ANATOMY OF A SCENE: Das Boot – Running the Strait

            “Das Boot” is the gold standard for submarine warfare movies. I have considered it to be a great movie, but not outstanding because of one scene. I have read several books on submarine warfare and the Battle of the Atlantic, so I know u-boat tactics. The tactics shown in the scenes depicting the attempt to run the strait of Gibraltar seemed puzzling to me, especially since the captain is portrayed as a good leader who would not make any stupid mistakes. Recently, my opinion on this flaw in the movie has reared its head again and has caused me to question whether I have been too harsh on the captain for this. So, I have rewatched the pertinent scenes and read the book version of the scenes to see if the movie followed the book and if so, was the captain wrong.

            In the movie, the sub is given orders to enter the Mediterranean Sea by way of the Strait of Gibraltar. The captain is well aware that this is a very risky mission because the strait is very well defended. It will take a good plan and a lot of luck. He decides to approach the strait in the dark on the surface. The boat will evade British ships to get close to the strait and then dive and use the eastward current to save fuel and safely run through the strait. No one on the crew questions the decision, but it is obvious some of the officers are skeptical. The boat manages to maneuver through several British ships and are within ten minutes of diving when the captain sends all the conning tower personnel below deck except himself and the navigator. A plane attacks and drops two bombs that damage the sub and wound the navigator. The captain orders “prepare to abandon ship”, but he stays topside and orders full speed ahead. The second officer guesses the captain is trying to reach shallower water off the coast of Africa. When the sub runs into several British ships, the captain is forced to dive. He plans to hold at 100 meters, but the damage causes the boat to continue its dive until it bottoms out at more than 280 meters, well below crush depth.

            Were the captain’s decisions good ones and do they conform to the captain in the book? In the book, the captain’s plan is the same as in the movie. No one questions them, but there is some doubt. Heading for the strait on the surface in the daytime, they are forced to dive three times because aircraft are spotted. None of the planes attacks. They are back on the surface when night falls. They are ten minutes from diving when the plane attacks. (In the book, the officers wonder how the plane was able to find them in the dark which is appropriate because in October, 1941 the RAF’s radar on planes would not have been known to the u-boat fleet.)  The conning tower is hit and the deck gun is destroyed. No one is wounded. The boat dives, but resurfaces due to the damage. However, star shells turns the night into day, so the captain orders a dive to 100 feet (I am not sure why the movie went with meters.) The boat continues to the bottom which is more than 825 feet deep.  

            The movie is close enough to the real incident, considering it’s a dramatization. Obviously, the director and screenwriter were not going to reenact three dives because of aircraft. And the dive to the bottom is close to what happened. They did have rivets busting, by the way. It’s not just a submarine movie cliché. However, the captain in the movie makes a very puzzling decision to stay on the surface after the plane attack that damages the sub. He does not explain his decision, but it seems like he would not have known the damage would cause the sub to sink. His order to race towards the African shallows is not explained, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he knew the boat might sink and he wanted it to be in shallower water. (That’s a big assumption.) This actually worked out because although the sub does go way below crush depth, if it had sunk where it had been damaged, it surely would have been crushed by the lower depth. Probably because of time constraints the movie does not show the boat diving after the attack (which would have been standard procedure), but having to surface because of damage. The captain is then forced to dive because the alternative is being a sitting duck. Because the movie edits out some of this, it makes the captain look like a gambler who loses his bet. In the movie, it is insane to stay on the surface after the plane attacks and clearly informs the warships about the sub. He does not know that diving will result in sinking. In fact, since the ship draws fire on the surface, it is likely the damage that causes the uncontrolled dive was due to a shell hitting on or near the boat.

            This analysis has led me to adjust my view on the movie’s depiction of the Strait of Gibraltar sequence. I still feels the movie captain makes a poor decision to stay on the surface after being attacked, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because we don’t know what he is thinking and the movie might have made decisions for dramatic effect. With that said, I still believe both the movie captain and the book captain were insane to go as far as they did on the surface, even at night. In the war, the u-boats that successfully ran the very well-defended strait did it submerged using the eastward current to narrow the speed loss from not being on the surface. 

            P.S. Let’s take the scenes a little further. The movie covers the repairs to the sub and its surfacing very close to the book. And I just want to add something that might not have been apparent to viewers. The sub would not have survived if the Chief had gotten his wish to go home and/or if the captain had shot Johann when he had his panic attack.

The Sea Shall Not Have Them (1954)

               

               “The Sea Shall Not Have Them” is a British WWII film. It was based on the bestselling novel by John Harris. The book was published just one year before the movie was made.  It was directed by Lewis Gilbert (Carve Her Name With Pride, Sink the Bismarck!, HMS Defiant, Reach for the Sky). The title is the motto of the Royal Air Force’s Air Sea Rescue Service.

 

               In 1944, a British plane is shot down by a German fighter and crashes into the North Sea. The crew and passenger manage to get into a dinghy. The passenger is Air Commodore Waltby  (Michael Redgrave). He is carrying top secret papers about German superweapons. Naturally, those papers could win the war. Search planes are sent out to find the valuable intelligence. Guess what they do when a plane flies over.  They  yell and wave their arms. The plane does not hear or see them. They weather a storm, but things are looking bleak. The movie now intercuts between a rescue launch and the dinghy. The launch suffers mechanical problems. The movie has a series of unfortunate incidents that escalate the excitement. These include possible capturing by Germans, a minefield, and shore batteries.

 

               “The Sea Shall Not Have Them” is a decent time waster. It is very British with a very British cast. That’s not a criticism. The cast includes Dirk Bogarde and Nigel Patrick. The actors are solid, but the effects are a bit stodgy. The dinghy scenes were clearly filmed in front of a screen. In spite of the low budget, the film does have some suspense. The hardships they face were a bit much for one sea rescue operation, but nothing happens that could not have happened. In a tribute to the RAF Sea Air Rescue Service, it is appropriate to show a variety of scenarios. The movie does a good job giving credit to an organization that was not well known at the time. It builds nicely to a stirring rescue scene.

 

GRADE  =  C

THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES: #40. Das Boot (1981)

 

 “Das Boot” (“The Boat”) is a German submarine movie directed by Wolfgang Petersen.  Originally the movie was going to be made by John Sturges starring Robert Redford and then by Don Siegel starring Paul Newman.  Thankfully, both projects fell through.  It is based on the novel by Lothar-Gunther Buchheim.  Although fictional, Buchheim used his experience as a correspondent on U-96 on a tour in 1941.  The Werner (Herbert Gronemeyer) character is based on Buchheim.  Buchheim began as a technical adviser, but had a falling out with Petersen because of what Buchheim considered unrealistically enhanced dramatic license.  The movie took three years to produce (1979-81) and was the most expensive German film up to then.    It was released in 1981 at 150 minutes and then shown as a miniseries at 300 minutes.  The version I am reviewing is the definitive Director’s Cut which clocks in at 209 minutes.  The original version was a big hit in Germany and the U.S.  It was an even bigger critical success.  It was nominated for Academy Awards for Director, Cinematography, Adapted Screenplay (Petersen), Film Editing, Sound, and Sound Effects Editing.  Stunningly, it was not nominated for Foreign Film!

             The movie opens at La Rochelle, France in the autumn of 1941.  We are informed that the u-boat fleet is beginning to suffer heavy losses.  By the end of the war only 10,000 of 40,000 submariners will have survived the war.  So, don’t expect a feel-good movie. The Captain (Jurgen Prochnow), the Chief (Klaus Wennemann), and Werner arrive at the base and Werner gets his first taste of the submarine service when some of the drunken crewmen piss on their car as it passes by.  (I don’t mean taste literally.)  The enlisted are not the only ones “preparing” for their next tour, the officers are partying at a French cabaret.  The scene is reminiscent of a cinematic fighter squadron on a regular night except that these guys are going to be away from debauchery for a couple of months.  They party like there’s no tomorrow partly because they know that might be true.

 The next day the U-96 sets sail.  Werner is given a tour of the boat.  It is very crowded and narrow.  Spaces are filled with supplies, even one of the two latrines. We are introduced to the key members of the crew.  There are 48 men on board a boat that would have had 24 in peacetime.  The First Watch Officer (Hubertus Bengsch) is the only Nazi fanatic.  The rest of the officers are cynical and war-weary.  The Captain, in particular, makes biting remarks about the “braggarts” that run the government and to needle the “Hitler Youth leader” (the FWO) insists on singing “Tipperrary”. 

            The next twenty days are ones filled with boredom. This boredom switches to terror instantly when the boat is surprised by a British destroyer.  The sub dives below its maximum depth of 160 meters and withstands a depth charging.  There is no warning of the explosions for the crew or the audience. Later, they manage to torpedo three freighters, but then its payback time for the escorts.  The depth charging is much worse this time.  Leaks, flying bolts, a fire, and numerous close explosions cause extreme tension. If you are expecting a lot of sinkings, the movie is not about the glory days of the u-boat campaign. It is not an American WWII submarine movie. The sub could be labeled hard luck. Despite great leadership, it suffers from a lot of hardships. Besides the effective anti-submarine warfare tactics, the movie makes it clear that the other foe is the Atlantic Ocean. The film is far from a recruiting film for the u-boat force. This is not the “Top Gun” of German submarine movies.

ACTING:   A                 

ACTION:   C  (6/10)                   

ACCURACY:  N/A             

PLOT:  A                         

REALISM:   A               

CINEMATOGRAPHY:    A+

SCORE:   B  (not much)               

SCENE:  the burning tanker

QUOTE:  Captain:  They won't catch us this time! Not this time! They haven't spotted us! No, they're all snoring in their bunks! Or, you know what? They're drinking at the bar, celebrating our sinking! Not yet, my friends. Not yet!

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  Analyzing this movie for historical accuracy is problematic.  The film is based on a novel so it is hard to determine what in the novel is true.  The movie does follow the book closely which means the questions about accuracy focus on the book.  There was a U-96 and it was commanded by Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock for its first eight patrols.  He was the 6^th highest u-boat ace based on tonnage.  He won the Iron Cross.  The submarine was credited with sinking 27 ships in 11 patrols.  Buchheim (Werner in the movie) was a Navy correspondent who was embedded for propaganda purposes.  It appears that the patrol he based the book on was the 7^th one.  My research on that patrol shows that Buchheim enhanced the story quite a bit.  In fact, even if Buchheim used incidents from other patrols, it is still hard to find the incidents that appear in the book and in the movie.  The seventh patrol saw the sinking of only one freighter and one significant depth charging.  There was no Gibraltar incident on any of the patrols.  The u-boat sailed from St. Nazaire (the movie understandably used La Rochelle because the sub pens are intact there and were essential to the verisimilitude of the film).  It also returned to St. Nazaire, but not to the reception shown in the film.  U-96 was sunk under similar circumstances when the submarine pens at Wilhelmshaven were bombed in 1945. 

So, what could have happened?  It seems likely the submariners partied hard considering the u-boat service had the highest mortality rate of any service in WWII for any country.  Adm. Donitz did make a habit of seeing off the individual boats.  The depressed vibe may be a bit laid on, but autumn 1941 was the first nonhappy time for the u-boats.  In 1941, convoys became more effective and more escorts came into play.  Also, anti-submarine technology improved with the use of ASDIC (sonar).  The movie implies that the u-boat war was on a path downward from then on, but in reality there was to be a second “happy time” with the entry of the U.S.  The vibe in the movie is more appropriate for 1943 when the Battle of Atlantic was clearly lost.  It seems unlikely that the depth of depression and cynicism would have sunk that low by autumn 1941.

  The movie accurately reflects the fear the pinging of sonar caused for the crew.  By this stage of the war, Ultra was being used to reroute convoys away from wolf packs.  Of course the U-96 would not have been aware of this and the movie makes no allusion to the code-breaking.  The movie does make a point of depicting the use of the Enigma machine to decode messages from submarine command.  The u-boat crews were noted for being outspoken in their cynicism and the Captain evidences that.    As far as the Nazi on board, this stock character has been criticized, but it seems likely there would have been someone like him on board.  Actually, I would have thought there would have been more than one fanatic.    While the incidents in the movie can be questioned, the u-boat is as real as it can get.  The movie interior was an exact copy of a Type VII-C on display in the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry.

