Bare Arms was set up to provide military assistance to the film and television industry. From advisors to highly specialist equipment and vehicles, we can provide the lot. We also review films with military themes in order to promote those that get it right.
Quality script and good acting, with an authentic story to boot. So why does it all seem so familiar? ‘Sand Castle’ is destined to be one of those films that’s unappreciated in it’s lifetime due to an overexposure of the conflict, but in 20 years time might just be heralded as a highlight of the genre.
Netflix has been creating its own content for a while now, but recently it has started to churn out war films. Not big sweeping epics like we saw in the 60’s and 70’s, such as ‘The Battle of Britain‘ and ‘A Bridge Too Far‘, but little films about amazingly true stories that are as yet unknown.
Cool guys don’t look at explosions, and Jamie Dorner is no different. Remarkably modern sandbags though…
‘The Seige of Jadotville‘ told the story of an Irish U.N. peacekeeping mission in Africa that went disastrously wrong whereas ‘War Machine‘, due out later in the month, is a satire on the American war in Afghanistan. Both are based on true events and both attracted some serious acting talent. Netflix seems to be scooping up scripts and pulling in actors, whilst dedicating enough budget to make them look good as well.
‘Sand Castle‘ is no different in these aspects, however if anything its story is even smaller and therefore far more personal than most war films. It is based on the experiences of the writer Chris Roessner, who was deployed to Iraq in 2003 and highlights the impossibility of fighting small wars. It plays out like a less nihilistic ‘Jarhead’ combined with a more intelligent ‘Black Hawk Down’. Anyone who has ever lived in a patrol base within an indigenous population in the last 15 years will recognise the frustrations depicted in ‘Sand Castle’. A small army unit is attached to a special forces team in order to help distribute water and rebuild a damaged facility in an isolated town. A reluctant Private Matt Ocre is taken along for the ride.
For those of you that have seen it, the trailer is deceiving and in a way that is a huge relief. It makes it seem like the film is going to be primarily about Nicholas Hoult character’s reluctance to fight, whereas thankfully this merely serves as a contrast to the ending and doesn’t dominate the film like it does in ‘Fury‘ and others. It’s more of a starting point for the growth of Private Ocre as the story progresses, as his mindset changes from one of ‘get your head down and get through this’ to ‘I should be trying to do more’. Unlike ‘Fury’ (sorry!) this happens naturally over time and not in an unrealistic 24hr period or through a series of contrived events.
“Wait….. did I leave the gas on?”
The trailer also suggests that Henry Cavill’s special forces officer is going to be a bit of a one-dimensional, all-action-hero and a bully, but thankfully they’ve avoided this cliche too. Captain Syverson is one of the better portrayals of an officer in a war film. He’s intelligent, passionate about what he’s doing and willing to listen to the ideas of others. He still swaggers around, chewing tobacco and swearing, but he’s respected and effective.
Now, I know what you’re thinking, “There must be a salt-of-the-earth, officer hating sergeant to round it all off? Someone to unnecessarily create conflict by being insubordinate?”. Nope. They didn’t do that either. Sergeant Harper, played by Logan Marshall-Green (the poor man’s Tom Hardy) is respectful and professional throughout. He’s the stoic rock of the film in a nicely understated way. “So what about the baddies? There must be big boss baddy right? Like ‘Blackhawk Down’?“. Wrong again. You barely see the shadowy insurgents. Just like in real life, they blend into the crowd.
“Anyone else want to tell me how bad ‘Batman Vs. Superman’ was?”
So if it isn’t about cliched character conflict, (which is the basis for most war films), what on earth is this film all about? Quite simply, it’s about the war itself. In this case the impossibility of fighting a tactical war, when your enemy is an unseen insurgent, and the commanders at a strategic level have little understanding of what’s happening on the ground. You want to help the local population, but they just want to be left alone. It is possibly one of the most realistic war movies to date. The action is quick and gritty, with the insurgents disappearing as quickly as they arrive. There are no long and drawn out set pieces here, just short and sharp confusing engagements. There’s little anguish when things go wrong. The soldiers just pick themselves up and keep on going. The mission, no matter how small and how insignificant in the bigger picture, is everything to them.
So is it any good? Armed with notepad and pen, we gleefully started jotting down the errors. Very old tanks that definitely aren’t Abrams. MRAPs vehicles that wouldn’t be introduced for another 5 years. A type of leatherman multi-tool that wasn’t invented until 2010! Oh the humanity! But then, very quickly we stopped taking notes. The acting was spot on, and the interaction between characters was perfect. Soldiers behaving like soldiers. If they were all a little uglier, then it would be even more realistic. Very quickly we got drawn into this little film, as it took us right back to our own experiences of war.
However, if you believe Rotten Tomatoes, then it would suggest you steer clear (47% at last check). There are complaints that it doesn’t have a message or an underlying theme, or that it’s a genre piece that produces nothing new. These opinions totally miss the point. ‘Sand Castle‘ is a deeply personal account of what it is like to be a pawn in a global war, where the rules and strategies being employed make little sense when you are faced with the realities of an insurgency. Not only that, but it was written by someone who has been there and lived through it. It may not seem ground breaking, but that’s because you’ve seen each of its scenes somewhere else, as a smaller part of a much bigger blockbuster. You’ve seen the tragedy play out on 24hr rolling news. Over the last 15 years, our senses have been dulled and our reactions blunted by a constant drip feed of similar hopeless stories. Some of us have had the misfortune to live through them ourselves.
This is one of the minority of cases where the critics are dead wrong. Don’t listen to them, listen to the soldiers.
At this current moment, people are over-saturated and bored with war stories from the Iraq/Afghanistan era. It’s been going on for over a decade and a half and isn’t over yet. No matter how good a film about the period might be, its impact is reduced massively by over familiarity. The best WW2 films were made in the 70’s, nearly 30 years after the conflict had ended, and by that point, the collective memory was beginning to fade.
So, do one of two things. Either empty your head of all preconceptions, then sit down and really concentrate on this gem of a film, or forget it for 20 years and come back to it when the war in Iraq is (hopefully) a distant memory. Regardless, if you know anyone who has experienced war recently, and you want to know what it was probably like, this is a good place to start.
‘War Machine‘ is out on Netflix on the 26th of May. Watch the trailer here.
Some of the most nerve shredding battles committed to celluloid and not a dry eye in the house, but was it worth a 10-minute standing ovation at Venice? Read about how ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ almost never got made here.
At the start of September, The Venice Film festival premiered Mel Gibson’s first attempt at directing a film since 2006. Hollywood and the world of cinema have been wary about Mel since some drunken outbursts five years ago, and some were sceptical that he would ever work in the film industry again. Not only did ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ get some impressive plaudits from the audience, it got a 10-minute standing ovation…
Mel Gibson doing his ‘I’m no longer crazy!’ face.
Empire Live 2016 was Empire Magazine‘s first film festival. A weekend of previews, workshops and live events hosted at the O2 at the end of September, including Q&As, sing-a-longs and even a ‘Ghostbusters’ “slime-a-long”. With all the excitement surrounding ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ after Venice, it was slotted into the program and announced with only a few days to go. Despite not yet having a UK release date, or even a distributor, a cinema full of lucky people got to see it 6 weeks before it is released in the US and Australia, and probably 6 months before it arrives here. So, is it actually any good? Did it deserve a standing ovation?
The film opens with a voice-over by Andrew Garfield in the affected Virginia drawl of Private Doss whilst a slow-motion battle rages on. Bodies are flying and people are being killed left right and centre, but through the medium of close-up it is unclear exactly what is happening. The visuals were so confusing and absorbing that it was impossible to focus on precisely what Garfield was saying. Presumably it was some unnecessary sentiment about war being bad, but it could have quite easily been a shopping list for all that it mattered. Garfield’s vocal impersonation of Doss is both oddly high pitched and soft at the same time, and whilst it may not be totally accurate to the real man and the words forgettable, its manner and timbre gives you glimpse of what you need to know about his character.
The film is broken into two distinct and contrasting parts that could almost be separate stand-alone films with a bit of fleshing out. The first is a set up for the second and charts the life of Doss and his brother growing up, raised by their caring mother and troubled father in rural Virginia. Hugo Weaving is fantastic as Doss Snr. the veteran of the Great War and a shell of a man who is clearly still haunted by the events of 25 years ago. Whilst he is violent and aggressive to his family he is not an ogre to be hated, but someone to be pitied, which is credit not only to the acting, but also the writing which has created a character that could have so easily been one dimensional. We shall have to wait and see if the awards season recognises his performance.
Slowly and deliberately the film reveals Doss’s reasons for choosing the path of pacifism, which are not solely religious as you might expect, but also heavily influenced by a desire not to end up like his abusive father. His caring nature and character are further unveiled by his attempts at the courtship of Dorothy Schutte, played by Theresa Palmer, and his interest in her work as a nurse. In a neat piece of symbolism, we see him using his belt for an entirely different purpose to that of his drunken father in a previous scene, further exploring the divide between their characters. Palmer’s portrayal of Schutte and her relationship with Doss, leaves you feeling warm and fuzzy and could have been channelled directly from the famous actresses of the 1940’s. Her deliberate double takes and mock anger give the whole first act a nostalgic feel to it, as does the sunny weather and perfectly manicured flowerbeds of the hospital and the town. It almost looks like a film set…
Garfield and Palmer as Desmond and Dorothy
By this point, some people (author included) may be feeling a little underwhelmed and slightly undersold at the saccharine nature and idealism of this so called ‘war-film’. As heartwarming as the blossoming relationship is, it isn’t necessarily what people have come to see and the artistic depiction of war at the start of the film seems like a long time ago. Soon the events of Pearl Harbour start to bring things into sharp focus, and both Doss brothers volunteer for service despite (or maybe in spite of) their father’s wishes. It’s at this point that Desmond’s idealism has to come face to face with the practicalities of war, mainly manifested by another actor in search of redemption, in this case Vince Vaughn channelling a pastiche of ‘Full Metal Jacket‘ and the spirit of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman.
