**SPOILERS** Looking for a little more excitement then seeing crocodiles being fed at the local game reserve sisters Grace and Pat, Diana Glenn & Maeve Dermody, together with Grace's boyfriend Adam, Andy Rodoreda, decide to take a trip upstream in the desolate and deserted, of human habitation, Australian Mangrove Swamps.

With their swamp guide Jimmy, Ben Oxenbuld, at the helm of his motorized boat the four get upended by a giant saltwater crocodile who quickly grabs and drags a terrified Jimmy down to the bottom along with him. Grace Pat & Adam end up stranded on a tree in the swamp with Pat hanging on for dear life on the capsized boat. The rest of the film has the hungry and determined crocodile play a cat and mouse, or crock' and human, game with the trio that ends in a showdown at a mud bank just where the dead and dismembered body of jimmy finally came to it's rest.

Both the director and actors in the film take full advantage of the swamp making it at times far more scary then the giant crocodile swimming in it. We get to see the killer crocodile just about a half dozen times in the movie but everyone of them hits you, and Jimmy Grace Pat & Adam, right in the gut.

Alway there were kept in suspense by the giant reptile always doing his damage from beneath that comes so unexpectedly that it, the crock attacks, has far more effect when you don't see them coming then, like in the last ten minutes of the movie, when you do. You wonder right from the start who in the end would survive the crocodile attacks and eventually live to tell about them. The ending with the crocodile vrs human confrontation was about the weakest and most unrealistic part in the film.

The crocodile who was both so cagey and effective in the earlier scenes seemed to have punched, or swam, himself out not having either the strength or speed to grab, with his deadly jaws, and finish off the sole survivor of the expedition. In fact the killer crock was so ineffective that even after he gabbed his victim, or victims, he just couldn't hold on to them. This in the end turned out to be fatal on his part.

A lot like "Jaws" the film "Black Water" has the killer crocodile, like the great White Shark in "Jaws", more interested is killing his human prey then eating them. With all the food available in the swamp and rivers that he inhabited the crocodile was only after the quartet, Grace Pat Adam & Jimmy, for invading his watery domain that he felt was the grand ruler of. And for daring to do that they were to pay with their lives!


I found this film rather brilliant. Initially I wanted a "when animals attack" flick along the lines of "frankenfish" or even "rogue" but was delivered a truly horrific ordeal that was not devoid of humanity. Having been to the areas this was made (including the croc farm at the start of the movie, even sharing the same guide!) it added to the fear factor. Those crocs really are everywhere up there, though I don't think they had the "attitude" of this beastie. Yes there were some melodramatic moments but they contributed rather distract from the whole atmosphere. I genuinely cared for the characters and shuddered contemplating "what would I do?" in their boat. Not knowing where your enemy lurked or the sound of the croc chowing down at night was genuinely frightening. I would argue that this flick is one of the best horrors I have seen in years (coming close to the descent). I give it four alligator handbags.


This film is a sleeper because Rod Steiger's is the only big name in the credits. Yet, all of the supporting actors fit well with his character. It was fitting that in his last film, Rod Steiger reminded us once more of his inventive power as an actor. He portrayed a grandfather's impulsiveness, stubbornness, and acceptance of the end of life in a characteristically individual and convincing performance. Because his character was close to death, the story brings us closer to the most precious things granted to us: the privilege of life, relationships with family members, and the empathy of those who care for us. His search together with his grand daughter for one of his sons provided enough suspense to keep me waiting, expecting a highly-charged climax such as the meeting of two long-separated elderly lovers who were also on the cusp of death in "Forever Young." I wondered how the meeting would be staged and how tightly my emotions would be wound by the time he and his granddaughter reached the end of his quest. I was delighted to find that the story brought more than I expected. The delightfully satisfying climax brought for me a greater appreciation of the value of the precious gifts of life, love, and family that are enjoyed today by me and by all of us.


I loved this film. A must see for any Rod Steiger fan. Producer Suzanne DeLaurentiis and Director Stewart Raffill have brought us a true family film that touches the soul. An incredibly well put together movie with a beautiful soundtrack.


A wonderful film - a charming, quirky family story. A cross-country journey filled with lots of interesting, oddball stops along the way (& several very cool cameos). Great cast led by Rod Steiger carries the film along and leads to a surprise ending. Well directed & shot - a really nice movie.


Simply one of the best movies ever. If you won't get it - sorry for you. I believe that someday people will include this one in their all-time top 10's. Not now, but in the far future.


Giorgino is a strange, dark, obsessive object; the casting is impressive, the plot is powerful, reminded me of Edgar Poe's tales. Probably not a masterpiece, but it does leave us with the remembrance of strong images, fine music, fear, sadness, confusion, and a sentence that says it all : the wolves are coming. GIORGINO is quite forgotten now, and when it was released nobody seemed to appreciate it. That's a shame. If you ever have a chance to see this, well... give it a try.


Giorgino is a long, excruciating journey from bad to worse in the life of protagonist after whom the movie is named. Young demobilized, gas-poisoned First World War lieutenant of very delicate health, who previously was a doctor in an orphanage for children with some mental deprivations, goes in a search of their new location and finds much more than he ever intended to and quite of a different nature. Depressive atmosphere of ultimate despair, where the insane ones are much less horrible than the sane, where the madness is a kind of poetry, will hold you hypnotized from the very first frames of this film to the last. And all the beauty: beauty of the winter and mountains, beauty of snowy landscapes and wild woods, I don't even know how all the sorrow and sadness of last days of war could be made so beautiful.


That's certainly not the best film ever. But that's certainly worth seeing for people with a special kind of mind. So the one who loves sadness and depression, and scary fairy-tales at night, and wolves and real madness - welcome! If you find a copy, of course:) As for me, I could stand it only once... But since that the Wolves, and Saint-Lucy, and children's drawings, and a headless Christ live in my nightmares.


I think it's incredibly hard to write any kind of full-scale review to Giorgino, merely because it's one of those viewer-dependent, complex, poetical and philosophical movies that are brain-wearing if, while watching them, you're trying to enjoy their shell and get to their core simultaneously, yet there are several things which are certain and beyond any doubt for any man of art (which, I hope, I am). The first thing: it's a certain masterpiece, even of that kind of art which remains through a long long time; the second: it's one of those rare "dark" movies in which darkness is poetic, even romantic, attractive and much more sad than depressing, like the art of Pieter Brueghel or Caspar David Friedrich. As to the core of the movie, someone called it Kafkian, though I don't agree with that because actually it's far beyond Kafka's misanthropic logic and much more like Edgar Poe's parables: dark and scary but through that touching the most gentle strings of our souls. Actually, on the poetic side (which is much more important than the narrative), Giorgino is a tale about eternal peace and love which can be achieved only through eternal childhood of soul. Those who have such souls are usually branded as crazy by our society, but from another point of view, they all have the virtue all the others lost when become "grown": the virtue of God's love. Indeed, Giorgino is a very Christian movie, "Be like children" (Mt 18:3) is it's real hidden tag-line, though the movie never deals with any kind of moral and concentrates only on the Christian philosophy for, dare to suppose, true God is beyond any human moral. Yet I think that Boutonnat is too harsh portraying "grown" people as a sort of demons trying to steal childhood from rare survived souls, but it's his point of view and he has a right to think so. While watching Giorgino don't try to look for some hidden symbols (though there are some), better look for thoughts expressed through characters and their behavior, and do learn from them. Also I cannot mention that the movie looks astonishingly through excellent photography, especially through rational use of color filters, incredibly apposite editing, wonderful acting of all the cast and, of course, due to the atmospheric beauty of winter mountains that reminded me of the Brueghel's "Hunters in the Snow". Also, interestingly enough, the scene with Death in the form of an old woman with sunken black-ringed eyes riding a cart, instantly reminded me of Pesta (Plague) from the series of drawings by the Norwegian painter Theodor Kittelsen, depicting how a black plague is sweeping out the population of a small town in the mountain valley. Is it a coincidence?


Giorgino can to some people look a bit long but it's one of rare real romantique adventure film. It could be compare to Docter Jivago with a bit of Sleepy Holow. You must see it.


How to summarize this film ? it is simply impossible. Why you should see it ? maybe for the story, very probably for the actors (Giorgio, Catherine...), above all for the universe and the poetry. This is a tale. Sad, sometimes dark, but a tale. I LOVE this film !!!! Just waiting for the DVD !! Thank you mister Boutonnat.


I finally managed to see this movie...after so many years of expectancy...

I was so curious to see if this movie it is as bad as some people say..

And my opinion is that this movie it wasn't bad at all,on the contrary it was AMAZING...

I enjoyed every second from it...from the beginning until the end...

The actors were great they sent me the feeling that i was living the story at the same time as the movie was playing...

The landscapes were so beautiful were the film was shot...and it did charmed me.. Also the music was extraordinary and i have nothing

to reproach..

I think that the plot was very original i don't think that i saw a movie like this...

It is a shame that it isn't recognized all over the world..to bad for those who didn't get the chance to see it. i give this movie 10/10


Although it has been a failure in movie theaters because mainly Mylene Farmer, one of the 3 top stars in France had not the first role. Fans had changed their mind after that and were waiting for it on DVD. When it has been released on DVD this year it has have a tremendous success ! The others fails was the slow pace and the incredible length (3h) at that time (1994) that have annoyed critics. But the melancholic story makes mandatory that slow pace and long time. The moral of the film is you cannot escape from the death you are destined for. It is the same theme than in the movie "Final Destination" and makes it a Gothic tale. The atmosphere is very melancholic.


