The Red Badge of Courage (1951) User Reviews (76)

Huston's Truncated Yet Realistic Civil War Epic.

[jpdoherty · 8/10 · 12 May 2012]

MGM's Civil War epic THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE is a minor masterpiece! Unfortunately however the picture has a chequered history and had little success when it was first released in 1951. Based on the best selling novel by Stephen Crane it was beautifully written for the screen by John Huston who also directed with considerable flair and expertise. But the finished film suffered greatly in the editing stages. In Huston's absence ( he was in South Africa filming "The African Queen" ) the studio cut some 25 minutes from the movie resulting in a very truncated 69 minute version being released. Louis B.Mayer disliked the picture intensely because it didn't have a female in the cast and it was without any marquee names. Top billed was a young Audie Murphy, a minor player at the time who was just finding his way in pictures over at Universal International in the B western genre. That said there is still much to admire in the finished film. Particularly noteworthy is the stunning Monochrome cinematography of Harold Rossen and the splendid atmospheric and rousing score by Polish composer Bronislau Kaper.

Stephen Crane referred to his novel as a 'psychological portrayal of fear' and that fear is clearly established almost immediately the film opens as we see the enlisted men of the Union army mustered in camp waiting for their marching orders to go into battle. One youthful private in particular Henry Fleming (Audie Murphy) is almost sick with fear and trepidation. Tears fill his eyes as he writes home what he thinks could be his last letter. Finally, the moment he dreaded arrives as the order comes for the division to move out up to the battlefield. Before long they are in the trenches holding back the advancing Confederate enemy. Then during one enemy charge Henry is so overcome with fear he throws down his rifle and runs in retreat. Alone in the woods he is beside himself with despair and shame. But later when he is knocked unconscious with a rifle butt from another retreating soldier he awakens with a whole different attitude to the war. His head wound becomes his 'Red Badge of Courage' and he returns to the trenches but this time with a new found gallantry. He suddenly finds himself leading his men against the enemy and even taking up the flag from a fallen comrade and carrying it to victory.

Performances are superb from all concerned even down to the smallest role. Murphy is surprisingly dynamic! His role as the fearful young soldier who finds redemption is totally believable and engaging. It is the actor's best performance. Good too is non-actor and cartoonist Bill Mauldin as Henry's friend and comrade and also the always likable Arthur Hunnicutt ("I got holes in my cap, I got holes in my pants but I ain't got any holes in me except those that were intended").

Huston's film is an arresting evocation of the American Civil War! He lavished great care and attention to the film's look and design which is evident throughout. Together with Rossen's deep focus and stark black and white cinematography the scenes on the battlefield and in the trenches become bracingly authentic with an all encompassing and extraordinary realism. We will probably never learn what was in the missing 25 minutes of lost footage but as it stands THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE remains a minor cinematic masterpiece.

Closing line from Stephen Crane's THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE as the troop, victorious, march from the battlefield and on the soundtrack the voice of James Whitmore is heard behind a close up tracking shot of Audie Murphy..........

"He turned now with a lover's thirst to images of tranquil skies, fresh meadows and cool brooks - an existence of soft and eternal peace".

Summoned Up His Memories

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 10 February 2007]

Although John Huston's The Red Badge of Courage has stood the test of time critically, back then it lost lots of money in its first release. The film was a bone of contention between Louis B. Mayer and Dore Schary who were locked in a power struggle for control at Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer. Schary wanted to make the film, Mayer said it would flop and he was proved right. He also got ousted anyway.

The Red Badge of Courage refers to the blood that gets spilled should you sustain a battle wound. If you remember in Oliver Stone's Platoon, the men don't treat new arrival Charlie Sheen until he's gotten one of those. Here the Red Badge is something to be avoided if possible.

By a piece of serendipity when Audie Murphy returned from World War II and was deciding on a career, he chose the movies. He certainly was loaded down with offers, but I guess he sensed in himself an inner gift for being an actor. Not Marlon Brando or Laurence Olivier, but someone in the hands of the right director could get a good performance out of him. In John Huston he found that director, twice in fact as he later worked with him in The Unforgiven.

There was no need for research because our most decorated soldier in history lived the research in North Africa and Europe. There's a dimension to Audie's performance and that of GI cartoonist Willard Mullin that no training at the Actor's Studio could have given them. Murphy just summoned his memories of what it was like to be a kid from Texas whisked off to Europe the way young Henry Fleming is facing the Confederates in their backyard.

Murphy gets good support from an able cast of people like Arthur Hunnicutt, Royal Dano, John Dierkes, and Andy Devine as various other soldiers in the Union Army, all citizens serving their country. No career people in this crowd. Also James Whitmore, reading the narrative of Stephen Crane's novel serves almost like another cast member and moves the film's story line along.

Though it lost money for MGM, The Red Badge of Courage is still a fine film with some great insights into the meaning of battlefield bravery.

Murphy's Best

[rmax304823 · 8/10 · 20 April 2002]

I can't understand why this movie isn't more well known or why it doesn't get more critical applause. Well, I suppose it's in black and white, it's short, it has no expensive bankable stars, and no love interest. I can't think of any other reasons, because this is a very good movie indeed. John Huston's direction is outstanding, while still being understated. When he was uninterested, Huston could do a merely pedestrian job. But he must have been interested in "The Red Badge of Courage," from beginning to end.

