6. For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943, 170m)

May 1937: The Spanish Civil War

Alas, I had to do a little reorganizing here as it occurred to me that I really should have included a film about the Spanish Civil War, but only after I had already watched The Flowers of War (2011). So I have reordered those posts just in case any person, vaguely mad as I am, ends up following in my footsteps and tries to tackle this list him/herself. Further, at the end, it's my intention to single-out the best films I watched over the course of the project and make, effectively, a 'highlights list' in case there are those who are interested in seeing some of these movies but don't want to commit to the (likely) full one-hundred.

Either way, today's film is For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943) based on the celebrated novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway, inspired by his own experiences as a reporter during the Spanish Civil War. The film stars Gary Cooper, Ingrid Bergman, Akim Tamiroff, Arturo de Córdova, Vladimir Sokoloff, Mikhail Rasumny, and Katina Paxinou. Though the Spanish themselves stayed out of the Second World War, many of the same nations that would fight in that conflict used the Spanish Civil War to cut the teeth of their armies (Germany and Italy provided aid to Francisco Franco while the Soviet Union helped the opposing Republican forces). I was planning, at some point, to ask why all WWII movies were two hours long, but then this one was almost three so I figured I probably shouldn't ask too many questions.

The film follows Robert Jordan (Cooper) - no, not the best-selling fantasy author, though many speculate he may have derived his pseudonym from the book - an American serving with the Spanish Republican forces in their struggle against Franco's fascists. Jordan, we learn, is skilled with dynamite and demolitions and is tasked by Russian General Golz (Eric Feldary) to blow up a bridge used by the opposition. To this end, Jordan and Anselmo (Sokoloff), his elderly guide and friend, will be aided by a local band of guerrillas, hiding in the mountains in the vicinity of the bridge.

The small crew is lead by Pablo (Tamiroff), a cowardly stand-offish man who wants the dynamite for his own purposes, but peopled by diverse characters such as the Gypsy Rafael (Rasumny), who are eager to help. When Pablo's true intentions are revealed, the formidable Pilar (Paxinou), Pablo's woman, belittles him in front of the others. In return, Pablo suggests she lead the group instead, which she does, happily, to the applause of everyone else involved.

Here, Jordan also meets María (Bergman), a fellow refugee whom Pilar has taken under her wing to help with the cooking/general chores in the cave where the guerrillas are headquartered. At the start of the war, her father (the mayor of their village) and mother were murdered and she was imprisoned and raped. Amidst the grim and uncertain times, the two inevitably start a relationship, though Jordan grows increasingly concerned as her affection for him grows. He knows that she wants him to leave with her, yet he intends to see the war through to its end (for better or worse).

Meanwhile, Pablo vacillates between cowardice and a resolve to complete the mission, resulting in increasing sentiment among the men to have him killed before he betrays them. One night, when everyone is sequestered during a snowfall - to prevent footprints - Pilar tells the tale of the man Pablo used to be; how he lost his resolve after witnessing the mob behavior and wanton murder of his fellow Republicans. At this point, Pablo returns and is once again allowed to join the group. The next day, however, on the eve of the planned sabotage, he witnesses the death of a fellow company of guerrillas. Led by a man named El Sordo (Joseph Calleia), these men sacrifice themselves to allow Pilar's forces to escape. In a moment of weakness, Pablo destroys the only detonator for the explosives, jeopardizing the plan's success at the worst possible moment.

This film, at least given it's length, should be fairly epic yet, upon watching it, I couldn't tell you why it's so long. Don't get me wrong, I love old movies and am typically all about slower pacing - at least with a purpose. However, with this film, it didn't feel like it accomplished anything. The narrative simply seemed drawn out for no reason. For a time, the will-he/won't-he nature of Pablo was interesting, particularly when it was unclear how he would respond to Jordan's usurpation of his authority. Unfortunately, once it became clear that Pablo didn't have the balls to do much of anything, after his third or fourth time leaving, followed by concern on the part of the men, and subsequent return, it seemed like nothing more than a waste of time. Similarly, in addition to the Sisyphean trials of Pablo, a lot of time was spent discussing horses. The concern was, once the bridge was destroyed, the rebels needed to escape the valley, however they didn't have enough horses for everyone. The clear solution, at least to me, was to move the nonessential personnel (María for example) out of the valley the day before the attack. Problems such as this, that fly in the face of common sense, serve only to catapult the audience out of their suspension of disbelief and, thus, highlight further faults. When compared to other epics, be they contemporaries like Gone with the Wind (1939), and especially when stacked up against the heavies of two decades later, such as Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Ben-Hur (1959), and of course Lawrence of Arabia (1962), that depict so much, it's a shame to see a film clock in at almost three-hours that could just have easily (and likely more effectively) been told in half/two-thirds as long.

Musically, the film harkens back to another era with it's classic score, though the mixing leaves something to be desired. There are times in the movie when the music serves one purpose - suspense, for example - and another piece of music, conveying an entirely opposing thought - say, humor - is spliced in awkwardly for a couple seconds, before returning to the original piece. Mind you this is not simply the juxtaposition of themes in a single composition, but two different songs crudely and distractingly cutting to and from one another.

Visually, the film is solid, though given it's scenic nature I can't help but feel like it would have been better in widescreen, had they waited another ten years. Obviously, I can't hold that against them, however. On the other hand, the technicolor is beautiful, bringing the film's earthy color pallet to life with soft, yet rich hues.

