Tunes of Glory

Rough-necked and uneducated Jock Sinclair (Alec Guinness) has fought his way through the ranks, and despite the love of hard drink and the odd highland fling, has proved himself in the very heat of battle. So much so that he has been made Acting Colonel of an (unnamed) Scottish regiment. Sadly, for him, his informal barracks is going to be reformed under the auspices of the public school via Sandhurst graduate Lt. Col. Basil Barrow (John Mills) who believes in doing all things by-the-book. This sets the scene for a post WW2 power battle under a grey Scottish winter sky. When writing a review of any excellent film - such as this - you are frightened you are going to put people off by its limits. However this is a classic example of less really being more. The claustrophobic atmosphere and the sense that armies without wars are prone to be heavy with politics. Not unlike like prisons: To many people in the same space with too much time on their hands. They drive men mad and extend the worst in the human character. Guinness and Mills are fantastic actors. Oscar winners both and more. They could read the phone book and captivate an audience. For the record they had both seen war service, although Mills baby face and short stature had made him the butt of many jokes (many he was happy to re-tell). Did this help form his character? The guy who was laughed at and therefore worked even harder to enforce discipline or gain respect. This is, naturally, speculation. I have no the knowledge of author (of book and film) but just by watching you know he has seen it for real. The little details that only the insider would know. The story would just as well be served as a theatre piece and it employs some its stock devices. The accidental narrator being the more obvious. Maybe this was to save money, but it would not have helped the picture to see - say - the incident that Mills had to endure from the Japanese. Eyewitness testimony from the filming says that Guinness thought he would look silly in a kilt and used fake tanner on his pale legs. He is not the biggest of men and has to stick out his chest and stand on tiptoe to be imposing, but you do believe him. What an actor he was. An actor's actor. Like Peter Sellars, totally bland out of character (and not always very nice as he writes in his various autobiographies) but always mesmeric on screen. Mills - on the other hand - could never work as a bad guy. The perfect uncle figure who you would want to confide in. (I am maybe giving the support cast short-shrift - but most British films of the time had quality character actors. No exception here. Amazing to see Susannah York in her first role.) Alfred Hitchcock himself said Tunes of Glory was his own personal favourite film. It is not quite mine, but a great demonstration of how brilliant film can be when top class actors get their teeth in to a wonderful script. The end is pure Shakespeare. Don't watch it once, watch it twice...

I think all the other reviewers have said just about everything regarding Tunes of Glory. Probably having the author of the novel the film is based on write the screenplay insured conveying just what the author intended about men in crisis. Alec Guinness and John Mills never did anything better, including the films each won Oscars for. But the thing that most impressed me is the ensemble cast. Every role no matter how small is meticulously cast and the actors give well rounded performances. It is a lot like the military service films that John Ford did in America. In fact there's more than a passing resemblance to Fort Apache in the rivalry between Guinness and Mills here and John Wayne and Henry Fonda in Fort Apache. The comedy involving the enlisted men is pure Ford. An absolute classic.

Alec Guinness is an amazingly under-appreciated actor. While most remembered for his Obi-Wan character, this was one of his least interesting or demanding roles. Few today realize the depth and range of his characterizations as well as the realism that he infused his characters with in his previous films. He was one of the finest British actors and this film is yet another example of his skills. Guinness plays an angry and blustering Scottish officer who may also be an alcoholic (he at least is a problem drinker and shows many signs of alcoholism). The film begins with this popular officer throwing a farewell party, of sorts, with the men in his command. It seems that Guinness was given temporary command but a replacement (John Mills) is due to arrive shortly--dashing Guinness' hopes for this position becoming permanent. Because Guinness' character is so very flawed and petty, he does much to try to undermine the new C.O.. In particular, Mills is a "by the book" sort of officer and Guinness ignores changes Mills orders--and by example, derision and a lack of respect for Mills spreads through the ranks. Instead of behaving like officers and gentlemen, the men behave like this is some sort of popularity contest and they show contempt for their new leader. None of this is helped by Guinness' drinking, as it gets him in trouble and creates serious problems for the regiment. While Mills, as usual, does a great job in the film playing a man who is suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, the film is definitely Guinness'. His boorish character is a great example of him once again immersing himself into a character and the way he responds to the tragedy near the end of the film gives the character great depth and a bit of sympathy--something you needed to make this a stand-out film. The bottom line is that this film is extremely well-crafted. The acting is universally excellent, the script tense and well-written and the film is great unless you are the type of person who demands lots of action. While a film about the military, this is no action film. Wonderful.

