1944: Revenge

Days of Glory (1944)
Directed by Jacques Tourneur
86 Min.; U.S.A.; Black and White: Mono

Early in Days of Glory we encounter warfare, guerilla style, with this unusual subjective shot through a rifle scope.

My two favorite Hollywood films of 1944 are the film noir staple, Double Indemnity (1944) and Preston Sturges' satire on small town values The Miracle of Morgan's Creek (1944). However, this post continues my ongoing one-film-per-year look at movies made during World War II that tell us something about the war. Having already written about a homefront drama and a combat documentary from 1944 in past blog-a-thons I resisted the urge to write about Since You Went Away (1944) or With the Marines at Tarawa (1944) this week. Instead I looked at a rare thing from Hollywood: a pro-Russian war picture.

Before the war Hollywood released relatively few motion pictures about the Soviet Union--the so-called "Russian vogue" star vehicles for the likes of John Gilbert and Greta Garbo in the 1920s, Ernst Lubitsch's communists vs capitalists comedy with Garbo, Ninotchka (1939), and King Vidor's Comrade X (1940) being exceptional examples. Generally speaking, except for a period in 1943-44, the war did not significantly change this situation despite the fact that the Soviet Union was America's ally. According to Dorothy Jones, only some five percent of the total number of Hollywood releases in the first three years of the war dealt with the allied countries, and a mere handful of these were concerned with the Russian front. However, ever since Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 newspapers, radio reports and newsreels carried stories of the brutal fighting and suffering, and by 1943 the Red Army's victories at places like Stalingrad and Leningrad brought an increased significance to promoting America's new ally. As noted in Boom and Bust: American Cinema in the 1940s, the Bureau of Motion Pictures of The Office of War Information's Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture Industry suggested a need for movies about the Russian people that assuaged traditional American hostility toward communism by avoiding politics and focusing on stories of individual heroism; films that made the Russian people seem just like ourselves. In response, RKO distributed Samuel Goldwyn's The North Star (1943), United Artists put out Three Russian Girls (1943), MGM released Song of Russia (1943), controversy arose over Warner Bros.'s Mission to Moscow (1943), and Columbia released Boy from Stalingrad (1943) and Counter-Attack (1945). I'm a big fan of Ninotchka, and I'm on the fence about Comrade X, but I've never seen any of these Soviet front World War II-era films before. How would a Hollywood studio handle the subject? How would such a film present a front of the war few, if any, studio producers had any first-hand knowledge of? Would the filmmakers follow the OWI's suggestion to avoid politics and "Russian-ness," and place Americanized characters on the Soviet front, or would they use Hollywood magic to transport us to a realistic U.S.S.R.? Seeking to grasp something about filmmaking, the war, and 1944, I hunted down one of these films for this week's post--RKO's Days of Glory (1944)

Director Jacques Tourneur brings motivated lighting and haunting imagery from the horror pictures he made with producer Val Lewton to Days of Glory

Before I watched the picture I wanted to get a handle on the production history. In January 1943, it was announced in the New York Times that Casey Robinson signed on as a writer-producer for RKO. An eight year veteran writer for Warner Bros., Robinson worked on Bette Davis vehicles like Dark Victory (1939) and Now Voyager (1942), and, interestingly for this topic, a comedy with Claudette Colbert and Charles Boyer as expatriate Russian aristocracy slumming in Paris titled Tovarich (1937). As part of the commitment with Robinson, RKO bought his story titled "This is Russia," and took over his deal with Tamara Toumanova, "The Black Pearl of the Russian Ballet," to star in it. Robinson had also signed Broadway actor Gregory Peck whose eight picture deal was then divided between Robinson, RKO and David O. Selznick. The working title for Robinson's first project as a producer was This is Russia retitled Revenge, but later released as Days of Glory, and his screenplay was based on a story idea by Melchior Lengyel, the guy who dreamed up Nintochka. So far, I've been unable to verify if the script was reviewed for the OWI and/or if the agency made suggestions concerning it. However, given its subject matter that seems likely (anybody willing to dig through the National Archives for me?). In April, RKO assigned Jacques Tourneur to direct the picture despite his successful record directing atmospheric B-grade horror pictures like Cat People (1942) for producer Val Lewton. According to the recent documentary Val Lewton: Man in the Shadows, RKO split up that team because the studio was eager to increase their revenue potential by placing Tourneur and Lewton on separate projects. In June 1943, an interesting story appeared in the New York Times about the casting process for this picture. In order to find the right actors to fill the supporting roles, Robinson commissioned Joseph St. Armand to draw sketches of each character. The sketches were then compiled in a book, duplicated, and sent out to theater groups, newspaper offices, agents, and the like. Suggestions and photographs of actors flooded in to RKO. Reportedly, hundreds of these sketch books were sent out so one may still exist today tucked away in a theater, library, agency or newspaper office somewhere (if anyone out there finds one please let me know). According to the AFI database, the film was in production from early July through early September 1943 and parts of it were shot on location in Cedar City, Utah. In August, the Times reported that the picture had stalled for script rewrites, and that the production was behind schedule. The slow-going was blamed on an inexperienced cast, but a first-time producer, an assigned director, and a ballet dancer and a Broadway actor in the lead roles may have contributed something to the delay as well. Without more information, though, its difficult to speculate. Okay, enough production history. Let's take a look at the film.

