THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES: 19. A Bridge Too Far (1977)

 

                “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. 

CONSENSUS # 39. A Bridge Too Far (1977)

SYNOPSIS: "A Bridge Too Far" is an all-star battle epic from the subgenre founded by "The Longest Day". It is the story of Operation Market Garden in WWII Europe.  This was an attempt to seize several bridges leading into Germany.  The movie covers both the British and the American effort and also gives the German perspective.  It tends toward being command-centric, but has a lot of combat.

BACKSTORY:
“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. Given the odds stacked against it, the movie mirrors the event it portrays in that respect.

TRIVIA:  wikipedia, imdb, TCM

1.  It is based on the book by Cornelius Ryan.  He also wrote The Longest Day.

2.  One thousand paratroopers using Dakotas were used in the drop scenes.

3.  Dirk Bogarde had been on Montgomery’s staff .  He was an intelligence officer who was sent to Arnhem during the battle.  He took issue with the portrayal of Gen. Browning, as did Browning’s family.

4.  All the lead actors agreed to work for “favored nation” fees which was $250,000 per week.  Robert Redford was an exception.  He was paid $2 million for two weeks work.

5.  Director Richard Attenborough shot 2.7 million feet of film, equivalent to more than 500 hours.

Belle and Blade  =  2.5

Brassey’s              =  4.0

Video Hound       =  4.4

War Movies         =  3.1

Military History  =  #94

Channel 4             =  #7

Film Site                =  yes

101 War Movies  =  yes

        Rotten Tomatoes  =  no

 
OPINION:
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.
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 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.

"A Bridge Too Far" is sadly underrated, but not here. It is fairly treated on this list.  I can see why people who don't care about history might not be excited about it, but as a war movie lover it is a real treat.

Theirs Is the Glory (1946)

                “Theirs Is the Glory” is a unique war movie.  It reenacts the British participation in Operation Market Garden.  It was “produced entirely without the use of studio sets or actors.  Every incident was either experienced or witnessed by the people who appear in the film.”  Everyone in the 200 person cast was either a British soldier who participated in Operation Market Garden or a Dutch civilian who lived through the battle.  The veterans were paid three pounds per diem.  They had a lot of input in the action and dialogue.  Director Brian Desmond Hurst (“Malta Story”) was a veteran of the Gallipoli Campaign of WWI.  He considered the movie to be his finest achievement in a stellar career. It was a labor of love. The filming began one year after the battle on the actual sites.  The premiere occurred on the two year anniversary of the battle and was attended by the Prime Minister.  A private showing was provided for King George VI.  The film was a huge hit in Great Britain and was the top grossing film for a decade.

                The movie opens with a view of the destroyed bridge at Arnhem.  A montage of sites familiar to students of the battle follow.  The Operation Market Garden plan is outlined via a map.  Several paratroopers in a barracks are identified by the narrator.  The campaign begins with an armada of gliders and transports dropping paratroopers.  Upon reaching the Arnhem Bridge, a flamethrower sets off ammunition and a mixed bag of Germans are taken captive, but the bridge cannot be taken.  The unit at the bridge is cut off from the main body that ends up surrounded at Oosterbeek.  The rest of the movie consists of the last stands of both these bodies of men.

                This is a gem of a movie.  It is unique in using the actual participants in an historical event.  Surprisingly, the “actors” do a commendable job.  They are obviously not professionals, but they are still better than many B movie actors.  Notice how they duck and flinch at explosions like they have been there before.  They have also seen enough death to know how a soldier dies.  No one throws his hands in the air and twirls around.  The dialogue is natural as is to be expected from men who had input in what they say because they may have said it.  One unfortunate decision was not to identify the men.  Only keen students of the battle will recognize Majors “Freddie” Gough and “Dickie” Lonsdale, for instance.  Look closely and you will see Kate ter Horst (the Liv Ullmann character in “A Bridge Too Far”) reading psalms to the wounded.

Set up Montgomery's reviewing stand over there

                The movie is an amazing blend of footage and reenactments.  Basically, whenever anyone speaks it is a reenactment.   A narrator provides the documentary feel and also does a great job informing.  The narration is sincere, but not treacly.  Maps are used well.  A nice touch is the use of an embedded war correspondent to give eye-witness accounts of what is happening within the Oosterbeek perimeter. 

 

                If the acting is satisfactory, the action is outstanding.  And there is a lot of it!  The bitter aspects of a last stand against overwhelming odds is reenacted with verve.  There is some realistic tank action and excellent bomb effects.  The only false note has a Brit throwing a grenade to silence a German broadcasting a surrender demand.  It stands out in a movie that is a sober portrayal of the hell of war.  There are some emotional deaths in the movie and one can assume they were emotional for the reenactors.  The movie ends by returning to the barracks to inform that most of the paratroopers did not return.

                “Theirs Is the Glory” is as good as it gets when it comes to telling the story of the British 1^st Airborne’s role in Market Garden.  It honors the participants.  It is not a propaganda puff piece, but it does leave out a few details that would slightly mar the theme.  The movie is mostly free of reference to the mistakes the campaign is famous for.  There are no communications problems in the film, for instance.  There is only brief mention of Gen. Urquhart being cut off from his men for crucial hours and no mention about the flaws in the overall plan.  There is no controversy, not surprisingly.

                “Theirs Is the Glory” has often been compared favorably to “A Bridge Too Far” as though one must choose between them.  In reality, they are both great movies and when paired do complete justice to the campaign and the men who participated in it.  “Bridge” gives the big picture and “Glory”concentrates on just Arnhem and Oosterbeek.  I strongly suggest you watch “Bridge” first and use “Glory” as an addendum.  Whatever order you choose, watch both because they both are among the 100 Best War Movies.

