Back to Bataan (1945)

THE STORY OF THE “INVISIBLE ARMY OF THE PHILIPPINES”

People are often surprised when you tell them that John Wayne was never in the military. For so many people, he holds an indelible image in their minds as one of two things - Cowboy or Soldier - when the fact is that he was neither one. In fact, considering his celluloid image, as well as his parades and opinions that occasionally became a bit fascistic, it’s even stranger to think that he was regarded by some as a draft-dodger. Despite some relatively half-hearted steps towards enlisting, he ultimately decided to stay home, look after his four kids, work on his crumbling marriage, and make films that stirred morale and patriotic spirit in the States. Back to Bataan was an example of one of those films.

On 6th May 1942, Japanese military forces attacked the US colonies in the Philippines, taking control of points of great strategic value. When a retreat is called, Colonel Joseph Madden (John Wayne), one of the soldiers who managed to escape the initial attack, is ordered to stay and organise a guerrilla army within the remaining populace. For help, Madden appeals to Captain Andrés Bonifácio (Anthony Quinn), the grandson of the legendary freedom fighter Andres Bonifácio that Madden fought against years before. However, Bonifácio initially struggles to live up to the memory of his grandfather.

Back to Bataan is actually quite interesting for a number of reasons. On one count, it puts its focus on the fighting that took place on the island of Luzon in the Philippines during the Second World War, which is a part of conflict that’s still not known too well. The US had basically been in charge of the Philippines since the beginning of the 20^th Century, although they had been given Commonwealth status around five years before the outbreak of WWII. When Japan attacked the US, these colonies served their strategic uses, although the Japanese eventually invaded them and tried to claim the Philippines as part of the Japanese empire. Thus a joint effort between the US military and Filipino guerrilla fighters fought back and, eventually, cleared away the invading forces. It’s not really a story that gets much attention, although this may be due, in part, to the fact that the initial retreat by the US was massive. Nevertheless, they did return, Cavalry-like, a few years later and retook the territory. As such, the fact that this film offers a look at this particular historical conflict is very interesting in itself.

Another thing that makes the film interesting on a production note is that the writing of the film was actually affected by the events it was dramatising as they happened. Producer Robert Fellows had already produced two films that centred on the conflict in the Pacific (the moderate Marine Raiders and the slightly better Bombardier), and had decided to go back again for another go. This time, his focus was the initial invasion by the Imperial Japanese Army. He hired Aeneas MacKenzie and William Gordon to come up with the basic story, and Ben Barzman and Richard H. Landau to actually write the script. However, the writing actually continued throughout the filmmaking process, because they were constantly changing the script depending on what news came from the Pacific. In fact, they were more than halfway through filming when the US forces returned to Luzon with the aim of reclaiming their colonies. Naturally, this placed a substantial rewrite on the production. It’s not often that the film being made is so changed by the current events it’s trying to depict. Due to these changes, filming took around four months to finish.

There are other more political reasons that the film is interesting, though not as much as the military conflicts happening on the other side of the world at the time. You see, John Wayne was one of the most famous and vocal opponents of Communism in the McCarthy witch-hunts of the late 40s and 50s. In fact, in 1947, he was elected president of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, effectively a group of Hollywood notables that stood against Communism and anything deemed subversive or “un-American”. It was actually on this film that Wayne supposedly had his first run-in with those with Communistic sympathies. Director Edward Dmytryk and Wayne had a few exchanges onset that stemmed from this issue. Dmytryk actually went on to be a member of the infamous "Hollywood Ten", a small group of directors, writers and producers that were the first to be called before the House Un-American Activities Committee, who then refused to cooperate and were put in jail. HUAC would also later blacklist primary screenwriter for Back to Bataan, Ben Barzman, for holding Communistic beliefs. As it is, Barzman moved to Britain to find work, and Dmytryk would eventually testify before the Committee and be allowed to continue his career. So, as it goes, Back to Bataan held the vague beginnings of political intrigue, too.

These are all considerations that are separate from the actual film, of course. There still remains the question as to whether or not the film is any good, outside of any significance on a historical, political or production level.

That the events being depicted in the film changed so completely during the filming is fairly clear, with a pretty obvious cover on where the shift happened. That said, it does lend earlier scenes a certain darker tone. Given that all the filmmakers knew of the real events was that the Japanese invaded and the US eventually retreated, leaving behind a small Filipino guerrilla faction to fend for themselves for a while, it has something of a sombre, slightly pessimistic feeling. When Madden sits with a group of Filipino fighters shortly after the retreat, he must face their complaints as to why the Americans left them without any help. Madden has no answers for them, other than to half-promise that they shall return and that they need to keep fighting.

