The Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock, examines what happens to a group of eight torpedo survivors as they find themselves stuck on a lifeboat together with the captain of the German U-Boat that sunk them. Among them is the sexy and career driven reporter, a millionaire, a steward, a nurse, a radio operator, an engineer, a sailor, and a shell-shocked woman clinging to her dead baby. One by one they are collected in the boat and reveal their stories, all different but each bound to one another by the war against the Nazis. Then a ninth person is brought aboard who flops on deck and expels the dreaded "danke schoen."
What are eight Americans headed for England to do with a member of the enemy? Some say try to convert him, others to get him to a POW camp, and a couple who simply yell that he ought to be thrown overboard. Their situation becomes more complicated than a simple (well maybe not so simple) question of moral acts in war and unarmed prisoners, when a storm harms their boat, they lose their provisions, and find that they German has the knowledge and resources to get them to the British-controlled Bermuda.
There is a "review" by film critic Dave Kehr (whom I despise) who writes of Lifeboat: "At times, the films seems on the verge of rising above its frankly propagandistic intentions, but it never really confronts the Darwinian themes built into the material." This person really fails to see the intentions of Hitchcock and its writer, John Steinbeck, but not understanding that this entire movie is entirely structured to look at the ways that people interact when they have no weapons and a lack of basic materials to survive, but are stuck in close proximity with each other. Does the concept of "German" and "American" still keep true, or does nationality and the politics of nations go by the wayside when people are fighting not to dehydrate? Hitchcock's answers may not be as impartial as one might hope, but it is interesting to see the primal instincts reveal themselves and play out as hunger and thirst drive people to desperation.
As for its propagandist streaks, yes they are there. How could they not be? This film was released in 1944 which means that it was probably written two or three years earlier at the height of WWII, so would it not make sense that the film naturally sides with the Allies? After all I am sure that neither Hitchcock nor Steinbeck wanted to be thought of as Nazi sympathizers. But in relation to the Darwinian themes of the film, the German is shown to be the perfect survivor: shrew and calculating, but with knowledge and foresight that allows him to surpass his adversaries even though he is outnumbered.
As always, Hitchcock creates a masterfully suspenseful film that takes place entirely in a space of about 10x20 ft. His direction is always top notch, and there is enough plot twists and drama to keep its audience engaged and entertained for the entire running time. The acting, particularly by the journalist played by Tallulah Bankhead, is very good, and Steinbeck's writing is wonderful. There is a terrific line: "Dying together's even more personal than living together." This movie is full of terrific bits like this, but then Steinbeck is one of the great American writers.
I'm not sure what I thought about the ending. I suppose I liked it, but there were so many terribly interesting and ironic ways that it might have ended that would have put a guilty smile on my face, and made me feel as sad as I would have been satisfied. It was a good ending--and probably the necessary ending--but not the most creative one. That's okay though, the rest of the movie had enough twists and emotional peaks and troughs that I definitely forgive it.
3.5/4
No comments:
Post a Comment