and who nearly challenged FDR in 1936 before he was assassinated (How important do you have to be before your murder becomes an assassination?).

In this movie, a country rabble rouser named Willie Stark makes a name for himself as an incorruptible voice of the people. He becomes popular enough to easily win the campaign for governor of the unspecified state. Unfortunately, he becomes worse than the corrupt politicians he was trying to fight. As he gains power, he hires some of the people who fought against him to do his dirty work. He hides his dirty work with more dirty work: digging up dirt on the people that oppose him. Eventually he is impeached by the legislature, but then he pulls his dirtiest trick of all, busing in thousands of rural supporters to ring the state capital and chant slogans all day and all night until the senate pardons him. Of course, just as he wins, the one man left with any dignity kills him, but I saw that coming about halfway through the movie (Good reviewers aren't supposed to give away the ending, but I'm not Roger Ebert).

According to imdb.com, the role of Stark was offered to John Wayne, who turned it down, saying, among other things, that the movie "threw acid on the American way of life." I don't think he was too far off. I'm not saying it's a bad movie - it's well-acted and directed. It's just that when most all the characters are terrible people it's hard for me to identify with it.

TOMS Movies: United 93

For an introduction to this series, click here.

Sept. 26, 2006

Photo Credit

I just finished United 93.  It is the most visceral movie I have ever seen. It looks like a documentary, but obviously it is not. I'm not sure how to react to it, except that it is excellent. All of us remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when 9-11 happened, but none of us could have known the horror of being doomed to bring down an important building, to be literally aboard a weapon of war. The movie does not blame anyone, other than the terrorists who did it, and that is as it should be- they are the only ones ultimately responsible: not President Bush, not President Clinton, no one else is responsible for what happened. The world changed, as we all know, and no one who was alive at 7 in the morning on that day would have suspected anything on the scale of what happened.

I should probably wait a few minutes to get my wits about me, but I feel like doing this now. I don't know if I ever want to see this movie again. It is great, it packs a powerful punch, but it's almost too realistic and disturbing.

One more thing. There is one thing I found to be inauthentic about the movie. When we see the pilot and co-pilot making small talk as they board the plane, we learn that one is from New York and one is from Denver. On September 10, 2001, the Denver Broncos played the New York Giants on Monday Night Football. I don't know why I remember that. I don't remember who won, but I remember that they played. I noticed it immediately when I saw it. Somehow, I really doubt that two middle-aged men, one from each of the two cities that played each other on Monday night, would not have brought that up. Not that it would have made it a better movie, but you just wonder how the research department missed something that obvious.

TOMS Movies: The "Original" Star Wars

For an introduction to this series, click here.

Sept. 21, 2006

Yeah, I'm also into movies, and though I don't get to the theater as often as I would like, I do get a couple of movies a week (when the mail is going good) from Netflix.  I'll try to post a review or comment about once a week, more or less.

George Lucas recently released the original cuts of the old Star Wars trilogy on DVD. I got the first one in the mail today. I'm just about done with this movie, and I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. I have the "updated vision" DVDs that came out a couple of years ago, and  they're basically the same movie to me. Yeah, Han gets off the only shot in the old version, but other than that, who cares? I'm pretty sure I'm not going to waste my next two slots in my Netflix list for the other two.

I do dearly love this movie, primarily because it was the first movie I ever saw that I really liked. When I was a kid, we weren't allowed to watch a whole lot, and what we were allowed to see in the way of movies was boring to me. It's not my favorite movie these days, and it certainly isn't going to wow anybody with a serious message, but it's still a joyride.

Four Eras of World War II Movies, Part 4: The Modern Era

World War II has been the backdrop and setting for movies since it began in 1939. Since there are very few of us alive any more who actually remember or experienced the war, most of the world’s conception of the war comes from film, either documentary or dramatization. When I was younger one of my goals in life was to see every World War II movie ever made. Of course now I realize, especially when looking at this massive list, I’m not ever going to realize that goal.

