Valkyrie: They Dared To Stop It
by Chuck DeVoreFilm is power. As with ideas and the words that convey them, film can inform, inspire, and move people to act – for better or for worse. Some films need to be made. Others are better left unmade for the harm they cause. Of course most films fall into neither category, being rather a general waste of time – amusement – as such, true to the Latin root meaning “to stare stupidly.”
Of the films that need to be made, some are made with more ease than others. Schindler’s List, for instance, needed to be made and, while the subject matter was difficult, the story’s focus on the heroic character of Oskar Schindler made director Steven Spielberg’s task agreeable enough. With a powerful and likable cast, Schindler won Spielberg seven Oscars.
Valkyrie is the other sort of film that needed to be made – the one that isn’t so clean and agreeable, depicting real people with real flaws working up enough courage to confront evil in spite of their shortcomings. It is instructive that the film’s tagline is, “Many saw evil. They dared to stop it” rather than the morally satisfying, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Valkyrie follows men, not necessarily good men, who take life as it is dealt to them right up on the screen, drawing in the audience, and inviting those watching to question whether they would have summoned the courage to do the right thing from deep inside the monstrous regime that was Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Valkyrie is a good film – perhaps one of the best in its class. Most Americans with an even passing knowledge of World War II history know that Hitler was not assassinated in 1944. Yet Valkyrie manages to capture the audience, compelling them root for the July plotters led by Tom Cruise’s Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, a war-wounded German officer and minor noble who decides Hitler must be killed and joins the German resistance.
Valkyrie is visually disquieting. The film opens in the chaos of combat in Tunisia with Cruise speaking German as he writes in his diary. Minutes later, he is grievously wounded by an Allied fighter aircraft.
The film ends in wartime Berlin, not yet bombed into rubble, where stark, swastika-festooned buildings evoke an antiseptic malevolence.
As we follow Cruise’s Colonel von Stauffenberg – in combat – recovering from his injuries and touchingly awarding Wound Badges to his fellow patients – seeing his wife and children – then linking up with the resistance in Berlin, we see a man drawn into a frightened conspiracy where the evil ferocity of the Reich makes even combat veterans quail.
In one memorable scene, Stauffenberg meets Hitler in Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps just after the Allies landed at Normandy. Stauffenberg’s hope is to persuade Hitler to sign an update to Operation Valkyrie, the real-life plan to restore order in Berlin and other areas should unrest of some sort rock the Nazi government. Stauffenberg modified the plan to make it easier to carry out a coup after Hitler’s assassination. As Stauffenberg walks into Hitler’s mountaintop Berghof, we see a meeting in progress with Hitler (David Bamber), Goring (Gerhard Haase-Hindenberg), Himmler (Matthias Freihof) and Speer (Manfred-Anton Algrang). Hitler’s hand is on a black-faced German Shepherd. The dog radiates wolfen danger and we expect it to leap on Stauffenberg in defense of Hitler. Hitler discusses the progress of the war and is assured by Goring, convincingly fat with large rings on his sausage fingers, that the Allied landings will soon be dealt with.
Bamber’s Hitler is well-executed. In his first scene, he shows a hint of the qualities that vaulted him to Fuhrer of the Third Reich, but at the same time he is menacingly evil and increasingly in denial about the progress of the world war he ignited.
With the Western Allies firmly landed in Northern France, the fate of the Nazi regime is sealed. But moving the plotters from intellectual agreement to action proves a Herculean task. One of the original plotters, Major General Henning von Tresckow (Kenneth Branagh) is shipped off to the Russian front, leaving a less confident General Friedrich Olbright (Bill Nighy) to work with Cruise’s von Stauffenberg. It is here we see the plotters as real people: fears, faults and all.
It is with this core cast of generals, former generals, and politicians that we see the desperation and fear of the last 11 months of Hitler’s Germany – desperation that all is lost and paralyzing fear that precipitous action would result in an assured and painful death (as comedian Eddie Izzard, who ably played the part of General Erich Fellgiebel, said, “When the SS catch you, they will pull you apart like warm bread.”)
