For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943)

For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943)

Comments 2 comments

“A man fights for what he believes in.”

Synopsis:
An American (Gary Cooper) fighting in Spain on behalf of the Republicans falls in love with a beautiful refugee (Ingrid Bergman) living with a group of gypsy fighters in the mountains — including violent Pablo (Akim Tamiroff), his “woman” Pilar (Katina Paxinou), and an aging guide (Vladimir Sokoloff).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Akim Tamiroff Films
  • Gary Cooper Films
  • Ingrid Bergman Films
  • Sam Wood Films
  • Spanish Civil War

Review:
This big-budget, nearly three-hour Technicolor adaptation of Ernest Hemingway’s bestselling novel about the Spanish Civil War was highly regarded by both audiences (who made it the second highest grossing film of the year) and critics (it received nine Academy Award nominations, winning one for Paxinou as Best Supporting Actress). Unfortunately, it hasn’t dated well at all, and comes across today as a beautifully filmed but overlong, drawn-out melodrama with far too much pancake makeup used.

The screenplay is apparently quite faithful to Hemingway’s novel, which audiences of the day were much more familiar with than viewers now would be; to that end, in his mostly rave review, Bosley Crowther of the New York Times noted:

“As often is the case with pictures which are based upon popular works, a thorough comprehension of this one may depend on whether one has read the book… The cosmic symbolism of [the leads’] regenerative love, set against a background of violence and the impending prospect of death, will barely be comprehensible only to those who have read the book.”

Exactly. Watching Cooper and Bergman fall instantly in love with one another here feels simply like inevitable Hollywood fare, given we don’t have much (if any) background understanding of their characters:

Anyone hoping to actually learn about the Spanish Civil War will be sorely disappointed, as it’s not even mentioned as such. We know there are Rebels (who must be good, given the famous actors playing them) fighting against Bad Guys, but that’s the extent of the nuance — other than a throughline focusing on the nefarious tactics of Tamiroff’s Pablo, who is shown in flashback overseeing brutal acts of violence:

… and whose loyalties we’re constantly made to question. Meanwhile, the Hemingway-ian dialogue in Dudley Nichols’ screenplay is often either laughable and/or offensive — as when the much-darker-skinned Paxinou rambles the following to Bergman:

Paxinou: Life is very curious. I would have made a good man. But, I’m all woman – and all ugly… Yet one can have a feeling *here* that blinds a man while he loves you. He thinks you are beautiful. And one day for no reason at all he sees you ugly, as you really are. And he is not blind anymore. Then you see yourself as ugly as he sees you – and you lose your man and your feeling. Then one day the feeling, that idiotic feeling that you are beautiful, grows inside you again, and another man sees you and thinks you are beautiful, and it’s all to do over again.

Poor Bergman herself, however, is given some of the worst clunkers:

“I do not know how to kiss or I would kiss you. Where do the noses go? Always I wonder where the noses will go.”

“I love you, Roberto. Always remember: I love you as I loved my father and mother, as I love our unborn children, as I love what I love most in the world, and I love you more. Always remember.”

“I’ll never go away from you. I loved you when I first saw you. I’ve always loved you, but I never saw you before.”

… at least until the final sequence between Bergman and Cooper, when Cooper takes back the prize — but I won’t spoil anything.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Ray Rennahan’s atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one unless you happen to be a diehard fan of Hemingway, Bergman, or Cooper.

Links:

Day of Wrath / Vredens Dag (1943)

Day of Wrath / Vredens Dag (1943)

Comments 1 comment

“All things are revealed in God’s good time.”

Synopsis:
In 17th century Denmark, shortly after an elderly woman (Anna Svierkier) is sentenced to death for being a witch, a young woman (Lisbeth Molvin) married to a widowed minister (Thorkild Roose) — and bullied by Roose’s disapproving mother (Sigrit Neiiendam) — falls in love with Roose’s son (Preben Lerdorff) from a previous marriage.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carl Theodore Dreyer Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Infidelity
  • Priests and Ministers
  • Scandinavian Films
  • Witches and Wizards

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Carl Dreyer’s austere tale of witchcraft set in a small Danish village in 1623” — “based on Norwegian Wiers Jenson’s play Anne Pedersdotter” — is “quite haunting, like a slow Kafkaesque nightmare,” which perhaps reflects the fact that it “was made during Germany’s occupation of Denmark.” He points out that “it’s creepy watching all these brooding characters in black moving through the frame as if they were between funerals,” and notes that “many shots will stay with you.”

