Hello, all! We’ll be closing out the films set during the Second World War today with a selection that some may object to being on the list, particularly given the myriad of films made about the Second World War that are really quite excellent. A BRIDGE TOO FAR is almost the standard for a film taking painstaking aims to be true to history; THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI is a bona fide classic by epic filmmaker extraordinaire David Lean [and addresses the Pacific Theater of Operations, heretofore a topic that hasn’t made the list]; THE BRIDGE AT REMAGEN, while not a classic, is a solid war film with plenty of action; DIE BRUECKE is a depressing and somber German film about a bunch of kids trying to prevent Allied troops from crossing a bridge in the latter stages of the war. Since it’s that easy to create a litany of World War II… about bridges… it should be obvious that there’s no shortage of films with which to close out the topic. So, why a flawed film like FURY? I’ll try to answer that below the trailer, which is embedded below:
As was mentioned above, this is a flawed film, which begs the question of, “Well, smart guy, how come it’s the last one you’re recommending?” The biggest reason is that the film really does a solid job of attempting to represent in unflinching detail what I think might be best describe as “the war that you don’t see in the movies.” It’s gritty, and is a workmanlike attempt to show that war is, like Sherman said, “all hell.” There’s something refreshing about a film that deals mostly frankly with that fact, absent any kind of romanticism. While that makes for a somewhat cynical film, the tone is appropriate, and is a big part of the sense of verisimilitude that the film attempts to achieve.
Although the film aims to be as honest a portrayal of what an American tank crew went through during the closing stages of the war, it seems that maybe the screenwriter [David Ayer, who also directed the film] was a little too influenced by Belton Cooper’s book Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II. That’s not so much a knock on the book, but a film that is trying quite so hard to achieve such a high degree of realism can’t maintain it if on the one hand it’s got some of Shermans living up to the nickname “Ronson” in some scenes and Sgt. Collier’s [played by Brad Pitt] “Easy Eight” tank managing to take on a Tiger tank – and get hit – and survive. While it manages to be one of the most tense scenes in the movie, it also detracts from the sense of realism the film otherwise wants to establish. But… the Tiger is actually a freaking real Tiger that saw action in the war, so tankers and folks that were driven nuts by M48 tanks masquerading as German tanks in PATTON will appreciate the effort to be so authentic.
The plot of the film is fairly basic, as one might expect; however, that’s not much of a knock on the finished product since the plot is ironically not the focus of the film. Rather, it’s a vehicle by which the film shows the effect that the cold, brutal calculus of war has on those who fight it. A guy that seems only just to have finished basic training, Norman [played by Logan Lerman], is a replacement for one of crew of the Fury. The remainder of the film tends to focus on his transition from green recruit to seasoned veteran. If it weren’t so forced, the film might have been that much better. It’s disappointing that the “When you stick your hand into a bunch of goo” line of the opening speech in PATTON does a better job of portraying that kind of transition than a film whose entire runtime is devoted to making the same point, but so it is. The film goes so far out of its way to show American soldiers as being a bit less than the noble, righteous people who had embarked upon “the Great Crusade” that one wonders who the protagonists really are… and maybe that’s the point. Unfortunately, it’s a potentially worthwhile point that is made in such a forced, clumsy way that it ultimately detracts from a film that would otherwise be absorbing on the basis of its gritty depiction of combat alone. One scene in particular falls flat, and it features Sgt. Collier attempting to force Norman to shoot a German prisoner. Obviously, there are instances in which US troops shot German troops who were attempting to surrender [see SAVING PRIVATE RYAN] as well as the rare occurrence where someone might have snapped and killed prisoners of war [see “Band of Brothers”], but this scene just feels disingenuous and unnecessary.
And then there’s the final battle, where the film essentially abandons any effort to be realistic in favor of having a Rambo moment. To wit, the crew of the Fury has to turn the tank into a pillbox, going up against three hundred Waffen SS [I mean, of course it’s Waffen SS troops!] in the final act of the film. Oh, it’s definitely entertaining, but the entertainment value does kind of diminish what the rest of the film had spent such a long time trying to earn. Luckily, there’s this crazy thing called “suspension of disbelief,” but it’s just a shame that a film that works to be gritty and authentic and whatnot requires such a thing at all.
Obviously, I’ve been addressing a lot of the flaws of the film, but that’s not to dissuade you from giving it a watch. What I’m trying to do is to establish somewhat reasonable expectations of the film, that you won’t be disappointed by it if ever you do decide to give it a try. I’ve noticed that a film I’m really looking forward to seeing typically doesn’t live up to those expectations; so, if your expectations going in are a bit lower, you might have a better time watching it! Whether that logic holds up under scrutiny is beside the point, tho’, and the point is that, flaws notwithstanding, FURY is a well-shot, well-produced film that manages to convey beautifully the ugly side of war. Enjoy!
