Post by Eddie Love on Jul 9, 2011 9:24:05 GMT -5
In 1977 the writer-director Dick Richards attempted to revive a cinematic genre that was largely forgotten if, in fact, any moviegoers remembered it at all; the French Foreign legion tale. Let’s just say the film didn’t revive this moribund genre. Sure, these titles may still have been parodied in cartoons and on variety shows, but beyond the much remade classic BEAU GESTE, was anyone familiar with many of the original source titles? Was anyone pining for any new ones?
The resultant film was MARCH OR DIE. I recall seeing this as a kid on a double-bill with I can’t remember what. I liked it and it's always stuck with me but, at the time, I wouldn't have ranked it as one of my favorites. Seeing the film today I now know why this was; this isn’t a just a rousing adventure aimed at kids, but rather a very well crafted, biting and serious film for grown-ups and it really is altogether superb.
The film begins in Paris after The Great War where an American soldier long in the service of the Foreign Legion (Gene Hackman) prepares to take a company of men to Morocco to protect a team of archeologists from the Louvre headed by Max Von Sydow. (When Max heads to a dig in the desert is it ever a good thing?) Hackman is weary of their mission and disgusted by all the death that he’s been witness to. Yet, however bitterly disillusioned he may be, that doesn’t stop his often brutal training of the Legionnaires, particularly one twinkle-eye gypsy conscript who’s slyly romancing the same woman (Catherine Deneuave) Hackman’s taken an interest in.
This all may all sound trite, but -- I’m sorry -- everything about this movie works; it’s simply irresistible. And that’s because, while Richards and company may be trying to evoke the spirit of films past, they stake their own claim to the subject and the material. It’s a really first-rate script that’s filled with marvelous episodes; there isn’t a scene that goes by that doesn’t have a subtle little pay-off that illuminates something about a character or subverts what we thought was going to happen. It’s damned clever, in fact.
Also there’s no genre condescension, nothing that explicitly harkens back to other movies. From the opening shots where we see wounded, bloody men returning to a Parisian train station, the film goes for a feel of authenticity rather than coy movie tribute. It reminds me a bit of Richard Lester’s MUSKETEERS pictures. The marvelous production design and cinematogray receate the story’s era beautifully.
This may not be one of the standout titles on Hackman’s resume from the 70s, but he’s as good as he is in his classic roles. His hard-bitten discipline of his men coupled with his air of disgust at warfare permeates this whole picture, it’s hard to get away from it and pretend the stakes here aren’t real. It’s why this doesn’t feel like a Boy’s Own adventure, but rather an adult take on the same material.
Marco the gypsy is played by Terrence Hill who was sort of the Italian Burt Reynolds, a handsome charmer with a robust physicality. (Although he looks more like an impish Tab Hunter.) As is the case in other of his films, what I suspect is overdubbing tends to make his fulsome good looks come across as blandness. (Something about him creeped me out as a kid.) Watching this today though, I loved his character, who may be a scamp and a thief – but he’s not anti-heroic. In fact, he’s a flat-out hero and the contrast with the Hackman's character is compelling and really effective.
The only missteps in the movie are occasional passages in Maurice Jarre’s score that reminded me of his other work. Also when Von Sydow breaks through to the tomb they’re excavating, it looks very fakey and doesn’t jibe with the beautifully gritty look elsewhere in the picture. Also, given the film’s verisimilitude, Ian Holm as the Arab leader strikes a bit of a false note – though he could be worse. (See Olivier, Laurence in KHARTOUM.)
There’s a giant set-piece war scene at the end of the picture that doesn’t skimp on the action and showcases the lavish production. It’s dazzlingly edited as is the rest of the movie. For a film under two hours that’s pretty sparse on dialogue it introduces and follows a string of characters effortlessly.
This whole picture may be a forgotten throwback to a forgotten genre, but it holds up wonderfully and I can’t imagine anyone not responding to it. You'll want to cheer and you may get the odd lump in the throat. Rossalind Russell once said for a film to work it needed to deliver three solid moments for the audience. (Anyway, I think it was three.) MARCH OR DIE delivers about fifteen. In fact, the storytelling here is so elegant and entertaining that it approaches a level of real beauty.