CRITIQUE:  The effort that went into this movie is amazing.  It reminds me of “Master and Commander”.  I already mentioned the interior, but there were also several models that were used for exterior scenes.  One was an eleven foot long model used for the ocean storms.  It was hollow and driven by a man laying inside on his stomach.  The same model was borrowed by Spielberg for “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.  There were dolls on the tower that were moved by remote control.  For the depth charge scenes, the interior mockup was on a hydraulic apparatus called a gimbal that allowed for realistic (even dangerous) hurling of bodies and objects.  The filming in this tight environment is incredible.  A special version of the steadicam was developed by cinematographer Jost Vacano who wore padding so he could move and not be hurt by encounters with the walls and hatchways.  One of the great war movie shots is when the crew rushes to the bow of the boat to speed the crash dive.   It is done in one continuous shot with no cuts.  The cinematography overall is great.  In the opening scene in the Bar Royal, Vacano has a long shot where the camera moves around the room to catch the revelry. 
               The acting matches the technical virtuousity.  The cast was relatively unknown even in Germany.  Most went on to good careers.  Prochnow is perfect as the Captain and Wennemann matches him as the Chief.  Gronemeyer is appropriately awed, wide-eyed, and terrorized by his experiences as the neophyte Werner.  Erwin Leder makes a good impression as Johann.  It was his first acting role and you won’t be able to forget his face.    The entire cast was serious about making the picture special.  They all agreed to avoid sunlight during the production to get the sallow look.  The movie was shot in sequence so the men’s beards reflected time at sea.  The actors went through a type of boot camp so they could maneuver through the cramped interior smoothly.

There have been many submarine movies.  What makes “Das Boot” special is the way it gets the life of the submariners right.  The sailors behave as you would expect a German u-boat crew to behave.  Some veterans took umbrage with the crude language, but that seems revisionist and the book (by an ex-submariner) is even cruder.  No movie has depicted life on a WWII submarine better.  Any submarine.  At screenings in America, when the statistic of 30,000 German submariners dying appeared on the screen, the audience applauded.  By the end of the film, few rejoiced in the tragic exemplification of that stat.  You care about these men.  They are not the enemy.  Speaking of which, the movie does not cut to the anti-submariners.  U-96’s foes are faceless.
            The plot is linear and somewhat episodic.  It builds nicely to its overt anti-war message.  It is not perfect, however.  The depth chargings are a bit repetitive with each topping the last.  By the end of the movie, the boat has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at it.  The movie cannot escape some of the clichés submarine movies are noted for.  The sub has to go below “hull crush depth” and yet the hull is not crushed.  The sub withstands not one, but three depth chargings with the depth charges exploding alongside the sub.  Unrealistically close, by the way.  It does avoid several other tropes.  There is no command conflict.  The captain is no Ahab hunting his white whale.  Noone is left on deck during a crash dive and no debris and oil are released to fool the hunters.  Most importantly, the sub is on a routine patrol.  No special mission.

CONCLUSION:  “Das Boot” is a very good movie, but it is not great.  I have to admit that in my opinion it is slightly overrated.  In the worthy attempt to be firmly anti-war, it has a narrative arc that is consistently downward.  Each episode is more depressing than the last until the twist of the ending.  In my opinion, the plot would have been more effective as a roller coaster ride than a downward spiral.  This does conform to the novel, but movies have the right to improve on their sources.  “Das Boot” would have been better if it had included some of the thrills of u-boat combat.  There is too much prey and not enough predator.  The torpedoing of the three enemy ships is given short shrift. The three depth chargings are not. Still, in spite of those quibbles, it is still the best submarine war movie ever made. And it is unique in depicting life on a German submarine. 

100 BEST WAR MOVIES: #56. In Which We Serve (1942)

 

“In Which We Serve” is a British war movies set in WWII.  It is set in WWII during the Battle of the Atlantic and follow the exploits of an escort warship.  The main character is a ship commander, but the crew also gets screen time.  It is proudly British in a stiff upper lip sort of way. “In Which We Serve” was released in 1942.  The movie is dominated by Noel Coward who stars as Capt. Kinross and also wrote the screenplay, wrote the score, and directed. He had to convince the studio that he was right for the Kinross role. The executives were skeptical because the public perceived Coward as an effete intellectual. He based his screenplay on the sinking of the HMS Kelly which was commanded by Louis Mountbatten. Mountbatten insisted the movie not be about him.  Coward acquiesced, but he did use Mountbatten’s speech to his crew after the sinking. The sinking was frowned on by the censors who worried about the effect on public morale. Coward insisted it was integral to the story. Coward had directed plays, but this was his first movie. He recognized the challenge ahead and hired seasoned professionals to help with the cinematography and lighting. Most importantly, he swallowed his pride and brought in David Lean to film the combat scenes. The royal family visited the set during production. The premiere was a big event and the movie was a success at the box office. It finished second in box office in 1943. It was one of the most popular British films in America. It was nominated for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay by the Academy Awards. Coward was awarded a special Oscar for “outstanding production achievement.”  It is #92 on BFI’s 100 Best British Films of the 20^th Century..

 In what might be the shortest opening narration the movie opens with “This is the story of a ship.”  The ship is the HMS Torrin.  A montage covers the building of the ship, followed by a montage of the ship being prepared for its first cruise. She is attacking a German convoy at the seven-minute mark. She sinks a cacque and German soldiers take to the water. A cacque was a wooden sailing ship! Pretty sure this is a unique scene. At the 10 minute mark, the ship comes under air attack and is sunk during the Battle of Crete.  Some of the crew, including Kinross, take refuge in a lifeboat.  The film then settles into a series of flashbacks relating the stories of Kinross,  Chief Petty Officer Hardy (Bernard Miles), and Ordinary Seaman Blake (John Mills).

 The various flashbacks contrast the lower, middle, and upper class strata on a ship.  The scenes of family life are authentic and emotionally real.  One highlight of the film is X-Mas dinners of trio showing how the classes dealt with the war.  It is apparent in each family gathering that the sailors love their ships more than their women and the women accept it. One theme of the movie is ships before hos. Mrs. Kinross warns a friend who is engaged to one of the crew that she will always be second best to the ship. Just accept it. Hardy gives a toast that sounds like he is honoring his wife, but he is actually talking about the Torrin. No one at the table is surprised and Mrs. Hardy is not upset. British women can have stiff upper lips, too. Later, Hardy lauds the Torrin: “Beautiful ship – well-mannered and does what she’s told.”  Wink, wink. Eventually, the ship-wrecked sailors are rescued and they are ready for their next ship because the war must go on.

ACTING:                      A

ACTION:                      A  6/10 in quantity

ACCURACY:               N/A

PLOT:                           A

REALISM:                   B

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   B 

SCORE:                       B

QUOTE:  Mrs. Kinross:  It is extraordinary that anyone could be so fond and so proud of their most implacable enemy – this ship.

 

BEST SCENE: the sinking of the HMS Torrin 

                All the characters are proper British.  A sailor who cowardly flees his post (Richard Attenborough) is forgiven by the Captain and later redeems himself before dying from a dastardly German strafing while in the life-boat.  When one of the officers is informed that his wife and mother are killed in the Blitz, he takes it stoically. The film has some heart-tugging moments and there must have been tears in the theaters as the viewers could relate to what happened to the families of the crew.  The cast is a good one and the acting stands out, but the real strength of the movie is the dialogue. Coward was a playwright and a good one. It is very well-written, not surprising from Coward.  The conversations ring true.  The people talk like real people, not characters in a movie.  The action scenes, filmed by David Lean, are well done. The effects are what you would expect from a 1942 war movie, but the movie is not about naval combat, it is about a ship and its crew. It is informative about how a British destroyer fights. This is especially true of the firing procedure. Americans will be surprised to find out that the British used “shoot” instead of “fire”.  There is an interesting and instructive blend of sailor’s lives and the lives of their women.  It is not overly propagandistic which is amazing considering the timing of its release and the fact that the Ministry of Information was supportive of it. It definitely was meant to be a morale booster and certainly succeeds in that. There is no dysfunction in the crew and Kinross runs a happy ship. He is no martinet, nor are any of his officers. Kinross is a father-figure. The Germans are not demonized, but they do strafe the life raft several times. The movie is not about how evil the Nazis were, it is about how great the Royal Navy was. It was a representation of the British public.

            “In Which We Serve” usually comes up short when compared to the other good British film about escort ships in the Battle of the Atlantic. However, I feel it is superior to “The Cruel Sea.” It is one of the best war movies made during the war. It balances the home front with combat and balances the men with the women. Few war movies have done this and done it this well. Noel Coward deserves a lot of credit for his labor of love.         

            These two movies make a great double feature if you want to learn about the British naval experience in WWII.  They accurately reflect the dangers of convoy duty.  They are realistic in their depiction of the class structure on board a small warship.  “In Which We Serve” concentrates more on the home front and the women in the men’s lives and “The Cruel Sea” concentrates more on shipboard life and tactics.  They are both realistic in their combat scenes, but “In Which We Serve” is the superior film because of its unique blend of the sailors and their women.