HELL IN THE PACIFIC

US, 1968, 103 minutes, Colour.
Lee Marvin, Toshiro Mifune.
Directed by John Boorman.

Hell in the Pacific is a film by John Boorman, made after Point Blank and before Leo the Last, much before Deliverance and Zardoz. It shows Boorman's technical skill, especially as there are only two characters in the film. It raises questions of warfare and the meaning of war outside the accustomed European battlefields. Two pilots, an American and a Japanese marooned on an island, carry on their nations' war against one another, humiliating one another, until common humanity wins out and they join to fight for survival against nature. This obvious theme which is well acted by Toshiro Mifune, tough yet dignified and Lee Marvin as the typical laconic wise-cracking, resourceful Yank. Why war? Because common humanity is forgotten by inhuman ambition and pride. This is quite an entertaining film with a message. Two endings were made: one with the two surviving, the other with them being destroyed. Both were released.

1. The significance and tone of the title? Criticisms that it sounded like a typical war film? That it did not fulfil the expectations? The significance of the title in reference to this film and its themes?

2. The importance of the use of Panavision, colour, Pacific locations, the environment of the islands? The use of music? Dramatic, American and Japanese melodies woven into the themes? The comment on the characters?

3. Audience pre-suppositions about war films? In terms of action, message, characters? How typical a war film was this?

4. The theme of war and anti-war? The taken for granted aspects of the war setting. the hostilities of the two men. the seeming futilities of the war? The microcosm and futility of war on a large scale? How strong was the message of the folly of war?

5. The use of the 'Robinson Crusoe' theme? Robinson Crusoe using Friday? American using Japanese and vice versa? The insight into this kind of relationship in isolation?

6. The theme of human survival? Eating, resting? Encountering the enemy? Compromise and coming to terms? Collaboration for survival? The moving away from isolation etc.? How well visualised and explored?

7. The theme of civilization and the lack of civilization? The American presuppositions for survival, Japanese traditions? The use of the two in isolation? The conflict? The collaboration? What is the essence of civilization? In remote places? When they returned to the enemy camp? The trappings of civilization and the growing hostility? Death?

8. How well drawn was the American character? Lee Marvin as the typical American? As a person, language, communication? Hard and tough? Soft and sentimental?

9. The Japanese character in contrast with the American? Toshiro Mifune as the typical Japanese? His background and traditions, style? The conflict with the American? The collaboration?

10. The details of their hounding and stalking each other in the jungle? How serious, the ironic and humorous side?

11. The use of fire to hound out and destroy the other? The image of hell?

12. The practical details of food, water, sleep, work?

13. The physical confrontation? The use of weapons, sword and gun? The mutual capturing? The mutual humiliation? The use of a cross and its religious significance? Working and resting? The quarrels?

14. The compromise and their working with one another? For food and survival? The raft? The serious and humorous aspects of the building of the raft?

15. The sequences on the sea and the move towards civilization? The sea as a symbol of the wild isolation?

16. What did they achieve by arriving at a place of civilization? The re-provoking of the war? The drink, the magazines about the atrocities, patriotism and jingoism, the argument about God?

17. What was the significance of what they discovered in the deserted army post? The trappings of civilization and the hostility in the clash? What future was there for them? What future for the countries involved in war? The inevitability of clash?

18. The problem of the two endings: of the two going on their various ways, of a sudden explosion and their death? Which was the more fitting for the themes and values of the film?