In general, I felt that the acting was adequate. I will admit up front that I haven't seen too many films with Gary Cooper or Ingrid Bergman in them but, as a point of comparison, felt that Bergman was good in Casablanca (1942) and Cooper was stellar in High Noon (1952). Perhaps it was the director's goal to employ understated performances, that somehow this would bring the film more realism/authenticity, but to to me everything simply felt flat. For a time at least, Tamiroff was compelling but, once his conflict with the rest of the characters had overstayed it's welcome, he similarly went from feeling like a threat to a distraction. Even a unique, somewhat quirky character like Pilar, whom I would normally love, was only okay in this case.

Overall, I thought the film was alright. The subject matter was somewhat interesting but the pacing was off and the film was overlong. If there was stand-out character (like Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds (2009), seriously, I could watch that guy for the whole three hours - not that Basterds needed one of course, since it was taut and compelling all the way through), someone to keep the audience's interest, it would be a different story. Reportedly, Hemingway himself didn't care for this adaptation as he felt it diminished the political elements of his novel. Indeed, it's possible, with an additional storyline, the film might have felt less repetitive. In the end though, what promised to present us with the grim realities of war, wound up as nothing more than folks hiding in a cave talking about Pablo and his horses for eighty-seven percent of the time. I rate this film 2.5/5.

7. The Flowers of War (2011, 146m)

December 13, 1937 to January 1938: The Nanking Massacre

For the first time in this project, we're off to Asia with Jīnlíng Shísān Chāi (The Flowers of War), a film by the acclaimed Chinese filmmaker Zhang Yimou (Raise the Red Lantern (1991), Hero (2002), and House of Flying Daggers (2004)). The film focuses on a group of people that take shelter in a Nanking church when the Chinese capitol is invaded by the Japanese Army. The film features an ensemble cast, starring Christian Bale, Ni Ni, Zhang Xinyi, Tong Dawie, Atsuro Watabe, Cao Kefan and Huang Tianyuan.

John Miller (Bale) is an American mortician that has come to the city to tend to the recently deceased Father of the local Catholic church. When the Japanese attack, Miller flees to the church, helping two Chinese schoolgirls along the way, including Shu (Xinyi) who provides voice-over commentary for much of the film. Nearby, the remaining Chinese troops in the city, lead by the formidable, yet understated, Major Li (Dawei) - a talented sniper - make a final stand against the invaders in order to protect the remaining schoolgirls. The girls are saved but everyone else is killed, save for Li and one critically wounded young soldier.

Miller arrives at the church and is informed by George Chen (Tianyuan), a reserved young man left in charge after the Father's death, that the priest's body was tragically destroyed by a stray bomb and they have no more need of him. Miller demands to be paid for his trouble, but George insists they have no money to pay him. Meanwhile, the remaining schoolgirls arrive and the church is sealed against outsiders. George asks Miller to fix a broken-down truck parked in the courtyard so they can evacuate the city, but Miller refuses to do it for free. Major Li arrives shortly thereafter and takes a position outside the church with his rifle, a guardian angel of sorts.

Soon, a group of prostitutes appears, seeking refuge, but George turns them away, so their unofficial leader, Yu Mo (Ni Ni) simply leads the girls over the church's walls. George is helpless to stop them and the women take up residence in the church's basement. The prostitutes and the schoolgirls find themselves immediately at odds and are constantly fighting. Yu Mo also tries to persuade Miller to fix the truck, that he may take the prostitutes to safety instead, offering sex in return. He quickly becomes infatuated with her but doesn't want to commit himself to anything. Drunk, in an attempt to win over Yo Mo with humor, Miller dresses in the Father's vestments and attempts to engage in a little role-playing, but things get a little out of hand and Major Li is forced to intervene.

Suddenly a force of Japanese soldiers breach the gates and storms inside, intending to rape the virginal schoolgirls. Still in the Father's clothes, Miller comes to their aid, acting as the church's priest and putting his life on the line to save them. Undeterred, the soldiers persist and Major Li engages them with his rifle. After the battle, the local Japanese Colonel, Hasegawa (Watabe), pays a visit to the church, apologizing for the behavior of his men. He says he is a music lover and wants the girls to perform at a Japanese victory ceremony, stationing guards around the church for their safety. However, as time passes, Miller realizes the terrible truth: the Japanese are merely protecting the girls as 'party favors' for their celebration, and everyone must come together in the remaining time to try find a method of escape.

Wow. I was really impressed with this movie. The visuals are simply stunning and the events portrayed, though uncomfortable at times, are not widely studied in the West. Yimou's signature visual style is evident throughout, resulting in something quite beautiful and serene, a stark contrast to the brutal events depicted. Acting-wise, Ni Ni is great, as the beautiful yet mysterious Yu Mo, as are many others, such as Huang Tianyuan's charming-yet-infuriating performance as George. Further, Christian Bale is solid as the conflicted Miller which, by no means a standout, is good in the role and allows the other actors to shine. My personal favorite is Tong Dawei as Major Li, the consummate professional/undeniable bad ass. Honestly, I'd love to see a movie just about him.