One of Vaughn’s strengths has always been the ability to do deadpan comedy. From ‘Old School‘ to ‘Dodgeball‘ he has been at his best when saying something inherently silly in a deadly serious way. Part of the problem with him attempting serious roles is that he can’t get any more serious. Emotionally he has no where to go to distinguish between funny-serious and serious-serious. If he’s acting serious, it’s the same expression and so you are expecting him to be funny. It is distracting and one of the reasons why ‘True Detective‘ fell so flat in the second series. Sgt. Howell is a part that could have been written for Vaughn, and one that he clearly relishes. It is his welcome menacing comic relief that marks a subtle change in the tone of the film. Suddenly it is shown, that true to his father’s warnings, Doss’s idealism may not be compatible with the rigours of military life. This mid-section of the film really belongs to Vaughn. By getting the funny-serious out the way in the first 5 minutes, it then gives him permission to take the character elsewhere. His anger when he discovers Doss’s intentions and beliefs is genuinely terrifying, but he later lets slip during a chink of compassion that this all may just be an act in itself. For a supporting role with comparably little screen time, Sgt. Howell is one of the most complex characters within the film. Part pantomime villain, part mother figure, part barrack room judge and portrayed absolutely correctly for a military sergeant. His concerns are always for the effectiveness of the squad of men that he has been entrusted with, whilst at the same time showing compassion for the individuals within it.
There still isn’t much that is new here however. Like the courtship scenes before it, it all seems comfortable and familiar, almost reminiscent of a score of other films. Training montage gives way to a character losing the trust of his peers, only to begrudgingly regain it again. Despite the tension building court-room scenes, we all hope we know where this film is going. At just over the half-way mark, we haven’t seen anything of the battle hinted at in the opening montage. When the events finally transport themselves to the far east, the desire of the more gung-ho members of the rifle company to see some action is mirrored in our own blood-thirsty urges for the film to get to the ‘exciting’ bits.
The very second that the bullets start to fly and bodies start to fall, all of this is stripped away and replaced with a sense of horror and remorse. Instantly you feel guilty for having wanted to see these men in combat. There is no glory as soldiers are forced to do some abhorrent things in order to survive in the face of a seemingly inhuman enemy. For what seems like an eternity you are totally immersed in the brutality of war. Not since the start of ‘Saving Private Ryan‘ has there been a battle depicted in a way that was so utterly shocking and absorbing at the same time. Whilst that dropped you into the action in a without much warning or set up, ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ has spent over an hour lulling you, and the soldiers on screen, into a false sense of familiarity and security. This means that the nerves are totally unguarded and all prepped for a brutal shredding when the world finally collapses. This is war at its most unflinching and harrowing.
This transition between the two continents and parts of the film is Mel Gibson’s greatest move. Immediately Doss’s idealism and morals are put to the test. We are all behind him when he goes toe to toe with the might of the U.S. Army for the belief in his values, but once he his faced with the ferocity of the Imperial Japanese Army we are cursing him for being so naive and urging him to pick up a rifle to defend himself. Like a good magic trick, we are suckered into thinking one way, only to have the carpet viciously pulled from under our feet. The ‘niceness’ of the first half it seems was simply to set up the trauma of the second. The meat of the film is in the war scenes, but without the slow and deliberate set-up of the first hour or so, it would not be nearly as effective. The initial attack gives way to counter-attack and the futility of what the G.I.s are trying to achieve becomes horrifically apparent.
Sam Worthington as Doss’s company commander
As amazing as the battle scenes are though, they aren’t perfect. The portrayal of the Japanese soldiers is over simplified as the ‘baddies’, despite some attempts towards the end to humanise them. Vince Vaughn’s approach to combat is John Wayne-esque as he trots around the battlefield, barking orders and appearing bulletproof. There are a couple of moments where Mel Gibson has a chance to truly test Desmond’s beliefs, by placing him in a difficult situation where he might have to pick up a rifle to save a fellow soldier, but rather annoyingly he holds back. Biopics are always a tricky beast to manage as people’s lives don’t fit neatly into a 90-minute running time. You have to decide what to keep and what has to go, and sometimes what to embellish and what to tone down. This becomes especially tricky if the subject is still alive or well known. You can’t mess around too much with true events or you might incur disapproval or even legal challenges. Whilst the real Desmond might never have been placed into a position where he might have been tempted to pick up a weapon, it would have raised the dramatic nature of the film if the Garfield’s Doss had been tested more rigorously.
The script sticks closely to the stories told in the 2004 documentary, with some slight reshuffling of the time-line and compressing of the events in Japan to portray a few months’ worth of events into a few days, but it is the second attack on the ridge that lets the last part of the film down. Gibson decides to return to the slow motion action we saw right at the start, but this time with a patriotic music score in the background and quite clearly showing the USA performing markedly better than their first attempt. The sun is out, the Japanese have lost, the war is won, but it’s done in an almost jingoistic way that makes you roll your eyes. Has no one learned anything in the last hour of battle?! After a final act of heroism (that is borrowed from the story of another soldier) Doss is injured and stretchered off the cliff silhouetted by the fading light. It is here that the religious undertones become obvious overtones and symbolism goes into overdrive.
The last few moments of the film are clips from the 2004 documentary which bring into sharp focus what Desmond T. Doss achieved, and reminds you that what you have been watching actually happened. The real Doss and some of the soldiers he saved, get their chance, most of them from the grave, to give their account of the incredible events. If nothing has managed to make you misty eyed up until this point then this last portion will have you choking back tears and praying the lights don’t come up too quickly. You are likely to leave the theatre physically and mentally exhausted.
The real Desmond Doss
‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ is an excellent film that you must see in a cinema to get the full effect of the incredible battle scenes which are its pinnacle. It deserves most of the praise it has been getting, but it has its flaws. Garfield’s performance is utterly believable throughout, and he is supported by a good cast, but some parts are heavily laboured and over simplified. Some of Doss’s most impressive feats are not featured as they don’t fit into the film, but for those in doubt of his bravery and humility, read up what happened in the hours immediately following his injury. Gibson may be back on form, but he would have done well to ease up on the religious symbolism.
A story of redemption, but for whom? A potential comeback for Mel Gibson or a decent war film marred by an overtly religious message? Read the ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ review here.
Hollywood has fallen out of love with Mel Gibson in a serious way over the last five years, and it isn’t hard to see why. An ultra-conservative catholic who in the past has been accused of being racist, homophobic and antisemitic, and had been arrested for drink driving and suspected of domestic abuse? Even with some serious PR spin, that would be a difficult one to market. He hasn’t directed anything since ‘Apocalypto‘ whichwas released over a decade ago, and his last notable performance was 2011’s ‘The Beaver’ which was a commercial flop.
Beaver had just given Mel the latest box-office figures…
The failure of the ‘The Beaver‘ to garner any traction at the box officer was almost certainly down to what was happening to Gibson in public, which is a shame as it is one of his best roles. Gibson gave an air of startling authenticity to proceedings as a man on the verge of a mental breakdown, losing his family and dealing with a whole host of inner demons. Whilst there are some places where the film falls flat, it is a reminder of what Mel Gibson the actor can do given the right conditions. However it seems that all is not lost as Mel Gibson is back in the director’s chair this year, and if there is one thing that Hollywood loves almost as much as an underdog story, it would be a tale of comeback and redemption (for those of you don’t remember, reacquaint yourselves with what Robert Downey Jr. was up to in the late 90’s). ‘The Beaver‘ might well have been the start of that comeback, but it came too hot on the heels of the latest batch of allegations to do him any good.
But five years have now passed and whilst no one is immediately forgiving him, Mel Gibson is getting a second chance and boy did he pick one hell of a comeback project. ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ is based on the unbelievable yet true story of Desmond Doss, a pacifist who voluntarily enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1942 in order to serve his country in the Pacific, but purely as a medic and not to fight. Whilst he believed the war was just, as a Seventh-day Adventist he refused to take an enemy life or pick up a rifle even in self defence. He not only survived the war, but he ended up winning the congressional Medal of Honor for a series of heroic acts that are simply too numerous to list. Some people get medals for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or by their own admission by being reckless or simply unaware of the danger they were in. Whatever you take away from this or the film, be under no illusion that Doss exhibited true heroism and bravery. He deliberately and knowingly put himself in harms way countless times in order to serve and protect the men around him. He chose to sign up, chose to be a front-line medic and chose not to arm himself. Not only that, but he fought for the right to be allowed to do it.
Private Desmond Doss
Doss’s story had been stuck in ‘development hell’ for a considerable length of time, and the rights to his story had been sold and resold to numerous studios, but a documentary of his life was finally made in 2004. Shortly after it was completed, Doss passed away at the age of 87. He received a full military burial, somewhat ironically given his refusal to carry a weapon, with a 21-gun salute. Some of the footage from that documentary poignantly makes up the final moments of ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ in a way that is reminiscent of ‘Band of Brothers‘. Over the next decade the options for a film kept resurfacing, but restrictions on the rating meant that only a PG-13 version was being considered. Fast forward to the end of 2014 and it was announced that a film was finally entering production, with Mel Gibson back in the directing chair and Andrew Garfield playing Doss. Not everyone was convinced with either Gibson or Garfield however. At this point Garfield was best known for playing Mark Zuckerberg’s business partner, Eduardo Saverin, in ‘The Social Network‘ and as Tobey Maguire’s successor in the ‘Spiderman‘ franchise. He was far from the kind of A-list name that is usually required to spark serious interest in a film. The film was eventually financed by IM Global, a relative newcomer to the market who are known for taking risks that other more established names wouldn’t look at. Initially only North American distribution rights were secured. Clearly the rest of the world wasn’t enamoured with the idea of a U.S. focused WW2 film with religious overtones, directed by a controversial and out of practice actor, and starring an unknown quantity.
