The Bridge At Remagen R2 - DVD Times review

[Mike]

I've reviewed the r2 release of the mediocre war movie The Bridge At Remagen for DVD Times.

You can read the review here

[John Hodson]

Mike, just a couple of points. You say:

"As ever, we're asked to believe in a two-tier German army where some were sympathetic to Hitler and others despised him. There really isn't much evidence for this. There were, of course, individual officers who were anti-Hitler, as the July Plot demonstrated, but there was never, to the best of my knowledge, any major movement within the army which either countermanded orders on a regular basis or expressed open hostility to the Nazi regime."

In Barbarossa, his excellent book on the attack on the Soviet Union, Alan Clark outlines numerous and quite wide-ranging plots to depose and/or kill Hitler, the first proposed just before the attack on Czechoslovakia, the very last moment of peace before WWII, another in 1941, when Hitler's Germany appeared invincible. Clark also goes to great pains to underline the huge gulf that existed throughout hostilities between the Army and the SS; the latter were, of course, guilty of the most appalling atrocities, as you say, but, more alarmingly, it was a deliberate weapon to terrify and subdue civilian populations. How the average conscript felt about this, I don't know; but undoubtedly there must have been some officers and men with at least a shred of morality, even in the middle of all that carnage?

Certainly in Anthony Beever's Stalingrad, letters home from men trapped in midst the horror, show that they were well aware of what had been done in their name, and why they feared and expected (and received) a terrible retribution.

EDIT - BTW, simplistic, heavy handed though it is, I quite like The Bridge at Remagen; though I suspect it's to more to do with admiring Ben Gazzara and George Segal than anything else; and maybe the fact that I caught it in the early '70s. Whatever; I make an effort to watch it when it's on the box (though whether I'd buy this rather poor release, as you outline it, is another matter )

I'm not a huge fan of Elmer Bernstein - he relies too much, I think, on retreads of The Magnificent Seven - but I even like the score.

I do agree that when matched against its contemporaries, it looks pallid - but there's not much to match MASH is there?

---
So many films, so little time...

[DamienB]

No evidence? What, Paris not being razed to the ground (against Hitler's wishes), regular army units turning on SS units in both Stalingrad and Berlin, etc.? Hollywood may portray it more simplistically than was the case in reality but there was certainly a large portion of the German forces opposed to Hitler - but unable through fear of retribution to do much about it.

[Mike]

I take both your points on board and accept that I should have checked this further, so I will change the paragraph you refer to.

My point was more about the Hollywood simplification of the issue than the historical facts (largely gleaned from Martin Gilbert's book "The Second World War" and Ian Kershaw's "Hitler: Nemesis") but your corrections are noted. What I objected to most was the use of the standard division between "good Germans" and "bad Germans" which is a cliche of too many war films.

Right, that's changed and I've put a link to this thread so your corrections can be read. My apologies for not researching this further before making the generalisation.

I have to say though John that I still don't share your opinion of the film. Segal and Gazzara are good but they seem to me to be working in a vacuum.

[John Hodson]

Originally posted by Mike
What I objected to most was the use of the standard division between "good Germans" and "bad Germans" which is a cliche of too many war films.

Totally accepted

Originally posted by Mike
I have to say though John that I still don't share your opinion of the film. Segal and Gazzara are good but they seem to me to be working in a vacuum.

I know, it's Paths of Glory-lite (very 'lite'), but it's one of those pieces of moving wallpaper I've taken to - what can I say?

Now if we all liked everything, there'd be no need for you to review anything would there Mike?

---
So many films, so little time...

[Mike]

Now if we all liked everything, there'd be no need for you to review anything would there Mike?

That's true but it would leave me with a lot more time to watch movies ...

On a different point entirely, have you got "The Horse Soldiers" John ? I'd be interested to know what you think of the picture quality.

[John Hodson]

Sorry Mike no Horse Soldiers yet (in my wishlist...)

Keep up the good work!

BTW, read your excellent Gangs of New York review and I'm still dithering - it's the almost certain knowledge that there's a better cut out there that's preventing a purchase! There's a 'reassessment' just posted in the reviews at dvdtalk.com that I think you'd be interested to read.

---
So many films, so little time...

[Mike]

Thanks for the kind words. I will have a look at DVD Talk forthwith.