Of course, a film such as this is bound to attract the usual complaints about the White Savior, and this movie is no different. Indeed the credits struck me as somewhat odd as well: Christian Bale was listed first, prominently, then the whole crew (director, writer, composer, cinematographer, etc), and finally the rest of the cast was all at the end. Indeed, though this film is largely historical fiction, there were whites such as John Rabe, a German, who actually helped get people to safety. However, what I would say is this: this film was made by a prominent Chinese director, for a Chinese market. At no point during the production of this film, was there some up-his-ass American jamming his manifest-destiny crap into this movie. In fact, during an interview, Yimou said it was a conscious choice on his part and getting Bale's character into the movie/past the censors was one of his biggest accomplishments: "this kind of character, a foreigner, a drifter, a thug almost, becomes a hero and saves the lives of Chinese people. That has never ever happened in Chinese filmmaking, and I think it will never happen again in the future." Similarly, Yimou wanted to present a more sympathetic/"layered" portrayal of the Japanese, than that usually seen in Chinese film, particularly with Colonel Hasegawa, who struggles internally with the orders of his superiors.

A lot of Western reviews at the time of the film's release release were, I feel, unduly harsh on these counts alone. There's a tendency I've seen a lot lately for people to get indignant on the behalf of others who aren't offended in the slightest (such as Roger Ebert's review of this film, where he asked why is couldn't have been a Chinese mortician instead of an American one) and it drives me crazy. Honestly, I think that telling people from another country (or of another race), based on our own sensibilities, what should be offensive to them is far worse. Regardless of who helped who historically, though, this film is largely about the Chinese characters and that's what's really at the heart of this story. The film is mixed language, 40% English/60% Chinese (subtitled).

Overall, seeing great films such as this, that I've never seen before, is one of the main reasons I'm doing this project. This movie combines good acting with a compelling, heart-wrenching subject I know very little about, and presents it all through dazzling visuals. Though the events portrayed are grim and tragic, the film itself is brilliant and masterfully crafted. It's also available on Netflix Instant Watch so you should definitely check it out! I rate this film a 4/5.

5. The Hindenburg (1975, 125m)

The Week of May 6, 1937: The Hindenburg Disaster

Today is already December 7. Wow, this thing has really grown; I originally was planning to watch a film about the attack on Pearl Harbor today (most likely Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)) but now, even by most conservative estimates, there are around twenty films before it. Twenty films... I remember when this whole project was supposed to be twenty films... Either way, upward and onward!

Speaking of which, today's film is The Hindenburg (1975), starring George C. Scott and a variety of others. Made in the finest '70s disaster movie tradition (beginning with The Poseidon Adventure (1972) then followed by Earthquake (1974) and The Towering Inferno (1974)), the film has a large ensemble cast: Anne Bancroft, William Atherton, Burgess Meredith, Charles Durning, Robert Clary, Rene Auberjonois, and Peter Donat among others. Only, this time, one of them is a passenger trying to blow up the Hidenburg and it's up to Colonel Franz Ritter (Scott) to find out who - and stop them - before it's too late! The film's music and visuals are consistent with the time period/type of movie: the grand score makes us long for another age while Wise's visual team provides their signature opulence. The acting is alright, though nothing to write home about - or indeed in a review, but such is the nature of most ensemble pieces.

The film opens with a brief history of airships, done in the style of newsreel footage. There's a lot of history - humor too - and the result is quite charming, not to mention effective. I'll quickly point out that I love airships and that putting them in a film will pretty much guarantee that I'll see it at some point (I'm still trying to justify shoehorning Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1980) into this list, we'll see, 1938's already got some weird stuff!).

From there, the film bursts into color with a airship soaring majestically through the clouds. After the credits, we see a woman writing a letter, warning of a plot to destroy the Hindenburg. In response, Joseph Goebbels sends Ritter along on board to prevent sabotage. From there, Ritter and SS Officer Martin Vogel (Roy Thinnes), carefully review each passenger and consider if they have a reason to destroy the ship. Though made off-limits immediately upon departure, various passengers inevitably try and sneak back to the crew area/infrastructure - the most vulnerable part of the ship. Everyone's acting suspicious so everyone's a suspect.

Eventually, Ritter does discover the saboteur however, when this person makes it clear that their intention is to destroy the ship as a statement against the Nazis - while sparing the lives of everyone on board - Ritter must decide what what he wants do. The bomb may already be set. If he apprehends the saboteur now, he might never find it. Plus, Ritter's son died during his time in the HJ, so he has his own grudge against the Nazis. In the end, Ritter is faced with a difficult choice: to stop this person or help them.

Regardless of Ritter's choice, though, as we all know the ship explodes. This is handled in an interesting way in the film: everything switches to black and white so it can be cross-cut with the historical footage of the Hindenburg disaster. This sequence is fast and intense, though it frustratingly freezes on occasion for emphasis. Further, it gives the audience a new appreciation for what happened that day by giving faces (albeit mostly fictional ones) to the souls aboard. More than anything, though, I was shocked at how many people survived the catastrophe. And, obviously, Herbert Morrison's infamous radio broadcast of the event is incorporated as well. The film ends there, after cataloging the dead/survivors.

Safety, in regard to the hydrogen, plays a very prominent role in the film. I must admit I was a little surprised to what degree they went to keep everyone safe: thorough searches of the passengers, covering the steel tip of a cane to prevent against accidental sparks, etc. It makes sense, of course, but you never think about it. Though the ship did allow smoking on board, there was only one lighter (an electric one) that was centrally located and all the passengers had to share. In fact, though by this period there had been several airship accidents worldwide, until now the Germans maintained a perfect operating record, due to the diligence of their captains and crew.

When one when thinks about the Hindenburg, they can't help but look it it through the eyes of today - "Well of course it was going to explode, they should have known better!" And indeed, there's a little of that here, from a couple Americans, in addition to some ominous music/foreshadowing. However we must recall that they were doing the best they could with what was available to them. From my point of view, it's actually more amazing that there were as few problems back then as there were. Certainly today most people don't care a thing for safety, imagine them in the 1930s - "What do you mean I can't bring my flamethrower on board?? I just bought this! I want to speak to your supervisor!"

The legendary Robert Wise (The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), West Side Story (1961), The Sound of Music (1965), The Andromeda Strain (1971) and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1971), among others - this is the same dude who edited Citizen Kane (1941)!) directs this with his characteristic grandeur, not to mention exactitude. The audience is left with no doubt what they're seeing is a lovingly crafted recreation of the legendary airship. Wise goes far to include real history in the film (even if the sabotage plot is somewhat dubious factually) portraying many historical people, for example, Dr. Hugo Eckener, Count Zeppelin's protege who took over the company after his death. Further, there's an eye for detail, for example the animosity between Goebbels and Eckener: during its second test flight, after the airship was completed, the Mayor of Munich asked Eckener what the ship's name would be over the radio. 'The Hindenburg' he replied, named for Germany's recently deceased president (the man who preceded Hitler). When he found out, Goebbels was furious, believing it should have been the Adolf Hitler. After that, Goebbels wouldn't speak to the man and refused to call the airship by its name, using only its designation, LZ 129 thereafter. Though the incident itself is not portrayed in this film, Goebbels behavior stays true to history.

Another such situation alluded to was the desire on the part of Eckener to switch the airship's lifting gas from hydrogen to helium. Helium, while more expensive and less effective, was of course far safer, however almost all of the gas was owned by the United States and they didn't want to share. In fact, for a while at least, Germany wasn't allowed to make any airships of this size at all - a provision of the Treaty of Versailles. It was finally through a gift, of the USS Los Angeles, that Germany was allowed to proceed, however they were still without the helium. After the Hindenburg disaster, FDR promised Eckener access to the gas however, with the annexation of Austria in 1938, the offer was rescinded.

A few incidents depicted in this films were appropriated from other airships, like the rip and subsequent mid-air repair of one of the ship's fins high above the icy Atlantic, which actually happened to the Graf Zeppelin during its first flight in 1928. Granted, a few details are wrong here and there - certain war medals and companies that didn't fit the timeline - but almost all of the airship stuff is right on. It's impressive that Wise and co. got their history right, but more so that they found a way to work it into the film in a manner that doesn't make it seem like a history lesson.

Overall, I'd have to say this is a pretty solid movie. Yes, it can be a little cheesy at times, yes sometimes the history is a little off. However, you know the type of movie you're in for when you sit down to watch it - and if you like this kind of film, it's a good one. The whole 'find the saboteur' aspect keeps the tension on, at the same time differentiating this movie from its fellows, while the real history provides a ticking clock that Scott must race against. I rate this film a 3.5/5.

4. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, 115m)

1936: Nazi Interest in the Occult

Alright, I couldn't help myself. Raiders is my favorite adventure movie of all time. Plus, I figured if I could watch a fake movie about a real thing, why couldn't I watch a real movie about a fake thing? Exactly.

Raiders of the Lost Ark - from the creators of JAWS and STAR WARS!!! - is the story of the titular character (Harrison Ford), an archeologist/adventurer, who undertakes a dangerous mission for US Army Intelligence: find the legendary Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis do! Leading the opposition is rival archeologist René Belloq (Paul Freeman) and his Nazi colleagues, headed by the skeptical Colonel Dietrich (Wolf Kahler) and the fearsome Gestapo Major Toht (Ronald Lacey). Along the way, he teams up with an old flame, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) and digger extraordinaire Sallah (John Rhys-Davies). Denholm Elliot is also around.

Now that that's out of the way, I want to say I love the writing in this film, particularly the character introductions: Indy, who's prepared for betrayal at any moment; Belloq, screwing Indy over immediately; Marcus, lurking at the side of Indy's classroom; Marion, embattled in a fierce drinking contest; Sallah, surrounded by his family and always ready to help a friend; even Thot, who goes right for the fire-poker. Further, the dialogue is spot on. There's a great scene early on in the film where US Army Intelligence comes to see Indy and the pacing is just brilliant. There are two men there from the Army and the first pretty much refuses to let the second talk the whole conversation. Any time he says anything, he's interrupted. Indy is the same way with Marcus - not in a dickish way, but in a realistic one. If those two want to talk, they have to keep up. Instead, they must simply get in a word where they can.

And who doesn't get goosebumps when we find out that the Nazis are digging in the wrong place! Genius.

Sound is another area that makes this movie special. Besides John Williams' classic score (likely his best in my opinion, and that's saying something), the sound design is Ben Burtt at his finest. During the fight in Marion's bar, I think it was an inspired choice to make the guns sounds distinguishable from one another; the bad guy's guns have slightly higher-pitched reports while Indy's is deep and meaty. This makes it clear what's going on even when it's not on screen.

The casting is masterfully done as well. We've all heard the story by now of how Tom Selleck was initially offered the role Indiana Jones but had to turn it down due to a conflict with Magnum, P.I. - Ford was, in fact, Spielberg's original choice for the role, but Lucas resisted because he'd already cast him in so many of his movies. However, after Selleck proved unavailable, the other producers interceded on Ford's behalf based on the strength of his acting in The Empire Strikes Back (1980). They obviously made the right choice (Empire is his second best performance, in my opinion, with Raiders as the first). Similarly, Belloq is a great character - the best villains are the ones that don't know they're villains, they feel completely justified in whatever it is that they're doing. That's one of the traits Gul Dukat (Marc Alaimo), one of my favorite villains of all time, has in spades and it's one of the myriad of elements that makes Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999) such an exceptional show (a show that, in fact, has many analogues to World War II in its own right). But more on that some other time.

Moreover, this film has the de facto greatest action sequence of all time (the second being the hospital sequence at the end of John Woo's Hard Boiled (1992)): the fight with the German mechanic at the flying wing and the ensuing truck chase. I once read that the filmmakers approached the action sequences as they would any other sequence of the film, by creating a series of problems that need to be overcome. Many action movies make the mistake of filling up on guns and explosions. Raiders, on the other hand, is so effective because of the cerebral nature of the fights: this big guy is coming after me, I can hit him but it makes no difference, I need to switch to the gun but I can't get to it, now things are even more desperate since I have to get Marion out of the plane before it explodes. See what I mean? This increases our emotional investiture in not only what's going on but the characters involved. This gives the sequence it's own unique pacing and even allows for moments of humor. Look at the chase through the market place or the fight at Marion's bar for two other prime examples. Most modern movies will make a fight raw (look how bloody it gets when you bludgeon a person for three minutes) or look cool in some stylized manner (wire-fighting and whatnot) but it's not the same. Don't get me wrong, these other styles have their uses, I just feel like this type of action sequence is one of the things that elevates the Indiana Jones films and, unfortunately, is becoming a lost art. And what set-pieces, the flying wing and the truck - they really use every inch of them; over, under, even the sides!

I also want to praise the new blu-ray transfers. The picture and sound is better than ever. I recall a time (probably on VHS), before I used component video cables, where you couldn't tell the letters were supposed to be hollow during the opening credits. There are a few instances near the beginning where the focus is a little soft for a second or two, but it's difficult to tell if this is an issue with the transfer or merely the way the film has always been. I've seen Raiders in the theatre twice in the past couple years. The first was an old film print where I didn't notice anything, however there were the scratches and whatnot inherent with the passage of time, so it's possible that it simply didn't stand out as much. The second was during a marathon of all four films right before the blu-rays came out and I did notice it then, however what they showed that day was almost certainly from the same transfer so it's impossible to say. Maybe I should've checked out the IMAX version?

Historically, Nazi interest in the occult was was definitely a real thing (look no further than what Himmler was up to at Wewelsburg castle), though one wonders if they were serious about it or merely hoping to use it for symbolic purposes. Either way, I'm positive that the Nazis would have jumped at the opportunity to get ahold of any prominent myth-steeped treasure such as the Ark of the Covenant, Spear of Destiny, or indeed the Holy Grail (just wait, we'll get there eventually). The lure of these objects and the mysteries surrounding them is very powerful and the portrayal of the Nazis (especially the SS) in pursuit of their secrets is a popular one that persists through numerous media today.

Overall, this is a phenomenal movie and one of the all time greats (if not the best). I think, too, that it's interesting to watch Raiders in its proper historical context. Otherwise it's easy to forget that this is still the prewar period, that no one is at war with anyone yet (well, at least if you're, say, eight years-old, and watching it for the first time, and things like years mean nothing to you). And it's nice to see what degree the rest of the world will (or won't) tolerate a Nazi presence. This is simply Spielberg and Ford (and Williams, and Kasdan, and Allen, and Rhys-Davies, and Freeman, and Burtt, and Action/Adventure, etc) at their best. Boom: 6/5.

3. Triumph of the Will (1935, 114m)

First Week of September 1934: Nazi Propaganda Films and Rallies

From German filmmaker/actress Leni Riefenstahl comes Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will), a German propaganda film focusing on the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. The film employs many of the same methods as British propaganda films from the First World War but goes further, employing many innovative techniques that are still in use today. It is regarded by many as the greatest propaganda film of all time.

The movie (which we're told was 'ordered by the Führer') opens with a series of title cards, setting the stage for post-war Germany, and announces that Hitler is going to 'review the columns of his faithful followers'. Meanwhile, a fanfare heralds something grand to come. After some aerial shots, Hitler disembarks his plane and the celebration is underway. What follows is four days of pageantry and speeches for the seven-hundred-thousand assembled supporters.

Hitler arrives and tours Nuremberg by car while thousands of adoring fans line the streets hoping for a glimpse of the man. It's really quite surreal to see all the old ladies clapping, the beaming children, and attractive young women trying to catch Hitler's eye. Through it all, though, the city of Nuremberg is beautiful, painting a picture of 1930s Germany with its classical buildings and historic architecture. My favorite moment is, barely visible in one of the crowd shots, there's one man with a toothbrush mustache (or Hitler mustache if you will), the only one I saw the whole film (and, believe me, I was looking). I couldn't help but think that old man must have been so proud of himself that day - this is the same mustache!

Eventually the speeches start. What took me aback for a second is how mundane they were for the most part. Basically, each party official took the podium for a few minutes to discuss the area of their purview; topics such as the press, foreign relations, infrastructure, agriculture, and the building of the autobahn. There is, however, a singled veiled comment by one official that "a people that does not protect its racial purity will perish" which subtly portents the terrible things to come. Out of context, it might seem innocuous, but through the lens of hindsight it's impossible to interpret it any other way.

Inevitably, Hitler finally takes the stage and delivers the first of a couple speeches. Even in German, it's evident he's a more compelling speaker than his contemporaries. On one day he addresses the delegates and party members, another the HJ, another the SA/newly formed SS. His speech for the SA was very interesting to me because he addressed the recent death of Ernst Röhm, their former commander, and his plans for the future of their organization. Röhm's murder was one of the final events depicted in Hitler: the Rise of Evil (2003) and I was curious how Hitler would handle it within the party. This is exactly the type of thing I'm looking for in conducting this project the way I am, previous films informing the events in current films, and I'm pleased to see it working out so well.

If I had to describe the film in one word it would be grand. Huge and diverse marches, speeches, and exhibitions by a variety of people (from displays by government ministers to farmers ceremonially presenting Hitler with the harvest). And all of it is cleverly, and efficiently, designed to bolster nationalism. Hitler tells the workers, arrayed in military formation (albeit with shovels instead of rifles) that society is now equal. No longer will manual laborers be looked down upon, now the labor will be required of every person in Germany. Strong symbols are particularly important - and prominently placed. Even the quasi-military drilling with shovels is most effective, sending one message to all who behold it: Germany is powerful again.

Between all the pageantry though, you can see some rare moments of authenticity. When Hitler arrives at the hotel the first day, he looks out the window and the crowd is still there. In a rare break of his public facade, he grins self-consciously to himself as if thinking, "jeez, what did I get myself into?" There's also a moment later in the film, when all the party officials are on stage, and the crowd is going wild, where Hermann Göring turns to an unseen man behind him and grins bemusedly as if to say, "can you believe this?" That's what's really appealing to me: in a film such as this, it's quickly evident that everything has been meticulously planned and executed (even the footage of the soldiers 'horsing around' seems dubious). However it's these brief glimpses behind the public front that are real and telling. Telling, too, is the diminished presence of Germany's actual military - a majority of all forces depicted in the film are Nazi forces (the SA, SS, etc) - something which reportedly upset the Wehrmacht a great deal.

Overall a strong picture is painted of a Germany on the rise. Informed by hindsight, this film really sets the stage for things to come. Further, this film employs innovative techniques for blocking and filming crowds, angles, moving cameras, and the combination of score/cinematography that are still in use today. I will admit I got a little bored about halfway through; perhaps the propaganda isn't quite as effective it once was. It's also interesting to note that, at the time, this film was shown all over the world (albeit in a niche capacity) to generally favorable reviews, even winning awards in Venice and France. However, for my own part, I couldn't help but think, "just wait eleven years and we'll see how much you like Nuremberg then."

In the end, I think the film is worthwhile to watch as a historical document, and should be considered as such. Though I have no interest in seeing it again, in light of the quirks of my rating system, for its historical significance I rate it 2.25/5.

2. Cabaret (1972, 124m)

1931: The Rise of Nazism in Weimar Germany

This review comes a day later than I originally intended as I spent a few hours yesterday revising the list. It is, much as Tolkein famously said, "a tale that grew in the telling," and now sits around sixty films. Maybe two months would be a little more realistic?

Hopping back just a bit, we have Cabaret. Loosely based on the stage musical of the same name, Cabaret is a story of the burgeoning relationship between two foreigners amidst the decadence of Berlin near the end of the Weimar Republic. Brian Roberts (Michael York - does this guy ever age??) is a British academic pursuing a doctorate in philosophy. In order to make a living, he resolves to teach English to the native Germans. His neighbor, Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli), an American performer at a local cabaret called the Kit Kat Klub, offers to let him use her spacious apartment for the lessons.

Sally instantly becomes infatuated by the reserved Brit and quickly lays siege to his virtue in the best screwball comedy tradition. However, things aren't as simple as all that; Sally longs for attention as a result of unresolved Daddy-issues and Brian struggles with his sexual identity - as he tells Sally, he'd previously been with three girls and it didn't go well. Eventually the two overcome these obstacles (at least for a time) and have an affair, concluding "those three girls were just the wrong three girls". My favorite moment comes when Sally tries to seduce him for the first time. She pauses in the middle of their make-out session (or whatever one called it in 1930s Germany), and adjourns to her room to retrieve her Victrola.

Meanwhile, Brian gives English lessons to a variety of people and ends up befriending a few, such as Fritz Wendel (Fritz Wepper), a man who falls in love with Natalia Landauer (Marisa Berenson), another of Brian's students. Fritz finally overcomes her prudish nature and she develops feelings for him in return, however she worries that her Jewish family would object to her dating a Christian. In the end, Fritz reveals that he's only pretending to be a Christian to escape persecution but fears that admitting his dishonestly would end the relationship.

