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

100 BEST WAR MOVIES: 4. The Longest Day (1962)

 

“The Longest Day” is the granddaddy of the war movie epics.  Its progeny include “A Bridge Too Far”, “The Battle of the Bulge”, “Battle of Britain”, etc.  It was a labor of love for famed producer Darryl Zanuck who purchased the rights to Cornelius Ryan’s bestseller. Ryan wrote the screenplay with several others chipping in, including James Jones. The main director was Ken Annakin (“Battle of the Bulge”), who did the French and British scenes. Zanuck got multinational cooperation and brought in a international cast.  At $10 million, it was the most expensive black and white film until “Schindler's List”.  Zanuck used several directors and was very hands-on.  He insisted on shooting at the actual locations whenever possible which included Ste. Mere Eglise, Pointe du Hoc, and Pegasus Bridge.  While preparing the beach for the Pointe Du Hoc sequence, a tank was uncovered and was fixed up and used in the movie. The Omaha landings were filmed on Corsica. 700 real soldiers were used as extras. The movie was a box office success and was the highest grossing black and white movie until “Schindler’s List”.  It won Oscars for Cinematography and Special Effects.  It was nominated for Best Picture (“Lawrence of Arabia” won), Art Direction, and Editing. 

            The film opens with Gen. Erwin Rommel overseeing the coastal defenses of France. He tells his subordinates that for both sides, the invasion will be “the longest day.” The first few scenes establish the template of jumping between the French resistance, German command, Anglo-American generals, and common soldiers on both sides. TLD is a difficult movie to summarize because it is basically like the book – a series of vignettes bouncing between the Allies and the Germans.  The first third of the film introduces the multitude of characters and gives the audience perspective on the Allied plans and the German cluelessness.  Dialogue is used to inform the audience about the military situation.  The role of the weather (it’s raining chats and chiens) is highlighted.  Little details like the clickers used by American paratroopers for identification and the Rupert decoy dummies are introduced.  It becomes apparent through the introduction of characters that the movie is balanced between the brass and the boots.

            Once the battle begins the film can be divided between its set pieces.  Maj. Howard (Richard Todd, who actually participated in the assault on the bridge) leads a glider attack on the Orne River Bridge (Pegasus Bridge).  There is some good POV and the scene is done with no soundtrack.  The first bullets fly at the 53-minute mark of the movie.  It’s a “guns and grenades” scene with lots of intensity, but no gore (typical of the whole film).  The deaths are not silly, thankfully. Next come a variety of paratrooper landings again sans music but avec frogs and crickets.  The confusion authentically depicts the “fog of war”.  This leads to the famous Ste. Mere Eglise landing. The next big set piece is the Omaha landing.  The naval bombardment is realistic.  There is a nice tracking shot following the first wave to the sea wall.  It’s large scale with help from the U.S. fleet available off Corsica.  The other beaches are appropriately given less coverage, but each has its memorable moments. The scaling of the cliff at Pointe du Hoc by the Rangers is grandly reenacted.  Shocking for an American movie, the movie’s biggest set piece is the French assault on the Ouistreham casino.  This features a magnificent helicopter tracking shot of the French commandoes charging through the streets. The movie returns to Omaha so Gen. Norman Cota (Robert Mitchum) can chew his cigar and kick some ass.  “Only two kinds of people are going to stay on this beach – those that are dead and those who are going to die.”  Spoiler alert: the invasion was a success.

ACTING:   A                

ACTION:   B (6/10)

ACCURACY: A      

PLOT:  A                

REALISM:   B 

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   A

SCORE:   B

SCENE:  Ste. Mere Eglise

QUOTE:  British correspondent to carrier pigeons that fly in the wrong direction: “Damned traitors!”

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  People who have not read Ryan’s book have faulted some of the obvious Hollywoodisms in the movie.  And truthfully, there are vignettes and character developments that seem invented.  However, most of the dubious elements are actually true to Ryan’s well-researched book.  Some of the supposedly hokey dialogue in the movie is straight from the book (which was based on extensive interviews by Ryan).

