Is this the best they could do?

I'm not a trained critic of artistic endeavor. I'm not even an artist. All I know is what I like.

Having said that much: I'm seriously disappointed so far by the Hanks-Spielberg production The Pacific. This first week's offerings are pathetic. Forgive me, I'll keep this venting short.

First of all, the offerings are so fragmentary -- itty-bitty pieces, two-three minutes in length. As if that were not enough, the fragments are often over-lapping. That is, some statements are made over and over again in subsequent pieces.

That's bad enough, but large portions of this first presentation are reserved by the producers to tell about the production and its difficulties and supposed triumphs.

I find particularly laughable the assertions by the producers, directors, and actors about their so-called basic training experience. All of NINE DAYS. I can only imagine that Spielberg and Hanks and others who had a hand in structuring those paltry nine days never had a legitimate military basic training experience like so many of their viewers had.

Those of us who did experience legitimate military basic training remember well our disorienting first week: its ragged depersonalization phase by which we wound up losing much of our personal identities as individual civilians. This was followed by the first difficult eight weeks designed to orient us to an entirely different life-style -- as functional participants in a new sort of group. And while much of the training may well have been abusive, it had its purposes. The real fun began during the second eight-week period of so-called advanced infantry training: a program which taught us many functional things, including mastery of a wide variety of weaponry.

For those who qualified and were interested, other very specific training programs were offered after this initial SEVENTEEN WEEKS of BASIC TRAINING. I repeat: nine days of basic training? Laughable.

One nice thing about the Hanks-Spielberg foray into so-called basic training is that they provided the experience for their actors. At least these actors could then act as if they had been through something challenging. It seems to me that this so-called basic training was all a part of the hype -- as if to say: "Forgive us for this lousy production. We tried so hard!"

Some other things they did (or did NOT) do strained my credulity and made me angry -- or at least impatient and somewhat disgusted. One such thing was an error so basic I was astonished. After the series of two-minute introductions of known personages such as Sledge, Basilone, and Philips, the producers then used some of these aging heroes of Guadalcanal to introduce and comment upon filmed segments of specific happenings during the six-month battle. The problem was they didn't bother to re-introduce these speakers by name -- a simple printed name identification would have been sufficient to accord these speakers the recognition, legitimacy and honor they deserved.

A similar error, though much more serious, was their handling of the series of naval battles opposite Savo Island, in which the Japanese sank at least six of our destroyers in savage night-fighting encounters. The Australian cruiser HMAS Canberra, the American destroyers Quincy, Monssen, Barton, Laffey and two others were all sunk in what has been called since "Iron Bottom Bay" where our marines had been landed. These costly sea-battle losses are accorded perhaps ten seconds of film showing one unidentified vessel going down. Accompanying pictures of this unidentified sinking vessel, one of the unidentified speakers tells us that with this vessel the marines lost their provisions and ammunition. Such off-hand and cursory handling of so significant a set of events strikes me as irresponsible.

Again, almost throughout, the focus of this introductory segment of The Pacific is upon the hardships encountered and overcome by the actors, the film-crew, and staging units of the production. Never mind the hardships of the marine division which ultimately drove the Japanese from the island.

Perhaps I'm offended because I was six years old when our marines landed on Guadalcanal. My favorite cousin died there. He was my namesake: Robert Westphal, a seventeen-year-old senior who dropped out of high school and with his friends enlisted in the marines on December 8, 1941 -- the Monday morning after the costly Japanese sneak attack upon Pearl Harbor.

So perhaps the Battle for Guadalcanal has deeper implications for me than it may have for other viewers. Over my lifetime I've read scores -- literally scores -- of books about the European and
Pacific theaters of operations of what has been called The Second World War. It could be that Spielberg and Hanks had another audience in mind -- one less deeply involved in the terrors and losses of the war. One more casual and far less interested.

I understand that disinterest in part. After all, since various elements of the 1st Marine Division landed on Guadalcanal August 7, 1942, there has not been one day when somewhere in the world various armed forces have not been engaged in killing each other. This is not to say that American troops have been actively engaged in all these battles. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that military battles continue every day some place in the world. We can scarcely expect this third generation to be deeply interested in the battle for Guadalcanal. No doubt this younger generation has battles and losses of their own.

But still, if the producers seriously wish to tell the story of Guadalcanal, they have a responsibility to do more than offer a silly menu of tiny fragments from which a mildly interested audience can select -- as their interests may dictate.



So what can I say? I suppose that after the wonderful job done by Spielberg and Hanks with Band of Brothers, after Saving Private Ryan, I expected something more thorough and gripping, something approximating the sacrifices made by our marines on Guadalcanal and our navy personnel close to the six month battle.

I'm disappointed by this first (of ten presentations) about the Second World War in the Pacific. What I see is a silly menu of two-three minute segments that might have been better served had they been artistically woven into a gripping representation of the events that unfolded in the Pacific Theater from Guadalcanal forward. Isn't that what high-caliber producers and directors are supposed to do? Tell the story! Don't expect a poorly informed audience to shove the pieces together as they might a jig-saw puzzle.

Simply put, the incredible sacrifices made by so many of my cousin's generation are not well-served by what I have seen so far. I would be surprised if critical review does not force the producers to pull the series out of circulation.

What I have seen so far runs the risk of trivializing the Pacific War. I don't want to see and hear about the supposed difficulties and heroism required of those engaged in this production. Instead, I prefer to learn something more about the Pacific war itself -- about the heroic sacrifices made by the men and women of that generation who actually sacrificed and served in the Pacific.

Please! Weave these fragments together.
Otherwise, don't waste my time.