If it were a matter of just the acting alone, what else could Mills and Guinness receive but a 10? Both of them turn in performances not a whit less than stunning. It's funny, but one of the first, disturbing things that struck me about the film was the error in having postwar British Army troops in Battle Dress, cheap for costuming, but discarded long before the end of the war itself, and completely vanished in peacetime. Perhaps that's emblematic at how the movie gropes earnestly for the military soul, but misses its mark in the final, most important clinch. Soldiers are NOT as fragile as both Mills and Guinness's character are shown to be, hence my note about 'recriminations.' I could believe that Mills's colonel had been damaged by torture and strain during the war, and that, in the end, broke him. He made some positively dreadful mistakes in the command of his regiment, mistakes that made this lifetime student of the art and science of command positively CRINGE. The man had no business being in command of a battalion, only family sentiment could have allowed him to be given a post in which he failed himself and his command so miserably. He is shown to have collapsed, failed, and ultimately 'laid violent hands upon himself' because of the ruthless character of Guinness's character, his antagonist. All right, the cruder, rougher, 'midlands' Scot is ruthless, crude, and elemental. The obvious solution to the problem he posed was transfer, or, wiser, for Mills's character to command the battalion THROUGH him, harnessing the wind to draw the ship. All right, the damaged Mill fails to control the elements. It does not, however, make sense that the wind itself would disintegrate after Mills's character takes what any active soldier--a man who'd seen combat, and triumphed--would have considered the coward's way out. If 'Jock' was so callous as to drive Burroughs to suicide, Jock would not have disintegrated in the aftermath, as Guinness is shown in an overlong scene doing. It did not convince. I would have ended the film when Guinness's character makes calm arrangements for the disposal of Mills's body. I think the date of the film is the answer. In 1960, despite the best efforts of what remained of the British Armed forces, the Empire was in the later stages of headlong disintegration. Obviously, someone had to blame, and since the thin red line had broken, it had to be the fault of frail, neurotic men--such as Guiness and Mills portray. I would say the reason for the loss of the Empire can be found in other regions. The movie IS an excellent study in command, I would recommend that officers in training view both 'Tunes of Glory' and 'The Caine Mutiny.' But both are fiction. One note--the side-story romance of 'Jock's' daughter with an enlisted piper must needs be remembered to explain why Jock committed a very-nearly unforgivable breach of military etiquette. A Sandhurst graduate would never have thought of striking an enlisted man. A 'mustang' such as Jock had BEEN an enlisted man, and the barriers would not have been in place as strongly. Jock paid his daughter's suitor the complement of decking him. Still, it bears repetition: Men who have bathed in blood do not disintegrate at the sight of a corpse in a washroom.

You will never know whether you should love or hate the two lead male actors this this movie. Just when you find yourself hating the Guiness character, you will be pulled in the opposite direction, and find yourself feeling sad for him. Same for everyone really in this story which is what makes it so engaging. The rich and privileged John Mills is easy to hate as he didn't have to work hard to get where he is. But that very stigma is what hurts him, as he is never really given a chance to be seen as anything more than a privileged fool, so then you pity him. Guiness plays a character who worked very hard for everything he has, and is to be admired until you realize he doesn't give any room for kindness, or compassion, and then you pity him too, but for different reasons. I saw this movie at 3:00 am on a work night, and couldn't move from the screen, despite my early day at work. I was pulled into this story that seemed too familar to me as we are all guilty of either judgement. Brilliant.

