Need documentation--Coop hated it?

Also, in the Trivia notes for this film here on imdb, there's an item saying that the film was widely criticized at the time of its release for being pro-war. HUH? Sounds like a troll (known to frequenters of this board) planted it, as I can not find any documentation of this anywhere. It sounds like pure garbage. There is nothing right-wing or pro-war about this film.

I understand why you might say this. The thing is, this film, like many great films can be viewed at least a couple of different ways.

Spoilers/Spoilers/Spoilers/Don't Read any further!

The first view:

The film can indeed be viewed as pro-war insofar as Josh, Jess, and Eliza violated their non-violent principles for what was ostensibly a "good cause." In Josh's case, he fought at the river crossing. In Jess', he went in search of his son, taking a gun with him for protection, (presumably to defend himself with by shooting someone else) and fighting a soldier hand-to-hand. In Eliza's, she thrashed a soldier with a broom in an effort to protect her pet goose.

In other words, they were Quakers until an "important cause" came along, then they abandoned their non-violent principles. If you bear this in mind, it's not hard to see the film as being pro-war. War is, let's face it, all about getting people to abandon their principles, (like not harming others, for instance) bear arms, and do things that they would not normally do "because it's wartime."

And each of these characters did bear arms, so to speak. Josh's case was the most extreme, followed by Jess, (who, by taking his gun with him, demonstrated a willingness to kill, else why would he have taken it?) then Eliza, who, while not inflicting any lasting damage, (the soldier she hit with the broom took it as a joke more than anything) was angry at the soldier for his catching Samantha and intending to eat her (as the soldiers did with the chickens) and struck him with her broom. So while she saved Samantha, she had to leave her principles by the wayside to do it.


The second view:

The film can be viewed as being anti-war by considering:

Josh, (though he joined the soldiers and fought, just as he wanted) now has to live with the fact that he killed at least one (and probably more) of his fellow human beings. So while it can be said that he did what he set out to do, (defend his home) he now has a lifelong burden to bear. There's also the fact that the raiders got through anyway, despite his fighting, and showed up at the family farm. So it's arguable whether the death(s) he caused was worth it or not.

Jess didn't kill the soldier despite it being obvious that the soldier was the "bushwacker" who had killed his neighbor, Sam Jordan. While Jess did fight with the soldier, as soon as the fight was over and he had disarmed the soldier, he let him go. In a way, he honored his dead friend's memory by doing so, as Sam had told him earlier that "at least one man should hold out for a better way of settling things" than war.

Eliza: while Eliza didn't do any lasting damage to the soldier, she violated her principles and struck him in anger. This may not, as first glance, seem very important, but when you consider that Josh was willing to kill (or at least try to kill) for his principles, Eliza abandoned hers when she picked up that broom and struck the soldier. True, she did save her pet goose, but the fact that she abandoned her principles is something that will always stay with her.

I'll be honest: once I "got" this scene, and what raising her hand in anger meant to Eliza, this was the scene that brought me closest to crying during this film. The striking itself wasn't as important as the intent behind it. Eliza was genuinely angry at the soldier; the fact that she hit him with a broom as opposed to something more lethal is secondary.

A variation of the scene with Eliza striking the soldier was Caleb Cope's wrestling match. As Caleb said at the Quaker prayer meeting, he had to watch himself, because he knew that he liked to fight. Later on, sure enough, he was cajoled into fighting at the fair. While Caleb started out enjoying himself, he soon realized that hurting another human being is wrong when he saw that he was making the wrestler suffer. This realization was an epiphany for him, and it might not be too much of a stretch to say that he very likely never wrestled again once he realized that the pleasure to be gotten from wrestling was gotten at the expense of another human being's suffering.

As I say, like all great films, there is more than one way to interpret what's happening on the screen. I think a lot of what you take away from a movie depends on what you show up with in the first place. I"m sure that, for some viewers in 1956, the film was all about how you should be peaceful. Peaceful, that is, until the Communists (or whomever the enemy of the moment is) show up, in which case you ought to discard whatever principles you hold dear in order to fight for "a good cause."

Likewise, another segment of the population probably came away with the idea that the first casualties in any war are the principles of the participants. Even killing the "enemy" and successfully defending your home is not necessarily going to make you happy, because from that point on, you are burdened with the knowledge that you have taken a life (and, being wartime, probably more than one).

For the record, I take the second view myself. The reason being that, if you abandon your principles, well, what exactly are you fighting for, then?
When the war is over, and you're congratulating yourself that you've preserved your way of life, at some point you're going to have to face the fact that you didn't preserve your way of life by the very act of going to war.

Sure, you can pretend that everything is all right afterwards, but you'll be only too aware that it isn't. Few (if any) people go to war and still remain the same way they were before they left. Their experience changes them, and few folks emerge from a war happier than they were before they went in.

Of course, every individual has to ask themselves if they think war is worth it or not. That was one thing I particularly like about the film: Eliza and Jess tried to guide Josh, but ultimately left the decision up to him. Unfortunately, the movie ends soon after the right at the river crossing, so we the audience never got a chance to see how the war might have affected Josh over the long term. Certainly, he did what he felt he had to do, but having done so, did this really contribute to his own happiness? Or did knowing that he killed somone destroy him, even though he wept as he committed the act?

Alas, we'll never know. This is something for we, the audience, to consider.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I think that I read that Cooper thought he looked too old when he saw himself on film. I have the movie on DVD and in the extras they show them on set filming and he seems to be having a good time. A lot of actors don't like seeing themselves on film and maybe he just didn't like the costuming. In any case I really don't care much what he thought because I love it. As far as the war thoughts, I don't see a pro-war thing about this film. It is a story and I wish people would get that straight in their heads. Its a story about people placed in a hard position of protecting their family and land and dealing with their personal beliefs. My Grandmother was a Quaker and since there are not many of them running around anymore, it is great to see this story on film.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Well i always thought this film was decidedly anti-war, almost by definition since Quakers are known pacificists. The pro-war elements as some describe are a bit far fetched -- using a broom on the soldiers for example. Almost like she was shooing them away. No doubt she was angry, but i bet a real Quaker woul not take exception with it. Plus i thought i read that the author was there to ensure integrity with her novel, though I think the director stretched some of the scenes a bit to make them more believable to a general audience. But pro-war? Not a chance!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I take a jaundiced, skeptical view of everything I read in the Trivia page. I just read the "Trivia" for a movie yesterday, "Mister Roberts," wherein there were four consecutive contradictory statements made about the ship in the film. I have also read many statements that are somewhere between questionable and unbelievable about various films.

A person accepted as a vetted member appears to be allowed to post to Trivia without any fact checking and no references are required on the information.

I recommend that people read the trivia for fun, but do not use it as a reference. It is quite unreliable.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The trivia to be found on IMDB is always best taken with a pinch of salt.






"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I have long heard that Cooper had some reservations about the way this film turned out -- but not that he "hated" it. For what it's worth, here's a paragraph on it from the film's Wikipedia entry:

Cooper expressed initial reservations to West about his character, noting that since in his previous roles "'action seems to come natural to me,' the father should be shown joining the fight. 'There comes a time in a picture of mine when the people watching expect me to do something,' he said. West responded he would do something: 'Refrain. You will furnish your public with the refreshing picture of a strong man refraining.'" Cooper followed West's advice. Cooper had not wanted to play the father of grown-up children, although he was 55 in real life. He supposedly disliked the finished film and his own performance.

I read a biography of William Wyler some years ago that repeated the portion about Jessamyn West, which sounds reasonable. Contrary to what one poster wrote, Cooper was a vain man in some respects, the way most people are, and was sensitive about his age and looks, though he looked in very good shape for a man of 55. Hard to believe he had only five years left to live.

As to this pro-war stuff, which I think is nonsense, I agree, this depends on each individuals' take. I never read that there was any sort of criticism about this film being "pro-war", which sounds utterly absurd, in 1956 or since. Anti-war, if anything, or better, pacifist, albeit in a "real-world" way -- the conflict between belief and reality. Frankly, given the political climate in 1956, anyone who thought this film was pro-war would probably not have meant such a comment as a criticism, though maybe as an irony. Jessamyn West and William Wyler certainly never thought it was "pro-war", and when you come right down to it, how many movies are "pro" war -- that is, really in favor of war? Even most outright war movies aren't pro-war. Many are just action films, and many are anti-war.

reply share

add reply

formatting help