The filming started at the end of September 2015 and took place entirely in Australia with a modest budget of $45 million. Antipodean actors such as Hugo Weaving and Sam Worthington filled in some of the key supporting cast, and although still reeling from a problematic and heavily criticised attempt at a dramatic turn in the second series of ‘True Detective‘, Vince Vaughn landed the role of Sergeant Howell. As a result ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘ flew under the radar of many, and wasn’t taken seriously by most until the first trailer hit the internet. Suddenly the world was starting to take notice. The Venice Film Festival premiered the film at the start of September and it was well received. Seriously well received. It got a 10-minute standing ovation. The ‘O’ word had begun to be mentioned in hushed tones. The buzz had begun.
“Everything seems to be going fine. Just don’t give him any more gin”
Empire Live 2016 was Empire Magazine‘s first film festival. A weekend of previews, workshops and live events hosted at the O2 at the end of September, including Q&As, sing-a-longs and even a ‘Ghostbusters’ “slime-a-long”. With all the excitement surrounding ‘Hacksaw Ridge‘, it was put into the program and announced with only a few days to go. Despite not yet having a UK release date, or even a distributor, a cinema full of lucky people got to see it 6 weeks before it is released in the US and Australia, and probably 6 months before it arrives here.
So, is it actually any good? As odd as it sounds, standing ovations at film festivals like Venice are quite common. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are worth your hard earned money or even awards. Does ‘Hacksaw Ridge ‘ live up to the growing hype? Follow the link below to our review…
‘Eye in the Sky‘ has the honour of being Alan Rickman‘s final swansong. Filmed before his death, and released shortly after, it serves as a fitting bookend to an incredible career. Although as Lt. General Benson, he plays second fiddle to Helen Mirren’s Colonel Powell throughout the film, he gets the last word in this taught 90-minute thriller. A snivelling civil servant calls him “…disgraceful”, to which he very calmly and decisively cuts her down to size in his trademark purr, finishing with a line so good, that I was convinced it was a quotation;
“Never tell a soldier, that he does not know the cost of war”.
This week we were supposed to release our critique of the new series of ‘Our Girl’ for which we helped the BBC shape the script, but we ended up getting so frustrated at the inaccuracy of some parts of it that we felt we needed to have a stiff drink and a lie down. Instead of immediately venting via the medium of this blog, we decided to give it another episode to even out and find an even keel. Coincidentally we managed to get our hands on a copy of ‘Eye in the Sky‘ this week which we have been wanting to watch since its limited release at the start of the year, and we had promised a review of.
Luckily for our blood pressure issues, ‘Eye in the Sky’ blows ‘Our Girl‘ straight out the water when it comes to military accuracy, with the minor exception of Helen Mirren’s beret (head over to Bad Berets: ‘You could land a helicopter on that!’ for an explanation) and fortunately it only makes an appearance in the last 60 seconds. As we commemorate the 15th anniversary of the world altering events of 9/11, ‘Eye in the Sky‘ highlights just how far warfare has changed in the years since. The subject of this film is the evolving capability to perform surgical strikes on specific targets, after many hours of surveillance, often without putting a foot on the ground. Does this increased distance from our target desensitise us from the reality of what we are doing, or does it immunise us and allow us to make difficult decisions without being overly clouded by emotion?
At its heart this film is about conflict, but not the obvious kind that you would immediately assume. Instead it is about the disconnect between military action, political will, moral responsibility and legality. There are no good guys and bad guys (except the obvious terrorists of course, which are more plot devices than actual characters), but rather a smorgasbord of politicians and military personnel with their own views and beliefs. The events in the film span a 12-hr period and one capture operation in Nairobi, Kenya, but the protagonists are split between a handful of military bases and government meeting rooms across the globe. Each one serves as a different slant on the same picture in the increasingly complex and developing situation. Quickly, as with many operations, the scenario changes to a point where capture is made almost impossible without the loss of many lives. Suddenly the mission changes up a few gears into a kill mission, much to the horror of the watching politicians who don’t have the stomach for it.
In most films, having such a large number of characters and locations would make it difficult to follow, but ‘Eye in the Sky‘ makes it work exceptionally well, flicking between them at crucial moments. It not only helps explain difficulties in the passage of information, even in an age where we can stream video around the globe, but also accurately portrays the nature of the lengthy verification and authorisation process that these strikes must go through. Not everyone has the complete picture or understanding of the event, and inevitably those with the leanest information are those with the authority to make the decisions. No set of guidelines or rules of engagement can possibly be specific enough to cover every eventuality, and at some point, someone has to make a crucial decision which may or may not result in the death of innocent parties. The kind of debates that occur within the COBRA boardroom in this film, frequently happen in operations rooms around the globe.
“Are we legally allowed to strike?”
“Yes…”
“Does that mean we should?”
“No…”
‘Eye in the Sky’ cleverly ramps up the necessity and urgency to conduct a drone strike in far from ideal conditions, but in such a way that the right answer is never immediately obvious (if there is one at all) and in constant flux. Various characters change sides in the debate, especially once the responsibility of decision making is taken off them. I suspect anyone watching it with military experience will immediately identify with the British Army and US Air Force personnel and become frustrated at the politicians who pontificate, delay and pass the buck, but the real heart of the film is with the drone operators. Caught in the middle is Aaron Paul as the young officer, who by the luck of a rota is tasked with commanding the drone and responsible for launching the weapon. If there was any argument to suggest that drone operators treat their role like a video game, his torment and reticence to pull the trigger dispels it immediately. You suspect that whatever the outcome, and despite his relatively junior position in proceedings, it will be him that carries the majority of the burden.
If Aaron Paul is the heart, then Helen Mirren represents the brain in this moralistic struggle. There are no clear sides in this debate, but from the very outset she’s after a result that has eluded her for years, and for her the end always justifies the means. Her tenacity and urgency is the antithesis of politicians. We feel her intense stress as time is frittered away by those above her, causing emotional outbursts and in one scene forcing her to fiddle with a set of worry beads. I have seen a number of senior commanders unintentionally doing similar things, including one who would wind his forelock around his index finger when making tough decisions. She is portrayed as cold and calculating, but as the film winds down you sense that she isn’t totally devoid of emotion and her demeanour is one of necessity in a male dominated world.
The film leaves you without any neat answers, or forced judgements, which in this day and age is rare. It leaves you to make up your own mind about the morality of what you’ve just witnessed. Whether you are in the military or not, this is a must see film that has garnered little of the attention it deserves. I would suggest it should be compulsory viewing at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and other officer training establishments. No where else is the complex morality of war better played out so effectively than in this film.
Kudos goes to everyone involved in making it, especially for not pulling any punches and for avoiding the typical Hollywood ending. You’ll come away from it feeling emotionally drained and mentally fatigued. This isn’t an action film, more of a philosophical debate about the ethics of warfare, but one that will keep you thinking long into the night. Personally I side with the General….
‘Eye in the Sky’ is available to stream on the iStore, Amazon and Google Play.
WARNING – Contains spoilers for those who haven’t seen the show and/or read the book.
Last week the dust settled on the final episode of BBC1’s ‘The Night Manager’, a high budget adaptation of the John le Carré book of the same name. We reviewed the first two episodes with high praise, but did the rest of the run live up to the high standard?
The End?
Whilst most of the adaptation was faithful to the book, the most significant difference was the ending. The BBC finale was overly saccharine compared to the book and everything was neatly solved within the running time. In the book, Pine’s identity is revealed by the traitorous members of MI6 who are profiting from Roper’s schemes, putting him and Jed in mortal danger. Pine goes through a round of brutal torture as a result. Burr bluffs that he (she in the TV series) has enough evidence to convict Roper and his associates, thus forcing them into making a deal to release Jed and Pine in return for silence. The book ends with Roper completing his deal and getting away with it, whilst Burr ends up with his reputation ruined, but Pine’s life saved.
“Did I leave the gas on…?”
There is no doubt that this would have made a better ending, but it would also have made a much better jumping off point for the inevitable second series which the BBC are already planning. I cannot for the life of me understand why the BBC chose to end with Roper in the custody of his vengeful partners and with more than enough evidence to convict him.
Hiddleston for Bond!
We sang Tom Hiddleston’s praises in our first review. In the first two episodes he displayed everything required for Bond; a passion for the ladies, psychopathic tendencies, an ability to take a beating… but then they pushed it too far in the final episode by having him order a vodka Martini. Even Hugh Laurie looks disgusted!
Apart from these obvious nods to the man in the dinner jacket (which began to grate) Pine’s motivations started not to make much sense as the series progressed. It’s much more difficult to empathise with a character if you can’t understand their reasoning. Pine’s journey to sociopathic spy is halted by his attraction to Jed…or probably should have been. His reason for helping Burr get to Roper is revenge for the death of Sophie. If he was so besotted by Jed to the point where he is taking foolish risks to see her, then why does he kill Freddie Hamid who was only an observer to her murder? If his priority is Roper, then why risk it all for Jed?
