Thursday, July 4, 2013

Sergeant York




Sergeant York
1941
Director: Howard Hawks
Starring: Gary Cooper, Walter Brennan, Joan Leslie, Margaret Wycherly

Why am I watching Sergeant York a second time?  Well, two main reasons.  One: it’s been several years since I saw it, and I owe it to the film to watch it a second time before writing this piece.  But that’s not the real reason.  The second reason is that the dang thing clocks in about two and a half hours and it’s taking up a lot of space on our DVR hard drive, so I might as well get it over with and watch it again so I can delete it and free up the space.

The film follows true life hero Alvin York (Cooper) starting with his humble beginnings in Tennessee as a wayward drunk.  Inspired by the pretty Gracie (Leslie), he tries to turn his life around and become an honest laborer, even finding religion with the help of the pastor (Brennan).  Just as he does, however, America joins World War One and Alvin is forced to join up despite the fact that he objects to killing based on his newfound Bible-motivated pacifism.  After a battle with himself, he finds it morally right to fight for his country and pulls off an impressive act of heroism.  But really, Alvin just wants to get back to Tennessee, to Gracie, and to his mother (Wycherly).

  
Y’know, I’m really coming around on Howard Hawks.  I had no idea this film was his when I watched it the second time around (I wasn’t paying attention, clearly, during the credits), but now that I am aware of that fact, I can see these little Hawksian touches I’ve come to recognize in his other films that are in 1001 Movies.  And, while I’m on it, dude has eleven – ELEVEN – films in 1001 Movies.  That’s more than the likes of Buñuel, or Bergman, or Wilder.  And there’s really a pretty remarkable range in terms of subject matter and types of films in those eleven movies. 

Now, don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t hold Sergeant York to be the pinnacle of Hawks’ filmmaking abilities – in fact, it’s probably the last one of his in 1001 Movies I would choose to watch – but I do see his sly sense of off-kilter humor, even of subverting expectations, that graces the likes of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and Rio Bravo and Red River and His Girl Friday.  It’s in the way Alvin meekly, while inebriated, waits for his mother to throw a pail of water in his face.  It’s in the bar fight scene, played far more for laughs than danger or poor moral choices.  It’s in the traveling salesman trying to hawk ladies’ bloomers to the pastor.  It’s in the wholly charmingly comical romance, one that never gets too sexy, between Gracie and Alvin.  For a movie called Sergeant York, Alvin spends most of his screen time not a sergeant at all, but of course, that’s on par for Hawks.  You’re expecting a war film with a title like that, but it’s truly not.  Far more about York the farmer than York the soldier, it’s not at all what I remembered or expected.  But that’s Hawks for you.

  
I remember being bored stiff the first time I sat through – yes, sat through – Sergeant York.  I wasn’t as bored this time, but it’s still a bit of a ridiculous pill to swallow.  My best summation of Sergeant York is Hollywood sanctioned propaganda.  With World War Two already raging in Europe and the US awfully close to being drawn into the fray, Sergeant York’s ridiculous aw-shucks, we’re-on-the-side-of-right theme makes sense, even if it doesn’t make it palatable.  With its choice of a hero being a person who undergoes several rather unbelievable changes in attitude, all while remaining ridiculously humble, it’s clear that Sergeant York intended to inspire a contemporary audience to adopt similar philosophies.  There is no subtlety – none at all – in the film, a fact which rubs me the wrong way, frankly.  It’s waving its American flag from the opening to the end, all while preaching loudly from the pulpit that it’s best to remain humble and serve the Lord.  It’s awfully hard to swallow this kind of, well, propaganda in this day and age.  But then, I keep on telling myself, this film wasn’t intended for me.  It was intended for a different audience.   And Hawks’ episodic structure, along with his odd little touches of humor, made it a little easier to sit through a second time around.  But it was still a bit of a chore.

  
I like Gary Cooper, but I don’t love him, and I certainly don’t love him as Alvin York.  Frankly, I don’t think Cooper is a very good actor.  Whenever I see a film of his, he’s always himself.  He’s always, ALWAYS, Gary Cooper.  He can’t help himself.  He never morphs into anything other than who he is.  He was never Alvin York to me, just… Gary Cooper, the same Gary Cooper from Ball of Fire, or even High Noon.  He was just wearing a different costume in this film.  When you add onto this his frankly painful rural Southern accent, and I’m sorry Mr. Cooper, but I’m laughing at you.  Hearing him say with such rigid delivery “Them thar hills” is so far from believable, I dare you not to laugh either.  He’s not exactly helped along by his fellow actors, with Brennan playing his usual caricature (this time he’s a preacher, that’s totally different!), Wycherly as York’s unbelievable saint of a mother, Joan Leslie’s histrionics as giggly Gracie, and York’s fellow soldiers portrayed as nothing more than a series of one-dimensional heavily-accented cartoons.  Put all of these together, and you have a mass of performances that don’t really do much to help the movie. 

