MovieChat Forums > Twelve O'Clock High (1950) Discussion > Repellant to the point of loathsomeness

Repellant to the point of loathsomeness

posted 20 years ago by pchas-1
80 replies | jump to latest

I am well aware that 12 O'Clock High is considered a masterpiece, but I find the character of Brig. Gen. Frank Savage (Gregory Peck) repellant to the point of loathsomeness, which undermines this otherwise well-made production.

Consider: Col. Keith Davenport (well-played by Gary Merrill) the commanding officer of a weary and battle-fatigued unit is removed from his command by Savage, who had been Davenport's friend. What did Davenport do wrong? In Savage's words: "He's a first rate guy who over-identifies with his men." As played by Gregory Peck, Savage is the most authoritarian martinet this side of Capt. Queeg. Unsurprisingly, every airman puts in for a transfer out of the unit. Aware that this will make him look bad, he conspires with his desk jockey ground officer Maj. Harry Stovall (Dean Jagger) to delay the transfers while he works to improve the units performance, and in doing so build cohesion and morale. When the Inspector General arrives, Savage is cleaning off his desk, sure that he will lose his command and be sent back to the Pentagon. But no, every man has cancelled his transfer request and Savage stays. I found this situation highly unlikely, considering that Savage had 1) relieved the popular Davenport of his command, 2) closed the Officer's club, 3) busted several of the airmen down a couple of ranks and 4) told them in a pep talk that they should think of themselves as dead men. I think it would be far more likely that they would have transferred out of the unit to get away from that neurotic mess of a general and that Savage would have been transferred to Washington. I was positively overjoyed when Savage finally broke down and was unable to carry out a mission.

What I find amazing is that several people in the comments said they used this film for leadership training (!) Maybe Savage's techniques work in the military, but anyone who tried to act that way in most modern organizations would find themselves in line at the unemployment office.

[–] hollyhock-636-397663 13 years ago

I think you find Savage repellant simply because you have never been involved in a life and death struggle that requires men to be led by someone who sees the struggle for what it is...a set of missions without much hope for survival. Yes, "over-identifcation with his men" is a valid faultline for a person not particularly suited for command in the type of situation the 8th Air Force was involved in. The early years of WW2, wherein the 8th AF was the only fighting unit in Europe, were extremely tough, with little hope of surviving. The movie is, in fact, the best war movie ever made.

[–] rlippman-2 11 years ago

I have to say, having read through every post in this thread, the original poster's points are not completely without basis and some of the replies go a little too far attacking him.

The movie WAS a little light on showing just how bad things had become at the 918th before Savage was brought in to shake things up. Let's be fair - not everyone is an expert on the history of the 8th Air Force. Also, we don't get up close and personal enough with any of the pilots to easily accept, through 21st Century eyes, that they all, to a man, would have withdrawn their transfer requests - especially after having been promised the opportunity to make those requests by their commanding officer.

A far better film would give us some perspective from the pilots point of view and allow us to witness their transformation. Granted, a 1949 audience may not have had these problems. To anyone who had lived through the war and was enjoying the fruits of Allied victory it would have been self evident that the sacrifice of daylight bombing was worth it, and it would have dishonored our dead to suggest that our boys didn't snap right out of their self pity and do their duty.

But today's audiences would want to know more and see more, and I think they deserve it. Moreover, I think we as a nation are stronger if we explore the mental process the men and pilots went through and give that its due.

As good as this film is, it's one of the few that I think would benefit from a remake. Sadly, if my wish is granted, finding an actor of Gregory Peck's talent will not be so easy.

_______

A wrench to the head changes everything.

[–] dannieboy20906 11 years ago

I think that if they remade TOH they would "humanize" General Savage. He would "ease up just once" or twice or three times. The pilots would all fall in love with him. I thin it would make me puke.

Besides, they would CGI everything to death and let some explosion happy special effects nut direct.

What makes air war scary as hell is that it is silent. You don't hear the other planes, or the bullets that make holes through your own. You see the explosions, but they don't seem real because the greasy clouds of cordite and shrapnel look puffy and you can't hear the explosions. Suddenly, a sister ship in the squadron is leaving a pretty contrail from one wing. If you're a veteran crew member then you know that the contrail is caused by a fuel fire in the wing. After several seconds your sister ship disappears in an horrendous explosion, perhaps one that you even hear this time over the 210 knot air stream and even through the thin air of 22,000 feet.

I flew much later, in the peaceful international air spaces of the Cold War. My students asked me if I was wounded. "No," I said, "We never got wounded. Either you get away and come home, or you don't." Fortunately for me, I flew during an era when both sides were much moe careful than before or since.

[–] mikekrit62 9 years ago

I think what you are asking for would take a mini-series rather than a 2 hr movie to accomplish.