But I have seen my fair share of WWII movies, maybe more than my fair share. And I have noticed that they generally fit into four eras. Four views of the war that reflect the time, attitudes toward the war, and the sensibilities of the movie industry. There are a few that don’t fit into these categories of course, but for the most part these categories work. 

The last category is what I would call the modern era of WWII movies. These movies are somewhat like those of an earlier time in that they focus on interesting stories in smaller units of men rather than sweeping vistas of campaigns, but they also unflinchingly portray the harsh realities of war. These facts do not automatically make them better movies – you will not find many movies of any genre better than Patton or Stalag 17 – but they do reflect changing sensibilities and approaches to movie making.

Why did it take so long for filmmakers and studios to make realistic war movies? I can think of a few factors, the first one being that the World War II generation was getting older and was going to fewer movies. As a rule, WWII veterans tended to deal with their experiences by internalizing them, never speaking of the horrors they saw to anyone. They were not interested in seeing gore and violence portrayed on the screen, since those experiences were almost a hallowed thing that only veterans could understand.

Another factor is the simple fact of the so-called Hays Code. This was a “voluntary” code the Motion Picture Association of America adopted rather than face government censorship of their movies. Movies did not receive a rating, but they all had to pass the MPAA code in order to gain wide distribution. In 1968, the MPAA rescinded the Code and developed the ratings system we know today. Despite that, most WWII films in the 70s remained in the PG category (or even G - the rating system in the 70s was much different from the one we know today, even though they use the same letters), mainly because that was the way WWII movies had always been done.

It was not until movies about Vietnam like The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now came out that film makers felt comfortable treading into more controversial territory with WWII movies. To me that is the most important factor. I know I am generalizing, but Vietnam-era veterans were nearly as likely to internalize their experiences. They were less hesitant to discuss them, and they appreciated an honest portrayal on screen. It took movies about a much more recent war to get Hollywood comfortable with taking a fresh look at WWII. This era began with films like The Big Red One and Das Boot, films that featured young men trying to do their duty and survive the horrors inflicted on them by old men in boardrooms.

The best movie of this era is Saving Private Ryan. It’s certainly unflinching in its violence and grit. Yes, it is set against the backdrop of the D-Day invasion, and if you don’t understand the details of the invasion it detracts from your understanding of the movie. But on a deeper level it connects with everyone because hopefully we all are lucky enough to know or have known someone like James Ryan, a man who answered the call to duty, suffered terrible, unspeakable hardship and then came home and lived a productive life despite the horrors of war. Yes, James Francis Ryan, you are a good man.

This era is also the era of the great Holocaust movies. Yes, there was Diary of Anne Frank and Judgment at Nuremberg in previous eras, but neither of those packs the emotional punch of Schindler's List, The Pianist or The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. This has a lot to do with the relaxed standards in Hollywood with regard to onscreen violence - both of the former movies were made in the Hays Code era.

A couple of other movies I want to mention here that fit the modern sensibility. Both of them are foreign-language movies. The first is Downfall, a German picture about the last days of Adolf Hitler. This movie is famous for the scene where Hitler screams endlessly about how the war is going. It has been spoofed a million times on YouTube as people change the subtitles to portray Hitler ranting about anything and everything. But there is much more to the movie than that one scene. It shows a delusional, demolished Hitler manically swinging between bouts of depression and confidence that he will ultimately win. No history-book, postwar, and certainly no war-era movie was going to portray Hitler in any kind of sympathetic light, but 60 years is enough time for us to look at his tragic life again.

The other movie I wanted to mention is Letters from Iwo Jima. This is a Japanese-language film directed by Clint Eastwood. It is a companion piece to his American movie Flags of our Fathers. There are a few scenes that are similar in both movies. The American movie is kind of a disjointed mess, very difficult to follow. The Japanese movie is simply better. The story is easier to follow than the American movie, even though most of it is presented in Japanese with English subtitles. It portrays the Japanese general in charge of defending the island and the individual soldiers as honorable men doing their duty for their homeland. I know about Pearl Harbor and about their brutal treatment of Chinese and Koreans, but let’s not forget the Germans actually voted for Hitler. The Japanese didn’t have a choice in their leadership. Not that any participant in the war is excused from the individual atrocities they may have committed, but let’s keep things in perspective.

Four Eras of World War II Movies, Part Three: The "History Book" Era

World War II has been the backdrop and setting for movies since it began in 1939. Since there are very few of us alive any more who actually remember or experienced the war, most of the world’s conception of the war comes from film, either documentary or dramatization. When I was younger one of my goals in life was to see every World War II movie ever made. Of course now I realize, especially when looking at this massive list, I’m not ever going to realize that goal.

But I have seen my fair share of WWII movies, maybe more than my fair share. And I have noticed that they generally fit into four eras. Four views of the war that reflect the time, attitudes toward the war, and the sensibilities of the movie industry. There are a few that don’t fit into these categories of course, but for the most part these categories work. 

The third category of World War II films is what I call the “History Book” era. This era begins as early as 1960 and extends to about 1980. This era was concerned with historical accuracy above all. They are so accurate and so good at getting the big picture of the war that one could string enough of these together and be pretty well informed on the history of the war. These films focus on specific battles, like Tora, Tora, Tora, A Bridge Too Far, and The Battle of the Bulge, or they are biopics of notable characters. They focus on the top of the chain of command rather than the bottom. In these films the war is not fought so much in the field as it is fought in map rooms, with the main plot being carried forward in high-level meetings rather than action. Significantly, for the first time we see some sympathy for the other side. For example, in Tora, Tora, Tora, we almost feel sorry for Admiral Yamomoto as he grieves over what the attack on Pearl Harbor will do for the American resolve.

This poster from A Bridge Too
Far doesn't tell you anything
about the movie besides a
list of the stars. And a
paratrooper.

This era is also characterized by the “cavalcade of stars” approach to big productions. It is not uncommon to see film posters of this era with nothing but a listing of some of the big-time actors who make an appearance in the movie. This approach was true not only in war movies but in all genres of films in this era: think about The Magnificent Seven or The Towering Inferno. The two notable films that kick off this era are Judgment at Nuremberg and The Longest Day. Both feature a long list of notable actors, and they both feature real, historical events.

These films are also of note because they frequently feature real war footage in action sequences rather than staging it. This is especially true for films involving planes and ships. I guess it was easier to film guys in uniforms on the ground than it is to set up an elaborate air or naval battle. A couple of films will even mention in the opening credits that they will feature actual footage in the name of “historical accuracy.” Of course the main reason they spliced in war footage was because it was cheaper than actually building a set and filming the necessary elements. Computer-generated effects were still decades away; you had to really film something in front of a physical camera. In the worst films of this era, it’s obvious the writer went through the supply of free footage, found the most interesting scenes, and wrote the film to fit those scenes. Midway is a good example of this kind of shoddy plot development. 

Another reason for using war footage was because the studios’ supply of war surplus props was running low by this time. It’s funny to see, for example, a general jump into a Jeep in a big hurry and the 25-year-old Jeep chokes and sputters as it tries to start, then smokes like a freight train as it scurries away.

The best movie of the history book era is Patton. It is a textbook case for the history book era. The action out in the field is secondary to the actual plot. The plot is carried forward by Patton’s feuds with Allied generals Montgomery, Bradley and Eisenhower, countered by the attempts of German generals Rommel and Jodl to actually defeat Patton in the field. Yes, we sometimes see actual fighting in the movie, but more important to the plot is military and international politics.