 
Overall, I liked Sergeant York a bit more in its second go-around due to Hawks’ slightly crazy touches of humor and zaniness, even in this, a piece of propaganda.  But it’s still propaganda, and utterly unsubtle propaganda at that.  And Gary Cooper is still awkward as all get-out with his stupid Southern accent.  And it’s still long.  I like Howard Hawks, I do, but this is not my favorite film of his.

Arbitrary Rating: 5/10.  Small note: I recognized Howard Da Silva in a small role as one of Alvin’s Tennessee neighbors, which made me happy, as Da Silva played Ben Franklin in 1776, which I love. 

10 comments:

  1. From the sounds of it the biggest problems you had with this movie are all caused by the fact that it is a true story. The real Alvin York had refused to sell his story to Hollywood until the studios met all of his demands. That included approval of the casting and the story. He would only agree on Cooper playing him. That delayed the movie for a while right there. My only problem with Cooper was that he was too old for the part. York also had approval of Leslie and at first he was concerned with a too sexy actress playing his wife.

    The big events in York's life were all in the movie and as strange as some of them may appear, they actually happened. It's actually a lot more accurate than most biographies of the day because of York's involvement. He was a troublemaker who really did try to turn his life around; it was his mother and pastor who applied for conscientious objector status for him, not he himself, but he really did choose to go fight in spite of this; he really did capture that many Germans himself; he really did woo and marry a local girl. Yes, this isn't a "warts and all" story like we expect nowadays, but neither was any other biography done in the 1930s and 1940s.

    I liked this film despite my problem with Cooper's age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, no, I don't object to the actual events depicted in this story. In fact, the crazy, zany real life events from York's life work perfectly with Hawks. What I don't like is HOW those events are portrayed - the swelling score, the backlit stars, how the film managed to make EVERYTHING melodramatic. The actual episodes were fine enough, and I rather enjoyed the turkey hunt and, of course, the German soldiers bit, which I knew was true. It was that everything had such a wide swath of "AW SHUCKS" painted over it. That drove me nuts.

      Delete
    2. Okay. I suggest you avoid all other biographical films made in the 1930s and 1940s then. They all did the same things as this. That was just the formula for biographies back then, just like the formula for all biographies now is to show the very worst of a person.

      Delete
    3. Biography films are always tough sells for me, probably for the reasons listed above. In a weird way, and this is really only true for biopics, I tend to have the feeling of "If you're only showing me what I can read on Wikipedia for myself, then why bother making the film at all?" My favorite biopics are not concerned so much with factual events but rather feelings, the ineffable parts of a person's life, not their most amusing anecdotes.

      Honestly, I dread most biopics. It's not my favorite genre. Heck, it doesn't even have to be from the thirties or forties. I was rolling my eyes all the way through recent biopics (Cinderella Man springs immediately to mind).

      Delete
  2. Oh, you didn't say something rude about Walter Brennan, did you? Oh, no you didn't.

    As for Sergeant York, I wonder about the whitewashing and Hollywoodizing of the story. Dude was a bad ass. His story really didn't need any tweaking. Like Chip mentions above, the major events here are real. Why embellish?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's the embellishment that is most annoying here. I liked the bits I KNEW were true.

      Delete
  3. I agree with you, Siobhan, almost word for word. This film felt like an ordeal, as if it was almost too much to swallow. Not because I do not believe it is true, the facts are probably right enough, but there is a tone throughout entirely without self-criticism for lack of a better word that grates on me. Like it is too naive somehow. Hawks does his best I am sure but I still lack this crooked, self-concious smile that shows that the characters do not take themselves too serious. It needs some more "Only Angels Have Wings".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Too naive" - yes, exactly! On the head with that one. So many of Hawks' other films are SO much better than this one.

      Delete
  4. I haven't seen this for years but agree that it's not Hawks' most shining hour.

    I never thought of Cooper as much of an actor until I saw some of his early 30's work. He's still all Cooper but can be surprisingly expressive in the right role. Later, he was confined to strong, silent types which made his restraint and subtlety seem only wooden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have any specific early Cooper films you can recommend?

      Delete