The question of this movie's lack of action scenes has come up, and the point was made that the movie works as a "tutorial" or history lesson. Well, if that's the case, poetic license goes out the window and the movie must be judged more stringently on one central criterion-- does it get the facts right.
As history has sorted things out, serious questions have arisen about Halsey's competence at Guadalcanal, and the consensus seems to be that he was found wanting. The greatest tactical error he made was in falling for a Japanese ruse, and sending his main force on a long chase northward, away from the scene where the actual battle unfolded.
I know a movie made in 1960 can't be expected to emphasize a "hero's" shortcomings, but the issue did come up in 1944, and Nimitz seriously considered whether Halsey should remain in command of his battle group. That deliberation was well known, and its omission was a deliberate choice by the movie makers.
In 1960 sanitized biographies of war heroes was par for the course-- to take a "warts and all" approach would've distinguished this film and, I believe, made it a better one.
As history has sorted things out, serious questions have arisen about Halsey's competence at Guadalcanal, and the consensus seems to be that he was found wanting. The greatest tactical error he made was in falling for a Japanese ruse, and sending his main force on a long chase northward, away from the scene where the actual battle unfolded.
I know a movie made in 1960 can't be expected to emphasize a "hero's" shortcomings, but the issue did come up in 1944, and Nimitz seriously considered whether Halsey should remain in command of his battle group. That deliberation was well known, and its omission was a deliberate choice by the movie makers.
In 1960 sanitized biographies of war heroes was par for the course-- to take a "warts and all" approach would've distinguished this film and, I believe, made it a better one.
Tell Your Friends