Since the finale, there has a been an upsurge in support behind a suprise nomination for the next Bond, and it isn’t Tom Hiddleston. His moment in the spotlight has been overshadowed by none other than Olivia Colman! An article from the Independent tracked the growing media campaign to make her the successor to Daniel Craig, to the point where even the unimaginative Daily Mail jumped on the bandwagon with this obvious April Fools story. Part of me can’t help agreeing. Olivia Colman is well on the way to becoming a national treasure as she is an incredible actor. Whatever my views are, the odds are firmly in Hiddleston’s favour with him currently the front runner at 2/1, with Tom Hardy and Idris Elba following behind.
The office always emptied quickly once Angela got her ‘kneecapping’ face on.
What Happened To Frisky?
Frisky was Roper’s unintelligible bodyguard, played by the gruff Scottish actor Michael Nardone. He played the role of ex-soldier-turned-mercenary brilliantly well, to the point where I had to look him up as I was convinced he really was a former military man, moonlighting as an actor! All of Corky’s flamboyance and vice made him unpredictable and dangerous to both sides, whereas Frisky was dependable, loyal and violent. It is him that administers the vicious beating to Jed, but then he gets shot in the knee by Burr. Where does he go at the end?! I hope he’s ok…
Frisky getting frisky with Pine
Why did Roper trust Pine?
This is the weakest plot point in the entirety of the series. If I were Roper, I would wonder why everything was going well until I brought a complete stranger into my organisation. Even if you concede that he suspects Pine fairly quickly (hence the great switcheroo at the Syrian border) why leave Pine with control over the bank account with your money in? Why not instantly transfer it somewhere else? Likewise if he suspected Jed, why allow her access to the safe that contains the only documents that link you to the highly illegal arms deal. Not only that, but in THE VERY SAME HOTEL where he had documents lifted the last time he was there! For a criminal mastermind, his approach to security is remarkably slapdash. No wonder Corky took to the drink….
“Okay…now promise you won’t screw me over?”
Odd Casting Choices
Actors can do all sorts of accents with varying degrees of success, but usually the most convincing accent is their own. David Harewood is a brilliant British actor, but I think his american accent is a bit suspect. He does the exact same accent in ‘Homeland‘ where he plays a pretty similar character. I shouldn’t judge, as my american accent is dreadful…but then again I am not an actor. Were there no american actors available? London is usually full of them. Whenever he was on screen it was a bit jarring, as I was concentrating on how he was saying things, not what he was saying. However upsetting he was, he wasn’t nearly as distracting as Tony…I mean Neil Morrisey.
“What day is it? Did I put the recycling out?”
For those of you too young to remember, Morrisey (no not that one) is most famous for his role as Tony from ‘Men Behaving Badly‘. I haven’t seen him in anything in about 15 years and so seeing him pop up here totally derailed my train of thought. All I could think about was how bad was the state of British intelligence, that they employed a man who turned his garden shed into a sauna. It didn’t help that his character Harry Palfrey is a bit of a confused dogsbody who is in way over his head.
Tony and Gary. Role models for a generation.
Jonathan Aris plays the weird, creepy, weasely guy in anything he’s in. You’ll know him better as the weird and creepy Anderson in Sherlock, who’s also a bit weasely. He usually stands to one side of a major character, being a bit weird, occasionally beardy. He does the same in this. Doesn’t really add a great deal except to convince you that the major character is clearly not to be trusted if he’s hanging around with Tony and Weasely.
“Weasel weasel something something….”
Who was driving the trucks?!
How did all the people driving the trucks know to get out? Were they working for Pine? If so, why weren’t any basic background checks done? Was there some sort of warning? It doesn’t make sense…unless the BBC didn’t want Pine killing innocent civilians. That would be unfortunate and awkward given what he was trying to prevent. Did someone write themselves into a bit of a plot hole without a way out of it? Possibly. Did they think we wouldn’t ask questions? Probably. Does it matter? Absolutely. I like my films and television seeped in logic. I like my spy thrillers triple cooked in the stuff. This kind of stuff annoys me. Wasn’t there any other way Pine could have hijacked the deal without involving massive amounts of carnage and criminal damage?
Always time for a quick Tinder swipe.
In Summary
I can’t help but feel a little let down by the latter half of ‘The Night Manager’. The further away it got from the original book, the more plot holes appeared and the less impressed I became. This is a huge shame as the first two episodes were full of promise that the later episodes failed to capitalise on, and the middle two episodes were mostly filler without a great deal of plot or character development. The complex relationship between Roper and Pine that I thought might be developing, didn’t materialise into anything significant and the ‘baddies’ occupying the top echelons of the British Secret Service were one dimensional and clunky. The duo of Mayhew and Burr had depth and substance to it with a real nuanced exploration of practicality versus ideology, but with Mayhew missing for the finale, the episode was the worse for it.
The relationship between Jed and Pine wasn’t particularly believable, and her character was possibly the weakest in the entire show; over-emotional, foolish and generally getting in the way. Compare that to the character of Burr however…
I have already waxed lyrical about Olivia Colman, so I won’t again, but a special shout goes out to Adeel Akhtar, who is brilliant in anything he’s in. As Rob Singhal, Burr’s right hand man and assistant, he’s managed to turn a small role into something quite meaty. His reaction to Pine’s foolish handling of the problems with Jed, and the showdown in the hotel is a great scene between his veteran analyst and Hiddleston’s newcomer. He reflected my own incredulity at Pine’s choices perfectly.
Adeel Akhtar sporting some seriously chunky knitwear
Finally I have to return to the ending. It was far too neat and tidy and it lacked the bite of the original. I really wanted to see Burr have to make the choice between catching Roper and leaving Pine to die. I hope the BBC don’t make a second series, because they have shown that once they stray from the original text, they start to lose their way. There is no sequel written to the book, so anything from here on wouldn’t be Le Carré and much worse for it.
What do you think? Did ‘The Night Manager’ lose its way? Let us know your thoughts.
Bare Arms was set up to provide military assistance to film and television productions. Follow us on twitter @barearmsfilm and the blog for more reviews, or head to the website http://www.barearms.co.uk if you are interested in what we do.
WARNING: Contains images of appallingly bad head-dress and other uniform disasters. If anyone in your family is a warrant officer in the military, you may want to call an ambulance for the coronary they are definitely about to have after seeing some of these examples.
Dear readers. It seems that our little posts about Military Movie Clichés have been getting some attention. Our posts about grenades and rubbish officers have attracted a broad readership from around the world. Oddly enough we were getting a lot of individual hits from all the South American countries, which was a mystery until a friend mentioned they had been backpacking through the region and reading our blog as they went!
As a result of this, many people have been suggesting other things that we should write about, but things that don’t necessarily quite fit with the Movie Clichés theme. One of the topics that started a heated debate was the subject of crap berets in films (thank you Brillo and Cow Head). Why do you see actors walking around with berets that look like the unwanted lovechild of a hat and an aircraft carrier? Some look like Che Guevara has been taking fashion tips from a blind French mime artist. No soldier would be seen dead in the kind of milliner’s blancmange that Sly Stallone has sported over the years.
One of his better efforts, but he still looks like an evil pastry chef
But how did a Pyrenees shepherd hat that looks like a pancake become the standard military uniform?
Military Origins: The beret has been around for many years, but it was the French Chasseurs Alpins (Alpine Hunters) that were the first military unit to adopt it back in the 1880s. They were created to protect their mountain borders after Italy got their act together and unified in the latter half of the 19th century, which included reforming their army and creating their own mountain regiments.
Shortly after this photograph was taken, the entire parade was flattened by a passing Chinook whose pilot mistook one of the brass section for the landing deck of the US Nimitz.
Their uniform was designed to be practical in the mountains, and they adopted the beret as it was worn by the locals and shepherds. One advantage was clearly the ability to shelter an entire platoon under one hat during inclement weather. This might have been the end of the military’s relationship with the beret, had it not been for a man called Hugh Elles.
The Men in Black
Sir Hugh Jamieson Elles, at the age of 36 was given command of a secretive military unit in the British Army called the Heavy Branch, which was part of the Machine Gun Corps (MGC). The MGC had been created a year early in late 1915 in order to meet the need for a better understanding and use of machine guns in The Great War. The Heavy Branch followed less than 6 months later with the sole purpose of manning the very first tanks ever to be used in combat. Once the secret was out and the existence of tanks was known by the Germans, the Heavy Branch split away from the MGC and became the Tank Corps, now the Royal Tank Regiment (more on those splendid chaps later).
Life in a tank during WW1 was unpleasant, and it quickly became apparent that most of the uniform designed for regular troops was unsuitable for tank crewmen, in particular the peaked caps. The peak prevented the soldier being able to get his eyes close enough to the sights or viewing slits, and the shape of the cap made it difficult to wear radio headsets when they were introduced. As the war was drawing to a close, Elles and Colonel Fuller were discussing the future of the Tank Corps, including uniform, when Elles spotted the aforementioned Chasseurs who were camped nearby. According to legend, he tried one on and history was given a sartorial upgrade. He thought, however, that the Chasseur beret was “too sloppy” so a compromise based on the Scottish tam o’shanter was designed. The ToS had been used by some Scottish regiments throughout WW1. In 1923 the Tank Corps became the Royal Tank Corps under King George V, and in 1924 he officially granted the sole use of the beret to the RTC (something they had been doing unofficially for years). It wasn’t until 1940, that the rest of the British army’s armoured regiments begrudgingly followed suit.
Special Forces and MURICA!
