by Bruce E. Parry

Quartet is a really moving, deeply emotional British film that explores relationships in older age. It is Dustin Hoffman’s recent directoral debut. (He is credited with directing Straight Time in 1978, but there is a story there). Essentially, a group of elderly men and women live in a charitable home for retired musicians in England and are about to put on their annual gala (on Verdi’s birthday) to fund the home. The film establishes the temperament and eccentricities of the characters in the first part of the film and then introduces the contradictory aspect: Maggie Smith (playing Jean Horton). Jean has been the most famous (and perhaps most talented) of the group, but has been difficult to get along with. More pointedly, she had been married (or not—it sounds like she left him at the altar or just hours thereafter) to Reggie, a stalwart of the community. Her arrival at the house is a social sea change. The resolution of this contradiction, the development of the relationships, and the transformation of the characters constitute the rest of the film.

The film is superbly acted and beautifully filmed. It takes place almost entirely within the house itself, lending it an almost play-like quality. Nevertheless, it does not seem confined or stilted and uses the grounds around the house to break up the interior shots.

What I really like about the film was that it got into what it’s like to get old. Films on aging are a growth industry right now, with the aging of the baby boomers and this film is part of that. Virtually every character has or is developing the difficult disabilities or illnesses that afflict the elderly. The characters display a lot of empathy toward each other and help each other through trials. Much of the conflict that arises with the arrival of Maggie Smith’s character revolves around the desire—particularly on the parts of Jean and Reggie—to avoid social contact. As they become resolved to the change—and change gets even harder the older we get—both parties begin to meld into the house social scene and begin to warm to each other. This is played out through the attempt to get the key foursome to recreate their performance of the Quartet from Verdi’s Rigoletto at the gala. Whether or not the Quartet is going to be performed provides the tension in the film.

I should note that the music in the film is beautiful. Almost all the background characters—residents of the house—are trained classical singers. The diversity of genres performed keeps the film balanced and from becoming overly “highbrow.”

My main criticism of the film is that I could not see Jean as anyone but Maggie Smith. She never developed into a character separate and above the actor who played her. In a situation where the central character is supposed to be ultra-famous, this isn’t a serious shortcoming. Perhaps in this film, that is exactly what Maggie’s character is supposed to be. But it didn‘t work for me. Perhaps because of the British cast, I was unfamiliar with  any of the other characters who were also supposed to be well known. Also, because opera is out of mainstream entertainment, few (Pavroti and a couple of others excepted) achieve super-star status. Thus, Maggie Smith stayed Maggie Smith for me.

This small caveat aside, however, I loved the film. I am a sucker for films in which interpersonal relationships are sympathetically developed, and this is certainly one. I think the pace of the film and the careful attention to balance—both in the scenery (not just the interior of the house) and in the music—were just right. Those attributes are the responsibility of the Director (and Editor, but even here the Director has input and you can’t edit what the Director doesn’t shoot). Hoffman did a great job. Kudos for a film well worth seeing.

Copyright Bruce E. Parry

Into Harms Way (2011) by Bruce E. Parry

Into Harms Way is the story of the Class of 1967 at West Point. It was of particular interest to me because I graduated with the Class of 1968. I will say right off that I didn’t know—or at least didn’t remember—any of the graduates that were featured in he film. I read The Long Gray Line—the story of the Class of 1966—several years ago and realized that the book focused on a small clique of classmates who—I believe—knew each other (for the most part), but ignored most of the class. Perhaps of necessity, Into Harms Way also focused on a few classmates who seemed to be hand picked. Two of the major figures seemed to be major war heroes from Vietnam. To the film’s credit, it also included a sequence on one of the classmates who was killed in Vietnam and one who refused to go to the war.

The bulk of the film—at least it seemed like most of the film to me (I didn’t time it)—was devoted to shots of the class at West Point. When the class entered on July 1, 1963, combat troops had not been introduced in Vietnam, Kennedy had not been assassinated, and the general tumult we associate with the 1960s had not begun. The film unfolds these events with the passing of the Class of ‘67 through their four years at West Point.

By the time I got there, exactly one year later, we already knew Vietnam was happening. Combat troops were first introduced in 1965, but the buildup of advisors was already under way and I distinctly remember Cadet Captain Sheridan—our Beast Barracks (yes, it’s as bad as it sounds) Company Commander—challenging us on Vietnam. Interestingly, one of my squad mates was the first Vietnam veteran to enter West Point as a cadet (lots of the previous graduates had been by that time). I talked to him later and he was very much against the war and said it was terrible. He began the first doubts I had about the war. He was Jan Barry, who in 1967 became one of the two co-founders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). I later became—and still am—a member of VVAW.