Example from the beginning: a group of soldiers are gathered around a speaker who is spreading rumors about a coming battle, most of their backs turned to us. The camera slowly moves in towards the small crowd, not the speaker, but the backs of the listeners' heads, and one of the soldiers turns around towards the camera and steps quickly into a close up with an expression of deep self-doubt. What a way to introduce Audie Murphy as Henry Fleming! What a way to individuate a mob of naive young men!

Example from the end: Henry and his friend Tom, played by Bill Mauldin, are marching away from the battlefield, still alive, and a bit surprised. Tom says something about how the birds are beginning to sing again, and Henry agrees that as soon as the smoke and noise of battle end it doesn't take the birds long to get worked up again. Henry looks upward over his shoulder, and Huston gives us a point-of-view shot of a hazy sun drifting dimly through the tops of the trees that tower alongside the road. The cast could hardly do better. It is Audie Murphy's best performance by far. In "To Hell and Back," in which he played himself, he wasn't required to do much more than rudimentary acting, and the film itself is cliché ridden. Here, Murphy convinces us that he's worried, or scared, or hijacked by his amygdala, or whatever the situation calls for. His boyish voice is completely appropriate to the role, as is his overall appearance. He seems to have really given this movie some effort. Bill Mauldin as Tom is also surprisingly good. He was undoubtedly the most famous and most controversial cartoonist of World War II and spent a good deal of time with Murphy's Third Division in Italy. He may not be a trained actor, but his sincerity, his gawky face and outlandish ears are more convincing than, say, Tab Hunter's brawn ever was. All of the supporting cast are excellent, particularly John Dierkes as the dying soldier.

Do you want to have your hair raised? Read Steven Crane's original novel. He was 22 when he wrote it, years after the Civil War had ended, but no one would know it from the novel, which has the ring of reminiscence about it. The scene of the dying soldier as he actually dies, standing and trembling from head to foot as if in some Jacksonian fit, is unforgettable in its horror. It's impossible to identify the battle on which the book was based, if indeed there was any.

Let's face facts. The North lost damned near all of its most dramatic battles, and not through the fault of its soldiers or junior officers. (General Winterside's cognomen must have been influenced by the real-life General Ambrose Burnside, for whom our "sideburns" are named. Burnside was one of Lincoln's worst generals and had the good sense and the courage to admit it himself.} The Penninsular campaign, fought under MacLellan, another real hard-charging fire eater, was a dismal failure and ended in an ignominious retreat Crane was from New Jersey and is now buried in Evergreen Cemetery in Hillside, having died a young man. One can only wonder what he might have accomplished had he written more than just two novels. The photography may be black and white but it's splendidly done. I find the only two problems, and they're relatively minor ones, involve the production itself. This isn't back East where the war was fought. This is clearly California, with scattered live oak trees dark and evergreen against the dried summer bunch grass. And the musical score is generic, adding little to the picture aside from the expected Battle Hymn of the Republic and triumphant marches in major keys. A fine picture, all around.

Imagine the Movie Huston Wanted to Make

[dougdoepke · 3 June 2008]

Such a darn shame so much of the film was lost during a power struggle at MGM. What remains is a strong drama adapted from the Crane novel. Some call it an anti-war film, but that's a stretch since Audie Murphy's youthful soldier proves himself in battle after a cowardly initiation, and receives the admiration of his buddies. The sequence is more like a rite of passage than a denunciation.

The somewhat amateur cast is outstanding. I expect the untrained Murphy felt a personal commitment to his role and comes through just as professionally as he did in real life. Untrained cartoonist Bill Mauldin also looks and acts the part of callow youth maturing under pressures of life or death situations. His big ears are especially persuasive for a Hollywood setting.

And what burst of inspiration led the normally glamor-obsessed Tiffany of Studios to cast such affecting unlovelies as John Dierkes and Royal Dano in key parts. It's Dierkes's ill-fated salt-of-the-earth soldier that injects real tragedy into the sparse dialogue. With his craggy face and towering body he's every inch the early American primitive. And, of course, there's Dano with his gaunt face, wasted body, and graveyard voice, who helps make that line of wounded soldiers (the real core of the film) an unforgettable procession. Nor should that genuine face of war, the battle-shocked soldier deliriously bellowing The Battle Hymn of the Republic as he trudges along, be overlooked. And for a little humorous relief, who can forget the general whose pep-talk to each unit sounds like a broken record with a big stomach, but whose humanity shines through anyway.

The sweeping battlefields are effective in their look and feel, even if it is the scrublands of SoCal in the distance. Note all the dust and smoke obscuring vision, along with the chaotic criss-crossing of other units going here and there, but we don't know where. The effect is that of focusing our concerns on the familiar faces rather than on who's winning or losing the battle, which, I gather, is the way most infantry experience battle. It's been called understandably "the fog of war".

I like the brief lyrical moments that remind us of a larger world outside the stage of human conflict. Actually, Murphy is quite good at portraying sensitivity, as for example when he turns away from the raucous byplay at the farm house. The quiet moments with him and Mauldin are rather touching in that they look like two average Joe's showing the personal side of war. But, as Murphy proved in both the movie and real life, you never know the depths that may be concealed under that ordinary appearance.

I believe it was critic Andrew Sarris who pointed out that John Huston's career was never the same after MGM got through editing out an hour of his version and throwing the rest away. Now we can only guess how many other affecting scenes were tossed out in the process. Obviously, the project was close to Huston's heart being an adaptation of a great American novel from its most wrenching national conflict. I don't know whether to be happy or sad that this severely truncated version was finally marketed. It's good, but then there's the promise of so much more. Too bad the production didn't migrate to a less image-conscious studio.

Not the director's cut--but still a powerful film with fine performances...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 24 May 2008]

The original cut of THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE has never been seen--and probably does not exist--but this is the truncated version of the John Huston film and it's still powerful stuff.

It's an examination of courage among men under intense fire--such as the infantry men in the Civil War, about whom writer Stephen Crane wrote with almost poetical finesse. So that some of Crane's writing is maintained on screen, we get a narration by James Whitmore that succeeds in helping us understand the central character (AUDIE MURPHY) and his motivations.

Judging from photographs of the Civil War, the film has a gritty, realistic look as it goes from battle to battle with a group of men we get to know and recognize as vulnerable human beings caught in the tragedy of impossible battle situations.

AUDIE MURPHY is not noted for being an actor capable of deep characterization, but he's been guided by Huston to give a very effective, deeply felt performance, no doubt helped by the fact that he's been in the midst of battle before (he's a real life war hero), and must know the inner conflicts that face any man in battle.

The supporting cast of actors are fine, especially BILL MAULDIN as Audie's friend, both of them confessing moments of cowardice during battle fatigue and then able to go on with their mission.

But the real credit has to go to John Huston for writing and directing a film that he was never especially proud of, but which is stunningly photographed and directed with great skill.

Best Civil War movie ever made.

[fasulo · 10/10 · 12 December 2004]

There have been a large number of Civil War movies of every type made over the years. Yet The Red Badge of Courage is probably the best movie of this period, perhaps because it is also the simplest of any of them. It is based on Stephen Crane's great novelette of the same name. It almost makes one think Crane experienced the War himself, but he wasn't born until four years after the end of the Civil War and learned about the feelings of the veterans by reading magazines issued for Civil War veterans when he was in his early 20s. There is also some speculation that he visited veterans at a nearby old soldiers home and asked them about their experiences.

And how could Houston pick a better person to play the lead then Audie Murphy? Murphy was a combat veteran of the greatest war ever fought, and suffered post-traumatic nightmares from it. I fully understand why this great director fought the studio bosses to give Murphy the lead role. Bill Mauldin, a WW II veteran himself, also does an excellent job as the companion of "The Young Soldier."

I've been reading about the Civil War for 44 years and have seen most of the movies on that period, but I am always amazed at how this film captures the emotions and illusions of the millions of young men who fought in it. As a veteran of another, later, war, I can identify with the emotions of the young men depicted here.

The fact that there is very little dialogue (narration is supplied from Crane's book) actually helps the movie convey the mood of the volunteer soldier. And although Murphy plays a Federal soldier, he could easily represent a Confederate.

The movie espouses no side or cause, it is about the individual solider and his personal battle as he prepares to "meet the elephant," as the soldiers of that time called experiencing combat for the first time.

One last remark... the 1974 TV remake of the Red Badge of Courage, with John Thomas, suffers greatly in comparison, in both acting and authenticity.

A Book about the Psychological Wanderings of a Soldier

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 15 December 2016]

When you take an introspective book like "The Red Badge of Courage" and try to make it an action film, it's going to suffer a bit. This is the story of a boy who is overwhelmed by the responsibilities of war. Henry Fleming (Audie Murphy) is that boy who runs when confronted with Rebel forces. He hide in the woods, where he is struck on the head by another retreating soldier, knocked unconscious. In the book there is great pain and serious guilt on the part of Fleming. This is hard to portray, but Murphy does quite a good job, considering his relative inexperience. Apparently, the studio just didn't give this film a true chance at greatness. They kept cutting and cutting because it didn't fit the Hollywood mode. We need to remember those big time producers weren't in the business for their health. All of this said, there are great scenes of battle and Murphy's portrayal of the young soldier are very good.

A brilliant American Civil War movie.

[barnabyrudge · 10/10 · 8 September 2005]

Based on Stephen Crane's classic short novel (one of the finest pieces of American literature ever written), this John Huston adaptation is an absolutely remarkable film on many levels. Huston not only directed, but also wrote the screenplay. If you watch closely you may notice that the film has very little dialogue and, if you are familiar with the book, you may notice also that the sparse bits of chat that DO make it into the film are taken almost verbatim from the source novel. With his clever script, sharp direction (Huston was in rich form, having just completed the equally remarkable The Asphalt Jungle), and a very believable performance from real-life WWII hero and debuting film star Audie Murphy, Huston went on the make one of - if not THE - finest Civil War movies ever.

