Wednesday, March 08, 2006

To Eternity and Beyond!

In lieu of actually reading James Jones’s From Here to Eternity, my book club decided we should just watch Fred Zimmeman’s 1952 film version starring Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, and Deborah Kerr. After watching the movie, I wish I had just read the book.

I know, I know. It’s one of the “singular cinematic experience, one of the landmarks of American film,” “the most daring movie of 1953,” “an acting bonanza,” and I agree that it is all of those things. The cast and their acting was incredible, I admit. Even though I had never heard of Montgomery Clift, he prefigures James Dean, especially the Dean of Giant. And Burt Lancaster, whom I had seen before but never really paid attention to, was amazing as the duty-torn sergeant.

The females, however, were almost negligible, and not really because of their acting. The romances just weren’t developed. Parts were good, such as the first interaction between Kerr and Holmes in their bedroom discussing his infidelity. But the affairs were ridiculous. They’re scandalous, yes, but in a very veiled way. For instance, when Lancaster and Kerr first kiss, the screen fades to black, and I think, whoa! What happens in that blackness? I assume they must have had sex. But then when they meet again, it doesn’t seem that they have because she mentions how his kiss is so great. That second meeting, by the way, is the famous romp in the sand, and it was quite a disappointment. It’s over before you know it.

The entire romance portion of the film seems tacked on, too. It just isn’t necessary to the story, which is really about three soldiers who can’t get attached to women. One of my book group said that yes, the romances were tacked on. But she was glad they were, because they made the movie more palatable for women. But the romances seem to be written by guys: the females are either damaged or completely needy, and the men feel as if they would be better off without them. The entire movie seems to be a romantic male fantasy.

I mean "romantic" as in the sense of freedom, which seems to be what the army represents. Sure, it’s its own repressive society, but it’s also a version of male freedom from responsibility, at least home responsibility or feminine responsibility.

What I appreciate about the movie is its unconventional nature. For 1953, this film was probably a breakthrough: adulterous love affairs, living with unmarried women, the debauched life of soldiers, the corruption of the army, and the conflicts within soldiers toward their own sense of duty. All of that’s really great, and I know it.

The problem is that I’m watching this movie in 2006, and it doesn’t seem that interesting. Sure it’s not a one-dimensional John Wayne film, but it’s also weak compared to Platoon. Still, I have to give it its due.

Grade for From Here to Eternity: 8.

2 comments:

Chad said...

All I meant was that I had always considered James Dean as a novelty: he seemed to be the first fifties brooder, the Keroac (or Dean from On the Road) of the movies.

But From Here to Eternity featured a very similar character. Sure, Dean had more charisma, but Clift was attempting the same thing long before.

Chad said...

I can't believe I misspelled Kerouac's name...