He asserts that the film brings up mixed feelings for us as viewers, given how Movin’s character shifts over the course of the screenplay. While at first “she was solemn and passive”:

… after having an affair with Lerdoff “she becomes a changed woman”: “she laughs, sings, and is an aggressive, sexual temptress.”

Meanwhile, although we are “troubled by the incestuous affair of Movin and Lerdoff” given that “Roose seems like a nice man who is loving to his wife,” we also recognize “he’s the same man who burns people for being witches.”

It’s ambiguous whether Movin (and Svierkier) are being presented as actual witches, but Peary argues (and I agree) “it’s likeliest that Dreyer is stating that within an oppressive religious environment in which most everything is regarded as a sin, a paranoid, persecuted person will regard almost all his or her natural feelings (from joy to lust) as being devil-inspired.”

One of Dreyer’s most ambitious and successful decisions with this movie is to spend significant time showing the ongoing persecution of elderly Svierkier; the horrors she endures aren’t dressed down in any way, and (shockingly) we see her nearly-naked body being tortured:

… before she’s burned alive while a choir of children sing “Dies Irae”. Indeed, we see the true dangers of expressing any individuality or joy in this deeply repressive and biblically austere culture, as embodied by Roose’s coldly condemning mother (Neiiendam):

Carefree scenes of characters escaping into nature for awhile offer temporary reprieve from the oppression:

… but it’s always short-lived. Check out TCM’s article for more details on the film’s production and Dreyer’s vision.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Lisbeth Movin as Marthe
  • Anna Svierkier as Marte Herlof
  • Highly atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a fine and provocative film by Dreyer.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem

Links:

One of Our Aircraft is Missing (1942)

One of Our Aircraft is Missing (1942)

Comments 1 comment

“Stand by to abandon aircraft!”

Synopsis:
When their bomber plane crash-lands in German-occupied Holland, six RAF crewmen (Godfrey Tearle, Eric Portman, Hugh Williams, Bernard Miles, Hugh Burden, and Emrys Jones) receive assistance from Dutch resistance fighters — including an English-speaking schoolteacher (Pamela Brown) and a woman (Googie Withers) pretending to be pro-German.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Airplanes and Pilots
  • Michael Powell Films
  • Peter Ustinov Films
  • Resistance Fighters
  • World War II

Review:
Made the year after 49th Parallel (1941), this joint effort by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger was the first title released under their new production company (The Archers), and showed audiences the “opposite side” of their previous wartime story (as implied in the top line of the poster; see above). The screenplay opens with an extremely compelling flight sequence which grounds us in the specifics of how pilots fighting for their lives might banter nervously while staying laser-focused (can you recognize Bernard Miles under all that equipment?):

Once the crew have parachuted safely to the ground (minus one, who is later found), we see the men’s adventures across the Netherlands — beginning with encountering kids playing in the countryside, who they must convince of their innocence (thankfully, Burden speaks a bit of survival Dutch):

Because this is a propaganda film, we sense that things will work out for our hardy protagonists — especially given how careful schoolteacher Brown is to ensure they really are who they say they are:

… and thus we can simply enjoy their clever tactics against suspicious Germans, which involve dressing up as Dutch:

… and hiding parachutes under the pews at a church where secret signals are sent by the organist:


Next we see a different brand of heroism, with Withers playing a double-life as a Nazi sympathizer while hiding a radio and helping the Resistance:

The entire film is beautifully shot by DP Ronald Neame, making it a pleasurable viewing experience. While this one is not must-see, it’s well worth a one-time look.

Note: Watch for young (slim) Peter Ustinov in a bit role (his feature-length debut) as a Catholic priest.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • The exciting opening flight sequence
  • Ronald Neame’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended.

Links:

Ossessione (1943)

Ossessione (1943)

Comments 2 comments

“Living with him is impossible. He’s so filthy! So false!”