Young Union soldier Henry Fleming (Murphy) is inexperienced in the realities of warfare, but he quickly realises that the brave and reckless attitude to battle that he has heard about is rather different to the real thing. When he finally reaches the front and realises the terrible danger he is in, he flees in panic. During his cowardly, if understandable, retreat he is injured by another fleeing soldier. Later, Fleming reunites with his fellow troops and, when asked what became of him in the earlier battle, he claims that his "injury" was a gunshot wound caused by an enemy bullet. The troops are satisfied by his dishonest explanation and Fleming unwisely plays up to their perception of him as a brave, wounded soldier. Later, during another skirmish with the Confederacy, Fleming has to live up to the courageous name he has carved for himself and, in a fit of rage (and perhaps guilt?), he leads a battle-charge which repels the enemy and, ironically, transforms him into a true hero.

Murphy gives a superb performance, drawing on his WWII experiences to etch a really convincing portrayal of a scared young man on the brink of potential death. Huston lets the camera linger on all his actors' faces, and their excellent expressiveness conveys a lot of the psychology of warfare. The film is visually very powerful, thanks largely to Harold Rosson's cinematography, and has about it a near-documentary feel. Also, Bronislau Kaper provides an outstanding music score which adds immeasurably to the proceedings. What is truly amazing is that the 69 minute version of this film, which I have here reviewed and given a maximum 10-out-of-10 rating, is actually a heavily cut and studio-tampered version of what Huston intended. One can only assume that his full film might have gone on to become his - and perhaps cinema's - greatest movie of all-time.

A Very Realistic War Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 21 January 2004]

In the American Civil War, the young soldier Henry Fleming (Audie Murphy) has his baptism in battles, but becomes afraid and runs, escaping from the enemies. Ashamed with his act, in the next fight he leads the other soldiers, carrying the American flag and fighting bravely. This movie is very realistic: shows soldiers with fear, questioning what they are doing in the war, combining drama and action. Another good work of John Houston, based on a novel written in 1894, by Stephen Crane, a twenty-two years old man. This film shows the human side of the soldiers. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `A Glória de um Covarde' (`The Glory of a Coward')

Riveting

[stills-6 · 10/10 · 13 August 2000]

John Huston's camera and sense of drama and tension make this one of the best soldier's-eye movies ever made. You really get a feel for the confusion Civil War recruits must have experienced - not during battle, but before and after, when orders appear to be arbitrary and nothing is ever explained.

The cast is wonderful, including many who show up for less than 30 seconds, giving their all for their roles - Audie Murphy never had it so good with this material and backdrop. A truly literate action movie that has a soul and a vision.

"How do you know you won't run when the time comes..."

[PudgyPandaMan · 7/10 · 31 January 2009]

This quote is the theme of "The Red Badge of Courage". It is about each individual soldier's coming to terms with facing his own mortality when he comes face to face with the enemy for the first time. It is set during the civil war but is representative, I think, of what any soldier from any time period would face. This is what makes this a good movie and as relevant today as when Stephen Crane first wrote the book back in the 1890's.

It's unfortunate that there were battles going on behind the scenes on the making of this film between Louis B. Mayer and Dore Schary. Mayer didn't want to make the film in the first place as he preferred sweeter, tender, more glamorous stories - where as Schary preferred grittier tales with social significance. Unfortunately, the feud led to a ruthless editing process that cut the movie more than half in length. I think it's unfortunate because the movie does come across a little anemic at only 69 minutes.

Direction and cinematography is used to good effect to help create tension. I liked one scene where the soldiers are digging trenches and the dust is backlit by the sun. Another great shot is at the end of the first battle when the camera shoots up into a tall tree with the sun beams streaming in through the smoke of battle - and then a bird starts singing, which seems so strange after what just transpired. They made good use of location shooting - much better than if they had tried to recreate in a studio.

I though the war scenes were very well choreographed and realistic, especially with the smoke and haze of battle. They did a good job of casting all the soldiers, even the non-speaking parts - as they all had a lean, hungry look to them - rugged and ragged at the same time.

Audy Murphy looked so young here and was actually 26 at the time of filming. It's hard to believe he was already a decorated war hero from WWII. His emotions as captured by the extreme closeups while he's gripped with fear at the start of battle were quite good considering this was one of the first films in which he had a staring role.

Overall, I thought this was a good film, though a tad short and simplistic in its telling. But it did a good job of depicting the soldiers frustration at constant drilling, never knowing where they are going but just to follow orders and not being in control of anything but always at the mercy of high command.

Outstanding

[cfnas · 10/10 · 29 May 2004]

This version of Stephen Crane's epic is the only one that should be shown. The character, Henry Fleming, was truly Audie Murphy's alter ego. The individual portrayals of the Union soldier's was John Huston at his best. The battlefield scene that truly captured the essence of this movie was when Henry held the tattered Confederate flag over the body of the dead reb soldier. What could have been more poignant then that scene as one soldier salutes his enemy, who, in reality was his countryman. Also, another icon appeared, Bill Mauldin, the noted cartoonist of "Willie and Joe" from yet another war. I feel this movie, as abbreviated as it was, since L.B.Mayer had over one hour of the original version cut, is still a masterpiece.

