Talk:The Caine Mutiny (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Caine Mutiny (film) article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Michael Caine

Why was the Michael Caine trivia removed?! 22:56, November 10, 2002 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mintguy (talk • contribs) .

Because it's already in the Michael Caine article, where it belongs. Wasted Time R 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vessel Class

It was a DMS, a destroyer mine sweeper, not a minesweeper. 22:54, March 6, 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.77.102 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Ferrers arm

Hi; In the courtroom scene, Ferrer's wearing a cast. Silly question, did he actually have a busted wing?

  • Don't know--but it's part of the plot that he had been injured. Greenwald was not a military lawyer--he was a civilian lawyer who joined the Navy and flew fighter planes (notice his green uniform in one scene)--he got the Caine case while recovering from injuries received in a crackup in his plane (in the book his hands had been burned).--Buckboard 09:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I left the bit from Moviemistakes.com in the text, but it seems trivial trivia. The whole thing depends on the length of the chain, not how tight a circle a DMS can turn. Follow me here: Wouk was aboard two DMS during the war; Wouk wrote the book about a DMS; Wouk wrote the scene wherein the Caine cuts its own tow-line. Somebody at MovieMistakes.com forget to tell him?--Buckboard 11:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queeg

Ok. I'm hoping maybe someone can straighten it out. Why, in the end, does Greenwald (and SINPAC) maintain that Queeg is NOT incompetent and that Maryk was not justified under 185?

  1. Queeg on numerous occasions would blow his stack without cause. Example -- when he found out Keefer was writing a novel, he exploded. There was no justification for this -- the matter of a crewman's personal activities (baring violations of the law or regulations) are not under his jurisdiction.
  2. The water crisis. When he ordered the men deprived of water, it seems to me Maryk would have been justified to act then. How can depriving the men of water be construed as an attempt to enforce discipline? The action endangered the lives of the crew and officers. Three days without water will result in death. In extreme heat as in the tropics, death could occur sooner. This would clearly constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
  3. After the tow-line incident, it is clear that his superiors know -- or at least suspect -- him to be incompetent.
  4. On his own, he showed himself to be a raving lunatic in the courtroom. This would show that the doctors who testified for the prosecution were probably told what to write in their reports. One doctor on the stand verbally admitted that Queeg was a sick man. This was omitted from his report -- and under the laws of perjury, an omission is as much a lie as a fabrication.
  5. When Greenwald confronts Maryk and Keith afterward, he points out that if they had acted differently at a certain time, it would not have been necessary for him to have relieved Queeg during the storm. This makes no sense. What the man was in the past was irrelevant; the issue was what he was in the present. Maryk examined the Captain on the bridge -- he spoke to him, passed his hand in front of the Captain's face, snapped his fingers in front of his face, and got no reaction of any kind. The man was – only for the moment yes – catatonic. Queeg didn't even protest Maryk ‘s actions for 2 full minutes. Given the fact that he was clearly catatonic at the time, how could he NOT have been justified in taking command?

From all this -- including the crazy and outlandish statements Queeg made on the stand -- why is it the opinion of everyone that he is NOT incompetent?

For the record: in the book, Keith ultimately became Captain of the Cain. Maryk was given command of an LST. The Court-Martial convening authority disapproved the verdict (this goes against the principle that a trial verdict can not be impeached) and issued them both formal reprimands (brazenly proclaiming them guilty). -- Jason Palpatine 13:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Greenwald maintained that Queeg was a flawed but adequate commander who was undermined by subordinates who should have helped him, particularly Keefer. He only went after Queeg because Maryk ("the wrong man") was on trial. Greenwald gives a rather impassioned monologue about how the country owed a debt to professional servicemen like Queeg; a point that Wouk would explore more deeply in his Victor Henry novels. A very powerful scene, both in the movie and the book. -- Cranston Lamont 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


I've read Greenwald's rather impassioned monologue -- more than once -- trying to understand what he was saying. His question to Maryk and Keith and their answer struck me as odd. Maryk said that it would not have been necessary for him to relieve Queeg if they had supported him when he deserted the other destroyers under fire -- i.e. helped him hide his cowardice. My answer in his place would be Yes. What happened was inevitable. What he was in the past -- no matter how distinguished his record -- is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what he is now. -- Jason Palpatine 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verdict

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me what gave the Navy brass (whoever it was) the authority to revoke a verdict of a general court-martial? Our laws have always held that a verdict can not be impeached. --Jason Palpatine 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the court martial convening authority can "disapprove" of a verdict, and this disapproval can be "endorsed" (approved) up the chain of command. This is what happened in the Caine Mutiny. This disapproval has no bearing on the verdict -- it is not overturned -- but becomes part of the record. AllanJ 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
An important point is that in the book the officers were not charged with making a mutiny, but with conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. Despite the disapproval of the verdict, Maryk and Keith managed to resume their Navy careers more or less unscathed, unlike Queeg who was given a desk job as the Navy recognised he was not fit to command a ship at sea, therefore confirming that the officers were justified in their actions. Keefer also eventually

gets command of a ship and proves himself a physical coward as well as a moral one. Nevertheless Keefer and Keith manage to restore a degree of friendship.

Exile 10:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split article

I'd recommend this article be split into The Caine Mutiny for the novel, and The Caine Mutiny (film) for the film. There are significant enough differences between the book and film - a lot could be said on a literary front about the book that has nothing to do with the film. It would also help with all the "Projects" and templates to separate movies from books. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Doyle

Official US Navy history has the USS Doyle (DD-494) as the destroyer used in the movie the Caine Mutiny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaveza (talk • contribs).

This article says it was USS Thompson (DD-627), which is confirmed in that article. Do you have a source that says it was the Doyle? -- Stbalbach 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t5/thompson-ii.htm says
Commencing on 8 June 1953, Thompson served as a Columbia Movie Studio "prop" during the filming of the Herman Wouk novel, The Caine Mutiny. Operating out of San Francisco for one week, Thompson became Caine, while at the same time serving as the model for many of the Columbia sets used in the filming of the on board scenes.
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/d5/doyle.htm says
[Doyle] returned to the western Pacific between 2 February and 21 July 1953, visiting Midway, Guam, Kwajalein, and various ports in the Philippines, as well as serving as station ship at Hong Kong for 5 weeks.
Doyle arrived at Charleston, S.C., 7 September 1953 from Long Beach.
So I'm not seeing the "Official US Navy history" that says Doyle appeared in the movie. It's not impossible however; at least two other ships, USS Richard B. Anderson (DD-786) and USS Surfbird (AM-383), had cameos. Perhaps Doyle did as well. But without a source it shouldn't go into the article.
—wwoods 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strawberries

I inserted a piece which was taken out about the quirkiness behind Queeg and the strawberries. Maryk tells the other officers that the mess boys confessed to eating the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to believe their story and instead accuses the officers of having a duplicate key to the food locker. Is this a valid point to bring up? It seems open-and-shut about what happened to the strawberries, but Queeg refuses to accept it. USN1977 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Indifferent Children

Regarding this passage recently added and moved here:

There are some similarities between "The Caine Mutiny" and Louis Auchincloss's The Indifferent Children (1947). The plot of both books takes place in the unheroic backwaters of the WWII US Navy (Wouk's book in the Pacific Theatre, but the Caine's part in the fighting is marginal and the conflict is entirely among its crew, rather than with the Japanese - while Auchincloss' book is set in the Carribean, far from any fighting front); both books have as the main protagonist the scion of a rich family, who becomes a naval officer without seeking a heroic or combatant role, and who undergoes a fast character development in the course of the story; and in both books there is a central role to a court martial in which the defence lawyer brillantly saves his client from a seemingly hopeless situation - only to afterwards turn on the client and tell him what a heel he truly is. There is, however, no direct evidence of Wouk being influenced by the earlier book.

I'm concerned about WP:NOR - if we can cite someone on this, it would be interesting to add - but I'm concerned there is an unspoken hint at plagiarism. Given how popular CM was, someone must have noted the similarities. -- Stbalbach 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Searched google, google books and Amazon's A9 on a combination of "caine mutiny" + "indifferent children", as well as "wouk auchincloss" and couldn't find anything. -- Stbalbach 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mutiny 0.jpg

Image:Mutiny 0.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Innacuracy vs, artistic license

There is a difference. An innacuracy is when something doesn't accord with reality - with the real facts of the real world. Thus, there's an issue if a boat such as the Caine could really steam in a circle and cut the tow line. That is a potential (if not proven) inaccuracy.

The age of Queeg is not a fact of the real world. It's something made up for a piece of fiction, a book. In the translation of a book from a film, things get changed, for various reasons -- in this case the age of a character is changed (de facto) because the actor chosen to play the part is the not age specified in the book. That is artistic license. The makers of the film chose to alter an aspect of the book in order to make the film they wanted to make. They weighed the value of Humprey Bogart in the part versus the value of keeping the character at 30, and made the artistic choice that the one outweighed the other. That's not inaccuracy, it's artistic license.