            As a tutorial, the movie does a great job telling the story of D-Day. In 1962, D-Day would have been an event that audiences had a lot of knowledge going in. However, few would have been familiar with Rupert, Steele stuck on the church roof, or the use of the crickets.  And the scenes covering the paratroopers would have been enlightening for most viewers. Zanuck brought in ten technical advisers making “The Longest Day” one of the best vetted war movies in history. But entertainment and logistics trumped them in some cases.  For instance, Rupert was a lot less photogenic in real pseudo-life.  There was no casino at Ouistreham at the time of the assault.  Most problematic is the simplistic success at Omaha. “Saving Private Ryan” certainly handled this more realistically, but even that film made reaching the bluff too quick and easy.

            The movie is often labeled a docudrama.  This is a misnomer, but buttresses its claims to accuracy.  It is easy to watch the way the movie covers most of the cogent facts about Operation Overlord and the balanced approach to both sides and think you are watching a documentary.

CRITIQUE:  This is a big movie.  Zanuck went all in and it shows.  He literally commanded an army of actors and crew.  The equipment is sometimes anachronistic (the ME-109s are actually ME-108s, for instance), but it was not from lack of trying.  He also spent a lot of effort trying to get things right.  For example, he originally tried to reenact the drop on Ste. Mere Eglise using actual paratoopers dropping from planes.  Uncooperative winds put an end to that noble attempt.  He insisted all the dialogue be in the correct language.  Using subtitles was a bold move and sends a strong message that entertainment was not the only goal.

            Some critics find fault with the cast and the acting.  There is something of a stunt feel to it, but the variety of characters was based on the book and why not have the best professionals play the roles?  Granted, it is hard not to see John Wayne as playing Col. John Wayne (actually he is Lt. Col. Vandervoort).  Can anyone seriously argue that Zanuck, who is making the epic WWII movie, should pass up the chance to have the biggest star on Earth and the man most associated with war movies in his film?  By the way, when Wayne wanted in, Zanuck agreed to pay him $250,000 instead of the standard $25,000 the other stars made.  (Wayne forced the fee due to a grudge against a crack Zanuck made about the problems he had making “The Alamo”.)

            The movie is uniformly well-acted.  There is little scene-chewing by the stars in spite of their recognition that their screen time would be very limited.  It is interesting to see how the big stars use little tricks of the trade to maximize their time on camera.  The best example is the inflection Rod Steiger puts into his big line:  “You remember it. Remember every bit of it, 'cause we are on the eve of a day that people are going to talk about long after we are dead and gone.”  Wayne’s performance is criticized because it is popular today to denigrate his acting, but the truth is he is good in this film and it was a wise decision to include him in the cast.  The amazing aspect of the casting is the most memorable performances are by the B-Listers.  Richard Beymer ("Dutch" Schultz) and Hans Blech (Werner Pluskat) come to mind.  One of the most memorable performances is Irena Demick as the hot French resistance member Jeaninne Boitard. Demick got the role because she was Zanuck’s mistress, but she is fine. And the role was not created just to get eye candy in it. Boitard was a real resistance hero. The movie does a great job making some interesting people famous. What American would have cared about the fascinating “Pips” Priller (look him up on Wikipedia) if not for Heinz Reincke’s vibrant portrayal?

            The cinematography is crisp black and white.  Most of it is standard, but then you have the Ste. Mere Eglise drop and the casino tracking shot to marvel at. There is an impressive train derailment. The movie has a surprising lack of score.  This is so refreshing compared to other Old School WWII movies!  No pomposity or mood manipulating.

            The plot handles a complex topic in a way that you do not need much knowledge of D-Day to follow it.  Unlike many similar movies, TLD periodically informs us when and where the action is taking place. There are lots of maps. And all the main characters are identified on screen. The jumping between the Allies and the Germans works well.  The Germans are not demonized and in fact there is not a single “heil Hitler” in the film.  For a serious pseudo documentary, there are brief, but effective interjections of humor.

            But the thing that makes it the greatest combat movie is the characters included common soldiers and leaders. For every Gen. Cota, we have a Pvt. John Steele (Red Buttons). “The Longest Day” was the first all-star battle epic and created the subgenre, but none of its progeny equaled the emphasis on the regular joes who fought in the battle. It is odd that the screenwriters did not even try to duplicate its feat. For example, “A Bridge Too Far” has only one character that is similar to Steele – Staff Sergeant Eddie Dohun (James Caan). “Gettysburg” only has Kilrain and “Waterloo” only has the Brit who is caught with a pig. And no other spends so much time setting up the battle and seeing how both sides generals handled the battle.

CONCLUSION:  Considering it was the first of its type (the big budget, all-star, battle epic) and has had many challengers over the years, it is amazing that you can argue it is still the best of them all.  I doubt it could be much better than it is given the state of war movie making in 1962.  I think it is also true to say that even with modern technology, a remake could not improve on it.  Zanuck did not try to reinvent the genre, but he did create a subgenre and using orthodox methods fashioned a masterpiece.  Although it is sometimes unfairly compared to “Saving Private Ryan”, it is actually the perfect companion to it.  By watching both, one gets a well-rounded view of D-Day.  As far as its placement at #16, I’m fairly sure it is superior to some of the higher ranked movies and could have a shot at the top ten on my eventual 100 Best War Movies list.

THE 100 BEST WAR MOVIES: 10. Downfall (2004)

 

               “Downfall” (Der Untergang) is a German/Italian/Austrian production directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel.  It covers the last ten days of Hitler’s life.  It is based on historian Joachim Fest’s Inside Hitler’s Bunker  and Traudl Junge’s Until the Final Hour and several other memoirs.  It was nominated for Best Foreign Film.  Bruno Ganz studied Parkinson’s patients to get Hitler’s twitching down.  The opening and closing interviews with Junge are from the documentary “Blind Spot”.

                The movie opens with the real Traudl Junge wondering why she worked for der Fuhrer.  Then we are in November, 1942 and Traudl (Alexandra Lara) is among a group of women who are hoping to become Hitler’s secretary.  The 1942 Hitler seems like a nice guy who loves his dog Blondi (uncredited).  She types like me, but she gets the job from charismatic Hitler.

               The movie jumps to April, 1945 and Hitler’s 56^th birthday.  There is chaos in the streets and a fantasy world underneath in Hitler’s Bunker.  Hitler (Ganz) meets with Albert Speer and the delusional Hitler opines that the current rubblization of Berlin is perfect for clearing the city for renovations.   The callous Hitler rants that the German people are weak and don’t deserve to survive.  They are unworthy of his brilliance.  When urged to escape from the city, sinking ship’s captain Hitler refuses saying "I will defeat them in Berlin, or face my downfall."

               Meanwhile, in the streets of Berlin, Peter Kranz plays our “every man” (actually “every youth” – make that Hitler Youth).  His father is a disabled vet who wants him to come home, but indoctrination works and getting an Iron Cross from paternal Hitler seals the deal.  Peter represents the state of the German army as the Russians close in.  This must be like the Rebels in Richmond in 1865, except for the killing of unpatriotic civilians.

               There is a subplot involving SS doctor Schenck (Christian Berkel) who represents humanity in the midst of all the violence, death, and insanity.  He is one of the eye-rolling, do the right thing anyway characters.  The movie also has disgusted-look, follow orders types like Gen. Mohnke and Gen. Weidling.  And then of course there are the sycophants kissing Hitler’s ass and weathering his rants like Goebbels, Krebs, and Burgdorf.  This fascinating mix of role-players maneuvers through the madness. This all leads to the (spoiler alert) death of der Fuhrer, after the romantic marriage of Adolf and Eva. If you ever wondered what happened to the other denizens of the Bunker, this is the movie for you.

ACTING:   A+               

ACTION:   N/A

ACCURACY: A+     

PLOT:  A               

REALISM:   A 

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   A

SCORE:   B

SCENE:  Hitler’s rant about Steiner not attacking

QUOTE:  Hitler:   That was an order! Steiner's assault was an order! Who do you think you are to dare disobey an order I give? So this is what it has come to! The military has been lying to me. Everybody has been lying to me, even the SS! Our generals are just a bunch of contemptible, disloyal cowards.

General Burgdorf: I can't permit you to insult the soldiers.

Hitler: They are cowards, traitors and failures!

General Burgdorf: My fuhrer, this is outrageous!

Hitler: Our generals are the scum of the German people! Not a shred of honour! They call themselves generals. Years at military academy just to learn how to hold a knife and fork! For years, the military has hindered my plans! They've put every kind of obstacle in my way! What I should have done... was liquidate all the high-ranking officers, as Stalin did!

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  “Downfall” is one of the most historically accurate films I have seen.  The research was exhaustive with six books being consulted.  Having read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer (twice) and Cornelius Ryan’s The Last Battle, I can attest to the movie hitting all the highlights of the last ten days.  Also, having read Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich,  I have to say you have to be a little skeptical about how some of the characters are protrayed based on how they wanted themselves to be portrayed.  Speer comes off very well in this movie as he does in his book.  Anyone not wanting to do all that reading can avoid it by watching this movie.  And yes I realize the movie has subtiltes, but it's not like you're having to read a whole book.  It is a better tutorial than any documentary could be.

               All of the characters are real people except Peter Kranz and his father.  Even Junge (who is reminiscent of Costner’s O’Donnell in “Thirteen Days”) is an actual person and her memoirs were one of the sources.  I was pleasantly surprised to find that Schenck was also a real person.  Normally, those roles are invented to enhance the narrative. The dialogue is as authentic as you can get given the circumstances.  Some of Hitler’s lines that showcase his philosophy are quotes taken from statements he made earlier in his life  A good example would be this: " Life doesn't forgive weakness. This so-called humanity is religious drivel. Compassion is an eternal sin. To feel compassion for the weak is a betrayal of nature. The strong can only triumph if the weak are exterminated. Being loyal to this law, I've never had compassion. I've always been ruthless when faced with internal opposition from other races. That's the only way to deal with it."

CRITIQUE:  Aside from the interview opening, the plot is linear with no frills.  In many ways the movie is a character study of not only Hitler, but also his inner circle.  Herein lies some controversy.  These individuals are portrayed as human beings, not demons.  Some reviewers had trouble with the multidimensional depiction of Hitler.  I would not go so far as to describe him as a sympathetic figure, but Ganz does give him a warped humanity at times.  As I noted, Hitler could be charismatic, delusional, callous , paternal, angry, disappointed, etc  Without this movie, many would be unaware of Hitler’s charisma and the fact that he had a powerful effect on women in particular.  It’s the females in the movie that are most loyal to him.  He is far from a one-dimensional villain.  In some ways, the subtitles are valuable because by forcing you to read the evil that comes out of his mouth, you can get past the malevolent charm.

               The acting is outstanding.  Ganz is amazing in one of the greatest performances I have seen.  It was a travesty that he did not get an Academy Award nomination.  He is mesmerizing.  Not surprising as he has a reputation as one of the best German actors.  The supporting cast is very strong.  The characters run the gamut of personality types.  There are no weak links  Watch the various looks on the inner circles' faces when Hitler speaks.  Priceless.  It’s one of the reasons why the You Tube take-offs on the” Steiner rant” can be hilarious.

               The cinematography is equal to the script and acting.  The movie flows seamlessly between the claustrophobic underground scenes and the chaotically violent outdoor scenes.  In the corridors of the impressively recreated Bunker, the camera often tracks the actors from behind and then reacquires them from in front.  Deftly done  There are lots of shots through doorways, giving the audience the impression of looking in on an evil dysfunctional family.  The outdoor scenes were filmed in Petersburg and look like Berlin in the last days.  The music is spare and does not steer our emotions.

               The movie does have some clear themes.  One is the delusion that persists in the upper levels of a government that is losing a war.  Probably a similar vibe was evident in Hirohito’s inner circle in August, 1945.  It is interesting how sane people (and you have to admit that regardless of your take on the portrayal of Hitler, he was not insane) can delude themselves when everything points to disaster.  What's more unbelievable, but true, is how soldiers will fight on in spite of the futility of it.  A second theme is how non-evil people will tolerate close contact with malevolent beings and even work hand in hand with them.  A subtheme would be the ability of some, but not all, of these to remain innocent.  Junge would be an example of this type of person, although her statements at the end of the film struck me as being a bit revisionist.  A third theme is the naivete of youth.  This is portrayed by both Junge and Peter.

CONCLUSION:  “Downfall” is an outstanding movie.  It tops two other worthy efforts on this topic – “The Last Ten Days” with Alec Guinness and “The Bunker” with Alan Hopkins. You have to admit that Hitler attracts great actors.  I do not see how the movie could be improved.  It is a well-staged tutorial on one of the most famous deaths in history and it includes enough action to satisfy a war movie lover.