What's this about?

Lately, it seems like many of the movies/shows are just a rehash or reboot of things that have already been done. And so I started to dive into the past. It's been fun, but I find myself losing track of which ones I’ve seen and whether or not I enjoyed them. Sometimes the titles themselves just don't tell me enough to remember.

I wouldn’t have voluntarily watched a lot of these movies when I was younger. It’s strange how interests change. That goes for what I read, too. I have another blog that explores books. I’m mostly reading older fiction and memoirs, and some of the books have led me to movies/shows and vice versa. In those cases, I may post the book review over here as well.

There will be spoilers, which is different than my book reviews. That’s mostly because I want to have enough information to help me remember what I’ve seen. I’m getting older. The brain doesn’t cooperate like it used to. What can I say? The gray hairs are catching up with me!

Sunday, January 7, 2024

Three Came Home - 1950

I watched this movie almost immediately after finishing the book. The movie is based on the autobiographical account of Agnes Newton Keith and her novel by the same name. My review of the book can be seen here.

This is the story of a woman's quest to survive and keep her child alive in a Japanese POW camp during WWII. The book was written in 1947, and the movie was made in 1950, not too far removed from the war. I think that affected some of the choices made for what to include/cut. The best way I can think of to describe the difference between the book and movie is the movie is the animal with the fangs removed. 

Agnes endures separation from her husband, illness and pain to survive the war. When they're taken to the camp, the Japanese tell them the war will last at least ten more years. It's crushing, and they don't stop telling it to the prisoners.

If I hadn't read the book first, I would still have a few issues with the movie. Usually, I can focus on liking the book more mostly because of spot the difference. With this movie, there are issues that stand on their own. The main one that sticks out is the progression of the prisoners (or lack thereof). These women spent three years in the camp, but they're clean, wearing clean clothes and have meat on their bones. It was so unrealistic, and I was just bothered by it. And the ending was so sappy, I almost laughed out loud. There's no hope and then...over the horizon! It's HARRY!!! At least they gave him an injury. And everyone being reunited with their loved one at the woman's camp...super unrealistic (and that one I can back up with the book where some of the women wrote and told Agnes their husbands had been beheaded). Mostly is was just the cleanliness that I know didn't exist in POW camps.

I'm not saying this is a bad movie. I just feel like it didn't go deep enough into what it was trying to portray. It stayed on the surface of the issue. Again, I feel like the time it was made had something to do with that, but it loses some of the impact it could have had otherwise. The acting was good, especially the child who played George. I like Claudette Colbert, and I feel like she did a good job. I just wish there was more nuance and depth to the characters.



on

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)