GRADE  =  A

THE FINAL FOUR

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1) vs.
WHEN TRUMPETS FADE (9)

SOUND AND VISUAL EFFECTS:

         “Saving Private Ryan” won Academy Awards for Cinematography, Sound Effects Editing, Sound Mixing, and Film Editing. It won BAFTAs for Best Sound and Best Special Effects. The opening combat scene is a tour de force. Spielberg used amputees to realistically depict dismemberments. The most amazing shots are the underwater shots which included men being hit by bullets. The sounds of battle have seldom been better done. Listen for the bullets ricocheting off the beach obstacles. The monstrous roar of the Tiger tanks in the final battle is straight out of a horror movie. It could be argued that SPR has the best sound and visual effects of any war movie.

         “When Trumpets Fade” was a low budget film and was on the opposite end of the spectrum with regard to money available for effects. With that said, they got a lot of bang for their bucks. The film came out in 1998 (the same year as SPR), so you can not accuse the director (John Irvin of “Hamburger Hill” fame) of cribbing. Irvin gets the environment right. The men are wallowing in mud or moving through a foggy forest landscape. The most impressive effects are the explosions from mines and artillery. It is the first movie I can recall that has realistic tree bursts. (Later topped in “Band of Brothers”.) The hellish landscape of the river crossing is perhaps overdone, but still impressive.

 

FIRST QUARTER SCORE:
Saving Private Ryan 10
When Trumpets Fade 8

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT:

          SPR is a small unit dynamics movie. The ensemble is an interesting one and of average clicheness. One interesting aspect of the character development is the mystery of Capt. Miller’s background which is held until a dramatic moment in the film. Before we learn Miller was a teacher, we subtly learn he suffers from combat stress and does not follow orders without being cynical about them. He also is human and makes mistakes (e.g., the assault on the radar station and allowing the German to live). None of the other squad members gets a back-story, but they all get their moments to flesh out their characters. I would not call them multi-dimensional, but they are not cardboard. Their deaths are all heart-tugging because we know enough about each to care.

          WTF (oops, I’ll call it “Trumpets” from here on) also concentrates on a small unit, but includes some second tier characters from the officer class (Capt. Pritchett is particularly intriguing). Manning is the main character and we learn little about why he has the type of personality he has. There are clear implications that his cynicism and anti-authority attitude was based on losing his previous squad and best friend. Other than Manning, the other characters are pretty one-dimensional, but do represent some interesting types. Each character develops in relation to Manning.

HALF TIME SCORE:
Saving Private Ryan 18
When Trumpets Fade 14

DEATHS:

           SPR set the gold standard for war movie deaths. It is firmly in the tradition of the patrol unit / “who will survive?” trope. This type of thing has been done many times before and doubtless will be done again. One thing that sets SPR apart from a movie like “Cross of Iron” is the gut-wrenching quality of the deaths of the unit members. The stand-out here is the death of the medic Wade. Not only is the acting terrific by Giovanni Ribisi, but the scenario is unique. Even Vin Diesel gets a death scene not worthy of his acting skills. Mellish’s death is very powerful and tough to watch. The movie concludes with one of the great surprise deaths in war movie history.

          “Trumpets” opens with a scene that is opposite in style to the opening of SPR. In SPR we get an inspired choreography of death, “Trumpets” features the death of one man – Manning’s buddy Bobby (Jeffrey Donovan of “Burn Notice”). It is poignant and has some similarities to Wade’s. Another death has Manning shooting a squad member who is panicking. Not as powerful, but thought provoking. The movie comes full circle in the end to mirror the opening scene which is a bit heavy-handed, but effective.

THIRD QUARTER SCORE:
Saving Private Ryan 28
When Trumpets Fade 22

IMPLAUSIBILITIES:

          The one major weakness of SPR is the implausibilities in the plot. I am not referring to the overall construct of a mission to rescue a single soldier after the deaths of his brothers. That fantasy is firmly backed by the actual story of the Nieland brothers and besides, the movie is clearly fictional. It is plausible that the high command (in this case Gen. Marshall himself) would have ordered the mission. With that said, there are several Spielsbergian moments in the film that were obviously put in to advance the plot. Someone has to die in Neuville to establish the “who will survive?” theme. It was wise to kill off Vin Diesel early, but having him take the little girl was ridiculous. Miller’s decision to assault the radar station can only logically be explained as a way to kill Wade, start the evil German arc, and introduce some unit dysfunctionality. In reality, the reason Miller gives for going off-mission to lead an attack that would certainly get at least one of his group killed would only make sense if Miller was incompetent and clueless. After developing the idea that Miller was grudgingly following orders to accomplish a mission he disagreed with, it made absolutely no sense for him to risk the mission like he did. Worse, the scene begins the extremely implausible arc that has the freed German killing two members of the squad and himself being killed by his biggest supporter. Can you say IRONIC? Pure Spielberg! Pure bull shit.

 

           “Trumpets’ is also fictional and also manipulative of the audience. The opening and closing scenes are supposed to be ironic. The central construct that a reluctant and openly insubordinate warrior would be promoted by men who obviously disdain his attitude is ridiculous, but clearly necessary for plot development. The decision of the trio (all of whom dislike Manning) to go on a suicide mission with him strains credulity. Sanderson’s (the fat guy) survival is not likely, but you have to give credit for breaking the “fat guy always dies” cliché. Where SPR would still be great without its implausibilities, “Trumpets” could not exist without its Hollywoodisms. By the way, “Trumpets” also has a recurring German character, but his limited appearances do not seem forced.

FINAL SCORE:
Saving Private Ryan 34
When Trumpets Fade 30

COLOR ANALYSIS:

           It was a nice run for the Cinderella “When Trumpets Fade”, but it just did not have the power to overcome such a heavyweight. The performance of “Trumpets” does give hope to all those low budget war movies out there. It is possible to go toe-to-toe with the megamovies. However, it is extremely important to have a great script and great acting if you want to stand out and “Trumpets” has those ingredients. It helps to be different. With that said, SPR is the superior movie and deserved to win. It has its detractors and some will feel that “Trumpets” should have pulled the upset, but SPR overcomes its implausibilities with brilliance in many other categories and money does buy great effects, great actors, and a great director.

 

THE LONGEST DAY (2) vs. A BRIDGE TOO FAR (5)

SOURCE MATERIAL AND TECHNICAL ADVISERS:

          Both movies are based on books by Cornelius Ryan. They are both classics. I consulted Amazon and found that TLD has a rating of 4.8 compared to ABTF’s 4.7. As far as military consultants/technical advisers, TLD had 24. The standouts were Gen. Blumentritt, Lt. Gen. Gavin, Maj. Howard, Col. Priller, Maj. Kieffer, and Lucie Rommel. ABTF had 6 consultants. They included Gen. Gavin, Lt. Gen. Horrocks, and Maj. Gen. Urquhart. Of course, ABTF was made in 1977 so fewer participants were still alive.

 

FIRST QUARTER SCORE:
The Longest Day 10
A Bridge Too Far 9

EDUCATIONAL VALUE:

          “The Longest Day” came out eighteen years after D-Day. It was the perfect time to come out with the definitive take on the famous battle. The movie is sometimes described as a docudrama which is a testament to its educational value because it is inaccurate to equate it with a documentary. The brilliance of the movie is in its presentation of the background incidents before the landings. The audience is clearly apprised of allied strategy and German confusion. Amazingly, this preparatory information (the first fifty three minutes of the film) is done in an entertaining manner. Almost seventy years later, there is still no better film for telling the story of D-Day to a movie audience. On a personal note, I have shown this movie to my students and even though it is in black and white and educational, they enjoy it.

         “A Bridge Too Far” is very similar to TLD in structure and goals. It deserves credit for bringing recognition to a much less known campaign. Plus because it was a loss, it took guts to make the movie from a financial stand point. I found that it does not do as good a job of “teaching” the battle. There is much less strategy coverage. More than with TLD, you would need to know more about the subject going in to truly understand what is happening. Still, since most intelligent people had at least a vague idea about D-Day, but few knew anything about “Operation Market Garden”, ABTF certainly did a great service to history.

 

HALF TIME SCORE:
The Longest Day 20
A Bridge Too Far 17

BALANCE:

           This category refers to three things: opposing sides, Allies, and brass to boots. TLD establishes a pattern early of covering both the Anglo-American perspective and the Germans. I did not use a stop watch, but it appears that in the 53 minute opening act the movie gives equal treatment to the leadership of both sides. Obviously, once the landings begin, we get less coverage of the German perspective, but they are still interweaved into the narrative. As far as the Allies, I can’t see where there could have been much complaint from the British about the movie being too “American”. Unlike other American-made war films, this film does not give the impression the Yanks won the war by themselves. The Ste. Mere Eglise scenes are balanced by the Pegasus Bridge sequences. The Omaha Beach scenes are balanced by action on Sword. The French get the attack on Ouistreham and nice coverage of the Resistance. Only the Canadians have a right to complain. Of the seven major events (Pegasus Bridge, Ste. Mere Eglise, Omaha, Sword, Utah, Pointe Du Hoc, Ouistreham) reenacted in the movie, four are American efforts. That seems fair. As far as coverage of command versus soldiers, the movie is very strong. There are numerous “grunts” depicted (Schultz, Steele, Fuller, Pluskat) along with the commanders (Howard, Lovat, Cota, Vandervort).

            ABTF was obviously modeled after TLD. The structure of jumping back and forth between the British command and the German generals who were going to be affected is similar, although the movie does not spend as much time with the Germans. The movie is fairly balanced between the Americans and British. The director was British (Richard Attenborough) and the key audience was American so that is not surprising. It appears he throws in the river crossing to let Americans have some action, to add a grand set piece, and to justify Robert Redford’s salary. The Dutch Resistance gets its due (although it is not comparable to TLD’s coverage of the French and it does not have Janine). When it comes to brass versus boots, “Bridge” is heavily command-centric. There is really only one common soldier character (Dohun) and he appears and disappears in one segment. Whereas in TLD, several grunts are introduced early and then are tracked throughout the film.

 
THIRD QUARTER SCORE:
The Longest Day 30
A Bridge Too Far 25

ACCURACY:

           TLD is based on a well-researched book, but Ryan was not trying to write the definitive history of Operation Overlord. He was writing a history of the battle from the perspective of the participants. The book is a collection of vignettes surrounded by the facts of the invasion. It is macrohistory from a microhistory perspective. Certainly a documentary like the D-Day episode of the “World at War” series is more accurate. However, if you get your history from Hollywood (which unfortunately is the case for most), TLD is as good as it’s going to get and much more entertaining than a documentary. There are some inaccuracies, but most are minor. Some examples include that Rupert was actually a sand-filled dummy and the battle noises were provided by paratroopers that dropped with them. There was no casino any more in Ouistreham (it had been replaced by a bunker) and there were no nuns. The 82nd Airborne had the clickers, not the 101st. Small stuff like that. There is one major howler. In the film, Omaha beach is “won” by blowing a hole in a concrete wall and it’s on to Berlin. This is way too simplistic and short-changes the heroic small group actions that actually got the forces onto the bluff.