But I digress. The film is full of nostalgic shots of the Class of ‘67 entering West Point. The shots were authentic. I don’t know if someone had a camera and filmed their son (there were no women yet at the Point) or how they got the film. It’s even possible it wasn’t actually the Class of ’67. Nonetheless, I was mesmerized. It transported me back to when I entered. Did I say it was authentic? They even showed the discipline (I understate) in the Quad, which I didn’t think anyone did (or would) film. They showed the cadets marching to take the oath of office to enter the military and West Point. All this takes place on the first day.

As the film progresses, they show the parades, the cadets going to class, the mess hall and other aspects of cadet life. They took quite a bit of time on the first year (Plebe year), which is appropriate. There were two disconcerting shots in this series. The first was Plebes marching, but wearing web gear that was clearly more modern and not the Class of ’67. The second was entering the mess hall. While I was there, they started doubling the size of the mess hall, taking the “V” shape and doubling it so that it is now an “X”. The shot was of the new mess hall, which was not completed while we were there, and of a female cadet formally closing the doors. These anachronistic shots chafed.

A bit further along, the West Point experience is more and more interspersed with the Vietnam experience. The Classes of ’66 and ’67—if I am not mistaken—took the heaviest Vietnam casualties of all the classes, about 30 each. The classes of ’65 and ’68 took about 27 each. But virtually everyone from all these classes went directly to Vietnam within a year of graduation. The shots of Vietnam also moved me, particularly since one of the West Pointers featured was in the 1st Cavalry Division, the unit I served with for twenty months from 1969 to 1971. I have seen so many shots of Vietnam that these shots did not have the personal emotional impact that the shots of West Point did, but they integrated the cadet and army experience—the essence of what being a West Pointer means—very effectively.

Much of the film is reflections made by members of the Class of ’67 who survived. There are five or six of these. One lost a leg in Vietnam and has devoted his life to helping other veterans who have been physically disabled by war. Another won the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), the nation’s second highest award for heroism after the Congressional Medal of Honor. His son also went to West Point and served eight deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The film also showed a woman who married a West Pointer on the day of graduation, a tradition of long standing. The difference was that while they had many shots, film clips and even audio clips of her husband, he was killed in Vietnam. She describes what it was like to see soldiers come to her door to inform the family of their loss.

Finally, they have one classmate who spent his first year in Germany. (This was normal, many of my classmates also did. They felt, “Hell, I’m going to get to Vietnam anyway, why not go somewhere neat first?) During his tour in Germany, though, he read up on the war. The Tet Offensive was in February 1968, while he was still in Germany. His reading convinced him the war was wrong. He refused to go on principle. The Army eventually discharged him with an honorable discharge, probably to avoid controversy in a time when controversy about Vietnam was rampant. Later in the film, he expresses deep regret about not going to Vietnam and even says he should have gone to prison. These statements were deeply disappointing to me.

I, too, had a classmate who refused to go. But my classmate made it clear it was a case of principle and he publicized his political stance. He is featured in another film, Sir, No Sir (2005) which focuses on resistance to Vietnam.

These guys are heroes to me. That’s why I was so disappointed in the statements that the Class of ’67 resister felt he was wrong and should have gone to prison. Actually, they saw what was going on and took action to right a wrong. I didn’t—and at the time couldn’t—do that because of who I was. There was another cadet in the Class of 1969 who overturned the tradition that every cadet had to attend religious services every Sunday. I was an atheist at the time, but didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what was right. That’s why these guys are heroic to me. And I want them to affirm what they did then, not deny it.

The film balanced out the four years at West Point with the Vietnam experiences, but did not go into subsequent careers (military or otherwise) of most of the graduates in the film. At the end, it sums up the successes of the class in captions. Two became four-star generals, one a two-star admiral (I’d love to know what the story behind that was!)

None of my class became four-star generals, and I have no idea what happened to most of my classmates. I never kept up because I assume that a West Pointer who became a consistent and determined critic of the system on the level I have, would have precious little in common with his classmates. I guess I should expect that in the present period, with the current social and political climate, the film would be very sympathetic to it’s topic. That they included some outliers (the resister) was a plus. But my real interest in the film, as this review reveals, was in the nostalgic look back at a life I left long ago. My ambivalent feelings about the totality of that experience run deeper than those portrayed in Into Harms Way.

Copyright Bruce E. Parry