In the interim, Brian and Sally have been swept away by Maximilian von Heune (Helmut Griem), a rich playboy that Sally hopes can get her into movies, to his country estate. Though reluctant at first (not to mention jealous), Brian soon also finds himself drawn to Max and the sexual tension grows between the three. Things come to a head shortly after Max departs for another country, leaving only an envelop of money behind for the two to share, when Sally discovers she's pregnant. "Screw Maximilian!" bellows Brian in a brilliant moment of passion. "I do," Sally retorts. "So do I," Brian admits into a lengthy silence, forcing the characters (and more importantly the audience) to reflect on their preconceptions.

Cabaret can be best described as a love story with Nazism nibbling around the edges. Through the film's many characters and diverse travels, a picture of Germany forms, that of a country desperate to regain its former glory. In fact, despite being a fictional narrative, this movie feels decidedly more authentic than the previous film I watched, Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003). There's a great line in the extended cut of Almost Famous (2000), one of my new favorite films, where rock critic Lester Bangs (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) asserts that the Box Tops said more in their song 'The Letter' in two minutes than Jethro Tull can say in two hours. I feel the same way here: there's an inspired scene a little more than halfway through the film that chillingly, yet somehow beautifully, encapsulates the whole rise of the Nazis/Hitler in three minutes. Brian and Maximilian stop off at a beer garden and begin a conversation but are interrupted by the captivating singing of a young boy. Through strategic camerawork, it's shortly revealed that the young man is an HJ. The song is one of national pride and the promise of the future, 'Tomorrow Belongs To Me". Person after person is swept up in the music, standing and singing along (with the exception of one resolute old man that clearly knows better). It's infectious - and effective. Indeed, this is everything that was missing from the previous movie, the terrible seductive power of the Nazis. It literally brought tears to my eyes the first time I watched it.

In a way, the whole film could be seen as an allegory for the rise of the Nazis: Sally is Germany, decadent and desperate for attention, and willing to sell herself to get it. She gets caught up with a charismatic guy (Max) and swept away by the lure of a better future. Meanwhile, Brian is the common man, skeptical and jaded by the past, who loves his country (Sally) but sees Hitler (Max) as a means to an end. And, indeed, everything's good for a while. Then, despite his reservations, the common man (Brian) starts to fall for him as well. He's wary but deluding himself about what he wants. Max tells Brian they tolerate the Nazis because they'll get rid of the communists. They'll deal with them later. Germany (Sally) thinks it's using Hitler (Max) when, in fact it's the other way around. Further, the common man (Brian) has Jewish friends (Fritz) but does nothing against the rising antisemitic sentiment in the country. In the end we find out that all the moral posturing is, in fact, irrelevant since everyone's already in bed with everyone else!

This film is, of course, a musical, which is interesting because there are only two on this list and they both take place during, relatively, the same period of time. Apparently one can sing during the rise of the Nazis but not during the war itself - even the fictional 'Springtime for Hitler' took place before the war. The film's story is framed by the cabaret itself where the incomparable Emcee (Joel Grey) cavorts before a live audience. Correspondingly, all of the film's musical numbers are diegetic (they are actually performed by the characters in the film and are not simply manifestations of the character's emotional states like in many other musicals). Michael York turns in a wonderful performance as the conflicted Brian, as does Minnelli, but Grey is the real show-stealer. The cabaret sequences provide valuable counterpoint to the rest of the film. For example, early on a Nazi is kicked out of the club for trying to raise funds. Shortly thereafter the man and his friends catch up to the ejector and assault him. This is intercut with the playful violence of one of the cabaret's musical numbers.

When the film begins, the Emcee instructs us to leave our troubles outside; "So - life is disappointing? Forget it! We have no troubles here! Here life is beautiful... The girls are beautiful... Even the orchestra is beautiful!" But, alas, we see that it's all artifice as we cut to the dancers putting on their wigs and makeup. When the film begins, there's only one Nazi in the whole place (and he gets kicked out). However, when the film ends, we see (through a warped mirror) that the audience is now primarily Nazis. Just because we ignore our problems doesn't mean they go away. Indeed, they usually get worse.

Overall, the film is a compelling, slightly-twisted, commentary on a period of time and the people in it, doing their best to cling to what they can in a world that's slowly going insane round them. They lie to themselves about what they want and, thus, have difficulty realizing it. The film is effective, the message is strong - both on the surface and sub-textually - and the execution is terrific. I rate this movie 3/5.

1. Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003, 179m)

1899 to August 1934: Hitler's Early Life and Rise to Power

The first film I decided to watch was Hitler: The Rise of Evil, a two-part Canadian miniseries about the early life of Adolf Hitler (Robert Carlyle) and the rise of the Nazi party, ending with the death of Hindenburg and Hitler's consolidation of power.

I'm a firm believer in the old adage that those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. Similarly, I think a firm understanding of the past is necessary to inform the present. So this seemed like a natural place to start. Of course, my brain wants to go back even further (to the French and Indian War) but in the interest of finishing this project in a timely fashion, certain boundaries must be observed. However, I will go so far as to assert that I believe the roots of the second world war can be traced all the way back to that conflict - the original world war - but that's a post for another time.

In the meantime, let's talk about Hitler: The Rise of Evil. First and foremost I'm a big fan of Robert Carlyle (among other things Trainspotting (1996), Ravenous (1999), The World is Not Enough (1999), and my personal favorite: The 51st State/Formula 51 (2001)), and the opportunity to see him play one of history's most notorious figures was something I couldn't resist. Despite extensive warnings of the film's historical inaccuracies on IMDB, I felt this was too essential a time period to skip.

However, from the start, the route that the film is going to take quickly becomes clear. Over the first few minutes (during the credits) we see young Hitler age from ten to eighteen. A combination of acting and music go far to inform the audience's expectations that they're about to see something more akin to The Omen than a film with some subtlety and balance in it.

As a fan of history and a fan of film, I'm willing to overlook a few historical inaccuracies on the part of the filmmakers in order to tell a good story. Unfortunately, that does not feel like the case in this situation. When undertaking an examination of a topic such is this, it's important to humanize the characters - that's one of the reasons that Oliver Hirschbiegel's Downfall (2004) is so compelling (and a film we'll be taking a look at later on). It was important to Hirschbiegel to portray Hitler as a man, not some legendary evil, because that absolves us of any responsibility in the matter. If Hitler was a man, rather than some supernatural being, that means it could all happen again - if we let it.

And, indeed that sentiment is one shared in this film as well, that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - at least that's the quote that begins and ends the movie. I don't know if that's something I would've singled out as a theme otherwise however. Without prompting, my take on this movie would be something more akin to "what was wrong with 1930s Germany? Hitler is clearly a douche-bag." But you see, therein lies the fatal flaw with this film, the characterization of Hitler. If the real Hitler was a Dungeons & Dragons character, he would've had a Charisma score of 20 (which, to you non-D&D fans, is quite high). Hitler was a charismatic, gifted speaker, who could charm the pants off anyone - much less an entire country. And, honestly, I think that would have made for a more interesting, satisfying movie.

Showing how a frustrated young man with a magnetic personality became first the supreme ruler of Germany and then one of the most reviled historical figures of all time. That's powerful stuff. But instead we're treated to a political-correct retelling of events and how a Jew-hating madman (indeed, he talks about how much he hates the Jews at least once each scene) somehow inexorably took power. Worse still, the film uncharacteristically portrays Hitler as uncouth and bad-mannered, spitting food while talking and spilling water all over himself while drinking. It may not be in vogue to ascribe the man any positive attributes, much less table manners, however, in asking the audience to believe that people were drawn to such a man, the film loses the necessary credibility to function.

Acting-wise, the movie is pretty solid. Upon his first appearance as the adult Hitler, Carlyle turns in a decent performance based on the film's characterization of the man. Still more successful is his physicality in the role. Though shorter in stature than those around him, Hitler nonetheless towers over them, selling us his dominance in a very effective manner. Carlyle clearly made of study of the man's mannerisms in public speeches and employs them to great effect, however, with no character development/subtlety to the role itself, the performance falls flat, feeling more like a caricature than anything. Receiving second-billing, inexorably, is Stockard Channing as Adolf's mother, Klara, who dies before the film's credits have even finished and is not even seen in the second part (save for a fifteen-second flashback). Rounding out the ensemble are competent performances by Julianna Marguiles (who was terrific on ER and continues to be on The Good Wife) and Liev Schreiber as her husband, a couple socially instrumental in Hitler's rise to power (my favorite moment is when Hitler shows up as a surprise visitor on Christmas!).

The two performances that shine, however, are Peter O'Toole as Paul von Hindenburg and Peter Stormare as Ernst Röhm. Though not a large part of this 179 minute narrative, O'Toole's acting brings a much-needed gravitas to the film. Stormare, on the other hand, portrays yet another of his signature characters, in the same vein as his performances in Fargo (1996) and The Big Lebowski (1998). Here, his character performs a necessary service for Hitler early on, as the leader of the SA, however quickly becomes a liability when the Nazi party tries to go legit. Further, the movie is well crafted visually, be it props, costuming, or cinematography.

One last important thing to mention is the side-story about Fritz Gerlich (Matthew Modine), a journalist who takes a stand to write against the rise of the Nazis in his newspaper. I'm not quite sure why the producers felt the need to include his story, unless it was to try and convey the aforementioned 'theme' but, as it stands, he's not in the film very much and, when he is, his presence adds very little to the narrative. Typically, a diversion such as this would provide some kind of counterpoint to the narrative, however I can't help but feel like the character was only included to try and find someone for the audience to 'care about'.

When one undertakes making a film about anything, it is the responsibility of the filmmaker to make us care about that thing, not some third-party thing. If one fails to make the audience care about the subject of the film, then the audience will not care about the rest of the film either. No, instead Hitler is demonized throughout - indeed fairly, but does he not then make a poor subject for a film? There's a cliche in screenwriting that the easiest way to make the audience like a character is to show them being nice to and animal and that the easiest way to make the audience hate a character is to show them being mean to an animal. This film depicts Hitler beating a dog within the first fifteen minutes. Would, then, this non-nuanced, black-and-white interpretation not better be served as the villain of the film, rather than its protagonist?

Overall, this film had potential, still evident in the production values, however they took the easy way out and ended up telling us nothing more than "Hitler was bad", something we already knew. As Nicholas Meyer cautioned Ricardo Montalbán while filming Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), "never show them your top, then you have no place to go." The film starts out with a sullen, angry Hitler yelling at his parents and ends with a sullen, angry Hitler yelling at the world. Perhaps they had more to say, but it got lost amidst the sheer number of events depicted in this movie. I rate this film a 2/5.