A Glaring Error


I finally got around to seeng this movie over the weekend. To me, not one of the better war movies of its time,kind of slow and ponderous. One thing that stood out for me(and I am surprised no one else has noted) was durng boot camp, there were both black and white Marines there. At the time the movie was made the military had been integrated, but during WW2, all branches of the service were segregated. Also, I found it interesting to compare the boot camp scenes with Full Metal Jacket. Kind of a big difference there.

reply

That was no error. Fifties movies always purposely white-washed history.

reply

Not so much a white-wash as an accomodation. The film makers needed the cooperation of the Corps to make the film. Actual footage of Marine Boot Camp being conducted in the 1950's was used, and of course, by the 50's the US military was integrated. The film makers couldn't ask for minority group Boots (trainees) to hide while training was in progress, so we see a few black recruits. No big deal, since standards of realism were quite a bit looser back in the day.

reply

No big deal, since standards of realism were quite a bit looser back in the day.
You're correct as to the reason for seeing the black Marines and I for one think it was an acceptable trade off. Yes, the integrated units didn't exist but you have a more accurate representation of the Marines as a whole because they were real Marines using real Marine uniforms and equipment. Today we pretend to have higher standards of realism but with few exceptions it is actually less. With a few notable exceptions, the actors and re-enactors that portray service members today don't come across as authentic.

reply

In the opening at the Marine Corp in San Diego, the Tells LQ Jones to straighten his HAT. He did not say COVER.
Steve

reply

Today we pretend to have higher standards of realism but with few exceptions it is actually less.
Or about the same.

I agree that it's jarring now to see WWII movies or westerns made, for example, in the '60s with women and men who have, for example, '60s hairstyles. And that doesn't keep some of them from being very fine movies.

And people 20 or 40 years from now will be able to look at our "period piece" movies and know exactly when they were made because of styles and attitudes that slip in without our paying it too much notice.




last 2 dvds: La mujer del puerto (1934) & Battleground (1949)

reply

My Pop was a big old Polack, and he was part of the "all-black" Red Ball Express.

There were insane people like that Democrat Wilson who instituted segregationist policies in WWI and that Democrat Roosevelt who built on those horrible policies, but clear-thinking people (the Army included) learned to get around them.

reply

Lets not forget that crazy democrat, President Harry S. Truman's Executive Order 9981 in 1948 ordered the integration of the armed forces shortly after World War II, a major advance in civil rights!

reply

Segregation in the U.S. military started long before WW I. I am no great fan of the 'progressive' President Wilson, but racial segregation had begun shortly after the revolutionary war in the army. I think the navy remained integrated until after the Civil War. It was after the end of the sailing navy, I think that the navy restricted duties for "colored" sailors to mess and clean up.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

reply

I loved this when I was a kid. I too noticed the error of a Marine's "cover" being called a hat, as well as when Huxley goes to talk to the general(Raymond Massey) about having his unit in the assault wave, he doesn't bother to salute the general when leaving. Probably was thinking of Massey in Arsenic & Old Lace

"Stalker?"
"Yup, bigtime"

reply

Unlike the Army, in the Marine Corps you do not salute without your cover on, and you never wear a cover when inside a building, as these two officers were. That is Marine Corps 101, basic training. The fact that he did not salute the General is one reason why this movie is so accurate.

reply

Except for the Navy

reply

A lot of 'mistakes' are made in a lot of movies that have a historic element or are based on true stories. I appreciate it when people take the time to point out those discrepancies because, unfortunately, too many moviegoers accept what they see as fact. They assume if it's on the screen, and the story is fact-based, the entire movie must be an accurate depiction of what actually happened.

However, I don't think we need to get hung up on all the specific details; what matters is the 'bigger picture', the message, or the point of the movie. What the movie maker is trying to say isn't necessarily dependent on the facts so they often take liberties in order to get their point across and make the movie entertaining for the audience.

In my opinion, our job as viewers is to take what we've learned in the movie and build on it. Hopefully, watching the movie sparks an interest in and/or discussions about the subject or the cause presented.

I am very forgiving when it comes to the original movie but I have a big problem with post production deletions or additions aimed at altering the past. This is why I love watching older movies on TCM. They don't bleep out words some may find offensive today but were used in the past. They don't cover up nudity and they don't edit movies in any way. We see the movie as it was made or in the version that currently exists or survived. When there was a need to restore a movie from an incomplete or damaged copy, we're given that information up front; before they run the movie.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply