What is the significance of the Leper Colony?
What is the significance of the Leper Colony?
shareGately deserted his post as acting group commander when Davenport was relieved. Gately was executive officer (2nd in command), a West Pointer, and had more flying experience in B-17s ("more 4-engine time") than any other pilot in the group. To punish him for this transgression (and for not being of much help to Davenport) Savage humiliated him by removing him from his command position and making him simply an airplane commander (normally a captain or lieutenant's job). He ordered him to name the plane The Leper Colony in order to keep him (and the group) aware of his failure by having adssigned to him all the deadbeats in the group (i.e. "lepers"). In turn, those who screwed up were punished by being assigned to the Leper Colony. Gately turned it around by making the Leper Colony a "factory" for skilled airmen--and ultimately won back his position as air exec. BTW, the tactic while unorthodox (and risking Savage his own job at the hands of the Air Inspector), was effective, because Gately at the start of the movie was everything Savage said he was.
shareI just recently realized that Stanley Kubrick paid homage to Twelve O' Clock High in his black Cold War comedy Dr. Strangelove : Or How I Learned How To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The B-52 flown by Major "King" Kong (Slim Pickens, in the role he will be most remembered for) that fails to recall and flies on to Russia for weapons release is - ta-dahhh! - the "Leper Colony"!
Mark*
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin
There's even more!! If you look very closely at the scenes when the B-52 is flying low-level over the Soviet wasteland you can clearly see that the shadow it is casting on the white ground below is not that of a B-52 , but it is a B-17!
Look for the tall tail. No question about it.
The camera ship that filmed the arctic scenes for "Dr. Strangelove - Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" was French Institut Geographique National B-17G-100-VE, 44-85643, registered F-BEEA, which, ironically enough, would be written off during a take-off accident in July 1989 at RAF Binbrook during the filming of ANOTHER B-17 movie, the "Memphis Belle"! It has been widely reported, starting with aviation writer Martin Caiden's 1965 book "Everything But The Flak", that former VB-17G-85-DL, 44-83563, registered N9563Z, used in making "The War Lover" (Columbia Pictures, 1961) was the camera plane for "Dr. Strangelove", but a documentary about the making of Kubrick's cold war comedy included on the DVD release shows footage of the IGN Fortress with the true registration clearly visible.
Mark*
"If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk!"
My college professor had us watch this video for our Strategic Management class for us to observe different readiness levels...anyways we did some discussion in class about the Leper Colony. Our professor said to the contrary of "buckboard" that Savage was not putting Gately to shame, Savage was actually holding him in high regard. Savage thought so highly of Gately's abilities that he had confidence that Gately could make great men out of these misfits. Gately obviously did not see it that way at first, but he eventually figures out Savage's initial intentions.
shareSavage thought highly of Gately's abilities ?
Your professor is demented. When Gately entered the room under arrest Savage ignored his salute, not returning it. That is a gesture of contempt from one soldier to another.
"You're a coward, you're yellow, you're a deadbeat, you're a traitor to yourself and the uniform you wear."
This is high regard ? How is telling a career West Point man from a military family that he is a disgrace to the American armed forces and a disgrace to his family name high regard ? How could Savage possibly have 'high regard' for someone who had only flown three missions ?
"Every navigator who can't find the head, every bombardier who can't hit the plate with his fork, every malingerer, every screwup, every chronic head cold sufferer. You get him because you deserve him."
This is high regard ?
Concur with Tarasicodissa.
Now, perhaps your prof felt that Savage believed that Gately had more in him, that the Leper Colony would give Gately the oppty to reach down and find himself (or continue to fail), but Savage certainly did not give Gately The Leper Colony because he thought highly of Gately.
It can make sense that Savage did see the potential in Gately, because of his training and family background, and chose the way to bring him up to his capabilities ( and that of the squadron) was to berate and humiliate him, to make him respond. The moment Savage came into the base he had both barrels blazing; some of the men he had a softer treatment, but knew he had to make an example of someone - Gately was it. He showed no sympathy for the suicide of Zinneman, the navigator who screwed up the last mission. If he really thought so little of Gately, he could have dismissed him away from the unit, but saw how to use him to bring the men around.
shareWhat you say makes sense.
But also consider that experienced officers were few and far between. Gately's replacement would be some greenhorn. Gately had the background and training and experience to be a first rate officer but he was just coasting. When staff officers must be put in the line that can only mean a high attrition/burnout rate for line officers such that there are few veterans.
