MovieChat Forums > The Cockleshell Heroes (1956) Discussion > Dull film made worse by Jose Ferrer

Dull film made worse by Jose Ferrer

posted 12 years ago by hobnob53
4 replies | jump to latest

Of all the British war films made in the 50s, The Cockleshell Heroes is one of the least interesting, despite being based on actual events.

Part of this is due to the fact that the real mission was not something easily translated to cinema. A group of saboteurs paddling small canoes into a harbor to plant mines on enemy ships may be tense -- and, in real life, exceedingly dangerous, and a courageous act on the part of these brave men -- but as a movie, it's simply not all that exciting. The fact that the mission had only limited success (confirmed by the fact that no similar assault was ever launched again) made it something of a minor sideshow in the annals of World War II, which doesn't help the film either.

All this means that the film has to use up too much of its running time showing the training of the men, along with many scenes of their personal lives which are mostly cliched and uninteresting. It's refreshing that the film isn't a slam-bang shoot-'em-up, but it isn't particularly engaging as entertainment either.

But the worst thing about this movie, and a contributing reason for its comparative dullness and lack of energy, is the double threat posed by star/director Jose Ferrer. Ferrer was normally an excellent actor who won or was nominated for several awards, including three Oscars (winning once). Nevertheless, even excellent actors can be bad in the wrong roles, and the idea of casting the Puerto Rican-born Ferrer, with his dark complexion and non-existent British accent, as an Englishman in the Royal Marines is utterly preposterous. It's one of the stupidest, least convincing casting decisions ever. Ferrer never manages the slightest hint that he's anything other than a wildly unsuitable actor cast in a very inappropriate role.

This mistake was compounded by making Ferrer the director of the film as well. Ferrer had been a successful stage director on Broadway, but despite this experience and his acting on screen, he was a poor film director. He never mastered the intricacies and nuances of camera movement, blocking his scenes, or making the action flow smoothly. His approach is very basic and exceedingly unimaginative: static camera work, a plodding pace, good actors giving artificial performances, no sense of the art or possibilities of cinema. Ferrer directed several films, all but two starring himself, and in every case his direction came in for criticism. In addition, Jose Ferrer was not a modest man, and his incessant desire to keep things focused (literally and figuratively) on his characters often interfered with the natural progression of his films. Yet that said, the two films he directed but did not act in -- his last before finally getting the message that as a director he was pretty lousy -- are the worst of his career (Return to Peyton Place in 1961, and the disastrous 1962 version of State Fair), and again were most severely criticized for his awful direction.

It's probably fortunate that there is comparatively little action in Cockleshell Heroes, as Ferrer was singularly ill-prepared to make full use of the camera in such situations. This movie would likely never have rated as highly as most of the other major British war films of the 50s, but casting an actor actually suited to the part, and handing direction over to an experienced, capable film director, would have done wonders to improve things. As it is, The Cockleshell Heroes slogs along, uninspired and miscast, a sadly subpar telling of a daring and tragic act of bravery in wartime.

[–] denham 12 years ago

Good comments by hobnob53, none of which I'd disagree with. One could add that the film never quite makes up its mind whether to play it straight or for laughs (eg the Benny Hill-like race to get rid of the bomb), which is perhaps unfortunate. The trivia section suggests a late decision to inject extra humor was that of the producer Irving Allen rather than Ferrer. Also the appearance of "Yana" (The Singing Wren) seems a shade incongruous; as I understand it she was a popular entertainer at the time, and presumably it was felt a spot for her would help sell the film, but as shot the scene doesn't really fit.

The Stringer character would have been better portrayed by someone like Stanley Baker. But Jose Ferrer was capable of vastly better acting performances in film. Those who have never seen him as Cyrano de Bergerac have missed something, far more affecting than Depardieu in the role, in my opinion.

"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Thank you, denham, and I fully concur with your observations as well. Though I hadn't commented on the "humor" in the film, I agree that the labored, boys-will-be-boys antics that saturate many of the scenes also greatly mar the movie. Let's not forget Ferrer dozing off while Howard speaks, a perfectly idiotic scene. These things do sound more like Irving Allen or Cubby Broccoli than Ferrer, but even so, a more suitable actor and director would have handled them, and the film, much better.

Ferrer, of course, won his Oscar for Cyrano de Bergerac (an upset win for a rather low-budget effort, and because Ferrer was under a cloud for suspected past membership in the Communist Party), and gave many other fine performances. But like some other actors I think he felt he could play anything, and Cockleshell Heroes proved that attitude wrong.

Stanley Baker would have been a good choice, but this film came out when he was in the early stages of his career, so there was probably no chance of his being cast. Perhaps Jack Hawkins, with someone like Michael Anderson to direct.

[–] bradford-1 10 years ago

Why was an American chosen to direct this movie? Was Ferrer as hot a property overseas as he was in the U.S.?

"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

American actors have always been bigger draws overseas than "native" talents, including in Britain. This was especially true back in the days of big movie stars. On marquee value alone, a major American star would always be more popular than a British star even in the UK.

But the other major reason for casting an American was the American market. Few British actors ever approached being a major box-office draw in the States. Having an American in the cast meant that American audiences had someone they knew and might be attracted to seeing. Even low-budget UK films often used second-rank American stars as their leads (such as Brian Donlevy, Dean Jagger, Forrest Tucker, etc.) because their presence helped increase the film's box-office appeal in both countries.

It was also a tax break for American actors because the tax code in the early 50s stated that people who worked outside the United States for 18 consecutive months and earned all their money abroad did not have to pay taxes on it. In practice this mostly affected actors, who at that time ordinarily paid something like 80% of their income in taxes. This is why so many stars made three or four films in a row outside the US in that era. Unfortunately, the tax code was changed later in the decade, not only eliminating this loophole but forcing anyone who had benefited from it to pay taxes on the income they had earned when the loophole was in force! Gregory Peck, for one, had taken advantage of this law and later said that one day he woke up and found he owed the government one million dollars. Pretty unfair.

I suppose in this case Ferrer also got the director's chair as part of the deal. This may have saved on the budget, and the producers probably thought Ferrer's prestige as an Academy Award-winner would give the film some extra cachet. But why they chose Ferrer in the first place, for either job, is the mystery to me. Many others would have been more suitable.