Sunday, August 1, 2021

 Hollywood Romans #6 Mark Antony   AHM #19

 

Mark Antony – The Third Wheel

 

 

“Antony’s rise owed little to conspicuous talent and far more to good connections, luck and the ardent desire for power, position and wealth.  He showed some skill as a politician and administrator, but had only limited ability as a soldier.  Cleopatra was more intelligent, and certainly better educated than Antony.  Neither Antony nor Cleopatra lived a quiet life. They will continue to fascinate, their story being retold and reinvented by each new generation.  Nothing any historian could say will ever stop this process, nor should it.”  -- Adrian Goldsworthy, Antony And Cleopatra, ©2010

 

Having looked at Hollywood’s treatment of Julius Caesar and of Cleopatra, it is only fitting that we now consider the third wheel of this legendary triumvirate, Mark Antony.  Indeed, it is nearly impossible to make a film about one that does not involve the other two, even if only as an off stage presence, so closely bound are these three.  




As with Caesar and Cleopatra, the part of Antony has been played by an array of notable actors, with performances ranging from the merely adequate to the truly amazing.  That none of these performances has truly captured the historic Antony is not surprising.  Even though oceans of ink have been spent writing about this period in History the gaps in our knowledge remain substantial.  While frustrating to historians and scholars, playwrights and filmmakers welcome this opportunity to ‘fill in the gaps’ with their imagination.  Sometimes the fiction is well founded, but even when it is not, that fiction shapes the popular image we have of the people and events depicted.  

 

So it is then that Mark Antony would likely not recognize his Hollywood Roman persona, however, like Cleopatra, Antony would probably still be pleased with at least some of the portrayals.  

 

Of the many on screen portrayals of Mark Antony, there are three worth seeking out:

Marlon Brando in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (1953)
Richard Burton in Cleopatra (1963)

James Purefoy in HBO’s Rome (2011)

 

 



A Streetcar Named Antony

 

Of the three performances in question, Brando has the least amount of screen time.  His Antony does appear in several scenes, but is seldom the center of attention, almost a minor character.  That is with one exception, and what an exception it is. 

 

The key to Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is the triumvirate of Brutus-Cassius-Antony.  The balance among these three characters is both critical and delicate – the play rises or falls on this, and the acting triumvirate at the center of the 1953 film, Mason-Gielguid-Brando is perfect.  In this regard director Joseph Mankiewicz and producer John Houseman have cast well.

 

As Brutus, James Mason displays the brooding intelligence of a man clearly swimming in political waters far deeper than he is qualified for, either by training or temperament.  Likewise Gielgud, as Cassius, is appropriately manipulative.  Cassius has his own agenda and is happy to use Brutus to reach that end.

 

All of this is to the good and serves the production well, but it is in the casting of Marlon Brando as Mark Antony that Mankiewicz and Houseman show true genius.  Originally the director had sought Paul Schofield (A Man For All SeasonsQuiz Show) for the role of Antony, but changed his mind when Brando’s screen test came in better than expected.  Brando was an actor of immense talent and is not only comfortable with the language but more than holds his own with the classically trained actors in the cast who have far more experience with the Bard.  Brando’s timing and dramatic sense are impeccable.  What’s more, Brando infuses Antony with a pugnacious air that seems completely appropriate to Antony both dramatically and historically, or at least, as we have come to understand the historical Antony.

 

Now History tells us that Antony delivered a speech which turned the crowd in the Forum from celebrating the just end of a tyrant to mourning the untimely death of a father, yet it is unlikely that Antony’s speech was as well written as Shakespeare’s nor, perhaps as well delivered as Brando’s. 

 

Much has been written about Brando as the premier American Actor of his generation, but most viewers, who are familiar only with his later films, may wonder what all the hoopla is about.  Watching his performance as Antony leaves no doubt as to his talent.  It is a performance for the ages.  

 

 

 

 


Slouching Towards Alexandria

 

To call the 1963 Cleopatra a ‘troubled production’ would be an understatement worthy of Hollywood. Indeed, it is a miracle that any film at all emerged from this maelstrom of production chaos caused, in no small part by the titanic personalities.