The relationship between the vacillating General Olbright and Colonel Von Stauffenberg is especially developed at this point in the film, with Nighy (Davy Jones in the POTC franchise) playing a stressed and conflicted officer to a tee, his trademark twitches subdued and put to good theatrical use. Cruise’s von Stauffenberg, on the other hand, war wounded, religious (he was a devout Catholic), and driven, is concerned with stopping Hitler, fully realizing that his actions will place his wife and children in extreme jeopardy. This friction between a man of action and a man filled with self-doubt, united in the same cause, is believable and adds considerably to the movie’s tension.
John Ottman, music editor and composer, does an admirable job in adding to the film’s tension with his score. Ottman’s work deserves critical recognition.
The film’s critics make much of two points in attacking Valkyrie and Cruise.
First, the critics say that Cruise’s von Stauffenberg is too confident, too sure of himself. They fault Cruise in his acting for not showing more self-doubt. I simply note that these critics have never served as commissioned military officers, much less, ever served in uniform. I marvel at the real-life von Stauffenberg. Stauffenberg got himself appointed to a key position in Berlin. He sized up his target, meeting Hitler more than once. Stauffenberg then flew from Berlin to Prussia on the morning of July 20, 1944 with his briefcase bomb. He got into the heavily guarded command post and excused himself to arm the bomb. He armed the bomb with one mangled hand on which he had a thumb and two fingers, coordinating his progress through his one eye. He was interrupted by a guard telling him to hurry as the briefing with Hitler was about to begin. He placed the briefcase bomb under the briefing table and was called out of the room by a “phone call.” He waited in a nearby shelter to observe the blast, then walked away with his aide-de-camp. Stauffenberg then bluffed his way out of a command post crawling with heavily armed men just after a mysterious explosion. He flew back to Berlin, arriving at 3:30 p.m. Stauffenberg got to his command post, the Bendlerstrasse, an hour later and tried to rally a military coup. By 7:00 p.m., Hitler had recovered enough to made a radio broadcast, proving he was alive. Stauffenberg was then wounded in a firefight and was executed by firing squad just after midnight, shouting before being shot, “Es lebe unser heiliges Deutschland!” (”Long live our holy Germany!”) The SS was so incensed by Stauffenberg that they dug up his body the next day, stripped it of medals and cremated it. These are not the actions of a timid man, hobbled by fear. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing a few officers who could have pulled off what Stauffenberg did – I can assure the critics that such people do exist.
Secondly, the critics rail over Cruise’s lack of a German accent – or that Cruise’s “flat American accent” is out of place amongst British actors. I didn’t find the accents, or lack thereof, at all bothersome – while the prevailing American film convention is to have German characters speak in a German accent, a German would hear his language spoken in a range of accents, from the lilting accent of the Alps to the hard accent of the Northern German plains as well as Prussian, which is altogether different. I have always been annoyed at a German accent affectation for war movies – unless the actors actually are German. If you want accuracy, have the actors speak German and use subtitles (as was done in the opening seconds of Valkyrie).
These critics are missing the larger meaning in the film – all of it is taken from history. When Kenneth Branagh’s General von Tresckow says, “God promised Abraham that he would not destroy Sodom if he could find ten righteous men… I have a feeling that for Germany it may come down to one,” it does not sound odd or out of place in the film. It is a statement of deep value. The real von Tresckow said, “The assassination must be attempted at all costs. Even if it should not succeed, an attempt to seize power in Berlin must be made. What matters now is no longer the practical purpose of the coup, but to prove to the world and for the records of history that the men of the resistance dared to take the decisive step. Compared to this objective, nothing else is of consequence.” No wonder that after von Tresckow committed suicide, making it look like a partisan attack to save others, the SS dug up his body and had it cremated.
Perhaps movie critics have become so jaded – and who wouldn’t become jaded after being bombarded by all the garbage Hollywood produces – that they have largely become unable to judge the films they are charged with reviewing. Or, perhaps the critics pay too much attention to the non-stop coverage of the Hollywood elite whom they think they know and often loathe as a result. I can’t admit to knowing much at all about actors or their personal lives. If, however, an actor makes a pronouncement about public policy, I do pay attention – long enough to scoff – unless, of course, the actor was someone like Jon Voight or Gary Sinise. This might explain the critics’ rush to dump on Cruise and Valkyrie. Cruise appears to be Hollywood’s equivalent to the kid who got picked on on the playground. He is an easy target. But without Cruise and the money from his United Artists studio, Valkyrie never would have been made in today’s largely shallow and inane Hollywood pool.
Sadly, I have even seen “Cruise contempt” in the California legislature where, in August 2006, by a vote of 72 to 7, the Assembly approved AB 2360, a bill written to prevent what Tom Cruise did: buy an ultrasound machine so that he and the mother of his baby could see images of their unborn daughter. Cruise later donated the costly machine to an inner-city clinic and Gov. Schwarzenegger later wisely vetoed the bill.
All of which brings us back to films that should be made and those which are a waste of time and resources. At the beginning of the piece I mentioned Spielberg’s Schindler’s List as a film worthy of effort. One might say the opposite about his 1998 effort, Saving Private Ryan. While the film won five Oscars, Saving Private Ryan was entirely devoid of any meaning beyond that of soldiers fighting for each other. Yet, even the Nazi SS soldier could make that claim, as could the Imperial Japanese soldier in Clint Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima. As we know – at least those of us outside of Hollywood – the American soldier fights for a larger cause, the cause of liberty in defense of the Constitution of the United States. Ask any American in military uniform why they serve and most of them will respond with a patriotic rationale that would make the average Hollywood executive producer blush.
Since war is terrible, Hollywood ought to explore what it is that makes men fight. Men go to war to expand their evil intent or to defend against evil, then defeat it.
Tom Cruise instinctively grasped this when he led his fellow film crew in a moment of silence on the spot where von Stauffenberg was executed. Lionel Chetwynd understood this when he wrote and directed the Hanoi Hilton in 1987 to bring closure and dignity to those who resisted their Communist Vietnamese captors in the face of propaganda visits from Hollywood big shots like Jane Fonda. I’ll never forget the special screening of the Hanoi Hilton I saw in the White House in 1987. The screening, arranged by former TV and screen actor, then Cong. Bob Dornan, and attended by numerous administration officials and veterans, was a needed vindication of the sacrifice made in freedom’s name by Vietnam veterans. The same cannot be said about the better funded and technically higher quality Saving Private Ryan, a movie with no soul, no higher purpose, other than the tribal urge to fight for your buddy.
Valkyrie has soul and dignity – and it’s about time some soul was restored for the benefit of the Germans who served in uniform who weren’t Nazis, and who did what they could to resist Hitler’s evil when doing so would cost them everything.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
71 Comments
“Most Americans with an even passing knowledge of World War II history know that Hitler was not assassinated in 1944.”
Neither was Charles de Gaulle assasinated in the early 1960s. But that didn’t spoil one of the best political thriller movies ever.
The Day of the Jackal.
Thanks for the positive Valkyrie review, I’ll be paying to see this flick now.
I rather enjoyed this picture as well. After reading the normal industry trade rags beating down Cruise and his film, I had a hunch that I might actually find something redeeming in it. Sure enough, I was swept away and found myself totally engaged in this film. Nice work by all craft departments and a tip of my hat to Mr. Cruise for having the courage to take on this subject.
I may think Tom Cruise is a wacko, but you’ve convinced me to see this movie.
Kit — most actors are wackos. If I used that criterion about which movies too see, I’d never get out the house.
Case in point: Al Pacino. Total whack job.
BUT … Godfather 1 & 2. Heat. Scarface. Revolution/Okay, only kidding there.
I saw it Monday. I enjoyed it as a detailed retelling of the plot to kill Hitler and the little things that went wrong that prevented it from being successful. As for the accents I thought it was wise to just let the actors talk in their normal manner and not do the “vat is this” stuff which would really take you out of the movie. That happened with 13 Days in which Kevin Costner’s Boston accent was so bad I winced everytime he spoke.
I’m beginning to wonder if the reason Hollywood establishment (present company excluded of course) does not support Israel’s right to defend herself is perhaps due to the need for more material about the Holocaust?
Hollywood loves to make movies about the Holocaust, which is necessary in order to understand the evil, yet for some strange reason Hollywood is doing absolutely nothing to stop the impending Holocaust.
All they have done over the past several years is to make movies about the evil America and the evil Israel, yet they go back to the 1930’s and 1940’s to make movies about the Holocaust.
If today’s Hollywood were to be consistent would not they be making movies about the glories of Hilter, his destructive power and how evil Roosevelt was for imposing American imperialism around the world?
Clean up your act Hollywood, your propaganda is as evil as was Goebbel’s propaganda to hide the Holocaust.
“While the film won five Oscars, Saving Private Ryan was entirely devoid of any meaning beyond that of soldiers fighting for each other.”
As opposed to -let’s say – Platoon, where the soldiers were fighting with each other? Been there, done that; and yes if given time most members of our military could give you the larger reasons for their service. But at the basic level, it’s more often about not wanting to let the men, or women, you serve with, down. I don’t doubt that, it’s like that in most militaries. What differs is the uses to which the higher ups, put this loyalty. the thing that always angered me about Saving Private Ryan, was the idea that anyone thought it was a good idea to risk all those lives, simply as a gesture to one grief stricken mother. It was sort of the Hollywood idea of a “good” mission.
But at the basic level, it’s more often about not wanting to let the men, or women, you serve with, down. – Michael
In Blackhawk Down, that soldier Hoot says, “When the fighting starts, it’s all about the guy next to you.”
I was never in the military but I certainly understand what he means.
Hoot was exactly correct in that statement to Timmy.
OK after now several positive reviews I am going to see this. Stauffenberg holds a place of esteem in my historians mind for the simple matter of this: Having studied the ideals and culture of the Prussian/German officer’s corps I can safely say Stauffenberg had to reach into a place within himself that would be buried very deep.
The cadet’s at the academy in East Prussian were taught this little axiom;
“You learn to obey in order to command.” Stauffenberg and his cohorts actions were not obiedient but moral clarity also is part of being a military officer and thats what Stauffenberg had. Moral clarity.
I have been so pummeled by Hollywood manipulation and propaganda that I had no intention of seeing this film, thinking it yet another Hollywood exploitation of Hitler and Nazis that it would draw stark and shallow lines between good and evil – perhaps even try to make some corollary between Nazi Germany and the Bush Administration – who knows how many noxious themes they can insert into a film.
I can’t wait to see this film now after reading your review. Hollywood should thank thoughtful critics like you.
Great piece! I may go see this movie after all!
The elephant in the room that both the movie’s producers and its critics have avoided is that the conspirators had no problem with Hitler until Germany began to lose the war. The plot wasn’t hatched because of their high moral ideals, but because they hoped to get a better deal from the allies, a conditional surrender, by removing Hitler from power. Sorry, but them’s the facts, as multiple books on the subject have proven from the original documents and confessions of those involved.
Once again, Hollywood fudges the truth to suit its own purposes. Whether those purposes were to sell tickets or promote its liberal bias is open to debate, but the historical facts are still unchanged: the conspirators weren’t operating from some higher moral plan; they were trying to cover their own a$$e$ in the event of Germany’s defeat.
Any mention of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the movie? I know he was in prison during most of the exciting parts of the story, but he’s probably the most famous person who was part of the plot.
Seems that the von Tresckow quote negates the previous point.
Namely –> “The assassination must be attempted at all costs. Even if it should not succeed, an attempt to seize power in Berlin must be made. What matters now is no longer the practical purpose of the coup, but to prove to the world and for the records of history that the men of the resistance dared to take the decisive step. Compared to this objective, nothing else is of consequence.”
I can’t see it. Tom Cruise has leapt over the abyss into madmen territory. I think the man is a wonderful actor but I can’t look at him without the replay of that bizarro Scientology video popping up. It kills it for me.
Great story…played out actor, what to do, what to do.
Luthien Ivey’ point is correct. This 1944 attempt came as the Nazi armies were in retreat everywhere. The conspirators were focused by the looming disaster. Many had taken years to finally commit themselves to Hitler’s demise.
Hitler caused as much damage to the nazi cause as the Allies. His meddling in military decisions, which were mostly ineffectual, were based on his experiences in the trenches of WWI and of his (basically) insanity. What was the motive behind the attempt? To clear the way to military victory, or to try to end the madness of Hitler’s insanity?
Anyway, would fewer people have died in the war and concentration camps if the assassination attempt had succeeded? With Hitler out of the way, Germany may have been more effective on the battlefield and the war would have been prolonged. Or maybe without its crazed leader Germany would have had a loss of heart to fight. I just don’t know.
Hitler wasn’t insane, he became insane but he was Evil. You couldn’t get where he got, fool so many people, and do what he did in his life being insane. I believe he couldn’t deal with the realitys of the situation he created and he went mad. But mad in general? No. He was proof positive that some people are born evil.
Luthien Ivey and Thomas Hazlewood: I disagree. Some plotters did support Hitler initially, believing his political promises, others didn’t.
What I find interesting is that the motives of the July plotters were questioned for decades during the Cold War era, likely as a way to demoralize West Germany. After the Berlin Wall fell, Gorbachev released documents the Red Army captured in the closing days of the war that showed many of the July plotters had noble aims and were pure of heart in their motives (can’t have stuff like that out there during the Cold War, now can we, as it would improve German pride and nationalism).
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman
Candidate, United States Senate 2010
actually I will make this point and then leave it alone: A lot of the men who were part of the anti Hitler conspiracy had been involved in what was called the Wedsday Club. Ludwig Beck I believe was one of them. (I’d have to crack open this book I have called Hitler’s German Enemies), anyway the idea of taking the Nazi heirarchy down had been discussed ad infinitum by these men. Many names from years gone by pop up in this group, Goerdler, Bonhoeffer, Beck and several others. They were all part of this plot. All died. I think in the German officer’s mind with all of the training and pounding of obiedience and discipline it was quite a tall order to reach beyond that training to come to the conclusion Hitler must die. So some actually were already thinking of killing Hitler long before other conspirators had come to that conclusion.
“He was proof positive that some people are born evil.”
He’s also proof positive that “follow your heart” maaaay not be the best advice to throw out there in every third movie produced since 1992.
Fantastic review. I was going to chuck the idea of seeing this as it fel tlike it was more like Tom Cruise goes back in time to kill Hitler than a tough sort of thriller. Thanks!
If there’s one thing we should know as conservatives it’s that people should be judged by their actions, not the intentions. Plenty of highly “moral” people in history eneded up committing evil acts, while morally flawed people sometimes rose to the occasion. Anyone trying to kill Hitler and disrupt the SS operations is a good guy in my book.
For what it’s worth, the movie made it clear they were going to negotiate a quick truce with the Allies, not keep trying to fight the war more efficiently as some here suggested.
Yea, another movie about Nazi Germany. How about ONE movie about Stalin between 1927 and 1939, or the Bolsheviks between 1917 and 1922, or ANY movie about the hell on earth that was/is the Soviet Union/Russia?
Why don’t we have even ONE Hollywood movie about the atrocities of the murderous Communist ideology, which in Russia killed more people than even Hitler and his concentration camps, while we have countless movies about Hitler?
Because Hollywood liberals still naively believe that “communism” is the opposite of “fascism”; thus anyone who opposed Hitler, as Stalin did, cannot be evil.