During WW2 in the Philipines, Japanese soldiers are starving, dying, growing weak, and becoming more and more insane. A small group of soldiers, trying to stay alive, have eventually resorted to cannibalism. This film perfectly portrays the insanity that overtakes people under extreme conditions. There are a few humorous parts in this movie, but the majority of it is just a very slow moving and realistic film. It follows these soldiers from one painful moment to another, and eventually to death. A very interesting film, showing the death, and the horror, of what may have been the worst war the world has ever seen.


This is one of the most anti-traditional war movies about was I have seen. Instead of the typical films that stress glory and perhaps super-human characters (like John Wayne), this film is the exact opposite--stressing the de-humanization that ALSO happens in war. The story concerns the Japanese who are stranded in the Phillipines after the US returned in late 1944-early 1945. By the time the movie begins, the Japanese have clearly been beaten but because of the insane logic of Bushido, they cannot allow themselves to consider surrender. At one of many poignant moments, the lead character is told at the beginning of the film to report to the hospital since he isn't capable of fighting due to his TB. The problem is that the hospital won't accept him, so his commander tells him to once again go to the hospital--and if they won't accept him he should blow himself up with a grenade! Well, this happens just in the first five minutes of the movie--a lot worse things befall this soldier and the few stragglers because they won't surrender. Plus, there is a case in the movie where a soldier DOES try to surrender but is gunned down. This happened a lot later in the war because so often the surrendering Japanese soldiers booby-trapped themselves to blow up when they came near. In addition, the film shows the most vivid depiction of starvation and the accompanying madness of any film I have seen. In addition, cannibalism, cowardice and betrayal all accompany this very gritty, realistic and depressingly realistic film. You simply couldn't have made a better film of this type. Horrible but great.


This is undoubtedly the most harrowing black-and-white war film that I've watched; as a matter of fact, the only Western director during this time to remotely approach its level of intensity and sheer visceral power in his work was Samuel Fuller. By the way, I had attended a Kon Ichikawa retrospective at London's National Film Theatre in September 2002, but only managed to catch some of his work made between 1960 and 1973.

The film is certainly as depressing as it's reputed to be; however, it also displays welcome touches of black humor throughout - the 'dead' man who wakes up to answer a querying soldier and promptly 'dies' again, the deliciously ironic shoe exchange sequence, a moribund eccentric telling the famished hero which part of the body he should eat, etc. Incidentally, the script was written by a woman - Natto Wada, the director's own wife!

Ichikawa is a versatile and prolific film-maker whose reputation may not be as high as it was during his peak years (1956-65), but his direction here is often striking - the startling pre-credits sequence (the hero is violently rebuked by his superior officer for being discharged from hospital earlier than expected!), the death of a surrendering Japanese at the hands of a gun-toting Philippine woman, the bombing of a hospital (with the medical staff running away to save themselves, leaving the wounded soldiers behind to crawl out of the shack at their own limited pace), the automated march in the rain of the disillusioned soldiers (which also involves the afore-mentioned business with the shoes that, actually, recalls a similar scene in ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT [1930]), a hill littered with the bodies of soldiers attempting to climb it, the finale, etc. Surely one of the film's major assets is the stunning cinematography of the unforgiving and desolate muddy landscape.

The film is notorious for treating the taboo subject of cannibalism (almost 10 years before it became a staple of horror movies) but Ichikawa's approach is not only subtle but highly effective: the flesh is actually referred to as "monkey meat", while the hero is seen partaking only once (and promptly spits out the piece along with most of his decaying teeth!); conversely, when the weak underling soldier (played by Mickey Curtis who, despite his name, was a Japanese pop idol of the time!) rabidly indulges, the ground nearby is splashed with blood.

In the supplements, Ichikawa remembers that Method-practicing lead actor Eiji Funakoshi (whose portrayal is unforgettable, by the way) arrived on the set at starvation point - with the result that production was forced to shut down for two weeks until he recuperated! Donald Richie's perceptive interview favors the nihilism of the film over the underlying patriotism behind such gut-wrenching recent Hollywood fare as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998).

FIRES ON THE PLAIN is universally considered to be one of its director's top efforts and, out of the several films of Ichikawa I've watched, the closest to it in spirit are THE BURMESE HARP (1956; another character-driven war film but with a spiritual tone, and which is also available on DVD from Criterion) and ENJO aka CONFLAGRATION (1958; which was actually given a limited theatrical showing locally, as part of a foreign-film week, a couple of years ago). Personally, I also have a particular soft spot for the director's stunningly stylized color extravaganza, AN ACTOR'S REVENGE (1963), which I've actually caught twice at the NFT in 1999 and the afore-mentioned 2002 retrospective.


Every American who thinks he or she understands World War Two should see this movie. Few Hollywood films about the war have defied the stereotype of Japanese soldiers as emotionless brutes obeying orders without thinking. We like to think that every Japanese man was ready and able to fight to the death, right up to the day we bombed Nagasaki. "Fires on the Plain" shows a different reality: troops pathetically undersupplied, demoralized and starved to the point of cannibalism. They euphemistically refer to human flesh as "monkey meat." The movie and novel on which it was based also put to death the myth that Japanese soldiers all preferred death to surrender: They had good reason to believe that their enemies were in no mood to take prisoners. To me it raises a question most Americans would rather avoid: If the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war, why was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima?


A harrowing masterpiece on the sheer madness and despair of war, Fires on the Plain (Nobi) is not going to be to everybody's taste: this is a war movie in the truest possible sense of the term, one that resorts neither to flag-waving patriotism nor saccharine sentimentality. Nobi cuts deep, it's ugly, tenebrous and bleak as few things ever committed on celluloid will ever be. This is war behind the cannons, with no triumphs or heroes, no moral victories or defeats to be had, just a handful of gaunt and terrible-looking men strewn across a land ravaged by war like penitents fleeing a great disaster. The characters defy moral judgment because they are creatures beset by a great woe, a woe that does not permit questions of a moral nature. War and survival. Pitting one's will against the other's in a battlefield arena. The loser is simply removed from existence.

Tamura, soldier in the Japanese Imperial army, is discharged from his platoon and ordered to report in a nearby hospital on account of him coughing blood and being disliked by the rest of the platoon. He's told to never come back and instead commit suicide by hand grenade in case the hospital rejects him. Which it does. The hospital is nothing but a shack made of wooden planks and the hospital surgeon simply tells him that if he's capable of walking he's just fine. It is in that shabby excuse of a hospital that one of the most harrowing scenes of the film takes place. As the area is carpet bombed by American planes the doctors and those who can walk and sustain themselves flee from the hospital and into the woods. Moments before the hospital is blown to pieces, the gaunt and crippled figures of the sick and injured crawl out of it in every manner of posture, dressed in their sickly white robes, as if the building is some kind of beast spewing viscera and filth out upon the earth.

That is Nobi's greatest success; the stark and brooding depiction of the suffering of war in simple but evocative images, without melodrama or pseudo-heroism. Soldiers cross a marsh, wading knee-deep in mud, move across the opposite bank and into a field only to discover enemy tanks hiding in the woods, their lights shining like malignant eyes as they scan the dark. A procession of injured soldiers, dirty and half-mad, crossing a road, dropping to the ground on the sound of enemy planes. Buzzards feasting on a pile of dead bodies. An abandoned village. A mad soldier that believes himself to be Buddha sitting under a tree, covered with flies and his own excrement, offering his arm to be eaten by Tamura when he's dead. These are the images Kon Ichikawa conjures for our eyes, merciless and unflinching in their poignancy but honest and raw.

Nobi doesn't rush to get somewhere. It is content to follow Tamura's travels through the war-torn land as he tries to reach the regrouping center of Palompa, and observe the madness and obscenities of war. The movie wades through the sludge of the horror of war, slow and brooding, just like the characters it follows. The final thirty minutes with Tamura taking refuge with two deserters who feed on 'monkey meat' are the closest Nobi comes to adhering to conventional narratives and they're no less powerful for that matter. Strikingly photographed in black and white, with great performances from the cast, and Ichikawa's assured direction, Nobi is not only among the best war movies to be made but also among the finest of Japanese cinema.


"Nobi" or "Fires On the Plain" is a film that is so excellent on so many levels, that not enough good things can be said about it. My only regret is that I was not able to see this 1959 film sooner.

Being something of a film purist, I tend to look at films for their artistic merits based upon dialog, acting, photography and even the efforts to remain true to the period in terms of costume. Ultimately, I want to know if the film is "truthful" enough in revealing the human condition to make me think without oppressing me with what the director wants me to think.

"Fires on the Plain" is a great film because it crafts a portrait filled with realistic human reactions to the dying fires of a great historical catastrophe.

Ichikawa's film is a condemnation of war on all levels -- as any good war film should be. War is horrifying, bloody, destructive. It is also murderous on the psyche. However, what is fundamental about "Fires on the Plain" is its unapologetic look at the Japanese soldiers. It shows them slowly collapsing under the weight of superior American firepower and their nation's inability to wage a war of its own making. A fatalistic code encouraging death before surrender is at the heart of this madness.

I was astonished to see such an honest and brutally close look at the bitter fruits of Japan's military misadventure made just 14 years after the end of what the Japanese call the "Great Pacific War." Ichikawa, reveals what the Germans called the "war life," the plight of the common soldier.

Ichikawa's film is interesting, since even today Japan is having a hard time fully coming to terms with its wartime fanaticism, its subjugation of conquered peoples, the racism of its war against the Chinese and war crimes which included cannibalism by soldiers and officers practiced not only against one another, but against Allied prisoners of war.

Ichikawa produces a stark representation of the victimization of soldiers by a confluence of bad political decisions and cultural pressures.

