Viewing From Here to Eternity for the AFI Project

From April 25, 2009:

What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

From Here to Eternity is on the following AFI lists:

The Original Top 100 (#52)
100 Years...100 Passions (#20)

I watched this next AFI entry instantly on Netflix. The only impression I had about this film going in was the vague feeling that I had seen it before. Now, having seen it for certain, I can't say I had previously watched it, at least not in its entirety. I might have seen parts, but it was so long ago, the entire film felt fresh, despite the slight twinge déjà vu clouding the proceedings.

Apparently, the film is based on a novel that was very popular in the years preceding its release. It has a very melodramatic novel-esque sort of title, I think. I've never read the book. The factoid I found most curious prior to starting the film is that, though this film is ranked somewhat highly on the Original AFI list, it was not ranked at all on the Revised/Anniversary list. I was curious as to why that might be. After seeing it, I think the answer isn't as mysterious as the question.

From Here to Eternity tells the story of an army barracks in Honolulu, a few miles from Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, just prior to the bombing of that port and the involvement of the United States in World War II. Private Robert E. Lee "Prew" Prewitt (Montgomery Clift) arrives at the barracks as a transplant after getting into some trouble at his previous post, and the presiding captain, Holmes, who is something of a corrupt and ambitious officer, immediately informs Prew that he was given special treatment in hopes that he will compete for the barracks' boxing team as the middleweight superstar he is reputed to be. Prew, who quit boxing because he sent his last opponent into a coma, refuses, and Captain Holmes and his boxing squad see fit to never let Prew forget it, giving him the worst details and generally bullying him, even despite intervention from his buddy Maggio (Frank Sinatra, in an Oscar-winning supporting role). In the background, silently watching over him as much as getting his own needling in, is Lieutenant Milt Warden (Burt Lancaster), a no-nonsense unit supervisor who likes Prew against his better judgment. He also likes the captain's wife Karen (Deborah Kerr) against his better judgment. Karen and the captain, meanwhile, have spent the best part of their married years cheating on each other, and when she notices the spark between her and Warden, she obliges, replete with the famous make-out scene on the beach. While they are carrying on, Prew is surviving through his superb mastery of the bugle, by keeping to himself, and by happily accepting the tutelage of Maggio in taking in the sights and liquid delights at the New Congress Club, a members-only gentleman's club, where Prew finds Loreen, also known as Alma, (Donna Reed, in an Oscar-winning supporting role), a high-class hooker with a soft spot for his dewy eyes. While they clearly grow to love each other, and while Karen and Warden have a sincere love as well, neither man can abandon their love for the army nor for the country they have sworn to protect.

This film has its good points and its bad points. On the good side, the film is well acted, even if not well written or well directed. The most impressive performance belonged to Donna Reed, who was not at all Donna Reed-like in this against-type role. There were times when she portrayed an ugly and cynical worldview, and her fears and passions for Prew were decidedly sultry and sincere. It was probably the best performance of her career. Similarly, "ol' blue eyes" was a treat to watch as the funny and touching Maggio, who becomes involved in an ongoing fight for his life with the sadistic stockade sergeant, Fatso Judson (Ernest Borgnine), though his final scenes rang a bit over the top.

Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr were also good, and I guess their implied sexual and overtly adulterous love affair was quite the taboo-scoffer in the year of this film's release (1953). Bold as it was, however, the sex and passion of the picture was undermined by stunted and melodramatic dialogue.

In fact, that is my biggest complaint about this whole film: the entire story is portrayed in a cringingly melodramatic way. There's a primary plot point centered on the army and its inner workings, but the secondary plot points, notably the love affairs, were a touch histrionic, almost like soap operas (and, for the record, I don't really enjoy soap operas). They were indicative of the period, to be sure, but they also felt forced and unnatural and, in many ways, not relatable. There was a sweetness about Prew and Loreen and a sexy-ness about Warden and Karen, but, in the end, these love affairs are designed to be tragic, and the writing and dialogue, whether it originated from the novel or can be attributed to the adapting screenwriter's design, played more like dime-store romance novel than epic love story. In fact, some of the dialogue was simply downright cheesy.

As for technical achievements, the only scene that wowed me with its filmmaking acuity was when the bombing of Pearl Harbor began. The way it was filmed, with swooping planes crisscrossing the skies over the barracks, and the shots of running bodies on the ground meeting grisly ends like dominoes toppled by automatic airborne gunfire was actually quite exciting and gave me goose bumps, in a way that the film "Pearl Harbor" never did. The sound and sound effects in this portion of the film were quite impressive for the year in which it was released. Fred Zinnemann's direction in this particular part of the film was also extremely poignant, as the focus seemed to shift toward patriotism, honor, and duty, which is why the film resonates more like a war movie than a romance drama. Of course, the pacing for the entire rest of the film belied the direction toward the exciting bombing scenes by being methodical and slow (and, yes, I experienced some sleepiness).

Is it one of America's 100 greatest films in history? I would argue no. It's really the makings of an early summer blockbuster but doesn't have the solid foundation and building blocks, such as good writing, to give it that "greatness" sheen. Incidentally, the movie that replaced it at this rank was Taxi Driver, so all in all, the idea that the Revised list is more reflective of timelessness and greatness – and the need to make a Revised list to begin with - is believable. I'm not exactly sure what attracted the AFI to this film in the first place, so, perhaps, someone who enjoyed it better than me might like to comment.

Ultimately, though, I enjoyed parts of From Here to Eternity, though I did not necessarily enjoy the film as a whole. It's not a film that engaged me consistently, and though it might have been a successful movie upon its release, it has not held up well as a film that merits a "greatest" rank or a film that transcends its era in timelessness or even as a film I might be inclined to pull out to watch or to recommend. There are other, better-written war romances and better war films in general. There are also better films about life in the army. As such, I'm inclined to rate this film a 6.5 for being between cute/mediocre and shaky/entertaining. I wouldn't call the film mediocre, but it's not necessarily good either. From Here to Eternity also does not pass the test, for the reasons I stated above, and I would only recommend the film if one indiscriminately enjoys films of this type or is a fan of any of the actors in this ensemble cast; in fact, I think it would be a good late night old-movie-channel popcorn flick if not a worthwhile destination movie.