Post on 24-Oct-2015
description
Pork Chop Hill: A Socially Conscious Film.
3/7/2012
A little less than six years after the combat ceased, the battle of Pork Chop Hill became a
feature film, based on the book of the same name by historian S.L.A. Marshall. Pork Chop Hill
(1959) was made in a politically complex time. The civil rights movement was flourishing;
McCarthyism was dying; the Cold War continued. It was a tumultuous time for film as well:
Televisions were in the majority of homes and filmmakers were scrambling to get viewers back
in the theater. Pork Chop Hill represents these turbulent times. It is a complex film that manages
to deal with the major political currents of the time. Although it remains quite accurate to the
historical truth, it has a propagandistic agenda: to show the futility of war and to emphasize the
bond between soldiers, especially those formed when black soldiers were integrated into the US
Army.
Certainly, the film captures the same environment depicted in the book. Marshall
describes the “ringed entrenchments” “stoutly fortified with heavily timbered, thickly
sandbagged, artillery-resistant bunkers” that appear throughout the fighting in the movie.1 Details
such as the “staked and unbroken wire barricade” pose problems for both real G.I.'s and the
movies characters.2 Just as with the book, the movie largely viewed the battle from the lens of
low level tactical squad and soldier actions. While this is accurate, the film also noted the
devastating effects of artillery in a fight that historian David Halberstam described as nothing
less than “a furious artillery battle.”3
1 S.L.A. Marshall, Pork Chop Hill (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1956), 32.2 Ibid., 174.3 David .Halberstam, The Coldest Winter (New York: Hyperion, 2007), 629
There are details that Pork Chop Hill omitted, however. No Korean soldier made an
appearance in the film despite the fact that “[o]n all outgaurd posts it was the company custom to
team GI's and Koreans.”4 Marshall even indicates that Korean soldiers had a fairly sizable
presence with “40 … newly arrived Korean replacements” out “[o]f the 144 men under Lieut.
Jack M. Patteson.”5 But, in the book that the movie drew so heavily from, Marshall's treatment of
Korean soldiers is hardly favorable. More often than not, the Korean soldiers act reluctantly and
even cowardly. Marshall writes of one instance in which a group of ROK soldiers are eventually
“grenaded to death in the bunker” because they were “paralyzed by their own fear.”6 In a film
that seems to deeply sympathize with the soldiers, this exclusion may be intentional.
Yet, cowardice also makes its appearance in Pork Chop Hill with an American G.I. named
Franklin. Franklin's character is notable for two reasons: first, his reluctance highlights fears
often felt by soldiers and, second, he is an African-American. He's not the only African-
American G.I. which indicates that the movie is making a conscious effort to acknowledge the
integration of units. Furthermore, Franklin's interaction with another African-American soldier
assigned to watch him are very telling as his comrade remarks “I've got a special interest in
everything you do.” A Japanese-American officer, Lieutenant O'Hashi (based on Lieutenant
Clemens actual 1st officer of the same name) is also portrayed in Pork Chop Hill.7 So while
soldiers from other countries such as “Thailand, Colombia, [and] the Republic of Korea” who
fought alongside Americans at Pork Chop Hill are absent from the film, the diversity among the
American G.I.'s is portrayed accurately.8
4 Marshall, 121.5 Ibid., 53.6 Ibid., 69.7 James Marino. “Meat grinder on Pork Chop Hill”, Military History, Apr. 2003, 47.8 Ibid., 43.
Comparatively, the enemy remains much more of an abstraction and is not treated on the
same individual basis. A G.I. remarks “Sounds like all of China's coming” as the Chinese
attempt to retake the hill. Of course, there is some historical accuracy in this depiction. The
Chinese had numerical superiority and were often smart about exercising it. Marshall wrote that
“the assault broke like a flood” and was made up of “approximately two full companies” of
Chinese.9 Beyond sheer numbers, the tactics employed by the Chinese in the film are typical of
their actual fighting style. They fought diligently, capturing the hill “[b]y systematically killing
the occupants and capturing the bunkers.”10 Halberstam had described, “the way they would
move at night on foot and slip along the flanks of their enemies, looking for soft spots, while
taking up positions behind them.”11 Engagements in the movie occur twice at night and, at the
end of the film, the G.I.'s are entrapped by the Chinese moving in from behind.