The central character in this film is not so much the character played by Alec Guiness but the character played by John Mills. Col Barrow has been a prisoner of war. While a prisoner, the only thing that kept him going was The Regiment. He has idealised the regiment, and when he is finally made Colonel-in-chief, he is finally coming home. But what does he find? Lax discipline, a whisky culture, wild dancing. He sets about doing something about it. But, despite his rank, the status quo gets the better of him, and he ends up shooting himself. Like the outsider, Barrow, sees things in the regiment that those in the regiment do not, so the Scot in exile sees things about Scotland that those who live there do not. He sees people dancing and hooting to Scotland the Brave, something that a German or an American would never do while Deutschlandlied or The Star Spangled Banner plays. He sees Harry Lauder or Rab C Nesbitt, popular in Scotland, but abroad ruining Scottish dignity. He might return to Scotland and try to do something about it, but is spat out by Scotland as Col Barrow is spat out by the Regiment. You see, Col Basil Barrow does not have a Scottish name. He does not have a Scottish accent. He has an aversion to the national drink. And yet he is the only true Scotsman. And that is the thread that runs through the entire film. Beautifully written, beautifully acted. A British, nay, a Scottish classic.

Such a fitting picture was Tunes of Glory, that Sir Alec Guinness himself declared it in his autobiography one of his favorite roles. The mood of the film was perfectly captured by a cast of outstanding British character actors, led most ably by Gordon Jackson, in the world of post wartime Britain. The barricks/castle backdrop is itself a character in the film. However, its indeed an actor's film. Guinness's soliloquy at the end of the movie is worth the "price of admission" and should be mandatory for any would-be actor to view prior to entering the trade. Guinness is matched scene for scene with John Mills portrayal of Col Barrows. Movies such as this and Carol Reed's "The Third Man" with Orson Wells was the backbone of two decades of outstanding British cinema. This movie joined an impressive list of movies to be ignored by Academy of Motion Pictures and the Oscar. If nothing else the soundtrack is a bagpipe lover's dream. In a personal aside (chance for name dropping) I had the opportunity to met Gregory Peck once, and he in a brief moment he was asked about great performances in great roles, and without hesitation chose Guinness's Colonel Sinclair as one of his top three comtemporary performances (first of course was his Attackus Finch in "To Kill A Mockingbird". High praise indeed.

I finally had the chance to see this film in its entirety on Bravo a few days ago. Ronald Neame was not a director of the first rank, and he probably wasnt even a director of the second, but this is NOT a directors picture. It is a picture carried by superb acting and a brilliant script.I am now convinced that Guinness was one of the greatest screen actors that ever lived-if not the greatest.. This performance surpasses even his Colonel Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, or his magnificent performances in the Ealing comedies. His boorish, arrogant, but oddly touching and vulnerable Jock Sinclair is a full length portrait worthy of Rembrandt-or Dostoevsky.John Mills, as the "by the book " colonel, whose aloof exterior hides enormous psychic scars, is almost equally good.Dennis Price, as a friend who turns his back on Sinclair, and the superb Gordon Jackson ( he was a great actor long, long before Upstairs Downstairs)as a restrained, sensitive officer who tries ineffectually to help both antagonists, are almost equally good. All of the other performances are very fine.The films beautifully written, sometimes funny, usually achingly sad script is a profound meditation on honor, tradition, repression and class conflict. Guinnesses soliloquy at the end is one of the most heart-breaking moments in all of film.

