Four DVDs

 While the cat's away - for eleven days - I gained control of the TV/DVD equipment in our Dayroom. There were three DVDs I had bought several weeks ago at HMV just itching to be played. So, just a few thoughts on each.

2016 Film

Of the three films, I think I enjoyed this the most. The story is a simple one. Captain Stefan Brandt is sent to investigate a threat to the exiled Kaiser Wilhelm II. Arriving at the Kaiser's secluded mansion, Brandt finds out that local resistance and British intelligence are moving in on the deposed emperor. As he starts to find out more about life at the mansion, Brandt is immediately drawn into a passionate romance with Mieke, one of the Kaiser's maids. The story is based on Alan Judd's novel, The Kaiser's Last Kiss and, although not historical, it is sustained through, largely, some fine and compelling acting.

Above all, Christopher Plummer is excellent as the aging and, to start with, deluded Kaiser. Naively believing that Hitler sees a role for a restored monarchy in the Nazi regime, he slowly understands that he has no place in the 'new' Germany. At the end, he even takes part in the daring escape of Mieke, the undercover British agent (whose husband and father had been killed by the Nazis). Brandt and Mieke, again very well played by Jai Courtney and Lily James, are very realistic as their love affair blossoms and Brandt has to choose between loyalty to a regime he has begun to despise and his lover. Janet McTeer is compelling as the Kaiser's wife, desperate to return to the glory of a renewed Empire and with none of the sympathies that the Kaiser shows. In addition, we are treated to a sinister, and rather terrifying, cameo by Eddie Marsan as Hitler's evil henchman Heinrich Himmler. 

All in all, it did not matter that the events were unhistorical; it was a very satisfying film, with top class acting and well directed. 

1970 Film

Here was Christopher Plummer again, but forty years earlier; this time giving a sterling impression of the Duke of Wellington. He is up against an equally good actor, in the shape of Rod Stieger as Napoleon. There are bit parts for Jack Hawkins and Terence Alexander as Wellington's officers; Virginia McKenna doing her bit at the famous Ball at Brussels; and a typical cameo by Orson Welles as the gross Louis XVIII. I wonder how much the latter was paid? Hopefully, not the huge amounts shelled out to Marlon Brando (I am thinking of Apocalypse Now) - both gross.  Stieger puts his all into his portrayal of Napoleon and it is effective, particularly in the early scenes in Paris and Elba. He is hubristic and charismatic but also vulnerable and self-pitying. Plummer has the easier task of just maintaining the stiff upper lip. The arrogance and entitled nature is counterbalanced by a self-deprecating wit.     

The cinematography was excellent; shot in Ukraine with what were then Russian soldiers being used in the battlefield scenes (how poignant today). It is easy to mock the obvious cardboard cut-out models used for distant infantrymen, or the recognition of one or two actors being used for both sides, but before CGI made a total mockery of reality, the staging of the battle was impressive. Inevitably, it was difficult to follow exactly what was happening, but I expect that was the case on the day itself. And thank god for Blucher and the Prussians!                                                                                                                                                                  

2017 Film

Christopher Nolan's film scored impressively with the critics: A stone cold masterpiece (Associated Press); Nolan at the peak of his powers (The Daily Telegraph); but, for some reason, I found this the least enjoyable of the three films. One reason, and not a praiseworthy one, is that it contained actors I don't like! Sir Kenneth Branagh (Ken & Em - ugh!), Tom Hardy and Mark Rylance, I would prefer not to watch; but Cillian Murphy did well in what was a rather unsympathetic role. As one reviewer has commented, you need to know your history to understand the film. Although the event itself is the story of over 338,000 being rescued from the French coast, the director has chose to home in on some individual stories - of bravery, deception, fear...

I was warned that the format was one of overlapping vignettes - the three RAF fighters, the little boat with father, son and even younger friend on board; the terrified soldiers going down with a ship; the Frenchman trying to get to England undiscovered. To quote from another reviewer: There are two ways of looking at this film. You can decide, as some do, that any film about Dunkirk must include a wider panorama and more stories from the beach...which is fair enough, but not the decision the director took...you can go with the director and immerse yourself in a wonderful, twisting, breathtaking, shocking but ungory tale, woven between the air, the sea and the land...

Clearly the film's budget dictated the meagre amount of men shown on the beach, the small flotilla of little boats sailing to their rescue, just three RAF planes, and so on; but, for once, I was thinking "use some CGI" to give the thing more credibility. The different timelines were, to start with, simply confusing but became more understandable as the film progressed. Perhaps I should watch it again.

1951 Film

As a bonus, I re-watched one of my favourite Hitchcock films - Strangers on a Train. Again, the acting by the two leads, Farley Granger and Robert Walker was well-nigh faultless. Strong backing was had from the latter's screwball mother; the former's present wife and hoped-for new spouse; and the great Leo G. Carroll - who can forget The Man from U.N.C.L.E.?! Such a tragedy that Walker died, aged just 32, having suffered for a long time from alcoholism and mental illness. He made just one more film, but before production was finished, he was dead. Angles from his death scene in that film were spliced from his 'death' in Strangers on a Train.

Crafted from Patricia Highsmith's (now there was another oddball) book, but with a different ending, Hitchcock uses humour - mostly dark - as well as tension to produce one of his most memorable movies. The editing is superb, the black and white shooting is fashioned for the subject and the scenarios (the moving train; Bruno's mansion; the famous tennis game where Bruno is the only one not to move his head from side to side with the trajectory of the ball; the Fairground, the actually killing spot with the close-up of the wife's glasses) are so Hitchcockian. I also watched the documentary about the film on the second disc. Here the older Farley Granger and Pat Hitchcock's reminiscing were linked with Peter Bogdanovich's interview with Hitchcock himself.  A true master and masterpiece.