Fair Warning: This review reveals not only plot information, it also provides background information that, hopefully, informs as to context.

Today's Critics -

It has been said that movies are today's "literature." If we accept this as true, then the test of a movie's value can be measured in much the same way as literature. Does it "speak to" different generations?

This is particularly relevant to war movies; especially if you accept that we are in a "time of war." Troops deployed overseas. Tension, disagreement, and bickering politicians at home. Media coverage that is less than objective; either to the right or to the left. And, perhaps most significantly in this context, a Hollywood or "entertainment industry" more focused on what they perceive as 'realism' (as they think they understand it) and critique than on entertainment and escapism.

As an example, many critics have claimed that Saving Private Ryan is the greatest war film ever produced. While certainly accurate/realistic, excellently filmed, and a compelling story, it is not a "war" movie. It is an anti-war movie; both Spielberg and Hanks have said so. The realism was a vehicle to carry their statement about war.

Of course, you have other "anti"-war films such as Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Casualities of War, Jarhead, Three Kings, etc., et al. and so forth. All of these have received critical acclaim; both at the time of release and now. They all speak to a generation that has known the bitterness of Vietnam, the debacle of Somalia, the frustrations of Beirut, the successes of Grenada and Panama, the rampage and curtailment of Desert Shield & Desert Storm, and the March to Baghdad; not to mention the political machinations that have accompanied them. A generation that has also seen the definition of war change from the movement of fleets, the blitzkrieg of armored columns, and the courage of amphibious operations to attacks such as the U.S.S. Cole, suicide bombings, and the World Trade Center.

In that context, how do today's critics view a movie such as They Were Expendable; a "war" film, produced during a different generation's war? Let's look at two straight off the bookshelf...

"First-rate action drama... No phony heroics or glory here, but a realistic, bleak, and ultimately inspiring picture of men in war..." - Mick Martin & Marsha Porter [2006] DVD & Video Guide 2007, p. 1137, Ballantine Books

"One of the finest (and most underrated) of all WW2 films..." - Leonard Maltin [2006] Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, 2007 Edition, p. 1337, Signet

The Cast -

The three main characters are:

Lt. John Brickley - played by Robert Montgomery and based on real naval hero Lt. John Bulkeley (later to become "Admiral"). This is the lead character in the film; significant in that most think of They Were Expendable as a "John Wayne" film. The film's director, John Ford, personally knew and even spent some time under fire with Lt. Bulkeley while stationed in England (after leaving the Philippines, Bulkeley was assigned to MTB [PT boat] duty during the D-Day invasion in Normandy and participated in OSS operations).

Many felt that Montgomery was "cast against type" in this role. However, a closer examination reveals that Montgomery himself served honorably and with distinction in the U.S. Navy (he was awarded the Bronze Star and became a chevalier of the French Legion of Honor) during WWII; including the D-Day landings. (Part of his story is related in The Ship That Would Not Die by Rear Admiral F. Julian Becton (commanding officer of the U.S.S. Laffey during WWII) with Joseph Morschauser, III.) Even more to the point is Bulkeley's own observation on the choice of Montgomery for the role:

"I was assigned Robert Montgomery as my executive officer of Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron Seven...he was with me and did well. Now, all Montgomery was doing was watching me carefully and preparing himself to portray me. I don't think John Ford had anything to do with it, but he may have...If you look at that movie carefully and me when I was much younger, Montgomery and I look alike. Furthermore, our habits and the way we work, the way we lead, we're very close together. Ford got someone who could copy my mannerisms and my speech. Good performance by Montgomery." - in Searching For John Ford by Joseph McBride, 2003, p. 406.

Lt. (j.g.) "Rusty" Ryan - played by John Wayne, this is a secondary role based on real life Lt. (j.g.) Robert Bolling Kelly; Bulkeley's real-life executive officer while stationed in the Philipines early in the war. Interestingly, McBride claims that Wayne was not the studio's first choice; Spencer Tracy was originally envisioned in Montgomery's role and Robert Taylor for Wayne's. Once again, quoting Bulkeley, McBride's book notes:

"Bob Kelly turned around... and sued 'em because they portrayed him as he actually is, a very rambunctious Irishman, very difficult to get along with. Now, I never had any problem with Kelly... he's a very brave man, he's got a Navy Cross. He's a good man, good sailor, but he's a stubborn - [bleep] - ...he's portrayed pretty accurately by John Wayne." - Searching For John Ford by Joseph McBride, 2003, p. 406. [McBride further notes that Kelly sued for $50,000 and was awarded only $3,000.]