On this point, there’s another aspect of the film I personally find a little… not uncomfortable, but not exactly sitting easy either. Rather it’s the decidedly flag-waving nature of the piece. Now, of course, it’s a patriotic WWII picture, ostensibly existing to boost morale amongst those awaiting word from their friends and family who were overseas fighting an actual war, which was still going on the point of release. Films like these were needed for those back home, but also for those actually fighting. It would be very easy to become despondent when you can’t see beyond your own little trench or foxhole or unit, so it was important that these people be given entertainment, but also with some kind of message of hope or light at the end of the tunnel. So, if it helped to get even one solider through another day, then it was worth it. However, I’ve always found these kinds of patriotic shows to be a little unsettling, basically because I don’t particularly care for patriotism as a virtue. There’s probably any number of explanations for that, but it did get in the way of me enjoying the film. For example, there’s a scene in a schoolhouse where the teacher, an old American woman called Bertha Barnes, asks the students what America has given them. Several students enthusiastically leap up to answer “Hotdogs!” “Soda pop!” “Baseball!”… it’s all done in quick cuts, all in close up, every child’s face alive with happiness. Do you know what that scene reminds me of? That bit at the end of the song America, Fuck Yeah from Team America: World Police, where they just start shouting stuff that America stands for, like “Liberty!” “Christmas!” “Sushi!” “Bed Bath and Beyond!” It’s not really a flattering comparison.

It’s not like it’s all one-sided. There is as much emphasis placed on Filipino patriotism, the guerrilla fighters often talking about the tenacious nature of their countrymen, and how they will be subject to no one (the fact that they kind of, sort of were at the time doesn’t really enter into it). Then again, all of this does often rest as a secondary consideration to American patriotism. The Filipino peoples are just as willing to die for the American flag as their own. One scene actually has a schoolmaster hanged from a flagpole because he refuses to take down the Stars and Stripes. Now, of course this scene is more about the man standing fast against the orders of the invading Japanese soldier who tells him to lower the flag, but it does turn the schoolmaster into a martyr for the cause, a hanged Filipino man literally draped in Old Glory. There’s also another bit that I won’t give away, lest you actually see the film, but I’ll simply say that it involves a boy who never learned to spell the word ‘liberty’. Again, all this may be more my problem, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Flag-waving aside, the rest of the film is well done. Dmytryk’s direction does have suitably rough feel to it, with the short battle sequences feeling quite visceral for the time, and Nicholas Musuraca’s cinematography lends it that extra sense of darkness. The acting is decent, if a little melodramatic at times. Anthony Quinn carries Captain Bonifácio’s tortured self well, and John Wayne delivers the typically resolute performance as Madden. Say what you want about Wayne, he knew how to project the right screen image. So committed was he to looking the part, Wayne refused to use a stunt double for the film’s tougher scenes. Dmytryk and Barzman actually wrote in extra dangerous things for him to do, expecting him to call for a double at some point. Wayne stood fast and performed every stunt himself, including being thrown by an exploding shell (well, a harness and pulley). It’s still a bit of a shock, partly because it’s unexpected, and partly because it’s real. You can see it’s actually him being thrown to the side. He really was a pretty tough sonofabitch.

Overall, Back to Bataan is a pretty good war film, especially considering the constraints of production and the historical focus. It does suffer from a pretty in your face sense of swelling patriotic pride, which pushes the boat out a little too far more than once, but that was mostly the intention. The actual film itself is mostly well made and does pay genuine tribute to those fighting the war. It’s very interesting for a number of reasons, and mainly so because it offers such a specific glimpse into the period it was made.

Angel and the Badman (1947)

HE LIVED ONLY FOR REVENGE... SHE LIVED ONLY FOR HIS LOVE!

John Wayne. The Duke. One of the most resolute images in cinema history. Regularly dubbed “The Ultimate American”, he became an idol to many for his tough presence and heroic nature onscreen. A big step in building this perception in the eye of the public was when Wayne began acting as a producer on his own films. In this way, he could ensure a greater level of control over his screen image and try to make better, more successful films. Say what you want about the guy’s real-life politics, but he understood the system very well. Today’s film was Wayne’s first foray into producing – Angel and the Badman.

A former deputy turned bad guy, Quirt Evans (John Wayne) winds up in the care of a family of Quakers when they find him shot and near death. When he’s better, the daughter Penelope (Gail Russell) starts to show feelings for him. Taken with the girl and her family, Quirt has to decide if he will return to his old ways or leave the behind in favour of a new life with Penelope.

