"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSince Douglas MacArthur affected more human livesfor the betterthan any other American not elected President, he deserved a better film biography. Not that Universal's \"MacArthur\" is bad. It's just not all it should have been.
Oddly enough, the potential was there. From the very early \"Star Trek\" episode \"The Corbomite Maneuver\" (1966) to the recent HBO films \"Something the Lord Made\" (2OO4) and \"Warm Springs\" (2OO5), director Joseph Sargent has emerged as one of the most expressively human directors in film, a man capable of subtly shaping the emotional shadings of his actors' performances, and carrying the audience exactly where he wants them to go. The producer, Frank McCarthy, also gave us \"Patton\" (197O), the legendary Jerry Goldsmith scored both films, and Universal widely touted the fact that the film was \"four years in preparation and production.\" Yet for all of this, \"MacArthur\" is perfectly adequateand not much more than that.
The film begins in early 1942, shortly before the beleaguered general was orderedby President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Dan O'Herlihy)to flee the Philippines to avoid capture by the Japanese. Thus, this film omits:
· MacArthur's birth in 188O in a frontier barracks in Arkansas still subject to attack by Native American tribesmenthus establishing that his remarkable life spanned the distance from bows-and-arrows to thermonuclear weapons;
· his graduation from West Pointfirst in a class of 95,
· how he joined his famous father, General Arthur MacArthur (who had earned the Medal of Honor at Missionary Ridge in the Civil War) on assignments in Japan, China and, most importantly, in the Philippines;
· his heroic exploits in the 1914 excursion into Vera Cruz;
· how he leaped about the trenches of World War One like a mountain goat, often wounded, and promoted with blinding speed to Brigadier General;
· his postwar service as West Point's youngestand most progressivecommandant;
· his participation in the court-martial of Billy Mitchell in 1924;
· his routing of the Bonus Marchers in 1932;
· his efforts to sustain a woefully-underfunded Army as Chief of Staff in the early 193O's;
· his retirement from the U.S. Army to become Field Marshal (!) of the Army of the Philippines;
· and the reactivation of his commission by FDR shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War.
All this is omitted in favor of prolonged footage of MacArthur trying to fight off seasickness while being evacuated by PT boatthus, we know that \"General Mac\" is a legend, but not why; nor can we appreciate why the allegations of cowardice were so wounding to \"Dugout Doug\"and so patently unfounded.
The remainder of his career is presently straightforwardly: His island-hopping \"Hit 'em where they ain't\" campaign, the fulfillment of his pledge to the Filipinos \"I shall return!\"his crowning achievement, the winning of the peace in postwar Japan, then the difference of opinion with President Harry Truman (a properly feisty Ed Flanders) over the conduct of the Korean conflict which resulted in his outright firing, and finally, his proclamation to Congress that \"old soldierssimply fade away,\" after which he did just that. All quite historically accurate, and all presented with a very deliberate lack of commentary.
Sargent and the producers almost painfully distance themselves from adorning the historical record with their own approval or disapproval: If MacArthur's actions appear noble, let them be presented as such; if they appear egotistical or bombastic, let those conceptions register sans comment. Since Joe Sargent is quite expert at subtly manipulating his audience's reactionsagain, see Warm Springsthis refusal to offer comment appears quite intentional. Historically, that may be commendable, but it almost defeats the efforts of the viewer to place this extraordinary man in any kind of rational perspective.
And finally, there is a sort of \"made on the cheap\" feel to the film, as there is to \"Midway,\" released about the same time. Both films were relegated to \"television\" directors--Sargent in this case, Jack Smight on \"Midway,\" and both have a made-for-TV-look. Even Jerry Goldsmith's march, while perfectly serviceable, lack the subtle undertones and the grandeur of his \"Patton\" theme--just another way in which a larger-than-life man is memorialized by a very ordinary film.
There was vanity and pettiness in this man, inarguably; there was also greatnessand love him or loathe him, one must acknowledge the fact that MacArthur did what no military commander before him had done: he won the peace.
In the end, \"MacArthur\"like so many film biographiesis a good place to begin research into this remarkable man, but a poor place to end it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"