A couple of notable films that don’t fit the mold of this era are The Dirty Dozen and Kelly’s Heroes. The latter film is an out-and-out comedy, which is kind of weird to think about, but it kind of works, especially if you ignore the 70s pop music and the anachronistic hippie tank driver played by Donald Sutherland. The Dirty Dozen’s sensibilities are from the previous, postwar era but the galaxy of stars lets you know this is definitely a late-60s movie.

Four Eras of World War II Movies, Part 2: The Postwar Years

World War II has been the backdrop and setting for movies since it began in 1939. Since there are very few of us alive any more who actually remember or experienced the war, most of the world’s conception of the war comes from film, either documentary or dramatization. When I was younger one of my goals in life was to see every World War II movie ever made. Of course now I realize, especially when looking at this massive list, I’m not ever going to realize that goal.

But I have seen my fair share of WWII movies, maybe more than my fair share. And I have noticed that they generally fit into four eras. Four views of the war that reflect the time, attitudes toward the war, and the sensibilities of the movie industry. There are a few that don’t fit into these categories of course, but for the most part these categories work.

The second category is the postwar period. This period runs from 1945 to approximately 1965. This category and the next one kind of overlap, but I will mention them separately because they are distinct visions of the war.

The postwar period knows the good guys won. It also knows that it’s in the past. So there’s no need to involve other countries and keep the folks at home involved in buying bonds or supporting our allies overseas. These films focus almost exclusively on Americans, with a few English added for color. They carry over the sensibilities of the war period in that they focus on small groups of soldiers in a specific place. (This is in stark contrast to the next era of war films.) The films also have the advantage of having access to warehouses full of war surplus tanks, Jeeps, planes, uniforms, weapons, etc. Soon after the war the studios invested a lot of money in procuring lots of this stuff, knowing it would make for great movies for years into the future.

These films are also aware that a big portion of their audience actually went to war and were not interested in reliving the actual horrors of the war. This is the era where the soldiers seem to spend more time dancing with pretty girls and brawling with the navy boys than actually fighting the enemy. Sure there is death in the movies, but you will not find much gratuitous violence.

This is the era of the great POW movies. I guess the studios felt comfortable enough dealing with the harsh realities of prison camps than about the realities of the actual fighting. Bridge on the River Kwai, The Great Escape and, my personal favorite of the genre, Stalag 17, were all made in this time period and reflect the sensibility of the time. The Great Escape also sort of fits into the era I will discuss in the next article, but it also fits here.

One classic film that deserves mentioning here is The Best Years of Our Lives. It features the struggle of three veterans returning home from the war. For its era the plot is fairly realistic and it shows the experiences of the characters during the war and how those experiences affect them in their new civilian life. No doubt many veterans identified with this movie. It was the biggest box office hit of the year and won seven Oscars. The film is most famous for the performance of Harold Russell, who really was a soldier in the war and who really did lose both of his hands. Russell's character feels like less of a man and he has trouble connecting with his old girlfriend from before the war. A poignant scene shows Russell taking his shirt off and showing his girlfriend and us in the audience how he was fitted with prostheses. He remains the only person to receive two Oscars for the same performance, one for best supporting actor and another special, one-time award for “bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.”

My favorite film of this era is one that does not fit the mold of milquetoast action and plot. Attack features Eddie Albert as a cowardly American captain who only got his rank because he is the son of an influential judge back home. He attained his rank because a corrupt colonel played by Lee Marvin wants to get in good with the judge after the war. The men under them all hate both Albert’s and Marvin’s characters, but they have to obey orders, even when Albert’s incompetence leads to some of them being killed unnecessarily. The disgruntled soldiers are led by Jack Palance, who plays a master sergeant who has seen a lot of action and is a better leader than either the conniving colonel or the wimpy captain. "Attack" is by far the most cynical World War II movie made before 1980 I have ever seen, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It’s not well known or widely available, but if you get the chance to see it, take advantage of it. It’s well worth your time.