           “Bridge” is very similar to TLD on the accuracy front. Not surprising since it came from a book by the same author. It has the same strength of retelling history in an entertaining and informative way with mostly minor Hollywoodisms. One example of the influence of Hollywood is the Dohun scene which tweaks the real story in several ways to make it more entertaining. In comparison, the battle for the Arnhem Bridge is more accurate than TLD’s Omaha Beach reenactment. Plus, you can argue “Bridge” gets more leniency because it chooses to bring light to a fairly obscure campaign. I also think that unlike TLD, “Bridge’s” military consultants were on set to make sure Attenborough did not stray far from reality. Gen. Urquhart described the film as a “reasonably accurate spectacular”.

FINAL SCORE:
The Longest Day 38
A Bridge Too Far 33

COLOR ANALYSIS:

            The father of epic battle reenactments defeated one of his sons. The apple did not fall far from the tree. Of all the war epics that concentrate on a battle, these are the two that are most alike. I would argue that the only movie in the subgenre that is superior to “A Bridge Too Far” is “The Longest Day”. “Bridge” was an admirable effort to duplicate its progenitor, but its subject matter is just not as compelling.

THE FINAL MATCHUP:
Saving Private Ryan (1) vs.
The Longest Day (2)

THE ELITE EIGHT!

A BRIDGE TOO FAR (5) vs. CROSS OF IRON (7)

REALISM:

         “A Bridge Too Far” is the true story of the ill-fated Operation Market Garden. The movie focuses on the command level and is based on a well-researched book by Cornelius Ryan. The movie gives balanced coverage to the opposing sides. It is very realistic in portraying how plans do not survive the initiation of battle. It also does a good job of depicting that the worst case scenario will often trump wishful thinking. On an historical note, the movie proves that Montgomery was very unrealistic when he assumed a British armored unit could bash its way to Arnhem over one road.

          “Cross of Iron” attempts to portray combat on the Eastern Front during the period when things were collapsing for the Wehrmacht. The nature of the combat is realistically portrayed. It is desperate and nightmarish. The main characters are stock, but they did exist in the German army. The movie does include a highly unrealistic (although entertaining) scene involving Russian women soldiers. Steiner’s unit treats them as respected enemies when in reality the German army was particularly vile towards female combatants. The ending confrontation between Steiner and Stransky is also unrealistic.

FIRST QUARTER SCORE:
Bridge 10
Cross    7

DIALOGUE:

          Much of the dialogue in “Bridge” is straight from the book. This means it is true to what the historical persons said. William Goldman, an Academy Award winning screenwriter adapted the book. The dialogue is not pompous although much of it comes from the mouths of generals. Best line: “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.” (Maj. Cook (Robert Redford) before the river crossing)

         “Cross” had three screenwriters. The dialogue takes a back seat to the action, but the verbal confrontations between the main characters are well done. Steiner has some cynical gems, Stransky gets to be upper class snobbish, and Kiesel is wearily realistic about the war. Best line: “I believe God is a sadist, but probably doesn't even know it.” (Steiner)

FIRST HALF SCORE:
Bridge      18
Cross        15

SOLDIER BEHAVIOR:

         “Bridge” does not have a lot of soldier behavior. If you are looking for how generals behave, this is the movie for you. The only notable enlisted man is Sgt. Eddie Dohun (James Caan). Supposedly director Richard Attenborough put the extras through the first pre-war movie boot camp and it shows as the actions by the soldiers is a big improvement over Old School movies. Although mostly anonymous, the soldiers act like soldiers in battle

         “Cross” is a small unit movie and quite a bit of time is spent with German grunts. It turns out they are pretty much like regular soldiers in any army in WWII (well, maybe not the Japanese). Their interaction in their dugout rings true. They love each other (except for the Nazi stoolie). They do their duty resignedly and are fighting for each other, not for Hitler. Steiner makes a point of saying he hates all officers.

THIRD QUARTER SCORE:
Bridge       25
Cross         23

ENTERTAINMENT VALUE:

         “Bridge” is an epic war movie about one of the most fascinating campaigns of WWII. It has an all-star cast and the acting is very good. There are big, well-staged battle scenes and if you don’t already know the story, some suspense. The only drawback is that it does cover a loss which means there is no happy ending. If you are not a war movie fan or admire historical accuracy, the movie could leave you cold.

        “Cross” is a very different movie than “Bridge”. It is not as clinical. It is grimy and gritty like war can be. It is also packed with amazingly visceral combat and a great central character. Steiner is one of war movies’ best anti-heroes. The problem is that you have to be into Peckinpah style violence. The movie is certainly not aimed at females.

FINAL SCORE:
A BRIDGE TOO FAR         32
CROSS OF IRON                31

COLOR ANALYSIS:

          Very interesting match-up between two very different movies. Basically “Bridge” won because it was slightly better at being an epic battle reenactment than “Cross” is at being a combat film. If you like both films, you are a true war movie lover.

 

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1) vs. MERRILL’S MARAUDERS (13)

REALISM:

          “Saving Private Ryan” was lauded as the most realistic combat film ever made. The opening scene on Omaha Beach is truly the closest audiences have come to the realities of an amphibious assault. Actual amputees were used for the numerous dismemberments. The closing scene is similar in its attempts to put you in the middle of combat and although it has some flaws (the tanks not using their machine guns, for instance), it is also better than any previous cinematic combat. The FUBAR nature of the mission certainly rings true. The movie has some problems with plausibility (e.g., the recurring German).