Hidden masterpiece, just out of sight

[davidmvining · 7/10 · 11 September 2023]

Have you ever wondered why this film feels so cut up? Why the narration feels so out of place? Why there's such self-importance to the titles that the film doesn't share? Well, read Lillian Ross' book Picture about the making of this film to find out! Essentially, Louis B. Mayer hated John Huston, Dore Schary believed in Huston but was unwilling to fight his battles for him (the tragic figure of the book is the film's producer Gottfried Reinhardt who tries desperately to fight Huston's battles in his absence but can't manage it), and Huston bugged out as soon as the going got tough during post-production to make The African Queen. One of the central issues Mayer had with Huston was that Huston was using MGM money to make this grim, arthouse war film without any stars (no, Audie Murphy didn't count, especially not at that point in time), and Huston was off to risk his own money on a star-driven adventure story that was almost guaranteed to make its money back. I really wish Mayer hadn't had the film cut up and we could see the film that William Wyler described as one of the greatest films ever made after an early screening for friends and family, but I completely understand Mayer's concerns. The film test screened poorly (no matter the excuse about the audience), it was well outside the MGM house style (Huston would have probably been more at home at WB during the 30s), and Huston was much more careful with his own money than other people's. That Huston just left the fight over the film he considered his best reflects very poorly on him, to be honest.

Anyway, a youth, Henry (Murphy), is a private in the Union army before a battle in the American Civil War. The regiment has seen no action on the banks of the Rappahannock River, and their lives are little more than drilling constantly while they wait for some kind of order. The waiting has a psychological effect on the men as they constantly wonder how they'll react once the bullets start flying past their heads. Henry's closest friend is Tom (Bill Mauldin) with whom he reacts poorly to Tom's somewhat realistic predictions of how he'll try his best in the upcoming fight, when it eventually comes.

That fight, of course, does come, and Henry flees once the battle gets close. He runs past his commanding officer and into the woods where he gets lost, eventually finding out by eavesdropping that his regiment held the line, and falling in with a line of wounded men.

Now, one of the additions that Mayer demanded of the film to make it more marketable and understandable by audiences is a heavy use of voiceover, largely taken from the source novel by Stephen Crane (the stuff that opens the film about how important the book is definitely doesn't come from Crane himself), and it ends up feeling redundant. Huston was a very good actors' director and everything that the voiceover narration describes we can see on Murphy's face and in his performance. It really is a very good performance, especially considering how much of an amateur Murphy was at the whole acting gig at the time, and then we have James Whitmore as the (uncredited) narrator making the events and subtle emotions on screen blindingly obvious.

It was clear that Huston took the job of adapting The Red Badge of Courage to the screen in part because he wanted to translate the story to a different medium, relying on the cinematic medium's strengths to sell the story without needing to rely on the actual language of the novel to do it. It's an effort at adaptation, not translation, and I really get the sense that the narration was really unnecessary. It's not just the performances but Huston's great cinematic eye that tells this story of cowardice and the heroism that boils up in the same coward.

Filming near his ranch in northern California, Huston wasn't content to film his first film primarily set outdoors since The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in ways that highlighted fuzzy trees in the back of shots of faces. He used his camera to capture a plethora of incredible compositions that take heavy advantage of the foliage, hills, and waters of the land to help tell the story. It's really great to look at and often feels like an artist composing an image rather than a studio director doing a job. That use of composition, from highlighting the smallness of the youth in the face of battle, does more to tell the story of Henry's character cinematically than the voiceover work.

And that the film works as well as it does in this butchered form is really quite remarkable. It's not a masterpiece. If it was at one point, it's been marred enough to the point where it simply is not that anymore, but there's so much craft in the film that the editorial mangling could only harm it so much, as long as they kept the basic bones of the story in place. I do know, from reading Ross's book, that they combined a couple of different battles into one in the edit to streamline and make things more obvious, but the overall effect of the youth's journey from coward to manic berserker is still present.

The combination of images, performance, and basic story come together to make something solidly good and interesting, but the mystery of that original cut will always remain. No one seems to have preserved a copy and, much like Orson Welle's original ending to The Magnificent Ambersons, it's probably lost to time. I'm glad to see the shadow of a potential masterpiece here. It's solidly good, demonstrating some of Huston's greatest technical strengths, but it always does feel like there's a masterpiece hidden just around the corner.

Poor Adaptation of a Classic

[zardoz-13 · 5/10 · 4 March 2015]

"The Red Badge of Courage," Stephen Crane's classic novel about combat during the American Civil War, should have been a memorable movie when you consider the abundance of talent involved in its production. John Huston was a cinematic craftsman who had proved his talent many times over with "The Maltese Falcon," "Across the Pacific," "The Treasure of Sierra Madre," "Key Largo," "The Asphalt Jungle," and his immortal World War II documentaries "San Pietro" and "Let Their Be Light." Audie Murphy had fought in World War II and if anybody knew anything about the rigors as well as the horrors of war, this Medal of Honor recipient should have known. The seasoned cast consists of a number of first-rate character actors, among them Andy Devine, Royal Dano, William Schallert, Robert Easton Burke, Whit Bissell, Arthur Hunnicutt, Tim Durant, and John Dierkes. "Wizard of Oz" lenser Harold Rossen's cinematography is outstanding, especially the close-ups of the Union troops and the shots of sunlight streaming through trees. Clocking in a 69 meager minutes, "The Red Badge of Courage" lacks any sense of substance. Granted, this is a simple tale told from the ankles up of the soldiers in the ranks as they march into combat. You won't find any expository scenes of generals and their adjutants hunched over tables in lantern lit tents discussing strategy. Nevertheless, this movie is just plain lacking. You don't experience the horrors of war, and the battle scenes seem tame. Some of the dialogue is amusing, but Huston seems to have made a movie with battle scenes but no plot. Basically, what we have here is a routine Civil War movie. Stephen Crane painted his novel with colorful prose that doesn't translate well as a black & white film. Such as shame.