As I said, this was The Duke’s first crack at producing a film as well as starring. Right from the off, he showed a degree of savvy that he rarely gets credited with. James Edward Grant, a popular pulp novelist of the time, wrote the script for Angel and the Badman and it is some fine work. Its central relationship, on which the premise of the piece hinges, is wonderfully developed. Wayne’s character, the amusingly-named Quirt Evans, is well-drawn as a one-time lawman, deputy to Wyatt Earp no less, whose temperament and love of cheap thrills turned him away from the law and towards a less upstanding lifestyle. Similarly, Penelope Worth, played by Gail Russell, is neither the wallflower nor the tomboyish firecracker of other westerns. She’s not weak, but she’s not an over-bearing annoyance either. She’s a firm individual, garnering a good deal of strength from her family and beliefs, and she’s not shy of being the pursuer of the man she loves. It’s precisely because the characters are so well done (certainly for what is generally a B-grade western) that the relationship is actually quite convincing. Rarely does it feel forced (the pair kiss much earlier than they should, but this is more a necessity of the period than anything else), so it has a very natural flow to it.

Wayne also had Grant direct the picture, which turned out to be another wise move. This would also be Grant’s first time in a new role, and he certainly shows some skill for it. He largely left the actual composition of shots to his cinematographer Archie Stout, who turns in some fine work himself (Russell looks especially radiant), which meant Grant could work with his actors more. He’s got a great sense of pace in the film, which feels properly driven, partly due to the script that he wrote, but also due to his good sense as a director. He also captures some of the more sensitive moments with a form of dignified restraint that, in other pictures of a similar ilk, would have been overblown or drowned by sappy music. There are so many instances when he lets Wayne and Russell communicate in glances and things unsaid. His action sequences are equally well done, showing some fine editing (credit to Harry Keller on that) and some genuinely superb stunt work, particularly in the famous bar fight scene.

In the acting stakes, there’s actually very little to complain about. Those that often lamented the awkwardness of Wayne’s style will find that he’s pretty good here. He’s always had a great command of his own physicality, and he carries himself very well as Evans. His body language, the stoop of his shoulders or the nod of his head, show that even The Duke could hold some subtlety about him. You genuinely see some of the inner conflict in the guy, trying to decide what kind of person he wants to be after having met Penelope. With her and her family, he finds life hard, but very fulfilling. When he tries to go back to his old ways, you can see in his face that he finds these things he used to love now rather hollow. Gail Russell makes a better show, managing to show a great deal more texture in her performance. She’s sweet and lovely and conveys so much with the slightest of glances. It’s really not difficult to see why this Badman fell for this Angel. It would be difficult to really shine from under these two performances, but Harry Carey and Bruce Cabot (as Marshal McClintock and Laredo Stevens respectively) both make enough of an impression to stand out, too.

Some may find the religious aspect of the film maybe a little off-putting, what with Quirt being turned away from the sordid life by a pretty girl with a Good Book, but, to be fair, it is a story of redemption. There are several times when it starts to push the boat out a bit far, with the atheistic Dr. Mangram (Tom Powers) being generally regarded by the Worth family as a little confused in his doubts and Quirt’s friend Randy (Lee Dixon) taking Quirt’s new Bible and, after reading a short passage, declaring it to be some “good writing” and “one book I’m sure gonna read.” This may be a little heavy-handed at times (it’s certainly something I noticed), but it doesn’t ever completely fall into didacticism or flat-out preaching.

Angel and the Badman is great western, with good work on all fronts. The script and direction make it stand out by having an actual story going for it, the stunt work is impressive and the acting is good, particularly from Russell. All in all, it’s good fun and a thoroughly well-made western.

Allegheny Uprising (1939)

The French and Indian War was a conflict that was fought between Great Britain and France in North America for control of what were the British colonies across the US and Canada (the name is something of a misnomer since Native Americans fought on both sides), and it ran from 1754 to 1763. In 1765, the Pennsylvania government reopened trade with Native Americans who had taken part in the uprising, much to the outrage of the Pennsylvania colonists who suffered greatly from Indian raids made during the war. A group known as the Black Boys, led by a James Smith, struck against these trades, destroying items intended as gifts and for trade. Based on events from this period, Neil H. Swanson wrote a novel called The First Rebel. This book was eventually turned into the film Allegheny Uprising (I believe it was known as The First Rebel in the UK, but they changed it later).