          “Merrill’s Marauders” is actually pretty realistic for a 1962 Old School movie. The soldiers are sweaty, grimy, and exhausted (although not enough). However, the deaths are silly and the combat is tactically unsound.

FIRST QUARTER SCORE:
Saving Private Ryan         9
Merrill’s Marauders        7

DIALOGUE:

          “Saving Private Ryan” is not remembered for its dialogue. In fact, in one of the most powerful scenes (when Mrs. Ryan is notified about her sons’ deaths), there is not a spoken word. The movie does have some nice dialogue. Robert Rodat’s script was nominated for Best Original Screenplay. Much of the dialogue is terse and the most famous line is simply: “Earn this.” The monologues are well done, especially when Wade describes pretending to be asleep when his mother would come home and when Miller finally reveals his previous life. Best line: “This Ryan better be worth it. He'd better go home and cure some disease or invent a longer-lasting lightbulb or something. 'Cause the truth is, I wouldn't trade 10 Ryans for one Vecchio or one Caparzo.” (Miller)

          “Merrill’s Marauders” is average in dialogue. Although Samuel Fuller wrote some of it, it is not as gritty as you would hope. In fact, some of it is pretty trite. The movie closes with the doctor saying: “What sort of men are these? How can they do it? But they did it”. Gag! The soldier chatter is particularly lame, but thankfully sparse. The most memorable line is Merrill’s inspirational: “When you’re at the end of your rope all you have to do is have one foot step out in front of the other.”

FIRST HALF SCORE:
Saving Private Ryan      18
Merrill’s Marauders      14

SOLDIER BEHAVIOR:

          SPR is famous for the boot camp the actors were put through by Dale Dye in preparation for their roles. Matt Damon (Ryan) was purposely left out so he would be treated subconsciously as an outsider. For a movie that attempts to be as close to reality as possible, the actors do not come off as like they are playing army men. They gripe a lot and question the mission. They do not want to accept the new guy (Upham) and never really bond with him. They respect Capt. Miller, but only grudgingly follow him when he issues questionable orders.

         MM also highlights the typical soldier grousing. Both films include the realistic “why us again?” whining. The best scene is when Lt. Stockton reveals to his platoon that they are not going on R&R and instead have a long slog ahead of them. The men wander off dejectedly. Their interaction has some forced dysfunctionality involving a jerk named “Chowhound”. The lack of noise discipline is a disconcerting behavior.

THIRD QUARTER SCORE:
Saving Private Ryan      26
Merrill’s Marauders      20

ENTERTAINMENT VALUE:

         SPR was a huge success. It was the highest grossing domestic film of the year. It’s appeal cut across many demographic groups. Although there are no female characters, many women enjoyed the movie. Although some have complained about plot contrivances, there is no debate that Spielberg is a master at manipulating the emotions of his audiences. Unlike many of his later efforts, SPR is fairly constrained in this aspect. The blend of intense combat with a human interest story was masterful.

         MM is above average entertainment, but is mainly aimed at war movie lovers. The film wears well in a classic war film way. It does not break any new ground and what it does to entertain the audience is standard, but effective. Viewing it will leave you satisfied, but unlikely to stay in the theater for a second viewing. And I doubt there was much buzz surrounding the film.

FINAL SCORE:
Saving Private Ryan      35
Merrill’s Marauders      27

COLOR ANALYSIS:

         This match-up went as expected. SPR is just too talent-laden for a mid-major like MM. In virtually any category, SPR is easily superior. It will take a special film to take down the #1 seed, not an above average Old School classic.

 

THE BIG RED ONE (3) vs. WHEN TRUMPETS FADE (9)

REALISM:

          Although semi-autobiographical, “The Big Red Line” is chock full of implausibilities. It is not realistic that a competent sergeant would not have been promoted after three years of combat. It is unrealistic that the four main squad members would not even suffer a wound in three years. Helping a woman give birth in a tank. Old German villagers blocking the path of armed American soldiers. A soldier eating with them in the Ardennes turns out to be a German plant. Their paths cross several times with the same bad Nazi. Not to mention virtually all the combat scenes. Compare BR1’s Huertgen Forest scene with the one’s in “When Trumpets Fade”.

         “When Trumpets Fade” is billed as a grittily realistic view of the Battle of Huertgen Forest. While BR1 takes a decidedly light approach to the war, WTF (just a coincidence) is relentlessly grim. The war in Europe for a rifle squad was somewhere in the middle, but certainly closer to what is depicted in “Trumpets” than what is shown in BR1. It is probably unrealistic for an openly reluctant warrior like Manning to get promoted, much less for him to lead daring missions behind enemy lines. However, the hellish nature of the terrain and the attritive combat is close to what one of the most horrendous battles of WWII was like. Compare the artillery fire here to that of BR1. This movie also has a bad Nazi character, but his appearances are limited and plausible.