Slowly but surely, other specialised regiments began to see the value of the beret. It could be rolled up and stuffed in a pocket for starters. The newly formed Parachute Regiment started using the maroon beret (the colour apparently chosen by the author Daphne de Maurier, who was the wife of a high ranking general at the time), with the Commandos and Marines adopting the green beret shortly after. The rest of the British military followed suit in the years following the war. American paratroopers were given berets by their British counterparts, many of whom went on to be part of the US Special Forces Group in the post war years. Despite being told not to, they wore the beret throughout the 50’s until the famous ‘Green Beret’ was officially sanctioned in 1961. Other units were allowed to do the same in the 70’s as part of a drive to improve morale. In 2001 the US Army ordered that the black beret would be worn as standard, however a decade later they reverted back to the cloth cap after complaints were made by soldiers that the beret was ‘too hot’.
So that’s the history behind the military beret, but who wears it well, and who is danger of being carried off in high winds?
‘Street Fighter’ – 1994
This film only popped into my head yesterday as it was on television on one of the high numbered channels that is normally reserved for foreign news networks and depressingly low grade pornography. Apparently over half of the budget went on hiring Jean-Claude Van Damme and the terminally ill Raúl Juliá (a brilliant actor who is thankfully better remembered by most as the Gomez in the Addams Family) who received a state funeral in his native Puerto Rico when he died 2 months before the film was released.
Because of the budgetary constraints, the rest of the roles went to unknown actors and actresses, including a diminutive Australian actress called Kylie Minogue. Whilst she has some undeniable talents which could lead you to forgive this monstrosity….
Note the obviously fake foam missile pod, the horrendous camo trousers that would only blend in when lying down on the pavement next to a kebab van at 3am, and the two extras trying to not look at her lovely lady lumps.
… but this blue cowpat is a disgrace to berets everywhere. Even the Chasseurs would giggle if they saw it.
My helicopter is landing WHERE?!
But Kylie isn’t the only fashion casualty of this particular costume department war. JCVD can’t even decide which side to wear his on.
Before anyone can claim the picture has been reversed, look at the scar on his eyebrow. So maybe ‘Street Fighter’ isn’t the best movie to be measuring with the military-accuracy-yard-stick. We would be here all year! After all, it does have a green dude who is not only electric, but looks as though he’s gone eight rounds with Eubank Jnr (#topicalsportsreference).
Get well soon Nick Blackwell
‘Starship Troopers’ – 1997
Treading a fine line between clever satire and dumb celebration of fascism, ‘Starship Troopers’ started life as a script with the terrific B-movie title of ‘Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine’. During pre-production it was noted that the plot of the script was rather too close to the novel ‘Starship Troopers’ for comfort. Rights to the novel were hastily bought, the title changed and character names adopted to match. Director Paul Verhoeven attempted to read the novel, but abandoned it after two chapters claiming it was boring and depressing.
Despite having the leading military consultant Dale Dye on board as the military advisor, there are some cracking examples of crap hats. The picture below shows a variety of what’s on offer, ranging from the ‘Ok, but a bit big’ to ‘Hey dude in the second row, your hat is causing a localised eclipse’.
“I want the side of mine to come out….this far..”
‘Private Valentine: Blonde and Dangerous’ – 2008
What do you mean you’ve never heard of this blatant rip-off of ‘Private Benjamin’ ?! Don’t worry neither had I, and for good reason. It was only ever released in Russia and Bulgaria (those two titans of eastern block cinema) and subsequently on DVD in the USA under the title ‘Major Movie Star’. No English speaking country would touch it with a barge pole. If it hadn’t bankrupted everyone involved in this cinematic travesty, then I would suggest Ben Elton and Richard Curtis should sue for robbing the title of one of the best Blackadder episodes (the one where Baldrick plays a slug balancer…).
I only include it in this list for three reasons. Firstly as a public warning, secondly so that Jessica Simpson’s shirt can finally be awarded the Oscar for best supporting actor that it justly deserves (how no one was killed by flying buttons is a credit to the costume department) and lastly because of the beret warn by the woman two rows back in this picture. It looks like a laundry bag has been upended on her top of her, and the biggest, blackest (steady now) baggiest pair of pants has landed on her head…then miraculously sprouted a cap-badge. She was probably temporarily deaf in her right ear during the filming of this scene.
Conan O’Brien made a public plea on his show for the film to get a public release, saying the “bad defines the good” and the apparent “85 minute stinkbomb” of ‘Major Movie Star’ would only help to highlight how good ‘Schindler’s List’ really was.
‘Private Benjamin’ – 1980
Maybe Jessica Simpson copied everything from Goldie Hawn, including her propensity for shocking head adornments. Suddenly I’m getting nostalgic for ‘Street Fighter’
How Not be Seen…3rd Parachute Bakery Battalion reporting for duty
‘The Wild Geese’ – 1978
Disrespectful, ill-disciplined and with some of the greasiest poops known to man, real life geese are nothing like this ensemble cast of veteran actors. That being said, 50% of Richard Harris’ fee was held as ransom to ensure he behaved on set, as he was known for delaying shoots by being drunk, ‘misbehaving’ and rewriting his lines, and Richard Burton was attempting to be teetotal at the time. ‘Wild Geese’ has not stood the test of time particularly well. It was considered racist, even at the time when filming in apartheid South Africa.
Lads? Anyone else hear a helicopter approaching?You know you have it badly wrong when the colour of your face matches the colour of your hat.
The military advisor was a South African mercenary, which may explain the dodgy headgear that everyone is sporting.
Any Steven Seagal Movie Where he Wears a Hat
“I’m just the cook”‘I’m just the cook…my washing machine is broken’
No explanation required for this. I think I prefer the chef’s ‘toque’. At least it has some bloody shape to it.
‘The A-Team’ – 2010
Whilst ‘The A-Team’ movie was enjoyable in parts, it had a nonsensical plot that was only marginally more believable than Quinton “Rampage” Jackson’s acting. Luckily you only see the team in their berets as they are present at their court-martial, but they look like a tray of yorkshire puddings.
They are also remarkably ill-fitting, but that’s probably because NONE OF THEM HAVE HAD A SODDING HAIRCUT. The proposed sequel was cancelled, probably purely on the berets alone, but also because it didn’t perform as well at the box office as expected.
‘Stargate’ – 1994
Kurt Russell has been clearly getting fashion tips from his wife Goldie Hawn. I’m a big fan of the ‘Stargate’ film (not as much as a friend of mine that has the earth coordinates tattooed on his torso), but Kurt Russell’s bonnet is going to give him some funny tan lines. Why is he the only military guy wearing one when everyone else in sensible helmets. Also why black?! It’s the desert.
Johnny Cash during the Battle of Algiers
‘A Bridge Too Far’ – 1977
One of the best, and most accurate war films of all time, with an incredible cast. There are so many big names in this film, it’s like a game of famous actor bingo, and it was one of the very first military movies that had the actors put through a military boot camp in preparation, at the insistence of Richard Attenborough who was in the director’s seat. So why bring it up here?
Two reasons, firstly Gene Hackman who plays Polish general Sosabowski. Not only is his accent module stuck somewhere on shop demonstration model, varying wildly between Cornish and phonetic Transylvanian, but his beret is ridiculous.
“But Gaineral, what about the Garmans?”
But hold on! Whilst his accent is inexcusable, the beret is in fact highly accurate. Take a look at this picture of the real General Stanislaw Sosabowski.
It appears that when you are a general, you can wear your hat any way you goddam please!
The second reason is slightly tenuous, but important nonetheless. In the film when the besieged British paratroopers are desperate for supplies, a canister is dropped in the open in a nearby field. A soldier decides to make a brave run for it, cheered on by everyone else, but is gunned down by German machine gun fire as he is attempting to make his way back. The canister falls to the ground and splits open to reveal a stash of maroon berets and nothing else. Remarkably this is a true story, but you will be relieved to hear that the man, Cpl ‘Johnny’ Johnson survived. The berets in this article are bad, but none of them have got someone killed!
The Real McCoy
So what should a beret actually look like? Well it depends vastly depending on the country of origin, but in some cases the military unit you are part of. British military guidelines state that the beret…
“…shall be worn evenly on the head, with the sweatband 2.5 cm above the eyebrows, the badge centred over the left eye, and the crown pulled downward to the right. The break of the sweatband shall be worn centred at the back of the head, with no drawstrings visible.”
UNIFORM = everyone looking different
No two berets will look exactly alike, and there will always be local variation in style, but if you are losing sight in your right eye, or hearing in your left ear then you are probably doing it wrong. It should fit snugly on the head without a space big enough to hide bakery products underneath, although the much larger american cap-badges tend to result in a large fold of material behind it.
US Army head dress guidelines
Other nations go for a ‘bigger is better’ approach. This soldier from the Jammu and Kashmir Police looks particularly badass, even if his beret is laughable by British standards…
…whereas this Indian general clearly grew the moustache to take your eyes off his beret.
But the British have little to complain about. This is how our future king dresses. No wonder they made him switch to the RAF!
So it seems that the higher rank you are, the more outrageous you can be with your beret. Just look at Field Marshall Montgomery.
On the lookout for future aircraft carrier designs.
I give up! With examples like this to follow, you can see how the movies get it so wrong. I’m going go watch ‘Private Valentine’ and then go for a lie down.
What else about military movies really gets your goat. Let us know.
Bare Arms was set up in 2013 to provide assistance to film and television productions. They provide advisers to military themed productions, as well as kit and equipment. Occasionally they write rubbish blogs too!
