Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
Search Index Here

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Robert Aldrich Blog-A-Thon ---Part One

Official date for the Robert Aldrich Blog-A-Thon is Monday, October 16, but Mondays are for Glamour Starters here at Greenbriar, so I’m jumping the gun with Part One of my Aldrich contribution today. Part Two will publish on Tuesday. In the meantime, Blog-A-Thon headquarters is at Dennis Cozzalio’s excellent webpage, Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule (HERE). Go there and check out his links to all the other Aldrich contributors. There’s sure to be some great reading there …

A lot of well-intentioned critics feel a certain shame in their enjoyment of The Dirty Dozen. Some recent DVD reviews I’ve read firmly state that Robert Aldrich was there to expose the true ugliness of war, seizing upon violent images as a means of showing his abhorrence for man’s inhumanity to man. The director has no interest in macho platitudes or conventional heroics, they say. How can a twenty-first century dweller with all the right liberal sensibilities embrace such wanton carnage as this? Surely Aldrich was revolted by battlefields he depicted. Otherwise, we couldn’t permit ourselves to celebrate The Dirty Dozen. So is it anti-war? The better question might be, aren’t they all? Has anyone seen a serious war movie that wasn’t anti-war? I don’t consider Keep ‘Em Flying or Caught In The Draft anti-war, and for obvious reason, but I wouldn’t call The Green Berets pro-war either. The thing that makes The Dirty Dozen such a dangerous narcotic is the fact that it’s so much fun. If you had to single out a pro-war specimen, this one might be it. Other Aldrich shows railed against military abuses with as much efficiency, but something like Attack left no doubt as to its sour disapproval of high-ranking cowards and undeserving heroes. Kubrick's Paths Of Glory, great as it is, marches relentlessly toward a foregone conclusion we’ve divined within the first ten minutes. The Dirty Dozen is a lot more insidious. I saw it in 1967 and was flattered by Aldrich’s in-the-know cynicism he imparted to a theatre full of thirteen-year-old boys who wanted to get the real inside stuff about war. His willingness to kick his audience in the face (Look, you little bastard …) really woke us up to joyous potential in military hangings, casual indifference to protocol (you let somebody see you do it …), and even mass slaughter of enemy officers and their women. The You Are There sensation of pouring gasoline over helpless Nazis before setting them ablaze was a guilt-free incursion into bloodthirsty adulthood for a lot of us who’d grown tired of all those noble depictions of reluctant warriors. Did our fathers do stuff like this when they fought? If so, then at least some of it looked to be pretty cool. Oliver Stone missed the boat when he had Born On The Fourth Of July’s Tom Cruise watching Sands Of Iwo Jima before rushing off to enlist. If he’d substituted The Dirty Dozen, I might have found the scene more convincing. John Wayne makes a softer target for post-60’s filmmakers scoring political points, but the truly insidious pied piper might well have been Robert Aldrich. No wonder viewers still have to make excuses for liking this movie.

Everybody dismisses Bosley Crowther as a hopelessly out-of-touch fuddy-duddy. His review in The New York Times deriding Bonnie and Clyde stands at the precipice of that enlightened new age where youth took over and it was good riddance to repressed old men like Bosley (and the Times' dismissal of him soon after would confirm it). The Dirty Dozen was something Crowther particularly hated. A brazenly anti-social film, he said, and I do agree with him --- only, he missed one essential point. A lot of us were primed for anti-social films, especially those that revealed the Greatest Generation as a lot of psychotics and/or craven incompetents. Crowther’s larger beef lay in the fact that this was his peer group we were talking about, and much of what went on in The Dirty Dozen reflected very badly on the men who’d fought the last good war. Something like The Graduate was at least marginally more palatable to old-line critics. Bad behavior among youthful leads was more what they expected, but certain restraints had to be observed when you dealt with American men at war, and The Dirty Dozen violated them. Writer Nunnally Johnson submitted a script that played by the rules, which is precisely why Aldrich brought in Lukas Heller to rewrite him. Pictures like Attack differed by assailing the command with a narrower brush. Yes, there were venal officers, but men in the field understood a few rotten apples need not contaminate the whole barrel, and besides, Attack was a serious examination of war and worthy of respect for all that. The Dirty Dozen was a gauntlet laid before a then-large segment of the population, including Crowther and others of his generation, who still regarded themselves as having been essentially decent and humane, even in combat. Adolescent boys like me cared not a lick about such. We were just a lot of disrespectful brats cheering Up Yours! along with Lee Marvin and the dozen as they stuck it to corrupt Army brass.

Which brings me to Lee Marvin. Talk about your thirteen-year-old’s role model! The man’s career blossomed at precisely the right moment for me. The Dirty Dozen and The Professionals came along within months of each other. Lee was the unflappable leader of men in both. Even Robert Ryan seemed impotent beside him. Professionals co-star Burt Lancaster was for once upstaged, and everyone else just carried Lee's bags. Marvin gained more authority with age. In the fifties, he was too lean and just mean, menacing Randy Scott and slinging coffee at Gloria Grahame. Sometimes he clawed at scenery in the sixties. His Liberty Valance always seemed a little overstated, and a freak turn in The Comancheros was the best thing about that western, but still he seemed to be straining for effect. Donovan’s Reef was an excess of drunk scenes and bar fights, while Cat Ballou suggested a future wasted in (too) broad comedy. The Dirty Dozen came to the rescue and finally gave us the Marvin we’d waited for. He’d been a marine during WWII, island hopping and shot up for real while taking one of them. Lee’s qualification to lead the Dozen was absolute. We’ll not get another Dirty Dozen because there are no more Lee Marvins, and events are not likely to provide us with adequate substitutes for him. His steely gaze is mimicked today with smirks borne of immaturity and inexperience. Since when have contemporary actors taken knocks that would entitle them to stand beside him? Should we impose compulsory military service for all aspiring players in the hopes of developing future Lee Marvins?