FIRST QUARTER SCORE:
The Big Red One                6
When Trumpet’s Fade       8

DIALOGUE:

          BR1’s dialogue could best be described as sappy. Watch the tank birthing scene and see if you don’t cringe. The movie includes such gems as “Did I kill the guy who killed me?” (Kaiser – the dead meat replacement who survived long enough for you to wonder.) “Ben Franklin was never in a rifle squad”. (Griff) And of course the crème de la crème is: “You’re gonna live even if I have to blow your brains out.” (Moe Howard - I mean the Sarge) Much of the soldier dialogue is satisfactory and Zab’s narration is appropriate for a hack writer. Best line: “I’m sane… I’m one of you.” (one of the insane asylum inmates as he sprays bullets from a machine gun)

          “Trumpets” is from the VioLingo school which means it tries to get soldier lingo down. You hear lines like “get your s*** together” and “I’m not taking a bullet for anybody” (Manning). The dialogue would best be described as cynical. The interplay between the soldier’s is the opposite of Old School films like “A Walk in the Sun” (which has great dialogue) although interestingly “Trumpets” cribs the “nobody dies” mantra. Best line: “This is your first big chance to stay alive; don’t f*** it up.” (Manning to Sanderson)

HALF TIME SCORE:
The Big Red One                12
When Trumpets Fade        17

SOLDIER BEHAVIOR:

           One of the strengths of BR1 is the way the soldiers behave seems authentic. The bond between the “four horsemen” is typical of those forged in battle. They rib each other a lot and look out for each other. This is typical of American soldiers in any war. Their ostracism of replacements is a common attitude for seasoned vets. One of the men (Griff) can’t kill in combat (studies have shown this was common). Another (Vinci) gets upset when he, a veteran, is put on point. Overall, not bad.

           “Trumpets” has a lot of Vietnam-type soldier behavior which may seem anachronistic until you realize that the Battle of Huertgen Forest probably caused the kind of cynical, survivalistic behavior we normally associate with Vietnam. The soldier’s realize they are cannon fodder, but they grudgingly follow orders. Sometimes they panic and run. Some of them crack under the stress of combat (another similarity to the otherwise tonally opposite “Walk in the Sun”).

THIRD QUARTER SCORE:
The Big Red One                20
When Trumpets Fade        25

ENTERTAINMENT VALUE:

            If you can suspend reality, BR1 is a pretty entertaining movie. It is a series of vignettes involving some likeable characters. It has a good blend of combat, camaraderie, and corn pone. It takes the comfort of Old School and adds a little bit of modern so it can appeal to the Baby Boomers. For those with limited attention spans the scenes are bite sized and varied.

           “Trumpets” is a made for HBO movie and is not well known. I saw it when it was originally put in HBO rotation and was amazed at how good it was considering the limited budget. The movie is clearly not aimed at a mass audience. No female appears in the film. It’s main character is a modern anti-hero who is not likeable. If you are a war movie lover, it is a revelation. It is different and passionate in its desire to be iconoclastic. The opening and closing are powerful. In between, it packs in great performances and visceral action.

FINAL SCORE:
The Big Red One              27
When Trumpets Fade      34

COLOR ANALYSIS:

           On paper this was an upset, but it should not come as a surprise as BR1 was clearly overrated at #3 and “Trumpets” was equally underrated at #9. Members of the war movie lovers’ community will probably not be shocked by the results and some probably won a lot of money from rubes who were taken in by Fuller’s magnus opus and were not familiar with the obscure “Trumpets”.

 

THE LONGEST DAY (2) vs. ATTACK! (11)

REALISM:

            “The Longest Day” was constrained in reality because of what was acceptable in 1962. Because it closely covers a non-fiction war classic, the events are realistically depicted, but the combat is too tame. Just compare TLD’s Omaha Beach landing to the gold standard set by “Saving Private Ryan”. Still, if you added blood, the combat scenes could fit well in a modern war movie. The action scenes are a bit simplistic and not as chaotic and confusing as the real thing, but at least the film tries to show this in a 1962 sort of way.

             “Attack!” is based on a play which means it was not originally designed to be realistic in its action scenes. It does a pretty good job in spite of that. The attack on the house on the edge of town is realistic in tactics. The German counterattack (supposedly during the Battle of the Bulge) is not representative of that battle, but that was not the point. One would hope the dysfunctionality in the unit is exaggerated and not typical of the Army. However, you have to assume there were officers like Cooney and Bartlett. Nepotism and incompetence can be found in any job. You can see why the Army would have felt the depiction of the officers was unrealistic. I don’t think fragging was a common solution to officer problems in WWII. That part of the plot would have been more comfortable in a Vietnam War movie.

FIRST QUARTER SCORE:
The Longest Day     8
Attack!                     6

DIALOGUE:

             Much of the dialogue in TLD comes directly from the book which means the screenwriters (who included Cornelius Ryan) were often directly quoting the real persons depicted in the movie. Since soldiers (even generals) are not noted for their speaking ability, much of the dialogue can best be described as workmanlike. This movie is far from being a play. The good thing is there is little pontificating in the film. It was made long enough after the war to where it did not have to be patriotic or propagandistic. Best line: "He's dead. I'm crippled. You're lost. Do you suppose it's always like that? I mean war." (Flight Officer Campbell)

              The two biggest strengths of “Attack!” are the acting and the dialogue. Since it was based on a play, the words have to do some heavy lifting. The dialogue can best be described as biting, especially coming from Costa. “ Listen to me, Cooney! If you put me and my men in a wringer - -if you send us out there and let us hang - -I swear, I swear by all that's holy, I'll come back. I'll come back and take this grenade and shove it down your throat and pull the pin!”

FIRST HALF SCORE:
The Longest Day      16
Attack!                      15

SOLDIER BEHAVIOR:

             Once again I have to come back to TLD being based on an admirably well researched book that used many interviews with both the decision makers and the doers. This means the behavior of both the brass and the boots rings true. The pressures of command are a theme that is explored well. The pre-battle activities of the soldiers is realistically depicted. Combat behavior is also well done although since it’s a 1962 film, we see little of the grimier side. The movie is not overly anti-war.

             “Attack!” chooses an unusual situation to create dramatic tension. The main characters are caricatures that service the cynicism of the plot. Within the parameters of the plot, the men behave realistically. A veteran like Costa could have easily said and did the things he did if confronted by a leader like Cooney. The behavior of the unit members, who were in a sense caught in the middle, makes sense.

THIRD QUARTER SCORE:
The Longest Day      25
Attack!                      22

ENTERTAINMENT VALUE:

              “The Longest Day” was a huge box office success and is fondly recalled fifty years later. It does not underestimate the intelligence of the viewers. The first 53 minutes are background to the invasion. That opening third flows smoothly and is not pedantic. The jumping around between the two sides and the brief introductions of the grunts that will be focused on is very effective. Once the combat kicks in the movie masterfully blends the brass perspective with the enlisted views. The common soldiers that the film follows (e.g., Schultz, Pluskat, Fuller, Steele) are all appealing characters. It is one of the few Old School movies that you can say would not be improved with a modern treatment.

             “Attack!” is entertaining partly because it is different. The combat is pedestrian, but the acting and dialogue make up for it. Jack Palance as Costa is mesmerizing and he is ably supported by some other capable actors like Lee Marvin and Eddie Albert (who also appears in TLD). The rest of the cast that includes Buddy Ebsen, Robert Strauss, William Smithers, and Richard F’in Jaekel (of course) add to the entertainment value. It is a movie that stays with you and few war movie lovers would regret seeing it.

FINAL SCORE:

The Longest Day     35
Attack!                     30

COLOR ANALYSIS:

               This was a very intriguing match-up. A epic versus what would pass today for an independent film. A movie that could almost be described as pro-war versus a movie that was not only anti-war, but anti-Army. It is a testament to the war movie genre that two movies so drastically different can coexist and be loved by the same people. There is a place for both in the canon. “Attack!” had a good run in the tournament, but midnight finally gonged for the Cinderella. It can take some consolation from the recognition it got and hopefully more people will become acquainted with this must-see film.

A BRIDGE TOO FAR (5) vs. A WALK IN THE SUN (12)

 

VS.

 

 



A BRIDGE TOO FAR (5) vs. A WALK IN THE SUN (12)

 

ACTING:

 

                "A Bridge Too Far" has an all-star cast of both British and American A-Listers.  They took the production seriously.  There are excellent performances across the board.  Maybe it was the competition.  The standouts included James Caan as a grunt who saves his “dead” lieutenant and Elliot Gould as a crusty American officer who has to build a Bailey Bridge.  Michael Caine, Anthony Hopkins, Sean Connery, and Gene Hackman are commanding as commanders.  Kudos to Dirk Bogarde for taking on the thankless role of Gen. Browning (Monty’s incompetent lap dog – or so the movie implies) and making American audiences shake their heads smugly. 

               "A Walk in the Sun" has a cast of familiar B-Listers from the 1940s.  They do as well as could be expected, but can’t compete with the “Bridge” cast.  Dana Andrews is strong in the lead role, but noone breaks out.  A couple of the performances get a little grating after a while (ex. Richard Conte as Ramirez) .  However, given the small nature of the film, the acting is more than adequate.

FIRST QUARTER SCORE:      BRIDGE    9            WALK     7

CLICHES: 

                “Bridge” is not the type of war movie that lends itself to clichés so this category is slightly unfair.  I tried thinking of some “epic war movie” clichés like pompous orchestral music, but could not come up with a comparable list to the combat movie clichés list.  With respect to similar movies like “The Longest Day”, “Midway”, and “Tora! Tora! Tora!”, it follows the typical plot pattern.  Concentration on leadership instead of the troops, coverage of several units, jumping between Allied and Axis perspectives, a few grunts getting personal stories (ex. Dohun), etc.

                “Walk” is a small unit dynamics movie in the classic sense.  It begins with a thank you to the Armed Forces. The group is heterogeneous (including the Brooklynite), but the different backgrounds are not a major plot point.  There is a commentator in the form of Windy Craven who is composing a letter to his sister in his head.  The hero (Tyne) has leadership forced on him.  There is a distinct objective that they move towards.  The plot alternates between action and dialogue.  On the other hand, it is missing several of the other clichés.  There is no redemption character and no real conflict within the group.

HALF TIME SCORE:     BRIDGE     17             WALK    14

PLOT:

                “Bridge” is the true story of Operation Market Garden and it is based on the outstanding book by Cornelius Ryan.  The movie does justice to both.  It does an excellent job juggling the command perspectives of both sides and integrating the battle scenes.  Considering the complexity of the campaign, the film is not confusing and manages to stick to a linear structure.

                “Walk” has a much simpler plot.  It also is based on a great novel by Harry Brown so it is not a true story.  The plot builds slowly to an assault on a German farm house in Italy. The combat scene at the end is the obligatory payoff for a movie that is more interested in soldier interaction than action.  This means the plot is uncommon for a war movie and thus its competent direction by Lewis Milestone makes the movie very interesting, but not for everyone.  In other words, if you have seen ten war movies, you will probably hate it.  If you have seen 100, you’ll probably love it.  The movie is almost totally the opposite of “Bridge” in its concentration on the small picture.  The movies make outstanding companions.

