Skip to main content

An invasion of Normandy would be against all military logic. It would be against any logic at all.

The Longest Day
(1962)

(SPOILERS) It certainly felt like it. Three interminable hours that even playing “spot the star cameo” couldn’t relieve. It’s salient to note that both this and A Bridge Too Far were based on epic accounts of epic wartime operations by Cornelius Ryan, but whereas William Goldman managed to turn the latter into a surprisingly remarkable screenplay and Richard Attenborough into a surprisingly good film, here Ryan, adapting himself (with additional material credited to four other writers), induces mostly lethargy. He never finds an effective means to thread the various incidents and beachheads and responses together into a coherent whole, so you’re left with material that feels rather formless and directionless.

Of which, there were three credited directors (Ken Annakin, Andrew Marton and Bernhard Wicki for British and French, American, and German scenes respectively) and two uncredited (Gerd Oswald and producer Darryl F Zanuck), which isn’t a case of too many cooks so much as the ones in charge of the menu picking flavourless dishes. Numerous pieces are set up in the D-Day landings, but without any sense of co-ordinating tension between them.

As problematic is that the star power on display is rarely in service of relatable characters, involved in a relatable way with the action. The likes of John Wayne (in a role Chuck Heston failed in his bid for), Richard Todd (playing a major in the bridge assault he was actually a part of), Henry Fonda (as Theodore Roosevelt Jr), Robert Ryan and Robert Mitchum play real-life figures involved in the landings but lend little impact other than “Oh look, it’s…” Kenneth More is alone among his peers as Captain Maud, on Juno Beach with his bulldog (Churchill, natch), complaining in highly oblivious, upper-crust British manner about incidentals (“The Sooner you people get off the beach, the sooner they’ll stop this blasted shelling! It’s very bad for the dog”).

Faring better are the invented troops, many of them grunts. Yeah, there are fairly non-descript and earnest roles for the likes of Richard Beymer (just off West Side Story), Robert Wagner and Jeffrey Hunter (not yet Captain Pike). But we also get Roddy McDowall providing some nervy honesty (along with Richard Burton, he took a break from the interminable Cleopatra to provide a gratis cameo, just to do something, anything) and Leslie Philips sporting a truly massive moustache. Gert Fröbe also shows up, as does Sean Connery, pre-Bond as a chipper work-shy Scot (“Yeah, it takes an Irishman to play the pipes”) and André Bourvil, in basically the same role he’d play in Anakin’s later Monte Carlo or Bust, is a pissed Frenchman.

Only a couple really stand out in the context of what the film is nominally trying to achieve, however. In fact, ironically, the MVP is Burton, who in about two scenes gives you a glimpse of how this could have been, if the makers had intended to make something other than mere empty spectacle. In the first, his fighter pilot explains where a pal, Johnny, has disappeared to (“At the bottom… of the channel”) and in the second, Beymer comes across him, bleeding out, his leg stitched together with paperclips (“I’m dying for a cigarette”). He asks Beymer if he has ever killed a man, before admitting of his felled opponent, “Neither had I, face to face”. You can only really make a claim to Burton, Connery and McDowall offering that bit extra to the standard fare.

There are heroics, of course, and blunders (be it Germans ignoring the obvious or US paratroopers mown down when the drop zone is overshot), and human touches, but very little exerts a dramatic hold. And there are memorable vignettes: a priest in search of his submerged communion set; homing pigeons heading in the wrong direction (“Damn traitors!”); nuns arriving to help the wounded but looking as if they’ve stepped out of a Python sketch. There’s also a genuinely fascinating scene regarding the fake paratroopers (“He’s um, a very extraordinary fellow, Rupert. He’s a sort of weapon – send them to hell”). But it amounts too little and fails to adhere.

According to Anthony Holden’s The Secret History of the Oscars, The New York Times levelled the charge at block vote-controlling studio moguls of behind the scenes “vote-swapping of outrageous proportions” with regard to the Best Picture nods for this and Mutiny on the Bounty: blockbusters that, rather suspiciously, had no nominations in the directing, acting and writing categories. Zanuck, unsurprisingly, defended himself against such claims. It’s quite believable, as this is clearly a nomination for size and expense (a price tag between $7.75 and $10m), not quality. The Longest Day won two Oscars (Cinematography and Special Effects), but a production so turgid should never have been in line of sight of the big prize.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?