And sadly, I don't agree with your assertion that today's audiences would want to "know more and see more" about "the mental process the men and pilots went through". Today's audiences have such a short attention span that such a movie would be considered boring, nor would most of them be able to empathize. I'll never forget sitting in a theater watching Saving Private Ryan and watching the scene during the D-Day landing where the soldier has his arm blown off. He's obviously in shock, looking around on the ground for it, and then picks it up and starts running back towards the landing craft. Quite a few people sitting in the audience actually thought that was hilarious and started laughing.

The last movie we went to my wife and I walked out of after about 30 minutes because people were constantly talking and worse, there were so many idiots playing with their phones! Nothing is more distracting than trying to watch a movie in a dark theater and have this sea of bright little screens shining in your face.

I think this movie does a fine job of illustrating the strain these men were under and how they had to come to grips with the grim reality of war. Transferring out isn't going to make the war go away, and they recognize that despite the hard time the General is giving them, they are a better unit because of it. The General had previously proven himself in combat, and the fact that he's flying right along with them, risking his life to lead them sets an example they are forced to respect and follow.

[–] rlippman-2 9 years ago

I share your frustrations with American movie audiences. I'd be all for a mini-series. I see great ones coming out of the BBC all the time, dealing with WWI and WWII and giving real insight. Hope springs eternal that if it's done right, people will embrace it.
_______

A wrench to the head changes everything.

[–] Moon_and_New_York_City 11 years ago

I don't know why everyone is saying he was relieved of his command. I am watching it on TCM right now and it sounds to me like he was just transferred to another unit. Big difference.

"the best that you can do is fall in love"

[–] dannieboy20906 11 years ago

Keith Davenport was relieved of command. He was removed as commander of the 918th and placed on staff at Pinetree. This move, based on the relief of Colonel "Chip" Overacker from command of the real 306th Bomb Group in February of 1943, would allow Major General Pritchard, in real life Major General Ira Eaker to reassess their respective colonels, the fictional and the actual to consider if they should receive another opportunity to command in the future.

The difference between being a commander and being a staff officer is impossible to describe to a civilian. The majority of us serve our entire careers with no command experience. Many more get one or two opportunities to command. A few are in the right place at the right time and do the right thing. Part luck of the draw and part exceptional talent, they are able to build on command and work their way up a steep hill. Of course, they too do some staff jobs.

[–] jayrussell1993 11 years ago

You missed the point so wide. The American airmen in Britain at the time portrayed in the film had to perform without consideration of hurt feelings or wounding fragile psyches. It was war, not a bunch of guys in New York City trying to build a skyscraper in record time. German war industry and military installation had to be significantly damaged in whatever way possible, there was no way to avoid the responsibility. Yes, if anyone tried to act the way BG Frank Savage did at Microsoft or General Motors, he'd be out on his ear because those organizations aren't locking in a death grip with an implacable enemy. Imagine yourself as an armed Jewish commando in the Warsaw Ghetto fighting the Nazis about the same time - - did those people sit around all night wondering "How much can a man or woman TAKE???!!!" No they didn't, because there was again no alternative to fighting at and beyond your limit; the alternative was being shot, hanged or moved to a German death camp. Twelve O'clock High is still outstanding Leadership Training material.

[–] dtk 10 years ago

If people have ever read "The Naked and the Dead", Mailer's main theme was that soldiers are destined to die--that is their job--pure and simple. And "leadership" in war consists of making the soldiers too scared to do anything about it

[–] aciolino 11 years ago

Wow. You are truly clueless. Amazing.

[–] timbob-478-937623 10 years ago

Peck's character was outstanding, and you're confusing leadership in combat with people on Imgur who always post a "Nice Guy Boss" story about their boss who bought them a sandwich.

Leadership in the military is important, men are trained to fight in all armies all over the planet, to stay alive you have to be better than the other guy, the object like Patton intoned is "to make the other dumb bastard die for his country".

The air group was lacking in precision and Peck returned that.

[–] hka-3 10 years ago

^^ That about covers it. I'm surprised that this has to be explained to some people. War is life and death. It's as serious as it gets. Comparing that to "most modern organizations" like the OP did is absurd.

Mag, Darling, you're being a bore.

[–] sturmtiger00 9 years ago

Seeing as the OP's post was the ONLY one he ever made on IMDB, I'm chalking it up to this person just trying to get a rise out of people.

[–] pastorwillie-1 9 years ago

It just goes to show that you don't know anything about our military.

[–] michaeldecker 8 years ago

I think you missed the crucial problem with Davenport - his unit was barely operational because he'd allowed discipline to slide to the extent that aircrew were drinking off-base and pulling sickies.

Savage took the essential steps required, and of course was resented to start with because he was forcing men back into an extreme situation where they were very likely to be killed.

I agree you couldn't do this in the modern workplace, but you might well fire a 'soft touch' manager who thinks he's there to make friends and replace him/her with someone who fires people who aren't going to make an effort.