THIRD QUARTER SCORE:    BRIDGE    26        WALK    22

COMBAT:

                “Bridge” is very underrated as a combat film.  There are several very well done combat sequences.  The scenes involving the Arnhem Bridge stand out, but there is also the best river crossing under fire scene in war movie history.  The action is violent and pretty graphic.  There are plenty of realistic explosions.  Compared to its most obvious equivalent, “The Longest Day”, it packs a lot more punch.

                “Walk” is at a big disadvantage in this tournament when it comes to combat.  It throws some in, but almost as an afterthought.  There is a scene involving ambushing an armored car which is cool, but mainly because of the staging and cinematography.  The assault on the farm house has a weird feel to it with most of the action from a German machine gunner point of view and Americans making a frontal charge leading to falling bodies.  It’s pretty bloodless.  Other than the lack of blood, the movie is honest about the boring nature of warfare where long bouts of sitting around and talking are broken up by short intense moments of violence.  However, this reality does not go over well with most war movie fans.

FINAL SCORE:    BRIDGE    35      WALK    27

 

COLOR ANALYSIS:  I am a big fan of "A Walk in the Sun", but sometimes bigger is better.  "Walk" could not hang with the more talent-laden "Bridge".  Realistic soldier talk and behavior makes "Walk" a fine representative of the minimalist school of war films, but in a match-up of combat films it lacks bang.  The fact that its day in the life of a platoon is true to the basically boring nature of war is commendable.  However, it ran into a movie that was true to the massive nature of a military campaign.  "Bridge" lived up to its pedigree with excellent acting and set pieces.  It just overwhelmed "Walk".

#94 - A BRIDGE TOO FAR

BACK-STORY: 

“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.

OPENING SCENE:

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).

SUMMARY:

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. If you know nothing about Operation Market Garden, but do know about the British army in WWII and Montgomery in particular, you know this movie will not have a happy ending. The plan calls for daring and speed – two words not associated with the British in WWII.

One of the movies themes of bad luck 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 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. 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 101st Airborne led by a Col. Stout (Elliot Gould) assault the first bridge only to have German 88s take it out moments before they reach it. A bailey bridge will be needed. Luckily for the Allies, the German Gen. Model is mirroring Browning’s “I won’t believe anything that does not fit my preconceived notions” philosophy by refusing to blow the other bridges.

The British arrive at Arnhem with no resistance, but without their commander Gen. Urquhart (Sean Connery) who has been separated from the unit and spends most of the movie working his way back. They assault the bridge led by the stereotypical British officer carrying an unopened umbrella (based on an actual person who survived the battle, but not in the movie). They knock out a pillbox when a flamethrower accidentally cooks off ammunition nearby. In a great scene, the Germans counterattack using armored cars that are taken out by British bazookas. So far, so good, but what happens if the Germans bring up armor?

The movie now veers away from its command-centric story line to tell the tale of Ssgt. Eddie Duhon (James Caan). Duhon locates the body of the supposedly dead Capt. Johnson and in an homage to the Jeep drives through a forest and then through a German unit under fire to reach a hospital. The doctor refuses to work on the hopeless case until Dohun pulls a pistol and insists. The Capt. is saved and the doctor decides not to court-martial Dohun.

We get a realistic and informative look at the building of a bailey bridge (possibly unique in war movie history). The XXX Corps crosses the bridge and is on its pokey way again, but way behind schedule. Surprise!

In Arnhem, armor arrives and a tank crosses the bridge into the town and into the British position. House to house fighting begins and the casualties mount including the resistance/spy family introduced earlier in the movie.  The British are gamely led by Lt. Col. Frost (Anthony Hopkins).   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 ).

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 Germans attempt to blow the bridge which would have meant the assault would have been in vain, but the charges do not go off. Not all luck in war is bad. However, instead of bursting ahead, the British armor hunker down to brew their tea as they wait for their infantry to come up. Cook confronts the British commander in a moment which must have resonated with American vets of the European Theater. He angrily points out that “those are British troops in Arnhem. They’re hurt bad. And you’re just gonna sit here and drink tea?”

The Polish brigade is sent to reinforce the British in Arnhem. They are led by the reluctant Gen. Sosabowski (Gene Hackman) who knows the mission is doomed, but reflects another theme of the movie – good soldiers swallow their doubts and wade in. The landing is a bloody disaster and only a few Poles reach the British. By this time, the Germans are overwhelming the lightly armed British in the streets of Arnhem and they get orders to withdraw as best they can. Only a few, including Urquhart, manage to escape through the woods during the night. Urquhart confronts Browning about Montgomery’s summary of the operation as being 90% successful. Browning responds that “I always thought we tried to go a bridge too far”.

THE FINAL SCENE:

Kate and the doctor leave her ruined house and join a long line of refugees. The movie fades with the refugees moving out of frame. Not a happy ending. No Doolittle raid like in “Pearl Harbor”. Bizarrely, in a movie that begins with a tidy review of the war up until the operation, there is no preview of what happens next, nor are the events of the film put in perspective.

RATINGS:

Action - 8 ( not graphic )

Acting - 8 ( especially Connery, Caine, Gould, and Hopkins )

Accuracy - 9

Realism - 9

Plot - 8

Overall - 8

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT?

I do not think most would. My wife found it to be too “military”. It is a very macho movie, but does have one significant female character – ter Horst. Surprisingly, Ullman’s character was based on a real person and not just simply thrown in to attract a female audience. The “Angel of Arnhem” is accurately portrayed.  It is also long, even for a war movie.  Not a good selling point for women.

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.

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.

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!", "The Battle of Britain", "Battle of the Bulge", and "Midway".  Although it is a downer because the Allies lose, we Montgomery-haters can enjoy the discomfiture of the limeys.

"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 soemone 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.