The Last Men (2023)

 

            “The Last Men” is a French/Belgium production. It was directed by Jacques Perrin (“The 317th Platoon”).  It is set in WWII Indochina in March, 1945. The Japanese have launched a brutal offensive that targets French bases. Many French soldiers were killed. A small unit at an outpost decides they need to evacuate. They will go through enemy lines to try to reach a base. They are led by Adjutant Janicki (Andrzej Chyra). He butts heads with a malcontent named Lemiotte (Guido Caprino). Lemiotte is the stereotypical insubordinate narcissist you find in “Lost Patrol” movies. The journey is something of an odyssey and not all the men will survive.

            The movie whittles the group down. Some die from encounters with Japanese soldiers. Some commit suicide. Most of men will not make it. As they hump through the jungle, there is dysfunction mainly between Janicki and Lemiotte. Janicki is a good leader who insists on doing things humanely. He believes it is better to die with honor than to abandon your principles just to survive.  Lemiotte is the kind of guy who wants to leave wounded behind. He urges survival at all costs. The others are torn between the two philosophies. Lemiotte is unrepentant and does not get the usual redemption arc. Although Lemiotte has challenged Janicki the whole time, when he gets captured Janicki insists on saving him. A good man is lost in the rescue, so the movie makes you wonder if Janicki made the right decision.

            “The Last Men” is a solid behind the lines, who will survive? movie. I bears some resemblance to Perrin’s “317^th Platoon”. They are set in the same area and both involve a group making its way through the jungle. “The Last Men” is more melodramatic with its dysfunction. The body count is predictable, but the deaths are a variety. The encounters with the Japanese are well-staged. The cinematography is hand-held by cameramen who are embeded with the unit. The acting is above average with Caprino and Chyra making good adversaries. The movie gets better as it goes along and builds to a satisfying, if depressing, ending.

            “The Last Men” is set in a theater that is rarely covered in war movies. But the plot is not rare. Lost patrol movies are common. This one manages to be fresh and thought-provoking.

GRADE  =  B+   

 

100 BEST WAR MOVIES: #52. Catch-22 (1970)

 

Complex novels can be difficult to bring to the screen.  Mike Nichols (“Charlie Wilson’s War) took on one of the more difficult novels when he decided to make “Catch-22”.  Joseph Heller’s novel is nonlinear and full of bizarre characters and labyrinthian dialogue.  Buck Henry (who plays Lt. Col. Korn) wrote the screenplay and Nichols assembled an eclectic cast.  Paramount gave Nichols a big budget and he used part of it to get 17 vintage B-25 Mitchell bombers.  Six months were spent on the camerawork for the bombers alone.  This required 1,500 flight hours.  Unfortunately, little of the footage made it into the film as it is not an aerial combat movie.  It is an anti-war satire that is often compared to “M*A*S*H”, which was released the same year.  It was this coincidental release that probably contributed to the box office failure of “Catch-22”.  The increasing unpopularity of the Vietnam War seemingly left room for only one successful war satire and the public chose “M*A*S*H”.  Another factor was probably the fact that it made fun of WWII.

            The movie opens sans music over the credits. The bombers line up for takeoff. The pilots give the thumbs up to the tower, but bombardier Yossarion gives the finger.  The takeoffs of the 17 bombers is one of the great war movie openings. This transitions to a discussion between Milo Minderbinder (Jon Voight) and Col. Cathcart (Martin Balsam). Minderbinder has an idea for how the unit can make some money. Their discussion continues  unfazed despite the crash of a bomber nearby. This is our first clue that the movie is a black comedy.  Yossarian is the main character among an ensemble of colorful characters. He is suffering from PTSD due to an incident involving a wounded gunner on his bomber.  He is also frustrated by Cathcart’s continual bumping up of the number of missions required to go home.  The standard is 25, but the colonel gradually moves it to 80.  Yossarian believes his only hope of survival is to be declared insane.  In an iconic scene, he discusses this option with Doc Daneeka (Jack Gilford).  Doc explains that Yossarian cannot be removed from combat because of Catch-22.  To be flying these dangerous missions, you would have to be insane.  But if you proclaim that you are insane, it means you are sane because you realize how dangerous things are. Either way, there is no way out.

ACTING:                     A

ACTION:                     N/A

ACCURACY:                N/A

PLOT:                            B

REALISM:                      N/A

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   A

SCORE:                          none

QUOTE:  Yossarion:  Let me see if I've got this straight. In order to be grounded, I've got to be crazy. And I must be crazy to keep flying. But if I ask to be grounded, that means I'm not crazy anymore, and I have to keep flying.

BEST SCENE:  the base bombing

                The movie pares down the numerous arcs of the book to a manageable few.  Yossarian’s character is the glue that holds together the arcs.  Henry has created a mostly linear plot, with intercuts to Yossarian’s wounded gunner incident playing out periodically.  While many of the scenes are vignettes fleshing out the supporting characters, there is a central arc involving Lt. Minderbinder (Jon Voight) creating a black-market syndicate with the cooperation of Cathcart.  This manages to incorporate two of the movie’s themes:  even in war, America remains a capitalist country (war is a business) and the higher you go in the chain of command, the more incompetence and corruption you encounter.  This is exemplified when Minderbinder arranges to have their air base bombed in order to unload surplus cotton.  In another scene, the squadron is awarded medals by Gen. Dreeble (Orson Welles) for a tight bombing pattern even though Yossarian had the bombers drop the bombs in the sea.  Yossarian receives his medal in the nude.  Scenes like this harken to the insanity of the Vietnam War, even though the movie is set in WWII and the squadron is based on an island in the Mediterranean.

            “Catch-22” deserved better than it got when it was released.  It has become something of a cult classic since then.  People now appreciate the game effort to bring an unfilmable book to the screen.  Henry was faithful to the dialogue of the book and some of his own lines had Heller wishing he had thought of them. A good example is when Yossarion argues with Minderbinder about how the dead Nately would not benefit from Minderbinder’s “investments.” When Minderbinder states that Minderbinder’s family will benefit, Yossarion points out they are already rich. Minderbinder: “Then they will understand.”    Henry eliminated many characters and switched some of their dialogue and experiences with other characters.  Most of these changes and omissions were wise cinematically.  The ensemble cast does a fine job and the casting was spot on, with the coup being Orson Welles.  All of the main characters are familiar and appealing comedic actors.  Arkin is fine as Yosserian, but Voight shines as Milo.  The nature of the absurdity does require the actors to lay it on a bit thick at times, especially in a silly scene involving Dreeble’s WAC.

            Nichols brings some flair that is missing in “M*A*S*H”.  The cinematography is noteworthy with special mention going to the take-off of the bombers and the pyrotechnical fireworks of the bombing of the base.  Cinematographer David Watkin uses a stationary camera and avoids the hyper-cutting of modern war movies. He uses some long takes, deep focus, and rear projection. The aerial scenes are quality over quantity and the interiors are authentic-looking. The editor did some nifty transitioning between scenes.

                  “Catch-22” is not for everyone and it is easy to see why it did not do well in 1970.  It is not a typical war comedy.  You have to bring some intellect to the table and be in the mood for satire tinged with absurdity.  It has some shock value.  Shocking for a 1970 big budget picture, there is full frontal nudity provided by Paula Prentiss - of all people!  To be fair, we also get Arkin’s ass.  You get to see Martin Balsam sitting on a toilet.  The big reveal about Snowden’s cause of death packs a punch. As does the whole movie as it skewers the “Good War.”

The Zone of Interest (2023)

 

            “The Zone of Interest” was one of the most acclaimed films of 2023. It was directed by Jonathan Glazer. It was only his fourth feature film in a career that includes many commercials. He wrote the screenplay based on the novel by Martin Amis. The title refers to the restricted area around Auschwitz from which Polish people were relocated. Glazer made the decision to make the movie more of a nonfiction account of the Höss family during its stay in a house abutting Auschwitz. In the book, Amis gave the husband and wife fictional names, Glazer used their real names. He spent two years researching, including using the Auschwitz archives to get a detailed picture of the family during that period. Most of the movie was filmed near the camp in a house that was near the actual house. The house was renovated to match the Höss home. A garden was planted that was blooming when the shooting began. The production cost $15 million and it made $52 million. It premiered at Cannes and won the Grand Prix Award. The initial showing earned a six minute standing ovation. At the Academy Awards, it won for Best International Film and for Best Sound. Glazer was nominated for Best Directr and Best Adapted Screenplay. It won a BAFTA for Best Film Not in the English Language. The movie won many other awards and was one of the best reviewed films of the year. Steven Spielberg called it the best Holocaust film since “Schindler’s List”.

            The film opens with a family on a picnic. They look wealthy and normal. There are five kids and a nanny. The  father is a German officer (Christian Friedel). They return home to a nice house that shares a wall with the Auschwitz concentration camp. They have several servants and Jewish prisoners work in their verdant garden. It turns out that the seemingly typical father is the commandant of the camp. In one scene he listens to a presentation on the new crematorium while in the next room his wife (Sandra Huller) brags to friends about stuff that was taken from the Jews. Hoss takes his son on a Jew hunt. It’s an idyllic life. The only thing that mars it is a fishing trip is ruined by ashes from the crematorium floating by. Höss is peeved. How good is their life? When Höss gets a promotion that would entail leaving, he begs to stay and his wife is livid that she will have to leave paradise. I’ll just leave it here as a cliffhanger. Although the movie has no scenes in the camp, there is a subplot involving a Polish girl who tries to help the inmates.

            It helps your viewing experience if you know what Glazer was trying to accomplish here. He was not making a typical concentration camp movie where the German officers are pure evil. He chose Höss because he was actually not “mythologically evil”. He is no Amon Goth. He is much closer to Adolf Eichman, a Nazi that became the poster boy for the banality of evil. Knowing that Höss is being ironically portrayed as a bureaucrat helps make the movie less boring. I have seen a lot of Holocaust movies and this one stands out because the main characters don’t fit into the standard stereotypes. The Höss family could be any German officers family. They do not appear to be a SS officer’s family. That is the point of the movie. However, Glazer is not a revisionist or Holocaust denier. You will hate the Höss family.

This movie justifiably won an Oscar for sound because it uses background noises to remind the viewer about what is taking place on the other side of that wall. Sound designer researched the sounds associated with the camp and compiled a detailed list of the various noises like the furnaces, boots marching, gunfire, and ghastly human sounds. One recurring sound is that of a motorcycle engine that was ordered by Höss to block some of the other noises that might upset his kids.

To give the film a day in the life of the camp commandant and his family feel, Glazer had more than five cameras set up in various rooms and kept them running throughout the days the actors worked. (Glazer described his approach as “’Big Brother’ in a Nazi house.”) No crew were in the house for the filming, so no credit for cinematography. However, the outdoor night scenes involving the Polish girl were filmed using an infrared camera provided by the Polish military. Those scenes are surreal. Glazer acquired 800 hours of film. Enjoy being a fly on the wall of the Höss domicile. Watch the cute kids go about their lives oblivious to what is happening nearby. As their mother describes it, it is a wonderful environment to grow up in.

“The Zone of Interest” is an overrated movie. It takes advantage of the fact that there are plenty of movies tearing into the Nazis for the Holocaust. But in setting itself apart by showing an evil family as being normal, it goes too far in the other direction. Is there a place for a film like this? Certainly. There can be little doubt that the German people produced men who saw mass murder as a job that should be done efficiently. There were leaders like Goth who were sadists, but there were others like Höss who worked hard (and complained about it) to prove they were the best man for the job. It is ironic that Hoss was so efficient, he got promoted out of his dream job. This type of irony makes the movie Oscar bait for intellectual critics. But for the average viewer, the movie might come off as boring. Nothing really happens. No servant drops a tray. And the movie is a bit pretentious. Okay, we get it, evil can be cloaked in normal clothing. The acting is banal and none of the children are developed as characters. Spoiler alert: the movie has no closure. We don’t get the payback for the idyllic stay at the Auschwitz house.

Please make sure you don’t watch “The Zone of Interest” until you have seen at least ten other Holocaust movies. It deserves to be seen, but as an outlier that points out that evil can take the guise of normalcy.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  The movie is much more accurate than the book. There is nothing in the movie that is far from the truth. The incidents in the film either happened or could have happened. The big problem is the movie drops us into the Hoss family’s life when Rudolf Höss was already commandant of Auschwitz. At this point, he appears to be a factory manager who is interested in making his factory run as efficiently as possible. He is just a cog in the wheel (as he himself described his role during imprisonment after the war). However, my research shows that he was not a German who was corrupted by the system and ended up doing things he would not have done if he had a choice. He joined the Nazi party early on and in 1923 murdered a schoolteacher. He spent eight years in prison. In 1934, he joined the SS and began working his way up through the concentration camp system. At one of those camps, he forced prisoners to stand in below zero conditions for hours, resulting in over 100 deaths. Höss was not simply an efficient officer who was just following orders. He was evil, although the movie does not make this clear. He was so efficient at killing that he was promoted to supervise the creation of Auschwitz. He was the longest serving commandant of the worst death camp. He served from May, 1940 through November, 1943 and then returned to head the camp from May, 1944 to January, 1945. The movie makes a big deal of him leaving the camp in November, 1943 and his wife’s insistence in staying. Hedwig is accurately portrayed as a fanatical anti-semite, but a mother who only wanted the best for her children. In the film, it is unclear whether she knew what was taking place at her husband’s place of business and her husband claimed at his war crimes trial that she did not know, but that strains credulity. The “crisis” of Rudolf having to move to Berlin as a reward for his management of the camp and was due to his beyond the call of duty efforts to kill as many Jews as possible in as little time as possible. He initiated the use of Zyklon B, partly because he felt shooting the Jews would be too hard on the soldiers mentally. Hoss cared about his men. Eichman was one of his bosses and sort of a mentor. In May, 1944, Höss’ dream came true when he was sent back to his beloved villa to supervise Operation Höss. This was the extermination of 430,000 Hungarian Jews that were shipped to the camp and killed in 56 days. This boring character in the film was one of the top 5 most execution-deserving war criminals of WWII. You sure don’t get that impression from the movie.

             As far as the subplot, it is based on Aleksandra Bystron-Kolodziejczyk (possibly the longest name that has appeared in one of my reviews). She was a Polish girl whose father was sent to a concentration camp. In 1941, at age 14, she joined the Home Army. She would pass messages back and forth to prisoners. She did leave food for them. Glazer dedicated the film to her. Her bike and dress were used in the film.

GRADE  =  B-