 

Originally intended as a modestly budgeted remake of the 1917 Theda Bara hit, it was anything but modest and extravagant hardly describes the excesses both on and off the set.  After an aborted first attempt (which resulted in $7 million spent for 10 minutes of unusable footage) 20th Century Fox began again, moving production from London to Rome under a new director approved by Elizabeth Taylor.  So it was that Joseph L Mankiewicz found himself once again in Ancient Rome with familiar characters.  

Unlike his previous encounter with Caesar and Antony, Mankiewicz was now working from his own screenplay with the intention of telling the story of Cleopatra in two 3-hour films: Caesar And Cleopatra followed by Antony And Cleopatra.  This time Antony would have plenty of on screen time for in-depth character development. 

 

Elizabeth Taylor stayed on as Cleopatra, but Mankiewicz recast most of the other parts.  For the role of Mark Antony, Mankiewicz wanted Marlon Brando, but he was unavailable so Mankiewicz set his sights on Richard Burton.  The Studio objected, claiming Burton was an outstanding stage actor but not a bankable film star.  Mankiewicz insisted and Fox finally relented, paying $50,000 to buyout Burton’s Broadway contract where he was performing in Camelot.  

Once Taylor and Burton were on set together, it quickly became impossible to tell if their performance was acting of the first order or simply life imitating art.  It may have been both, but in the end life overcame art.  As Mankiewicz told producer Walter Wagner,  
“I have been sitting on a volcano all alone for too long... Liz and Burton are not just playing Antony and Cleopatra.”

 

In yet another case of ‘life imitating art’ the critic Barry Norman observed, “…Burton’s acting prowess was stunted by his relationship with the Hollywood darling through no fault of her own.” 

 

At one point, as the production sank deeper into chaos and debt, Fox considered cutting their loses by ending the film with Caesar’s assassination.  This would, of course, essentially eliminate Antony from the story, relegating him once again to the position of a minor character. When Studio executives approached Burton with their plan, he replied with succinct menace: “I’ll sue you until you’re puce.” 

Fox did not end the story early and Burton did not sue, however Fox chairman Zanuck insisted on the release of a single film, and so the cutting began, deep and severe. 

According to scholar Jon Solomon the more historically accurate Antony was left on the cutting room floor.  As Mankiewicz noted, “The person who suffered most in the cutting of the film was Dick Burton.”  What remained was no longer the hero who suffers a tragic fall, but rather as Solomon observed,  “This cinematic Antony starts at the bottom and falls sideways.”  And yet…


Keeping in mind the Antony illuminated by Goldsworthy’s 2010 biography, 

Burton’s heavily edited performance may in fact be closer to the history than it has heretofore been given credit.   Occasionally, the Hollywood Romans get it right, even when they seem to be working hard not to.


 


 

The Ram Has Touched The Wall

 

James Purefoy, who played Antony in the HBO/BBC series Rome, had one major advantage over Brando and Burton – time.  Because Rome was an episodic series focused on the events leading to the end of the Republic and the rise of the Principate, the writers had the time for character development that a feature film, even an epic one, often lacks.  This is a boon for both writers and actors alike as they work to bring their characters fully to life.  Even though both Cleopatra and Rome essentially cover the same time period, we see much more of Antony in the latter, interacting with a wider variety of characters and situations beyond those involving Caesar or Cleopatra.

 

Additionally, even in this age of giant HD monitors in every home, television cannot rely on visual spectacle to carry the day in the same way a feature film can and often does.  No matter how big their budget, Rome could never stage scenes like Cleopatra’s entry into Rome, or the naval battle at Actium.  Television’s stock in trade is character driven stories propelled by intimate, dialog heavy, scenes.  In this Rome excels.   

 

That is not to say there is no spectacle in Rome -- there is, but of a more intimate sort.

 

In her insightful article, Spectacle of Sex: Bodies on Display in Rome, Stacie Raucci notes that we never see Antony in actual battle (he does lead a cavalry charge at the battle of Philippi but all the action takes place off camera) however we do see a lot of Antony’s body in shots that,  “establish him as the primary sex symbol of the series.  Even when fully clothed, his body more than those of all the other elite male characters is clearly signaled as a spectacle.”  

