Pride of the Marines

What happened to Schmid in a foxhole, happened to my 19 year old uncle, only he and most of his buds didn't come back. We must never forget the soldiers of WW II, particularly because there are fewer and fewer survivors each year. I remember, growing up in the 1970s, the same exact situation concerning veterans of WORLD WAR I. Today they're all gone, but never forgotten. PRIDE OF THE MARINES is a monumental tribute to every soldier from every war, but particularly those who returned home with battle scars that could never be erased. John Garfield as Schmid brings realism to a role that scores of soldiers could relate to, and to this very day. This is an extremely well crafted and, yet haunting story that you will not forget, special credit going to an exceptional supporting cast. Dane Clark, a great actor in his own right, is superb as Garfield's tell it like it is war buddy, likewise a victim, but without scars on the outside. Same said for Eleanor Parker, in an early role. One war film you have to see at least once, but I guarantee you'll want to see it again for some truly classic scenes. Thank you so much to the producers of this masterpiece who put their heart in their work.

This was one of the better or best WWII movies of its time. It hasn't been shown on TV in quite a while and am wondering why. John Garfield was perfect as Al Schmid, the blinded hero of Guadalcanal. The action sequence of him holding off a superior Japanese force with a machine gun was spellbinding. He was awarded the Navy Cross although I thought he should have gotten the Medal of Honor. Why isn't this movie on VHS or DVD? He was one of the real heroes of the Pacific war and his story should be available to today's generation. Instead we were bombarded by the media of Pvt Jessica Lynch who never even fired her weapon at anyone and came home a hero. Where is the justice?

In the immediate aftermath following World War II, sound minds in Hollywood tried to distance themselves from the mindless flag-waving that is a natural ingredient in a war effort. "Best Years of Our Lives' and even 'Gentleman's Agreement' investigated the way Americans looked at themselves in the wake of the war, but Delmer Daves' "Pride of the Marines" beat them to it.

The film is about Philadelphia smart alec John Garfield who goes to war as a marine and after a nightmarish evening in a foxhole, with Japanese soldiers eerily crying out at him and his buddies "Mariiines, tonight you die!", he is blinded by a hand-grenade, and dumps his girlfriend back home rather than have to depend on her after coming home.

Delmer Daves is uncompromising in his depiction on these men who are brave, as it were, almost by coincidence. They are there, in the foxhole, and when shot at, they react. So much for heroism, but they get the job done. And then comes the self-pity, the dark, gloomy sense of humor. Garfield is in angry denial of his blindness and the film makes no excuses, "There's no free candy for anyone in this world", as his buddy tells him. The same guy, a Jew, played by Dane Clark, reminds him, "In a war somebody gets it, and you're it. Everybody's got problems! When I get back, some guys won't hire me, because my name is Diamond".

Great movies are made with guts like these, and if the first half hour of 'Pride of the Marines' fails to rise to the occasion completely, from then on it evolves into a true work of art. You weep, and you ponder, you ache and you hope against hope. Well, simply: art.

I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the "Pride of the Marines" were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?

Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, "Al Schmid, Marine" by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical "war movie" where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about "glorifying" war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.

What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a "dream" sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story.

Though not central to the story of Al Schmid's difficult rehabilitation, the short segment depicting his combat on Guadalcanal is superbly done. It is so technically accurate that it might serve as an instructional film on use of the Browning M1917 heavy machine gun. This level of authenticity was extremely rare in the 1940s and bespeaks a serious commitment by the director and (presumably) the marine corps. Apart from that, however, the tension and terror of nocturnal combat is extraordinarily well depicted. Such realism was rare in the decades before "Saving Private Ryan."