Too many fans seem to be blown away

Such a frustrating disappointment

recommended

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

My review is for the original full-length docudrama made by Gregg Toland. For a variety of reasons, the US government (who commissioned the film) hated Toland's version and John Ford was brought in to rescue the project. He re-shot some scenes, created a few new ones and edited away about much of the film. Interestingly, this much shorter version received an Oscar and the original version was censored for many years.The film begins with the embodiment of Uncle Sam (Walter Huston) meeting up with an old guy (the familiar character actor, Harry Davenport). What follows is a history lesson concerning Hawaii (particularly focusing on Hawaiians of Japanese descent) and account of the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which is narrated by Sam. Interestingly, Uncle Sam talks on and on about how these Japanese-Americans are very loyal to America and Davenport (usually such a nice guy in films) goes on to question their loyalty and their 'so called religion called Shinto'! Interestingly, Davenport's attitude about these people is pretty much in line with the government policy of internment of Japanese-Americans following the December 7th attack. And, very oddly, Uncle Sam is seen as naive and perhaps a little stupid. What follows is a lot of dry narration and, finally, an odd scene between dead soldiers (one of which id Dana Andrews).So why did the government dislike the film? First, although being anti-Japanese was encouraged, the original version basically said that beneath their veneer, many Japanese-Americans were evil agents working for Japan--and that Uncle Sam (i.e., the US government) had been naive and complacent. Second, when it came to the surprise attack, the original film said that we SHOULD have been ready and led credence to conspiracy theories that the government knew or should have known about the attack. As a result, of both themes, the film came off like an indictment of the government and instead of instilling patriotism, it might have instead served to create a defeatist and anti-government attitude. I can see why the film was re-made and edited.Sure it was filled with very nasty anti-Japanese material...but was it well made? What about the technical merits of the film? I don't really think it was made well. Much of the film needed tightening. For example, the Japanese montage just went on too long. Additionally, as I mentioned above, the film was not at all successful in conveying what the government wanted--a HUGE drawback. Its nasty tone really represents negative propaganda and I fully understand the need to re-do this picture. Still, very interesting and an unusual insight into the sorts of feelings brewing in America at the time. Probably mostly of value to historians today and I am glad it is finally available-- politically correct or not!By the way, it IS true that many of the ships sunk at Pearl Harbor were actually repaired and recommissioned. I am not sure whether or not the US government wanted this to be known or not. I could see an advantage for not letting the enemy know this or the benefit of letting the civilians know we are resilient.

Docudrama about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, that led to the US entering World War II. The version I have seen twice now on TCM is the unedited 82-minute version. The shorter version, which runs 34 minutes, is the one that won the Oscar for short subject documentary. The first part of the film is amusingly corny. Uncle Sam (Walter Huston) is vacationing in Hawaii, where he is interrupted by his conscience (Harry Davenport) the day before the attack. They discuss the history of Hawaii, the loyalty of Japanese-Americans, and America's complacency. From there we have the Pearl Harbor attack and the entry into the war. These scenes are a combination of stock footage and recreations shot by famed cinematographer Gregg Toland. It's not hard to differentiate between the two. Dana Andrews plays the ghost of a sailor who died at Pearl Harbor and Paul Hurst plays the ghost of a soldier who died in WWI. The credit for this film seems to go to John Ford, although it appears all he may have done is edit down Gregg Toland's longer version. I haven't read up on the film's history so I can't say for sure. I will say that very little about this screamed John Ford to me, stylistically speaking. Like I said, it's corny and maybe a little offensive if you want it to be, but I found it pretty fascinating. It's a nice window into the mindsets of Americans at the time and how they felt about these issues and events. The attack itself is excitingly recreated. WWII buffs should find a lot to chew on here. Everybody else, how you'll feel about it likely depends on the baggage you bring with you. Some will like it, some will hate it, and some will like to hate it. Hopefully most of you will find it interesting and your blood pressure will be unaffected.

Greg Toland, a phenomenal and temperamental cinematorgrapher ("Citizen Kane" inter alia) wanted to be a director instead of a photographer, and this is basically his film. As part of Ford's Field Photo group he was assigned this project, which was to explain how and why Pearl Harbor could have happened. Toland was a better photographer than a director. Very little documentary footage of the Pearl Harbor attack existed. Most of what was available was shot after the attack, sometimes days later. So Toland organized a lengthy (some 80 minute-long) version of events by restaging the attack both in Hawaii and on the studio lots in Hollywood. The rather long prologue is like a cartoon. Walter Houston is dressed in an Uncle Sam costume and has a sort of argument with his conscience before the attack. Oh, sure, Uncle Sam admits, there are some traitors among the hyphenated Japanese but they're a negligible threat. We get to hear Philip Ahn (a Korean) explain that Shintoism is Japan, and Japan Shintoism, and that Hirohito is the direct descendant of God, which must have gone over well with Christians. The attack itself is reasonably well done for the time but embarrassing to watch now. American dive bombers pose as Japanese. The model work, with tiny airplanes on strings, is obvious. Cardboard ships explode into slivers in a tank. Non-actors pose as American servicemen and die Hollywood deaths, twisting and falling gracefully. The narrator tells us that the whole deal might have been different if an inexperienced lieutenant had heeded the radar warning of a subordinate, which is true, but which couldn't be admitted at the time. The result was an unshowable movie.Ford and his editor, Robert Sherwood, were called in to try salvaging it by cutting it down to about half an hour. Ford may or may not have added any shots. Only one of them resembles something he might have done. (A chaplain saying mass cuts it short, makes the sign of the cross, and says, "To your battle stations, boys.") Of course Ford's name is on the credits as director. He was John Ford. But it isn't his picture.

After America entered World War II at the close of 1941, Hollywood directors were "drafted" into making short films for the war effort. These directors included Frank Capra, Alfred Hitchcock, John Huston, and the most poetic, sentimental of Hollywood directors at the time- John Ford. Ford made this short film. Part of it is a political cartoon come to life. Uncle Sam (Walter Huston) is on vacation in Hawaii. It's not yet December 7th, 1941. He doesn't have a care in the world, other than his conscious (played with delicate humor by the great Harry Davenport!) reminding him of possible trouble brewing. The film also serves as a neat documentary about life in Hawaii before the war, and offers a peek into the heavy Japanese-American population at the time. Look for Dana Andrews in a ghostly bit part. History books just have the dates and places of historic occurrences. This seldom seen classic shows the mindset!