In 1760s British colonial America, when Jim Smith (John Wayne) discovers that the Native American population are being supplied with rum and guns from white traders, he tries to stop the trades. Trader Ralph Callendar (Brian Donlevy) begins hiding his goods in British military supply trains in an attempt to continue trading. Smith and his men attack the trains, which puts them under fire from British officer, Captain Swanson (George Sanders).

The adaptation of Swanson’s book was done by P.J. Wolfson and, to be honest, it’s not great. It’s a shame because the events of the film are based on some truth, of a British official named George Croghan who smuggled goods in military convoys to be traded with Native Americans in order to recoup losses made during the French and Indian War. Smith and his men stopped these trades, but the British regiment of a nearby fort sided with Croghan and so it set Smith’s men against the British army. Considering this was only about ten years before the American Revolution, this was one of the first signs of disquiet amongst the colonists. This is a great story, clearly rich in drama and history. Wolfson’s screenplay actually does do a decent job of holding this together, however it’s what’s added that lets it down. There’s a romantic subplot between Smith and his friend’s daughter Janie (she wants him; he’s not so interested), which really slows things down, largely because it never goes anywhere. Smith wants to strike against the traders, but Janie keeps wanting stop him because she wants to marry him and such. You’d maybe feel more for her if it weren’t for the fact that Smith seems to be genuinely not too bothered about it, so there’s a mild feeling of delusion about her desires. The film keeps trying to move forward, but she keeps on dragging it down again. There are also some characters that are either kind of superfluous, like Professor, or actually incredibly grating, like MacDougall. The central concern of Smith/Callendar/Swanson is actually handled quite well, though. It also boasts one of the most unintentionally hilarious lines ever: “This is highly irregular… and smelly.”

The direction from William A. Seiter is, for the most part, okay. Seiter was largely a jobbing director, more at home with comedy than anything else, so it certainly doesn’t hold the polish of other more artistically capable directors of the time (like John Ford, whose Stagecoach also came out in 1939 and starred John Wayne), but it’s decent enough job. What lets him down are largely the same things that let the script down, specifically the romantic nonsense. Also, the sense of time is somewhat off. The film is quick (about 80 minutes) and feels pretty brisk, but the film takes place over a period of weeks, if not months, and it ends up feeling more like days. It’s not particularly surprising since it would have been made as a quick westerner, without much thought to it being a lasting westerner.

John Wayne, though still not quite holding himself in the way he became famous for, does show a presence on the screen that would serve him well for many years. Smith is a good guy fighting for what he believes is right, and there’s not much more to him. Wayne can do that. Claire Trevor gives a good spirited performance as Janie, though she is largely quite useless in the film, spending most of it either being told to go away or being locked in a basement. George Sanders and Brian Donlevy are really quite good as Swanson and Callander respectively. Sanders does the severe and snobbish British officer well and Donlevy reminds me somewhat of Danny Huston, and that can only be a good thing. Wilfrid Lawson goes hog-wild with his MacDougall, even though he really shouldn’t have. MacDougall is clearly meant to be the comic relief, but he’s irritating as hell, whooping like a lunatic or babbling incoherently like a drunk. It’s not funny; it’s just aggravating.

One thing I didn’t mention before, but shall now, is the casually racist nature of the film. It’s bad enough that the lone female in the film is a drag and annoyance on the film, but the regular swings at Native Americans is a little unnecessary. Now, I understand that the attitudes expressed by these characters will be a result of the period. In fact, Smith, MacDougall and Professor all know each other because they were Indian Fighters, so they will naturally not be entirely fond of any member of any Native American tribe. Also, the Pennsylvania colonists would not be too fond of them either, since they would have been targets of the raiding parties during the Indian and French War, indeed that’s the initial crux of the whole film. The real Jim Smith’s Black Boys got their name because, as they do in the film, they blacked themselves up and dressed as Indians in order to take on the trade convoys. So yes, these particular characters in this particular time period would be without many kind words for the Native American populace. However, it does strike quite often with uncalled-for hits. They’re barely in the film (they only show up in one scene), and yet they’re constantly being called “savages” and “heathens” and “the only friendly Indians are dead Indians.” Again, I understand the context and I know that the characters would be like this, and it would even have been kind of acceptable amongst the films of that time, but it may be something that strikes a somewhat dissonant chord with modern audiences. It did with me a little bit.

Allegheny Uprising has the seeds of a fairly good work, full of action, history and drama, though it is heavily marred by a go-nowhere, do-nothing romantic subplot, some irritating characters and the casual racism of both the period setting and the time of its release. Also, there are some spirited performances on show and the direction is okay. To be honest, it’s an interesting story, so it would probably make a decent film today.