Deserves more credit

[communic-1 · 29 May 2004]

Deserves more credit than it currently receives. The directing alone is awesome, with the number of unique and different shots that Huston came up with really takes this Pic away from the norm.

Some of the realism in the portrayals that would be lost on some American viewers include the scene where the General talks to the troops before the battle, asking them what they are going to eat for dinner. He goes from group to group asking the same questions - why? Remember (duh), no radios, no public address system. Commanders had to spread their message by repeating it over and over - inspiring a different group each time.

A very enjoyable 69 minutes. Sad that the studio had to meddle with the original cut (what else is new?).

F

Smoke and confusion...

[TevildoVardoMeiota · 6/10 · 7 May 2004]

...not the least of which results from the studio cutting a critical 20 minutes from the movie. What remains is a good depiction of the confusion of the troops, the smoke from black powder rifles enveloping the battlefield, being able to hear the rebel yell long before they become visible. Audie Murphy is very good as the Youth, and he wrestles with his sense of duty set against his fear of "skedadlin'". But there are clear disjoints in the movie, and noticeable plot exposition missing from the book. And the dialog... what happened to the "fiendish blasphemy of the veteran troops"? John Huston may have made a great civil war movie, who knows? What's left is good. But I don't think it compares favorably, in its present state, to a film made twenty years earlier (All Quiet on the Western Front, different war, I know), which examined many of the same issues and more.

This was one of the first civil war movies I saw as a kid, and I wanted to like it more when I watched it last night. But in between came my second divorce, when I read a dozen civil war books, including both the trilogies of Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote. It just seemed appropriate to my personal experience at the time. Clearly, though, today's depictions of battle field scenes (the attack on the sunken road at Antietam Creek in Glory), are much more realistic in terms of the horrible damage inflicted on a human body by fifty caliber lead shot and slow muzzle velocity, solid cannon shot and grape. I suppose that one of the things that detracted from my enjoyment of the film as an adult was the fact that the battle was "generic", there was no Army of the Rappahanock or General Whitesides. While I realize that the intended function of making it a fictitious or unnamed battle may be to emphasize the allegorical principles, it took me out of the film in spots.

Well worth watching though it should have been longer

[rooster_davis · 9/10 · 29 February 2008]

Those who think Audie Murphy was not a very good actor haven't seen him in this film. Perhaps some of his later Western films didn't give him as much to work with, but in Red Badge of Courage he shines. Just a few of many great scenes which come to mind: early in the film when he hears that his group will finally be going into action, he writes a letter to his pa 'in case you are told that I have fallen', and you can see the remains of tears drying on his face; later on when his friend Jim dies after the first real battle, in Murphy's reaction you can see how wrenching it is for him to realize the human cost of war. Bill Mauldin, the famous cartoonist, plays the role of Murphy's closest friend in his fighting group, and does a superb job as well. Both Murphy and Mauldin seem perfectly suited to the age of their characters. While they were not originally actors by trade and had little if any acting experience, their performances in this film should shame many of today's 'actors' who draw multi million dollar paychecks and whose 'work' pales in comparison to that of Murphy and Mauldin in this film.

My only real disappointment was that due to massive editing the film is only 69 minutes long! I figured it was at the midway point when 'the end' came on the screen. Apparently this film became a sort of political football within the studio when it was made, yet I can't understand how anyone could justify cutting it down to this length. I was thoroughly enjoying this film all the way through and was nowhere near ready for it to end. Even so, even if you're not a Civil War buff, this is an excellent film with very engaging performances. It's more about the people than it is the war. Highly recommended.

Great cast gets past directorial, writing flaws

[morrisonhimself · 7/10 · 15 January 2005]

John Huston was one of the most inconsistent of directors.

I think his greatest acclaim resulted more from the quality of the stories than from any talent he might have had. (He almost ruined "Annie" and "Under the Volcano" was utter dreck, mostly because of him.) "The Red Badge of Courage" is flawed by his directing errors, such as the chief character's "wardrobe malfunctions" -- a certain article he is wearing and then not wearing then wearing again in the same sequence.

It is also flawed because the script writers, including Huston, did not update the terribly out-of-date and clumsy Stephen Crane dialog.

Despite the awkward dialog and other directing errors -- one artillery explosion "kills" the soldiers who fall a measurable time after the blast -- the actors are simply superb.

Audie Murphy gave probably his best performance, and he was a much better actor than he gave himself credit for.

Most surprising to me was the appearance of Bill Mauldin. I hadn't even known he did any acting, and I thought he was great. (I've also read his autobiography, detailing his childhood in New Mexico, and I recommend it.) Mauldin was best known for his cartoons. His editorial cartoons were often nasty, frequently irrational, sometimes vicious in personal attacks. Maybe he should have stuck to acting.

His "Willie and Joe" cartoons, though, were funny and poignant and told a necessary tale of the front-line soldiers of World War II. (Two movies were made from this series, "Up Front" in 1951 and "Back at the Front" in 1952.)

In the rest of the cast, mostly uncredited, such as William Schallert, were some major talents who were not necessarily major names. Glenn Strange and Smith Ballew (who had been the musical voice in the John Wayne "Singin' Sandy" movie {This is an added note: Much controversy has swirled about that claim. Ballew has denied it. Now historians lean more to that voice as having belonged to Bob Steele's brother, Bill, another son of the director R. N. Bradbury}) and Dick Curtis and Stan Jolley were just four of the actors who helped make "The Red Badge of Courage" and other Hollywood movies the world standard of entertainment, who provided levels of great acting and characterization that helped make even mediocre movies so much better.

Given credit were two other superlative actors I want to mention and to praise: Royal Dano and Arthur Hunnicutt. Any movie listing either of them is one worth watching, if only to see them.

My understanding is the original of this movie ran almost twice as long as the extant version, and that the cut footage is nowhere to be found. I don't know that it would make the movie any better, but it would be certainly interesting, especially to movie historians.

Finally, let me add a note of praise for everyone involved in one scene of the big attack, where The Youth, carrying the Union flag, approaches the Confederate line carrying his battle flag. I have witnessed few movie scenes as affecting. Touching. A mark of genius. Even John Huston deserves a bow for that one powerful, moving scene.

An ironic casting choice, that's for sure!

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 13 September 2015]

"The Red Badge of Courage" is about a simple Union soldier who loses his nerve in battle during the Civil War. Interestingly, the film stars Audie Murphy--the most decorated American soldier during World War II! Seeing him struggle with nerves and bravery is ironic!

As for the movie, it's an ultra-realistic view of war. Unlike the usually jingoistic WWII era films, this one centers not on patriotism but cowardice--and many of the men in this film ar4e ready to run when the battle begins. One soldier in particular (Murphy) doubts his courage and does initially run from battle. However, through the course of the film he manages to not only hide his actions from his fellow soldiers but summon up courage after all--and what a soldier he becomes!

The film is much more realistic than most from this time period. It also helps that the film is filled with a wonderful cast of supporting characters--folks whose names you may not remember but whose faces you will. All in all, one of the better Audie Murphy films and my only quibble is the unnecessary narration that MGM added to the film against the director's wishes. It didn't help and just felt out of place...though I often hate narration in films.

Ahead of Its Time

[thurberdrawing · 9/10 · 2 July 2006]

I found this riveting study in battlefield psychology interesting on several levels. It hews closely to the novel. Indeed, the narrator claims this at the beginning of the movie. Maybe Huston wanted the studio brass to take note that they were dealing with a classic which many in the audience would have read. No movie, before or since, reproduces the language of the Civil War era as faithfully as this one. (Ken Burns's great documentary, of course, contains direct quotations from letter and diaries, and is thus, perhaps, the single best cinematic work on the Civil War, but as a cinematic drama of the Civil War, THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE is unmatched.) The way this movie is shot makes me think of movies made twenty years later. It is indeed black and white, but in the hand-held look of it, it has more in common, visually, with, say, WISE BLOOD than TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE. It's not merely that the camera roves, it is that the sun is allowed to shine into the lens often and that the close-ups seem to be timed to highlight the vulnerability of the characters. It does not look as if Huston is surprising his actors (a la Kazan), but he has gotten them to relax, somehow. This a naturalistic movie. Hollywood wasn't making naturalistic movies in 1951. But John Huston, of course, trumps Hollywood. The studio hacked up the movie while Huston was in Africa filming THE African QUEEN. But enough of Huston's stamp remains. (Somewhere on the message board for the present site, Huston is quoted, many years after the movie, saying that the cuts were not as drastic as film-buffs think.) THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE, like many of Huston's movies, manages to convey the tone of the novel on which it is based. (THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, THE DEAD, THE African QUEEN and THE MALTESE FALCON are among the greatest movies of all time, and Huston based each one on a book or a short story.) Maybe the cut footage will show up in somebody's vault and be released some day. But, for now, we have a taut, powerful war movie, evocative of the era on which it is based, faithful to its source, and displaying a sensibility which wouldn't come into vogue until two decades later.

Heartwrenching - Audie Murphy

[antimatter33 · 9/10 · 25 May 2020]

Not much to add to the reviews but this - there is an authenticity in Audie Murphy (Henry Fleming, "The Youth") which comes from real life, and we see in his performance what must surely be a confession of his own experience of battle as a member of the 3rd Infantry Division during World War 2 - and that gives pause. Murphy ended the war as the most decorated soldier in American history. But he must surely have started it in fear and trepidation, just as The Youth did. And he must have overcome that fear when seeing his own friends die and be maimed brought out of his physically unimposing self an animal rage to get back at the enemy. And although this is a fine thing to have on the battlefield, it leaves lasting scars in life. Murphy never quite got over his post-traumatic stress of having endured years of continuous close battle in some of the war's worst theaters - the slugging matches against the entrenched German defenders in Italy, and the war of attrition in Southern France fought mostly by conscripts with no experience of war. The scars of that experience are chiseled in Murphy's body language and facial expressions. This is a performance straight from life, and whatever else may be said about the film, Murphy's performance puts it in the first rank of military films. A wonderful effort from Huston, despite its flaws. Also to be mentioned - Bill Mauldin, who himself was all too familiar with the horrors of war, which he distilled into his "Willie and Joe" cartoons.