One individual stands out on the Chinese side, however: the propagandist, who pleads with
the American G.I.'s to cease the fighting. Propaganda itself plays a very prominent role in the
movie and the content of the propagandist's speech does not appear completely contrived. On
occasion, he appears to even be pleading out of his own accord, as though he empathizes with
the G.I.'s caught in the same struggle. It seems unclear as to whether or not this was an accurate
depiction of the sort of propaganda used by the Chinese in actuality. While the propagandist in
the movie praises the American G.I.'s for fighting honorably, Marshall wrote that the 7th division
“had been described as weary, slipshod, and demoralized troops... a caustic criticism” that “was
repeated over Red Chinese loud-speakers” as fighting at Pork Chop continued.12
9 Marshall, 120.10 Marino, 46.11 Halberstam, 403.12 Marshall, 15.
The film contrasts the small scale fighting with the larger war and its associated command
structure. Early in the film, prior to any depicted fighting, the soldiers expectantly await the end
of the war. The message that eventually comes instead calls on the soldiers to continue the fight.
In the words of Halberstam, “The closer the people talking at Punmanjam came to some kind of
settlement, the more the value of Pork Chop seemed to go up, and the bloodier the fighting for it
became.”13
Pork Chop Hill spares no mention of casualties as field officers openly lament their
frequency. “We have 25% casualties then and more now,” O'Hashi reports to a runner. The
battle, in reality, could be even less forgiving at times. Marshall writes of one unit that “took the
hardest hit” having “gone up there with 135 men in his command and came back with 14.”14 An
officer in the movie similarly reports of Love Company:“There's 12 men left out of the whole
company.” Even down to this detail, Pork Chop Hill remains accurate as the real Love Company
had been reduced to 12 men during the battle.15
The film suggests that many of the casualties can be attributed to a dichotomy between the
officers in the field and the officers higher up the chain of command. In the film, when Love
Company fails to arrive, the soldiers are forced to hold the flank with a single squad. Lieutenant
Clemens laments the fact that they're “doing Love Company's job with only one machine gun.”
The reality is that the two platoons were given orders “to attack up the rear slope of Pork Chop
with the object of “re-enforcing”.” Meanwhile, “Fox platoon... never arrived at the fire” and
“Love platoon... was not told that the Red Chinese had already swarmed over Pork Chop.”16 In
13 Halberstam, 629.14 Ibid., 630.15 Marino, 46.16 Marshall, 130.
fact, it seems that in one instance Love Company “never learned that it was supposed to be part
of a joint operation with King” Company in a joint counterattack.17
This lack of communication all too often translated into tragedy, as the film shows. When the
G.I.'s make their nighttime assault in the film, they are briefly caught in the open by their own
lights, making them easy targets for the Chinese. A remarkably similar incident occurred in the
real battle, described by Marshall, in which, a patrol was caught by 81mm mortar flares
“throwing its members sharply into silhouette … before they could go flat.”18 Later in the film,
Lieutenant Clemens expresses his discontent to the men sent to photograph a “successful
American action,” asking: “Would you mind telling me: when I can't get anything that I need,
just how you two just managed to get up here?” Clemens sends him off with the rather desperate
message: “We must have help or we can't hold the hill.”
In turn, this dichotomy is the product of a much larger, misguided philosophy about the war.
Very early on, General MacArthur had said, “To give up any part of North Korea to the
aggression of the Chinese Communists would be the greatest defeat of the free world in recent
times.”19 Using the same logic, Pork Chop Hill, an otherwise insignificant outpost, “took on a
political and propaganda significance far beyond” it's “military value.”20 MacArthur and officers
around him had frequently furthered these political and propagandistic ends through the
manipulation of intelligence. Halberstam wrote that “minimized both the number and the
intentions of the Chinese troops.”21 These mistakes only worsened the problems experienced by
the ground troops. Ultimately, Halberstam best describes it as a “fault line” that “ran between
17 Marino, 46.18 Marshall, 135.19 Halberstam, 386.20 Marino, 4421 Halberstam, 43.
senior officers in Division, trying however inadequately to represent the dangers to its men and
Corps still responding to the hopes and vanities of commanders in Tokyo.”22
The film draws many of the same conclusions that historians have. Marshall assigns some
importance to Pork Chop, remarking,“Tactically, the great value of the outposts came from the
fact that they looked temptingly weak. They were the cheese in the trap.”23 For the Chinese,
comparatively, Pork Chop Hill itself was really of “propaganda value at the talks” with the
“Chinese political leadership want[ing] to show the U.N. that its cooperation did not reflect an
unwillingness to fight.”24 Similarly, Halberstam remarked that the fighting continued to provide
“just enough input to let the other side know that neither side, Western nor Eastern, was going to
lose military face.”25 Pork Chop Hill hints at the futility, both tactically and strategically, of the
late war military actions. Perhaps Max Hastings best summarizes both the real battle and the
movie, writing that Pork Chop Hill, “reflected... the interminable conflict between military
reason and political interest.” (Hastings 282)
Lewis Milestone’s directing filmography was extensive, but he is best known for his
earlier work, All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), which won Best Director and Best Picture
in the Academy Awards. All Quiet on the Western Front was based on the classic novel by the
same name, and the film is relatively true to the book. It is one of the classic anti-war films.
Young students are enthusiastic to join the war effort, but when they reach the front they are
harshly disillusioned. The film explores the horror that the soldiers on the front face, as well as
the disconnect they feel when they return home.
22 Halberstam, 42423 Marshall, 3324 Marino, 43, 45.25 Hastings, 282
In some ways, Pork Chop Hill was a companion film to All Quiet on the Western Front.
In Pork Chop Hill, the soldiers have already witnessed the horrors of war. They are tired,
demoralized, and confused. Command was not giving them proper supplies or reinforcement and
they were fighting over a hill with no strategic purpose so far as they understood. Indeed, back at
the negotiating table the diplomats are asking the same question, "What are we talking about?
What are we arguing about? You know that this insignificant little hill is of no importance to you
and of no importance to us. If we can settle on the truce line to which I thought you had agreed,
this hill is right in the middle of the neutral zone. So how can it be worth any man's life?” When
the U.N. diplomat realizes that the Chinese diplomat was ignoring him, he stormed outside.
“Why did they pick pork chop to attack? . . . I'm beginning to think they picked it because it's
worth nothing. Its value is that it has no value. That makes it a test of strength: pure and simple.
They're willing to spend lives for nothing, or what seems nothing. That's what they want to
know: are we as willing to do that as they are?” Although Pork Chop Hill is not traditionally
considered an anti-war film, the wanton waste of human life comes across strongly in this
section.
A number of propagandistic anti-communist films were made between 1948 and 1957: I
Married a Communist (1949); I Was a Communist for the FBI (1951), which was nominated for
an Academy Award for Best Documentary; The Hoaxters (1952), which was nominated for an
Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature; My Son John (1952) which was nominated for
an Academy Award for Best Writing, Motion Picture Story; and Trial (1952).26,27 Each of these
films and many more depict a simple ideological war between the good (America and
democracy) versus the bad (communism). These films are usually either documentaries or
26 http://www.lib.washington.edu/exhibits/allPowers/film.html, 27 http://www.filmsite.org/50sintro6.html
pseudo documentaries that attempt to educate the viewer about the evils of communism, or they
are fictional tales that depict communism in a negative light through metaphor and allegory.28
Pork Chop Hill is not an anti-communist film. The Chinese are not depicted as mass
waves of men, they are depicted very similarly to the American soldiers. In fact there are two
back to back scenes where the Chinese are shown charging up the hill and the American
reinforcements are shown charging down the hill, and the depiction is very similar. In fact, it is
the Americans, not the Chinese, that are shouting primal war cries as they charge down the hill.
Our representative voice for the Chinese is the man who does the Chinese propaganda, but he is
not a negative character. This is most apparent in his final appearance in the film. He is shown
wearing a pair of glasses with a card in his hand and a communist cadre standing behind him. He
reads, “Hello GIs. I hope you can hear me loud and clear because your very lives depend upon it.
I have been ordered to tell you that you have just 45 minutes to surrender. That is the message"
The announcer gives the cadre an almost dirty look, and he leaves.
Now i'm talking to you on my own account. You are brave men. You have fought
a good fight. I don't want you to die, any more than I want our own soldiers to die.
You have earned the right to surrender with honor. And I’m glad I've 45 minutes
to persuade you, my way. You are young, and I am young. We should be thinking
of long lives ahead of us. Listen. [An American song is played]. Doesn't that
make you think of all the things you want to live for? Love, marriage. Why must
you die before you have even begun to live? Think about it. Just think about it. 43
minutes left. All you have to do is start walking this way.
28 In fact, the genre of science fiction flourished in early 1950s with films that were anti-communist at heart.
You can hear the sympathy in the voice of the propaganda officer. That an ambiguous character
is the main depiction of communism in the film suggests that Milestone did not intend to make
this a film about how evil the communists were.
There were no popular pro-communist films during this time, but there were anti-war
films. The majority of these were, in the eyes of McCarthyism, avatars of appeasement (the A-
word) and therefore pro-communist and un-American at heart. The House Un-American
Activities Committee (HUAC)—a committee designed to investigate elements in American
culture that undermine America and democracy—became a standing committee in 1945. In
1947, it created the infamous Hollywood blacklist by firing the “Hollywood Ten,” thereby
terrorizing many in the film community into using anti-communism into a motif.
Regardless, there were dissenters. The Men (1950) was a film where Marlin Brando
debuts as a soldier who became a paraplegic in the war who had to deal with the psychological
consequences. Fear and Desire (1953) was Stanley Kubrick’s first feature film, where soldiers
in an unknown war fight an unknown enemy. In the end, they kill the opposing general and his
men only to find that they look eerily like themselves. The Rack (1956) depicts a North Korean
POW who is alleged to have betrayed his men. When his father heard of the charges, he turned to
his son and asks, “Why didn’t you just die?” There were a number of other anti-war films, but
very few were profitable at the box office. None of the above three were commercially
successful films.
Pork Chop Hill strikes a balance between these two genres. Films that show the horror of
war (like All Quiet on the Western Front) could no longer capture the attention of the audience,
but Milestone did not want to produce another film like Halls of Montezuma (1951), where in
order to avoid being blacklisted, Milestone created a jingoistic war film. Milestone instead
enters a developing genre of the 50’s: the films with a social conscience. These were films that
subtly dealt with sensitive topics. High Noon (1952), which was nominated for Best Picture in
the Academy Awards, was a subtly disguised anti-McCarthyism film. Although it was written
during a time where McCarthyism was in decline, Pork Chop Hill could not directly undermine
the government. Instead, it was glancing blow, softened by Pork Chop Hill’s sympathy to the
men on the field. However, its depiction of insignificance of the actual Pork Chop Hill begs the
question: why were we there in the first place?
The political environment into
which Pork Chop Hill entered was
defined by the decline of McCarthyism,
the ongoing Cold War (at this point
manifested by the space race), and the
flourishing civil rights movement. The
fact that Pork Chop Hill manages to
seamlessly comment on each of these political movements is a testament to the complexity of the
Korean War, as well as to Milestone’s grasp of the political environment. It is also not
unprecedented. As these were the three major issues of the day, it was not uncommon for
politicians (from both the Right and the Left) to link them. In the South, the civil rights
movement was frequently associated with communism. As early as the 1930s, the Southern
Conference for Human Welfare (SCHW)—a group that contested white supremacy—was
attacked as a Communist organization.29,30 Similar attacks on the Civil Rights Movement resumed
29 Robin Kelly, Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists during the Great Depression (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), 184-189
30 Robbie Lieberman and Clarence Lang: Anticommunism and the African American Freedom Movement: Another Side of the Story. (NYC: Palgrave Macmillan 2009), 1.
with the end of WWII: Time magazine published a piece by the historian Arthur Schlesinger
stating that the Communist Party was infiltrating the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP).31,32 This is a clear example of McCarthyism.
However, there was a political current running counter to these attacks on the Civil
Rights Movement. Historians such as Mary Dudziak, Jeff Woods, and Jonathan Rosenberg argue
that the Cold War also cultivated and strengthened the Civil Rights movement. Their arguments
generally propose that civil rights reform
was used to remedy the disconnect
between the United States belief in freedom and democracy and the racism that was integrated
into its government.33,34,35,36 In short, it was a propagandistic move.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to argue whether the Cold War was, overall, a
positive or negative influence on the Civil Rights Movement and civil rights reform, but it is
clear that Pork Chop Hill takes place in this discussion. Pvt. Franklin is a propagandistic tool that
simultaneously shows the human side of a black soldier, his potential bravery, and his seamless
integration into the army. The desegregation of the army started in the Korean War, giving black
soldiers the chance to prove themselves side by side with their fellow Americans. Milestone
represents this pressure in an argument Franklin has with another black soldier set to watch over
him. Franklin accosts the black soldier, “Who you staring at?”
“I’m staring at you, who you think I’m staring at?”31 Doug Rossinow, Visions of Progress: The Left Liberal Tradition in America (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 214.32 Lieberman, 133 Mary Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2000), 12.34 Jonathan Rosenberg, “How Far the Promised Land?” in World Affairs and the American Civil Rights Movement
From the First World War to Vietnam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 175.35 Jeff, Woods, Black Struggle Red Scare: Segregation and Anti-Communism in the South, 1948-1968 (Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2004), 10.36 Lieberman, 2-3.
