Politically dubious as it humanizes the Nazi side and largely reduces Russians to a mindless horde (with the exception of the young boy, and the women soldiers). The movie seduces into forgetting that the Germans were encroaching on Russian soil as invaders and pillagers. There's madness in war alright, and this is The Heart of Darkness for the Eastern front; but surely the madness was unevenly distributed: The Soviet defensive war was no act of insanity, but an attempt to avert existential annihilation. The Conradian war-is-madness view really only works so long as one keeps this basic fact of aggressor and defender in mind, which the movie lures us into ignoring.
Sam Peckinpah's Cross of Iron, a WWII film starring James Coburn featuring the German side of things. Mostly devoid of politics, it's really about the soldier's reality in any war, and indeed, feels a lot more informed by Vietnam than it does the Russian front (and yet, the details are authentic). I enjoyed it, though it was very bleak.
This is WW2 cinema at its very finest, at least when it comes to the eastern front. It's so bleak, realistic and thought-provoking. People call it an anti-war movie, but what's the point of an anti-war movement when war has been the one constant in the world since the ancient times. Where as most of the other WW2 movies keep pounding in the whole "War is hell" nonsense, this movie embraces the madness of war. There are no heroes on the battlefield, only lesser evils.
It's lovely to see proper equipment being used in WW2 period movie, after seeing the "panthers" in A Bridge Too Far, it sure was a pleasure seeing those authentic T-34s in action. The battle scenes were masterfully crafted, they were chaotic, hectic and hard to follow, just like real war is, not some close-up shots of our "heroes" doing their heroic deeds. Even the recoinnaissance missions Steiner and his troops undertake are shown in a realistic way, the sneaking is slow and deliberate and the action is brutal and over fast.
Seeing a movie with mostly American/English cast playing Germans can be a bit off-putting, but the very fact that these Americans/English were playing GERMANS in a WW2 movie negates that fact in an instant. The acting is great, the two mains James Coburn and Maximilian Schell were in top form, the scenes they have together are exhilarating. The characters are also very well crafted, the battle-scarred Steiner and the highly unlikeable Stransky, who is willing to do anything it takes to bring home that Iron Cross, play so well together. Even though Stransky is supposed to be the villain of this movie, I could not help but identifying with some of his notions about the world around him.
Finding out that the ending of this movie was not what Peckinpah had in mind only goes to show what a brilliant film maker he was. They basically had to improvise the whole ending, and the fact they managed to make it such a perfect presentation of the randomness and madness of war is simply mind-boggling in all of its greatness.
quote:
A world without women. It's an old theory of mine. Men can get along without women easily. Easily. I tell you a man's true destiny is not just breeding children, all this childbirth and chocolate, but to be free. To rule and to fight. In other words: to lead a man's existence. Women are no more than a nuisance. Sometimes necessary.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 7 of 7
viccc
Politically dubious as it humanizes the Nazi side and largely reduces Russians to a mindless horde (with the exception of the young boy, and the women soldiers). The movie seduces into forgetting that the Germans were encroaching on Russian soil as invaders and pillagers. There's madness in war alright, and this is The Heart of Darkness for the Eastern front; but surely the madness was unevenly distributed: The Soviet defensive war was no act of insanity, but an attempt to avert existential annihilation. The Conradian war-is-madness view really only works so long as one keeps this basic fact of aggressor and defender in mind, which the movie lures us into ignoring.Siskoid
Sam Peckinpah's Cross of Iron, a WWII film starring James Coburn featuring the German side of things. Mostly devoid of politics, it's really about the soldier's reality in any war, and indeed, feels a lot more informed by Vietnam than it does the Russian front (and yet, the details are authentic). I enjoyed it, though it was very bleak.Louis Mazzini
Good war movie but not anywhere near Peckinpah's best.JG96
Criminally underrated, slightly too long but up with The Wild Bunch as Peckinpah's best.der Zorn Gottes
This is WW2 cinema at its very finest, at least when it comes to the eastern front. It's so bleak, realistic and thought-provoking. People call it an anti-war movie, but what's the point of an anti-war movement when war has been the one constant in the world since the ancient times. Where as most of the other WW2 movies keep pounding in the whole "War is hell" nonsense, this movie embraces the madness of war. There are no heroes on the battlefield, only lesser evils.It's lovely to see proper equipment being used in WW2 period movie, after seeing the "panthers" in A Bridge Too Far, it sure was a pleasure seeing those authentic T-34s in action. The battle scenes were masterfully crafted, they were chaotic, hectic and hard to follow, just like real war is, not some close-up shots of our "heroes" doing their heroic deeds. Even the recoinnaissance missions Steiner and his troops undertake are shown in a realistic way, the sneaking is slow and deliberate and the action is brutal and over fast.
Seeing a movie with mostly American/English cast playing Germans can be a bit off-putting, but the very fact that these Americans/English were playing GERMANS in a WW2 movie negates that fact in an instant. The acting is great, the two mains James Coburn and Maximilian Schell were in top form, the scenes they have together are exhilarating. The characters are also very well crafted, the battle-scarred Steiner and the highly unlikeable Stransky, who is willing to do anything it takes to bring home that Iron Cross, play so well together. Even though Stransky is supposed to be the villain of this movie, I could not help but identifying with some of his notions about the world around him.
Finding out that the ending of this movie was not what Peckinpah had in mind only goes to show what a brilliant film maker he was. They basically had to improvise the whole ending, and the fact they managed to make it such a perfect presentation of the randomness and madness of war is simply mind-boggling in all of its greatness.
computer
I don't think I heard oneboulderman
Were there loads of Wilhelm's?