The Universal GI

[fleming-fleming54 · 5/10 · 14 April 2019]

The casting of war hero Audie Murphy, and cartoonist Bill Mauldin clearly shows the outlook of the creators of this film., It must have seemed fitting to pay tribute to the servicemen of America's earlier wars, but the Civil War wasn't WWII. This production lies somewhere between a Western, and a generic war film: little of it is distinctively Crane, or 19th century. The film was obviously shot in California, and the Union kepis resemble tourist souvenirs (same wrong insignia). I can understand viewers having a sentimental attachment to this movie, but this deserves no badge.

A really good movie and a really good performance

[rik_tx · 14 June 2003]

This is really a very fine film and after seeing it on has to wonder why Audie Murphy never had more substantial roles in his career, as he was quite good in this film. As was mentioned in a previous post he was playing himself in the movie To Hell and Back and was essentially a B-Western actor the remainder of his career. This films shows that he was much more talented than one would ever know from watching the bulk of his films.

All-time best war scene

[alkuhl · 10/10 · 15 June 2002]

Not to give the story away, but near the end of the movie Audie Murphy is holding two flags; that is the scene, but all else that led up to it and what is going on at the time will make you cry. It can't be beat. And neither can this movie.

Fresh and Poetic War Film; One of the Greatest Ever Made

[JamesHitchcock · 9/10 · 13 January 2006]

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and "The Red Badge of Courage" treats this same theme, the fear of fear. The hero is Henry Fleming, a young soldier serving with the Union army during the American Civil War. The early part of the film deals with his thoughts and emotions as he prepares to go into battle for the first time. What obsesses Henry is not so much the fear that he will be killed or injured- indeed, he envies the wounded who bear the "red badge of courage" in the shape of their wounds- but rather the fear that he will disgrace himself by cowardice in action. When his regiment come to grips with the Confederates, Henry does run away in the confusion of battle, but then redeems himself. The suggestion is that bravery and cowardice are two sides of the same coin, that the man who has never known fear is less brave than the man who knows fear and overcomes it and that Henry's shame at running away actually helps to make him a better soldier.

In her entertaining, if self-serving, autobiography "Million Dollar Mermaid", Esther Williams refers to "The Red Badge of Courage" as a "grim little message film". Whatever her talents as a swimmer, Esther was clearly no Pauline Kael, because this is one of the least accurate pieces of film criticism I have ever heard. (She seems to have disliked it partly because she loathed Dore Schary, the studio executive responsible for it, and partly because it symbolised MGM's tendency to move away from the sort of light entertainment in which she excelled towards films with a more serious purpose). She did, however, get one word right: "little". The film with which we are familiar is only 69 minutes long; the director John Huston wanted to make a longer film, but he was overruled by the studio and about twenty minutes of his version were eventually cut.

We cannot know what Huston's director's cut might have looked like, but the film we actually have is a very fine one. Contrary to what Williams might have thought, it is not a "message" film at all. Most war films either favour one side against the other or preach a pacifist, anti-war moral. "The Red Badge of Courage", however, does not make propaganda for any cause, including the pacifist one. Huston ignores both the political causes of the war and the grand strategy of the generals to present us with the psychology of the ordinary fighting man; I would agree with the reviewer who said that, although the film deals with a young man fighting for the Union armies, it could equally well have been made about a Confederate soldier. (Indeed, it could have been made about a soldier on either side of any war in history).

Williams's other criticism, that the film is "grim", seems equally inappropriate, especially as Halliwell's Film Guide praises it as "fresh" and "poetic". These are perhaps unusual adjectives to use about a war film, but they are ones that I would heartily endorse. This is partly due to the script, which preserves much of Stephen Crane's elevated, poetic language, and partly to the starkly beautiful black-and-white cinematography. Anyone familiar with the work of Ansel Adams will appreciate that black-and-white photography can be a highly effective way of conveying the splendour of the natural world, and John Huston achieves similar effects in this film. The battle scenes take place on a beautiful September day in lush rural woods and meadows. The song of the birds and shots of the sun shining through the trees are used to contrast the beauties of nature with the violence and confusion of war. Every shot is carefully composed to give the effect of a photograph of the Civil War era. The combat scenes are very well done; particularly memorable is the scene near the end where Henry, carrying the Union flag into battle, captures a Confederate standard from an enemy soldier.

Audie Murphy was, of course, a much-decorated hero of World War II. In 1951 he would have been twenty-seven, rather older than the character he portrays, but his youthful looks made him ideal for the part. He was doubtless able to draw on his real-life experiences to play the role; the result is a superb piece acting which brings out the various sides of Henry's character and his frequent mood-swings between nervousness and eagerness, terror and desperate courage. The supporting cast, playing Henry's comrades, are also very good.

John Huston directed many great films (as well as some lesser ones), but "The Red Badge of Courage" is one of the better ones, able to stand comparison with the likes of "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", "The African Queen" and "Moby Dick". It can also stand comparison with other great Civil War films, such as "Gone with the Wind", "Shenandoah", "Glory" and the recent "Cold Mountain". Indeed, in my view, despite its modest length, it is the best Civil War film I have seen and one of the greatest war films ever made. 9/10