MovieChat Forums > Away All Boats (1956) Discussion > Hawks and MacDougall

Hawks and MacDougall

posted 20 years ago by Cairo-5
3 replies | jump to latest

Toward the end of the movie there is a scene where Capt. Hawks is speaking with Lt. MacDougall. And Hawks tells MacDougall that on two occasions he was up for promotion to captain and command of his own ship. And each time he, Hawks, killed MacDougall’s promotion because he needed his services as a junior officer on the Belinda.

I’m curious as to how a career naval officer would regard that statement and portrayal of a WWII commanding officer. My understanding is that it’s one of the most despicable things a superior can do—-holding a man back from a deserved promotion simply because he wants to keep him on as a good subordinate. And yet in the movie Hawks makes no apology for his actions. Nor does he seem to think he’s done anything wrong.

I just wonder how a true military professional would view this matter.

[–] SipteaHighTea 17 years ago

What bothers me is that the Captain Hawks told his executive officer that he could have gotten a command of a cruiser after he turn the transport ship into a top notch ship, and yet, he did not do so. Captain Hawks lost his warship at Guadalcanal, so the navy gave him a transport ship instead give him another warship. Captain Hawks did not like that at all, and so he set out to use the transport ship to achieve his means of getting back to a combat ship, and he told the officers just that. Maybe Captain Hawks did something at Guadalcanal that irritate his superiors, and so they were punishing him by giving him a transport ship.

[–] TorontoJediMaster 16 years ago

I agree that Hawks' actions were utterly despicable in holding MacDougall from getting a command of his own. If he hadn't been killed at Okinawa, I suspect that MacDougall would have written a letter of complaint to the Inspector General's Office. Perhaps Hawks thought that MacDougall wasn't a career Navy officer, and he'd already achieved command in the Merchant Navy (and would resume command of a merchant vessel when the war ended), so he wouldn't be intefering with his career like if MacDougall had been a Regular Navy member.

As for Hawks going to a transport from a destroyer, I have a theory. Hawks held the rank of Captain (i.e. he was a four-striper), and had come over from command of a destroyer. Command of a destroyer is generally a position that a Lieutenant-Commander or a full Commander would hold.

My guess is that Hawks had been a Commander during his tenure as a destroyer captain. He was promoted to Captain afterwards, but given command of a transport. So, while his ship wasn't his first choice, he had been promoted in rank. His desire was to be transferred over to command of a cruiser (another four-stripe billet), figuring that cruiser command (with more chance for a big sea battle) would augment his chances for elevation to flag-rank.

[–] Cairo-5 16 years ago

One reason why I find this matter so intriguing is because the movie was made in the mid-1950’s. And I generally have higher expectations of “military” movies made in that time period than I would of the more modern day, uh, “stuff.” Many of the writers, directors and others in the industry back then had served in the military and were far more knowledgeable of the military’s history and traditions than anyone in Hollywood today. And thus far more likely to “get it right.”

I think the idea was to portray Hawks as the tough, hard nosed professional who takes a shipload of inexperienced civilians in sailor suits and turns them into an effective naval unit. All to the benefit of the navy, the country and the war effort.

So why then, I wonder, would they have Hawks doing something that these writers and directors of the 1950’s must have known was so wrong, and presumably so uncharacteristic of the way effective military leaders were usually portrayed in movies of that time period.