100 BEST WAR MOVIES: 31. Valkyrie (2008)

 

                “Valkyrie” is based on the true story of the plot to assassinate Hitler.  The assassination and the implementation of the government takeover were known as Operation Valkyrie.  The main conspirator was Col. Claus von Stauffenberg who is portrayed by Tom Cruise.  The movie was directed by Marc Singer.  It is his first and only war movie and he treated it as a thriller based in a war.  The film had a bit of a difficult gestation.  Tom Cruise’s association and his Scientology beliefs made many Germans (including the Stauffenberg family) skeptical about the film and at first there was opposition to filming in Germany.  However, support from German newspapers and filmmakers eventually overcame the roadblocks.  Singer was even allowed to film scenes in the Bindlerblock (now called the Memorial to the German Resistance) where the plot was centered. 

            The other obstacle that had to be overcome was the lukewarm studio reaction to the project.  Tom Cruise was damaged goods, although his performance in “Tropic Thunder” had generated a lot of good will.  The idea of a World War II epic with a heavy dose of Nazism in it was also cause for concern.  In spite of this, United Artists poured $75 million into the project.  Some of that money went to building a replica of the Wolf’s Lair which took three months.  When the movie was completed the studio was not sure what to do with it.  The release date was pushed back until a test audience gave it a seal of approval.  At that point the suits decided it warranted a Christmas release because nothing says Noel more than a Nazi death plot.  The movie did not start off strong at the box office and got mixed reviews, but it ended up making $83 million domestically and over $200 million worldwide.

            The movie opens with German soldiers taking an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer.  This is a crucial scene because it explains the anguish most of the conspirators will go through in violating that oath. This established the movies main theme which was that a person may have to make sacrifices to fight evil.  One of those soldiers who breaks that pledge is a Col. von Stauffenberg.  We meet him in Tunisia in the waning days of the Afrika Korps’ defense of North Africa.  He mouths off about S.S. atrocities and clearly is at a tipping point in his loyalty toward Hitler.  An air attack by two P-40s on his column results in grievous injuries including loss of an eye.  Stauffenberg’s fighting days are over and his plotting days have begun.  He will be a newcomer to the conspiracy as Maj. Gen. Trasckow (Kenneth Branagh) is already actively trying to kill Hitler.  He manages to place a bomb on the Fuhrer’s plane when he visits the Eastern Front, but unfortunately it fails to work and Trasckow has to rush to Berlin to retrieve the incriminating evidence.  This is the first scene that makes you wonder how much of the screenplay is enhanced for entertainment value.

            Stauffenberg is recruited into the plot and takes charge of the disparate conspirators.  He realizes that they have not given enough thought to what happens after Hitler is dead.  He suggests they use the already in place Operation Valkyrie plan.  That plan provides for the Reserve Army to deal with a national emergency.  Stauffenberg daringly attends a meeting of Hitler’s inner circle to get him to sign off on adjustments to the plan.  After two aborted attempts, Stauffenberg manages to bring a briefcase with explosives to a strategy meeting hosted by Hitler. 

ACTING:   A                 

ACTION:   N/A

ACCURACY:  A          

PLOT:  A                     

REALISM:   A           

CINEMATOGRAPHY:    B

SCORE:   C               

SCENE:  the explosion

QUOTE:   Von Stauffenberg:  I'm a soldier, I serve my country. But this is not my country. I was lying out there bleeding to death, thinking, if I die now, I leave nothing to my children but shame. I know now there is only one way to serve Germany, and doing so I'll be a traitor - I accept that.

            “Valkyrie” is a big budget effort and the effort shows.  The cast is international and stellar.  Cruise is the only  superstar, but the rest of the cast are recognizable for their talents.  They are also recognizable as the real historical people they play.  A sampling of their pictures alongside their characters shows the great work of the casting director and the make-up artists.  This was not a vanity project for Cruise and although he is not the best actor involved, he does a satisfactory job portraying Stauffenberg.  He deserves credit for the eight months of research he did in preparing for the role.

            The money was not spent just on the salaries of the cast.  Rebuilding the Wolf’s Lair must have been expensive.  Singer went to great trouble to get the details right.  He used authentic P-40s for the one combat scene.  Not that anyone would notice, he acquired thirty period teletype machines for the scenes set in the communications room.  To top that off, the messages we see arriving are all actual messages from the archives!  The sets and costumes are spot on.  I found little of the usual carping about improper insignia, etc.  The score is fine and fits the mood well in an understated way.

            The plot is suspenseful, especially if you don’t know much about what happened.  The movie manages to juggle numerous characters without too much confusion, although a second viewing helps.  One weakness is there is not a lot of character exposition.  We do not clearly know why Stauffenberg is motivated to break his oath and kill a leader he admired at one time.  Providing this insight would have substantially increased the length of the film probably.  Most importantly, the movie does not smack of Hollywood excess.  Stauffenberg is not an action hero.  But he undoubtedly is a hero and the movie does an admirable job doing justice to the brave members of the conspiracy.  Many viewers will learn for the first time that there was a significant resistance to Hitler.  Not all Germans were cowed by the Nazis.  However, the movie does leave the impression that if Hitler had still been winning the war in 1944, he would not have been in danger of assassination.

            As far as the accuracy, the movie is reminiscent of “Downfall” and is an excellent companion to it.  Like that other Hitler epic, “Valkyrie” is amazingly accurate.  Nothing happens in the movie that is significant tampering with history.  For instance, the seemingly Hollywoodish first attempt via a bomb on the plane is basically what happened with the tweak of having Tresckow retrieving the package instead of an aide.  Why not use Branagh for that?  All the real historical personages are portrayed as they were, not just in looks.  The reenactment of the July 20 attempt is excellent and the movie even uses some Hollywood theatrics to show what should have happened.  It is important to note that although some people are familiar with the bombing, the movie does an admirable job depicting the ensuing events which are less well known.  “Valkyrie” is basically a big budget, all-star documentary.  You need not look or read elsewhere if you want to know the story of the assassination attempt.  This movie is the gold standard for its topic.

            I have to admit that when I first heard about this movie I was upset.  Part of that feeling was due to concern about Cruise making a historical movie, but mainly because I questioned the potential for a movie about a failed attempt to kill Hitler.  I just could not imagine that there would be a substantial audience for that subject.  Why would Hollywood spend $75 million on a war movie that no one wanted?  I still feel the money could have been better spent on a film about the St. Nazaire Raid, for instance.  However, I have to admit I was wrong.  “Valkyrie” is an excellent movie on a subject that deserved treatment.  It’s nice to know a movie like this can make money.  It is definitely one of the 100 Best War Movies.

Munich - The Edge of War (2021)

 

            Now playing on Netflix is the movie “Munich -  The Edge of War” which is based on the novel by Robert Harris.  Harris used the Munich Conference as the backdrop for his espionage tale.  The movie was a joint German / British production and was directed by Christian Schwochow. 

            The movie begins in 1932 Germany.  Paul (Jannis Niewohner), Lena (Liv Lisa), and Hugh (George MacKay of “1917”) are friends at a wedding.  Although the music is swing, the talk is of the “new Germany” promised by the Nazis.  Paul is enthusiastic about the future, Lena and Hugh not so much so.  Six years later, Hugh has returned to his native Great Britain.  A barrage balloon serves as the symbol of British preparation for war over the Sudetenland crisis.  Hugh is secretary to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Jeremy Irons).  Paul is an interpreter in the Foreign Office in Berlin.  He has become disillusioned with the Nazis and is involved in plotting against Hitler.  He is assured that some German generals will oust Hitler if he goes to war to acquire the Sudetenland.  Perversely, the conspirators need for war with Britain to break out.  This is a dream because Chamberlain is determined to avoid war over Czechoslovakia, even though England is allied with it.

            When the Munich Conference is agreed to, Paul is concerned that Chamberlain will appease Hitler (Ulrich Matthes -  Goebbels in “Downfall”) and the opportunity to remove him will be lost.  His trump card is a purloined document that outlines Hitler’s plan to continue his expansion despite his pledge to be satisfied with the Sudetenland.  Paul needs to slip the secret document to Hugh who will show it to Chamberlain, thus torpedoing the agreement.  This will not be easy as a member of Hitler’s bodyguard (August Diehl – the crafty Nazi from the bar scene in “Inglourious Basterds”) is suspicious of the duo.  If you are historically literate, you know Chamberlain is going to return to Britain holding the Munich Agreement, not the Hossbach Protocol.  The movie is not an alternative history, it is a what if.

            I am skeptical whether this is a war movie.  I usually do not consider pre-war movies to fit into the genre, unlike post-war movies like “The Best Years of Our Lives”.  But let’s stretch the genre to include it so I can justify this review.  I would not suggest war movie lovers watch it.  But history lovers should.  It is a good history lesson about the Munich Conference, but to get beyond a documentary, you have to watch a tepid espionage tale.  The screenplay must negotiate through several unrealistic developments to make spies out of Paul and Hugh.  But show me a realistic fictional spy story.  There aren’t any.  This movie is certainly not as reality-challenged as a film like “Foreign Correspondent”.  And thankfully, it pulls back from the brink of ridiculous in the end.

            The movie is well made.  Although it does not roam around a lot, the sets and costumes do fit the period.  It uses music as a symbol of the changes in Germany.  The wedding party has the swing music that will be banned in Nazi Germany.  A later scene in a tavern has traditional German music playing in the background.  The acting is a lure, especially with Jeremy Irons playing Chamberlain.  He polishes the image of the poster boy for appeasement.  Chamberlain is an appealing figure and comes off as a statesman who saved his country from a war it was ill-prepared for at the time.  Matthes is middle of the pack as Hitler.  We seldom see the pre-war Hitler in war movies.  He is in his prime at this time, not the doddering, drug-addled ranter of “Downfall”.  Here he is more malevolent.  The movie makes a point of emphasizing his ability to read people (which is going to cause some anxious moments for Paul).  The central trio of MacKay, Niewohner, and Lisa are adequate in unchallenging roles.  MacKay and Niewohner are playing bureaucrats playing spies.  The poker faces necessary for their non-James Bond roles does not make for emoting.  And to tell the truth, since the movie does not push the limits of historical license, their characters are kind of boring.  Even Diehl does not get a big showdown like he did in “Inglourious Bastards”.

            If you want more excitement than this movie delivers, go to a London pub and loudly proclaim that “Munich -  The Edge of War” has rehabilitated the heroic Neville Chamberlain.  I have not read Morris’ book, but I will assume he had a mission to bring the real Chamberlain to his readers.  The movie does a good job of pointing out that Chamberlain was popular at the time and that his avoiding war was the wish of the British public.  There is no Churchill carping from the sidelines.  (Speaking of which, this movie is a nice companion to “The Darkest Hour”.)  Chamberlain’s motivation for going to Munich is historically accurate.  Unfortunately, when Chamberlain arrives in Munich, the movie shifts focus to Paul and Hugh.  We do not go into the conference room to see the interaction between the democrat and the dictator.  If you are trying to make Chamberlain look better than he was, this was probably a conscious decision.  As was the dubious post script that Chamberlain actually saved Great Britain by postponing the war until Britain was ready.  This is the big rehab that the movie attempts.  I think I’ll stick with my image of Chamberlain as a wimp who sold out an ally because he wasn’t willing to fight a bully.

GRADE  =  C

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Although a work of fiction, “Munich – The Edge of War” has some historical accuracy to it.  Paul von Hartmann is based on Adam von Trott zu Solz.  Trott joined the Nazi Party to work from within to stop Hitler.  He was a conservative and a racist, but he was serious about ousting der Fuhrer.  He had attended Oxford, but had no friend equivalent to Hugh Legat.  He did meet Chamberlain, but it was after the Munich Conference and nothing came of it.  He and other conservatives, including a few German generals, did plan an insurrection.  However, the plan depended on Hitler being humiliated by the European leaders standing up to him over Czechoslovakia.  The document Paul tries to pass to Chamberlain is based on the Hossbach Protocol which was a summary of a secret meeting between Hitler and his henchmen in November, 1937.  Hitler outlines his plan to get lebensraum (“living space”) through expansion.  This was later expanded into Generalplan Ost which called for the conquest of Eastern Europe with its corollary of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and slave labor.  All good reasons to stop him at Munich.  However, there was no attempt to stop him by having Great Britain declare war because of what might be.  Trott did continue his anti-Hitler plotting which eventually led to his involvement in Operation Valkyrie and his resulting execution for it. 

            Hitler is accurately portrayed in the movie.  He did have a strong aversion to smoking and at this stage of his career he was on a roll when it came to judging his opponents.  The movie tries to show this by way of his creepy suspicion of Paul when it would have been better to show his mastery of Chamberlain.  And Chamberlain was easily mastered, unlike the movie Chamberlain.  The movie’s attempt at revisionism when it comes to Chamberlain is way out on a limb.  While it is accurate to depict the popular support he had, he is not the heroic figure of the movie.  He was actually a poor politician who did not know it because of his excessive hubris.  He arrogantly felt he could take the measure of the Fuhrer.  It is a stretch to lead the audience to believe that he was thinking ahead when he gave Hitler the Sudetenland.  While it is true that Great Britain was given an extra year to rearm (and he did initiate some of that rearmament), Hitler was also given an extra year of momentum and the English Channel was more a factor than Chamberlain’s appeasement when it came to England’s survival. 

            Throwing out the machinations of Paul and Hugh to get the purloined papers to Neville, the conference is a good tutorial.  It was even filmed in the actual building where the conference was held.  Not enough is made of the stabbing of Czechoslovakia in the back by Great Britain and France, however.  Since we don’t go behind closed doors, we do not get to see the intimidation that Hitler used against Chamberlain and Daladier.  This would not have fit the narrative of Chamberlain bravely postponing the war.  Chamberlain did return to give a speech on the tarmac that promised peace in our time.  The movie depicts this as ultimately a triumph for him historically when in fact it shows how naïve he was.  The revisionism of the movie is unwarranted, but perhaps we should reflect that Chamberlain was a typical politician who sacrificed principles for what the crowd wanted.  This makes Churchill’s stand in the 1930s even more remarkable.  Churchill is not as great as the movies depict him, but Chamberlain is not as good as this movie depicts him.