“What for?” Franklin asks desperately and angrily as he grabs the soldier’s arm.
“I’ve got a special interest in everything you do,” the soldier replies.
The black soldier’s “special interest” is that if Franklin deserts, it will reflect poorly on
the black community. The fact that it is a black soldier who wishes to desert and not a white
soldier is not racist. This is a motif amongst war films (albeit usually displayed with white
actors): the cowardly soldier has a change of heart and becomes heroic and patriotic. In what is
easily the tensest moment in the film, Lt. Clemons confronts Pvt. Franklin who is hiding in a
bunker, and Franklin threatens to kill Clemons. Angrily he shouts, “10 years for what? Cause I
don’t wanna die for Korea? What do I care about this stinking hill? You wanna see where I live
back home? I sure am sure I ain’t gonna die for that. So cinch I’m not gonna die for Korea, serve
10 years for it neither.” Clemons silently responds:
Chances are you’re gonna die whether you like it or not. So am I whether you
shoot me or not. At least we got a chance to do it in pretty good company. . . .
They don’t care about Korea any more than you do. A lot of them have it just as
rough at home as you do. They came up and fought. About 25 of them left. That’s
a pretty exclusive club, but you can still join up, if you want to.
Franklin silently walks out of the bunker and walks with Clemons to the front line. Later, he is
seen carrying a wounded soldier to safety and he is shown attempting to fortify the defenses as
the men hide in the bunker.
Pork Chop Hill is clearly sympathetic to Franklin and his plight. He is depicted just as
how the average soldier felt: not inherently evil or inferior, just confused and demoralized, like
the majority of the soldiers in Korea. In addition, the government he is fighting for considers him
an inherently inferior human being. Pork Chop Hill may be an anti-war film, but it also a film
about the bonds between soldiers. In his speech, Clemons extends this bond to Franklin. In light
of his role in Pork Chop Hill, it is quite fitting that Gregory Peck would play Atticus Finch in To
Kill a Mockingbird three years later.
Pork Chop Hill is evidence supporting the historians who believe that the Cold War was
a positive influence for image of African Americans, but it only tells half the story. Racism in the
army penetrated its highest ranks; General MacArthur and especially his aide, General Almond,
were notoriously racist. Ned Almond was against the integration of black soldiers into the army.
A black soldier named Forest Walker led a successful charge against a North Korean position.
For his efforts, General Ridgway attempted to get Walker awarded a Silver Star, but Ned
Almond stopped the medal and removed Walker from command.37
The concluding moments of the film show weary troops walking back from the front
lines to Gregory Peck explaining their legacy:
Pork chop hill was held. Bought and paid for at the same price we commemorate
in monuments at Bunker Hill and Gettysburg. Yet you will find no monuments on
Pork Chop. Victory is a fragile thing and History does not linger long in our
century. But those who fought there know what they did, and the meaning of it.
Millions live in freedom today because of what they did.
However, considering Milestone’s emphasis on the insignificance of the hill, this seems more
like a bitter statement then a solemn recognition of the importance of what these soldiers have
done. Regardless of whether it was important or not, men fought and died for this hill. However,
their sacrifice was not honored by the American public. Pork Chop Hill will be their monument
instead.
37 Halberstram, 547.
Bibliography
Halberstam, David. The Coldest Winter, (New York: Hyperion, 2007).
Hastings, Max. The Korean War, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987).
Marino, James. “Meat grinder on Pork Chop Hill”, Military History, Apr. 2003.
Marshall, S.L.A. Pork Chop Hill (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1956).
Kelly, Robin. Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists during the Great Depression (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), 184-189
Lieberman, Robbie and Lang, Clarence,: Anticommunism and the African American Freedom
Movement: Another Side of the Story. (NYC: Palgrave Macmillan 2009), 1.
Rossinow, Doug. Visions of Progress: The Left Liberal Tradition in America (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 214.
Dudziak, Mary. Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2000), 12.
Rosenberg, Jonathan. “How Far the Promised Land?” in World Affairs and the American Civil
Rights Movement From the First World War to Vietnam (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2006), 175.
Woods, Jeff. Black Struggle Red Scare: Segregation and Anti-Communism in the South, 1948-
1968 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2004), 10.
Dirks, Tim. The History of Film: The 1950s. (http://www.filmsite.org/50sintro6.html, accessed
3/7/2012).