WARNING: Contains some distressing stereotypes that some may recognise. Also contains a significant chunk of British military history…
Nothing can ruin a movie quicker than a lazy script using the same old tired clichés that have been repeated many times over. Military themed films can easily fall into this trap, but just because it is a cliché doesn’t mean it isn’t true. In this series of articles we explore the stories behind the stories, the worst offenders in the movie world and those rare examples where the trend has been bucked.
This is the second in the series of ‘Military Movie Clichés’ and was the most suggested topic for scrutiny…oddly enough by army officers! Many military films have the archetypal character of a useless officer with little experience. They normally make terrible decisions to the detriment of the lead character, and almost always die badly. Where has this stereotype come from, and is it fair? To find out, we’ll need to delve a little into the process of becoming an officer and some history.
The Army Officer
To become an officer in the British Army, you have to pass a long and rigorous selection process, and then complete 44 gruelling weeks at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst before ‘commissioning’ as a junior officer. After RMAS, the young officers then complete a further training course to prepare them for their chosen speciality. Infantry platoon commander, tank troop leader and attack helicopter pilot are the possible combat courses, but there are many other support roles. 15-20 months (longer in the case of pilots) of intensive military training is meant to produce some of the best officers in the world, but this hasn’t always been the case.
Old College Parade Square – Commissioning Parade – RMAS
During the reign of Charles II, the practice of purchasing a commission started for a number of reasons. It was meant to preserve the social exclusivity of the officer class by ensuring that only the rich could become officers by buying their entry into the military. This had the secondary effect of ensuring that the officers would be much less likely to engage in looting or pillaging or any kind of profiteering as they didn’t need to. It also acted as a retirement fund for the officer. When they wanted to leave, they would sell their rank to an officer of the rank below. This was often by means of an auction, so more desirable regiments commanded higher prices.. If the officer was killed in action, his commission would be awarded to someone else for free, but they wouldn’t be able to sell it on and profit without serving a further three years.
The commanding officer of a regiment could refuse the purchase of a commission by someone who had the money, but not the social background to his liking. All of this ensured that the richest officers progressed, not necessarily the best, and resulted in incompetent leadership throughout the officer class. This was partly mitigated by long periods of combat such as the Napoleonic Wars, which caused heavy casualties amongst the senior ranks and persuaded the less committed aristocrats (of which there were many who obtained a commission purely for social reasons) to retire early to avoid active service. This meant that there were many more available commissions which therefore drove the price down and allowed those more professional, but less affluent individuals into the officer ranks.
Unfortunately the 30 years of relative peace after the Napoleonic wars allowed this process to be reversed in the run up to the Crimean War, which was significant in contributing to military blunders such as the Charge of the Light Brigade lead by Lord Cardigan.
Cardigan purchased his commission and subsequent command appointments. Whilst he was supposedly brave and kind to the men under his command, he was severely incompetent and caused a large amount of resentment between him and the professional officers who served him. He is considered by many to be the worst example of the problems caused by the commissioning purchasing system, and his part in the events of the Crimean War kick-started an inquiry into the practice which was abolished in 1871.
Despite this, The Great War (or The First World War) produced yet more stories of incompetence. Examples of regiments of brave ‘Tommies’ being sent to their deaths by indifferent generals pervaded throughout the culture of the time and the years that followed until World War Two. The phrase ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ was coined to describe the situation and generals such as Field Marshall Douglas Haig took most of the blame for the huge casualties of the war, but was it really his fault?
Field Marshall Douglas Haig
The main cause of the devastating statistics during the first few years of the war was the onset of new technologies that simply had not existed before. Almost overnight, the tactics that had developed over the last century became irrelevant. Inventions such as automatic weapons and poisonous gases, meant that the knowledge and experience of career soldiers such as Haig was rendered obsolete. It took both sides a significant amount of time to develop further technologies (such as the tank) and tactics to combat the resulting trench warfare stalemate, and during that time many people lost their lives. Generals such as Haig took the blame, but probably unfairly.
‘A Tank in Action‘ by John Hassall – 1917
Today the ‘officer class’ is a myth. Officers are selected purely on potential and merit, and definitely not on their finances or background. Anyone can be an officer if they have the correct qualities, most important of which is intelligence and ability to learn. Despite this, tales of incompetence still pervade modern cinema. It’s another easy script shortcut to show the officer as clean-cut, inexperienced and out of his (almost always male) depth. Here are the worst examples and a couple that buck the trend.
‘Fury’: As I promised in the previous article, ‘Fury’ is making another appearance and it won’t be the last in this series. Lieutenant Parker has the difficult job of commanding three older, more experienced, battle hardened sergeants. From the very start he is singled out as being somewhat different and also weaker than his subordinates. The picture below shows you everything you need to know in a snapshot.
Lt. Parker fails to impress Sgt. Collier
Firstly Parker is too clean. He is clean shaven and wearing fresh clothes. Everything is regulation despite being in the middle of a war. The way he speaks, the lack of confidence in which he carries himself and the looks that the sergeants give him suggest that he is fighting a losing battle when it comes to gaining their respect. Compare him to Bradd Pitt’s ‘Wardaddy’ and you can see why he isn’t going to survive the first scene, let alone to get to tea and medals at the end of the film. As the tank troop move off, we see the officer standing out the top of his turret in a vulnerable position. Again, compare this to the other commanders who are correctly hunkered down, with as little of their bodies outside the tanks as possible. Moments later his tank is hit by a panzerfaust (rocket launcher), setting him on fire as the fuel ignites inside the vehicle. Whilst screaming in a high pitched manner and engulfed in flames, Parker tumbles out the vehicle and then takes his own life with his service pistol. From his entry to his exit, everything is done to make Parker look as ineffective as possible. His character is largely redundant to the plot and seems to only serve to make the officer class look as bad as possible.
‘Aliens’: Before anyone starts, ‘Aliens’ is definitely a war film…and a horror film…and a science fiction film. It’s got Marines in it, a lot of guns and a crap officer, so today it is a war film. Lieutenant Gordon is a far more convincing officer than Parker, but equally clean cut (as the picture below shows) and out of his depth. He immediately alienates (excuse the pun) himself from this troops, by not eating with them, getting their names mixed up, imposing unreasonable timelines on them and by generally being an ‘asshole’. He doesn’t redeem himself by showing nerves during the combat drop onto the planet, and thus revealing his inexperience to everyone on the mission.
Lt. Gordon addresses his Colonial MarinesLt. Gordon dealing with stress ‘inadequately’
Things are made worse by his decision to stay aboard the command vehicle, whilst the marines enter the buildings without him. When things start to go wrong, he panics and makes poor tactical decisions which forces Ripley to take matters into her own hands. Luckily for everyone, he is accidentally knocked unconscious for the middle of the film, enabling Michael Biehn’s ‘Corporal Hicks’ to take over. When he finally comes around, he resigns himself a non-command position for the rest of the film. His only redeeming moment is when he courageously turns back to rescue a wounded Vasquez.
They are both trapped and surrounded in a ventilation shaft, so to prevent them being taken, he kills them both with a grenade (why didn’t we include that in Part 1: GRENADES!?). Rather unfairly, the last thing that is said to him is by Vasquez who grunts “You always were an asshole, Gorman.” just before he pulls out the grenade.
‘Kelly’s Heroes’: Captain Maitland is only in the film for about a minute, but he is totally preoccupied with ‘appropriating’ a small sailing boat to take home to the USA. He is oblivious to the situation developing around him or what his subordinates are up to. Clint Eastwood plays Private Kelly, who is a former officer himself, but was demoted after a failed infantry assault. Whilst an excellent if tongue in cheek war movie, the film belongs to the enlisted men and the officers don’t get a look in.
Oddball and his tank crew
‘The Eagle has Landed’: Another excellent war movie, which almost has you rooting for the Germans, but contains a truly terrible officer. To be fair to ‘The Eagle has Landed’ it does have some very good officers in it, but Colonel Clarence E. Pitts is one of the worst portrayed on screen. Not only inexperienced, but also keen to get some glory after being left out of D-Day preparations, his idiotic assault on the church results in many of his men being killed. The character of Colonel Pitts is comedic relief that isn’t needed in the film, and to some extent detracts from the drama. His death is as equally ridiculous as the rest of his presence.
Larry Hagman as Colonel Pitts – a split second before being shot
‘Sharpe’ (TV): Sir Henry Simmerson is a reoccurring villain in Bernard Cornwell’s ‘Sharpe’ series, and was played in the television series by Michael Cochrane. A portrayal of the old type of officer who has purchased his commission, Simmerson is a coward and an idiot. In the books he is described as short, squat, and red-faced giving the impression of “a pig sitting on horseback.” He is snobbish, aristocratic and a narrow-minded, the exact opposite of Sharpe.
Sharpe starts life as a private in the infantry, but gains a commission from the ranks in the midst of battle and ends up as a colonel by the time of Waterloo. His struggle against the likes of Simmerson is one of class and background that is relevant to this entire article.
‘Damn his eyes!’
‘Blackadder Goes Forth’ (TV): The fourth and final series of the Richard Curtis and Ben Elton comedy is the best of the Blackadder series, and one of the best British comedy series of all time. Whilst it is a comedy, it has been criticised for reinforcing the ‘lions led by donkeys’ mantra mentioned previously. Every officer portrayed in the series has serious character defects, none more so than General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett,KCB (played by Stephen Fry) who was a caricature of Haig and other generals of the time. His Wikipedia entry sums him up perfectly as;
“…a loud, childish, unintelligent, incompetent, pompous warmonger… his preferred battle tactics and general attitudes towards warfare are stuck firmly in a bygone era. He fails to understand or comprehend the basic concepts of modern trench warfare and is totally unable to come up with a new strategy that would suit it. Instead he continuously sends men to a senseless death with seemingly no tactics at all.”