Four eras of World War II Movies, Part 1: The War Years

World War II has been the backdrop and setting for movies since it began in 1939. Since there are very few of us alive any more who actually remember or experienced the war, most of the world’s conception of the war comes from film, either documentary or dramatization. When I was younger one of my goals in life was to see every World War II movie ever made. Of course now I realize, especially when looking at this massive list, I’m not ever going to realize that goal.

But I have seen my fair share of WWII movies, maybe more than my fair share. And I have noticed that they generally fit into four eras. There are some that don’t quite fit, of course, but for the most part these categories work. This series focuses primarily on American films.

The first category is the War era. These were films made during the war, from about 1940 (remember the U.S. did not officially enter the war until December 1941, but it was obvious we supported the Allies from the beginning) until 1945 or so.

It is unfair to blanketly state that all the films from this era were for propaganda purposes, but I’m going to say it anyway. The government did not expressly tell the movie companies what to make, but they did apply pressure to make sure the movies were helpful to morale, both of the troops in the field and the people at home. They were to portray Americans and the rest of the Allied nations positively as they bravely stood against the evil hordes of the enemy. For the first couple of years the war went very badly for the Allies, so the films that showed action tended to portray small army units or a single navy ship defeating their enemy at hand. The overwhelming majority of these movies are so unmemorable that they are almost impossible to find these days.

The more memorable movies from this era are the ones that portrayed civilian life in some form or fashion. Lots of movies were made that depicted someone being falsely (or rightfully) accused of being an enemy spy, but lots of filmmakers successfully used that premise to make a thrilling movie. The unsubtle implication of these movies was that there may be spies all around us, and we must be ever watchful.

The best movie from this era is the one that I consider the best movie ever made, Casablanca. It might not jump to mind immediately as a blatantly propagandist film, but there are some key elements. The most obvious element is the celebration of the French as loyal allies. The reputation of the French took a beating when Germany swiftly defeated them. The propagandists were going out of their way to show that while France might be in enemy hands, the French people were still with our side. In the film, even though the hero, Victor Laszlo, is Czech, he seems to know French well enough to loudly lead the group in singing La Marseillaise, the French national anthem. And in the end, the events of the film were enough to persuade the neutral Captain Renault to join the Free French.

Also notice the multitude of characters from various Allied nations portrayed in the movie. I already mentioned that Laszlo is Czech. Ilsa is from Norway, Karl and the funny old married couple are from Denmark, Sacha the bartender is Russian, Ugarte is Romanian, and then there is the plucky young married couple from Bulgaria. All of these countries were victimized by the Germans during the war.

Another film from the war era that bears mentioning is Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator. This film was actually made in 1940, before the U.S. joined the war. Chaplin, a Jew, portrays a character obviously a send-up of Adolf Hitler. Chaplin had more insight into Hitler’s evil than most of the leaders of Europe did. It plays like a propaganda piece now, because we all agree Hitler was an evil man. But in 1940 there were plenty of Americans who thought of Hitler as a popularly-elected Kaiser Wilhelm, a narcissist with delusions of greatness. Chaplin’s film took great courage and vision in a time when Hollywood lacked both.

Ragamuffin

"Ragamuffin" tells the life story of Rich Mullins, a legendary figure in popular Christian music. Mullins was an unlikely candidate for stardom. He avoided the spotlight, he had some unconventional ways, and he had a number of personal problems. This movie spends a little too much time dwelling on these problems and unconventional ways, though, in my opinion. This movie is a must see if you already know and love Mullins' music, but I doubt if it wins him any new fans.

The movie starts with his life on a farm in Indiana. Mullins had a strained relationship with his father as a young boy. He would rather play the piano or sit in his room and write about his feelings while his father wanted him to carry forward the family farm. The scenes between a young Mullins and his father are the most important scenes in the movie and are referred to over and over throughout the rest of the movie.

