Directed
by Henry King; produced by Darryl F Zanuck
The
U.S. Army Air Force’s 918th Bomber Group has become known as a ‘hard luck’ unit
for its continuing disasters during missions over occupied Europe. Tough
Brigadier General Frank Savage (Gregory Peck) is sent to take over command;
despite his predecessor (Gary Merrill) being his friend, Savage blames him for
being too soft in driving the officers and men under his command, for becoming
too involved in their problems. By ruthless but fair methods, Savage slowly
turns the group around – but at what cost to his men, and to himself?
One
of the most significant of war movies, Twelve
O’Clock High found favour with audiences, critics and veterans of the European
bombing campaign. It may be one of the first American films of the ‘40s to
depict the war as a soul-damaging, character-crushing experience, yet it offers
a highly complimentary picture of the men involved.
The
story-line is reportedly very realistic; it certainly comes across that way.
The events are an amalgam of real experiences, and the characters are either
based on single individuals or composites. The casting of Peck as Savage was
inspired, I think: tall, broad-shouldered, physically strong Peck is perfect
for the unbending, almost unforgiving commander, and makes what happens to him
as the film progresses all the more startling.
The
other actors are all very good. They convey, with ease, so it seems, their
characters’ personalities. Especially good are Dean Jagger as Stovall, a First
World War veteran serving as the group’s adjutant; his unashamed drunkenness at
certain times ironically shows strength and independence toward authority,
while the man serves as a subordinate desk-bound officer. Merrill, as a former
group commander, who tries to warn Savage of what might happen with his methods;
Millard Mitchell as General Pritchard, VIII Bomber Command’s leader, and Robert
Patten, whose youth contrasts with his casual acceptance of danger and death, should
also be noted. Kenneth Tobey has a bit part as a military policeman who draws
Savage’s wrath.
The
writing is also exceptional. There is a moment when Savage confronts Pritchard
with objections to yet another high-risk raid: it shows how far the former has
come to being little different than his predecessor. Yet the interest lies not
just in that scene but in the realization that the change in Savage has been
building all along. The script works in demonstrating the correctness of
Savage’s unpleasant driving of the men, as well as understanding the men’s
resentfulness at being ordered always to do more, always better. There are
other aspects of the story that fit well together, as in Stovall’s gradual
comprehension of Savage’s character and what he is trying to accomplish, and
Stovall’s subsequent, and secret, assistance in that goal.
There
is surprisingly little action in the film, though this is not to be regretted.
Such action is not missed, as the writing, acting and direction creates enough
drama and suspense to relieve action of its duties. Henry King first sat in the
director’s chair in 1916, and left it 46 years later. He worked with Peck half
a dozen times, and Tyrone Power almost as often. He directed films as diverse
as The Song of Benadette, The Black Swan (reviewed on this blog
in September, 2021) and Wait Till the
Sunshines, Nellie. Not a name that is famous now, King seemingly could
direct successful movies whether dramatic, epic, actionful or musical.
There
are parallels between Twelve O’Clock High
and Appointment in London (reviewed
in November, 2023), about another bombing unit commander, this one in the Royal
Air Force. Though both cover aspects of conflict within hierarchy, intense
stress, expectations and relationships, Appointment
in London showed a bit more of the technical elements of the job, while
Twelve O’clock High was harder-hitting.
An
excellent film, an important war-movie, Twelve
O’clock High should be seen for its story, acting, direction and everything
else it has to offer.
I'm not usually one for war movies, but I loved this one--perhaps because it's more about character studies than the war itself.
ReplyDelete