“Stalag 17” is considered one of the great WWII POW films. It is sometimes mentioned with “Bridge on the River Kwai” and “The Great Escape” as the triumvirate of top tier POW movies. It was released in 1953. It was based on a stage play by two veterans of Stalag 17B in Austria. Director Billy Wilder reworked the play for the better and got pretty boy William Holden to play the lead even though Holden was unhappy with the cynicism and selfishness of the Sefton character. Holden walked out on the play when he went to see it. Wilder refused to soften the character and Holden went on to win the Oscar for Best Actor. Wilder was nominated, as was Robert Strauss for Best Supporting Actor. The movie was shot in California and the mud was real. Wilder made the interesting decision to shoot the scenes in chronological order to where supposedly some of the main actors did not know who the stoolie was until the end (which sounds like bull shit to me). The movie was a smash hit in America and Europe.
The movie opens with cynical narration by Cookie (Gil Stratton). He asks why there aren’t any movies about POWs? (I guess he had not seen “The Wooden Horse” – 1950) This will be the tale of a spy in a barracks. Two prisoners escape through a hole under the stove. The tunnel is in the wash area. Sefton bets they won’t make it. What a jerk! Machine gun fire proves him right and he wins some cigarettes. It turns out that Sefton trades cigarettes with the Germans and has a stash of luxuries that he trades to fellow prisoners for more cigarettes. Some of the cigarettes from the bet buy him an egg that he eats while the other PWs are feasting on potato soup. Sefton is an anti-social, self-preservationist. “It’s everyone for himself – dog eat dog”. He mentions that attempting escape is foolish.
The film bounces between scenes of barracks life and scenes that develop the stoolie angle. A guard named Schulz (Sig Ruman) is jovial and loves bantering with the Americans. (The makers sued “Hogan’s Heroes” for obvious reasons.) Although the character is not a buffoon like in the TV show, he is there for comic relief. The commandant is a Col. Von Scherbach (Otto Preminger). He plays him as a smug Nazi bastard. He is somewhere in between Von Luger (“The Great Escape”) and Saito (“The Bridge over the River Kwai”).
The film makes an effort to depict typical goings-on in a camp. There is a mouse race (run by Sefton), peeping at Russian women in the adjoining camp, Christmas caroling, a dance with some of the men role-playing women, mail call, volley ball, listening to the clandestine radio, etc. Woven into this is the main story line of “who is the stoolie?” Sefton is the first to float the idea that someone is informing to the Germans which back-fires on him because everyone naturally assumes being a “black marketeer” is just a small leap to “collaborator”.
Two new prisoners arrive. One, Dunbar (Don Taylor), is a rich boy who had a past with Sefton. Sefton holds a grudge against him, but he is a true hero. He tells the barracks of his destruction of a German munitions train on the way to incarceration. Of course, word of this gets to the commandant who has him brought in for interrogation. He will need to be rescued before he goes in front of a firing squad for sabotage.
ACTING: A+
ACTION: N/A
ACCURACY: N/A
PLOT: A
REALISM: C
CINEMATOGRAPY: B
SCORE: not memorable
BEST SCENE: the final one with the escape
BEST QUOTE: this movie has possibly the best closing line in war movie history
Shapiro: I'd like to know what made him [Sefton] do it.
Animal : Maybe he just wanted to steal our wire cutters. You ever think of that?
Although it was not the first WWII prisoner of war film, “Stalag 17” certainly laid a strong foundation for the subgenre. It established some of the template. Most of the action takes place in the barracks. There is a lot of interaction between “hale fellows well met”. Comic relief is thrown in. The men try to make the best of their difficult conditions. Those conditions (since it’s a German camp) are not intolerable to the point where many men in the audience (and all the fourteen-year-old boys) would trade places with them for a week. “Stalag 17” is not typical in its mystery subplot and the fact that it is not predominately about an escape attempt. I can think of no other POW movie that includes humor, suspense, mystery, and a dislikable central character.
The main strength of the film is the acting. Holden is great as possibly the first anti-hero in an American WWII movie, POW or otherwise. Wilder brings out the best from an actor reluctant to play against his usual roles. Holden may not have deserved the Oscar (he personally thought Burt Lancaster should have won for “From Here to Eternity”), but he is perfect in the role. Wilder works wonders with the cast. It was genius and gutsy to cast Otto Preminger as the commandant. Director Preminger was legendary for treating actors like Von Scherbach treats the prisoners. So I guess you could say Preminger was playing himself. Strauss did not deserve an Oscar nod, but he and Lembeck do have some humorous moments. Neville Brand (a WWII veteran) scores as the barracks tough guy. Lefton memorably strikes a match on his cheek. The only false note is from Jay Lawrence (Larry Storch’s brother) as Sgt. Bagradian. Bargradian does impressions of people that could not have been funny in 1953 and certainly are not funny today. His role is equivalent to Bob Newhart’s in “Hell Is For Heroes”. A comedian hired to do his act.
The movie is famous (and has been criticized) for its broad humor. I have to admit much of it is silly, but there are some truly funny lines. Hell, just the way Marko the Mailman says “At ease, at ease” is funny. When Trzcinski (one of the screenwriters, playing himself) receives a letter from his wife he says “ I believe it. My wife says, ‘Darling, you won't believe it, but I found the most adorable baby on our doorstep and I've decided to keep it for our very own. Now you won't believe it, but it's got exactly my eyes and nose.’ Why does she keep saying I won't believe it? I believe it! I believe it.” Schulz gets some good ones like “The barracks should be schpic, and also schpan!” Even Preminger gets a moment when he puts on his boots so Von Scherbach can click his heels during a phone call to a superior. It’s the kind of movie that leaves you smiling, but guiltily because you know the real thing was not as funny. However, American soldiers do tend to maintain their senses of humor even in tough situations.
The movie is technically sound. Wilder’s cinematography gives the movie a dynamism that overcomes the static nature of the barracks. Many of the shots have depth to them. The set is nicely authentic looking. The barrack has nice touches like pin-ups, laundry hanging, and graffiti carved into the bunks. The score is used sparingly and not to force a mood on the audience.
“Stalag 17” is an entertaining movie that holds up well. The top-notch acting and the blending of humor with the seriousness of a prison camp with a stoolie in it makes it different. Possibly this would not have worked without Wilder at the helm. The finished product is in the top five prisoner-of-war movies.
For some reason a lot of WWII movies feature an improbably effective Axis intelligence system, which often includes infiltrators and sleeper agents folded into whatever obscure corner of the war the main characters are occupying. Is this a memory of wartime paranoia, working itself into the script? Is it a reflection of the more justified cold war paranoia? Or is it merely an attempt to dial up the suspense by adding a hidden threat to the main characters' plans and safety?
ReplyDeleteThis movie is an unusual example of this theme because the infiltration that occurs is plausible as a matter of logistics but still makes little sense. What are the Germans going to learn from these pilots by having one of their own hide among them that they could not more efficiently discover by electronic surveillance? Anyone with enough talent to pass himself off not only as an American but as a bomber pilot among other bomber pilots is being wasted ferreting out small-scale sabotage techniques.
It would have made more sense for the stoolie to be some American, whose motivation to betray his fellows would create a contrast with Sefton's character. The ending would have been a little less happy but I think just as satisfying.
You make some good points. I had not linked the plot to Cold War paranoia, but it makes sense. I also think making the rat a collaborator would have been a better route. Thanks for your input.
ReplyDeleteGil Stratton was the voice of the LA. Rams in the '60s and '70s.
ReplyDelete