I love the musical “South Pacific,” but one thing always bothers me when I see it. When Emile de Becque asks the U.S. Navy and Marine officers what they’re fighting for in World War II, they can’t come up with an answer.
Can someone explain this? Why wouldn’t they say, we’re fighting for freedom? Two years after Pearl Harbor, these Americans don’t know what they’re fighting for?
This is an important point in the drama, which was written four years after the war by Oscar Hammerstein II and Joshua Logan as their adaptation of two short stories in James A. Michener’s book, “Tales of the South Pacific.” (The movie version came out exactly 50 years ago, with Rossano Brazzi, Mitzi Gaynor, John Kerr, Ray Walston, Juanita Hall and France Nuyen.)
‘As simple as that.’ In the scene in question, Navy Capt. George Brackett, Commander Bill Harbison and Marine Lt. Joseph Cable ask de Becque to accept a dangerous mission. They want de Becque, a French planter who’s been living in the Solomon Islands for about 16 years, to help Lt. Cable monitor and report on Japanese ship convoys.
De Becque (Brazzi) resists the idea. His girlfriend, American nurse Ensign Nellie Forbush (Gaynor), is on his mind.
De Becque: “My answer must be no. When a man faces death, he must weigh values very carefully. He must weigh the sweetness of his life against the thing he is asked to die for. The probability of death is very great for both of us. I know that island well, Lieutenant Cable, and I’m not certain that I believe that what you ask me to do is -- is that -- ”
Capt. Brackett: “We’re asking you to help us lick the Japanese. It’s as simple as that. We’re against the Japanese.”
De Becque: “I know what you are against. What are you for?”
(In an awkward silence, Brackett, Cable and Harbison offer no answer.)
De Becque: “When I was 22, I thought the world hated bullies as much as I did. I was foolish. I killed one. I was forced to flee to an island. Since then I have asked no help from anyone, or any country. I have seen these bullies multiply and grow strong, and the world sat by and watched.”
Lt. Cable: “Oh, the hell with this, de Becque! Let’s be honest. Aren’t you just a guy in love with a girl, and you’re putting her above everything else in the world?”
De Becque: “Yes, I do care about my life with her more than anything else in the world. It is the only thing that is important to me. This I believe in. This I’m sure of. This I have. I cannot risk to lose it. Good day, gentlemen.”
(De Becque leaves the officers’ office.)
Cmdr. Harbison: “He’s an honest man, but he’s wrong. Of course we can’t guarantee him a better world if we win. The point is, we can be sure it’ll be worse if we lose, can’t we? (Silence from Brackett and Cable) Well, can’t we?”
Capt. Brackett: “I don’t know.”
Oblivious to liberty. “I don’t know”? The Frenchman wanted just one good reason to risk his life. He wanted to know what the Allies were fighting for. Yet these three American officers couldn’t come up with anything better than, “We’re against the Japanese.”
In the middle of World War II, they can’t come up with the word liberty. They can’t imagine what enslaved Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans and others -- How about the French? -- are dying for that very day. They can’t remember one speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Four Freedoms or even the Declaration of Independence.
Their backs are against the wall. They desperately need de Becque’s help. They need powerfully persuasive words. But they’re tongue-tied. They don’t have a clue.
Words believable here? In fact, de Becque gives them a better argument than they put up -- that the bullies multiply if the world sits by and does nothing. But Brackett, Cable and Harbison don’t pick up on it. They’re stupefied.
After de Becque has left the room, Harbison almost figures it out when he says we can be sure the world will be worse if we lose. But then Capt. Brackett says darkly, “I don’t know.”
I don’t get it. Can someone please explain the logic of this dialogue? How does it ring true in any way? How could three American officers be this dumb?
The earlier scene. Keep in mind, just one scene earlier, de Becque himself said he has faith in freedom. Nellie Forbush, whom the officers had asked to collect information on de Becque, delved into his beliefs.
Nellie Forbush: “Do you think about politics much, and if so, what do you think about politics?”
De Becque: “I -- do you mean -- do you mean my political philosophy?”
Forbush: “I think that’s what I mean.”
De Becque: “Ah, well, to begin with, I -- I believe in the free life, in freedom for everyone.”
Forbush: “Like in the Declaration of Independence?”
De Becque: “It says, ah, ‘all men are created equal.’ Isn’t that it?”
Forbush: “Emile, do you really believe that?”
De Becque: “But of course, Nellie.”
Forbush: “Well, thank goodness.”
De Becque: “That’s why I am here, why I killed a man.”
Plot of despair. Obviously, de Becque is a man predisposed to accept the argument that freedom must win over tyranny. Three Americans in this musical don’t seem to know that tune. Only the naive Nellie Forbush has the sense to mention the Declaration of Independence.
Later, Forbush’s prejudice over de Becque’s Polynesian children gives her cold feet about marrying him, so he does go with Lt. Cable on that dangerous mission.
But why does despair have to motivate de Becque? Why was he not asked to weigh his hope for freedom?
Frank Warner
* * *
See also: In ‘South Pacific,’ why does Emile de Becque finally agree to the dangerous mission?
My father's era. People didn't think so deeply. They had a way of life that they followed mostly by tradition, much as conservatives want to do today. They really didn't know much about the way of life in other countries and didn't care. They just knew that they were Americans and that the Japanese had attacked them first. It took a lot of persuasion over several years to get Americans used to the idea that there was going to be war. Only Roosevelt could have done it. The draft was only reinstated in October of 1940.
Posted by: jj mollo | February 18, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I quote: "My father's era. People didn't think so deeply. They had a way of life that they followed mostly by tradition, much as conservatives want to do today."
If they were so "conservative," why did they elect FDR no less than four times? And did a vote for FDR only make sense if someone "didn't think so deeply?"
The reason most Americans, liberal and conservative, were isolationists in 1940 isn't that they were unthinking. It's that they had thought and at that time considered that the lives we'd lost in WWI had been wasted and that we should stay out of Europe's follies.
And alas, listen to any debate about abortion, such as the recent one between Obama and McCain, and you'll realize that it's the liberals who seem stuck in 1973 and unable to think. As Obama put it, thinking about when babies begin is "above my pay grade."
This debate is silly. We're fussing over what Hollywood scriptwriters wrote in the 1950s, not what American sailors believed during WWII. And besides, a stirring speech about freedom at that point in the movie would have sent the plot all askew.
--Michael W. Perry, Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II
Posted by: Mike Perry | August 18, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Roosevelt was elected because the economy collapsed. Was it Hoover's fault? Probably not. But Roosevelt was loved because he addressed the problems of the common people during a terrible depression. No one knew why economic disasters were visited on us, but FDR pretended that he did and he acted vigorously. According to my father, who was an officer in the war, the only unforgivable sin in a leader is to be indecisive. Roosevelt, right or wrong, knew what was needed.
You are right that the debate is somewhat contrived, but it is interesting. The movie does not play out quite the way you would expect it to from a modern perspective. Decisions were made to have a character act in a certain way and speak in a certain way. Why was that done? Why isn't the concept of freedom part of that?
My explanation was that people in those days didn't even think about it. You say they did, suggesting that WWI left them with a "Vietnam syndrome", perhaps. Those are interesting ideas to me.
I've revised my thinking a little. I think maybe it wasn't the idea of freedom that was relevant. I think maybe they had never considered the possibility that other countries could become free and democratic, and it wasn't their problem anyway.
Most Americans were truly astonished after the war when West Germany and Japan morphed into bastions of liberty. The idea that democracy could be contagious had died with the rise of Napoleon. I think Vlad the Invader has also done damage to the concept.
Posted by: jj mollo | August 18, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Remembering that "South Pacific" is only a musical, and generally a very good one, let me just note that, as a drama, it is weakened by the fact that two naval officers and a Marine officer have no answer at all when asked what the Americans are for in World War II.
Even for Bali Hai, that's unbelievable. They'd have some answer. They wouldn't just sit there, especially considering they needed de Becque's help.
The same plot hole has been drilled into HBO's series "Generation Kill," in which Marines occasionally mention the imaginary greedy, racist conspiracies that sent them to Iraq, but not one of them ever says freeing Iraqis and overthrowing Saddam's fascist regime is a good thing.
Posted by: Frank Warner | August 18, 2008 at 08:23 PM
I just finished a short run as Captain Brackett for a community theater in Arkansas. I agree that the scene in question is odd at the very least. I will add that in the original script, Brackett does not say "I don't know", he says "Of course," but then quickly leaves the scene. It seems as though the writers just wanted to quickly end the scene. In the end, de Becque doesn't like bullies yet won't go on the mission because he's in love. OK. And the U.S. officers have very little indeed to say in response. An awkward scene to act out, I assure you.
Posted by: Peter Dykema | July 09, 2009 at 11:28 AM