In the military there is a concept called the Colonel, captain, corporal routine. It goes like this, a colonel comes to inspect a unit...he rips the captain up on side and down the other over relatively minor things...he sweats blood...meanwhile, he sits down and has coffee with the corporal in the canteen. Middle managers whether in the military or civilian life will feel the steel if they hope to crawl up the ropes of the organization.
"...it's all part of life's rich pageant
Hear hear! Well-said!
Mark*
"Either he's dead, or my watch has stopped." - Groucho Marx
Actually, a prisoner under arrest is not entitled to give or receive salutes. On all the other points, I fully agree.
shareNo one under arrest or confined in the stockade is to salute nor have a salute returned. Savage's "refusal" to return Gately's salute is thus not contempt but in accordance with standard US military protocol. As for the rest, there was a war on, don't forget and that changes a lot of things.
Wayne A. Silkett, Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (ret.)
Think about it...Gately was a light colonel...pissed off over Davenport's dismisal...Savage came to the base with hardly anyone in control...most of them boozed up. By placing Gately as pilot in command of a B-17 and being assinged every deadbeat in the squadron, Gately could see that not only his future was in serious jeopardy, but his life was on the line. The only way out for him was up...and he went that way. No small wonder that this movie is still used today to generate understanding of men and motives. The "professor's" view is typical...always looking for a nice, positive answer to things. Savage knew what he had to do...kick ass and take names.
"...it's all part of life's rich pageant
He kept him (that is telling in itself), used him and made a first rate officer out of him and this shock treatment was how he did it. it was only when Gately's entire sense of self was at stake that he could change. It is one of the most famous 'chewing out' scenes in movie history and a favorite of those who have been in the military and understand completely what is going on which far more than you do.
shareA professor of mine a couple of years ago had us watch this movie for an Organizational Change class. I kind of missed the point though... can someone please help me?
I guess the main change is that the group is responsible toward the need and is more accountable?
I believe your professor's interpretation might have been mis-directed. Clearly Savage has the highest regard for the rank of Colonel, but nothing but contempt for Gately's execution of his duties at the rank. Savage expects anyone at the pay rate to be worthy of the duty.
I enjoy the irony of Peck's character's name - Savage - as none but the most sophisticated of men would be able to simultaneously perform admirably as CO of a unit of underperformers and still become so emotionally involved that his name becomes a mis-nomer by the end of the film. Brilliant.
Excellent answer! This movie used to be shown at the US Navy's Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) Schhols in order to show how senior officers can't become personally involved in their subordinates' lives during wartime....very sobering but a GREAT movie and again, an excellent answer! JMB
shareThe leadership exemplified in the movie has to be put into context of it being military leadership in WW2.
Gately couldn't transfer and Savage couldn't "fire" him, so all that was left was humiliation.
I agree with the professor that Savage admired Gately and I think Savage's reactions are over-simplified; his pysychology goes much deeper than that. Gately obviously had the intellegence and ability to do the job but all of that had been watered-down by Davenport's "hard luck" mind-set. By creating the Leper Colony and placing Gately in charge, Savage knew that he (Gately) would eventually 'snap-out' of his feeling sorry for himself and return to his leadership role. It took a broken back for both men to realize they had crossed that threshold.
The 'chewing out and personal attack' in the office was Savage's way of starting that process. If you haven't been in the military, it is hard to comprehend that leadership style. That whole scenario (butt chewing and Leper Colony) wouldn't work today or in peacetime--too much 'frickin'' political correctness.
Gately's eventual reaction is just what Savage was trying to bring out.
Gately looked deep within himself and said "I'll show that SOB he's wrong about me!"Savage knew that the intitial shock tactics would either make or break Gately.
No man, expecially someone with Gately's background (i.e. West Point), could be dressed down and embarrassed that way without reaching inside and using the ingrained pride and discipline to become so good as to be beyond reproach.
[deleted]
That is what I would have thought, too. But from what I have read, the writers of the book and movie based most of the events on real occurences from their war experiences. I am to the point I will accept this as part of the story without questioning the accuracy of the situation.
share[deleted]
I am sort of one of those people that you can't tell what I CAN'T do. Had a prof once who said that no one gets an A in his class. Spent way too much time on it, but finished the class with a solid A - the ONE out of 180 students. Sometimes, it's a characteristic that stands in my way - but on the other hand, I don't give up very easily.
share[deleted]
This is an excellent observation! Buttressed by the pre-Savage attitude of Gately who, if anything, was even more despondent and negative than Davenport. I agree that Savage was not necessarily anti-Gately, but anti-Gately attitude and actions. I think that Savage saw that Gately could be the officer he needed to be and used very harsh language and personnel action to ensure that Gately would respond energetically.
shareI thought he was challenging him (giving him a challenge to overcome).
shareI think Savage was denigrating and punishing Gately. He was named commander of the "Leper Colony" as punishment for not performing up to his abilities and obligations. Remember the first time Gately meets his new crew of "Lepers," he tells them something like, (Pointing to the name painted on the airplane) "The Leper Colony, how do you like it? Well you'll like it a lot less the first time you screw up. We've got a blow torch pointed our way and nobody's going to push me into it!" He's telling them that their screwing around days are over (Himself included). Also remember that these men received highly specialized training and had to be real good to make it through flight crew training. So, if they wanted a better chance of surviving, they'd better let that training kick in and put their screw off ways of the past far behind.
Also, when Savage finds out Gately has been flying missions while in horrendous pain (Injury suffered when he ditched) without complaint, the General realizes he was wrong about him. Savage, wanting to appologize, goes to visit Gately in the Hospital. However, he cannot bring himself to say it and winds up asking him, "Is there anything you need?" The colonel snidely replies, "No thanks General, I've got everything I need!" I think Gately is thinking, "You once called me yellow and now you don't even have the guts to tell me what you came here to say!" I think this drives the point home to Savage that sometimes a man's courage will desert him, but that doesn't necessarily make him a coward.
[deleted]
Yes Steve, but "screwing up" doesn't necessarily mean screwing up on missions. There were guys who were great crew members but unfortunately had a propensity for going A.W.O.L., getting into fights, stealing, gambling on base etc. In fact there's a very famous case where a Sergeant Walter "Snuffy" Smith (Not sure about first name being Walter) heroically saved his B-17 on a particular mission over Germany. His aircraft had been badly damaged by flak and a number of crew members severly wounded, including both pilots. "Snuffy," though wounded himself, tended to the rest of the crew and gave first aid while jumping back and forth to man the different machine gun positions in the aircraft. By doing this he kept his fellow crew members alive and managed to beat off the attacking Luftwaffe fighters.
He was awarded the Medal Of Honor. However, several weeks later when the commanding general came down to present it to him, "Snuffy" could not be located.
It turns out that while he was a great hero in the air he was also a major screw up on the ground. He couldn't be located because he was in the mess hall pealing potatoes as punishment for yet another of his long list of military infractions. He was finally found, made presentable and brought before the general who duly pinned the medal on him. True story.
[deleted]
I still can't buy it for the following reasons: 1) Savage is taking over a group whose morale is already in the dumpster. Telling them that screw-ups are going to be consigned to an almost virtual death sentence would certainly dispense with whatever morale was left in the group.
2) Economics: a B-17 is a very expensive piece of military hardware. Training ten men to man it is also very expensive in both time and money. I don't think Savage would waste either with a crew designed to fail.
3) Security: You'll remember Savage's lecture to the group about "Group integrity." To place an aircraft with a higher probability of being lost, anywhere in the groups formation, is to intentionally compromise that integrity and adversely affect the morale of the crews flying near the "Leper colony."
4) Replacements: In the beginning of the movie, you'll also remember, Lt. "Zimmy" Zimmerman had screwed up his navigation to the target by missing a check point. Gen. Pritchard simply insisted that "Zimmy" be replaced. Savage tells Keith that replacements are no problem and that he'll send him a good navigator to replace Lt. Zimmerman. Col. Davenport refuses and is promptly relieved and re-assigned to other duties at Head Quarters. Therefore, if replacements were available why not just get rid of the screw-ups and replace them with more competent people?
I think Savage saw the main reason for the groups low morale is because they were all a bunch of self pitying under achievers who had been molly-coddled by a weak leader and he was going to change that fast.
[deleted]
Please, please consider other lines of reason Mr. K. To suggest that forming the,"Leper Colony", was a simple way of getting rid of screw-ups is reflects an absolutely appalling lack of awareness on the subject of military leadership.
Do you honestly believe a man who,if he thought a person as un-trainable would
NOT choose to dismiss them from his unit and recomend dismissal from the army, BUT RATHER, send them to thier deaths?
The fact is, the,"Leper Colony", was formed by the General because he knew that the men would do everything they could could disprove this accusation of cowardice and ineptitude. The end result was in fact a first-rate aircrew.
Remember that the film was written and advised by the man who was there and witnissed it all.
I beg you to please consider the men and the time period in which these events
took place. Please do not be so flippant and cynical about a subject that is near and dear to many of us.
XLCH:
The story of VMF 214, 'The Black Sheep' as a gang of screw-ups is strictly a fiction; that image was exacerbated by that goofy(yet admittedly entertaining) 'Black Sheep Squadron' TV series & many of the surviving members of the 214 were REALLY angry at how they were portrayed.
NickM
[deleted]
Nah--it was really a matter of luck in WWII which planes were hit, and which got home safely. A plane manned by misfits would not stand out to flak gunners on the ground, or to a fighter pilot starting an attack run...targets were picked at random in the latter case, and by sheer chance in the former case.
The Leper Colony was lucky....as was The Memphis Belle and a very few other planes.
No matter where you go, there you are!
[deleted]
Station-keeping and manuevering would be in the hands of the pilot, in tis case, Gately, and with the most four engined hours in the group, he likely had good skills. Gunners can "spray and pray" and as long as they don't hit other planes in the formation, are doing just as the planners of B-17 formations desired.
German pilots were rarely dissuaded from attacking due to gunfire....a new pilot was advised to just ignore the tracers as he attacked, and it worked just fine. American tail gunners had lousy gun sights, and they usually missed outside of 100 yards....no matter what their skills.
No matter where you go, there you are!
[deleted]
The organizational behavioral science types have suggested that Savage had a different agenda that some of what I've read here when we established the Leper Colony. Their thinking (Paul Hersey, Ken Blanchard, Warren Bennis etc.) was that no one would want to be outperformed by the "losers". From a motivational standpoint - this was a powerful way to establish some healthy competition. Functionally, it also set up a repository for "screw-ups" and that of course is a time honored tradition. Again, it speaks to motivating increased performance. These same gurus found that this strategy ended up being highly effective.
This tactic was revisited in an fairly obscure Made-For-TV movie called (if I am not mistaken) Bless the Beasts & Children. This was a summer camp movie and the residents of one cabin were clearly a leper colony configuration. Let's just say this ended up being a revenge kind of film with that haunting Carpenter's song playing in the background. I'm sure there are legion "leper colony" type of structures in myriad movies if someone sat and thought about it. That whole "best of the worst" classification adds an interesting and compelling dynamic to be sure.
By way of a digression...
During the McCarthy era they established yet another Leper Colony at Fort Monmouth. This of course was one of the outcomes of the Rosenberg investigation and trial. One has to wonder if this was some sort of reference to the film or if the practice of establishing "leper colonies" as repositories for those on "double-secret probation" was becoming a trend.
VMF-214
Mark*
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin
If you're in the Leper Colony everybody knows that you are a deadbeat and you will likely raise your standards to get rid of the shame.
sharehmmmmm..that's an interesting question...I'm not too sure that would have been a done deal under the circumstances. When Savage put those airmen into the 'colony", I think he was taking a chance on those men. By putting those men in that area, he was trying to kill a few birds with one stone..1) getting shirkers to fly which was really getting them to perform their duty which they perhaps "forgot" under the terror of being blown up in the sky)....2) not having them "infecting" the rest of the aircrews with their poor attitudes and 3) noting to himself that he really was a "good" commander and motivating his men to do their jobs. I think all these scenarios came up when he made the "leper colony" and he just as well as they were going into "uncharted" airstreams so to speak. The stress had to be bad because he really couldn't control all that. The outcome of where the leper colony was headed was more on how Gately handled his crew rather than Savage demanding results (which he didn't do) thus showing his keen understanding of driving men under battle conditions.
shareSavage did hold Gately in some regard because he knew the man could be a much better leader. The man was West point and came from a military family Gately had the right stuff somewhere deep inside, But GAtely was also a coward and a Shirker. Savage put him in the leper colony as to not infect others with his cowardice and poor performence he instead put together a group of men all the same the worst of the worst.
In the book I believe Savage tells him I'll be watching and for every crewmember that does his job better more efficent I'll replace him with another deadbeat and you'll stay because this is where you belong!
The Leper colony was savage's answer to Gately's cowardice it was meant to spur him on make him so pissed off at Savage that he's be Willing to do anything to make hime right again with the other pilots includeing doing his job to the best of his albilites.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Steve:
re: the British being "harsher" on their crews. I'm not sure but could that have been since they usually flew at night. Daylight bombing apparently developed great casualties as compared to night. Perhaps the Royal Air Force thought it was "easier" (less stressful) to bomb at night?
[deleted]
Very interesting and that after Britain had that casualty experience in WWI where their young men were mowed down in droves on battlefields. I would've expected tham to have say a different approach to the effects of combat on soldiers.
share[deleted]