 

Purefoy himself saw Antony as a tragic character.  As he told journalist Hannah Pool,  "He's flawed but he's human. I think the audience can tell that there's hot blood running through those veins.  The more I read about [Mark Antony], the more I looked into him in history, he's just unbelievably tragic.  Those scenes, especially him and Cleopatra at the end, there's clearly something very tragic about it.”

 

Indeed, in Purefoy’s Antony we see the pugnaciousness (Brando) and the hubris (Burton) as well as the sexuality.  In this latter aspect, time is, once again, on Purefoy’s side as his Antony is given ample opportunities to display his sexual prowess. When asked about the scenes involving not only sex, but also full frontal male nudity (a rarity even on cable TV) Purefoy averred that ‘there is no point playing someone like Antony and doing it half-heartedly.’  

 

Interestingly, Rome avoids competing with Shakespeare by not having Antony deliver his funeral oration on screen.  We hear about it, after the fact, from other characters.  What we are given instead is a wonderful scene of Antony, at the home of Servillia, confronting and out maneuvering the assassins.  This is Antony at his best – coldly ruthless but with his signature charm that disarms and paralyzes his opponents even as they realize they are being politically eviscerated.  This is one of Antony’s best scenes in the entire series.

 

 

Et tu Hollywood…

 

The Hollywood Romans are not finished with Antony.  So enduring are Caesar, Cleopatra and Antony that, as Goldsworthy noted, each generation will retell their stories anew, reinventing them to suit the dramatic needs of the time.  Now some will demur, lamenting the loss of the historical Antony, but in fact that Antony was lost the moment Octavian declared victory at Actium.  The reimagining of Antony, and of Cleopatra, to suite the needs of the “new” present began then, and has never stopped.  They quickly slid from history into legend; eventually becoming the pop culture icons we know them as today. 

 


 

Of the three performances on display here, each has elements that recommend it to the viewer.  The characterizations all share certain elements, while each emphasizes different aspects that we have come to associate with Antony.  No doubt viewers will have their favorite, though Purefoy’s performance will be tough to beat.  Even so, given the shear number of projects currently in development, we will be seeing a lot more of these characters. Perhaps that definitive Antony is out there still, waiting for his cue.  



The author wishes to thank Graham Sumner and Jennifer DeCosta for their insights and assistance.


 

Further Reading:

Antony And Cleopatra by Adrian Goldsworthy, ©2010

Rome – History Makes Television edited by Monica S Cyrino ©2008

The Ancient World In The Cinema by Jon Solomon, ©2001

When Liz Met Dick by David Kamp ©2011 Vanity Fair 

When In Rome by Hannah Pool ©2007 The Guardian

 




 

A few of the actors who played Mark Antony

 

Maurice Costello   1908

Thurston Hall        1917

Henry Wilcoxon    1934

Luis Sandrini         1947

Raymond Burr       1953

Toto                       1963

Sid James              1964

Richard Johnson   1974

Osami Nabe          1970

Billy Zane             1999

Charlton Heston    1950, 1970, 1972



This article first appeared in Ancient History Magazine #19 Jan 2019 Hollywood Romans

 (c)2019 David L Reinke







Thursday, April 7, 2016

Bell-Jeff 10th Grade History Lecture Notes 4/8/16

Clash of Armor
Kursk and the Battle of the Bulge


“War is the locomotive of History.”Leo Tolstoy


I. Introduction

     A. The tank was not a new concept.  Leonardo Da Vinci presented his design for an “armored car”  (tank) in 1487, however it was not until the First World War that a practical vehicle, code named ‘Tank’ would enter the battlefield as a viable weapon.
       
     B. After the war, many military theorists saw the potential for the tank to change the nature of the battlefield. (Liddell Hart, Anon Chaffe, George Patton)

     C. During the Battle of France, 1940, the French & British had bigger tanks, better tanks and more tanks than did the Germans, however…
     Unlike the Allies, the Germans knew how to use the tank to best effect.

That said, the Germans realized they too needed a heavy tank and began a design program that resulted in the Mark VI Tiger I.  The Tiger entered active service in late 1942.

     D.  German invasion of the Soviet Union (June 22, 1941) did not proceed as planned.  The Soviets had twice as many tanks as the Germans had estimated and, more importantly in the T34, a tank design far more advanced than anything the Germans possessed.

