MovieChat Forums > The Caine Mutiny (1954) Discussion > What Greenwald meant about Keefer at the...

What Greenwald meant about Keefer at the end


I just watched it again and got that Greenwald's saying Keefer set the whole thing up on his own. It wasn't simply, oh well, we didn't get along with the Captain. It was Keefer's deliberate, malicious plot. "The real author of the Caine mutiny." (Well, he was a little sloshed.)

Does that include the walkout on Halsey? Keefer was never nervous about the scale of their little problems compared to the real Navy. From a practical consideration, Maryk was about to drag him into tipping his hand. Better to let Queeg, and the ship, twist in the wind than have his name on paper with this thing. Even when it all finally blows up, his plausible deniability is a thing to behold.

reply

Keefer seems to dominate the story . . . Capt. Queeg's nemesis . . . who did everything to get Queeg out of the way . . . it seems Keefer dominated the bridge . . . not Queeg or Maryk . . . and when he did get close to the "real" navy, on that sleek aircraft carrier, he gets weakkneed and scatters for cover . . .

reply

I think you got it right.

It seems unlikely Keefer knew it would lead to a mutiny. He certainly couldn't know there would be a typhoon or the ship would be in real danger because of the captain. Maryk was the executive officer confronted with something beyond his knowledge, experience or expectation. Keefer felt something needed to be done, but it would definitely require the executive officer to agree and execute the action. On Halsey's flagship Keefer realized he was going to be the one doing most of the explaining, so even if Maryk agreed, it would be too obvious it was Keefer behind the complaints. Halsey was likely to dismiss their claims and recognize Keefer as the problem. Keefer knew something had to be done while Maryk still trying to be loyal to his captain - something he later realizes he wasn't very good at with Queeg.

Keefer was the author of the mutiny, but only in that the plot got away from him and came to an unexpected outcome. Some of his statements to the court were probably true enough, but he lied and hid enough of the truth to keep himself blameless.

Of course I'm basing this on the important part of the book the movie ignored. All the things that happened after the court martial. What Keefer and to some extent Keith learn later. I suppose they could have made a sequel, but it would have been difficult to watch and understand unless you watched the first.

reply

And the only punishment Keefer suffers is at the end, when Greenwald, who figured out the situation, throws the drink in Keefer's face . . . otherwise Keefer got away with it . . .

reply

With Queeg, Maryk, Keith and Keefer, none of them were blameless, but you're definitely right about the penalties each faced. Queeg would be assigned insignificant duties ashore until eligible for retirement. Maryk would be sent to sea in an diminished status until the end of the war, with no hope for a Navy career.

Keefer's only punishment in the movie is the loss of respect and friendship of his fellow officers. No matter where Keefer is assigned, the information will follow him, but he plans to get out of the Navy, so the effect is minimal. Keith faces no punishment at all even though it was his decision as Officer of the Deck that turned over command of the ship to Maryk.

Of course in the book Keefer does face another indirect punishment later on, so really it's only Keith who escapes any punishment. I also appreciate the book for giving a bit more insight into Greenwald.

If they could fluff out the rest of the story a bit it could make an interesting movie, but there's no way it could include Greenwald. Of course the movie shows Keith going to another ship commanded by his original captain, which was wrong in many ways, but good for a hollywood style ending.

reply

Yes, that ending is somewhat bizarre . . . Keith would represent the younger generation, and with the old captain back, would signal a more layed-back, easier going Navy, not necessarily "do-your-own-thing" but the Queeg's are out and more stress-free type captaincy would be the rule . . .

Keefer would happily leave the Navy and "do-his-own-thing" . . .

reply

I always took the line from Greenwald to mean that he pinned the blame on Keefer for basically tricking Maryk into it. He's the one who filled Maryk's head with the idea of a sick captain, and told him about article 184. If he hadn't said anything about it and goaded Maryk into it, the mutiny wouldn't have happened.

Whores will have their trinkets.

reply

It was more that Keefer was the one who first brought up the issue of Queeg possibly being mentally ill. Before that, the officers had all just dismissed him as an oppressive incompetent. Then, Keefer later put the idea of Article 184 into Maryk's head.

Of course, Keefer likely had no idea it would lead to a summary relief during a typhoon. He likely was figuring on them going to a higher authority and turning Queeg in. It was only aboard the carrier (in the book, they went aboard Halsey's actual flagship at that time, the U.S.S. New Jersey, and saw how it operated in comparison to the Caine and realized that they'd get nowhere.

In the book, Keefer later develops profound sympathy for Queeg when he discovers that command can be a nightmare.

reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that ending is somewhat bizarre . . . Keith would represent the younger generation, and with the old captain back, would signal a more layed-back, easier going Navy, not necessarily "do-your-own-thing" but the Queeg's are out and more stress-free type captaincy would be the rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ending shows Lt Keith being assigned to a destroyer that just happens to be captained by De Vriess, the old captain of the Caine. If you notice when De Vriess walks aboard he is immaculately dressed and groomed and immediately snaps 'ATTENTION ON DECK!!!' and then 'MR KEITH'

To me this shows how good an officer De Vriess was, on the Caine he concentrated on the important issues that really mattered, i.e getting the ship and crew to function and perform the duties that it was meant to do and performing them to a high standard. Because the ship was old and in a state of decay he knew that merely keeping the ship going would take up nearly all of the officers and crew's time and he therefore wasn't bothered about neatness, spit and polish, haircuts etc, he preferred to leave that stupid nonsense behind in boot camp.

But when in command of a new destroyer in peak condition which would mean less maintenance and upkeep and more time he was more rigid in matters of discipline and neatness but still far more stress free than the paranoid Queeg. This showed what a good man-manager he was.

reply

Yeah, in the book, when DeVriess is talking about the Caine with the newly arrived Queeg, he expresses displeasure at the state of the ship but alludes that with the machinery on board so antiquated, the crew already overworked and the ship having been in the forward area (i.e. in the combat zone) since early 1942 they just can't keep up spit and polish as much as he would like to. DeVriess, in the book (and possibly the movie, it's never said one way or another) is very familiar with the situation on the Caine. He'd been aboard her for well over five years -i.e. before he became Captain- and had previously been the Executive Officer before he was given command. When he leaves and acts like he can't accept the going away gift the crew has gotten for him because of regulations, Meatball says he doesn't always go by the book. DeVriess sighs and says that's his problem. He's been in the Hooligan Navy for too long. (He then, of course, "finds" the watch on deck and decides to "steal" a souvenir.) DeVriess implied that he'd allowed himself to go lax on observing the minor regulations because he'd been aboard a vessel where there were simply more important things to worry about. (Namely, keeping the run down vessel operating and carrying out combat assignments, such as what they were doing down in the Soloman Islands.)

One of the problems with the movie was that they had a modern (for the time) destroyer as the Caine. In the book, it was described as an old 1200-ton, four-piper destroyer from World War I that had been converted to a minesweeper. It's in poor condition simply from years and years of service at sea. DeVriess says that there isn't any clean metal to sand down -describing the scraping of the rust- for repainting. The decks are too pitted and rusted after decades of exposure to salt water. He says, as well, that its one of the few classes of ship where the "black gang" (the firemen and other boiler/engine room personnel) still work in pressurized firerooms. They know all too well that an accident could kill all them. He implies that's the sort of ship it is and why he just can't dwell too much on the non-essential things, as much as he prefers a clean ship.


reply

From the title and the plot "The Caine Mutiny," may sound like a slam against the navy. I think Herman Wouk who wrote the novel and the stage play "The Caine Mutiny Court Martial," practically worshiped the navy and the sailors who served it. He wanted a strong, dramatic story that showed the pressures of command, the kind of story that Beirne Lay and Sy Bartlett did for the army air forces in "Twelve O'Clock High." He based it on his own experience and succeeded tremendously.

