Nuremberg: Its Lessons for Today (***1/4)

This documentary was compiled in 1948 but qualifies as new based on the addition of narration by Liev Schreiber. (The text is by the late writer Budd Schulberg and his brother, Stuart.) The subtitle is misleading*, as the film simply summarizes the celebrated 1946 trial of 19 accused Nazi war criminals. Footage of the proceedings is intercut with documentary evidence of the case being made. The first half mainly shows how the Nazi conquests were planned well ahead of time, and systematically accomplished. On screen we see, for example, letters signed by Adolf Hitler in 1939 stating Germany's peaceful intentions toward nations such as Denmark, or Switzerland. Then we see footage of the invasions, Poland first, then much of Europe by the end of 1940. Those on trial are referred to as “Defendant Goebbels,” “Defendant Goering,” and so on. Collectively they are simply “the conspirators.”

The second half of the film concentrates on the war crimes and the idea “total war” that allowed no sympathy for the enemy, whether that was Soviet POWs, resistant villagers, or, above all, the Jews. Any educated person has seen images of emaciated Jews, dead and alive, from the concentration camps. (Indeed, even in the ghettos there were starvation conditions.) In 1948 undoubtedly they would have been altogether startling to most people, and even upon repetition seeing such disregard for human life does not lose the power to shock.

The film ends by drily reciting the verdicts. Indeed, it is a dry presentation of facts, which is actually its strength. Such truths need no dramatic staging. In clips of several of the final statements, the defendants apologize, or state their ignorance of most of what happened, or blame Hitler for betraying Germany and themselves. Of the four prosecutors, the American, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, perhaps most effectively summarizes the collective case against them by essentially ridiculing the idea that, despite holding high positions of authority, each had virtually no knowledge of the horrible things the others were doing. Despite this, the focus is not the individual guilt of each defendant, but the actions of the Nazi regime collectively. I can only guess how I would have reacted had I been learning about these things for the first time.

* Though it’s correctly spelled with no apostrophe, which is nice to see.

IMDB link

viewed 5/18/11 at Roxy and reviewed 5/19/11

Inglorious Basterds (***1/2)

Only an eccentric like Quentin Tarantino would rewrite the history of World War II to suit his cinematic ends. Tarantino, steeped in cinema history, has a way of wearing his influences on his sleeve yet making them seem more like other Tarantino films that those original sources. Thus this entertaining thriller (with touches of humor) feels both fresh and familiar.

Here, instead of an original score he uses pieces of other scores, the western scores of Ennio Morricone (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) in particular. The title, excepting the odd spelling, comes from the American release of a 1978 Italian film whose tag line was “Whatever the Dirty Dozen did they do it dirtier.” The main plot, about a ramshackle bunch of Nazi-slaying Jewish soldiers, is right out of The Dirty Dozen and probably a dozen other movies. But the way Tarantino uses dialogue and works quirky things like forgotten bar games into his plots, and the use of violence as catharsis, are quintessentially his own. Another trademark is the use of distinct “chapters” to separate major sequences. With varied settings and styles, they almost function as mini-movies.

For my taste, the way the soldiers’ lieutenant (Brad Pitt) relishes sadism was somewhat distasteful, leaving me in the uncomfortable position of feeling sorry for Nazis (or GNAT-zees, in Pitt’s odd, Southern accent), but the clever plotting, colorful characters (on both sides of the Nazi fence), and sheer cinematic flourish of the climax more than made up for that. The significantly violent parts are actually less than in other Tarantino films. Chistopher Waltz as the Nazi “Jew hunter” is a great villain whether speaking German, English, or French. And that climax is set at a French movie palace; the heroine (Mélanie Laurent) is a projectionist. Thus, Inglorious Basterds is as much a tribute to its director’s love of cinema as to war movies.

IMDB link

viewed on DVD in early March 2010 and reviewed 3/9–23/10

Valkyrie (***)

It is 1943, and Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise), a Nazi colonel severely wounded in the North Africa campaign, takes charge of a plot to kill Hitler. A dozen such plots have failed before, but they didn’t have Tom Cruise—sorry, Stauffenberg—in charge.

Cruise brings his usual cockiness to the role. He seems too modern, and too American, but as the role is written, it suits his usual mien. The colonel rarely even bothers with the “Heil Hitler” greeting, which makes you wonder why the fuhrer’s loyalists weren’t onto him. He is, in fact, a fairly one-dimensional character. This dovetails with the general lack of moral ambiguity in the story. The conspirators who urge caution are made to seem as foolish as the colonel is heroic, so that I was slightly worried the filmmakers would change history and have the plot succeed. There are several other characters, played by good actors like Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, and Tom Wilkinson, but they didn’t stick in my memory. (Cruise’s wife, incidentally, is played by Carice van Houten, who got to show off far more range in another Nazi-era thriller, the superior Black Book.)

Still, the thriller thrills. Director Bryan Singer uses sound cues like the hum of teletype machines to convey a sense of urgency. The script, co-written by Christopher McQuarrie, who collaborated with Singer on The Usual Suspects, precisely reveals the way the plotters planned to turn an existing Nazi emergency plan—Project Valkyrie—against the regime itself. The climax, in which it becomes unclear whether the Führer is dead or alive, is a reminder that information and belief are—as much as weapons—the tools of power. Yes, this is a fairly well-crafted thriller, but not more.

Perhaps it was felt that we needed no reminder of Nazi horrors, but without knowing that history you could actually watch Valkyrie and wonder what the plotters hated about Hitler and the Nazis, except perhaps a growing feeling that they has already lost the war. Valkyrie does remind us that not all Germans supported the Nazis, although you could forget that with the mixture of English and American (Cruise’s) accent. (Using a clever device I remember from The Hunt for Red October, Cruise begins speaking German and then segues into English.) What could have made the movie more compelling, though, is a look into why these men—even Stauffenberg himself—came to oppose the Reich. Other than the setting, and the ending—no, history is not altered—little distinguishes the movie from a good, but generic, Hollywood suspense drama.

IMDB link

viewed 12/9/08 (screening at Ritz 5); reviewed 12/9/08 and 1/26/09