The nasty surprise presented by the T34 spurred the Germans to reevaluate their own design concepts.  The Army wanted an exact copy of the T34, but German engineers thought they could improve on the Soviet design.  The result was the Mark V Panther.




 
Soviet T34/76 – a nasty surprise for the Germans in 1941.


 
German Mark V ausf.G Panther, December 1944 – Arguably the best tank of WWII.

 
German Mark VI Tiger I, armed with the 88mm main gun, it was the most feared tank on the battlefield, inspiring ‘Tiger Terror’ on both the Eastern and Western Fronts.


II. Kursk -- July 1943

“Is it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east this year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn't care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front?” -- General Heinz Guderian, Panzer Leader ©1950


A.   Objectives – Why Attack Kursk?
1. Destroy (kill or capture) large concentration of Soviet Forces in and around the town of Kursk.  (The Kursk Bulge)
2. Regain control of the war in the East.
         a. Shorter defensive lines thus freeing up troops for redeployment to Italy      
         b. Follow on attacks were planed to finally capture Leningrad and then Moscow
3. Restore the faith of Germany’s allies who were now considering the possibility that Germany would lose the war.
4. Persuade Turkey to join the war on the side of Germany.
One distinguished American Historian has called the Germans, “…the most professionally skillful army of modern times.”Max Hastings, Overlord ©1984

     B.   Forces Available
Soviet:
Men: 1.9 million
Tanks: 5000
Artillery: 31,000
Aircraft: 3000

German:
Men: 780,000
Tanks: 3000
Artillery: 7400
Aircraft: 2100

NOTE: These numbers are for the German offensive, July 5-17.  If one adds in the Soviet counter-offensive, these total numbers increase significantly

     C.   Tiger Terror and the “Myth” of Prokhorovka

1. “Death Ride” of the Panzers?
2. Every Tank a Tiger? (only 15 available at height of the battle)
3. The 5-to-1 Rule
4. The “Biggest” Tank Battle in History?
5. The Michael Licari Essay
https://web.archive.org/web/20140912164146/http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm



“When we was in the bocage we were assaulted by them Tigers.  You know what I mean by assaulted?  I mean assaulted!”Moriarty, Kelly’s Heroes



      D.  Personalities of Note


1. Lt. Michael Wittmann
     Tiger Tank Platoon Leader in the 1st SS Panzergrenadier Division  He is credited with destroying over 37 T34 Tanks and 47 anti-tank guns at Kursk. By the time of his death, in August of 1944, his “kills” will total 138 tanks.





 
2. Lt. Aleksandra Samuenko
T34 Tank Platoon Leader in the 1st Guards Tank Army  She is credited with destroying 3 Tiger tanks during the Kursk battles  and is awarded the Order of the Red Star.  She died on March 3, 1945 from wounds received in battle 70 Km east of Berlin.  She was 23 years old.

                 


3. Cpt. Hans-Ulrich Rudel
Flying a Ju87 Stuka Dive Bomber equipped with twin 37mm  anti-tank guns, Rudel is credited with killing 12 T34 tanks on his first day.  By war’s end his total will include 519 Soviet tanks, 1 Battleship, 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, and nearly 1000 other vehicles of various types.  Rudel died in 1982.       





  
4. Lt. Antonina Lebedeva
Credited with over 1500 flying hours, 3 air battles and 12 combat missions, Lebedeva was shot down twice and destroyed one German Me-109 fighter.  On July 17, during an evening combat mission her plane went missing and she was listed as KIA.  Her body was discovered in 1982 by school children.


5. Lt. Eric Hartmann
On July 7, during the fierce areal battles above Kursk, Hartman destroyed seven Soviet fighters.  By the war’s end Hartmann would be the most successful fighter pilot in history with over 352 Allied aircraft shot down while having never been shot down himself.

        



E.   The Results – By the Numbers

1. Losses - Manpower
Soviet:
KIA: 70,330
WIA: 107,517
MIA: 34,000

German:
KIA: 9,036
WIA: 43,159
MIA: 1,960

2. Losses – Material
Soviet:
Tanks:1,900
Aircraft: 459

German:
Tanks: 323
Aircraft: 159



     F.   Outcome – Political & Military
        1. Could the Germans have won at Kursk?
    2. Who lost the battle – Hitler or his Generals?
    3. Was Kursk the “Turning Point” of the War?
        

 

“I have done my utmost to let the events speak for themselves, and if any conclusion was reached, it was that there are no simple lessons in history, that it is human nature that repeats itself, not history.  We often learn more about the past from the present, in fact, than the reverse.”
-- John Toland from the introduction to his book The Rising Sun-The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-45





III. Wacht am Rhein – The Battle of the Bulge

        
         A. Objectives – Why Attack Here & Now?
                  1. The element of Surprise
                  2. The “Quiet Sector”
                  3. Split the Allies
                  4. Take the port of Antwerp
                  5. Force a Truce in the West
                  6. Free up units for the Eastern Front

         B. Forces Available
                 
                  1. Germans
                  Manpower: 450,000
                  Tanks & Assault Guns: 1224
                  AFV: 1500

                  2. United States
                  Manpower: 700,000
                  Tanks & Assault Guns: 4,380
                  AFV: 7,800

Note: Time was the real enemy of the Germans and as each day passed Allied strength increased while German strength decreased.  These numbers represent totals at the height of unit commitment to the battlefield.  For example, at the time of the initial German assault on December 16th:

German forces available:
Men: 406,000
Tanks & Assault Guns: 1,224

Allied forces available:
Men: 228,741
Tanks & Assault Guns: 3,329


 

         C. Caught by Surprise

1.    Initial German Success
2.    Operation Greif
3.    Those Damned Engineers
4.    “Nuts!” -- Bastogne and the 101st Airborne
5.    Kampfgruppe Peiper and the Crossroads of Death



          D. Personalities of Note


1. LTC. Otto Skorzeny
Known as “Hitler’s Commando” Skorzeny carried out several special operations, most notably the rescue of Mussolini in July 1943.  For the Ardennes Offensive he was in charge of Operation Greif. After the war he lived in Spain and actually worked as a Mossad agent.
  


 
 2. LTC Joachim Peiper
 Fluent in several languages (including French and English) he served as Himmler’s aide before becoming a panzer commander of some renowned.  At the Bulge his unit, Kampfgruppe Peiper, committed some of the worst battlefield atrocities of the war.  Sentenced to death, Peiper was released in 1956.  After the war Peiper lived in France, translating books on military history.  He was murdered, on July 14, 1976.



 
3. PFC Kurt Vonnegut
Serving as an Infantry Scout with the 106th Infantry Division,  Vonnegut was captured on December 22 and sent to a POW camp in Dresden, Germany.  He survived the firebombing of the city (February 13--15, 1945).  His experiences formed the basis for his book, Slaughter House Five, considered by many to be one of the great American novels.

                  
4. Cpl. Mel Brooks
Served as a Combat Engineer with the 78th Infantry Division. The Combat Engineers were vital in slowing the German advance in the first week of the battle.  After the war Brooks became a successful comedian and film director. 
                 
                 


“This is undoubtedly the greatest American battle of the war and will, I believe, be regarded as an ever famous American victory.”
-- Winston Churchill, House of Commons, January 22, 1945



 
  
              E.   The Results – By the Numbers

         1. Losses -- Manpower  
         German:
         KIA: 15,652
         WIA: 41,600
         MIA: 29.183

         Allied:
         KIA: 20,876
         WIA: 42,893
         MIA: 23,662
        
         2. Losses – Material
         German:
         Tanks & Assault Guns: 600
         Aircraft: 800

         Allied:
         Tanks & Assault Guns: 800     
         Aircraft: 647

              F.   Outcome – Political & Military
         1. Could the Germans have won?
         2. Who lost the battle – Hitler or his Generals?
         3. What if…
                  a. The Germans had launched this attack on the Eastern Front?
                  b. The Germans had used these forces for defense only?



IV. Sources / Further Reading


Kursk

The Battle Of Kursk by David M Glantz & Jonathon M House, ©1999
Exhaustively researched and well written, this is the very best book on the battle.

Citadel – The Battle Of Kursk by Robin Cross, ©1993

Operation Citadel by Janusz Piekalkiewics, ©1987

Kursk-- The Greatest Tank Battle by M.K. Barbier, ©2002

Kursk 1943 – The Tide Turns In The East by Mark Healy, ©1993

Waffen-SS Kursk 1943 Volumes 1-6 by Remy Spezzano, ©2002
Incredible collection of photographs covering Waffen-SS operations at Kursk. 