Synopsis:
When an unemployed vagrant (Massimo Girotti) arrives at a cafe owned by a middle-aged man (Juan de Landa), he has an affair with the man’s unhappy younger wife (Clara Calamai), and the pair soon find themselves plotting to be on their own.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Infidelity
  • Italian Films
  • Luchino Visconti Films
  • Star-Crossed Lovers

Review:
Luchino Visconti’s debut feature (generally cited as the first neo-realist Italian film) was this loose adaptation of James M. Cain’s 1934 novel The Postman Always Rings Twice. Viewers familiar with Hollywood’s two versions of Cain’s novel — Tay Garnett’s 1946 MGM classic and Bob Rafelson’s 1981 remake — will instantly recognize tensions in the opening scenes, as the bored, sexually unfufilled young wife of an older, overweight man is instantly attracted to a hunky stranger arriving at their place of business:

From there, however, the narrative takes slightly different turns than the more “faithful” Hollywood versions. A significant early subplot has Gino leaving to continue his itinerant lifestyle, meeting a young man (Elio Marcuzzo) on a train who offers to pay for his ticket, and who is clearly (though it’s not explicitly stated) attracted to Girotti:

A subsequent sequence with the pair in a one-bed hotel room once again indicates Marcuzzo’s unstated interest:

… but Girotti is exclusively obsessed with Calamai, and can’t stop talking or thinking about her. Sure enough, once they meet again at a carnival, where Girotti is carrying around a sign for Marcuzzo’s act:

… and de Landa is about to participate in an amateur singing contest:

… the wheels of fate are set in motion once again:

SPOILERS

… and we know de Landa is not long for this world. The murder itself takes place off camera — and other than Girotti being initially interrogated by police at the scene of the car crash:

… not too much more is made of the crime other than investigators continuing to pursue leads (i.e., there is no big court case, as in Cain’s novel and both Hollywood versions). Instead, we see Girotti and Calamai’s fraught love affair gradually falling apart, especially once Girotti learns about Calamai cashing in de Landa’s life insurance policy, and begins to suspect he’s been used. When Girotti falls for a flirtatious young ballerina (Dhia Cristiani) he meets at the park:

… tensions between the murderous couple (Girotti and Calamai) naturally rise even higher, eventually leading to the film’s tragic denouement. The entire story is atmospherically filmed, with good use of natural locales and extras, thus leading to its designation by many (though this is contested) as a prototype of Italian neo-realism. Be sure to check out TCM’s article for more information on the film’s production history and challenging release.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Massimo Girotti as Gino
  • Clara Calamai as Giovanna
  • Juan de Landa as Giuseppe
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Fine neo-realist location shooting in the Po Delta

Must See?
Yes, for its historical significance in Italian cinema, and as a powerful noir film. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Jour Se Leve, Le (1939)

Jour Se Leve, Le (1939)

Comments 1 comment

“People in love are said to be more alive than others.”

Synopsis:
A man (Jean Gabin) who has just murdered a cruel dog trainer (Jules Berry) remains barricaded in his apartment, reflecting back on what led him to this act — beginning with meeting a sweet orphan (Jacqueline Laurent) and then connecting with Berry’s world-weary stage assistant (Arletty).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Flashback Films
  • French Films
  • Jealousy
  • Jean Gabin Films
  • Love Triangle

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “classic fatalistic melodrama, masterly directed by Marcel Carné [and] with dialogue by Jacques Prevert” shows us — like “many American directors of forties noir films would do” — “how a decent, average guy can become a murderer under the right set of circumstances.”

He notes that this picture — which “would have been ideal for Fritz Lang” — is a “landmark of French ‘poetic’ realism” given that it’s “extremely intense, sensual…, and atmospheric (the sets are not just part of the background but create the mood.”

He also adds (though this is hard to believe) that he “can think of no other film in which so much import is given to costumes and props, including the gun, Gabin’s dangling cigarette, Laurent’s teddy bear, Gabin’s alarm clock, photos, postcards, hats, brooches, beds, mirrors, flowers, dresses, [and] sweaters”:

… and he points out that “characters almost always are drinking, smoking, or holding something.”

However, “most interesting” to Peary and many other critics is “the structure,” with “this four-character piece… broken down into several intimate two-character scenes”:



Significantly, however, “we never go behind closed doors to see what transpired between the most important combination [of characters], Berry and Laurent” — that is, the “relationship that drove Gabin to his destruction.” Indeed, the primary problem I have with the storyline is that Laurent’s character is somewhat of a boring cipher; we don’t understand why she turns down Gabin’s reasonable early offer of marriage (given that she seems to be in love with him), or her fascination with creepy Berry — unless we’re meant to believe that her status as an orphan has scarred her development.

This film is perhaps best known for kicking off more regular cinematic use of flashbacks. To that end, since we know about the murder from the start, our interest revolves around learning how Gabin got into (and will ultimately emerge from) his increasingly tense situation — which involves being shot at repeatedly inside his apartment (real guns and bullets were used), barricading himself using a large armoire, and shouting down at hordes of spectators who have come to watch the stand-off (and, for what it’s worth, profess to be on his side):

We do know that Gabin’s ending will be dark; at least we are prepared for that.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jean Gabin as Francois
  • Jules Berry as Valentin
  • Arletty as Clara
  • Atmospheric cinematography and production design

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as a pioneering French noir.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

J’Accuse (1938)

J’Accuse (1938)

Comments 0 Comment

“I accuse yesterday’s war of creating today’s Europe. And I accuse tomorrow’s war of preparing its destruction.”

Synopsis:
A traumatized World War I veteran (Victor Francen) watches over the widow (Line Noro) and daughter (Renee Devillers) of his lost compatriot (Marcel Delaitre), vowing to create a machine that will prevent all future wars — but when his plans are foiled, he takes even more extreme measures to remind the world about the horrors of fighting.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Fantasy
  • French Films
  • Veterans
  • World War I

Review:
Abel Gance remade and expanded upon his 1919 silent film of the same name, this time spending much less time on the initial love triangle linking Francen’s character to cuckolded Delaitre (whose wife he had an affair with years earlier), though we do still see a powerful image of the two men (now friends; Delaitre has forgiven Francen) holding hands in solidarity while lying in recovery:

The primary focus of the first half-hour of the film is on how war is so horrible it can’t possibly happen again — right? (“There will never be another war, I’m telling you.”)

Because Delaitre is unable to keep his promise, he descends even further into his PTSD-induced madness, leading to the film’s evocative final act, when once again — as at the end of the 1919 version — the dead are risen from their graves.

It’s a powerful finale (“Immediate disarmament has been unanimously declared!”), and one only wishes it approximated the truth.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Victor Francen as Jean Diaz
  • Highly atmospheric cinematography
  • Powerful imagery and special effects in the final sequences

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Baker’s Wife, The (1938)

Baker’s Wife, The (1938)

Comments 2 comments

“How could I suspect something I can’t believe even now?”

Synopsis:
When the beautiful young wife (Ginette Leclerc) of a town’s new baker (Raimu) runs away with a handsome shepherd (Charles Moulin), Raimu is too depressed to bake bread. In response, a local marquis (Fernand Charpin) works together with a priest (Robert Vattier) and a schoolteacher (Robert Bassac) to plot to find Leclerc and bring her back, thus restoring Raimu’s will to bake.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cuckolds
  • French Films
  • Infidelity
  • Village Life

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes in his short review, “Marcel Pagnol directed and wrote this wonderful adaptation of an episode of Jean Giono’s novel Jean le Blue,” resulting in a film that “has humor, warmth, sentimentality, provincial flavor, and the special lovable characters one expects from Pagnol.”

He notes that “the great Raimu” — star of his earlier trilogy Marius (1931), Fanny (1932), and Cesar (1936) — “creates such a kind, moral, understanding character”:

… that the ending (“one of the many splendid moments”) rings true, and he asserts that “you’ll believe all these characters truly live in this town.” Indeed, the screenplay is consistently delightful, beginning with a series of interactions that show us how divided the townsfolk have become over petty arguments (such as trees needing trimming):

Meanwhile, they all desperately crave decent bread after months without any; and when they finally receive Raimu’s first loaves, we know a crucial element of life — bread itself — has been restored to their village:

However, this triumph is instantly threatened by another essential life source: love (or at least amorous desire).

Raimu is such a likable cuckold that it’s impossible not to feel for him as he makes up one excuse after another for why his wife may be gone — and even once he’s finally accepted the truth of her infidelity, he is depressed and melancholic rather than angry. How their situation finally becomes resolved — with other villagers’ relationships conveniently mended along the way — is the bulk of the storyline. This comedic tale, while slightly overlong at 2 hours and 13 minutes, remains a fine introduction to Pagnol’s work.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Raimu as the Baker
  • Fine performances by the supporting cast
  • Excellent use of location shooting near Marseilles
  • Pagnol’s humorous script

Must See?
Yes, as a foreign classic.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Alexander Nevsky (1938)

Alexander Nevsky (1938)

Comments 1 comment

“Russia won’t bow to the Germans. We have beaten you in the past and we shall beat you yet again!”

Synopsis:
In 13th century Russia, Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) leads his ragtag army of fighters in an epic battle against the invading Germans.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Historical Drama
  • Military
  • Russian Films
  • Sergei Eisenstein Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “monumental achievement by Sergei Eisenstein” is “his greatest film” — a “visual tour-de-force about Russia’s heroic 13th-century prince [who] forms a great army to wage war against the seemingly invincible Germans who have invaded the country.” He refers to it as “a peerless propaganda piece that extols Russian nationalism, displays the courage of the common Russian in battle, and viciously attacks Germany, Russian’s historical enemy, which in the 1930s was again on an imperialist march in which impersonal medieval-like soldiers committed atrocities in the name of Christianity.”

He adds that just “in the same way that Triumph of the Will is fascinating when Hitler mingles with his adoring subjects,” it’s fascinating “how Eisenstein humanizes his hero… to show he is not superior to the Russian soldier or peasant, just a better leader.”

For example, “he never talks down to his men; he lets the people decide what to do with his prisoners;” etc. Peary writes that “common men are elevated to Alexander’s level,” given that “Eisenstein films them with a camera tilted upward and sets them in the foreground against the gray sky (there is always space behind them) so that they look enormous, like heroic epic figures of Alexander’s magnitude.”

He points out how important it is that “we see the soldiers” in battle, not Alexander, and mentions “a subplot in which each of two friendly soldiers [Vasili Buslai and Gavrilo Oleksich] hopes to win the hand of a young woman [Valentina Ivashova] by fighting more gallantly than the other,” which comes across “like a stock Hollywood storyline.”

Peary inaccurately adds, “Only in this case the woman is also a warrior, fighting alongside the men”; this is actually a different female protagonist (Aleksandra Danilova) who nonetheless plays an important and distinctive role later on:

Peary notes that “Eisenstein’s picture is known for its remarkable close-ups”:


… its “innovative use of the frame (whereby action is taking place in several different planes and as far back as the eye can see)”:

… the “beautiful shots of man and landscape”:

… a “mix of realism and theatricality, gorgeous pageantry”:

… “and Sergei Prokofiev’s grand score.”

He asserts that “the climactic Battle on the Ice, a lengthy [37-minute], precisely directed sequence that employs thousands of warriors and horses, is perhaps the greatest battle scene in movie history” (at least up to that time), and “can’t be described properly without actually seeing it”:


He adds that he suspects “Eisenstein received special pleasure from directing the segment in which the ice breaks and hundreds of Germans drown,” given that we “are seeing Russia itself literally swallow invaders.”

Peary concludes his review by writing, “I admit some Russian classics are boring, but not this masterpiece.” While I agree this film is masterfully made on every level — especially given the severe Stalinist constraints Eisenstein was working under — it’s not a film I personally would return to numerous times, other than to analyze it from a stylistic perspective. I’m most taken with the striking costumes and sets, which effectively hearken back to a distant time and place. With that said, it’s most definitely worth a one-time look by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine sets, costumes, direction, and editing

  • Sergei Prokofiev’s score

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical significance within Russian cinema.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

Links:

Flamingo Kid, The (1984)

Flamingo Kid, The (1984)

Comments 1 comment

“You know, he’s really cute and everything — but did you have to invite him to dinner?”

Synopsis:
A working-class teenager (Matt Dillon) headed for college takes a summer job as a “cabana boy” at a private beach club in Long Island, where he meets a wealthy car salesman (Richard Crenna) who takes him under his wing and teaches him how to move along quickly in life — but Dillon’s father (Hector Elizondo) is concerned about Dillon giving up his longer-term goals.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Class Relations
  • Coming of Age
  • Father and Child
  • Jessica Walter Films
  • Social Climbers

Review:
Garry Marshall directed this nostalgic throwback to the early 1960s, featuring Matt Damon in his next lead role after starring in three adaptations of S.E. Hinton novels: Tex (1982) (not listed in GFTFF), The Outsiders (1983), and Rumble Fish (1983). Dillon is well-cast here as a hard-working, aspirational young man who’s instantly lured in by the carefree lifestyle of the Other Half:

… and smitten with a friendly, beautiful blonde (Janet Jones) from California:

What’s most refreshing about the screenplay (written by Neal Marshall — apparently no relation to the director) is how it presents Dillon as suitably ambitious but not callous; when telling his father about his decision to work at the Flamingo Club rather than as an “office boy” for a client of his father’s, he says, “Oh come on, Dad, let’s face it — they only hired me because you fix their plumbing. They don’t need me! I did this on my own.”

In that one line, we understand that Dillon isn’t disparaging of his dad’s working-class profession, but simply eager to test out his own mettle and see where he gets. Throughout his summer adventures, Dillon stays curious and excited yet reasonably grounded in good sense. Although he’s lured in by the promise of “easy” money:

… the instant he sees a hint of foul play, he begins to understand that nothing in life is truly easy. Indeed, his interactions with a fellow college-bound “cabana boy” named Fortune (Leon Robinson), who has a scholarship to Notre Dame but is hoping to save up money for his room and board:

… is a steady reminder of how Dillon should really focus on his work at the Flamingo Club as a lucrative stop along his ultimate path, rather than a destination. Watch for Jessica Walter in a perfectly cast role as Crenna’s over-tanned, socially conscious wife:

… and John Turturro in one of his first screen appearances (albeit super-brief) as a fellow gambler at the horce races (seen here talking with Fisher Stevens):

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Matt Dillon as Jeffrey Willis
  • Richard Crenna as Phil Brody
  • Hector Elizondo as Arthur Willis
  • Fine production design

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look.

Links:

Man Between, The (1953)

Man Between, The (1953)

Comments 1 comment

“Berlin is a strange, large city; there are many reasons why a girl should simply vanish from the streets.”

Synopsis:
When a young British woman (Claire Bloom) comes to visit her brother (Geoffrey Toone) and his new wife (Hildegard Knef) in West Berlin, she quickly finds herself caught up in a complex web of intrigue involving a man (James Mason) with mysterious ties to both Knef and East Berlin.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carol Reed Films
  • Claire Bloom Films
  • Cold War
  • James Mason Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Refugees

Review:
The Third Man (1949) was such a success for director Carol Reed that his choice to make a similarly themed film just two years later (this time based on a screenplay by Harry Kurnitz and Eric Linklater, set in Berlin eight years before the construction of the Wall) seems to have colored critics’ perceptions. As in Jacques Tourneur’s Berlin Express (1948) — and, to a certain extent, Billy Wilder’s more satirical, American-centric A Foreign Affair (1948) — we’re presented with the stark reality of a traumatized, war-damaged German landscape.

It’s clear from the opening scenes that Knef (who looks astonishingly like Ginger Rogers) is distressed and distracted about something, though we don’t know what:

Meanwhile, her over-worked husband (Toone) is so busy helping refugees (shown here jam-packed in the background):

… that he doesn’t appear to notice his wife’s concerns. Once Mason enters the picture, we suspect we’ll begin to learn more about Knef’s past and his involvement in it — which we gradually do.

Following a key kidnapping sequence, however, the focus shifts away from Knef and towards Bloom, who seems to have fallen for Mason but isn’t sure who to trust or believe.

To say more would give away key elements of the twist-laden, at times Hitchcockian narrative, which merits watching without spoilers. Suffice it to say that Reed (with support from DP Desmond Dickinson) once again brings a particular city to life (as he did for Vienna in The Third Man, and [unnamed] Belfast in Odd Man Out), filling it with atmospheric sets and locations — including a meet-up in a skating rink:

… a stalking on snowy winter streets:

… an escape from an opera house:

… a clever ruse at a generator site:

… an encounter with a wary prostitute (Hilde Sessak):

… and a tense climax at the border, among others:

This film remains well worth a look on its own merits, as long as viewers can resist comparing it to The Third Man.

Note: Having just watched a History Channel documentary about the Berlin Wall to help my older daughter with a school project, I found myself particularly interested in seeing how Berliners’ lives and loyalties might be portrayed at the time this film was made — and to me, Reed’s depiction rings reasonably true (albeit with plenty of added atmosphere and adventure and romance). Just fyi, the Wall was constructed in 1961 to physically prevent Eastern Bloc citizens from fleeing to the West in droves, as we see happening in this film:

The Wall went through several iterations of increasing solidity and oversight until finally… it was torn down (starting in 1989) at the first indication this was possible.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • James Mason as Ivo
  • Claire Bloom as Susanne
  • Fine location shooting in Berlin


  • Desmond Dickinson’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a well-crafted outing by a master director.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links: