The Red Badge of Courage (1974)

Admirable film.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

It's not a badly done telling of Stephen Crane's story of a young man being blooded in the Civil War. The performances are up to par. Richard Thomas by this time had outgrown his usual appearance of a recent graduate of Choate, yet still looks innocent enough to be the young soldier. The writer and director have added a few touches of their own to the tale. During the final charge into the Confederate lines, one soldier accidentally impales an oak tree and is stuck there for a moment.It's mainly when this version is compared to John Huston's 1951 version that the weaknesses are apparent, even though the budgets must have been similar. Huston had his improvised moments too -- a general riding from one regiment to the next, telling each to fight like hell and save him a plate of beans for when he joins them for supper that night. The same phony speech over and over, which the soldiers recognize and ridicule.But Huston's version is superior in many other ways. Here, the dying soldier tries to climb a tree before falling flat on the ground. In Huston's film, John Dierkes' death is horrifying rather than sad.There's something else too. In subtle ways, the direction by Huston is more effective than Lee Phillips' is here. Not that Phillips is inept but the way Huston manages the camera, the direction becomes part of the story. It's difficult to pin this down but, if you have a chance, watch the way Huston first introduces us to the young soldier, Audie Murphy, who gives the best performance of his career. As his buddy, Private Conklin, Bill Mauldin, a non-actor who was a famous cartoonist in World War II, is thoroughly believable, with his goofy face, whereas the same character here, Michael Brandon, looks and acts like a Hollywood actor. In Huston's film, the lieutenant in charge is of moderate height and slight build, with a scant but hopeful blond mustache. He's as young, vulnerable, and uncertain as his men. Here, it looks as if someone said, "Get me an infantry lieutenant from Central Casting."Well, it sounds as if I'm being harsh on this movie but obviously a good deal of effort and money were put into it and, as I say, the results aren't bad. It's rather that Huston did so much more.

Richard Thomas was just right back then; portraying a guy who was scared and ashamed, but too proud to keep running, everything..he got it just right. I think Stephan Crane would appreciate this version better than the 1951 movie.It's confusing enough being that age, then finding yourself in the middle of one of those huge battles- you couldn't pull me away from that TV way back when. It didn't need all of the high tech special effects, Henry Fleming(John boy)and his fellow soldiers brought you into the story as well as the book did. It was a great movie and should be available to high school kids, history buffs, or anybody who enjoys a good flick. But is it available to anyone? I can't find it for sell online anywhere. What a shame. The scene showing fixed bayonets charging, one sticking in a tree trunk accidentally, was artistic license no doubt, but classic! Classic I say! Where are the rerun Gods when you need them? This would be great for my school age son...I'll keep looking.

When a movie is based on a novel, I judge the movie in its accuracy of portraying the intention of the novel's author. By far, this 1974 version was much closer to the events found in the text by Stephen Crane. The 1951 version changed the main focus -- the red badge -- into a yellow one. Also, the portrayal of events and the character depiction I feel were more in the tone that Stephen Crane intended in the 1974 (made for TV) version. I teach the novel on the high school level and have to make many more exceptions to the 1951 version than I do the 1974 version when I use the video versions.I must note that the leads in both versions (Murphy and Thomas) did excellent jobs in their portrayal of the main character Fleming. However, the other characters in the 1951 version did not come close to the ensemble group in the 1974 version. As a whole, the 1974 version did a better job in the creation of the mood and situation these men found themselves in the battlefields of the Civil War.

This was a great movie and it's the second time Richard Thomas starred in a remake that was better than the original. The other film was All Quiet on the Western Front and is available on DVD unlike this film which I have not been able to find anywhere.