Much has been made of Wayne "making movies" while other stars, or "stars to be," actually served during WWII; many in combat and many receiving awards for heroism and/or injuries sustained. The list is long, but includes: James Stewart, Clark Gable, Robert Montgomery, Eddie Albert, Audie Murphy, Rod Serling, Bob Keeshen (Captain Kangaroo), Lee Marvin, Glen Ford, Mel Brooks, Gene Autry, Charles Durning, Russell Johnson (yes, the "Professor" from Gilligan's Island), Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Jackie Coogan, James Arness (ever wonder why he walked with a slight limp in Gunsmoke - not so noticeable during the "Chester" years, but you can see it if you look during the "Festus" era), Brian Keith, Alan Hale, Art Carney, Lee Van Cleef, Tom Poston, and Ted Knight (yes, the guy who played the dim-witted buffoon, Tex Baxter, on the Mary Tyler Moore Show earned five bronze stars for heroism).

The trouble with this criticism of Wayne is multifaceted. First, it entirely ignores the value of John Wayne's contribution as a representative ideal of what American servicemen were expected to be. Second, it conveniently ignores the fact that Wayne actually did volunteer for service during WWII and was rejected as 4-F due to previous injuries from both sports and performing his own stunts in movies, his age, and the fact that he was a family man. Finally, it slights Wayne's own perception of the situation. Maurice Zolotow, in his book Shooting Star: A Biography of John Wayne (1974), relates the following incident from a preproduction meeting for They Were Expendable between Director John Ford, John Wayne, Screenplay Author Frank "Spig" Wead, and Robert Montgomery...

"...Wead was in his naval uniform at that conference in Ford's office. So was Robert Montgomery... Wayne was in gray flannel slacks, a brown sports shirt, and a brown hound's-tooth jacket... the three naval officers [Wead, Ford, and Montgomery] were on leave from their duties to make the movie... The four men drank and discussed Ford's conception of the film and what he wanted, and Montgomery and Wead were throwing ideas on the table... Wayne was quiet... Suddenly Wayne got up. He went to the private bathroom in Ford's office suite. He remained there for a long time... When he emerged, Montgomery and Wead were gone. Ford had dismissed them. Wayne was red-eyed. He had been weeping. He had run the water loudly and cried. He felt ashamed of himself. He felt disgraced by his civilian clothes. Ford knew he had wanted to be in the service, especially the Navy. Ford's heart went out to him. He was a soft sentimental Irishman under his mean facade. Ford felt he would cry himself in another minute. Finally he decided to give Duke the cold water treatment... Wayne was shocked out of his self-pity... He knew that Ford knew he had done his best to get into the Navey. And he had done the USO tours close to the battle zones... Ford knew. That was enough." (pp. 206 - 208)

How did someone like Robert Montgomery feel about it? Here's a story related by McBride...

During the third take of a scene where Montgomery and Wayne were to salute a departing Admiral, Ford stopped the filming and chastised Wayne - "Duke - can't you manage a salute that at least looks as though you've been in the service?" Montgomery was later to recall: "I walked over to where Ford was sitting and I put my hands on the arms of his chair and leaned over and said: 'Don't you ever speak like that to anyone again...' I told Ford he'd have to apologize... [Ford said] '... I didn't mean to hurt his feelings.' He ended up crying." (Searching For John Ford by Joseph McBride, 2003, p. 408 - 409)

2nd Lt. Sandy Davyss - played by, then, twenty-four year old Donna Reed. Interestingly, the individual Reed's character was based on, Lt. Beulah Greenwalt Walcher, "filed a lawsuit objecting to her characterization;" contending that the way the movie was filmed, there was a "suggestion" that she and Lt. (jg) Kelly (Wayne's and Reed's "Ryan" and "Davyss") were romantically involved and slept together after their farewell dinner. Walcher was later awarded $290,000 for invasion of privacy that "cheapened her character." (source - Searching For John Ford by Joseph McBride, 2003, p. 407) Though I have never "seen" this in the film, you must remember that this was the mid, 1940's and innuendo was better than today's "show almost all of it." I wonder what the response and the legal results would be for a similar lawsuit today given the mentality of "necessary for the role/movie/plot," not to mention the often jaded and cynical, realism inherent in today's productions?

