SimonJack No one can doubt that "The Americanization of Emily" is an anti-war film. But to think that this is a very good anti-war film knocks some tremendous films that show the sacrifice, carnage, death and losses from war. For this film has none of that. Instead, it has a lot of anti-war talk and philosophizing by the lead character. And, it is anti-war talk that seems to embrace a propaganda message of the Axis powers in World War II. Some may describe it as defeatist. It was a powerful psychological tool, especially used by Germany and Japan in WW II. The message was, "Quit fighting, Yanks. Go home to your wife and family."In this movie, James Garner does a good job in that role as Lt. Cdr. Charles Madison. But that's not the way that William Huie (1910-1986) wrote the character in the novel of the same title in 1959. The American author and journalist wrote the book as a serious satire (with some humor) of the Navy brass at the time and place. It was London in 1944, just before the June 6 Allied invasion. Huie was a lieutenant in the Navy and serving in England. He had been on the staff of Vice Admiral Ben Moreell of the Seabees, and took part in the D-Day landings. Huie wrote about the system and the extravagance of the top Navy brass over the common troops - sailors and soldiers. During his life, he reported and wrote serious books about controversial issues of WW II, and later of the Civil Rights struggle in the U.S. He was a strong proponent of civil rights. The writer for the screenplay of the movie was Paddy Chayefsky. He himself was a noted writer, especially of satirical works. Chayefsky also served during World War II. He was an enlisted man in the 104th Infantry and received a Purple Heart for being wounded by a land mine in Germany. Chayefsky said he read Huie's book and saw it as a funny satire. He must not have thought many others would see it that way without significant changes. So, he wrote the screenplay to make the satire less serious and more comical. While the screenplay for the movie retains the main plot, and most of the characters and incidents of the book, it alters them considerably. The book hero (Lt. Cdr. James "Jimmy" Madison) was a trained, working PR professional before the war, and knew how to make movies. TV didn't exist as we know it today. There were no camera crews covering WWII. So the Army and Navy had professional film crews to record the war. Many Hollywood directors, cameramen and other technicians who joined the military were put into units to film the war. The hero in the book was serious about filming the D-Day landings. But it wasn't to show a sailor as the first to land - or the first to die, on Omaha Beach.In the book, the hero wasn't a coward, nor did he say that he was. The term isn't even in the book. Nor does he accuse the good folks back home of being the cause of war. Finally, the women were portrayed in the book a little more openly. Americanized women were those who gave sexual favors during wartime in exchange for scarce food items and gifts. Emily was one of them. The high living of the admiral and Navy brass was one part of the satire. The film makes the movie project of Admiral William Jessup the second satire. This is a dark piece of comedy that had no source at all in the book. Melvyn Douglas plays Jessup superbly. He has gone out of his mind and ordered his men to make a movie to glorify the first dead man on Omaha Beach as a sailor. The romance between Charlie and Emily Barham is a third part of the plot. Julie Andrews is very good as Barham. The romance is the vehicle for Charlie to pronounce his pride at cowardice and disdain for war. But rather than scenes or visuals that show the ugliness and horror of war, the audience instead gets large speeches of Charlie's philosophy. He says that the blame for war rests on the good people who build statues and monuments to honor their dead and heroes. It's the good people who start the wars and are the cause of wars. So Charlie says. The film focuses on that to the point of ideology. Charlie says that good people should not go to war. So, when Hitler invaded Poland, Norway, France and other countries, apparently the good people of those countries should not have fought back. Nor should the Chinese have fought the Japanese who invaded and wrought the rape of Nanking. And, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the U.S. should have acceded the islands to Japan. In a way, Charlie was saying the same thing that the Axis propaganda machine was cranking out. Tokyo Rose over the radio urged American GIs to lay down their arms and not resist the Imperial Japanese. If England and France and the U.S. hadn't gone to war over Europe, there wouldn't have been all that death and destruction - except, of course, for the extermination of the Jews. And everyone would be able to live safely under the tyranny of Nazism. Well, maybe most. Maybe a little bit. By 1964, when this film came out, the world had a good example of the Western nations not going to war with communism and the Soviet Union. Instead, we let the Soviets occupy and suppress the peoples of Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Balkan states, the Baltic states, and East Germany). This movie is anti-war, but in its fervor to avoid war at all costs, it seems also to be anti-freedom and anti-human rights.

Joseph Kearny Though just under 2 hours, this tedious talk-fest seems considerably longer due in part to lack of pace and focus. The film is of 2 minds as it attempts to blend contemporary satire with old fashioned romance which doesn't work because the romance is a wet blanket and the satire is weak. Written by Paddy Chayefsy (Marty, Network),the film is heavy on the speechifying, and Arthur Hiller's direction is devoid of any cinematic savvy. Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, released the same year, is far more daring and accomplished and in comparison makes The Americanization of Emily feel like a film from the 1940s. Andrews and Garner are a dull pair and were considerably better in the more entertaining Blake Edwards' film Victor, Victoria.

brefane Released the same year as Dr. Strangelove, Seven Days in May, Fail Safe and The Best Man, The Americanization of Emily must have seemed dull and conventional even in its day. Arthur Hiller who directed Love Story, Silver Streak, Making Love and The In-Laws is no Kubrick or Frankenheimer; he's an unimaginative, pedestrian director who fared better with The Hospital(1971)also scripted by Paddy Chayefsky which was funny and featured a spectacular performance from George C. Scott. Emily is seemingly endless, wavers in tone, and the two stars are dull together; their love scenes lack genuine passion. Garner is blank and Andrews' clipped speech leaves one chilled. A few interesting ideas and scenes are overwhelmed by a talky script and inert filmmaking. As a whole, the film doesn't compel or hold together.

pingshar In a modern world filled with films featuring actors pretending to be intelligent people saying simpleton lines of seven words or less, what a joy it is to see a film with intelligent people (played by great actors) saying intelligent, complex sentences (written by a great screenwriter).And what acting! I have always respected James Garner and Julie Andrews, but here they shine, as though they have embodied the very essence of their characters and projected it onto the screen. This is a love story set in wartime. It is the cultural differences and conflicts in values between the American and British leads that makes it interesting. The evolution of these characters drives the story. Despite their differences and initial dislike for one another, they fall in love. Yet, in spite of the seeming implausibility of the relationship, Andrews and Garner make it believable, without being saccharine or simplistic. None of the secondary roles come across as stereotyped or caricatures, a credit to Paddy Chayefsky's script, Arthur Hiller's direction, and fine acting. Well, almost none. Steve Franken does a fine drunk, a role he would reprise four years later in The Party, and Keenan Wynn adds to the well-placed (and plausible) comic relief during the invasion.We encounter the central essence of the film early on in Garner's scorching little speech: "We crass Americans didn't introduce war into your little island. This war, Ms. Barham, to which we Americans are so insensitive, is the result of 2,000 years of European greed, barbarism, superstition, and stupidity. Don't blame it on our Coca-Cola bottles. Europe was a going brothel long before we came to town." Far from being a "Sixties movie," those words still ring true today, as they would have in 1944. Yet, somehow, the British have turned gratitude for saving their butt to resentment. This movie provides the long lost clue, the grudge that Brits dare not speak of openly: The Americans were seducing their women with stockings and chocolate bars, while they were away at war. Some of the more beautiful even, gasp!, moved to America with them.The novel confronts this more directly, and makes this the meaning of "Americanization" of women, while the movie makes Americanization a more abstract change in values of Emily and her mother - a shift from patriotism to cynicism, to oversimplify it. And even that would engender resentment from the British today. Though this movie was released in 1964, it would not be entirely correct to call it a Sixties movie; it has more in common with Mr. Roberts - 1955, than more surrealistic antiwar works like MASH. Planning would have begun in 1963, probably before the death of JFK, and before the escalation of the Vietnam War with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. So there was no antiwar movement when this film was made. That side of the Sixties was yet to come, and might never have, had JFK not been assassinated.This is not an antiwar movie, as the actors' lines make clear, but it is highly skeptical. It is about the anomie and louche values that can occur between the cracks of command during wartime. On the other hand, it followed Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove in 1964, also with a general anti-war theme, suggesting the American public was not in the mood to get into another war. No one actually said, Hey, let's go to war in Vietnam! President Johnson just backed us in.I'm glad this movie didn't adopt the more comic tone of Dr. Strangelove or MASH. I'm almost tempted to say it is not a comedy, except the opening scenes have a clear comic overtone. There are several layers to the movie, one being humorous - perhaps it could be describe as light black humor. The advantage of Hiller's style is it retains more realism. There are also shifts in that realism as we see Garner and Andrews in different situations, such as on a country pond, far from the war. Hiller does a fine job of presenting contrasting moods in wartime England. There is a strong feeling of ambiance, and fine presentation of the subtle interactions of the characters, thanks to the slower pace.So William Wyler was booted for tinkering with Chayefsky's script (why??). I love Wyler, but he was nearing the end of his career, while Hiller was a younger director with almost no movie experience, but tons of work on many fine American televisions series where he evidently honed his craft. The directing was fine, with one exception: The scenes of the actual landing of Garner at Normandy are hokey, though probably due to budget (and not having CGI, yet).They say this is the favorite movie of Garner and Andrews. Actors don't always like to watch their own movies. Andrews was not happy being stereotyped as Mary Poppins and Maria Von Trapp (with a script she viewed as "treacle"), though they are highly-respected works. Much of Garner's work was solid, though sometimes a bit light. My favorite is Support Your Local Sheriff, which I can't recommend too highly. But here we (and they) see acting with subtlety and depth in a setting that is not embarrassing for them to watch.Spoiler alert:Garner presumably marries Andrews in the end, an unhappy ending from the British perspective. I suspect that if you are British you will probably like this movie even less than the much despised U-571 (please see my review, headed: "Bangers and mash aren't fish and chips"). Yes, not all Brits hate Yanks.