This stark examination is skillfully done by portraying the doomed soldiers as human beings who exhibit, at various times, fear, brilliantly laconic humor, dialog enriched by its sparseness, and a plot whose complexity is belied by the grim, wilderness setting.

Ichikawa's portrait is a ragged and painful tapestry of defeated men. The tubercular Tamura, played as a woebegone and gentle soul by Eiji Funakoshi, is a good soldier who can't abandon his humanity, though he is as frightened and lost as his comrades. Before he departs for a hospital that will reject him as too healthy, Tamura is given a hand grenade by a superior who, recognizing the hopelessness of their situation, advises Tamura to kill himself.

Why Tamura's hopelessly ill-supplied and militarily incapable unit was not ordered to surrender at the start of the film is telling. Ichikawa makes it plain that the war is over and everyone is merely waiting to die. As Tamura leaves his unit for his hopeless search for physical and spiritual salvation, he sees his comrades pointlessly digging an air raid shelter. They appear like corpses looking up from their own mass grave.

We later watch as the overworked hospital's medical staff abandons the dying patients to an all-consuming American artillery barrage. The pathetic patients, who crawl from their huts in a vain attempt to survive, appear like pathetic, serpentine creatures dragging themselves from an omnipotent force. You know they won't survive.

Ichikawa makes it plain that the only thing worse than a defeated army is one that has lost its honor by abandoning its humanity and its comrades. As Tamura staggers through the jungles of Leyte we encounter the noble, the dying and the exploitive. Cannibalism rears its ugly head as soldiers begin to eat one another rather than surrender to American "corned beef."

When the men do talk of surrender, the propaganda of how Americans kills prisoners is countered by a worldly-wise soldier who reveals that the approaching Americans feed and care for prisoners of war because they, unlike the Japanese, respect brave soldiers who are forced to give up.

It is the Japanese who intend to die fighting for the Emperor long after resistance has lost all meaning. Those willing to fight to the death will be killed. It is the calculus of war.

After shooting a murderous and cannibalistic comrade, whom he earlier offered his own body to as food, the fatalistic Tamura's careless surrender also seems to be an intentional form of suicide. His death is a lonely image. Was Ichikawa trying to tell us of the internal conflict of the ordinary soldier who wants to live, but who is still trapped by his nation's suicidal cultural codes?

If someone watches this film carefully, he or she will see that absolutism and fanaticism is the enemy. The Americans are portrayed as a technologically advanced people willing to employ that technology in the form of inexorable military power -- a lesson that transformed Japanese postwar society. Ichikawa's film isn't so shallow that it indicts America. Ichikawa indicts the sedimentary layers of Japan's destructive policies that created the war and then to continue it when all was lost.

Ichikawa does not mention the nuclear weapons dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He doesn't have to. The slow-motion destruction of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines reveals the seeds of Japan's immolation.


The main achievement of this film is that though racially unipolar, the film still manages to carve out a tableaux of war portrayals that leave a lasting identification with whoever may view it, and whoever was present at this time. Though good films may have the ability of universalizing their subjects, which is often a hard thing to do; great films have the ability of universalizing their unipolar subjects, which is what this film does.

Instead of carving a context of unity, the film depicts the Japanese in the sick finality of the Phillipines war-front in February, 1945, making signs for pacifism or war, but rather making signs of the feelings, death, destruction, victory and sickness of war with the bloody hands of the defeated.Far different, and superior, to films such as Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, both which needed a satirical methodology of trivializing and depersonalizing the American troupes, and using all races as one struggle, which is fine, yet not as grand as a film that uses one race and view, which would look fascist if created in America, to convey the horror of war and show what it is really like.

The only way the main character makes it through this movie to the end, is by being sick, thence inedible; hence through this character, through his sickness, his saving face, we see the end of WWII in the Phillipines in February of 1945, and the way in which the Americans, Japanese and Phillipinians came together in bloody acts of warfare where you live to die.

The film is patently influenced by a neorealist way of filmic portrayal, which is original and beneficial to a viewer, whether then or now, for the neorealist techniques it employs conveys all the horrors of war in pictorial form, whether a showcase for pacifism or 'militaristic responsibility'. Like Germania Anno Zero, by Roberto Rossellini, a story emerges from the environment and the conditions associated with it.

The film's opening, with the two-way discussion between the two Japanese soldiers, prefigures and reechoes the events. Through this opening we feel that the struggle is human against human, and human with human; it shows that they relied on each other to face the enemy in the past battles, but now, in this opening, or 'pivot' of the experiences of the Japanese in the Phillipines, new information is relayed to the main character Tamura, giving a presentiment of a cannibal reliance on one another if they wish to survive.

The jungle is gritty, wet and thick, and the sky is not infrequently cloudy and pouring. We wade with the stragglers though puddles and marshes, as sick as the land around them. Nameless cadavers are strewn everywhere. Every now and then one can not tell if they are bodies, rocks or corn. Apparently there is no difference here, all is dead and sick. All is dying. All they have lest to feed upon are rare monkeys and dead bodies of fallen comrades and/or nameless enemies.

Often Tamura meets a fallen other near death. Though crushed in spirit, and crushing his, some offer up their bodies for him to eat, but he refuses; he still, like Hiroshi Kawaguchi as Nishi in Giants and Toys, will not droop into the death of dignity and Japanese morals; for this is all he really has to hold up for his survival, a dignity of self. Hence, when Nagamatsu is dissecting a soldier for consumption, he shoots him because of it. Tamura may be used to the killing, but to the sickness of killing and pillaging he can't decipher. He is neither a good man or a bad man. He wishes to survive, but will not go the extra mile beyond simple straight-war-killing. His self belonged dead on the battlefield, he isn't happy here to wade and wipe the weak for his survival.

The sickness he carrys he sees everywhere, in everyone; and sadly he lacks the ethical rationale of thinking either thinking entirely about others, since he can't give up his body for them since of his contagious malady, or thinking entirely about himself, since he sees the sickness in everyone, though still killing them even if they do no harm. Seen in his attack on the two Philippians's in the hut. He can't see anyone. No one can see anyone. The only see an aversion from malady and an adversion to health, the heart of survival instincts.

Often, an arm appears pointing to the left of the screen, towards what must be hope, for there, in that far Thule lies their freedom. Yet it is blocked by American soldiers, leaving the Japanese stragglers to slowly die in this disconsolate dirt. Even a church tower appears, reflecting the light off an unseen sun. But on closer inspection crows flutter wildly about it; religion too is an air of poison.

Nobi, the Japanese title of the film, gives more evidence to the themes, or feelings of the film: the servitude to fate, the heaviness of existence under leaders and lives controlled by others. Its proper Anglophone translation has a subject of heavy debate among historians, as non-Koreans translate it as "slave" and "slavery", while many Koreans argue that nobi was not a slave system, but a servant class system that does not meet the criteria for slavery. A way to typically to escape wrenching poverty. This improves upon the war theme, and symbolism of soldiery.

Isn't it important at the time period to ask ourselves what the purpose is of what will become our won history? Should we be comfortable of letting it unroll without conscious effort for change? Is it not who we are fighting, that age old history question, but rather why are we fighting? Fires on the Plain is with Eiji Funakoshi, Osamu Takizawa, and Mickey Curtis; based on a novel by Shohei Ooka. In Japanese with subtitles.


This film is a knockout, Fires on the plain referred to is, (the burning off at the end of harvest time) A happy memory for Tamura, He relives this in his mind many time's,and at the end of this bleak film, Like a man dying of thirst, he believe's he is home and this last illusion is all he has left. Billy Wilder's The Big Carnival (Ace in the hole) is the only film (that comes to mind)that is as bleak as this little masterpiece by Kon Ichikawa. While I think the whole film is brilliant Two scenes that come to mind are when a platoon of Japanese soldiers trying to escape (Crawling on there belly's)are ambushed by Americans and massacred,True Horror, And as an American soldier and a pretty Philippine Girl soldier are having a cigarette on the side on the road, she smiles as she flits with the yank,then her face Changes to rage as she see's two Japanese soldiers trying to surrrender, she grabs a gun and kills them with joy, The American soldier attempts to stop her but has no chance , to me this speaks volumes at the atrocity's committed by the Japanese in the Philippines, all in all a great film if you have the stomach for it.


Fires on The Plain (1959) ****

You don't see films like this anymore. 'Fires on the Plain' is an incredible depiction of the lives of the soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army. Kon Ichikawa's masterpiece follows Tamura, a soldier with Tuberculosis as he wanders around the Philippine landscape in the last year of the war. He is sent away to the hospital by his commanding officer only to be refused treatment and so he is sent back. His CO tells him to go back and if they refuse him again then his last order is to kill himself with his grenade. He is refused again, but meets up with a band of squatters sitting outside the hospital. The next day they are shelled by American troops and Tamura flees, choosing not to kill himself, and from there he wanders from place to place trying to get to Palompon. He discovers that some men have been eating human flesh in order to survive, while others trade as much tobacco as they can for whatever they can get back.