The Dirty Dozen had a negative cost of 5.3 million. This was one of the year’s bigger expenditures for Metro. Grand Prix had been more, at 9.8 million, but lost 1.5. Aldrich’s show brought an astounding 20 million in domestic rentals, with 11.1 more from foreign. The final profit was 10.1 million. We had The Dirty Dozen going in and out of drive-ins for years to come. I saw it combo’ed with Point Blank in 1968, and you had to wade through 400 cars just to get a corn-dog. My friend Robert (Thornhill Entertainment) Cline was an exhibitor with the ABC theatre chain in the early seventies, and they picked up a double-bill of The Dirty Dozen with True Grit for a Summer 1972 outdoor saturation booking. The drive-ins paid twenty-five dollars flat for each feature and played them to capacity business for most of the engagement. When the MGM booking office got wind of the grosses, they instituted a new policy for all Metro prints --- no more flat rentals. An evergreen like The Dirty Dozen just couldn’t help making money, and that continued into television. The syndicated version had minor cuts. These were actually made in the negative, so each station running the picture had a sanitized print. We saw Lee Marvin kick John Cassevetes in the face, but Look, you little bastard was removed. This and other snippets were years getting back into television presentations of the film. The recently released HD-DVD offers the best looking Dirty Dozen yet, and is, of course, fully complete. We’ve come a long way from those tanned eastman 16 and 35mm copies that circulated on this title for so many years.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Dirty Dozen is probably the closest Hollywood came to the men's sweat mags that were ubiquitous in the 60s, many having great covers with the magic combo of Nazis and cleavage. Certainly there was still a sizable population of WWII vets (and wannabes)looking to relive the thrills of unapologetically slaughtering a bunch of Nazi Bastards. If the plot needed to make the Americans a bunch of(literal) psychotics to get there, so be it.

But a helluva a cast--the best ones (not the "stunt cast" members like Trini Lopez and Jim Brown) have a naturalness that's all but gone. You don't get the feeling these guys spent a lot of time talking about "honing their craft." Cassavetes might've thought about it, but was smart enough to keep his mouth shut.

11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good take on what was truly subversive about that flick. THE DIRTY DOZEN was subversive, just not necessarily left-wing or centrist liberal subversive. PATHS OF GLORY wasn't since it was a message picture and the message was obvious from the git-go. DR STRANGELOVE was since you were motivated to pull for the bomber crew (they were practically the only non-crazy, sensible, let’s all work together folks in the picture) even though it meant the death of the human race.

There is a myth that because WW2 was a good war (I still think it was) and that they all got their parades (oh for crying out loud … watch THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES for a reality check) that all the WW2 vets were plaster saints and not adversely affected in any way by the experience. War isn't an expression of nobility (even if the reasons for it, such as they were in WW2, were good) … it's about killing. A lot of it had less to do with nobility than the gleeful pleasure of “killing the scumbags.”

I especially agree that there was no one other that Lee Marvin (saw him steal the movie in his scenes in the 3-D film GORILLA AT LARGE at the 3-D festival in September in LA) to play the role. If the new Clint Eastwood film FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is as insufferable as it looks I'd advise folks to watch THE DIRTY DOZEN as an antidote.

I also liked mdg's comment comparing THE DIRTY DOZEN to early 1960s Men's magazines … if they were as good as their covers then sure. Somehow Mickey Spillane comes to mind. Any articles on Mike Hammer movies in the future?

2:18 PM  
Blogger dave said...

The thing that always cracks me up about Marvin in "Dirty Dozen" is when, out of the blue, he throws in some downright flouncing faggotry (not that there's anything wrong with it!)... I can't remember the specific dialogue at the moment, but there are some little asides where he's just flaming. What the hell was up with that?

2:42 PM  
Blogger The 'Stache said...

Nice post. I've got to admit that I probably missed most of the subtext in THE DIRTY DOZEN. There's something about that movie, and THE GREAT ESCAPE too, that's never intrigued me that much. But I love Marvin! You've inspired me to look at it again.

5:04 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

Great comments. Dave, I've noticed those eccentric Marvin line readings as well. Wonder if Aldrich directed those or if it was Lee's idea... Mdg, really liked your connection between the Dozen and 60's men's mags ... Envy your having seen those 3-D shows, Spencer, and enjoyed your take on the WW2 attitudes ... Loved the Aldrich piece on your webpage today, Round-Headed Boy.

8:24 PM  
Blogger M said...

The United States are always involved in some war or other, aren't they? So theoretically there's nothing stopping any of those modern soldiers after they've seen combat to make a career in the movies and be as "real" as Marvin.

5:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023