His sycophantic adjutant is no better. Captain Darling is graciously described as a ‘snivelling rubber desk-johnny!’ by Lord Flashheart, himself a narcissistic, arrogant and self-absorbed lunatic played by the incomparable Rik Mayall. The Hon. George Colthurst St Barleigh, is a young, enthusiastic lieutenant whose excitability is only matched by his naivety, where as Blackadder himself is a liar and a coward. With characters like this it easy to see how the stereotypes have prevailed.
“Good luck…”
Despite this, and remarkably for a comedy, the series ends with one of the most poignant sequences depicting the Great War. It is hard to watch it and not be moved. The writers received disapproval for trivialising the horrors of the era, but the closing scene completely silenced their critics.
So those were some of the examples of the bad officers depicted in celluloid, but what about the good ones?
‘Band of Brothers’: Dick Winters’ exploits during WW2 have been well documented thanks to the excellent HBO series based on Stephen E. Ambrose’s book of the same name. Throughout the preparations for D-Day, the assault itself, the liberation of France and the invasion of Germany, he showed exemplary leadership in difficult circumstances. The headquarters element of Easy Company was shot down during the D-Day insertion, killing everyone on board. As a result Winters had to assume company command for the duration of the Normandy campaign. He was nominated for the Medal of Honor for a crucial assault on a German gun battery, defeating 50 Germans with only 13 of his own men. Aspects of the attack are still taught at West Point (The American version of Sandhurst) as an example of an assault with a numerically inferior force. During the ill-fated Operation Market Garden, Winters successfully assaulted a German position of 300 soldiers with only a platoon of 30. He was always humble about his achievements, dedicating his success to his ‘company of heroes’. Winters died in 2011.
Richard ‘Dick’ Winters – Dec ’45
On the opposite side of the coin is the real life character of Herbert Sobel played by David Schwimmer in the TV series. He was known to be petty and vindictive and universally hated by men and officers alike. He was considered a poor leader who knew little about basic infantry tactics, and was more concerned with his image than the welfare of this men. However many of Easy company agree that his harsh treatment of them was instrumental in turning them into one of the best fighting units in the U.S. Army.
‘Saving Private Ryan’: Another Spielberg World War II epic, that arguable started the modern trend of officers being portrayed in a more realistic and favourable light that was carried forward to ‘Band of Brothers’ and ‘The Pacific’.
“Ryan? James Francis Ryan?”
Tom Hanks deserved his Best Actor Oscar Nomination for his portrayal of the stoic and dependable Captain John H. Miller, who is an inspirational father figure to his men, yet keeping a respectful distance that allows him to maintain command. Even when everything is going wrong and his men are dying around him he stays loyal to his mission and keeps them moving forward, no matter how pointless it seems. He shows compassion, even to the Germans he is fighting and doesn’t give up despite mortally wounded and faced with a Tiger tank armed only with a Colt .45. He sacrifices everything for the life of someone he doesn’t even know.
Tom Hanks as Capt. Miller
‘We Were Soldiers’: Another film that is based on real events and contains some truly inspirational officers, from the commanding officer Hal Moore (played by Mel Gibson) who refuses to leave until all his men are accounted for and off the battlefield, to Major Bruce Crandall who won the Medal of Honor for flying his helicopter in and out of the combat zone multiple times to bring in ammunition and to extract the wounded.
Someone that deserves a special mention is the relatively unknown Rick Rescorla, a Cornishman who not only served with The Parachute Regiment, the Rhodesian Police and the Metropolitan Police, but also joined the U.S. military as an officer. Hal Moore described him as “the best platoon leader I ever saw”. He fought at La Drang during the events depicted by the film, but he and his unit were almost completely written out of the script. However this is not the prime reason you should know his name. He should be remembered for his actions on September 11th 2001, where he was the director of security for Morgan Stanley in the South Tower of the World Trade Center. He correctly predicted that the next terrorist attack could be a plane crashing into the towers, and designed emergency evacuation procedures for such an event, which were practised every three month despite friction with the company executives.
Cyril Richard ‘Rick’ Rescorla
When the first plane hit the North Tower, Rescorla ignored instructions from his superiors to stay put and began evacuating employees immediately in accordance with his drills. To boost morale he began to sing British military songs, a childhood habit which he had utilised throughout his time in Vietnam to inspire his men. He was last seen heading back up the South Tower to ensure he had got everyone out, shortly before the tower collapsed. Nearly 3,000 people owe their lives to his foresight, leadership, courage and discipline.
The Truth
So it seems that there once was an endemic culture for unprofessional army officers rising through the ranks to the upper echelons, primarily caused by the purchase of commissions and the maintenance of the class divide. This image wasn’t helped by the rapidly changing nature of warfare during the early 20th century, which rendered many senior officers outmoded and obsolete despite their best intentions. Hollywood and the film industry in general has always catered for the masses, and therefore was keen to portray the difference between the elitist officers and the enlisted men. Inspirational stories of the common man doing well, whilst simultaneously showing the weaknesses of the entitled that were meant to led them through birthright, were always destined to be popular.
To counter this it seems that whenever the media draws its inspiration from real life events, the depiction of officers has always been more balanced. In the military there are both good and bad officers, just as there are good and bad soldiers. Young officers will always lack experience, but they make up for it with exuberance and bravery. A good NCO should support and mentor their officers, rather than undermine and circumvent them. For every Winters there needs to be a Malarkey. For every Miller there is a Horvath at his side throughout. Even Hal Moore had Sergeant Major Plumley and Sharpe had Harper. This is not a coincidence.
“Good young officers who become good old generals are made by good sergeants, … a combination of ill-founded self-confidence, bluff and outstanding support and guidance from a series of unforgettable sergeants allowed me to create an impression of competence.” – Major-General Lewis MacKenzie
“A new lieutenant is a precious thing…. Don’t take advantage of him, but train him, correct him when he needs it (remembering that diplomacy is part of your job description), and be ready to tell the world proudly that he’s yours. If you are ashamed of him, maybe it’s because you’ve neglected him or failed to train him properly. Do something about it. Show a genuine concern that he’s learning the right way instead of the easy way. But be careful not to undermine his authority or destroy his credibility. Remember that order and counter-order create disorder…. As the senior and most experienced NCO in the platoon, you must pass on the benefit of wisdom and experience to your platoon leader as well as to the soldiers.” – 1st Sgt Jeffrey J. Mellinge
So whenever you see an officer portrayed in the movies, have a look at the NCO by his side…
What other ‘Military Movie Clichés’ annoy you? Pictures of pregnant wife / new baby = first to die? No reloading during battles?! Inconsistent explosions? One-in-a-million shots happening 9 out of 10 times? Let us know in the comments below what you want to see and await the next edition….
WARNING:Contains spoilers for some films that you really should have seen by now…and if you haven’t, you probably never will. Soooo….
Nothing can ruin a movie quicker than a lazy script using the same old tired clichés that have been repeated many times over. Military themed films can easily fall into this trap, but just because it is a cliché doesn’t mean it isn’t true. In this series of articles we explore the stories behind the stories, the worst offenders in the movie world and those rare examples where the trend has been bucked.
Part 1: Falling on a hand grenade
Grenades have been around in rudimentary forms since the 8th century, but the modern hand grenade was developed in the first decade of the 20th Century in the run up to The Great War. Over the last 100 years there have been many stories of soldiers throwing themselves on grenades to save their comrades, but are they true? Hollywood would certainly have you believe it is. So much so, that an episode of ‘The Simpsons’ depicting Grandpa’s time with The Flying Hellfish deliberately riffs on this, where Grandpa saves the life of Monty Burns, by placing his helmet over a grenade.
The following films have all used this example of selfless sacrifice as part of their plots. But why does it crop up so regularly?
Our first example ‘Act of Valor’is noteworthy because it uses real U.S. Navy SEALs to add realism to the incredible action sequences. Unfortunately whilst the SEALs are world class operators, they are not world class actors! The dialogue is terribly written, but also woodenly delivered. The movie ends with a tear jerker of a funeral for the officer of the team, who dives on an enemy grenade to save his team.
‘Fury’ is a film that will pop up many times during this series. What should have been a corker of a tank film ended up ticking all the wrong boxes in the cliché roster. One of the minor misdemeanors is the death of Gordo, the driver of the eponymous fighting machine played by Michael Peña. Whilst preparing a grenade during the final battle, he is shot and drops it into the hull. In order to save the crew he quickly picks up the grenade, doubles over it and takes the force of the explosion. More on ‘Fury’ in later editions.
By all accounts, the‘The Thin Red Line’was a nightmare of a film to make for cast and crew alike. The first cut was over 5hrs long and many fine actors ended up on the editing room floor in order to get Art Malick’s opus down to a respectable length. Woody Harrelson’s death scene is one of the more depressing moments. An experienced soldier, Sergeant Keck, accidentally pulls the pin on a grenade on the back of his belt whilst trying to throw it at the advancing enemy. After a second of disbelief he throws himself against an embankment to protect the rest of his platoon, and as he dies he chastises himself for making such a ‘recruit’ mistake.
‘Captain America’ is slightly different as it knowingly plays on the genre. Tommy Lee Jones described his own character of Colonel Chester Phillips as “the one you’ve seen in a thousand movies: the gruff, sceptical officer overseeing a team of talented, slightly sarcastic, specially talented soldiers” which is in itself a movie trope. In order to test a group of soldiers, the colonel throws a dummy grenade into their midst. All the soldiers scatter with the exception of Steve Rogers, a frail and sickly reject who dives over the grenade believing it to be real. It this act of heroism that convinces Colonel Phillips that Rogers is the man for the very special job he has lined up.