[hitch_fan]

Originally posted by John Hodson
Mike, just a couple of points. You say:

"As ever, we're asked to believe in a two-tier German army where some were sympathetic to Hitler and others despised him. There really isn't much evidence for this. There were, of course, individual officers who were anti-Hitler, as the July Plot demonstrated, but there was never, to the best of my knowledge, any major movement within the army which either countermanded orders on a regular basis or expressed open hostility to the Nazi regime."

In Barbarossa, his excellent book on the attack on the Soviet Union, Alan Clark outlines numerous and quite wide-ranging plots to depose and/or kill Hitler, the first proposed just before the attack on Czechoslovakia, the very last moment of peace before WWII, another in 1941, when Hitler's Germany appeared invincible. Clark also goes to great pains to underline the huge gulf that existed throughout hostilities between the Army and the SS; the latter were, of course, guilty of the most appalling atrocities, as you say, but, more alarmingly, it was a deliberate weapon to terrify and subdue civilian populations. How the average conscript felt about this, I don't know; but undoubtedly there must have been some officers and men with at least a shred of morality, even in the middle of all that carnage?

Certainly in Anthony Beever's Stalingrad, letters home from men trapped in midst the horror, show that they were well aware of what had been done in their name, and why they feared and expected (and received) a terrible retribution.

I agree with Mike here. It's a myth to think that there was any widespread opposition to Hitler within the Wehrmacht. After the war German officers were quick to point the finger at Hitler for all operational and strategic misstakes that were made and to the SS for all the atrocities that happened. Let's not forget that while the going was good (and even while it was not going so good anymore) 99,9% of the German Wehrmacht was still following orders without question; it was only a very small minority that was in (active) opposition.

I am currently reading Robert Kershaw's excellent It Never Snows In September - The German View Of Market-Garden And The Battle Of Arnhem and one of main points it makes is how remarkable it is that the German Army (and keeping in mind its state) was able to react so quickly and put up such stiff resistance when clearly everything was lost at that point in the war. Even at that low point for the Wehrmacht (the West and East Front collapsed virtually at the same time that summer), morale was still fairly high and orders were carried out without questions being asked.

As for the SS and atrocities - it is important to make a distinction between the political SS and the Waffen-SS. The Waffen-SS were combat troops first and foremost. They were set up in military divisional structures and part of the standard Wehrmacht corps, army and armygroup organizational structure. As such they were under command of Wehrmacht commanders - eg, Bittrich's II SS Corps with the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions, was part of Army Group B and thus reporting to Fieldmarshall Model at Arnhem. While they were not very liked by ordinary Wehrmacht troops (for many reasons btw, not only political but also because they always got the newest and best equipment), they were held in very high regard as soldiers. When the going got very tough, the Waffen-SS divisions and later on smaller Waffen-SS Kampfgruppen were used as firebrigades to help save the day for the ordinary Wehrmacht.

The Waffen-SS was not used to guard concentration camps or terrorize civilian populations in a structural manner - special SD units and special Einsatzgruppen were created for that. This is not to say that the Waffen-SS did not partake in some of the worst atrocities committed, especially on the Eastern Front, because they certainly did.
But so did the Wehrmacht! A few years ago (actually it might still be going around) they had a travelling expostion in Germany about the crimes that the Wehrmacht committed from 1941 - 1944. Many Germans were shocked by that as it put an end to the myth that the Wehrmacht had clean hands and that only the SS was to blame.

Alan Clark's book is very good but somewhat dated as it is from 1965 and since then new sources have become available. Also, I think that most of Clark's primary German sources are the memoirs of German High Command officers and it is wise to keep in mind that these are somewhat coloured when it comes to questions of guilt and opposition to Hitler.
The book has a very interesting chapter about the regrouping of Army Group Center in September 1941 and its consequences. After I read that chapter I immediately wanted to write something about how the German officer corps lost the war in Russia in sept 41 and not Hitler (of course after the war Guderian (iirc) was quick to put the blame on Hitler).

Have you ever read Erickson's and Glantz's work on the German - Russian conflict John? Especially Glantz's When Titans Clashed is very good. Glantz was the first who had full access to the Russian archives I think.

The Horse Soldiers

I have the DVD. It is 1.66:1 non-anamorphic. The picture quality could be better, esp the colours are washed out and there's quite a lot of print damage. MGM obviously didn't restore this one and probably just used an old laserdisc transfer for the DVD.