What is interesting is the following from Searching For John Ford by Joseph McBride, 2003, p. 408 -

"There is a personal resonance to the director's [Ford] warily affectionate depiction of Sandy. Her relationship with Ryan, the navy man more at ease around boats than around women, recalls Ford's courtship of his army nurse, even down to the humorous byplay between Ryan and Sandy about which one outranks the other, a running joke between Jack and Mary [Ford's wife] throughout their marriage. And the injury for whciuh Sandy treats Ryan, a shrapnel wound in the right hand, is similar to the wound Ford suffered at Midway."

Other characters abound. These are played by the likes of the ever ubiquitous Ward Bond (a favorite of both Ford and Wayne) and a stock company of character actors; some with long careers, including television well into the 1980's and 1990's.

Director and Screenwriter -

They Were Expendable was directed by the legendary John Ford. Noted for award-winning films too numerous to list, Ford spent a considerable amount of the war years making documentaries. Credited in the movie as "Captain," he would later receive the rank of Rear Admiral, USNR. Zolotow describes this confluence of artistic mastery and military service as it related to They Were Expendable -

"...the battle scenes were perhaps the most gripping pictures of air and naval action ever put on film. They were as close to the bone as a documentary and they were cunningly shaped as a work of imagination. The cunning hand of the great artisan was at work, in the scenes of humorous interplay, in the weaving together of personal stories, of love stories, with photography of men at war, men with women, men without women." - Shooting Star: A Biography of John Wayne (1974), p. 210

The screenplay was adapted from W.L. White's book They Were Expendable. As White notes in the foreword:

"This story was told me largely in the officers' quarters of the Motor Torpedo Boat Station at Melville, Rhode Island, by four young officers of MTB Squadron 3, sho were all that was left of the squadron which proudly sailed for the Philippines last summer. A fifth officer...has since arrived from Australia...These men had been singled out for return to America because General MacArthur believed that the MTB's had proved their worth in warfare, and hoped that these officers could bring back to America their actual battle experience, by which the trainees could benefit... [These officers included Bulkeley and Kelly.] As a result, I found when I had finished that I had not just the adventure story of a single squadron, but in the background the whole tragic panaorama of the Philippine campaign..." - They Were Expendable, 1942, pp. v - vi

Tasked with adapting the screenplay was Frank "Spig" Wead. Probably the best way for readers to familiarize themselves with Wead, his background, and the significance of his naval service as regards this movie is to watch another John Wayne/John Ford collaboration, The Wings of Eagles; a truly excellent film and one where Wayne actually won a certain amount of critical acclaim for his performance. (Wayne plays Wead, with Maureen O'Hara as his wife - a winning combination also seen in The Quiet Man, Rio Grande, Big Jake, and McLintock. Co-star Ward Bond has fun with his characterization of a "John Ford"-esque director. Dan Dailey plays "Jughead" Carson; Wead's companion/friend. Even Ken Curtis, who also has minor roles in The Searchers and The Quiet Man, but is best known for his portrayal of "Festus Hagan" on the television series Gunsmoke, appears in a prominent role.)

Suffice to say that Wead was not only a "legend" in the Navy, an important player in the development of naval aviation and Pacific War support networks, he was, according to Zolotow: "...was a hard drinker and a heavy gambler: a strange incandescent personality... a witty person and a fine raconteur... he had a reckless, wild streak about him. He was one of the few men to who Ford deferred. Ford was respectful of the man's pure courage. John Wayne was in awe of it." - Shooting Star: A Biography of John Wayne (1974), pp. 205 - 206

Why All The Background? -

Alright, we're this far into a movie review and I still haven't mentioned the plot. Why? Once again, the issues are relevancy, accuracy, and who's telling the story. For those that simply write this film off as yet another jingoistic, nationalistic, "John Wayne" rumble with the enemy, remember, the book was written based on direct accounts of the participants in the story; at the time the story took place. The screenplay was written by a man who had "been there and done that." The director was not only a man who'd been there/done that, he'd spent part of that time with one of the guys the story was partly about. The lead role is played by a man who'd also been there/done that, directly serving with the naval lieutenant upon whom the story revolves.

