Hell in the Pacific May 23, 2007
Posted by clydefro in : Classic Films, 1960s , trackback
Marvin. Lee Marvin.
An odd thought, but can you imagine Lee Marvin as James Bond? Ignoring the accent, he would have been incredible, bringing the sadistic and amoral side to Bond that Daniel Craig has adopted in Casino Royale. Marvin is one of those actors that make me question the auteur theory. I normally write about films in the context of the director and/or the screenwriter as most responsible for what’s on screen, but there are a few actors who’ve been able to bring something special to almost every role they’ve played. Marvin’s steely coolness dominates the films he appeared in, making mediocre movies worthwhile and good movies even better. He worked with fine directors, such as Aldrich, Ritchie, Boorman and Siegel among others, but Lee Marvin is the real reason to see Emperor of the North Pole, Prime Cut, Point Blank and The Killers. Even his supporting turns in films like Attack, Ship of Fools and Seven Men from Now are completely memorable and make the viewer anxious for the next time Marvin appears on screen.
The Film Society at Lincoln Center in New York has devoted over two weeks worth of films to Marvin, including those mentioned above, with his widow Pamela Marvin and director John Boorman participating. It’s been a great chance to become reacquainted with one of the most unique and accomplished film presences in movie history. To encourage people to attend instead of popping in their DVDs, the FSLC offered a special series pass for $40 that enabled patrons to see up to 8 films, a significant savings from the regular $11 ticket price. I took advantage of the offer, seeing some things for the first time while revisiting others that I’d seen before on a much smaller screen. Two of my favorites are the two films directed by Boorman, the anamorphic classics Point Blank and Hell in the Pacific, both begging to be seen in a theater. Film Comment, the bimonthly magazine published by the FSLC, also celebrated the retrospective (appropriately titled Lee Marvin: The Coolest Lethal Weapon) with a lengthy article on Marvin, available in its entirety online. (Attached below are my ticket stubs, the program guide, etc. Click to enlarge.)
In Marvin’s second collaboration with Boorman, Hell in the Pacific
The film begins with Mifune already on the island, in full beard. He’s adapted to the stranded existence by setting traps for fish and preserving rainwater. Mifune and the audience see Marvin for the first time together, a thirsty, stubbled face soldier whose life raft has wandered ashore leaving the American in the brush of the jungle. As the film progresses, each character gains the upper hand on the other, but only before losing again. Marvin teases and enrages Mifune, but is then captured and shackled by vine. Upon escape, Marvin gives Mifune the same punishment before realizing that the two men really have no issue with one another. When Marvin reads a military manual instructing soldiers to kill enemies when captured on an island, he’s instead prompted to cut Mifune free. With Marvin’s gesture in defying expectations of war, after Mifune could have previously killed him also, the film quietly reminds us of the human cost of battle. Enemies are more than faceless killing machines, regardless of the language they speak or country they were raised. Sometimes it takes a vacuum, such as the deserted island in Hell in the Pacific, to realize it.
Boorman’s film is an oddity, especially considering its 1968 release. Set during World War II, but like many other military pictures of the time, it’s obviously intended to provoke thoughts of the Vietnam conflict, opposed by both director and actor. The postcard cinematography by the brilliant Conrad Hall makes sure to give the audience a look at the spectacular beauty offered by the Pacific Ocean locale. When the men successfully build a raft and make their way to another piece of land, we see remnants of more tropical paradise, only now bombed out and destroyed by war. It’s certainly not unthinkable to wonder if Boorman intended Western audiences to pause and ask what’s the point of it all. Together Marvin and Mifune set aside their differences and left the island, but when the outside world once again interfered the two men resumed their unintelligible bickering.
Though I think Hell in the Pacific has aged quite well, especially in these days of Cast Away, Survivor, and Lost, the ending found on the DVD release and the theatrical print I saw has not and now seems too sudden, almost comically so. I’m referring to the abrupt explosion that concludes the film, which probably never played very popularly with the audience, but now comes across as ridiculous to boot. Why exactly would a bomb drop on the already obliterated area where Marvin and Mifune are drunkenly quarreling? The only halfway sensible explanation I’ve read was that perhaps their fire had been spotted, but even this seems to suspend reality a little too much for my liking. In fact, John Boorman never approved this ending and it was imposed by the producer after the director had finished the film. The final scene as shot, shown as an alternate ending on the DVD, had been thought up by Marvin and consisted of the two men simply parting ways in anger. Still abrupt but much more appropriate and consistent.
I recently had the chance to ask John Boorman, a very nice man possessing the brio to wear red pants with a green shirt in May, about Hell in the Pacific and what it must have been like to juggle Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune in the Palau Islands. Even now, roughly forty years after the fact, it was obvious that Boorman was still frustrated over shooting the film. (So much so I wish I hadn’t asked actually.) With the idea of maintaining a high degree of authenticity, Boorman had two writers working on the script, an American for Marvin’s character and Rashomon scribe Shinobu Hashimoto on the Mifune part. Hashimoto went off and returned a couple of weeks later with his reworking, wherein Mifune’s character was comedically drawn as a buffoon.
When production began, the actor had erroneously been told this update would be the shooting version and proceeded with his performance in this manner. Even though Boorman never intended to use these alterations, Mifune had been given Hashimoto’s rewrites and was embarassed when the director tried to correct him during filming. The preeminent Japanese actor felt disrespected and publicly humiliated. Relations were never completely mended on the set, though Mifune still kept Boorman from being fired by the studio, and the mostly Japanese crew probably heightened the tension. Even reading Boorman’s words about the ordeal, from a transcript of a conversation between John Hurt and the director (here), one can intuit the lasting hurt he still harbors.
Regardless of the filming process, the final product remains a daringly captivating experience. Marvin, at his leading man peak, once again proved to be an enthralling actor and there’s thankfully little evidence of Hashimoto’s characterization in Mifune’s performance. Viewers familiar with both actors are probably more likely to appreciate and enjoy the film, but it still works far better than conventional wisdom would have you believe. Mostly wordless throughout, Hell in the Pacific instead relies on a compelling story and two extremely charismatic actors giving superb performances. Aside from the ending, this is just about as good a film imaginable about the realistic problems faced by two men who do not share a common language, yet are stuck together alone on an island. Granted that’s a miniscule subgenre, but many of the themes explored here are universally situated in all our lives.
Comments»
Thanks a heap for this clydefro, and now more than ever I wished I lived in New York - a whole two weeks of Lee? Awesome!