Reflections
on “The Dirty Dozen”
Directed
by Robert Aldrich
Written
by Nunnally Johnson and Lukas Heller
Starring
Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson,
John
Cassavetes et al.
Often much admired for
its depiction of male bonding, The Dirty Dozen is equally often dismissed for
its so-called macho posturing and as a rather nasty glorification of violence.
In my humble opinion, in
places this is a challenging existential anti-war film that dips into film noir
territory as it presents an uncomfortable case for the use of amorality as a
defence against amorality. It also invites viewers to reflect on the nature and
importance of society, social structure, humanity, justice and the very
existence of morality.
Our film may usefully be
divided into three sections, exposition, training and the execution of the
mission.
The Dozen are not
misunderstood or hard-done-by heroes. They have all committed crimes and are
about to pay the price for them, by hanging or long-term imprisonment. The
legal system that found them guilty may be imperfect and may not have taken
compassionate account of all the circumstances leading to their crimes – the
men may show regret, the circumstances of their wrongdoing may not be as
clearcut as we might expect, with undoubted extenuating circumstances in some
cases, and their backgrounds may have made their choices virtually inevitable,
but these are not innocent men who have been wrongly convicted. They are flawed
human beings, some of whom may elicit a degree of audience sympathy while
others may provoke disgust, but they are being used (or abused) in a scheme in
which they are being invited to risk their lives for the greater good, though
their alternative is certain death or a life of permanent hardship and
imprisonment.
So, we have an imperfect system
of justice casting judgement on imperfect human beings who are to be exploited at
the behest of and for the benefit of others. It is clear that mankind is
responsible for its own existential system of rules and conduct, not a higher
morality. This is made plain when Major Reisman rolls his eyes and treats a man
of God dismissively at a hanging he is invited to witness.
The Nazis set aside
niceties of order and principle to assert themselves and establish a somewhat
prejudiced and skewed order in their favour. So, to ensure victory, the Allies
are equally willing to set aside such niceties. All is fair in love and war, so
they say, and it is decided to adopt what would normally be regarded as unscrupulous
and unprincipled tactics to ensure an early end to the war. Amorality will be
used to defeat amorality.
The Dozen are to be sent
on a suicide mission to attack a château near Rennes in Brittany in which
numerous senior members of the Nazi command spend time for rest and
recuperation, and quite simply, they are to eliminate as many as possible. In
return, at Major Reisman’s insistence, those who survive may receive remission
or commutation of their sentences. So, they have nothing to lose and something
to gain.
Fundamentally, the
military is more than willing to take advantage of the precarious situation of
our “heroes” to do dirty deeds but this time for the greater good, though
“innocent” lives will be lost, but this is considered collateral damage, again
for the benefit of the greater good.
It is clear we are in
existential territory in which so-called normal standards of morality do not apply,
especially since these standards have been rejected by the enemy and it seems
that the best way to eliminate the enemy is to apply their own standards to
them. Morality, standards and rules are social niceties that apply only if or
when everyone accepts them and submits to them.
After the somewhat sombre
exposition, there is a positive, even uplifting, period of training which forms
the entertaining and heartening bulk of the film.
Our “heroes” undergo and
respond well to a form of what might be termed socialisation during which they are
reminded they have a common purpose and are responsible not just for themselves
but for one another. They learn that co-operation and discipline with purpose
are better than individual attempts at chaotic survival. They make a practical
choice to collaborate since it is to the advantage of all concerned – this is a
form of social contract, and not for high-minded or moral reasons.
Gradually, through common
purpose, trust in one another and hope, they start to bond and become a team.
They are dependent on one another and are united against a common enemy and perceived
unfair treatment. This is achieved, largely, not by way of heartless discipline
and authority, but by mutual dependence, esteem, a degree of sympathy and
understanding, and of course a heartwarming camaraderie that has evolved in the
course of their training. This may fairly be judged to reflect the situation in
society at large in which people showing respect and consideration, not
religious codes of belief or strict discipline, ultimately impact, inspire and
shape the lives of others.
Having established that man
can be influenced positively by circumstances and direction, reality encroaches
and our “heroes” must undertake their mission. They have been training for a
purpose and their pasts catch up with them – there is a price to be paid for
this fresh opportunity to rebuild themselves.
During the last part of
the film and the execution of their mission, the true underlying purpose and
themes of the film are explored.
This is not an action
film set in WW2. It is an anti-war film in which violence is used to depict the
horrors of war, and these horrors are not limited to one side. Brutality is
used to combat brutality, and the images are all the more striking because we
have built a sympathy, even an empathy for our “heroes”. However, all the
characters – Allies and Nazis – are presented as human. Not all those in the
château are Nazis or deserve to die and, in much the same way as we were
invited to reflect on the fates of our Dozen, we are invited to consider the
purpose of their mission and to balance it with thoughts of justice and
fairness. The pain is real and death is equally final no matter which side you
are on, and the cruelty and brutality are all the more stark because here the
Allies are responsible for them. The audience feels a certain ambivalence as we
support those who attack the Nazis, yet we are horrified by the brutal acts inflicted
on relative innocents undertaken in the name of Allied forces. We are presented
with realities of war in which pain and suffering are real and are used by both
sides to gain victory, with both sides convinced of the righteousness of their perspective.
We may understand and accept the premise of the mission but the harsh realities
are hard to bear.
This is surely an
existential slant in which principle, values and morality are set aside to
cause maximum damage to one’s enemy, and in which collateral damage is accepted
as part of the price to pay.
Reisman, who has been
presented as a tough but human officer willing to question and test military
convention and authority, is a professional soldier who does what is necessary
to complete the mission. Despite his apparent humanity and compassion, he will
focus on the mission and apply brutal determination as and when is necessary.
Do fairness and justice
exist? It appears to boil down to individuals and what they are willing or
unwilling to do according to perspective and circumstance, to defend their society
and attack their perceived enemies.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment