MovieChat Forums > Twelve O'Clock High (1950) Discussion > Repellant to the point of loathsomeness

Repellant to the point of loathsomeness

posted 19 years ago by pchas-1
80 replies | jump to latest

I am well aware that 12 O'Clock High is considered a masterpiece, but I find the character of Brig. Gen. Frank Savage (Gregory Peck) repellant to the point of loathsomeness, which undermines this otherwise well-made production.

Consider: Col. Keith Davenport (well-played by Gary Merrill) the commanding officer of a weary and battle-fatigued unit is removed from his command by Savage, who had been Davenport's friend. What did Davenport do wrong? In Savage's words: "He's a first rate guy who over-identifies with his men." As played by Gregory Peck, Savage is the most authoritarian martinet this side of Capt. Queeg. Unsurprisingly, every airman puts in for a transfer out of the unit. Aware that this will make him look bad, he conspires with his desk jockey ground officer Maj. Harry Stovall (Dean Jagger) to delay the transfers while he works to improve the units performance, and in doing so build cohesion and morale. When the Inspector General arrives, Savage is cleaning off his desk, sure that he will lose his command and be sent back to the Pentagon. But no, every man has cancelled his transfer request and Savage stays. I found this situation highly unlikely, considering that Savage had 1) relieved the popular Davenport of his command, 2) closed the Officer's club, 3) busted several of the airmen down a couple of ranks and 4) told them in a pep talk that they should think of themselves as dead men. I think it would be far more likely that they would have transferred out of the unit to get away from that neurotic mess of a general and that Savage would have been transferred to Washington. I was positively overjoyed when Savage finally broke down and was unable to carry out a mission.

What I find amazing is that several people in the comments said they used this film for leadership training (!) Maybe Savage's techniques work in the military, but anyone who tried to act that way in most modern organizations would find themselves in line at the unemployment office.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jporter-6 18 years ago

Do you know what to do to lead men who are
undisciplined to the point that they are a
danger to those around them, in a situation
where the life expectancy is about seven minutes
of combat time?

I didn't think so.

[–] lrod 18 years ago

I think it's important to point out that Savage did not relieve Davenport--General Pritchard did. Savage is the one who identified Davenport as the problem in an earlier, private conversation with Pritchard, although he painted him with a broad brush by saying, "It's the group commander--It's always the group commander."

At the time of the relief, Pritchard was the senior man in the room, and it's unlikely that a subordinate would have announced the decision. Especially as you view the makeup of the characters prior to Davenport being relieved--Pritchard was the tough-as-nails wing commander, and Savage was more of the compassionate, although no-nonsense, exec. Also, don't forget, that Savage wasn't just a staff officer--as outlined in the conversation by the lake, he'd already done his share of group command with actual combat missions under his belt.

The closing of the O-club was a logical extension of Savage's mission to get the 918th back on track. It was a way of reducing distractions and getting every one focused on basics. Sergeant McIlhenny's demotion was the NCO variant of the same goal. This is not unlike the portrayal of George Patton's takeover of II Corps with his insistence on ties, leggings, and helmets as part of "whipping them back into shape."

So far as leadership is concerned, look at what happened to Davenport. Instead of being viewed as a complete failure and repatriated, he was assigned a staff position at Pine Tree (wing headquarters). No sense in wasting all of the accrued experience, which is good management use of available resources.

Those are my opinions and I'm sticking to them.

LRod

[–] arcturus6 17 years ago

Well.....some people just do not get it. No clue whatsoever. Still looking at the world with rose colored glasses and following some pied piper ideology that resembles the cow patties in stock yards.

[–] guitarbob55 17 years ago

Yes-you probably haven't served in combat-it is a little different than corporate life.
guitarbob

[–] rwsmith29456 17 years ago

Men who were compelled to do a job that consisted of sending men to their deaths were not always where they were due to their pleasing personalities.

[–] hobartz 17 years ago

It's the mission, not the men. That's Savage's message. It's NOT that he doesn't care about the men (as amply demonstrated by his kindness and fraternity with his first driver, Ernie, and by his breakdown at the end). It's that by not performing their mission effectively they are condemning themselves and others to failure and (in war) death. By insisting on competence in performance of the mission, he maximizes the overall chances of success in both goal attainment and life of the men.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]