The film is filled with a quiet sense of desperation and desolation, with a hint of insanity. Everyone we see is skin and bones, covered in dirt wearing torn and tattered rags. Ichikawa uses his camera to catch some beautiful shots of the destructed landscape and the Japanese soldiers who walk it. Kon Ichikawa was famous in Japan for making many comedies and satires, and there are moments in Fires on the Plain that are bitingly hilarious. Take for example a shot of what appears to be a dead man lying face down in a pool of water; a soldier walks but and asks himself aloud if that is how they will all end up, to which the man lifts his head out of the water and replies "what was that?" and then drops his face even deeper into the puddle than before. Another hilarious sequence involves one man finding a pair of boots along the trail. He takes the boots, replacing them with his old ones. Another man walks by and sees that pair of boots and switches up for his old boots. The scene continues until finally Tamura finds the exchange spot and examines the boots left without hardly any sole. He looks carefully at his own and at ones on the ground, and deciding that they're both kaput he removes his own and goes barefoot. The film is filled with incredible scenes, one after another. Like Mizoguchi and Kurosawa, Ichikawa knew how to use his camera to paint beautiful and stunning pictures. There are many stunning shots of men in barren empty plains surrounded by nothing but smoke in the air and dead or dying bodies on the broken earth. There is another incredible scene where dozens of Japanese soldiers attempt to cross a road guarded by Yanks in the middle of the night, all crawling on their hands and knees as the camera watches on from above.

The film gets its name from the columns of smoke rising up from fires on the plains seen throughout the film. They represent to the soldiers life a little more ordinary; the lives of Japanese farmers back home burning husks of corn. Their beacons of hope for the normal life however are in hostile hands.

The film caused a stir in its day with its graphic content. Much emphasis is placed on the horror of war, not just with the enemy but within your ranks and yourself. Kon Ichikawa's Fires on the Plains is an incredibly authentic and moving, and somewhat disturbing, portrait of the horror suffered by the men making up the lower ranks of the Imperial Army. Clint Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima, while it is a very good film, comes nowhere close to realizing the horror of war depicted in Fires on the Plain. (Eastwood was no doubt influenced by the film, seeing as he claims to be such a classic Japanese film buff.) Many war films show that war is hell through the eyes of the winners. In Fires on the Plain, we're shown that war is even more hellish when you're on the losing end

4/4


I saw this in 1993 on a VHS tape but have been unable to find it at any source since. This is a very bleak and uncompromising look at the last days of the Japanese Army in the Phillipines. Anyone with an interest in the Pacific war would do well to view this film and see what conditions the other side fought under.From what I can tell, this is historically accurate, and depicts how easily men can descend into complete barbarism. I understand the Japanese Army was completely cut off from any re-supply in the Phillipines by 1945, so there is no doubt many of the horrific incidents depicted here happened. I might not have been able to identify with the film's characters, but I appreciate their humanity and struggle to survive. If I had to compile a list of the ten greatest war films, this film would be on it. See it if you can get it.


An unflinching descent into psychological and physical oblivion that will undoubtedly burn images of the truthful brutality and suffering of war into your cerebral cortex in a way not many other films will. In fact, there is simply no other war film like it.

Director Kon Ichikawa witnessed the unthinkable horror of Hiroshima first hand only 10 days after the bomb was dropped. He has said that from that day it would always be his mission to express the pointless, empty violence humans inflict on each other and themselves.

Mr. Ichikawa shows us that there are no winners in war... for the paths to victory and defeat are paved with the same soldiers soullessly marching down roads which only have death and destruction at their end.

Mr. Ichikawa succeeds in bringing his message to the world thru this haunting piece of cinema.


Kon Ichikawa had lived through world war two, and saw what its effects it had on his people in Japan. But so did novelist Shohei Ooka, whose book was the inspiration for Ichikawa's film, Fires on the Plain. It's a film about the men in this war, or perhaps more universally in wars in general, who lose their humanity. The soldiers trudging along through these fields and jungles of the Philippenes in this story are almost completely without hope, if not already just that. It makes Stone's Platoon look like a picnic: at least they had certain things, like food, after all.

They have little to no reserves or supplies or ammunition, no back-up, no sense of anything going their way in this combat that they've been thrust into. They can't even get some proper hospital care, unless if they can no longer walk at all or have lost limbs (for example, say, if you have TB, you're on your way). But its really through the prism of one soldier, a private Tamura, that we get a full sense of the futility of war, both in its bleak scenes of nothingness and boredom and decay, and those flashes of intense and brutal violence.

In the film Tamura just wants to get some medical care. This is right at the start, and his told by his superior officer- already he is with eyes that stare off and an expression that has been drained by years of battle- that he will die if he doesn't find a hospital. He doesn't, really, but does end up in with some soldiers: at first with a platoon that seems to sort of have their act together, but is really led on by a power-hungry brute who just wants Tamura's stash of salt, and then later with two other stray soldiers who are part of a group that had previously been ambushed while crossing a road at night.

The story isn't entirely a straight line, but it doesn't need to be. Tamura's path in Fires on the Plain is told in vignettes, little stories like when he comes upon a seemingly deserted enemy village. Two of the populous comes back to get some supplies, and Tamura sneaks up on them. It's an excruciating scene, since so far with Tamura we haven't seen him do anything outright *wrong*, but he does so in this scene, not even so much out of evil but out of fear and desperation (this is also, without spoiling it, how he gets a stash of salt). Little scenes build up so brilliantly and with devastation, like a simple task of finding a pair of walkable shoes, which there seem to be none. Or when Tamura, later in the film, discovers his teeth are becoming torn apart and falling out from lack of total hygiene. So much for food, so it goes.

It should also be mentioned that this is a hauntingly realized film from Ichikawa, shot in a stark black and white view of the fields and woods, the cinematography filling everything we see in black-blacks and white-hot white. Ichikawa also makes sure to get everything authentic from his actors, not simply emotionally but with their own emaciated look and looks of desperation right on them. It's as if Ichikawa has to have them all surviving the film as well as characters surviving out in the wild; by wild, by the way, I mean also cannibalism. The shock of this is two-fold; first is the way that a soldier says half-jokingly early on about eating other soldiers to Tamaura, who asks if it was true and only in response getting a "don't ask" word of caution, and the second with the depiction of cannibalism itself, from the crazy starving man on the hill who pulls out guts out of his lap and says with a straight face to our hero that "You can eat me when I die."

This makes thing especially more brutal when it comes to the director filming the brief 'action' scenes. These are, I would argue, more brutal than 'Private Ryan' in their depictions of violence in battle, the carnage that is completely random. A scene I would point to, and that contains just a shot that is excruciating to watch, is when from a high angle we see a group of about twenty soldiers walking slowly along, a hail of gunfire comes that kills only four or five, but it just happens so fast, and the soldiers just keep walking along at the same crawl. This isn't the only shot of horrible carnage that's shown - when needing to be bloody its there, but splashed across the screen like something completely of the macabre - but it drives the point completely.

All of the acting is staggering (Funakoshi especially, who looks to be both most at peace and most horrified by what he sees in the subtlest of looks most of the time), all of the major set-pieces provide something else to the gruesome experience, and it all amounts to the ultimate question with an anti-war film: how can, or why, do people fight in wars like these? It's almost too depressing to put into words, and so Ichikawa pushes our noses right up into the muck and filth and blood and demands for us to take it in, so maybe, some day, it will never happen again. Or one can hope this, by the end of such a bleak and great film as this.


My first Ichikawa in many years, and the first of his war films that I've seen, this was gripping and brutal from the very get-go. In the very first scene, nominal hero Tamura is told that he can't continue on with his unit, to which he has returned from the hospital. He apparently has TB  but he is not sick enough for the hospital to take him given the quantity of war-wounded they have. But his old unit won't take him back either; his CO gives him a grenade, and tells him that if he feels truly hopeless to blow himself upit's the honorable thing to do.

The Phillipines, 1945, and the situation really does seem hopeless, for PFC Tamura and everyone else. Nobi is an odyssey through hell, or rather hells  denuded forests, dead rocky plains, and the dead and dying Japanese soldiers hoping just for an end, through peace or death. Ichikawa's film is photographed in stunning B&W scope which serves to highlight both the desolation felt by Tamura and those he meets on his journey towards his doom, and to show how truly small and naked they all are amidst the immensity of the mountains and the forests.this small affair of humans will end soon, the earth seems to be saying, but I will survive and barely notice it.

Tamura travels back towards the hospital, but is (not surprisingly) rejected there, and spends the rest of the film trying to stay alive, stay human, and get out of danger. He doesn't manage to do very well on any account, slowly starving and eventually committing some fairly repellent acts. Eventually he hooks up with two other desperate men who have lost, or survived their units, and have resorted to cannibalismand in his weakened state facing other armed men, finds that the only way to live is to break with everything that he believes in.

Ichikawa's film is as brutal, uncompromising and intense as any war film I've seen. There are moments of humor and tenderness, but they are fleeting and don't stick in the memory such as the scene with the man on the mountaintop who practically begs Tamura to eat his fleshthe recurring black-comic bit with Tamura exchanging his ragged shoes for the better leathers of a fallen comrade.the degradations that humans will endure to survive.the truth that this is any war, all wars, all mankind as long as we continue thus. A masterpiece that I probably won't watch again for a long, long time. Watched via the beautiful Criterion Collection DVD.


This is probably the greatest war film and certainly one of the greatest films. There's no sentimentality, no patriotic agenda, not even a hopeful message of universal brotherhood in this bleak glimpse of what we can only call hell. It's this quiet rigor and lack of manipulation that give the film its astounding power. There aren't any attempts to make a hero out of Ichikawa's protagonist Tamura either. He's just a poor doomed sap trying to stay alive in a world of horror who hopes, but isn't sure, he can hang on to his humanity in the process. Ichikawa's fierce lack of cant and illusion make Fires on the Plain stand alone. Ichikawa died February 2008.


I got this movie out a week after the death of Ichikawa Kon - I suppose if there is one way to mark the passing of a great director, its to raise a glass of wine to him while watching one of his greatest movies. Ichikawa had one of the finest careers in Japanese film, but as he never had a distinctive style or theme he often seems to be overlooked compared to his near contemporaries such as Ozu and Kurosawa (he was a little younger than them, but not by much). He is one of those directors who defies auteur theories - its likely that his wife (who wrote the screenplay for this and many other of his movies) was as much responsible for the quality of the movies as he was. But at his best, he was as good as any Japanese film maker at the time. In particular, he had great technical skills, allowing him to tell complex stories in an accessible manner. But in terms of theme, this movie could hardly be simpler - war is hell. No really, its seriously hell.

