Hollywood’s Stereotype of the Japanese American
25
Bosley Crowther, writing in the New York Times Film Reviews, deemed
the film ''a respectable and rousing tribute to the men of the 442nd Regimental
Combat Team” that ‘‘presents a forceful lesson in racial tolerance and friendliness”
{252A). N Newsweek review called it a “belated tribute to the nisei who fonned the
442 Regimental Combat Team.” At the beginning of the movie they, “look like a
hopeless collection of vest-pocket sad sacks, but they develop into coordinated GI
warriors a good deal faster than Grayson acquires the understanding that the
questions of race and color have nothing to do with a soldier’s loyalty or valor”
(Rev. of Go fo r Broke! 89).
According to Time, the film’s “message of tolerance and fair play come
through in the action, if sometimes a bit crudely...” (Rev. of Go for Broke! 108).
The movie would have been “even better if its makers had not tried to improve on
the truth with hokum that Hollywood palms off in the name of showmanship”
(108). A review in Scholastic magazine noted that because the film served as a
tribute to the 442nd as a whole, its lack of a story focusing on an individual soldier
or battle made it “dramatically weak” (“Following the Films” 30). The film redeems
itself through the “heavily-underscored point that these Nisei soldiers had two
battles to win: they were not only fighting for the U.S., but fighting to prove to
their countrymen their right to be American citizens” (“Following the Films” 30).
At least one critic pointed out that the story of Grayson’s “conversion”
reflected somewhat of a cliche. A review in the New Republic noted that studios in
Hollywood have a formula for making movies about racial tolerance:
The typical race picture (or racial incident within a picture) is
today handled as follows: The hero is a handsome and winning
young man with the one scar on his personality, an abiding
hatred for a particular minority...he is forced to associate with
a group of these despised people. ..then one of them does him a
signal service — usually saves his life — whereupon the hero
bursts into manly tears and embraces as many former scapegoats
as his arms can conveniently encircle. (“Movies: On the Beach”
23).
Yet, the cinematic merits of this movie did not go unnoticed. In 1952 it received
Academy Award nominations for Best Writing, Story and Screenplay.
Though film critics lauded its storyline and message, its impact on society
is uncertain. In the academic arena, the numero us books that interpret and critique
World War II movies mention little or nothing about the film. Like the men of the
100th Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team, this film goes virtually
unnoticed.