Finally, the film was made in 1945; only four years after they'd "done that" insofar as this story. Thus, while it was shot during a time when the government still preferred a little patriotic appeal in war films, it does not suffer from the revisionist, anti-war, post-Vietnam, negative military stereotyping of modern Hollywood. (You know I'm not necessarily referring to Private Ryan here. Good film. But, how many of the players in that film had actually been there/done that and what was the intended message of the film?)

It is important to keep this context in mind. In a sense, it is a pseudo-documentary or historical "novel" or whatever term means something to you. It is based on actual events and real people. It is filmed during the era the events took place by people who were either directly involved in the events or personally knew and/or served with those who were. Was there a little "license" taken? Of course. But that does nothing to detract from the authenticity of the story.

The Plot -

The story is a relatively simple one. Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron 3 was tasked to the Phillipines. The small, "PT boats" (in which President John F. Kennedy would gain fame) were not taken seriously by the "real" Navy. At one point, an admiral informs Brickley (Montgomery): "Those boats of yours maneuver beautifully. But, in wartime, I'm afraid I prefer something a bit more substantial."

As a result, the squadron is assigned duties such as mail runs, patrol, messenger service, and shuttle runs. Being aggressive by training and the nature of their mission, the officers and crews were determined to demonstrate the effectiveness and proper application of these "boats." As it happened, the Japanese and circumstances provided them the opportunity.

Set against the background of the early, dark days of the Pacific War, at the time when Corrigedor and Bataan were in the process of "falling," all of the subplots revolve around a single theme. Where Saving Private Ryan focused on the role of the individual and the rediscovery of one's humanity in the midst of war, They Were Expendable focuses on the individual's duty as it relates to the bigger picture. In a sense, the former focuses on what the group owes the individual and the latter frames the story based on what the individual owes the group.

Unhappy with these "milk runs" and expressing that discontent to the admiral, Brickley (Montgomery) is told: "Listen son. You and I are professionals. If the manager says "Sacrifice," we lay down a bunt and let somebody else hit the home runs." Such a sacrifice will ultimately mean the loss of his boats; either through enemy action or "other priorities."

The "boats" harrass and confound the Japanese invading the Philippines. The movie briefly explores what is involved with figuring out tactics when using a "new" technology against an unfamiliar enemy. While the group finally manages to "get a few licks in," it doesn't take long for attrition to take hold in the face of overwhelming odds.

When Brickley and Ryan are ordered back to the States on one of the last transport aircraft, their last PT boat is taken over by the Army and the remaining crew members are sent to help defend Bataan (and, 1945 audiences knew exactly what that meant). In his words to the crew members he knew were likely going to their deaths, Brickley says: "You older men, with longer service records, take care of the kids." In other words, you still have a duty to pass on what you know.

And this is precisely what Brickley and Ryan have been ordered to do. After having taken General MacArthur and his family from the Philippines, after losing their boats to the enemy or the Army, Brickley and Ryan are to report to the States to help train future crews in the tactics and use of the PT boats in this new war. Once again, when Wayne offers up his seat on the final transport to another serviceman saying "You've got business at home and I've got business here" (looking for the now missing Sandy Davyss [Donna Reed]), Brickley (Montgomery) reminds Ryan (Wayne) that he has a job to do back in the States. Where is the priority, your personal "problems" or your duty? Naturally, Ryan opts to leave on the transport and the soldier with whom he was going to trade, accepts his duty; sending messages home to be delivered by Wayne.

That's about it. Again, all of the subplots are tied to this theme. Understandable in that the movie also had a role to fulfill; providing not only hope and a memory of the sacrifices made by service men and women, but a sense that the end result was worth the price paid - individually and as a nation.

Relevance? -

Okay. We've established the relative accuracy, or at least the authenticity, in the sense that the people making the film were personally involved in the actual events or with the players. We also know who's telling the story. And, it's not John Wayne.