[John Hodson]

and one of main points it makes is how remarkable it is that the German Army (and keeping in mind its state) was able to react so quickly and put up such stiff resistance when clearly everything was lost at that point in the war

And one reason for that, as both Clark and Beever agree, was that the Germans were desperate to make peace on their terms; at the very least they wanted to keep the Soviets at bay until Berlin was taken by the allies on the western front - they weren't aware that the decision had already been taken. And I'm aware that even those that wanted rid of Hitler were still, by and large, committed Nazis, with all that entails.

Many Germans were shocked by that as it put an end to the myth that the Wehrmacht had clean hands and that only the SS was to blame.

Of that I have no doubt; my point was simply that while casual atrocities (if there is such a thing) are committed by all armies in all conflicts; the SS used atrocities as a weapon, planning horrific crimes designed to quell opposition. The premeditation makes it all the more stomach churning.

One of the strengths of Clark's book (and I accept what you say) is its proximity to the events in question. History, it is a fact, is written by the winners and the more years that pass, the more eye witnesses - and those that viewed the struggle in context - we lose.

The Bridge at Remagen makes a very simple point; that Robert Vaughan's German officer cares that civilians are caught up in a battle and may get killed, and for that he pays the price. I'm sure one or two existed.

I've been thinking about getting When Titans Clashed for a while now, hitch_fan, and thanks for the recommendation.

Did you ever see Conspiracy about the Wannsee conference? What made me most angry was, at the end of this jaw-dropping drama, the roll call of complete ************ who lived out their lives in full, some in positions of power, having casually signed the deaths warrents of millions of people. I digress.

Sad news about The Horse Soldiers; here's hoping they get it right next time.

---
So many films, so little time...

[Mike]

Did you ever see Conspiracy about the Wannsee conference? What made me most angry was, at the end of this jaw-dropping drama, the roll call of complete ************ who lived out their lives in full, some in positions of power, having casually signed the deaths warrents of millions of people. I digress.

And the chief one who cheated the noose was that ******* Speer. To hell with him.

[RDNZL]

Originally posted by Mike
Did you ever see Conspiracy about the Wannsee conference?

The original German version of that (from 1984 ??) is even more chilling since you aren't distracted by having well known actors -- to our eyes at least -- in the lead roles.

As to REMAGEN it's clearly not in the same league as other cynical war films such as CATCH-22, M*A*S*H*, WHERE EAGLES DARE, KELLY'S HEROES, THE DIRTY DOZEN & ATTACK, but on it's own terms I've always found it to be great entertainment ... much like GODFATHER III in relation to it's illustrious predecessors.

It's certainly head & shoulders above the current crop of WWII films that have appeared in recent years even if the sound on the dvd is pretty ropey

Again a great review Mike .... even if I don't agree with your views (& that is fairly often - remember GANDHI ) at least you make it clear why you hold them & that's why I will continue to read them

[hitch_fan]

And one reason for that, as both Clark and Beever agree, was that the Germans were desperate to make peace on their terms; at the very least they wanted to keep the Soviets at bay until Berlin was taken by the allies on the western front - they weren't aware that the decision had already been taken.

Just a note: opening the door for the western allies (relatively speaking of course) is undoubtedly true for the last two months of the war but my comment referred to Market-Garden which, as you no doubt know, happened in September 1944 on the western front. Also, keep in mind that the last major offensive of the Germans happened on the western front in the Ardennes in December 1944. I agree with you of course that the desire to make peace on their terms partly explains this extraordinary German resolve to fight on.

Of that I have no doubt; my point was simply that while casual atrocities (if there is such a thing) are committed by all armies in all conflicts; the SS used atrocities as a weapon, planning horrific crimes designed to quell opposition. The premeditation makes it all the more stomach churning.

Again, you have to make a distinction between the political arm of the SS and the military arm (the Waffen-SS). Also, during the early part of the campaign in Russia before the Einsatzgruppen moved in, ordinary Wehrmacht troops were used to keep order in the conquered territories. Of course, the German way of keeping order sometimes involved shooting Jews, political adversaries and ordinary civilians. The German Wehrmacht started Barbarossa with the infamous Kommissar order (the order to kill political operatives in the Red Army without trial). After the war, German generals naturally said that they had not carried out the order but in a lot of cases evidence suggests otherwise.