Fire on the Plain doesn't follow the normal war genre rules. There is no real beginning - we start as the wretched Tamura, who is a regular private (although it is implied he is more thoughtful and educated than most of the others - at one stage it is shown he understands English, but he clams up when the others ask him how he knows it) is ordered to hospital, as his unit is already in an appalling state. The soldiers are defeated and starving to death. They are no longer an army, just a rag bag group of refugees - hunted by the locals, and pretty much ignored by the Americans, who have bigger fish to fry. Hunger and despair is driving the soldiers to the edge and beyond of madness.

In typical Ichikawa style, its not all just grim - its oddly funny in parts (a very black humour of course).

The high points of this movie to me are the outstanding performances from the leads and the vivid photography. The characters, in all their humanity, but also their complete loss of humanity, are all too believable. This is that rare film - one which will refuse to erase itself from your head, even if you want to forget it.


The title is a reference to the destruction of the remnants of a harvest, like rice husks, by farmers who burn them creating fires on the plains. This is a bleak tale of the destruction of the Japanese soldier.

The story is set in the closing days of the Philippines campaign as a soldier with TB who returns from a hospital because since he can walk, they have no room for him. His superior officers don't want him around since he's really too sick to work or fight. Abused by his officer he's sent back to the hospital with orders to either be admitted or kill himself. They still won't take him and he's soon left to wander across the war ravaged landscape trying to find help or a place to stay or even just food. Its a bleak journey with no hope in sight and only death and man's inhumanity to man at every turn.

Billed as a harrowing journey into the dark heart of man and war this is also a very funny movie. This isn't to say its not horrifying, it is at times, but its also darkly comic. How could it not be? Here is a film where madness and insanity run rampant, people are constantly trying to hustle tobacco leaves for food, trying to get even a slightly better pair of shoes, trying to remain a Japanese soldier in the face of absurdity by marching constantly but never getting anywhere and you can't help but laugh. To be sure things go darker as it becomes clear that cannibalism maybe, literally and figuratively, the only way to survive, but at the same time there is something uncomfortably funny about the human comedy.

Hailed as a great anti-war film its stark photographic style makes clear the insanity of war even as it dazzles our eye with its beauty. Here we see landscapes full of bodies that include the soldier and the civilian. set amid fields forests and trees that would otherwise be, and to some extent still are, quite beautiful. Its a jarring sensation.

What intriguing is that I read that this is based on a novel about the redemptive power of Christianity. The director removed all over the religious references to hope and salvation and instead used it as to show that life stinks, war stinks worse and that there is, ultimately no hope.

Intellectually I admire the film, emotionally I don't. Part of it is a strident downbeat score which, for me over accentuates what we are seeing on the screen. Its almost gilding the lily since the imagery is so strong it doesn't really need to have the music force you into feeling one way or another.

Is it a great film, thats for you to decide. For certain its unlike any other war film, bloody, horrific and real in ways that big budgeted films claim to be but never are. This is not for those adverse to blood and gore since its here in spades.

Definitely worth a look.


Fires on the plain directed by Kon Ichikawa and written by Shohei Ooka and Natto Wada is a World War two movie which is finally not showing the allies fighting the axis powers, but the Japanese fighting and struggling for their lives on the Philippines. The main characters name is Tamura , played by Eiji Funakoshi, and he is a soldier leaving his regiment because of him being sick. All he has on him is a hand grenade, his gun and some potatoes. Like this, he is trying to make his way to the hospital in order to get a doctor and a cure for his disease. But since the hospital turned him away and gets destroyed, he begins a long walk. Throughout the whole movie, Tamura remains a bit cowardish, but very civil, when the other soldiers become more like animals by using their basic instincts for survival Tamura is still remaining human and would not degrade. A scene which has influenced me a lot to think positively and different about this war movie is, when Tamura comes into a Phillipino village which is completely deserted. There, he fights a dog and finds a lot of corpses of Japanese soldiers stacked up in front of a church. This makes Tamura think and even more scared than he already is. That shows that the soldier is not a brave killing machine, but a servant to higher beings and human most importantly. After he turns away from the corpses, two Phillipinos (a couple or brother and sister : very close relationship) return to the village in order to get their stash of salt back. The main character of the movie wants to be friendly at first, although he walked up to them with his gun, but shoots the woman once she starts screaming. Her brother/boyfriend/husband then runs away in fear and after a moment Tamura follows him and shoots wildly at the fleeing Filipino. He does not hit him. After Tamura picks up the bag of salt , something very precious , he drops his gun into a river. This gesture is very important in order to understand Kon Ichikawa's/Shohei Ooka's profiling of Tamura and the war. Comparing this movie to other World War 2 movies, it is not typical at all. Of course all movies have suffering heroes, but their heroes are more heroic than Tamura. He expresses everything that is human: he is getting manipulated , he is weak , he gets scared , he has hope. This is typical for Japanese World War two movies and for Japanese society. Since World War two is not a discussed theme in Japanese society, Japanese are likely to put Japanese in the second World War in the role of the victim. This victimisation is also very visual in this movie. One of the examples is Tamura, another one the piled up bodies of Japanese soldiers in front of the church and another important one is, when the Japanese soldiers are trying to cross a street and the Americans are already waiting there for them and shooting all of the Japanese soldiers which have worse equipment and are fed worse and have no health equipment or anything alike. In my personal conclusion I have to say that it is worth seeing this film in order to finally see a movie from the other side than usual. It also has no nationalistic propaganda which could've been easily built in. Once you have watched the movie fully, you will be able to see the horrors of the second World War to its total extent.


They are hunted and starving. They are completely demoralized and yet they press on through sheer inertia. This film tries to answer the question "How far will human beings go to survive?" Hopelessness emanates from every of this film and like so many japanese films of this time, it condemns the blind military loyalty that pressed the japanese people into war.


This depiction of forlorn Japanese forces in the Philipines is a tour de force in the utter meaninglessness of war. It is an effective representation of Japanese pacifist views after WW II. In the movie, Japanese soldiers have been left to fend for themselves in the jungles of the Philipines. Faced with impending starvation they resort to cannibalism and gradually lose what little humanity they have left. To call this film depressing would be something of an understatement. The viewer is left with an utterly despairing sense of life's lost value in modern combat. The final scene is almost too nihilistic but the film is a worthy statement none-the-less. Highly recommended.


Okay, so I'm a sucker for a good documentary, particularly where it tells a modern-day Don Quixote story. A caveat: I met Mark Borchardt in the winter of 1995/96 while he was still working on Coven. But I'll save that story for later. American Movie, which commenced production not long after, accurately portrays the person that I knew, although in greater depth than I expected or believed existed. This is simultaneously a very funny and very sad film, and is brilliantly executed. Mark comes across as his own worse enemy: his childlike ambition and optimism -- which I admire -- is undermined by his apparent artistic ineptitude as well as his bizarre fiscal expectations. But he's also a charismatic guy. His loyal Sancho Panza sidekick is equally likeable: loyal, if frazzled, to the core. Like Don Quixote, American Movie presents an often-ignored inefficient aspect of freedom -- that people will be drawn toward professions to which they are not particularly well-suited, irrespective of repeated failure. It is a great film.


This documentary is the most hypnotizing film I have seen in a long while. I must have had it on for an entire day. The selected material included in the piece flow amazingly well and develop three characters that are impossible to ever forget. The different layers of these people peel back to make an oddly moving film about perseverance, loyalty and determination. These characters ended up suprisingly fascinating and the film is unforgettable.


Looking for proof that real life is more entertaining than fiction? You just found it. This superb documentary about an aspiring feature filmmaker (Mark Bortchart) who refuses to admit defeat is the funniest film I have ever seen -- probably because it's also one of the most tragic. Oddly enough, the more I watch the film the more inspired I become.


For me, the best & most memorable movies are often those which on first viewing I know nothing about. American Movie is a perfect example of just such a gem. Watching TV late one evening, I spotted the one & only good review among the dross - thankfully I settled in for a real treat. American Movie is a documentary following the unforgettable Mark Borchardt (pronounced "orchard", I believe), a highly articulate & charismatic Wisconson lad, as he struggles to write, direct and produce "MidWestern", a gritty, low-budget Horror movie on which he has been working for years. In Mark we discover a young man filled with contrast. His appearance is of the classic trailer-trash stereotype - skinny, bum-fluff mustache, '80s heavy metal styling, mullet hairdo, etc. To camera however, Mark reveals startling wit & insight as he philosophizes upon life, love, movies & the American way. As the movie unfolds, it sadly becomes clear that Mark's lack of discipline & heavy drinking are relentlessly sabotaging his creative efforts. American Movie is a charming watch, filled with hilarious moments & vivid characters. Chief among these is Mark's lovable buddy Mike Schank, a soft-spoken reformed stoner who, having conquered an addiction to scratch cards, is now dependent on soda pop. I absolutely loved American Movie. It generates real empathy between the viewer & principal characters, and provides hilarity without feeling exploitative. I would wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone.