The Truth
So does this kind of thing ever happen for real? Remarkably it has happened numerous times through enemy action and accidents. Falling on grenades has accounted for more Medal of Honor winners than any other act, but unsurprisingly the recipients rarely survive. Corporal Kyle Carpenter was only 21 when he was on a rooftop in Afghanistan with another marine from the U.S. Marine Corps. A grenade landed in their sandbagged position during an attack, and Carpenter was credited with shielding his fellow marine from the blast. He lost his right eye and most of his teeth. His jaw and right arm were shattered and he has undergone dozens of surgeries. For this action he was awarded the Medal of Honor, the U.S.A.’s highest award for bravery.
Another recent example is Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher who was initially put forward for a Victoria Cross for his actions with the British Marines near Sangin in Afghanistan in 2008. He accidentally activated a trip-wire grenade as he was moving through a compound at night, but realised in time to react. Instead of diving to the floor he purposefully fell backwards, tucking his legs to his chest, landing on the grenade and covering it with his backpack. He suffered relatively minor injuries as the backpack and body armour prevented him from being more seriously hurt. Instead of being evacuated, he insisted that they put in a hasty ambush to catch the Taliban fighters who would probably come and investigate the explosion. His actions undoubtedly saved the life of at least one of his patrol. Croucher was awarded the George Cross, which is second to the Victoria Cross in the order which they are worn, but equal in merit. The only difference between the GC and VC is the latter is only awarded for bravery ‘in the face of the enemy’. [Thanks to John Concannon for the correction].
There are many more stories of similar examples, so whilst it seems that ‘falling on a grenade’ is a recurrent theme in the cinema, it isn’t as far from the truth as you might think. Soldiers will sometimes do the unimaginable to protect their comrades in arms, and grenades are inherently dangerous to both friend and foe. Even so, there must be another way for scriptwriters to demonstrate bravery and sacrifice?! Why is it always grenades?!
So falling on grenades is 100% true, but 100% overused.
What other ‘Military Movie Clichés’ annoy you? Pictures of pregnant wife / new baby = first to die? Inexperienced officers being ineffective? No reloading during battles?! Let us know in the comments below what you want to see and await the next edition….
We originally wrote a short review for Sicario after its cinematic release, but in the meantime it has been nominated for three Oscars. This week it gets its home release so we’ve updated and embellished our original review.
It is quite rare to sit through a film these days and then instantly want to see more of the characters. Normally Hollywood requires everything to be neatly wrapped up within the running time, or to end on a cliffhanger with an obvious opening to a money grabbing sequel. Sicario is different. You get dropped into the middle of the story and you don’t get a a neat conclusion. Like all the best films, it will probably leave you with more questions than when you started, but you aren’t alone. Emily Blunt plays FBI Agent Kate Mercer who is kept equally in the dark throughout and acts as a conduit for the viewer to observe proceedings.
After her strong performance as the female special forces warrior Sgt. Vrataski in Edge of Tomorrow, Blunt gets another chance to flex her action muscles…and boy does she do it convincingly. At times she is reminiscent of Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley, both tough and sensitive in the same breath. Mercer gets used as a passenger to legitimise the shadowy schemes of Matt Graver, a CIA agent played by a laconic Josh Brolin. Accompanying him is Benicio del Toro as the elusive Alejandro Gillick, whose soft demeanour is clearly hiding a traumatic past.
The film is gloriously shot due to British cinematographer Roger Deakins, who was nominated for an Oscar for the thirteenth time this year for his part in Sicario (yet remarkably has never won. Leonardo Dicaprio has nothing to complain about in comparison!). If you have never heard of him, in the past he has been the man responsible for the look of most of the Cohen Brothers’ films, Skyfall and The Shawshank Redemption to mention a few.
There are four stand out sequences that are each a master-class in the building of tension. One of these scenes is technically and visually exceptional, and would have probably won Deakins the Oscar on its own, however for the third year in a row the award went to Emmanuel Lubezki for his work on The Reverent . It involves the tactical assault of an illegal tunnel system seen through the eyes of Graver and Gillick, wearing night vision and thermal goggles respectively. The constant switching between the two different visualisations not only looks fantastic, but it also enables the viewer to easily distinguish who’s point of view they are seeing without the need for dialogue.
The other memorable scenes include the opening sequence featuring an FBI SWAT team assault onto a suburban bungalow, a snatch and grab operation across the Mexican border and a scene where we discover Gillick’s true motivation and his role in the proceedings. Each of them is engrossing, but in different ways. From start to finish I was hooked. The pace is perfect. It wasn’t exhausting like some pure action films, but my attention was undivided for the duration. Josh Brolin does his usual job of acting cocky and brash whilst Emily Blunt is strong and determined, yet fragile at times, but the film really belongs to Benecio Del Toro. He is quiet and understated throughout, playing third fiddle until he gets his own jaw-dropping moment in the closing stages.
Sicario is easily the best film I’ve seen in a long time, but I can’t help selfishly wanting a sequel / 6 part HBO series to follow it up, which would probably only diminish its impact. You care about what happens to Gillick and Mercer (less so Graver) and you only get to scratch the surface of the world they have become embroiled in. If you didn’t get the chance to watch it on the big screen, grab the opportunity now. For what is a relatively low budget film ($30 million), it looks and plays out like something with four times the money behind it.
If you had tuned in to watch The Night Manager on BBC One, you might have mistaken it for the opening credits of any of the recent James Bond films. A clever sequence unfolds which merges modern weaponry with images of opulence and luxury. It flits back and forth between the two subjects, accompanied by a dramatic string score which gets the heart rate elevated, almost in preparation for what is about to come. Speedboats become missiles, whose vapour trails turn into champagne bubbles. My personal favourite was the fine china tea set that became the barrels of the Gatling gun mounted on the side of an Ac-13o Spectre gunship. I was so immersed in the visuals, that I forgot to read who was starring in the drama, so it came as a pleasant surprise when some of the best actors in the UK started popping up.
Tom Hiddleston is probably best known for his gleefully over-the-top, scene stealing performances as Loki, the Norse god and brother of Thor in the Marvel universe. Thankfully, in The Night Manager he gets to play Jonathan Pine, a more subtle character with infinitely more depth which better shows off his acting ability. At points I felt like this could be his de-facto audition for the Bond franchise. Slick and charming, yet secretive and clearly holding down some serious issues. If they were ever to do a proper 007 origins story from the days of his military service, Hiddleston would be a sure fire bet. In this however, he quietly and gracefully goes about his job as the night manager of an exclusive hotel in Cairo, just as everything outside is collapsing due to the Arab spring of 2011.
Since John le Carré wrote The Night Manager over 20 years ago, the political landscape has caught up with the plot. The BBC’s new adaptation fits well around real world events such as the uprising, and it feels fresh and up to date. There have been one or two previous attempts to turn the book into a film, but the plot has always been too complex to squeeze into 120 minutes. Yet again the small screen has shown up Hollywood, with the six hour running time giving the story the freedom to move at a more natural pace.
Hugh Laurie is barely in the first episode, but you get a feel for his character quite quickly. Richard Onslow Roper may be formidable with the power that he wields, but he isn’t a snarling megalomaniac with a facial scar who keeps a tank of sharks. More of a toned down Tony Stark who hasn’t had his “road to Damascus” / change of heart just yet. Roper is another multi faceted character and you get the feeling that the relationship between him and Pine will be the making of the entire series. His true nature hasn’t yet been revealed, but he must be pretty bad to receive the title ‘Worst Man in the World’. In the second episode he gets more of a showing, but not enough to convince you either way.
The other two key players are Roper’s right hand man Corcoran played by Tom Hollander, and Olivia Coleman as a British intelligence officer Angela Burr. In the original book, Burr was a man, but Coleman brings a much needed conscience to the script in the form of her ongoing battle between getting Roper locked up (for as yet unknown crimes) and putting Pine in harms way. She has one of the most expressive faces of any actor, and it is a genuinely delight to watch her on screen.
Tom Hollander seems to either get roles as an unlucky incompetent or a vicious sarcastic bastard. In this he is definitely the latter. What Roper seems to lack in violence, Corcoran more than makes up for. Hollander treads a fine line, but doesn’t take it as far as the pure campery of a similar character he played in the film Hannah. Of the four characters Corcoran is probably the simplest, but the one that brings the most dark chuckles as the episodes progress.
The first episode is a slow-burner of a set up. We get some of the motivations of the characters, but not a whole lot of exposition. It is rewarding not be patronised with over explanation and constant signposting, but it does leave you instantly wanting to watch the next episode (luckily for you, it is already on the BBC iPlayer, so you can have a mini-binge). The second episode has better pace and more grit, slowly drip feeding titbits of information and back story to flesh out the other characters.
The similarities to Bond are apparent, but the differences are what makes this series a must-see. Everything is leaner, darker and far more realistic. The glorious locations and sinister governmental bureaucrats are on hand, but gone are the plot holes papered over by overblown car chases and jarring product placement. In their place sits expertly crafted dialogue and three-dimensional characters. The spies practice some actual espionage instead of announcing their own names the minute they walk into a bar, or blowing up every mode of transport they use. The world isn’t in dire peril or on the brink of destruction (yet), but bad men are still in the shadows doing bad things. Spectre showed up all the weaknesses in the 007 format. Bond needs to be much less Bourne in two hours, and far more le Carré in six.
The Night Manager is on BBC One, Sundays at 9pm and on AMC in the USA in April.
Bare Arms Blog 