Now, if in making the film, they had made Queeg a woman, while keeping everything else the same, that would be an inaccuracy, because in the real world women did not captain ships of the U.S. Navy in World War II. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point! Perhaps we should consider changing the section header, as per your suggestion. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. I see you've already gotten rid of the "Queeg's age" issue. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I moved it into the section dealing with differences between the book and the script, which is where I think it belongs. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't belong to the script section—it's an innaccuracy, for a very simple reason: In WWII, a 55 year old man would not have command of a minesweeper. And a 55 year old commander would have been cashiered. But if you want to play games, fine—call it "artistic license" and delude yourselves. --TallulahBelle (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you've got some evidence that in World War II, at the height of a military manpower shortage while the US is fighting the largest war ever seen on Earth in two separate theatres on opposite sides of the world, an experienced ship's captain in his late 40's to middle 50's (the age range that would be reasonable to see Bogart as -- we only say 55 because we happen to know that Bogart was 55 at the time) wouldn't be commanding a minesweeper, please post it. I'd be interested in seeing it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In the novel, Queeg was Annapolis Class of '36. There's that. Now, despite all that silly bluster in your entry about facts concerning WWII, any real Navy will know that there's no way a 55 year old would be given command of a minesweeper—war or no war. (In fact, in the novel, the 30 year old Queeg was disappointed that he was getting only a minesweeper—he'd been hoping for a destroyer, which would have been age-appropriate for the time.) But hey, like I said, delude yourself, what do I care: I'm not the one coming across as ignorant. --TallulahBelle (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
When you've got some evidence, please feel free to post it. Despite your telling me to "chill out" diff, and calling me "ignorant" and "deluded" (twice!) in this thread, if you have some actual evidence to support the contention that a man in his late 40's to mid-50's wouldn't be commanding a minesweeper in the midst of World War II, I'm willing to change my mind and admit your point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some things are so obvious to anyone with any sense, they cannot be proven. For instance, prove that the sky is blue. --TallulahBelle (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

THE SKY IS BLUE?!?!? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, explaining why the sky is blue isn't all that hard, but if you're getting into the whole question of "How do I know that what I perceive as "blue" is the same as what "you" perceive as "blue"?", then we start to talk about qualia, and, frankly, I quail before qualia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote before, "Some things are so obvious to anyone with any sense." Then you start to talk about qualia... Mm-hmm... Do people laugh right in your face, or do they wait for you to turn your back? Please answer, I'm honestly curious. --TallulahBelle (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Textual support?

The following text was posted on my talk page. I'm moving it here as the best place for the discussion to take place:

Hi, In the Plot section of The Caine Mutiny (film), you've taken out my contributions on the grounds that "There is no textual evidence that Maryk is 'prepared to forgive and forget'" and that "Keefer's motivations are not made clear in the film". When Keefer thanks him at the celebrations for not revealing his double-cross Maryk does say that the matter is "over and done with" and later tries to dissuade Greenwald from revealing Keefer's treachery with "Let's forget it, Barney". That strikes me as "evidence" enough. What do you need: a written statement by the actors, producers and director?

Also, Greenwald points out that "From the start, [Keefer] hated the Navy", as in it interfered with his writing. In the tow-line incident Queeg does state: "There will be no more novel-writing on the Caine". I think this describes some of Keefer's motivations, which were based on pure selfishness. Granted, Keefer does not make a full confession of his own, but the point of many great works of fiction, from the novel to the cinema, is that it is up to the reader and the audience to try and interpret a character's motivation and pass this on to others who are still a little puzzled by it.

With your permission, I'll restore my contributions. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My response is below. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. The lines you've quoted are not sufficient to support the interpretations you are putting on them. The conversation at the party takes place in front of or in the vicinity of the other officers of the ship, all of whom have to work together. It's possible that Maryk simply doesn't want to go into in under these circumstances, at that time, with those people possibly in hearing distance. He's smoothing out an awkward situation, not in any way saying that he's willing to forgive and forget. I don't need an affadavit from anyone to convince, what I would need is Maryk to say "I forgive you" or a later scene in which his attitude to Keefer is apparent.

As for Keefer's motivations, Greenwald speculates on them, but I do not see any real support for the speculation. Besides this one opinion from a character who's disgusted by what these officers did, there's no neutral source which pins down Keefer's motivations.

Your interpretations are plainly POV, and there is disagreement about them. Therefore, I'll remove them again on the basis of WP:POV and WP:V. As contested facts, you can reinsert them once you have a reliable source to support them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You dismiss my views as POV, but unless you or someone else can come up with better explanations for Maryk's attitude towards Keefer and Keefer's motives, I do not see why mine are not valid enough. If there are better explanations for their behaviour I'll accept them, but short of that I cannot find anything better than the ones I have suggested above.

It seems to me that in spite of your denials nothing short of an affidavit will do.

You're the third editor with whom I have been in conflict with this week. It's taking all the fun out of Wikipedia which I always thought was about people contributing to the knowledge of others or trying to find common ground, not taking it out completely.--Marktreut (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot section is for a straightforward description of the story, not for interpretation or analysis of the character's motivations. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a time when I felt the same as you. When I was doing English at school we would read a book or short story and then the teacher and the other pupils would discuss the characters and their motivations. All this went over my head. For me a story was a story and you enjoyed it or hated it. Nowadays I feel different: motivation is what drives the story and character development makes it interesting. It is Keefer's motivations, the way he manipulated Maryk into questioning Queeg's sanity, which is the driving factor in this case. After all, we need some kind of explanation for why Greenwald saw Keefer as the real mutineer, the perjury issue being the least of his wrongdoings.--Marktreut (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad for you that you've come to a greater appreciation of literature. And I would agree that motivations are appropriate for inclusion in the article, provided that certaintly exists as to what their motivation is. That certainty can come from many places, including an explanation by the writer himself or the analysis of reviewers of the work. But per WP:OR, it cannot come from we, the editors of Wikipedia.
Now, to be perfectly honest with you, often such things do come from editors, who make the same assumptions that you have made in this instance. And if no one contests those conclusions, they generally stick. But in this case, another editor has challenged your interpretation of events and motives, and accordingly, you must provide factual backing from another source. It's just the way it works here on Wikipedia, and once you come to understand that more fully, you'll better enjoy your experiences here on Wikipedia.
There was a time when I felt the same as you. When I first came to Wikipedia I would edit articles and then the other editors would criticize my edits as POV or OR. All this seemed absurd to me. For me a fact was a fact and you understood it or didn't. Nowadays I feel different; Wikipedia's policies are what drive this project and colaberating with other editors makes it interesting. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
But the point is "that certaintly exists as to what their motivation is". There is evidence in the film of the issues that we are arguing here ! Maryk tells both Keefer and Greenwald to forget the matter and given Maryk's character (he does what he thinks is best for everyone, not himself in particular) I believe that he genuinely means it. Greenwald describes him as "an honest man" and when Maryk tells Keefer that it is "over and done with" I think he means it. They may not be friends anymore, but Maryk does not come across as someone who bares a grudge.
As for Keefer's motives, Greenwald's criticisms of him are, I think, good enough. He hates the Navy and would rather get on with his writing: Queeg's by-the-book tough style of command, which leaves little in the way for free time and levity, contrasts very much with the easy-going nature of his predecessor.
I have read a few reviews of this firm, but none go into the detail of what pushes the characters. Most of them focus on Bogart's performance and little is given in the way of the supporting characters' drives and motives.
I think a little leeway and POV should be permitted, especially if there is no other source to explain a particular issue and if it is based on scenes from the film itself. If we are supposed be "colaberating with other editors" over this, could you please indicate how you would explain Maryk and Keefer's behaviour. If they are good enough I'll accept them, but I think we need something.--Marktreut (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I disagree with your interpretation of Maryk's motivation. I have always made the same assumption as Ed, namely, that he was both an officer and a gentleman, and sought to avoid sullying the occasion with an attack on Keefer. Furthermore, even if he never does plan to bring the matter up one-on-one with Keefer, he might still be upset with him, but not want to get into it. I'm less sure what I think about Keefer; I think that it's wrong for him to be labeled as intentionally malicious; I think he was sincere in his analysis of Queeg, but he's too self-preservationist to place himself at any kind of risk at all. He's rather pathetic, in my book. In any event, it doesn't matter at all what I think or what Ed thinks or what you think, Mark. We're all just engaged in OR, and that doesn't fly on Wiki; at least, not when other people are shooting skeet. Sorry. Unschool (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)