The Real Glory (1939)

Good movie but grossly overrated

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

I had long been curious about this film as it took place in my parents' homeland of the Philippines during the years of the early 20th century when the U.S. had occupied it with some Army posts there for the purpose of teaching the natives to defend themselves against invading Moros. Though the disclaimer at the end says the movie is entirely fictional, it's safe to assume that the part of many of the country's citizens suffering from cholera has some basis in fact as that disease is common in many Asian countries. Anyway, Gary Cooper plays a military doctor who is in charge of treating many of the natives during the American occupation but decides to help many of them prepare for the eventual battle despite his captain's orders not to bother. Also on hand to offer support are fellow officers played by David Niven and Broderick Crawford who provide some amusing turns before things turn serious for both of them and Andrea Leeds who is charming as the leading lady who provides the buffer between Cooper and her stubborn captain father played by Reginald Owen. And leave it to veteran director Henry Hathaway to provide the rousing finish one usually expects from many of these '30s adventure movies. So on that note, The Real Glory is recommended.

This film is typical of American films that present us as benevolent occupiers rather than the aggressive colonizers we were.Contrary to the film's assertion, Filipinos were not simple people who were happy to have Americans occupying their country. The bloody Philippine-American War, during which Filipinos fought for their independence, lasted for four years. Some Americans, including William Jennings Bryan, Mark Twain, and Andrew Carnegie, strongly objected to the annexation of the Philippines. The U.S. declared victory in 1902, but in the south, Muslim Filipinos resisted until 1913, and the Americans never acquired complete control over the Muslim areas of Mindanao.The word "moro" used in the film to refer to the Muslims is a pejorative term used by the non-Muslim (i.e., Christian) majority, and Muslims o that time would not call themselves "moro." While it is historically accurate that there were Muslims pirates that attacked coastal villages, this film represents most Muslims as "native devils" and the non-Muslim Filipinos s as frightened children who need brave Americans to teach them courage. The reality is that Muslim Filipinos refused to be subjugated by American rule and fought a drawn-ought guerrilla war, the first of its kind in modern history and the only kind possible when faced with the wealth and power of the U.S colonial machinery.When you are fighting against troops that are illegally occupying your country, is that a rebellion or is it self-defense? The current situation in Iraq shows that not much has changed over 100 years later.

This is a very enjoyable adventure that clearly influenced Raiders of the Lost Ark and the other Indiana Jones films. It is expertly directed by the unfairly forgotten Henry Hathaway and Gary Cooper is excellent in the lead role as a doctor assigned to help train Phillipine natives against the dangerous Moro tribesman who regularly invade their villages.I must point out that another user comment, by one "skt171," attempts to make an analogy between this film and our current situation in Iraq. The analogy is correct, but not in the way the poster intended. This film is now widely considered both "historically and politically dubious," a fact pointed out by the well-respected Time Out Film Guide.For this reason, it is hard for me to take the poster's assertions seriously, particularly when he tries to point out how our media would have "ruined" our successful intervention in Phillipine affairs as it (presumably) is ruining our involvement in Iraq. Except for one problem...our involvement in the Philippines was neither as noble nor as successful as this film depicts.One other interesting point: this film is being shown repeatedly on the Fox Movie Channel prior to an important election in which Iraq is perhaps the most pressing issue. In fact, they are "celebrating" the legacy of studio-system "product" (their term, not mine) Henry Hathaway all month. Hathaway, of course, made MANY pro-war films during his career...which basically consisted of him taking whatever job the studio gave him. I can just see the Fox executives thinking to themselves, "if only movies were still like this...those Democrats wouldn't have a leg to stand on! Lets show nothing but Hathaway films until after the election." Im sure the reason for this is to prompt others to liken this inaccurate film to Iraq...it seems to have worked for skt171 (although he saw the film on VHS), thats for sure! Bottom line: enjoy this film as an adventure story. It works beautifully in this way. But look elsewhere for accurate history. And please, do not use this film as a basis for supporting our presence in Iraq, but rather as a blueprint for what a pro-Iraq War film would be like if we still lived in an era when movies were allowed to function as a propaganda arm of the US Government's military policy.

This movie is entertaining. It's not intellectually challenging, nor does it have a serious message.Its moral tone is neutral. It is not didactic: it does not attempt to teach viewers anything (except perhaps how to survive in the Phillipine jungle).The plot contains many suspenseful situations, and reminded me of the plots of the series of "cliffhanger" short movies I used to see at the cinema. Each item in the series ended in a crisis in which it appeared the hero would certainly perish. This benefited cinema owners by attracting patrons back to see the next item in the series. With this movie, I didn't have to wait a week to view the resolution.