The Story of G I Joe

[movieman1957]

I don't know for sure, but I suspect William Wellman set out to make the quintessential war time movie but it is certainly the most realistic WWII movie I've see from that time.

Basic story that follows a group of soldiers as they slog their way through Italy. Told from Ernie Pyle's point of view (Burgess Meredith) it is mostly the day in day out misery of the foot soldier. Robert Mitchum is fine as the Captain. A fine job is done of showing how they fight but also how they wait. They live through what seems like a month of rain and must have wondered if they will ever get dry. The comradeship of the group. There is fun. There is concern. There is lost hope. There is sorrow.

The fact that most, if not all, of the American soldiers that die do so off screen is poignant. The waiting is intensified. Meredith takes roll as they return. Some volunteer because it will get the war over quicker, so they think. Others take it less serious and use it for their own personal benefit. But they all share the same job/

Near the end some stock war footage is used to good effect and looks like it fits well. There is a good attention to detail throughout that gives the film the realism that few others have achieved.

Not sure but it seems like it would be the inspiration for "Combat."



The most interesting detail was at the end when one of the dead soldiers* is removed from a pack mule. Their is just enough of him to notice that he is stiff with rigor. A marvelous realistic note.

[Mr. Arkadin]

G.I. Joe is one of my favorite war films. I was in a discussion in another forum where a guy was saying that there was no realism in 40's WWII films. His idea of realism was Saving Private Ryan (1998). I immediately directed him to this film (it was showing Memorial Day) as evidence he was wrong. It might not show as much blood and guts or some guy carrying his own arm (which Spielberg obviously borrowed from Kurosawa's Ran [1985]), but was created by a generation who actually anticipated or lived through WWII. This is what makes 40's (and earlier) war films interesting to me. They are snapshots of retrospectives, propaganda, the fascism that led to WWII, and even the Cold War to come. While Ryan has some amazing visual effects (especially the 20 min invasion sequence), I don't think it holds together as a story at all. It's more like an average film with a couple of spectacular set pieces. On the other hand, G.I. Joe's story has continuity and while not sacrificing the physicality, delves deeper with the mental aspect of men at war and their day to day lives. You feel these men's anguish and determination in a way that (in my opinion) Spielberg's film is not able to touch on.

[Dewey1960]

I agree with both of you fellows on this one. GI JOE, along with the same director's BATTLEGROUND (1949) are among the most exciting, realistic and emotionally involving war pictures ever made.
As for SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, I can only add that when I saw it theatrically when it first came out I experienced something very telling. There's a scene somewhere (I don't recall whereabouts; this film is so ungodly long that it seems endless) where a soldier moves along the landscape carrying the severed limb of one of his fellow combatants. The shot is very artfully arranged and designed for maximum emotional impact. As it unfolded, the person sitting behind me quipped to his companion: "Wow, I wonder how they did that!" Anytime someone in the audience stops to wonder how an effect is achieved, then I think it's safe to say that the moment, if not the entire film, is a failure.

[feaito]

When I watched the Wellman documentaries included in the Forbidden Hollywood Set Vol. 3, this film along with "The Ox-Bow Incident" stood out as two of the best he ever made. Is it available on DVD?

I can't say that I'm especially fond of the War Genre, but I have my share of favorite War films, that really trascend the genre, like "All Quiet on The Western Front" (1930), "Le Croix Des Bois (Wooden Crosses)" (1932), "The Bridges at Toko-Ri" (1954), "Battleground" (1949) and "Objective Burma!" (1945), the latter which I watched in the beginning of this year and really blewed me away because of its realism, almost documentary-style and Flynn's knockout performance.

[Mr. Arkadin]

As for SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, I can only add that when I saw it theatrically when it first came out I experienced something very telling. There's a scene somewhere (I don't recall whereabouts; this film is so ungodly long that it seems endless) where a soldier moves along the landscape carrying the severed limb of one of his fellow combatants. The shot is very artfully arranged and designed for maximum emotional impact. As it unfolded, the person sitting behind me quipped to his companion: "Wow, I wonder how they did that!" Anytime someone in the audience stops to wonder how an effect is achieved, then I think it's safe to say that the moment, if not the entire film, is a failure.

Exactly. While I think special effects can help to tell a story, there are too many films which choose to substitute them for the story. Another aspect is the fact that Wellman made his main actors undergo basic training. The rest of the cast were 150 veterans. So, if it looks real--that's because it is real.

Is it available on DVD?

Yes!

As Dewey mentioned, W.A.W's Battleground (1949) is a fine companion piece.

[mrsl]

GI Joe is definitely a realistic tribute to WWII. Mr. Arkadin mentioned the feelings of anguish and determination, but the brotherly love is viable throughout the film. It especially hits you when the men see their Captain (Mitchum) is dead, and although it may sound silly about grown men, the loving way they move his body to the side of the road to prevent any harm coming to it until the wagons come later is quite enough to cause a bit of dust to fly into your eye.

Anne

[feaito]

Thanks for the answer Mr. Ark. I'll look for it!