When we are young, we all pick out an ideal occupation for ourselves: artist, actor, writer, rocket scientist, etc.. While most of us grow out of our pipe dreams, the main character of American Movie, Mark, has yet to let go of his(and at a thirty-something age too): to become a wealthy acclaimed director. Despite the fact that Murphy's Law won't leave Mark alone and something always seems to go wrong, Mark is able to persevere during each deterring incident with an even greater drive to reach his goals. His desire to be a director so controls his character that he sees any person or thing in his life as something to exploit to reach the goal. While I noticed other IMDB commenters are lambasting Mark's selfishness, I think it's an almost justified sort-of selfishness because for Mark, not becoming a famous director is equivalent to death. He talks incessantly about leaving some kind of mark on the world, and he sees filmmaking as a way to do this.

Unfortunately any viewer of this movie picks up early on the fact that Mark has a near-zero chance of ever achieving his dream. Is he aware of this? No, not in the slightest, and none of his family or friends want to let him in on the secret(in fact even some of them believe in him). Strangely enough though, the disappointing future the viewer feels is sure to occur for Mark doesn't impede the ability to find humor in the film. This is a very very funny documentary. Most of the laughs come from when Mark is filming scenes for "Coven". There's a scene where an actor has to have his head break a cupboard, and it's just not working. Another scene has Mark's very old uncle Bill saying a few lines to the camera; needless to say, after 20 takes of a lot of headscratching and line-stumbling Bill finally decides he's had enough. A lot of humor sadly comes from Mark himself. His screenwriting, which he seems to think is worthy of a Pulitzer, is laughingly bad: "It's alright, it's ok, there is something to live for; Jesus told me so."

"American Movie" is, contrary to what people might think, a documentary that anyone can enjoy(even though my sister, who watched some scenes, seemed to think it was downright bizarre). The fact that Chris Smith can successfully bring to the screen a film that inspires both sadness from Mark's depressing lifestyle to hilarity with scenes with Bill(who unfortunately passed away before the film was released) says quite a lot about him. I wonder how the dreamer Mark regards this documentary. Does he realize that it casts him in a bad light? Or that it sets up to show him as a fool in many scenes of the film? Or does he see it as something that will be shown prior to his own A&E Biography segment? It's an intriguing subject of wonder, and I hope the latter comes true for him some day.

I highly recommend this movie: 9/10.


What gives this movie its personality is the knowledge, in the end, that it is all true. While it is a compelling and humorous documentary that does border on mockumentary in some parts (are they staged or is it really happening humorously?), it does seem to get a bit long towards the end.

This movie is funny in places it needs to be, and flows relatively well. Reminiscent of Christopher Guest's movies, if you liked those or Adaptation then I recommend you keep a look out for this one.

B+


I enjoyed this one, because I can relate to it.

At one time in my life I was trying to make films, and experienced many of the same problems Mark Borchardt did in trying to make HIS film. And I also went through a protracted period of self-absorbed arrested development, where I refused to grow. But then, miraculously, I got married, and had kids. I realized that being a struggling filmmaker was, in all likelihood, not going to feed my family. So I got a decent job and did what I felt I needed to do to make that happen. That is what an mature, responsible adult does.

Mark hasn't faced up to that reality as yet, and so, in that sense, he is a retarded adolescent. For this reason, there is a hopelessness about him. Like Don Quixote, he seems so inept and self-deluded that he doesn't realize how bad off he really is. The viewer feels a sense of superiority and pity for him and his circle. Mark has kids and an ex-wife and bills to pay, but the film depicts him caring basically only about pursuing his "artistic vision".

Despite this, Mark comes across in the film as a likeable individual, surrounded by a very interesting family and group of friends. Unfortunately, Mark lacks many of the things necessary to be successful both in life and in a career: maturity, responsibility, education, knowledge, life experience, prioritization, financial clout, etc.. Yet he trudges on, much like Ed Wood, apparently without any semblance of a clue.

I guess we are supposed to feel encouraged by the spectacle of the "never say die" attitude of this noble individual, struggling against the odds. And man, what odds there are! Kiefer Sutherland, Colin Hanks, Tori Spelling and Angelina Jolie are all offspring of big-time film or TV people; no doubt, they will all want to direct some day, if they aren't already. How much room is there for an independent like Mark? It's like watching a guy hit himself in the head with a board, over and over again. Come to think of it, that is pretty close to what happens to one of Mark's actors, with the kitchen cabinet door, in one of the funniest scenes I have ever seen in any movie.

Despite these misgivings and seeming criticisms, I truly enjoyed this movie, and would heartily recommend it to anyone. Uncle Bill is amazing. I have a friend who met both Mike and Mark and he told me that, in real life, these guys are just exactly the way they appeared in the movie.


This may actually the finest film of 1999. No I'm not kidding. This documentary directed by Chris Smith captures the very spirit of artistic compulsion. Smith does the smart thing any documentary filmaker should do: he keeps invisible and refuses to judge his subject.

As the viewer watches Mark and his efforts, no matter how funkily aggressive they may prove, to finish his films. He refuses to compromise and suffers repeatedly as a result. But lest we forget, remember Speilberg, Scorsese and others started just as humbly.

And what a great subject he chooses. Mark, his family and friends are all fascinating characters, far more than any character created in last year's fictitious cinematic products.This film oscillates on the dime between comedy, tragedy, touching sympathy and leads us ultimately to inspiring any viewer with an urge to create, despite talent issues, to get off their butts and make something.

The film is about maverick artists and their passions. It is also about families, no matter how co-dependent and disfunctional they may be and how unique and beautiful that organism truly is. Mark proves in the film to be utterly devoted not only to his dreams, but also to his family as well- and they to him.

Why this film was not nominated for documentary of the year is beyond me and criminal (that is assuming it was eligible last year). This film is to be sought out and treasured.


As a "cusp-pre-baby-boomer"...born in 1944, IN Los Angeles; thereby having the dubious distinction of having been alive while Hitler was still actively involved in his "Last Great Offensive; but also with our President Roosevelt still actively fighting the offensive...this was one of the most important "first films" of my young life. Having the opportunity to see it in "re-release," several years after the 1946 opening (a common studio custom in those years), answered (even to my very young mind)oh-so many questions I had...being surrounded by our returning Vet heroes. Ensconced in all the many of William Wyler's equanimity of subtle "multi-plots"...intentionally NOT "surrounding," "mini" or "sub" plots...in all their "colors and shades of intensity"...did more, than anything else I can recall, to provide to me some semblance of "reason" and "rational explanation" of what had been going on all around me...in REAL life. (My personal experience perchance being a "new" and "different" angle when looking at this classic film.)


With WWII over, movie studios quickly rushed to focus on vets returning home. "The Best Years of Our Lives" was probably the best example. It portrays various people returning home and how they have to readjust not only to their pre-war lives, but to the overall changing world. Probably the most interesting cast member is non-actor Harold Russell. Having lost his hands in the war, he plays a man with hooks where his hands used to be, and reminds people that he wants to be treated just like everyone else; he went on to win Best Supporting Actor and a special Oscar for the role, making him the only person ever to win two Oscars for the same role. There will probably always be debate over whether this deserved Best Picture more than "It's a Wonderful Life", but I certainly think that they did a good job with it. Very well done.


The movie features another exceptional collaboration between director William Wyler and cinematographer Gregg Toland, the first after Toland worked on Citizen Kane. But the talent of both these men was focused on achieving a perfectly crafted movie, understood in the good old American sense as a great story. The technical aspects of the movie are covered so as the viewer gets absorbed into the action that takes place on the screen without submitting to the power of the image. Technique is seen as a vehicle of representation unlike in Citizen Kane where Welles' baroque style almost drew the attention from the story to the way the story was told. One of my favorite moves with deep focus in this film is the drama conveyed by the returning home welcoming of Homer and Al. If Homer's girl, Wilma comes towards him perfectly in focus, Al goes over to his wife also perfectly in focus. This is a brilliant move because it shows only through the use of the image the nature of these relationships as we will see them throughout the movie: Wilma loves Homer and she accepts him as he is, Al's wife loves him also but she feels unprepared to fully welcome him home. Also later in the film we find out that their marriage has not always been a bed of roses.

Wyler is a director whose force lies in being true to his work without feeling the need to boast. He wanted to show his audience how hard it was for the American soldiers returning from the war to fit into a society that either didn't understand them or treated them with contempt. With a perfect cast and great dialogue Goldwin and Wyler produced a movie that will forever be the template for any other returning home movie. The three hours which coincide with the "rough cut" because the test audience back then never felt for a moment that the action was slow and indeed every scene from the film seems perfectly justified. The whole thing is constructed beautifully, every character gets a fair amount of exposure, nothing is left to chance and it is quite pitiful that Hollywood nowadays never manages to bring so much character conflict to the screen. TBYOOL explores the depth of the American way of life, of the American family and society to an extent that makes other movies look like "the children's hour".


