The Caine Mutiny: A New Reason to Appreciate A Classic
While social media was debating movies with the name “mutiny” in them this morning, seems like a good time to discuss a film that really is one of my all time favorites and the reasons why. Among them, one of the great, all-time walk off one-liners of “If you want to do anything about it, I’ll be outside…I’m a lot drunker than you, so it’ll be a fair fight,” a heavyweight cast at their very best, and some timeless subject matter for a then-contemporary war movie.
The Caine Mutiny came out in 1954, so if you are one of those folks scrupulous about spoiler warnings over a 66 year old film, then consider yourself thusly warned.
The film centers on the fictional US Navy minesweeper USS Caine during World War 2, with Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson, Robert Francis, and Fred MacMurray leading a stellar cast as the crew. The reader’s digest version is Lt Maryk (Johnson) and Ensign Keith (Francis) are newly assigned to the Caine, an overworked and undermanned minesweeper under the command of demanding veteran Lieutenant Commander De Vriess. De Vriess is played by Tom Tully, who got an Academy Awards nomination for best supporting actor for his soliloquy on how the Caine, barely functional after 18 months of unrelenting combat, isn’t the “real” Navy they might have hoped for, but he hopes Maryk is good enough for the Caine anyway, and gives his new officers some advice. It’s cut down from the film — one of the many concessions the Navy needed for cooperation — and the shortened line is given to Keefer in the movie, but the novel had the war weary captain set the scene this way.
The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you are not an idiot, but find yourself in the Navy, you can only operate well by pretending to be one. All the shortcuts and economies and common-sense changes that your native intelligence suggests to you are mistakes. Learn to quash them.
De Vriess is reassigned and replaced by Bogart’s Lieutenant Commander Queeg, and that’s when the trouble begins. Keefer especially resents Queeg, if not the Navy itself, for trying to install discipline and order. Unlike newbie Keith and reservists called up like Maryk and Keefer, Queeg is a career Naval officer. The film slowly reveals that, whereas long service had hardened De Vriess, it has taken a toll on Queeg, who reverts to fidgeting with a pair of metal stress relief balls to try and control his anxiety. As Queeg’s behavior and performance become more questionable over a series of events — including the now legendary strawberry investigation — Keefer is the ear worm trying to convince Maryk their captain is unfit and insane. Not that Queeg does much to help himself with his increasingly disillusioned crew, and even Maryk privately starts annotating their Commanding Officer’s peculiarities. Queeg himself knows all this, and at one point awkwardly, and unsuccessfully, asks his ward room for help, which they silently refuse.
The situation comes to a head during a typhoon when, with the damaged ship in danger of floundering in the storm, Maryk finally gives in to his suspicions and relieves a seemingly frozen and indecisive Queeg. Riding out the remainder of the storm under the charge of Maryk, the Caine limps back to port for the court-martial of her officers, now accused of mutiny. Defending the Caine officers is Barney Greenwald, played brilliantly by Jose Ferrer, a naval aviator who had been a lawyer in civilian life on shore duty while recovering from injuries, and the only person who would take the case. The courtroom drama is well done, but the summation of what happened, in a sledgehammer of a delivery by Ferrer of the drunken Greenwald dropping truth bombs on his charges after they were exonerated, explains it much better:
The film ends with Keith reassigned to a new destroyer, and its captain — the returning De Vriess — telling him to take them out.
That’s what happens in this excellent film. Part of the greatness is actors like the legendary Bogart, Johnson in his breakout role, and soon-to-be Disney movie dad archetype McMurray playing against type. The Navy fully supporting the film, after much haggling, lends much realism for the time, loaning the film two surplus ships to play the Caine and lending plenty of background in material and men. The legal drama is excellently done, the acting is as good as you’d expect from such luminaries, and the whole thing clips along. It is a classic film in every respect of the term. It was nominated for seven categories, including best picture, at the 27th Academy Awards, losing out to some flick called On The Waterfront.
The Caine Mutiny tells what the officers of the ship did. But it isn’t what the movie, or the novel it came from, is about.
It’s about morals, ethics, and authority under pressure.
These are themes throughout human history, covered in literature and film as long as we have had both mediums. The system is there for a reason, but at what point do you question the system, and when must you overthrow the system? Who is most right when everyone is at least partially wrong? What is the wrong thing to do when picking between the lesser of evils?
Timeless themes and questions, because humans will always need to know the answers to these unanswerable questions.
The genius of the story and of the film, brought out by the performances, is while everything the “mutineers” accused Queeg of was valid, it was far more complicated. He was mentally unwell, he had no business being in command of a ship especially in wartime, and he clearly was outside the mandate of his mission and his men. The crux of it, as Ferrer threw at them like Greenwald’s drink in Keffer’s face, was it didn’t happen in vacuum. They made decisions, both individually and as a group, that brought about a result their actions predestined to happen. Could Queeg have succeeded, or at least done better, had the crew supported him instead of undermined the already shaky captain? What other choice could Maryk have made with a captain so detached from reality he was committing court-martial offenses himself? When the officers board the flagship and realize the “real Navy” was a different world than their own aboard the Caine, should it have swayed them more than it did, or was the die cast at that point? At what point is someone too far gone to help?
Philosophy teachers can have a field day with those questions and the film. The beauty of it is there are no clear answers to some of those sticky questions, but both in the film and in real life, we often have to make snap calls with long term effects. It seems timely right now, as so many folks are finding their lives upended, dealing with crisis with questionable leadership is a vital lesson to consider. At the moment we are still in the typhoon, but there are plenty, from our leaders to internet randos, who will lose their minds, freeze up, or demand to take over and do a better job of it. We all go into the storm with our priors, but when things look bleak, character is revealed.
Crisis does that, stripping away veneer and showing what folks are truly made of. After this storm passes and we limp into port to regroup, there will be quite the trial about what transpired, but we should learn from the Caine Mutiny that the storm and the events in it were set in motion long before. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and there are plenty of reasons things happen before, during, and after crisis.
When it’s all said and done, let us hope we have some Greenwalds who do what needs to be done, even if it makes them sick about it, but never sway from telling the truth about why it was necessary in the first place. We can survive incompetent leaders, bad systems, faulty decisions, pandemics, economic crises, and all the rest. Like the best line in both the novel and the movie, uttered in the latter by McMurray playing Keefer, our system of government is like a Navy ship insofar as it is “a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots.”
We have enough idiots, many of them in positions of power. We can’t control a lot of that.
But we can at least tell the truth, do what is necessary, and then try to live with it afterwards, despite them.
If you want to do anything about that, I’ll be in the comments. But I’ve been sober for sixteen years next week, so it won’t be a fair fight.
I’ve seen it once, long ago, though on the big screen at a rep house. Remember rep houses? It made a big impression.
There is a similar plotline in Band of Brothers where David Schwimmer’s character, Herbert Sobel, did a good job (if not a popular one) training the company stateside, but then loses their confidence as he struggles with hesitation and anxiety during field exercises in England, in preparation for their eventual D-Day drop.
The company’s sergeants, to a man, write a letter to the Colonel, expressing their lack of confidence in him. In parallel, Sobel tries to charge Lt. Winter (played by Damian Lewis) with a minor infraction and keep him on base all weekend. The charge is fabricated, and Winters decides to challenge it, and forces a court martial.
The upshot is that the Colonel calls in all the sergeants, dresses them down for their lack of discipline and order, busts them all down a rank, and dismisses them. He then finds a new job for Sobel, and brings in a new commander for Easy Company. Winters clears his court martial easily.
Unlike the Caine Mutiny, this really happened. I’m not confident that it happened exactly as depicted, but Sobel, Winters, and so on were real people who had something like this happen during WWII. It’s also where I first heard the phrase “we salute the uniform, not the man”.Report
I did read the book, although I don’t remember the specifics of that incident. That said, the book is pretty well researched. I think we can trust its accuracy, as much as we can trust any historical writing. Anyway, you can go check the book if you’re curious as to how it played out.Report
You do know that Fred MacMurray was the lover in Double Indemnity as a young man, right?
Relatedly Trump went on a twitter rant regarding Mutiny on the Bounty: https://slate.com/culture/2020/04/mutiny-on-the-bounty-trump-tweet-explained.htmlReport
I was under the impression that was exactly why Andrew thought of this.Report
MacMurray made his bones playing bad guys, like his character in Double Indemnity, so he wasn’t cast against type in Caine. His later career as a Disney dad was the switch.Report
Fair enough. Generational perspective then, since I grew up with him as the Disney dad the early stuff seems so different.Report
When I was growing up, he was the father in My Three Sons and the classic Disney Dad. But I learned a thing or two later.Report
Also based on the wiki photo from the 1930s, he was quite the looker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_MacMurrayReport
The book was great too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caine_Mutiny
Its structure is similar to To Kill a Mockingbird’s. Both contain a trial which feel like the main story, but have a long stretch after the trial ends that resolves a character’s arc.Report
The book is a bit subtler. The scene Greenwald refers to, where the captain explicitly asks for his officers’ help, was new to the film. And Keefer has a legitimate reason to dislike Queeg; when the Caine docks next to Keefer’s brother Roland’s ship for a night, Queeg won’t let Keefer off OOD duty for a visit, mostly out of petty malice. Not long afterward, Roland is killed in a kamikaze attack.
In other words, Queeq isn’t just a sick man who needs help; he’s am ill-intentioned tyrant. Whether that weakens Andrew’s point or strengthens it, I’ll leave up to the reader.Report
Those reasons, and others, is why I stuck to the movie version here because Queeg is treat really differently in the film, perhaps to fit Bogarts portrayal but also from what I read the Navy wanted more nuance for their own sakes. Report
I forget whether I read the book first, or saw the movie first, but I read/watched both for the first time within the last year or so.
I like the book better (and you seem to, too, if I read you right). But….both the book and the movie seem to me too officer-class-centric. Maybe “too” is the wrong word. I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to write about that class (or any class). And Wouk does a really good job situating that class-background. But I had a hard time identifying with the officer-class mentality.
(Wouk seems to have a similar focus in Winds of War, which I’ve partially read the first half of.)Report
It seems to be a case of writing what he knew; he was a junior officer on destroyer minesweepers during WWII.
Something I found interesting is that in both Wouk novels I’ve read, the creative/intellectual character is the villain. Here, Thomas Keefer the writer, in Marjorie Morningstar, Noel Airman the composer/playwright. (“Airman” is a play on the Yiddish word “luftmensch”, someone with his head in the clouds and unconcerned with mundane matters like earning a living.)Report
Mike Schilling, I’m not sure if you’re still following this thread, but I just returned to it. That’s an interesting observation, about the “intellectual character.” I’m working my way through Winds of War/War and Remembrance*, and the characterization of the Leslie Slote character seems on par with what you’re saying. However, he does (so far) have redeeming characteristics. (I’m projecting a bit. I saw the made-for-tv series and assume he makes the same choices in the novels, but I’m not at that point yet.)
*He’s a great writer and it’s a great read, but I’m a slow reader. I can say Wouk’s an awesome writer.Report
This is quite a thought-provoking analysis, Andrew. Thanks for writing it.
I fear you’re right that crises, etc., do show our character.Report
Thanks for reading. You latest stuff has been great keep them coming Report
I’d forgotten how that plays out…
Off topic, but watching the clip I was reminded that I knew men like that, men who had lived fought in WW2 and I knew them when they were in their prime… in their 40’s and 50’s. The past really is a different place.Report
Stands in contrast to CAPT Crozier from the recent USS Teddy Roosevelt incident.
The Navy doesn’t mind their leaders being decisive (capricious) and authoritarian (tyrannical), but those traits are generally in the eye of the beholder.
The movie exposed the caste system, officers versus enlisted, is not the only class distinction aboard ship or in the Navy writ large. Queeg (Bogard), despite the authority inherent in his rank and command of the ship, was up against the ship’s wardroom staffed by officers from the upper crust of society or multi-generational Navy offspring. Even in today’s Navy, this officer species marches to their own tune fully cognizant their promotion by Navy Personnel Command is not so dependent on a CO’s evaluation of their performance. They had ambitions and agendas separate from Queegs and in the movie well aware of his social status.
Whatever truth or accuracy to the officer wardroom’s assessment of their commanding officer’s competency, the Navy determined those men, those officers were required to carry out their orders and duties correctly. None of their duties permits undermining the commanding officer or the function of the ship.
In fact from a psychological perspective, The Caine Mutiny might damn well be a better portrayal of gaslighting and gangstalking than 1944s “Gaslight” starring Ingrid BergmanReport
One of my favorite movies ever. I was literally just thinking about it the night before you posted this!Report
Watched this for the first time because of this post (which I didn’t read until after I’d watched the move). That post-trial scene was everything I’d hoped for. I might disagree with Greenwald’s assertion that Queeg would have been better had his staff supported him–he may have been a combat veteran and a successful commander in the past, but past performance yadda yadda yadda. And I didn’t have time to be offened about the enlisted being part of the backdrop because I was so busy marveling at how incredible this movie was.
Anyway, thanks for bringing this movie to my attention, Andrew.Report
So glad you enjoyed it.
The lack of enlisted is something I might touch on as it’s pervasive, the supporting cast not even getting to be supporting cast. a notable modern example in my home is folks love those medical shows, where the main character doctors do all the imaging (techs do it in real life most of the time) and every single surgery known to man regardless of specialty.
Of note, Lee Marvin as meatball in Caine is an amazing small role for him, and he was basically the technical advisor on the film as well.Report
A couple of things. 1) In neither the novel nor the film is Maryk a newcomer to the Caine. 2) The speech about the Navy being “a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots” is spoken by Keefer, not DeVriess, in both the novel and the movie. 3) The term is “foundering,” not floundering. 4) Thank you for a thought-provoking essay!Report