I am an ex-history teacher and learning about interesting historical characters is something I really love. So, I was excited to learn about a real life hero, Lt. O'Bannon (misspelled 'O'Bannion' on IMDB). During the war with the Barbary pirates on the north African coast in the early 1800s, he led an expedition of US marines and locals against the pirates who were hunkered down in what is modern day Libya. They were hunkered down because the US Navy was blockading the port where the pirates did their dirty work...and the move against them with a small group of marines was gutsy considering the USA was very tiny and weak at the time. Because he and his actions are celebrated in "Tripoli" I was excited to see the movie. Sadly, while it does glamorize his actions, it also is filled with cliches and isn't very good.
The story begins on one of the US Navy's ships outside of Tripoli. In order to break the stalemate, a daring plan has been hatched...to have a small group of Marines on the ship go to Egypt to enlist the aid of a group of mercenaries as well as the man who thinks he SHOULD be in charge of the Barbary Coast. This means marching them hundreds of miles through the desert and taking the enemy by surprise.
So, why did I dislike the film so much? Maureen O'Hara. While she was a fine actress in many ways, in the 1940s and 50s, she also often played the same sort of godawful character...a supposed 'feminist' who is supposedly the equal of any man. I say supposed in both cases because what she really plays is a 1950 version of a Hollywood feminist who REALLY needs a man to tame and dominate her...a horrible and silly cliche. She essentially plays her part like she is busting with testosterone and can act as manly as any man...which really is a caricature instead of a feminist icon! It's embarrassing and annoying to watch...and the notion of such a woman tagging along with this expedition makes zero sense. I assume this part was written into the film because the director was O'Hara's husband at the time. Regardless, it's bad...like putting a tough as nails woman in "The Longest Day" or "The Dirty Dozen"...and making her strong but really weak and in need of a man! Oh, good grief...what a terrible script idea.
The story begins on one of the US Navy's ships outside of Tripoli. In order to break the stalemate, a daring plan has been hatched...to have a small group of Marines on the ship go to Egypt to enlist the aid of a group of mercenaries as well as the man who thinks he SHOULD be in charge of the Barbary Coast. This means marching them hundreds of miles through the desert and taking the enemy by surprise.
So, why did I dislike the film so much? Maureen O'Hara. While she was a fine actress in many ways, in the 1940s and 50s, she also often played the same sort of godawful character...a supposed 'feminist' who is supposedly the equal of any man. I say supposed in both cases because what she really plays is a 1950 version of a Hollywood feminist who REALLY needs a man to tame and dominate her...a horrible and silly cliche. She essentially plays her part like she is busting with testosterone and can act as manly as any man...which really is a caricature instead of a feminist icon! It's embarrassing and annoying to watch...and the notion of such a woman tagging along with this expedition makes zero sense. I assume this part was written into the film because the director was O'Hara's husband at the time. Regardless, it's bad...like putting a tough as nails woman in "The Longest Day" or "The Dirty Dozen"...and making her strong but really weak and in need of a man! Oh, good grief...what a terrible script idea.