Wayne would later try to incorporate this same theme into The Green Berets; a story he wanted to tell. As Zolotow puts it: "Wayne was going to impart a meaning to those sacrifices in the only way he knew how, in the way he...had done in They Were Expendable. One's devotion to the Army, to America, to the country, and to God transcended defeat or victory, for man could only find validity in his existence by serving institutions greater than himself..."What the hell war hasn't been unpopular?"...They're out to destroy us, and logic should tell us that this Vietnam war is the only right course. Besides - we gave our word." - Shooting Star: A Biography of John Wayne (1974), pp. 382 - 383

Now, if that doesn't sound relevant, I encourage you to watch the first twenty minutes of The Green Berets and tell me if it wasn't the script for the 2004 Presidential Election, along with many of the politician's and activist's quotes related to Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Zolotow goes on to further cite, remember, this is 1974 :

"No, it was not like the old days when Roosevelt was in the White House, and Marshall, Eisenhower, and MacArthur were cooperating with the movie makers. Now there were new times when senators and congressmen criticized the war and American correspondents in Vietnam were sending back gloomy dispatches about the endless war." - Shooting Star: A Biography of John Wayne (1974), p. 384

Perhaps the relevance of this movie is best summed up by the last portion of the Foreword in W.L. White's book They Were Expendable, written in 1942 :

"We are a democracy fighting a war. If our mistakes are concealed from us, they can never be corrected. Facts are frequently and properly withheld in a war, because the enemy would take advantage of our weaknesses if he knew them. But this story can now safely be told because the sad chapter is ended. The Japanese know just how inadequate our equipment was, because they destroyed or captured practically all of it... I have been wandering in and out of wars since 1939, and many times before have I seen the sad young men come out of battle - come with the whistle of flying steel and the rumble of falling walls still in their ears, come out to the fat, well-fed cities behind the lines, where the complacent citizens always choose from the newsstands those papers whose headlines proclaim every skirmish as a magnificent victory... And through those plump cities the sad young men back from battle wander as strangers in a strange land, talking a grim language of realism which the smug citizenry doesn't understand, trying to tell of a tragedy which few enjoy hearing... These four sad young men differ from those I have talked to in Europe only in that they are Americans, and the tragedy they bear witness to is our own failure, and the smugness they struggle against is our own complacency." - pp. vi - vii

Well, maybe you have a job to do. Maybe watching this film will remind you that there was a time when war meant winning and a citizen's duty was sacrifice toward that goal. "Peace with honor" was not a substitute for one's duty or a country's word to its allies and enemies alike.

It's not the duty that's changed, it's our attitude toward that duty. Perhaps this film, made by men who had sacrificed themselves, witnessed the sacrifices of others, and performed their duties with elan, who give this film the authenticity of true reality (as opposed to trying to create a perception of reality), will offer a perspective on events occurring today.

What do ya think? Relevant to this generation?

Final Thoughts -

"Finally!" (sigh of relief from the Lean & Mean crowd) Well, critics complained about what they perceived to be an overly long film too. At 135 minutes, 2 1/4 hours, They Were Expendable is not necessarily overly long; at least by Kevin Costner standards. (Saving Private Ryan fans should remember that "their" movie is...ready?...2 hrs. and 49 minutes in length.) Shot totally in Black & White, I've read that there are "colorized" versions available on the market, but never seen them. I have seen the DVD for as low as $7.50 and as high as $19.99, so shop around.

This is not an action film. As indicated, there are realistic battle scenes, but that's not the point of the movie. Perhaps this is the reason that the "younger" generation "under rates" this tale. Raised on action, they don't know how to make the sacrifice of thinking and just want to watch a cinematic video game. Maybe they want the "blood & guts" without having to think about why they are being spilled. Perhaps they want to see characters interact in such a way that little is left to the imagination and one does not have to infer what used to be thought of as "inappropriate behavior" from a "proper" lady; especially since they now perceive such behavior as the "norm."

After all, it's more fun (?) to become engrossed in sex and violence than be "tricked" into having to think about one's duty in and to society instead of just "accepting" the message that it's all about them as "individuals" and not about any individual responsibility to the group. Isn't it? I mean, doesn't the group owe the individual? I wonder if there's something in here that might draw attention to the difference between the current generation(s) and the 'Greatest Generation?'

I guess you'll have to watch the film and determine whether it "speaks to" you and what it might be trying to tell you.

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older