The viewer of the movie must depend on experience outside the movie to recognize Captain Greenwald's decorations and his uniform overall to deduce his background. The book explains it in more detail. Lieutenant Keefer, the character with the career closest to Herman Wouk's is not the hero, but the villain. It is interesting to see an author deprecate himself this way. He wanted us to focus on the real heroes, the regular navy sailors and officers.

The movie did very well by Herman Wouk's script. It fills me with great admiration for the navy. Now, if they would just shut up and accept second place behind the air force we would get along great! ;)


The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

reply

Yes, that ending is somewhat bizarre . . . Keith would represent the younger generation, and with the old captain back, would signal a more layed-back, easier going Navy, not necessarily "do-your-own-thing" but the Queeg's are out and more stress-free type captaincy would be the rule.


I think that to understand the ending you have to look back to the beginning of the film when Keith first served with the Captain. After Keith failed to deliver an action order, or whatever it was called, the Captain had written in the fitness report something like, "Ensign Keith may become a good officer once he overcomes a haphazard approach to his duties."

The Captain obviously saw potential in Keith especially having seen the young ensign turn down the transfer to the Admiral's staff which had been arranged by his mother. I think that the Captain believed Keith was now living up to that potential and that is why he gave him command of taking the ship out of the port. There would have been more senior officers with more experience on board who could have done the job. Instead the Captain chose the young ensign with what was really very little experience.

I think that I was in high school when I read the book and maybe it is time to read it again.

reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead the Captain chose the young ensign with what was really very little experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He wasn't an ensign at that time, he had been promoted to a lieutenant (JG)

reply

Instead the Captain chose the young ensign with what was really very little experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He wasn't an ensign at that time, he had been promoted to a lieutenant (JG)


Could be because it has been quite awhile since I watched the movie, and way way long ago that I read the book if that scene even appeared in it. Either way he trusted Keith to do the job.

reply

What viewers may be missing us this: Wouk, the author of the original book, after graduating from Columbia before the war (Ivy League like Princeton for Ens Keith), served on two DMS (destroyer mine sweepers) during WWII, riding eventually to XO on one. The DMS were old, small outdated destroyers repurposed as minesweepers. He earned numerous battle and campaign stars for his service in them, so he saw lots of action in an old ship, often manned by less than top shelf crews.

On them, he was writing in his spare time (like LT Keefer). He also saw a parade of characters come through the ward rooms of these ships, normal for this type of duty. Additionally, he culled anecdotes of other ship's events into his montage (most recognizable is the foundering in a typhoon which actually happened to Halsey's fleet {twice}).

The conclusion is that Wouk wrote a dramatic montage of anecdotes of his experiences at sea, including composites of men with which he served, laced with a tad of superiority of the writer that he was (and portrayed in the LT Keefer character) who was witty, smug, intellectual, disliked the Navy, and - felt guilty about it. The book is not only a literary tour de force, but is Wouk's redemption by impugning the character based on himself. Having his behavior questioned by another in the climax of the movie is Wouk's questioning of his own courage after the fact.

reply

I've never watched The Caine Mutiny until today, on TCM on demand. I have very bad habit of looking up who is in it, etc while watching.
Today is last day it's on demand. I'm putting everything away & restarting from beginning to end.
Thank you for info on Herman Wouk.
The ending seems too Hollywood, I'll have to read the book.

reply

Maybe he didn't sit down and plot it in detail, but he did instigate it, he put the ideas in Maryk's head and pushed him, and then wasn't there to back him up when the going got tough, as it was always going to. He was a spineless worm.

reply

'Yellow' as a slang term for cowardly has fallen out of widespread use but it's used by Keefer when he refers to his own 'yellow streak' and, of course, Queeg's Old Yellow Stain nickname taken from the dye marker and his (in)action in battle.

The novel's Greenwald/Keefer confrontation refers to white wine as 'yellow wine' several times, including the moment when Greenwald douses Keefer with it. In that era of more subtle references, the viewer could infer more yellow=cowardice or, perhaps, see the yellow wine as a metaphor for a bodily fluid, such was Greenwald's utter disgust with Keefer.

reply