To Hell and Back
1955
Jesse Hibbs (dir)
Problems with war films. Can they ever be “anti” war or does the specularization of war always make it pro in some senses
WWII 1931 (Japan invades Manchuria, 1039 (annexation of Poland)1941 – 1945 (last really popular war)
Korea June 25 1950 –July 27 1953 Viet Nam 1954 Battle of Dien Bien Phu; Various involvements and in 1964-1965 there are “motivating” military engagements. War “ends” in 1975
Kinds of writings about a person
What are the problems of an autobiography?
The subject knows a great deal more than any one else, but are they likely to be honest? What are the problems of honesty in a biography or autobiography?
Do you try to make yourself look good by telling only good things?
Do you try to engender sympathy by telling things that are bad but make the audience feel sorry for you?
Can we really know what the author is trying to do?
Vignette: a short scene or incident from a movie.
Is this biography a series of vignettes? What is the problem in trying to make a biography out of a hero?
Attempts to define the term “hero” are varied. It is a difficult word to define and has become so overused as to render it meaningless. Some people have argued that one needs to die to become a hero, while terms like “heroic intervention” imply more of a tremendous expenditure of effort. Like bravery, which often lies close to stupidity, heroic acts may be seen as heroic only if successful.
Many ”heroes” deny their status as heroes. In part some barely remember the act and some feel it was just what you do under specific circumstances. Many feel peculiarly selected for the role and hold that others did just as much if not more than they.
In some ways, heroism is an act of the moment rather than a personality trait. This has an impact on films attempting to deal with “heroes” since the moments of heroism are potentially very brief.
Some people have seen heroic acts as being able to transform a situation symbolically. When Lincoln gives the Gettysburg Address to "consecrate" a Civil War Battlefield he says that he and those present can not do it because those who died there have already done it. That is to say the very acts of bravery and heroism are what transform the ground from profane (or secular) to sacred (consecrated). This idea of transformation is a powerful one in many areas and originally stems from work on Rites of Passage or Transition - rites which symbolically change a persons states, It is the study of these rites which leads to the concept of liminality so important in some theoretical positions. Liminal (derived from the Greek word for threshold) deals with the status a person has in ritual when they have stopped being one thing (e.g. a child) and are not yet what they will become (e.g. an adult).
Initiations into adulthood are not the only rites of passage. Similar ceremonies occur on becoming members of organizations (such as the military) and at times of promotion and so on. One can see that acts of heroism can in fact be scene as moments which transform something hence films that deal with heroic acts deal with acts of transformation. What effects do Murphy's acts of heroism have on him in terms of transforming him? Is this transformation of interest to this film maker? Audie Murphy, the subject of the film (b. June 20 1924; dies May 28 1971) is the most decorated soldier of WWII. The film is based on his autobiography To Hell and Back, and stars Audie Murphy as himself. So we have Murphy as the subject, author and star of his own life story. You can’t get much more autobiographical than that,
Murphy was from Texas and from a poor family. He joined the military while under age. He became a national hero winning 33 awards including the Congressional Medal of Honor (the highest award given) and receiving awards from the French and Belgian governments. He reportedly killed more than 240 German soldiers and wounded or captured many more.
He suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome and was said to have a hair trigger temper and slept with a pistol nearby and was often carrying a pistol as well. The cast and crew of some of his films were reportedly frightened of him.
Cagney took an interest in his career and brought him to Hollywood for acting lessons, but concluded he didn’t have what it took at the time. Despite this Murphy appeared in more than 40 films and produced a few as well. He also was a song writer and successful business man who owned several ranches.
AFTER THE FILM
The film is about one war, WWII, and is made shortly after the Korean War (often known as America’s forgotten war) and during the Cold War previous to American involvement in the Vietnam War. WWII was a “popular” war and had popular support throughout. Since then wars have become progressively unpopular (at least for any length of time).
One can see the film as a kind of rallying cry for patriotism and some of the difficulties faced by soldiers in war and how they themselves accept the dangers and responsibilities.
The film uses a direct address statement by a real General, General Walter Bedell Smith to validate the fact the Murphy is real and that the acts depicted in the film are real as well.
The film spends some time on Murphy’s pre-military life (about 12-17) showing the events that shape his character as one which takes responsibility, is hard working, kind, concerned and generally all around nice guy.
The film shifts from his childhood (and an actor playing Murphy) to a grown Murphy played by Murphy himself. The film dissolves through a blur in which the actor playing the child Murphy is replaced by an older Murphy played by the actual Murphy.
The film depicts a number of events in which Murphy is somewhat disadvantaged (sea sick, reports of his negative response to inoculations, and general hazing by more seasoned troops) to gain some sympathy for him. Although it mentions his taking courses to make up for his having dropped out of school, and later makes a point of his being accepted into West Point, personal aspects about his life are missing. We never do find out what happened to his siblings (who were sent to an orphanage).
The film is basically an action film, and yet the motivation for the action is basically as unclear to the audience as it is to the foot soldier. Rather there are periodic statements by the narrator that try to explain why some action or other needs to be taken by the troops. Other times, characters inform us that “division needs…” or some other non visible higher up authority “require that….” some specific action be taken which motivates the next episode in the film. These act as a kind of “McGuffin” in Hitchcock’s terms. Only people who have a clearer understanding of WWII from other sources would be able to understand the necessity of taking this town or that village.
Technically, the film is a string of vignettes or short scenes which bear little relationship to one another in terms of development of character or trajectory for the actor. The narrator of the film points out that the foot soldier’s war is one of taking or defending small pieces of territory and that the overall “big picture” is generally unknown to them.
The picture is basically, like many of the action war films a male dominated film and aside from Murphy’s mother and sisters who are small roles, other women in the film pass through tangentially and appear to be there only to indicate the male interest in them has been strengthened by months of isolation in the war.
There are attempts to depict various aspects of military life – bravery, camaraderie, dedication and friendships as well as the hardships of battle and the psychological problems of seeing friends being killed and the resultant detachment of personal from new comers who are both potential friends and potential victims and hence more intense personal grief.
Murphy’s pre-enlistment performance seems somewhat emotionless and one can wonder whether or not the experiences of the war which lead to his post traumatic stress syndrome are apparent in the early scenes in the film This is one of the problems of casting a person to play themselves – especially where the character has undergone some serious changes in their lives which are either NOT depicted in the film or the actor is not a strong enough performer to recreate themselves before the changes occurred.
The film is a good indicator of the way a biography can be selective and commit what might be though of as “lies of omission” rather than “lies of commission” in order to make certain points. It also raises some questions about the reason for making the film at the time it was made, and well as about using an actor to play themselves.
Several actors have done so in biographical films (e.g. Jackie Robinson) while others have played themselves in non biographical films (Being John Malkovich. Malkovich himself says he found problems when the director said things like Malkovich would have done it like that” leaving Malkovich to wonder how he would have done it!).