Men Must Fight (1933)

It is a performances centric movie

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

A nurse named Laura (Diana Wynyard) in World War I has sex with a pilot (Robert Young), who dies soon after. She discovers she's pregnant so she agrees to marry another man (Lewis Stone) so the child will have a father. Years later her son Bob (Phillips Holmes) is grown and the world is on the brink of another world war. But Laura is vehemently anti-war and has raised her son the same. This leads to conflict as Laura's husband is now the US Secretary of State and expects Bob to fight for his country.Fascinating movie with a lot of thought-provoking ideas and prescient look at a second world war and technological advances like television and videophones. Love the art deco sets. The acting is good with melodramatic Wynyard leading the way. Stone is fine in his usual rigid way. Holmes is terrific and one of the most natural actors in the cast. Robert Young makes the most of his limited screen time. Lovely Ruth Selwyn (wife of director Edgar Selwyn, thirty years her senior) is very likable as Holmes' love interest. May Robson is fine in a supporting role that's dripping with bitterness. It's a wonderful Pre-Code film. The opening scene has Young and Wynyard dressing after their lovemaking. Just a year later you wouldn't see a suggestive scene like that. Heck you wouldn't have seen this movie period since the plot involves premarital sex. The climactic scene where the enemy forces attack New York City is gripping stuff. A sad bit of irony is that, in the end of this film, Phillips Holmes' character enlists as a pilot and flies off to war. Holmes himself would enlist in World War II as a pilot and be killed in a mid-air collision in Canada.

For some reason, a lot of the reviewers on IMDb want to praise this mealy-mouthed pseudo-liberal talk-fest. Maybe this is because heroine Diana Wynyard makes a number of decent anti-war speeches throughout this film. In any event, I will admit Diana Wynyard is a good actress and did a good job in this film, and I appreciated the opening scene, a pre-code artifact indicating that Miss Wynward and Robert Young had engaged in pre-marital sex. However, although the writer of Miss Wynyard's speeches misses entirely some of the most salient points of the anti-war point of view:1. That war is often fought for the benefit of profiteers 2. That politicians goad nations to war by means of lies 3. That politicians, no matter what they say, generally seek empire when they go to war 4. That women, children, the sick, the poor, the elderly, and the disabled suffer the most when war is foughtThat a film described by some as anti-war misses these and other major points is akin to giving the Nobel Peace Prize to a world leader who bombs weaker nations and sends drone weapons against civilians. In fact, Miss Wynyard's character tends to trivialize the anti-war point of view by representing that point of view as a mere response to acute grief. NYC is attacked in this film, in an eerie foreshadowing of 9/11, but the film says nothing about the actions leading up to the attack, the motivations of the attackers, or whether or not US politicians knew in advance of the attack (as Pres. Roosevelt did in the case of Pearl Harbor, but was looking for a justification to enter WWII). War is represented then, not so much as the result of plans and actions and motivations, all of which should be deconstructed if we are ever to learn from history, but rather as a kind of Force of Nature, a unavoidable part of human experience, such as sex and love are. Hence the title. War as an expression of the human spirit. In case you still might think this film is anti-war (Spoiler Alert!) then consider the fact that at the film's end, Miss Wynyard's son resolves his story arc by enlisting to fight in a jingoistic crescendo of inanity.I'm busting on this film so bad because others in this time period knew the straight scoop on war. Graham Greene did, hence his classic 1936 novel 'This Gun for Hire.' Smedley Butler did, and he had already written the classic 'War is a Racket.' In terms of cinema, the Marx Bros 'Duck Soup' and Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator' are much more articulate regarding the subject of war and peace. Actually, 'The Shape of Things to Come' is also better on the subject as well. This film is mostly just a curiosity. It's eerie that it predicted the USA entering into a European war in 1940, and it's eerie that it showed an attack on NYC, it's got funky video-telephones for futuristic 1940, and it's got a hint of pre-code sex. But it's slow, talkative, and in the end fakes you out because you think the point of view is pro-peace, but in the end, it's just more cheer-leading for the War Machine. Like we need that.

During the 1930s, quite a few antiwar films were made. Considering how wasteful and unnecessary WWI was, it's no surprise that these films flourished. The problem, however, is that while the films were absolutely right about the pointlessness of wars like the First World War, they also didn't take into account that there sometimes are wars that need fighting. After all, Hitler was truly evil.While many of these idealistic films are true classics (such as ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, J'ACCUSE (the remake), GRANDE ILLUSION, WESTFRONT 1918), some, like MEN MUST FIGHT are not. Now it is very thought-provoking and unique--and it certainly gets points for that. Unfortunately, the film also comes off as a bit preachy, morally ambivalent as well as quite dated. But it does try.The film begins with a nurse (Diana Wynyard) and a pilot (Robert Young) having a tryst in a rented room (after all, this is a Pre-Code film--where the moral values of the late 30s and into the 40s were NOT at all evident in many Hollywood films). Unfortunately, he is soon killed and she is pregnant. Nice guy Lewis Stone marries her knowing this and she vows to raise the child as a pacifist.For a while, Stone seems happy raising this boy this way. After all, he becomes Secretary of State and his role is as a peacemaker. Unfortunately, though, when war threatens with the fictional country of Eurasia, he joins lockstep in the American war effort and expects this pacifist son to do the same. Well, the son doesn't and the mother spends much of the film heading a national pacifist movement. Naturally, this leads to conflict and chaos within the family.The problem is that the film was awfully hard to believe sci-fi. While it was cool watching everyone talking on videophones in the future year 1940, the film doesn't seem to make a good case for pacifism or going to war. Perhaps if the acting had been a bit better and less earnest AND the film not been so morally ambiguous it would have succeeded. Instead, you have no idea why the war occurs, who is at fault, what is at stake or the events leading to this conflict. As a result, it's quite watchable but also not a necessary film to watch.

This brilliant film deserves to be re-discovered. Made in 1933 it predicts a world war in 1940, and even shows a catastrophic air-raid on a major city (in this case New York, but it certainly echoes the destruction soon to be unleashed on London, Berlin etc). The film carefully presents the pacifist and nationalist arguments in an amazingly contemporary way, embodying the argument in the character of a young pacifist man who must decide whether to fight or not. The irony that the actor playing this part, Phillips Holmes, was later to die in the real World War 2, adds to the power of this remarkable film. Diana Wynyard is extraordinary as his mother - indeed the strength of the female characters is one of the film's greatest achievements - few people will not applaud the sentiments of the final scene. Great futuristic design too - including televisions and video telephones. It is very sad to see this film now, knowing that the warning it gave to the world went unheeded. I urge you to watch it. I imagine that the reason it is so little known today is that MGM found its anti-war themes embarrassing when they found themselves having to support the war effort, and buried it in the vaults. Now it should be seen to warn others not to repeat the mistakes of the past.