So many great talents were utilized in "The Best Years of Out Lives", the result has to be somewhat miraculous. Think of what its director, William Wyler, faced; in the aftermath of a military victory over statist powers who had committed abominable crimes and engulfed the world if battles, he was making a film that argued that the US's leaders were themselves profoundly anti-individual--that they had "wasted the best years of the lives of those drafted or misled into fighting the war--which since it ignored the rights of individuals had been for nothing except argument over the degree of slavery men were to exist under." There are beautiful sets by Julia Heron, Gregg Toland's cinematography and a script by Robert E. Sherwood, author of "The Road to Rome" and other defenses of individuals against tyrannical ideas. The ironic title was used to draw the talents of actors such as Frederic March, Myrna Loy, Teresa Wright, Dana Andrews, Virginia Mayo, Cathy O'Donnell and Hoagy Carmichael into a large-scale but thematic drama. The clever plot line was the experiences of thee "couples" after the soldiers (three being spotlighted) tried to return home to a 'victory culture". Their bitter experiences and their realization of their own need to fight again against what was happening on the homefront poses a strong and sobering counterpoint to the conventional notion being sold that "all was well with "America"". March and his wife have a terrible time adjusting, and he is drinking; O'Donnell's young man, Harold Russell,, has hooks instead of hands and wonders if life can even be worth living; and worst of all Andrews' wife throws him over for a guy with dough and he has lost years, causing employers to ignore or deny his rights to a job, to consideration on his individual merits, to have even what he had before he had been ripped from his life and thrust into the arena of risk--for nothing, and loss of everything he had ever had. The shattering climax of the film comes when each of the three has to confront the need to do battle again,each for his own happiness; and all three succeed in finding the courage to go on fighting--each for his own happiness, which is now being threatened by a curiously anti-self, anti-reality indifferent an un-American United States. Wyler's direction, especially of the scene where Andrews sits in the cockpit of a mothballed B-17, alone and the scene of Russell's wedding is wonderful indeed. This is a most powerful film and a great one on its own terms, one women and men can agree on for once. Music by Hugo Friedhofer and costumes by Irene Sharaff add to its luster. One of the best and most unexpected films of all time, in stunning B/W.


This film tells the stories of several couples coping with Post-WWII life. Through many moving accounts the audience learns how the War has changed people, while their human spirit went on to triumph.

My favorite scene is where a young service man, who returned home as a double amputee (after losing both arms up to the elbow) is sure that he would be no good to his sweetheart, who still wants to marry him. His girl simply said that she would help him with the things he wouldn't be able to do, but that they would be fine together. Moved by this true demonstration of love, the man embraces his fiancée in tears.

The scene where a service man asked for a bank loan is also a highlight. When he is initially refused as a "high risk", a higher ranking bank official takes over saying "You fought for our country and kept us safe--that's good enough for me. Your loan is approved!" "The Best Years of Our Lives" won 6 Oscars, including a special statuette for the disabled actor who showed us all that life goes on and will continue to be worth living, even with a severe handicap. This film is a joy to watch over and over again. A true classic! Highly recommended!


Although the wonderful soda counter in the local drugstore no

longer exists, and the clothes are definitely l946 immediate

post-war vintage, and good and evil are easy to understand, and

those old planes are really dated, this movie will never be dated.

The human adjustments and problems post-war, the beautiful

love stories, the wonderful acting (especially Harold Russell and

Dana Andrews) are as moving today in 2002 as they were in l946.

I was one of the young women who welcomed our marvelous

veterans home from World War II. Like so many, my memories of

the war years and the homecomings are as fresh today as if they

took place yesterday - this movie is very relevant for our times.


This is one of the great movies of all time. The story is fascinating and the actors are convincing. Your really identify with the characters. William Wyler proofs with this movie that he is a great director. His craftsmanship is unsurpassed.


I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.

This film is about three WWII veterans who come home from the war and are reunited with their loved ones, but have to deal with the hardships of coming home from the war.

The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) comes home to find his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) are more grown up and different than before he left for the war.

The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews) has to find a good job and come home to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.

Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his Oscar winning role)has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands.

All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scenes. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.

This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.

If I was asked to pick a favorite film this would be it!

Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 10.

So next time you go to your local video store rent this movie you won't regret it!

NO objectionable material a good family film.


I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.

The film is about Three World War II veteran's who come home together on a plane and all by chance live in the same town. They all are reunited with their families.

The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) has to adapt to his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and Children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) being different than before he left for the war.

The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews in an excellant role) has to find a good job and adapt to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.

The third man Has a much more harder adaptation to make. Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his excellant oscar role)He has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands. All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scences. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.

This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.

If I was asked to pick a favorite film I would pick this one.

Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 11.

So the next time you rent a movie rent this one you won't regret it.


While watching a mundane modern movie (The Runaway Bride) with my granddaughter (age 22) she asked me "Since you've been watching movies since 1938, what is the greatest movie of your lifetime?" Boy! What a choice that is! It took me all summer of thought and relooking a some flicks before I made my decision. It is "THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES". This movie has no flaws. It is one movie in which each one of the minor characters part and dialog is essential to the whole story. There is not a single part in the film which could be left out. The young girl's fixation with her brothers lack of hands, the man coming home to young adult children who have grown up without him and with different ideas, the portrayal of a young man whose only responsiblity was as a soda jerk who became the leader of a group of men, and was awarded medals for his action. A women who must now adjust to the husband who's life has been away from her for years. The realization of the folks who were in the safety of there secure homes of the sacrifices these ordinary men made in their behalf. The look into the life of loving and living with a man without hands. A parents first look and reaction to their son's new deformities. A man used to making life and death decision in a instant, having to return to the way of plodding though a conservative bank's loan structure. This is no sympathetic, tear jerking, heart strumming act. THIS WAS REAL LIFE! It could not have been portrayed any different. This, my friends, is HOW IT WAS!! This could easily be considered a documentary. In this day of color film, please do not be turned off by the black and white because it is one of the finest B/W filming, editing and directing you will ever see. The casting was perfect. If I could, I would make it compulsory for anyone taking history, film making, creative writing, sociology, family counciling or psychology to view and report on this magnificent example of the film makers art.


This superb 40's post war classic, tends to be overlooked these

days. When it was released in 1945, it cleaned up at the 1946

Oscars, mostly at the expense of `It's A Wonderful Life.' Both films were up for best film , best

director, and best actor, all won by Best Years'. Frederic March ,

and Dana Andrews along with an amateur actor Harold Russell ( a

real life soldier,who lost both hands in an explosion,) play the

returning soldiers, finding life is very different , from what they

remember. Myrna Loy is superb as March's wife, who has to keep

the family together while he has been away.The tear jerking

scene where March and Loy are reunited is magnificent. All three

men find that they have problems readjusting to post war life, not

least Russell coming to terms with artificial hands, and his finance

(Cathy O'Donnell ) trying to be too helpful. Sam Goldywn is quoted that he doesn't care if the film makes no

money at all, as long as everyone in America sees the film ,so they

will appreciate what these men went through. If any film is worth 10 out of 10, it is this one.


Since there have been so many reviews of this fine film I will write in a list form and attempt to address issues that have not been discussed.

1. Dana Andrews was 38 during the filming of this movie. His character according to the screenplay was in his mid 20s. Andrews, a highly underrated actor, did brilliantly play a character who was supposed to be much younger.

2. Fredric March like all GREAT actors needs at times to be restrained by the director to avoid over-the-top acting. He was mugging for the cameras when he was drunk on the night after his arrival and also the next morning when he was checking out his hang over in his mirror.

3. Dana Andrews was superb as he was in "Laura," "The Ox-Bowl Incident," "A Walk in the Sun," "The Purple Heart" and many other films. Why did Fredric March win the Academy Award and why was Dana Andrews not even nominated for his outstanding performance?

4. Harold Russell gave the best performance I have ever seen by a non actor.

5. I realize this was the 1940s but Dana Andrews seemed to have no romantic interest in his exceptionally attractive wife (Virginia Mayo).

6. Ray Teal, who played the right wing bigot, years later became famous for portraying the sheriff on "Bonanza."

7. The professor from the south wrote that the film was slow moving, boring and poorly acted. The professor more than likely is uninformed about classic films. The beauty and significance of these ageless classics is that they are slow moving character studies that avoid profanity, excessive violence and gratuitous sex.

***I was surprised that zero out of 3 people found my review useful.


This film has gone in and out of fashion more often than the miniskirt. A triumph in the post-war period, it was virtually forgotten by the 1970s except by students of cinema. Recently, it has begun to get recognition as perhaps the most even-handed representation of soldiers' integration into post-war life ever made (and that most definitely includes films such as "The Deer Hunter.") I like it, but my overall evaluation is somewhere between those extremes.

The tale is a simple one. Three very different servicemen who have mustered out after World War II (The Big One!) fly home to their Midwest town and try to resume, or create, civilian lives. One has a disability, one has a cushy job waiting for him, and the other has nothing to go on but determination.

There are some good but unfortunately uneven performances. Fredric March won the Best Actor Oscar for playing an old Sergeant who returns to his job at the local bank. Personally, I think Jimmy Stewart deserved it for "It's a Wonderful Life," which also deserved the Best Picture Award, but clearly this film touched a nerve with the post-war audience. As I said, it was fashionable. March has one fantastic scene, a humorous speech that brought to mind somewhat similar incident involving real WWII hero Pappy Boyington, and otherwise is solid but unspectacular.

I am going against the grain here, but I thought that Myrna Loy, who played March's wife, was justly ignored by the Academy. I detected barely a hint of warmth from her. In fact, I kept thinking she was going to slap Frederic March for annoying her. She practically grimaced every time they were together. Something was definitely missing there, in her forced smiles and her air of tolerance rather than joyfulness. I think all this nonsense about her being "the perfect wife" is correct only if you think a passionless 1950s homemaker is your ideal. You may disagree with that, but the Academy voters apparently did not. She is a major problem with this film, terribly miscast.

Dana Andrews as a former soda jerk who became a war hero, then winds up behind the counter again, is amazing. He is saddled with a wife who evidently married him right before he left for the war for all the wrong reasons, and his future looks bleak. But then he chances upon March's daughter Peggy (Teresa Wright, in a fantastic turn), and fireworks explode. Both are great, but then comes that unevenness again that pervades this film. Some moments of pure soap opera intrude, punctuated by the all-time classic line, "I'm going to bust that marriage up!" The romance is uplifting and does mirror a common condition after the war, that of returning servicemen finding love upon their return.