Did you ever see Conspiracy about the Wannsee conference? What made me most angry was, at the end of this jaw-dropping drama, the roll call of complete ************ who lived out their lives in full, some in positions of power, having casually signed the deaths warrents of millions of people. I digress.

I haven't seen Conspiracy but I have seen the German version "Wannseekonferenz" which RDNZL also mentions.
A lot of German war criminals rose to high positions after the war as opportunism reigned high with the allies - it was easy to turn a blind eye if a Nazi was useful for their purposes. The Americans wouldn't have walked on the moon without the help of Von Braun for instance.

And the chief one who cheated the noose was that ******* Speer. To hell with him.

Indeed. Did you ever read Gitta Sereny's "Albert Speer, His Battle With Truth"? Speer was lucky that his lies made him useful to the allies and that they groomed him to be the model reformed Nazi. A perfect example of the "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" lie.

It's certainly head & shoulders above the current crop of WWII films that have appeared in recent years

I don't know. The cynicism on display in Remagen makes it very unbelievable and it spoils the movie for me. It is supposed to be a combat movie about conquering the all-important bridge over the Rhine but its anti-war message is so much emphasized that that important feat is somewhat negated and you're starting to ask yourself how on earth did the Americans win the war with such demoralized troops?
Recent years have given us U-571 (what can I say), The Thin Red Line (poetic nonsense) and Pearl Harbor (kid's stuff), and Remagen is certainly not worse than those three but recent years also brought us Saving Private Ryan, Enemy At The Gates and most of all Band Of Brothers which to me, as combat movies, are far far better than Bridge At Remagen.

[hitch_fan]

Bringing up this old thread because I am currently reading Max Hastings' recent Armageddon: The Battle For Germany 1944-45, an excellent account of the last 8 months (post Battle of Normandy) of the war.
Reading it I was reminded of one of the comments I made about Bridge At Remagen:

It is supposed to be a combat movie about conquering the all-important bridge over the Rhine but its anti-war message is so much emphasized that that important feat is somewhat negated and you're starting to ask yourself how on earth did the Americans win the war with such demoralized troops.

One of the points that Max Hastings makes in his book is exactly that: the morale of the western Allied troops was very low, especially at the end of 44, beginning of 45. According to Hastings it is one of the reasons why the western Allies took so long to defeat Germany. I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in WWII. Hastings' sources are first rate (apart from the use of the now almost obligatory Russian archives, he has conducted lots of interviews with veterans) and he uses these to come up with some genuinely new and fresh insights.
Anyhow, I've just ordered the DVD of Remagen to see if I like it any better now that I have this new insight as well

Btw, this thread probably should be moved to the classics forum.

[Alan b]

Moving to Classic Cinema and DVD Forum

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by hitch_fan

Bringing up this old thread because I am currently reading Max Hastings' recent Armageddon: The Battle For Germany 1944-45, an excellent account of the last 8 months (post Battle of Normandy) of the war.
Reading it I was reminded of one of the comments I made about Bridge At Remagen:

One of the points that Max Hastings makes in his book is exactly that: the morale of the western Allied troops was very low, especially at the end of 44, beginning of 45. According to Hastings it is one of the reasons why the western Allies took so long to defeat Germany. I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in WWII. Hastings' sources are first rate (apart from the use of the now almost obligatory Russian archives, he has conducted lots of interviews with veterans) and he uses these to come up with some genuinely new and fresh insights.
Anyhow, I've just ordered the DVD of Remagen to see if I like it any better now that I have this new insight as well

Hmmm; I read Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad a couple of years ago and followed that up with his super Berlin; The Downfall, 1945 as my holiday read a couple of weeks ago; blistering stuff. Funny thing is, I had a hankering to finally buy The Bridge at Remagen immediately after finishing it too! It's the sheer scale of the conflict, the gargantuan human tragedy, that simply boggles the mind, and films like TBAR - well, any film really - cannot realistically or adequately portray. Tens of 1000s, hundreds of 1000s blasted into oblivion in a few scant days as Berlin crumbled, millions of lives wasted. The vicious inhumanity, generous humanity, the waste, the bravery and stupidity; is this what my parents generation endured? As I've gotten older, I find my admiration knows no bounds.

For anyone that hasn't read it, can I also recommend Alan Clarke's Barbarossa.

EDIT - should have read the thread through again, for I'm repeating myself. And I've done a complete 180 on Elmer Bernstein since my post above...

EDIT 2 - damn you HF, just ordered 'Remagen'...