It's October 10, 2008, and I've just watched Tunes Of Glory on DVD. I give you the date because it is now more than 52 years since the end of World War II and that is relevant. Tunes Of Glory is about unresolved grief for friends and comrades in arms who have died in battle. Those now very old men who fought in WWII, those who fought in Korea, those who fought in Vietnam and Iraq, and those who fought in the many other smaller engagements around the world since then might be familiar with that grief, but a great many of us won't. Are great many of us are the baby-boomers who grew up to smoke dope and sneer at our father's generation and the occasional show of emotion they felt for friends and comrades alongside whom they had fought and who, unlike them, had been unable to cheat death. My father, born in 1923 and who enlisted in 1942, took part in the D-Day invasion in June 1944. He finally developed cancer in the late Eighties and died in 1991. But oddly enough he, a man who was always something of a hypochondriac all his life, spoke nor one word of complaint when he was, for once, very ill and knew he was to die. He said that after seeing so many of his friends and comrades killed in the war, every day since then had been a gift and he could not complain now that his life was finally going to come to an end. Tunes Of Glory is a film for his generation. The two main characters, portrayed by Alec Guinness and John Mills, have neither of them really come to terms with their experiences in the war and the deaths of comrades in arms, but both coped with it in different ways. Mills retreats into being a stickler but that doesn't save him from his grief. Guinness copes far better but is still damaged, but at least he survives. Both are very different characters, both strong in their own way, but both also weak. The Mills character, ironically, demonstrates his strength by going against the grain and giving way. The Guinness character's weakness is more hidden - he has the affection and loyalty of his men, but his flaw is that that affection and loyalty is vital to him. Without it and the battalion he led for a while, it seems that his whole life might fall apart. The film itself is quite static and this production would not be out of place on a stage. But that is no criticism. It is not a director's film, but an actor's film - you watch the film for the story and acting, not the direction and cinematography. In that sense it is quite old-fashioned, but that, too, is no criticism. The only drawback is that it might mean nothing at all to the MTV generation and that it might only be fully appreciated again once - heaven forbid - we have another world war and once again men and women are destined to cope somehow with a grief they find almost impossible to express. In that sense - in the sense that until this planet becomes uninhabitable and mankind ceases to exist, we will always go to war and we will always lose friends and comrade in arms and we will always ask ourselves: why did I survive but not him or her - this film will always carry an emotional clout and will be timeless.

This is a fine movie. If anyone wants to examine the difference between what passes for a "good movie" these days and a "good movie" fifty years ago, "Tunes of Glory" is a good place to start. The direction is economical, with little in the way of razzle dazzle. Ronald Neame has almost "edited himself out of existence." And the writers are equally straightforward. I'll give an example. As Col. Barrows, John Mills spent several years in a POW camp during World War II, as a result of which he's about to pop. This is a golden opportunity for a dramatic flashback. Neame could have stopped the narrative short and taken us back to a Japanese prisoner of war camp in Burma or someplace, and then shown us Mills starving, Mills shivering with fever, Mills being waterboarded, Mills being beaten by sadistic guards, Mills crawling through the mud. But instead we see Mills and a younger captain (Gordon Jackson) racing along in a Jeep. Mills pulls the vehicle to a halt, slumps behind the wheel, and in a brief monologue he tells Jackson a little of his experiences. The scene lasts about two minutes. That's "economy." And it's all the more effective for not being spelled out in detail. The horrors are left to our imaginations. The movie is a Shakespearian kind of tragedy addressed to adults and the script leaves a lot to the viewer's own judgment. There are no easy "good guys" and "bad guys." That brings us to the acting and I'm reluctant to get into it for fear of running out of space. Alec Guiness is Jock Sinclair, the long-time temporary commander of the Scottish regiment who is replaced by an uptight, by-the-book John Mills. Guiness has never been better. He's been as good before, but not better. Let's just say he embodies the bluff, raucous, whisky-loving, brave, deceitful, superior officer, very different from his Col. Nicholson in "The Bridge on the River Kwai." He has the most screen time, but John Mills has the more complicated role -- a commander new to his post, unknown to his men, given to following the kinds of rules that Guiness has made a point of ignoring, slightly deranged by his war experiences, loyal to the regiment and willing to compromise his principles for its sake. When Mills lets Guiness get away with a major public offense, Guiness tells him he's grateful, but then goes on to celebrate what he deems his victory over Mills. Guiness and his loyal officers carry on loudly and drunkenly at one end of the table while Mills sits humiliated and alone at the other. Mills loses more than his dignity. One of the officers -- next in command, in fact -- is Dennis Price, in a splendid performance. Want a challenge? Figure out if he's a "good guy" or a "bad guy." Justify your answers. Five minutes allowed, beginning -- now! The location, which looks more like the Edinburgh Castle than a military barracks, are almost as beautiful as the teen-aged Susannah York. Enough. Watch this film.