I'm not entirely sure this film knows what it wants to be (at least in the first 15 minutes). We start with a montage of battleships and aeroplanes and the United States Navy as the wrong Patrol... Somewhere. There's no war yet for America so the Navy is just hanging about.
I guess they're patrolling the Pacific Seaboard, which is pretty large ''All Things Considered''. The United States has always had a pretty big presents in the Pacific Ocean, and a decent present in the Atlantic.
This gives the United States Navy a pretty large area to occupy, then you add in the Monroe Doctrine and you have an even larger area comprising of an entire continent. Add everything up together and you have half the planet. And this is all before the great second world war takes place putting the United States in as the dominant superpower.
A shame the movie wasn't actually about that. What we have here is: ''Three Men and a Baby'' but in the 1930s. So one of the sea-man serving on the vessel informs the rest of his crew that he's the proud father of a bouncing baby boy. When he gets the San Francisco he hopes to visit this bouncing boy. But a problem emerges, his wife died of complications and now he's left a widow with only him to take care of their son. The woman's sister wants to take the baby as her own, claiming that this naval officer wouldn't be the best influence for him especially considering that he's at Sea all the time.
Originally I'm kind of on the father's side. It's his son after all, he should definitely be the prime caregiver of this child, even if he is at sea most the time. I'm sure there's an arrangement he could make with the sister or even other caregivers to ensure that this kid stays within his legal protection. But then he goes off to see his wife leaving his friends to take care of the baby.
As he's heading to the hospital to see his dying wife (if she's not already dead). He's hit by a car and is killed himself. He tells his friend (Lt. "Red") with his dying breath that he wants him to take care of the baby himself, implying that it's a naval oath that he must keep regardless of the law.
Now we have a problem, not only did Red take the baby (which would be considered kidnapping under any realistic law.) But with the two prime caretakers of the baby dead the sister is now considered the next of kin, she is for all intensive purposes the rightful caregiver of this kid regardless of what the dying father wanted. We're not giving any reason to suspect that this woman has any sort of mental trauma or is incapable of taking care of the child. She just didn't care for the man.
The rest of the movie is three different naval officers trying to hide that they have a baby currently in their possession. The whole things played with comedic effect, which is fine.
But it doesn't amend the fact that the sister is still the real caregiver of this child. And that this poor kid you shouldn't be tossed around, and hid from her own family just because these Sailors decided to keep an oath to a dying seamen.
Now we have an entire film where I'm supposed to be on edge, hoping that the sister and her mother along with anyone else who may be on their side doesn't Discover that the Navy in fact has the baby. But I can't take them seriously. I want the sister to find the baby, it's in her rightful interest to know where it is.
I also admit that I've never been a fan of the hiding the very obvious item under the noses of the people looking for it scenario. I'm not entirely sure what this type of movie cliches called, but I've seen it plenty of times and other films. Rather it be Frank Drebin hiding that he accidentally killed a fish in the Naked Gun movie. Or somebody secretly holding documentation that's vital to someones war effort in a desk of someone else is trying to look through.
I do have to admit, regardless of how I think the legal situation is going to be, seeing these three Sailors interacting with the baby is quite a comical scene. As they tried to discover what exactly it is he wants. Giving him his own little high chair, seeing if he'll react to dolls properly. Or having him play with bath toys which of course are Miniature ships of the very boats they're serving on. After all the baby is called ''The Admiral''. He's meant to be a future leader, somebody that does real good.
Would you look at that! the field and found a way to make me disagree with the sister after all. It seems she's looking for an excuse to get close if one of the officers in an attempt to find the baby. And in doing so she sabotages one of the men's cars. So now she's doing illegal activity as well. Good to see that nobody in this film is technically morally obligated, they're all self-appointed jerks who think that their own actions and own creeds outweigh any civil respectability they should have to each other or the general community.
Beyond all that it turns out the sister is a bit of a psychopath. Although this is partly Reds fault. She wants to go in an aeroplane so she can learn how to fly, and red just lets her go along knowing full well that this woman is trying to manipulate him to find the baby. And not once but twice does he try to crash the plane by pushing the fly-stick and some ridiculous Direction. How am I supposed to like any character after this? When they all act so God damn stupid. I get that you're trying to find a child that's rightfully yours, but to put everyone's life in danger in such a reckless way. Well that's just plain stupidity and I can't endorse that regardless of your motives.
I'm not exactly sure what the title of this movie supposed to be. On the one hand it says Mariners of the Sky, but then I look at the movie posters and they say Navy Born. That's the problem of a lot of these older films they had multiple titles, especially if they went overseas. I know modern movie still have this problem, many a zombie flick stuffers with incorrect title sequences.but most of them are new enough and popular enough with a general audience that somebody can make leeway with what exactly they're supposed to be called. In this case what are we supposed to think? This film is 70 years old, and I doubt that many people have any interest in it.
Comments
Post a Comment