I went into the film version of "Pearl Harbor" very skeptically. You know how Hollywood can get these historical stories wrong. But not this time. The original was a disaster, and so is the movie.
The biggest surprise: Kevin Costner wasn't in it.
It was three hours and three minutes long, which may have been part of the problem. Sixty years ago, the entire live battle of Pearl Harbor took two hours and 20 minutes, start to finish. The Japanese came, dropped their bombs, and headed for Manila for more of the same, leaving behind 2,403 dead, another 1,178 wounded, 18 ships sunk or disabled and 77 aircraft destroyed.
I thought the movie was going to be mostly about that, not about two boyhood friends from Tennessee who both get the girl and then have to spend considerable time sorting that out.
Imagine a movie that's a cross between "Bridge Over the River Kwai" and "General Hospital."
"Titanic," of course, got this blockbuster cheesy-love-story-set-in-a-disaster genre kick-started, but "Titanic" worked, whereas "Pearl Harbor," if I'm right, won't have them standing in lines around the world.
One thing "Titanic" had that "Pearl Harbor" doesn't is real villains. "Pearl Harbor" doesn't even make the Japanese look like bad guys. From watching the movie, you get the impression the Japanese had no choice but to attack us Americans because Roosevelt was blocking their oil. Conveniently left out is the part about them wanting to annex China, Korea, the Philippines and the rest of the Far East.
A possible reason for this is because Disney, the film's producer, reportedly has plans to aggressively distribute "Pearl Harbor" throughout Japan. At that, they have said they will edit out some of the derogatory words so as not to offend the Japanese. For instance, the line that goes "A few less dirty Japs" in the U.S. version will be reduced to "a few less Japs." Yeah, that ought to do it. But what about Roosevelt's speech?
Exactly how do you translate "unprovoked attack" and "day that will live in infamy" into Japanese and make it sound OK?
My reaction: They're going to show "Pearl Harbor" in Japan!?!
It would be interesting to know what World War II veterans think of the movie. I wanted to ask one after I sat through "Pearl Harbor" this past Saturday afternoon, but I couldn't find one. About the oldest person I could find was me, and I was still seven years from existence when the real Pearl Harbor occurred Dec. 7, 1941.
It would be particularly interesting to know what World War II veterans who were at Pearl Harbor think of the movie.
Was the movie at all true to life? Did they ever have anyone like Ben Affleck in their outfit? Did they ever run into a nurse who looked like Kate Beckinsale?
Instead of fictitious Pearl Harbor heroes, would they have preferred more stories based on actual occurrences, such as the cook-turned-hero role played by Cuba Gooding Jr.?
Or would they just as soon Hollywood have left the topic alone entirely — like many of them have been trying to do the past 60 years?
If you're a veteran and you sat through the whole thing and you've read this column this far, drop me a line. I'd like to hear from a person who has true staying power.
Lee Benson's column runs Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Please send e-mail to benson@desnews.com and faxes to 801-237-2527.