Tiger I On The Eastern Front by Jean Restayn, ©1999

Tigers At The Front – A Photo Study by Thomas L Jentz, ©2001

Tiger Tanks by Michael Green, ©1995

Tiger Ace – The Story of Michael Wittmann by Gary L Simpson, ©1994

Battle of the Bulge

A Time For Trumpets – The Untold Story of The Bulge by Charles MacDonald, ©1985

Ardennes 1944 – The Battle Of The Bulge by Antony Beevor, ©2015

Snow & Steel – The Battle Of The Bulge by Peter Caddwick-Adams, ©2015

Battle Of The Bulge - Hitler’s Ardennes Offensive 1944-1945 by Danny S Parker, ©1991

Hitler’s Last Gamble – The Battle Of The Bulge by Trevor N Dupuy, David L Bongard and Richard C Anderson, ©1994

Engineering The Victory – The Battle Of The Bulge by Colonel David Pergrin, ©1996

The Bitter Woods by John S.D. Eisenhower, ©1969

Battle Of The Bulge – The First 24 Hours by David Jordon, ©2003

Nuts! – The Battle Of The Bulge by Donald M Goldstein, Katherine V Dillon and J Michael Wenger, ©1994

Ardennes – The Secret War by Charles Whiting, ©1984

Armageddon – The Battle For Germany 1944 –1945 by Max Hastings, ©2004

The Battle Of The Bulge – Hitler’s Last Hope by Robin Cross, ©2002

Ardennes 1944: Peiper & Skorzeny by Jean-Paul Pallud, ©1987

Ardennes 1944 - Hitler’s Last Gamble In The West by James R Arnold, ©1990

The Malmedy Massacre by John M Bauserman, ©1995

Massacre At Malmedy by Charles Whiting, ©1973

A Peculiar Crusade – Willis M Everett and the Malmedy Massacre by James J Weingartner, ©2000



On-Line Resources / Videos of Interest

Book review of Armor & Blood by Dennis E Showwalter,  The Daily Beast

Tank Encyclopedia On-Line resource about Tanks and AFV’s

Web site for the Tank Museum at Bovington, UK.  They have a working Tiger tank, among other AFV’s.

War History On-Line web site

Essays on the Ardennes Offensive and on the Malmaedy Massacre Trial


Survey & Review of books about the Battle of Kursk



Videos of Interest on YouTube

Tiger Vs. Sherman

Tiger Day at Bovington Tank Museum

US Army 1943 Training Film, “Crack That Tank”

Documentary on the Tiger Tank

Documentary on the Panther Tank

US Army Signal Corps 1945 Newsreel on The Battle of the Bulge using captured German film footage.



The Tiger II (King Tiger)



 M4E8 Sherman




Final Thoughts

 “The military makes demands which few if any other callings do, and of course emotionally disturbed people talk about being trained to kill… The whole essence of being a soldier is not to slay but to be slain.  You offer yourself up to be slain, rather than setting yourself up as a slayer.  Now one can get into very deep water here, but there’s food for thought in it.”
-- General Sir John Hackett, War The Lethal Custom, ©1985 & 2004, p129.

 


“Politicians may … pretend that the soldier is ethically in no different position than any other professional.  He is.  He serves under an unlimited liability, and it is the unlimited liability which lends dignity to the military profession … There’s also the fact that military action is group action, particularly in armies … The success of armies depends to a very high degree on the coherence of the group, and the coherence of the group depends on the degree of trust and confidence of its members in each other.

Now what Arnold Toynbee used to call the military virtues – fortitude, endurance, loyalty, courage, and so on – these are good qualities in any collection of men and enrich the society in which they are prominent.  But in the military society, they are functional necessities, which is something quite, quite different.  I mean a man can be false, fleeting, perjured, in every way corrupt, and be a brilliant mathematician, or one of the world’s greatest painters.  But there’s one thing he can’t be, and that is a good soldier, sailor, or airman.  Now it’s this group coherence and the unlimited liability which, between them, set the military professional apart, and I think will continue to do so.”
--General Sir John Hackett, War ©1985, p140.