“A Bridge Too Far” is
basically a sequel to “The Longest Day” and suffers a bit in the comparison.
They are both based on books by Cornelius Ryan. ABTF was released in 1977,
three years after the book. It has a similar format as its sister film – the
all-star cast in a war epic. The movie was something of a flop which should not
have been a surprise given that it was about a mostly British affair and a loss
at that. It did not help that the film clocks in at around three
hours. Given the odds stacked against it, the movie mirrors the event it
portrays in that respect. The film was shot in Netherlands. Some of the actual
sites were used. It was nominated for BAFTAs for Best Picture (losing to “Annie
Hall”), Best Director, and Editing. It won for Best Supporting Actor (Edward
Fox), Original Music, Production Design, and Sound.
A woman’s voice
narrates black and white footage relating the war up until then. The narration
is effective in bringing the audience up to speed on the war in 1944 and
is crucial in explaining the strategic dilemma facing Eisenhower. Ike is
dealing with two prima donna generals – Montgomery and Patton – each of whom
has a sure-fire plan to win the war quickly. Of course, each plan involves
giving them most of the scarce resources for their roll of the dice.
Montgomery’s plan is codenamed Operation Market Garden and Eisenhower opts for
it in a decision that smacks of politics (although the movie does not make it
clear why Ike chose Monty over Patton).
The Germans are
retreating and Gen. Von Rundstedt is pessimistic. The German characters speak
German and the movie has subtitles – an early clue the producers are serious.
Meanwhile, at British headquarters, Lt. Gen. Browning is outlining Operation
Market Garden. The plan will end the war in 90 days. It will be the biggest
airborne operation ever. The plan calls for dropping thousands of British and
American paratroopers behind enemy lines to capture three key bridges to open a
corridor that will be exploited by the British XXX Corps which will move over
60 miles in two days to reach the last bridge at Arnhem. Or so the plan calls
for. The plan calls for daring and speed – two words not associated with the
British in WWII.
One of the movies
themes of FUBAR is apparent in the next scene as Rundstedt moves a resting
Panzer unit to the “quiet sector” of Arnhem. The second theme of overly
optimistic high command is emphasized when Browning refuses to believe
intelligence reports which include photo recon indicating Arnhem will be very
well defended by a paratroopers worst nightmare – armor. And even if they are
true, Browning says “This time the party is on and nobody is going to call it
off”. The Browning family could not have been happy with his portrayal in the
film. It is clear he represents a composite of Browning and Montgomery and his
character would have struck a chord with the post-Vietnam audience. The British
leaders prove that wanting something done does not mean it gets done. The third
theme of incompetence and disregard for losses is apparent when the British
parachute leaders are informed they will have to land 8 miles from the Arnhem
bridge.
The take-off and landing
of the paratroopers is handled in a great scene featuring thousands of extras
and authentic aircraft. No CGI here! We even get the perspective of the
paratroopers as they bail out and drift to earth. The landings go according to plan.
That will be the last time anything goes according to plan.
Meanwhile, the XXX
Corps led by Gen. Horrocks (Edward Fox) and spearheaded by Gen. Vandeleur
(Michael Caine) start down the single lane, raised highway. Horrocks
instruction to “Ride like hell… speed is the key” is ominous to any student of
the British army in WWII. The attack is preceded by an impressive artillery
bombardment with lots of explosions. The Germans are realistically portrayed as
withstanding the chaos and then opening fire to take out several tanks which
are exposed on the raised road. This movie has no evil Nazis. The Germans are
worthy adversaries. The British call in fighter-bombers which blast the hell
out of the enemy causing them to surrender but it is a bad omen for keeping the
timetable. The road soon acquires the nickname "Hell's
Highway".
The movie is episodic. It intercuts between the various bridges. Although a British affair, American parachutists are involved. The movie focuses on the Arnhem bridge. The combat is realistic and exciting. British pluck is on full display as the Germans hold all the cards. It’s an Alamo situation. The British try to keep the Germans from crossing the bridge and then it is house-to-house fighting. At Nijmegen, the Americans are forced to make a daring, daylight combat assault across the river in flimsy boats (which are slow in arriving, thus accurately portraying the “hurry up, then wait” nature of warfare). Maj. Cook (Robert Redford – paid $2 million for seemingly 5 minutes of work) leads the assault repeating the “Hail Mary” (there are no atheists in assault boats). The scene accurately reflects the suicidal nature of this type of action, but also what determined men can do in the face of ridiculous odds.
The film includes some anecdotes like an American (James Caan) forcing a doctor to work on his friend. We also meet our opening footage narrator Kate ter Horst (Liv Ullman) as a Dutch woman who allows her house to be used as a hospital and helps the wounded with an elderly doctor portrayed by Sir Laurence Olivier. ( I guess Marlon Brando was not available ).
ACTING: A
ACTION: A (7/10)
ACCURACY: A
PLOT: A
REALISM: A
CINEMATOGRAPHY: A
SCORE: A
SCENE: the river crossing
QUOTE: Maj. Cook (Robert Redford): [reporting another delay to his officers] Ah,
I suppose you're wondering why I called you here. I want to tell you that I've
decided to cross the river like George Washington; standing in the prow of the
boat.
CRITIQUE: The obvious thing to do is to compare this
movie to “The Longest Day”. In some ways it is a sequel and we all know about
sequels – they seldom live up to the original. However, ABTF has some big shoes
to fill and it is probably asking too much for it to surpass or even equal its
parent. Technically, it is a superior film. The airborne landing scene and the
fighting in Arnhem are superior to any action in TLD. Compare the combat in
Arnhem specifically to the scenes in Ouistreham and you will see what I mean.
Also, for those of you of the younger generation, ABTR is in color! Alas, you
still have to read when the Germans talk.
Another comparison is
ABTF is more command-centric than TLD. There is only one grunt character –
Dohun. TLD is full of privates. I do not know if it reflects the difference,
but Sean Connery portrays a private in TLD and he has been promoted to general
by ABTF (think on that ). It does not have to be either/or as TLD proves with
its blend of scenes showing the strategic ( the generals ) and the tactical (
the foot soldiers and their officers ). ABTR does not blend as well.
I admire the guts of the
producers and director Richard Attenborough in making a movie that is a
history lesson and a downer at that. I cannot believe the marketing people were
thrilled with that. Kudos for swimming upstream.
The movie came out in
the mid-seventies and reflects the transition from old-school war movies ( like
TLD ) to the more cynical modern war film ( Patton ). It clearly reflects the
post-Vietnam view of the military and warfare in general. The emphasis on
SNAFU, clueless strategists, the waste of human lives, and pressing on with
flawed plans are apparent in the movie.
ACCURACY: Gen. Urquhart described
the movie as a “reasonably accurate spectacular”. This is a fair description of
a movie that tried hard to make a realistic, yet entertaining retelling of a
complicated military event. This effort is obvious from the multitude of
technical advisers which included Urquhart, Horrocks, Gavin, Vandeleur, and
Frost. It would have been hard to stray far with those guys on the set.
The basic facts are not
tampered with so it is a good history lesson about Operation Market Garden.
Since this failed campaign had been gathering dust historically speaking, the
filmmakers do an admirable job of reminding us of the sacrifices the soldiers
made in the operation. They deserved the recognition the movie brought. The
movie also accurately portrays how command decisions can be flawed and even the
best plans do not survive the first clash of arms. The role of SNAFU in warfare
is also clear in the events portrayed.
One character in the movie
allows for a discussion of how Hollywood will tamper with a perfectly good
story to “enhance it for your viewing pleasure”. I am referring to the Eddie
Dohun tale. First, his name was Charles ( I guess Hollywood did not think
Charles was cool enough ). Second, his buddy Capt. “Legs” Johnson was already
in the hospital’s “dead pile” when Dohun located him (having come to recover
Johnson’s wallet). Johnson had received his head wound while riding on the hood
of a jeep which was evacuating him because of an earlier shoulder wound. There
was no mad dash in a jeep driven by Dohun. Dohun does force a doctor at gun
point to save Johnson’s life, but the doctor did press charges. A Lt. Col. put
Dohun under arrest for one minute and then released him. Is the movie’s version
more entertaining? Yes, but I would argue the real story was good enough to
begin with. This is what separates war movie fanatics from average Joes, I
guess.
CONCLUSION: "A Bridge
Too Far" is a movie that deserves a better reputation. It covers an
operation, Market Garden, that would otherwise be forgotten by most
moviegoers. It is a good bookend to the all-star war epics that began
with "The Longest Day". One critic referred to it as "the
last dinosuar". You could argue that it is the second best of that
genre which includes "Tora! Tora! Tora!", “Battle of Britain",
"Battle of the Bulge", and "Midway".
"Bridge' is a good example of a war movie that appeals to war movie
buffs, but not to average viewers. A lover of war movies is cautioned to
not watch this movie with someone who is not a fanatic. You will be
frustrated by their lack of respect for the craft and fidelity to the
truth of the moviemakers.