Other films recommended:
[Day 1 - KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (Director's Cut); Day 2 - GLADIATOR; Day 3 - TROY; Day 4 - SPARTACUS; Day 5 - BRAVEHEART; Day 6 - MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD; Day 7 - GLORY; Day 8 - GODS AND GENERALS; Day 9 - GONE WITH THE WIND; Day 10 - CAPITAINE CONAN; Day 11 - ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT; Day 12 - GALLIPOLI; Day 13 - PATHS OF GLORY; Day 14 - SERGEANT YORK; Day 15 - DAS BOOT; Day 16 - SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; Day 17 - PATTON; Day 18 - CROSS OF IRON; Day 19 - SCHINDLER'S LIST]
As was mentioned above, this is a flawed film, which begs the question of, “Well, smart guy, how come it’s the last one you’re recommending?” The biggest reason is that the film really does a solid job of attempting to represent in unflinching detail what I think might be best describe as “the war that you don’t see in the movies.” It’s gritty, and is a workmanlike attempt to show that war is, like Sherman said, “all hell.” There’s something refreshing about a film that deals mostly frankly with that fact, absent any kind of romanticism. While that makes for a somewhat cynical film, the tone is appropriate, and is a big part of the sense of verisimilitude that the film attempts to achieve.
Although the film aims to be as honest a portrayal of what an American tank crew went through during the closing stages of the war, it seems that maybe the screenwriter [David Ayer, who also directed the film] was a little too influenced by Belton Cooper’s book Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II. That’s not so much a knock on the book, but a film that is trying quite so hard to achieve such a high degree of realism can’t maintain it if on the one hand it’s got some of Shermans living up to the nickname “Ronson” in some scenes and Sgt. Collier’s [played by Brad Pitt] “Easy Eight” tank managing to take on a Tiger tank – and get hit – and survive. While it manages to be one of the most tense scenes in the movie, it also detracts from the sense of realism the film otherwise wants to establish. But… the Tiger is actually a freaking real Tiger that saw action in the war, so tankers and folks that were driven nuts by M48 tanks masquerading as German tanks in PATTON will appreciate the effort to be so authentic.
The plot of the film is fairly basic, as one might expect; however, that’s not much of a knock on the finished product since the plot is ironically not the focus of the film. Rather, it’s a vehicle by which the film shows the effect that the cold, brutal calculus of war has on those who fight it. A guy that seems only just to have finished basic training, Norman [played by Logan Lerman], is a replacement for one of crew of the Fury. The remainder of the film tends to focus on his transition from green recruit to seasoned veteran. If it weren’t so forced, the film might have been that much better. It’s disappointing that the “When you stick your hand into a bunch of goo” line of the opening speech in PATTON does a better job of portraying that kind of transition than a film whose entire runtime is devoted to making the same point, but so it is. The film goes so far out of its way to show American soldiers as being a bit less than the noble, righteous people who had embarked upon “the Great Crusade” that one wonders who the protagonists really are… and maybe that’s the point. Unfortunately, it’s a potentially worthwhile point that is made in such a forced, clumsy way that it ultimately detracts from a film that would otherwise be absorbing on the basis of its gritty depiction of combat alone. One scene in particular falls flat, and it features Sgt. Collier attempting to force Norman to shoot a German prisoner. Obviously, there are instances in which US troops shot German troops who were attempting to surrender [see SAVING PRIVATE RYAN] as well as the rare occurrence where someone might have snapped and killed prisoners of war [see “Band of Brothers”], but this scene just feels disingenuous and unnecessary.
And then there’s the final battle, where the film essentially abandons any effort to be realistic in favor of having a Rambo moment. To wit, the crew of the Fury has to turn the tank into a pillbox, going up against three hundred Waffen SS [I mean, of course it’s Waffen SS troops!] in the final act of the film. Oh, it’s definitely entertaining, but the entertainment value does kind of diminish what the rest of the film had spent such a long time trying to earn. Luckily, there’s this crazy thing called “suspension of disbelief,” but it’s just a shame that a film that works to be gritty and authentic and whatnot requires such a thing at all.
Obviously, I’ve been addressing a lot of the flaws of the film, but that’s not to dissuade you from giving it a watch. What I’m trying to do is to establish somewhat reasonable expectations of the film, that you won’t be disappointed by it if ever you do decide to give it a try. I’ve noticed that a film I’m really looking forward to seeing typically doesn’t live up to those expectations; so, if your expectations going in are a bit lower, you might have a better time watching it! Whether that logic holds up under scrutiny is beside the point, tho’, and the point is that, flaws notwithstanding, FURY is a well-shot, well-produced film that manages to convey beautifully the ugly side of war. Enjoy!
Other films recommended:
[Day 1 - KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (Director's Cut); Day 2 - GLADIATOR; Day 3 - TROY; Day 4 - SPARTACUS; Day 5 - BRAVEHEART; Day 6 - MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD; Day 7 - GLORY; Day 8 - GODS AND GENERALS; Day 9 - GONE WITH THE WIND; Day 10 - CAPITAINE CONAN; Day 11 - ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT; Day 12 - GALLIPOLI; Day 13 - PATHS OF GLORY; Day 14 - SERGEANT YORK; Day 15 - DAS BOOT; Day 16 - SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; Day 17 - PATTON; Day 18 - CROSS OF IRON; Day 19 - SCHINDLER'S LIST]