As Mullins grows up, he enrolls in a Christian college. His roommate and his family adopts Rich and Mullins views his roommate's father as the father he never had. We in the audience follow Rich as he makes his way through college, scraping by as a musician. He struggles not so much in the attempt to get noticed as in his motivations for performing. Everyone notices his immense talent, but Mullins feels more comfortable ministering to small groups and private individuals than he does with singing to large audiences.

Despite his misgivings, he eventually does make it in the world of Christian music. His first hit was the writing and music credit for "Sing your Praise to the Lord," a big hit for Amy Grant in the early 80s. Soon he finds himself on tour with Grant. The record company executives are trying to groom him for stardom, but he is just as likely to spend the weekend at a youth camp on a Navajo reservation in Arizona as he is to show up for Amy Grant's next big concert.

Even after "Awesome God" makes him a headline act on his own, he still has problems living the life of a Christian pop star. He obsesses over a girl who has moved beyond him, he rubs churches and people in the music business the wrong way and struggles at times with alcohol. In the low point of the movie, after watching his best friend's dad die of a heart attack he shows up drunk to the funeral.

At this point in his life he meets Brennan Manning, author of the moderately successful book "The Ragamuffin Gospel" (with Mullins' endorsement it went on to be a Christian bestseller in the mid-90s). While not excusing his sins, Manning works one-on-one with Mullins, helping him work through his issues with his past and his family, who he hasn't seen for years. One particularly engaging scene is when Manning advises Mullins to write the letter he wish he had received from his father. who by that point had passed away. The movie ends with a portrayal of the fateful car crash which ended his life in 1997.

Before the end credits roll, the movie informs us that Mullins determined to live his life as simply as possible. He instructed his accountant to only pay him the average income of a typical family. The rest was given to various charities, churches and foundations. This would have been an interesting plot point to make Mullins' portrayal more sympathetic. The story tends to wallow too much in the dark periods of his life. The movie was made with the cooperation of Mullins' surviving family, so we have to believe this was the movie they wanted. In fact Mullins' brother is featured in a short interview in the special features and appears in the audio commentary, something I am looking forward to hearing. (Yes, I'm the geek who listens to DVD commentaries.) The story hints at controversy he aroused some churches he ministered in, but it does not dwell on that, and I think that is a positive choice.

The actor who portrays Mullins, Michael Koch, actually sings the songs on the soundtrack, as opposed to recordings of Mullins. Koch does a very good job with the music, and is acceptable in the speaking role. The acting in general is above normal for a low-budget, Christian movie. The performances are just as good or better than in the Kendrick brothers' (Facing the Giants, Fireproof) films. The performances are good, the music is very good, but in the end it doesn't feel very inspiring or uplifting. Not that it has to, I don't guess, but it's definitely not your typical Christian movie in that regard. I enjoyed it because of the music, but if you're not familiar with his music you might not get much positive out of it.

What's With the Name?

Some of you might be wondering what the inspiration is for the name of the blog. The name “Mutineer” is based on a line from one of my favorite movies, Dr. Strangelove. The line is spoken by a clueless Army colonel who is stunned to be told to invade a nearby Air Force base only to find that the officer in charge is English. The line always struck me as hilarious. The best way to summarize the movie is that it is a comedy about the world ending in nuclear annihilation. That sounds pretty preposterous, but it works, amazingly well. It's the kind of comedy where it's not necessarily the funny lines or ridiculous stunts, but it's just crazy people caught up in a wild situation. Their personalities are what makes the movie funny. For a movie that barely clocks over 90 minutes, the character development is amazing. The movie features Peter Sellers in three roles and also features George C. Scott; Slim Pickens; Sterling Hayden, who is as underrated an actor as there has ever been in Hollywood movies; and Keenan Wynn, who plays the colonel who utters the “mutiny” line. Interestingly enough the movie also features the screen debut of James Earl Jones. He doesn’t have many lines, but that voice is impossible to miss.

The movie is not for little kids, but most kids I know wouldn’t be interested in a black-and-white, dialogue-driven movie anyway. The clip below includes the “mutiny” line and more.