Speaking of uplifting, now we come to Harold Russell. He has a naturalistic quality to his acting, or is it non-acting, that rings just as true today as it no doubt did then. Taking a no-nonsense approach to his situation, he is an inspiration. His best scene, one of the best in all cinema, is when he brings the girl who likes him up to his bedroom to show her the truth of his condition. "I'm lucky, I still have my elbows unlike some of the boys." Truly great stuff.

The film has some moments that soar. It also has some moments that belong in the afternoon soaps. Take the good with the bad and see this one for the high points.


What can one say about any Wilder film other than they are the most human and real stories about people and what drives them, bugs them,haunts them. Billy created pictures like paintings that stand forever reflecting the human condition. He paints the good and the bad in all of us. He also paints with love. I can't imagine anyone having a list of greatest films without a Wilder film on it. They will last because they are true. I first saw this movie on TV in the 60s when I was a kid and I had to leave the room because I felt tears welling up in me and was embarrassed. Now I'm an old man and I still feel the tears welling but don't leave the room. I knew these people and loved them and grew up around them. Billy preserved them in this film and not in a 'greatest generation' way but in a most realistic way that preserved the power of the human spirit.


The brilliance of this film lies not in the filmmaking process, which is a conventional, but executed, intertwining tale of the lies of three servicemen post WWII, but in the fact that this story was told at all. Samuel Goldwyn deserves credit for having the chutzpah to push through a film who has for its leads a disabled vet with pincers for hands, an alcoholic, and an underachiever.


I first saw this film as a teenager (I'm now in my 40's), and have long considered it to be my favorite movie. The story is enormously moving, without being sentimental. The acting, especially by March and Loy, is dead-on. And the fact that Dana Andrews is too old for his role doesn't take away from the believability of his romance with Theresa Wright (whom I believe is the only major character in the film still living). This could have turned out to be another post-war melodrama, but the script and cast are simply too good for that to happen.


This is one of the great ones. It works so beautifully that you hardly notice the miscasting of then 37 year old Dana Andrews as the drugstore soda jerk who goes to war and comes back four years later, when he would have been, at most, 25. But then, who else should have played him?


This is a thoughtful film that lays bare the inequities of the so-called upper class and those who work for them, the haves and have-nots. Robert Shaw does a creditable job in his role as the obliging, correct chauffeur, Steven Ledbetter, who helps Lady Franklin (Sarah Miles) overcome her mental depression at the outset. However, Steven has many mixed feelings regarding this lady of the upper class. He inevitably falls in love with her, which of course is overstepping the societal boundaries that separate them.

I have not read anything prior to this and only judge the movie as I have seen it. I consider it a very honest story about the realities of daily living and the conflict of what we might wish or expect from life and what we get. It's a fine drama worth seeing again.


I was recently given this film on DVD as a gift, and was unsure at first if it would appeal (although one of my favourite actors has a leading role). In fact, it's on its way to becoming a favourite.

First of all: thankfully, it's *not* the same as the book, the ending of which I think is excessively melodramatic. Secondly: it's one of the best films I've seen about the First World War. "What?" you may ask. "It's not a war film!" True: we see no battles or bombardments, no trenches, no gas. But it shows the cost of war, the damage done to the lives of the men who fought in it, and the impact this had on those close to them.

We first see Helen (Sarah Miles), a baronet's widow, awaiting her release from a mental hospital. All the women in the film appear to be widows: some from the war, but Helen's much-older husband, Sir Thomas (we see him later in a photograph) was taken ill and died while she was at a party, hence her guilt-stricken breakdown. She is lost and lonely. The wire around the hospital grounds evokes POW camps and the trenches: like many of the men in the outside world, Helen is suffering from a kind of shell-shock.

Out of hospital, she has to find her feet in the outside world again: a world we experience through her eyes as bleak, desolate and unfriendly. Her mother is unable to provide her with any real support. Herself a widow, she has put up her own emotional defences, behind which she hides to avoid dealing with her daughter's distress. (Like many people, especially in that time, she seems to find mental illness embarrassing.)

Ledbetter, the hired driver, becomes a supportive presence, and helps Helen begin to adjust to life again, but she does not realise that he is becoming dangerously obsessed with her. This is a superb performance by Robert Shaw. Ledbetter is a former regular soldier, an ex-sergeant-major who runs a boxing club and has set up his own car-hire business. Superficially, he seems tough and strong, dependable, but there are cracks beneath the surface: he has not really adjusted to civilian life. He invents (for reasons he later explains) a family and home life he does not have; he has brutal outbursts with colleagues, and affection-less sex. Getting close to Helen  a woman whom, even with the greater post-war social freedom, he could not realistically have hoped to marry  exposes psychological fault-lines that tear him apart. These days, one might diagnose PTSD.

The same is true of the other man in Helen's life, aspiring politician Captain Hugh Cantrip (Peter Egan). He is ambitious, handsome, but also very young. Tellingly, his girlfriend, Connie (Caroline Mortimer), mothers him, combing his hair and making sure he has a clean handkerchief before he goes out. He is known to both Ledbetter and Helen: the former had served under him during the war, and Helen had met him in political circles and had thought him a "popinjay". However, he and Helen now begin a relationship, with Helen intending to support his political career, financially and emotionally. Peter Egan, fresh from his stage success as Stanhope in R C Sheriff's 'Journey's End', makes Hugh more than an immature cad. There is a revealing, understated scene in the back of the car between Helen and Hugh, in which they quote Brooke's 'The Old Vicarage at Grantchester'. She asks, of his war experience, "Was it very bad?" He cannot answer. She says: "Well, you're back now." But his softly-spoken reply  "Am I? Sometimes I wonder"  is the key to his character. As light and shadow flicker across his face, we know that there are some horrors that cannot be put into words. The disproportionate casualties suffered by junior officers of his sort  straight out of school or university and expected to lead from the front  are well-known. In a nervous speech (during which Helen reassures him) to local political folk at a dinner-party, he reveals that he will stand as an Independent, no longer as a Liberal (the party which had taken the country into the war). His emotional life is as damaged as Ledbetter's. He cannot easily extricate himself from Connie, who depends on him emotionally and financially: reading between the lines, she is probably a war-widow (perhaps of a former comrade?) with a child, whose drawings we see on the wall of her home.

***SPOILERS***

The crisis between the trio builds slowly, with a frightening scene between Helen and Ledbetter in the car, and Ledbetter listening in to Hugh and Connie when he is driving them, as Hugh tries to persuade Connie that, even as his relationship with Helen develops, they can continue theirs; that he will, at least, continue to support her. Jealousy, obsession and his belief that he must protect Helen from a duplicitous gold-digger lead Ledbetter to confront her and Hugh violently in her home.

The ending is entirely different from that of the novel, and is better for it: it is dramatic, but less melodramatic, and maintains an unsentimental tone. We began with one character recovering from a mental breakdown; we end with another suffering one. Helen, one senses, is now wiser and stronger than both the men, who have been unable fully to adapt to the so-called 'land fit for heroes' to which they returned from the nightmare of total war. The new ending is open: one feels that she, at least, will cope with whatever lies ahead, without illusions. In this, it reflects well the reality of the time, in which women (Helen, Connie, and so many others) had to pick up the pieces of a world in which too many men had died or had come home with varying degrees of mental and physical damage.

"Well, you're back now."  "Am I? Sometimes I wonder"


Having been familiar with Hartley's "The Go-Between" for a good while, both in its original book form and in its disappointing Pinter-Losey film adaptation, this was interesting stuff. "The Hireling" proves almost a mirror image at times; set in a slightly less distant period for the main part, featuring exposure of the British Class System, and containing a set piece sports match (boxing takes the place of cricket) that reveals rather a lot about .

This refreshes in its small-scale, character focus. You do not exactly get to 'know' Lady Franklin and Leadbitter in the novelistic sense, but this distance is appropriately played out in telling body language and inflection from the actors. Your distance from ever fully sympathizing with any one true character mirrors the dormant 'difference' that so dooms the central relationship. Miles and Shaw are wonderfully subtle, and we see more in their 'less'; never once are these actorly, showy performances. They are fittingly Stanislavskian interpretations that create the impression of these characters having life outsides the confines of the film. All other parts are very satisfactorily handled, though they are far smaller in this film than I presume in the novel and compared indeed to "The Go-Between", a stunning work about disillusionment.

The disillusion at the centre of this film is so sadly and movingly conveyed in the late scenes where Shaw kisses Miles and is rejected, and then where a drunken Leadbitter confronts Cantrip and Lady Franklin. It's a howling shame that what would have been an incredibly poignant ending of spoiled, desolate lives at either side of the screen, is 'embellished' with a decidedly odd little coda. One is entirely bemused by the jump in tone, as Shaw's Leadbitter goes beserk and ironically sings "Rule Britannia" and "God Save the Queen" as he crashes his car into things. The political point is heavily over-egged by this bombastic, rather dingily operatic ending. All sense of subtlety, so effectively conveyed hitherto, is lost, as the implicit point is heavily and noisily made. Agit-prop surely has no place in this sort of delicate period drama.

Overall, however, one cannot be too harsh. While this absurd end-piece is a major flaw, the rest of the film must be praised as a sensitive, evocative film, of sadness and detailed observation about the way British society was in the past. Hartley's languid but crystal-clear touch is very much in evidence throughout. It's just a shame that we don't end on the shattering conclusion to Shaw's drunk scene. The tragic, deluded figure of Sarah Miles' Lady Franklin is abruptly denied her place at the epicenter of the film, as the excellent human drama bizarrely slips into the realms of political point scoring. Shaw also - that most dry and yet deeply feeling of actors - is betrayed by the out-of-character excess that closes the film. Thus; a fine, small-scale triumph is sabotaged; but we ought to remember the many good points.

Rating:- *** 1/2/*****