Released only days after the launch of the invasion of Normandy on D-Day in June 1944, RKO's war drama Days of Glory tells the story of the conversion of a dancer in the Moscow Ballet from pacifist aesthete to guerilla fighter in late 1941. Fleeing south when Hitler's troops attack outside Moscow, Nina (Tamara Toumanova) is picked up by a group of Russian partisans disrupting German supply lines from a bombed-out monestary near Tula. She soon falls in love with Vladimir (Gregory Peck), the group's leader. Though she abhors violence, Nina's experiences among the guerillas and her love for Vladimir convince her to join the partisans in a (spectacularly filmed) last suicide mission, diverting German tanks away from Tula to open the way for a Soviet counter-attack and ultimate victory in the Battle of Moscow.

Tourneur breaks with the style of much of the film for a standard Hollywood love scene between Peck and Toumanova that's as cold as the Russian winter.

The potentially fascinating story of Nina's integration into the guerilla group--and by extension the larger international group encompassing all who were fighting the Axis powers--is unfortunately hampered by a clichéd romance that develops between Nina and Vladimir. Screen newcomers Toumanova and Peck lack screen chemistry, and Robinson's script loads them with long-winded, flowery declarations of love that are incongruous with Tourneur's gloomy atmosphere, and seem downright ridiculous in the guerilla milieu.

We learn little about Russian culture beyond drinking tea, and eating kasha, potato soup and borsch (I kept wondering when the vodka would show up). The characters do refer to one another as comrade, and Vladimir recalls his participation in a great public works project, but there's no mention of communism. The aforementioned OWI Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture Industry includes a statement that likely influenced Robinson's script in this regard. "Yes, we Americans reject Communism. But we do not reject our Russian ally." In other words, the OWI proposed that filmmakers keep silent about politics but promote the alliance. I'm not the first one to notice that, and the suggestion reminds me of fellow film blogger Jacqueline T. Lynch's assertion a few posts back that the OWI engaged in "quite a juggling act" when it came to war information. But I wouldn't blame gov't script suggestions for the picture's shortcomings because instead of making the Russian characters seem more like ourselves--as the OWI Manual suggests--Days of Glory simply presents us with stock characters. As romantic leads, Peck and Toumanova adhere to certain audience expectations and are prevented from persuading us that their characters are genuine. But the supporting roles are blatant stereotypes introduced as such by v.o. narration in the opening sequence, "and here's Sasha the lovable drunk, Fedor the sentimental blacksmith, Yelena the farm girl turned fighter, and Petrov the quiet one..." and so on.

A desperate mission through the wilderness. Tourneur uses falling snow and cattails to obscure our vision, expressing the characters' sense of isolation and upsetting our ability to predict what will happen next.

The imagery, music, and Jacques Tourneur's direction are much more enjoyable than the hackneyed script. Tourneur also bows to familiar conventions in a few spots, like a by-the-numbers love scene and a brilliantly tense segment borrowed from any number of westerns in which the guerillas dynamite a supply train just before an armored escort arrives to stop them. But, the look and feel of most of the film seems to benefit from the influence of what Tourneur describes in Val Lewton: Man in the Shadows as a "measure of poetry" in his horror film collaborations with Lewton. Theatrical sets dynamically lighted for the roving camera combine with the brooding score and express the characters' growing sense of doom in a way I found slightly reminiscent of the feel of late 1930s films I've seen by Marcel Carné. But where Carné places his characters in stylized real locations Tourneur and crew carve their own lyrical world out of the shadowy ruined monastery and the Russian wilderness. The interior shots feature familiar deep shadows and the director's famous corridor shots beckon our attention; even the combat scenes have an unnatural resonance. In too few and too brief moments, Tourneur opens up screen space to encompass the vastness of the land. For Tourneur biographer Chris Fujiwara the stagy approach breaks with the director's previous style, "The stifling unreality of the project is alien to Tourneur's cinema, one of whose qualities is a meticulously conveyed sense of social and physical reality" (Fujiwara, 109). But, in this kind of setting dramatized stories of heroism and self-sacrifice can thrive like fairytales, and the more subtle expressive imagery (see image left) affects our inner selves even if the story we're watching falls flat.

I enjoyed the look of this film, and I plan to seek out more films directed by Tourneur (I've seen four so far). But, as a war film and as a history of the war Days of Glory unfortunately tells us too little about the significance of Russian guerillas, the counter-attack near Tula, or the Battle of Moscow. The filmmaking extends some sense of the doomed lives of Russian guerilla fighters, but it doesn't reflect what the war in Russia was really like or the character of those fighting it in any meaningful way. Likewise, the script doesn't allow much room for the source of the partisans' desperation and drive to defend their country. There is an explanation of the necessity for the guerilla's final mission (a standoff against enemy tanks creatively filmed using back projection seemlessly integrated with the foreground action), but there's just not enough here about who these civilian volunteers are or what the sacrifice of their lives means in the grand scheme of the war.

In 1944, the picture tanked at the box office and was roundly dismissed by many critics and reviewers. In the New York Times, Bosely Crowther charged "Mr. Robinson failed to provide a first-class script and Jacques Tourneur...failed to make the best of what he had. As a consequence, 'Days of Glory' is more heroic in conception than effect." The Chicago Tribune's Mae Tinée praised the cinematography and hailed the cast of new players, but admitted that "the story of the movie is not particularly unlike many others." Wood Soanes complained in the Oakland Tribune, "Had [Robinson] been as successful in his writing as he was in his production 'Days of Glory' could be written into the record as something more important that it is...It takes more than a melodramatic climax to make a great picture." And Time's reviewer quipped, "somehow it all seems rather silly...none of it comes any nearer the Russian war than the lobby of an 'art' movie theater."

Why, I wonder, did the picture fare so poorly? One might speculate that after the string of Russian front war pictures in 1943-44 mentioned above, and the focus of war news shifting to the Battle of Normandy that the movie-going public's appetite for the subject was sated. But, the argument can also be made that an excellent picture can draw an audience and impress critics regardless of the timing of the release or how often the subject has been done before. The lack of established stars and the poor script likely contributed to the weak box office and poor reaction but I wonder if there's more operating here. Perhaps Robinson's familiar script and Tourneur's lyrical filmmaking were simply out of step with developments in war pictures by 1944. Perhaps the criticism heaped on Days of Glory reflects desire to see a more accurate depiction of the everyday people who fought and died (or survived) in the war instead of a typical Hollywood picture framed around war events. Or perhaps critics and audiences, fed on war reports, war newsreels and combat report documentaries for four or five years, yearned for Hollywood filmmakers to reproduce the conflict as it really was albeit in a narrative form in the relative safety of the movie theater. Ultimate realism may be impossible. As Samuel Fuller wrote in The Big Red One, "to make a real war movie would be to occasionally fire at the audience from behind the screen during a battle scene." Yet some filmmakers were making strides toward cinematic realism in features during the war. Next time I'll look for a Hollywood war film that takes a major step in that direction.

References/Works Cited

Bosley Crowther, "Days of Glory," New York Times (17 June 1943), 10.

Chris Fujiwara, Jacques Tourneur: The Cinema of Nightfall (John Hopkins UP, 2001), 108-111.

Dorothy B. Jones, "The Hollywood War Film: 1942-1944," Hollywood Quarterly 1.1 (October 1945), 1-19.

Thomas Schatz, Boom and Bust: American Cinema in the 1940s (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997), 272-277.

"Screen News Here and in Hollywood," New York Times (7 January 1943), X25.

"Screen News Here and in Hollywood," New York Times (18 August 1943), X25.

Wood Soanes, "'Days of Glory' Offers Tale of Russian Guerrillas and is Only 'Slightly Terrific'," Oakland Tribune (6 October 1944), 13.

Fred Stanley, "Hollywood Goes to the Rock and Rills Again," New York Times (6 June 1943), X3.

Stanley, "Hollywood Views the Russian Front," New York Times (3 October 1943), X3.

Mae Tinée, "'Days of Glory' Has New Faces, Familiar Plot," Chicago Tribune (26 June 1944), 17.

"The New Pictures," Time (3 July 1944).

This post written by Thom Ryan
Copyright 2008 Thom Ryan Some rights reserved

Comments

[Jacqueline T Lynch]

Great analysis of the film. Albeit an inferior script and a reliance on simple stereotypes (which I suppose we can find also among the plucky cockney servants in "Mrs. Miniver" and the "regular Joe" who went off to battle on numerous Hollywood soundstages, what strikes me most is even the attempt to portray another culture's angle on current events. Faulty though it may be, this film, and other movies mentioned, demonstrates some interest in the world at large.

It is an interest which does not seem prevalent today, where few attempts are made to tell stories on film about the current war. Perhaps the complicated political realities make simple stories about individuals difficult; I don't know. It is diffcult now, as it was in the 1940s, to film a story without either putting a political or social spin on it, or else being accused of doing so.

I recently heard a 15-year old refer to "Islam" as a country. Some of those Hollywood WWII films may have been little more than a cross between travelogue and hackneyed melodrama, but they were earnest, if naieve, attempts.

[Thom]

Thanks Jacqueline - You raise some good points. The relatively few pre-war Hollywood films about the U.S.S.R., the lack of a film market there for Hollywood releases, the OWI's suggestion in the manual that the studios make movies about the United Nations, and the sudden but brief proliferation of such movies from Hollywood in 1943-44 (after major victories on the Eastern front) illustrate that the war was the major motivating factor in the immediate interest in a Russian perspective. As the blog moves forward, it will be interesting to see if the coming Cold War increases or decreases that interest as far as U.S. filmmaking is concerned.

Your comments on the lack of similar new releases about the present war are food for thought. I would add that (as I'm writing about for the next post) combat pictures, and war films in general, weren't as popular as other types of filmed entertainment during WWII. Perhaps potential box office, as much as political difficulties, contributes to the lack of feature films about the present war.

[Brian]

Terrific post, Thom. One day I want to sit down with every Tourneur I can get a hold of and Chris Fujiwara's book on the director. In the meantime, I've seen a half-dozen or so of his films but not this one. It sounds fascinating.

I have a guess or two about the Hollywood film you allude to writing about next. But I'll keep it to myself right now.

[Thom]

Whoa, two comments in the same day? Thanks Brian, this is only the fourth movie Tourneur directed that I've seen, so we both a have a lot to look forward to. I'm still working on this one. The timing of Michael's recent Val Lewton blog-a-thon was ideal because the posts, links, movies and Kent Jones' new documentary were all perfect primers for the post.

So, you've guessed the next film, eh? I don't know which I like better: keeping you in suspense about the next film or you keeping me in suspense with your guess. :)

[Thom]

Just wanted to give a shout out to Mike (of Goatdogblog) for going above and beyond the call of duty. Even though he's recuperating from surgery the tenacious film blogger sent over a wealth of info about this film, and its star Tamara Toumanova. I'm still working on the post and the contributions make for great source material. Thanks Mike, get well soon pal.

[mike]

I wonder how much influence the success of For Whom the Bell Tolls had on this film's production. The similarities are remarkable, and I think it goes beyond just stock characters and situations and into slavish imitation. In most respects, this one comes out looking inferior.

[Thom]

Maybe the result of a high concept meeting Mike? "I've got it! Picture this: it's For Whom the Bells Tolls but set in Russia...let's do lunch!" I wondered why so many 1944 reviewers kept comparing newboy Gregory Peck to Gary Cooper. Haven't seen that since I was a kid. Now I want to do a back to back viewing.

[mike]

What makes the similarities even more eerie is the fact (which I just learned from Self-Styled Siren) that Vera Zorina, another Ballet Russe dancer, was originally going to play the Ingrid Bergman part in For Whom the Bell Tolls. Perhaps when Bergman replaced her, the folks at RKO thought, "Hey, a ballerina joins the Resistance? What a great idea for a movie!"