rsternesq

(2013-05-16 12:43:22)

Why it is a secret

There is a reason why this powerful film has been so hard to see. It isnow part of the fast fading truth that the Japanese were implacable,cruel and sadistic enemies. Rather than acknowledge just how horriblethe behavior meted out by the Japanese war machine -- which absolutelyincluded the enthusiastic support of most of the civilian populationand a healthy percentage of Japanese residents of the US (and US borncitizens of Japanese descent), we would rather moan about the use ofthe atomic bomb to end the war and avoid the monstrous casualties thatwould have resulted from an invasion of the home islands. What weexpected, absent the use of BOTH bombs is very clear. Every purpleheart issued since the end of WWII was created in anticipation of UScasualties to be suffered to subdue the Japanese, based on theirconduct of the war in China, in the Pacific and wherever they couldimpose their cruelty. Try looking up vivisection and US POWs Japan.This film tells more than our post-modern sensitivities can bear whenit is so much easier to beat up on ourselves. By the way, we also savedcountless Japanese and the one politician who recently admitted itpublicly was hounded out of office. This film should be made availableto anyone and everyone who doubts the reality of the war as it wasrather than as our media prefers to pretend it was. Teahouses andmincing maidens my ...

John von K

(2013-05-15 18:19:06)

Towering performance by Stanley Baker.

Well, I was astonished by how good this film is. Made by Hammer Filmsin 1959 and despite being shot entirely on set in England it has a deepsense of the grime, heat and fear of the Borneo jungle during WWII.What really holds it together and creates the powerful generator forthis film is a gritty, un-theatrical,un-sentimental performance by SirStanley Baker. He creates a 3 dimensional character and (Amazingly fora top ranked star) never tries to get the audience to "like him".Other fine performances from Guy Rolfe and Leo McKern make thisabsorbing film seem way too short. The director Val Guest struggled tohave the film released without any soundtrack music and this reallyhelps the atmosphere and leaves it up the the actors to create tensionwithout music bailing them out. There are quite a few unexpected twistsand surprises too.The subject matter in 1959 was rather brave and controversial so welldone Hammer! It doesn't seem to be available on DVD or Blu-Ray so thatgoodness for Stagevu otherwise I might never have seen this little gem.

Robert J. Maxwell

(2013-05-15 15:15:24)

Think Piece About War And Morality.

It's a cleverly written story of morality in war time. Stanley Baker isthe authoritarian Army captain of one of those lost patrols in Burmaduring the war, thirty-odd raggedy men, some wounded, slogging throughthe swamps. As war correspondent Leo McKern puts it, "I don't knowwhere the enemy is and I don't know where our troops are." They stumbleacross a tiny Burmese village occupied by the Japanese. There is abrisk fire fight and the village is taken. Baker finds what appears tobe an important map on a dead enemy colonel but he doesn't know whatthe lines and symbols mean. He's convinced that one of the villagerscan interpret the map but when the prisoner refuses to talk Baker hastwo innocent villagers executed, just to show he means business. Thevillager reveals all. The map is the plan of a Japanese attack. So,having gotten the information he wanted, Baker has the prisoner killed.Baker tries various ways of getting the information to his command butthe radio doesn't work and the messengers he sends out are ambushed andkilled. The Japanese retake the village and kill all but a handful ofBritish soldiers. The Japanese major, Philip Ahn, is a civilized manbut he wants to know if the British have discovered the plans for theJapanese attack. Ahn threatens to execute the remaining prisoners ifBaker doesn't give up the information he wants. Baker sacrifices hisown life, hoping to save those of his remaining men, but the men areshot and killed anyway.It's obviously a thought-provoking movie in a middle-brow kind of way.There's nothing particularly subtle about it. It's all spelled out forus. Is it worth the possible sacrifice of thousands of fellow soldiersin order to save the lives of a few? It's like Captain Queeg goingcrazy in the middle of the typhoon. Do you violate every law you'vepromised to respect in order to save the ship? What a conundrum, andit's all dumped in Stanley Baker's authoritarian lap.The British, of course, have signed the Geneva Conventions, whichforbids the killing of innocent people or of prisoners of war. Japannever signed the Geneva Conventions but in 1942 agreed to abide by itsterms. In this instance, both Baker and Ahn reject the Conventions andopt instead for moral nihilism -- the idea that there are no fixedmoral rules, and that the only norm is expediency. When Baker makes avain attempt to reach the radio and dies, Ahn looks down at the body,nods, and says, "That's exactly what I would have done." The story wasa TV movie before it was made into a feature, and it shows. It couldeasily have been a stage play. There's no real sense of movement. Thevillage, the jungle surrounding it, and the swamp, are all studiobound. The backdrop has palm trees painted on it. The ground issometimes covered with machine-generated fog. There is never any wind,so smoke rises vertically. Shooting a war movie on a set isn'tnecessarily the kiss of death. Some combat scenes have been fairly goodon sound stages, as "Bataan" was. And I think the most gripping sceneof combat I've ever watched on film was in John Garfield's "The Prideof the Marines", shot at Warners.But this movie is truly static. And the make up department wasunimaginative. Everyone is bearded and shabby, their clothing soakedthrough with sweat, and their faces and bodies seem covered with whatappears to be dirty grease. The photography is so dark that it's hardto tell night from day. The difficulties in shooting on a sound stagecan be overcome to some extent but here they're not. Everyone involved,from the director to the production design just shrugged and gave up.It's the equivalent of the captured Baker telling Major Ahn, "Okay,I'll tell you whatever you want to know -- the hell with it."

dougdoepke

(2013-05-14 22:05:35)

Worth a Closer Look

When I first saw this movie in early 1960, I was almost literallybowled over. The film ran as the bottom half of an anonymousdouble-bill, so I had nothing more than routine expectations. What Igot instead was unlike any war movie I had seen. Like most of the post-war generation, I was reared on WWII flag-wavers and Cold Warplatitudes about that conflict. Not that these were necessarilydeceptive. But compared to the complexities of this film, theirconventional assumptions about god and country were made plain. Itstruck me then and still does that this is the least compromised of warfilms from that pre-Vietnam era.One key feature is the film's depiction of the logic of war. Bothsides, the British and the Japanese, apply it ruthlessly. That logic isa results-oriented morality. Essentially, it holds that whatever actionbest promotes the winning of the war is the correct action, whether ornot it violates traditional rules of morality. Thus, the Britishcaptain (Baker) executes the two innocent villagers in order to extractstrategic information from an unwilling informer. It makes nodifference that the Burmese natives are innocent villagers and thattraditional morality absolutely forbids the taking of innocent lives.Baker does it because as he says the information can save countlessmore lives that would otherwise be lost. Thus the logic turns out to bea kind of utilitarian head-count—better to lose a few lives, even ifinnocent, than lose a thousand that maybe aren't.Now, the depiction here strikes me as exactly the kind of logic thatgets applied all the time in theatres of operation regardless of theparticipants. As the movie points out, we tolerate "collateral damage"in bombing campaigns even when it predictably victimizes the innocent.Perhaps we tolerate these because the victims are not seen orpersonalized. The film draws its power from personalizing the twovictims and the agonized reaction of the villagers. The Japanese, inturn, are not exempt from the same logic, executing two non-combatants,the padre and the journalist, to further the aims of their side. If the film is anti-war-- and I think it is, though not obviously so(contrast with Paths of Glory (1958)—it's because this ruthless logicmakes sense given the methods and aims of warfare in general. Thus theonly way of not being overtaken by battlefield reasoning is by avoidingwar altogether. Baker's resolute captain is both chilling andcommanding because, once at war, he realistically accepts the logic asthe cost of winning. Moreover, by showing that both sides employ thesame ruthless logic, neither side is portrayed as being morallysuperior to the other. Thus, if one side claims to be morally superior,that advantage must lie outside the battlefield. For on the field ofbattle, the logic of winning, as I believe the movie shows, simplyoverwhelms peacetime conventions.One other distinctive feature is the presence of the tubby journalist(McKern). He presents a subtle counterpoint to Baker and the padre.He's a reluctant skeptic, unable to believe in either the claims ofreligion (note he doesn't participate in the group prayer) or thesacrifice Baker is demanding of them. Nonetheless, the screenplayplaces his skepticism on an equal footing with two pillars of Britishsociety, religion and the military. To me that was a particularly boldmove for its time. But it is also a provocative one showing that thefilmmakers were not about to take an easy or comforting way out.Considering director Val Guest's remarks (IMDB) about refusing topander to audiences, I guess that's not surprising.Something should be said about the ending that does in fact pay tributeto the sacrifices made by the British military to the war. Thesentiments, however, appear rather ironic when judged by McKern'searlier remarks on the inadequacy of such tributes when compared to thelives lost. Whatever the filmmakers' intent, I take the ending as achallenge to audiences to make those sentiments more than mere words.How that's to be done remains, of course, the challenge.All in all, the movie's distinction lies in its realistic refusal tosimply find new ways to repeat the patriotic war clichés of its time.It's fair to say, I think, that no American studio would have daredproduce such a provocative screenplay at the height of the Cold War.And that's not just because of the film's daring themes. The movie isalso an extremely non-commercial product, with both an unrelentinggrimness to think about and an unsurpassed ugliness to look at. Thatinfernal jungle remains a b&w creation from heck, almost sucking theair out of both what's on-screen and off. But then, that seemsappropriate. No wonder it was the bottom-half of an anonymous doublebill in America's commercial-minded theatres.Anyway, I expect in this post-Vietnam era, the movie has lost much ofits initial impact since that long ago day when I was lucky enough towander in and be forced to confront real life complexities.Nonetheless, the challenges the screenplay poses remain perhaps morepressing now than ever, regardless of how one may choose to respond.I'm glad TMC revived this obscure little gem and ran it at a popularhour. Perhaps someone in programming recognized its grim uncompromisingexcellence. I'm also glad to share the movie's lasting value withothers thanks to the virtues of the internet.

st-shot

(2013-05-02 02:34:57)

Uncompromising look at the cruelty of war.

Yesterday's Enemy is a taut claustrophobic war film about a whittleddown company of British soldiers caught behind the lines in Burma. Ittakes no sides other than to point out the absurd futility anddehumanization of individuals in war and the limited options they arefaced with. It is a sober unromantic and highly provocative work thatforeshadows the quagmire in Viet Nam and unapologetically addressesactions taken in the heat of battle far from the sideline moralizingout of harm's way. Captain Langford leads his lost patrol with a firm hand cajoling andthreatening members of the unit to remain disciplined and vigilant.When they stumble upon an austere Burmese jungle village they aresurprised by a fierce Japanese resistance attempting to protect asenior officer. With the village under control Langford seeks answersthrough intimidation, torture and finally execution of innocent locals.Eventually they are overwhelmed by the Japanese who adopt the samemethods to get answers about their missing general.Despite it's sound stage jungle locale Yesterday's Enemy director ValGuest attains a very atmospheric feel of heat and pressure with theuncompromising downward thrust of the film as reality trumps morality.Stanley Baker's Langford and Gordon Jackson's Sgt. McKenzie remainstoically impressive throughout as they address the reality they aregiven while Guy Rolfe's Padre and Leo McKern's journalist Max ablybring balance and debate to the picture in arguing the other side.Yesterday's Enemy (even the title points out the absurdity of war)unromantic and dark vision offers no solutions but raises dozens ofquestions about the ugliness of war without flinching remaining withyou long after the firing has ceased. It is Britain's Steel Helmet.

SimonJack

(2013-05-01 16:37:56)

War is hell – especially on civilians

"Yesterday's Enemy" is a gritty film about a small British force inWorld War II Burma. It is also a film about the horrors of war,including unconventional actions. My high rating of this film is forthe excellent acting jobs by all the cast. The quality of the film andits "feel" of a studio set in the jungle scenes detracts somewhat. Thisis a type of story that should be told. The one criticism I have isthat the film seems to condone what takes place. It conveys the messagethat, while war is hell, sometimes things like this may be necessary. The chaplain and the news correspondent rightly protest the captain'splan to kill two innocent natives as a means to get a suspectedcollaborator to talk. Why did the captain not shoot the suspect in thearm or leg instead? The threat and proof of personal injury are veryconvincing to people, and wounds can be treated. But the killing of twoinnocent villagers appears nothing more than mindless barbarism. Ifanything, it would tell the suspect that he needn't worry. His captorsdon't want to hurt him. So where is his "incentive" to talk? Only afterthe British shoot the two natives, and the captain says that he isnext, does the suspect agree to talk. But had he been shot in the armor leg, might he not have gotten the message right away? And thereby,the captain would not have killed two innocent men. No doubt, direct and intentional killing of innocent civilians tookplace in WWII, and in other wars. But there never can be a justifiablereason for such killing. We know of the atrocities of the Japanese against the Chinese people inDecember, 1937. Some 300,000 people were murdered and tens of thousandsraped and brutalized in the rape of Nanking. We know of the inhumanetreatment of military and civilians in many Japanese prison camps of WWII. We know of the Nazi holocaust that killed six million Jews; and ofthe Nazi brutality and killing of many thousands more. Hitler intendedto kill civilians when he bombed London as a way to defeat Britain. Weknow of the Soviet massacre of 22,000 Polish prisoners – mostlycivilians – in the Katyn Forest in April, 1940. In the past century, there were other horrors of war against theunarmed. Most people over 55 will remember the My Lai Massacre of March16, 1968. U.S. soldiers slaughtered 350 to 500 innocent women,children, babies and elderly in one village in South Vietnam. During World War II, Allied bombers killed many civilians when they hitindustrial plants and war supply targets. Navy ship guns surely killedcivilians when they pounded islands in the Pacific. While such killingis part of the horrors of war, it often cannot be avoided and is notcarried out for the sake of killing the innocent. The U.S. droppedatomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WW II, but we will neverforget the horrors of the hundreds of thousands of innocent peoplekilled or injured for life. Many veterans suffer trauma from theirexperiences in war, most often from the killing of other people,whether directly or inadvertently (as in bombing or shelling enemysites). In a cause of justice that is foisted upon men in war, there is a bigdifference between direct killing of enemy combatants and all otherkilling and treatment. The mark of civilization is the humane treatmentof civilians, prisoners, the wounded and defeated. It is never rightdirectly and intentionally to kill innocent civilians, or to mistreator kill prisoners of war. That is the difference between civilized anduncivilized people. To the extent that countries and armies havecarried out such atrocities as these and others, we show that we areuncivilized. To the extent that we abhor such actions and strive tolive with civility toward others, we may yet save our humanity. It isonly by civility that mankind is able to survive and coexist in theworld.

(2013-04-27 14:53:23)

Brutal Look At The Forgotton British Army in Burma

This film has many fine English actors. Including Stanley Baker and Gordon Scott among others. The scene appears to be set in the early part of the Burma Campaign when the Japanese were ascendant. Stanley Baker is leading a desperate remnant of a British battalion that has been isolated and cut-off like the larger elements of its parent Brigade and Division. They come upon a Burmese village where a series of deadly and shocking events occur. The film portrays well the brutality of jungle warfare and the initial advantages the Japs had before the British caught on and later beat them at their own game. Great acting shows how circumstances force a humane British officer to make extreme choices. His Japanese counter part has few such scruples and and the film shows very well how brutal the Japanese were in their conduct of the war. The title of the film has a certain ironic twist to it. Implying how an enemy of yesterday may or may not be a friend today! A worthy classic which should be released in the USA as it has universal appeal. The moral issues raised in the film are very important even today.

(2013-04-27 05:55:57)

Psychologically exciting

This review is from: Yesterday's Enemy (DVD) Val Guest's war film "Yesterday's Enemy" is an interesting companion piece to his equally excellent war film, "The Camp on Blood Island". The latter was a study of the impact of violent incarceration by the enemy on the captives in a prisoner-of-war camp. In "Yesterday's Enemy" the nature of the enemy and their identity is not so clear cut. The captain of a band of Pommy soldiers orders the killing of innocent villagers with the expectation he will get information on a Japanese attack. When the Japs succeed and capture the Poms, the shoe is on the other foot for the captain. Stanley Baker is brilliantly cast as the morally dubious captain who finds when you live by the sword expect to die by it. An emotionally charged film in the Sam Fuller mould. Good support from Aussie Leo McKern, Gordon Jackson, Guy Rolfe and Burt Kwouk.

Frank Ferry

(2013-04-24 14:45:53)

A great find

Obviously, TCM's recent showing of this film was an eye-openingexperience for many people, as it was for me. The other reviews (withthe exception of the one with the historical ax to grind, completelyunsubstantiated by the film) express all my own reasons forappreciating the film. The excitement I want to share is this: After 63years of movie-watching, chancing on a film entirely unknown to me...one that I have never even seen included in anyone's list of "Great WarMovies"... that is so well-produced, -acted and -directed... just sodamn GOOD. And to have that incredible feeling of DISCOVERY... anotherprize addition to my "collection" of film-going experiences.And it was gratifying to see Phillip Ahn, so familiar from the 40's,play a key role so effectively.

Tryavna

(2013-04-24 08:58:12)

Another Val Guest winner

I firmly believe that, if Val Guest had been born in the United States,his films would be better known and more widely celebrated than theycurrently are. His maverick career path and idiosyncratic style alignhim with American counterparts, like Nick Ray and Sam Fuller, whobecome darlings of the auteur-driven critics of the 1960s and 70s. (Asit was, American critics typically did not take the British filmindustry very seriously, except for Hitchcock, Lean, and otherdirectors who "went international," until American film directors likeMartin Scorsese brought folks like Michael Powell to the critics'attention.) In particular, Guest's career path (journalist to writer todirector), occasionally brutal stories, and downright weird directorialchoices remind me a great deal of Fuller. I wouldn't be surprised tolearn that Guest screened "Steel Helmet" before shooting "Yesterday'sEnemy," for instance. Today, Guest is probably best known amongaficionados of Hammer Studios, where Guest worked regularly from themid-1950s until the early-1970s, or among lovers of such campy moviesas "Casino Royale" and "Expresso Bongo.""Yesterday's Enemy" was made for Hammer and came in the middle of whatI think was Guest's best years, 1955-63. Virtually every film he madeduring that period is excellent, and "Yesterday's Enemy" is one of thebest. As other reviewers have pointed out, it's a tough World War IIfilm set in Burma and (in a daring move for the time) without anymusical soundtrack. Fans of British cinema are in for a treat becauseof a cast of familiar faces: Stanley Baker, Leo McKern, Guy Rolfe, etc.Baker is especially good as the single-minded officer who's willing tosacrifice ANYBODY'S life to achieve his objectives, but it's Guest'sfilm all the way. Although most of the film was clearly shot inside astudio, Guest uses this to his advantage to capture the claustrophobiaand disorientation of jungle fighting. There are also some wonderfullong tracking-shots during the action sequences that are extremelyimpressive in wide-screen.One of the other reviewers has suggested that this film illustrates thebrutality of the Japanese and justifies the use of the atomic bomb onthem. I'm not going to comment on the vaguely racist implications ofhis review, but (s)he clearly misunderstood the movie. In fact, Guesttakes pains to demonstrate just how much Baker and his Japanesecounterpart have in common; their decisions mirror each other, and theBurmese woman explicitly equates the British and Japanese. In otherwords, "Yesterday's Enemy" is ultimately an anti-war film, not ananti-Japanese diatribe. Everyone is brutalized by war.The only negative thing I can say about this movie is the one gripethat I always have with Guest's dramatic films: the intensity of theinterpersonal conflicts among his various characters. In a lot of hisfilms, every single character seems to be going through his/her ownexistential crisis at the same time and lets off steam by verballyattacking everyone in sight, and this sometimes comes across asmelodramatic. In "Yesterday's Enemy," for instance, it's hard tobelieve that this army unit is still capable of functioning if theofficers are constantly at each other's throats. But this was clearlyGuest's decision, so it's a minor quibble.