What is amazing to me is the few folks who even knew the assassination attempt took place. The amount of people going into the movie not knowing the ending will far outweigh those who do.
I totally agree Stephanie, history is full of a cast of characters who were born evil and Hitler was one of them.
This is a great and thoughtful review. I have read about, and appreciate, the story and heroism of the July plotters. To be honest, if anyone other than Tom Cruise was starring, I would have seen the movie already. I struggle to support films that Cruise is in because of his wacko behavior. I know I should try to ignore his personal life and issues and see the films for what they are….but goodness, it is hard. I think I might see Valkyrie.
Although I’m still waiting on a good bio movie on Hitler himself, I went to see Valkyrie with great anticipation and expectations. I was not disappointed. I found my self immersed in the story and as the “plot thickened” I forgot about my popcorn and was sitting on the edge of my seat rooting for success although knowing the outcome. Seems to me they came pretty close to pulling this off even though Hitler wasn’t killed. The criticism of Cruise is BS – I agree with the article, I spent six years in Germany in the Army visting most of the sites in the movie – Cruise and the director certainly did some character research and played this just the way I would have expected a tough, motivated and hard-core German officer would.
I saw the film less than a week ago and this review is dead on. An overall very good film, the fact Tom Cruise and other non-German members of the cast didn’t have German accents wasn’t a problem; in fact (SPOILER ALERT), the filmmakers did a good job with the beginning of the film by having Cruise speak in German and then blending it with Cruise speaking in English without an accent so that it would seem we’re being shown an English translation of the dialogue.
Useless Dissident, you’re right on. A film about Stalin’s atrocities has been long overdue, WAYYYY overdue. As for Hollywood liberals, there are few things or people that they deem evil in the first place, at least by conservative standards.
By the way, to anybody here who hasn’t seen Valkyrie yet and are considering, I urge all of you to see it as soon as possible. It’s well worth the price of ticket admission.
syn – January 7th, 2009 at 6:42 am
“All they have done over the past several years is to make movies about the evil America and the evil Israel”
Name one movie about evil Israel. They are not allowed.
Even knowing the outcome I found Valkyrie nothing less than riveting in every moment of the film.
The critics cited above got it entirely wrong about Tom Cruise’s performance. He was note perfect in the starring role, not just because they needed his star power to get the thing made, but because he did a terrific job. The extreme stress and fear of what he was involved in, overlaid by his courage, military duty, and sense of resolve, was all there in his impressive performance. Yes, it was subtle, underplayed, but that’s a virtue of a good performance, not at all a bad thing.
But Nighy’s portrayal of General Olbright stole the show. He was simply marvelous as the much vacillating general, who had to be admired for summoning the courage to join the conspiracy, even though he had trouble finding that courage at vital moments during the actual execution of the plot. The final scene between him and Cruise (I won’t give the details here, in deference to those who’ve yet to see Valkyrie, though I truly want to jabber on about it) made the movie for me.
Susan – January 7th, 2009 at 10:48 am
“I totally agree Stephanie, history is full of a cast of characters who were born evil and Hitler was one of them.”
Is wanting a Homeland for Germans different from a Homeland for J3ws? Either they are both evil or neither.
IDF helmets even look like Nazi helmets – when will you people wise up?
Only film about Stalin that I have seen that had any truth in it was the HBO movie with Robert Duvall as Uncle Joe. He was AMAZING!
I don’t know, Terry, when will you wise up? You sound like a raving lunatic.
Hey Renny, check out Oliver Hirschbiegel’s German language film “Downfall”. It’s about Hitler’s last days in his bunker as told by his personal secretary. I liked it so much I screened it a second time without the English captions just to experience the spot on visual storytelling and wonderful performances. Cheers!
Thanks for the review and of all the comments I’ve read. Ivey’s point is good and those who responded to his point did it well. Don’t forget that Hitler’s propaganda machine was a phenomenon. Hitler himself was incredibly charismatic. I can see how he drew in a nation. Couple that with the Nazi’s ruthlessness. I seem to recall that they executed 50,000 of their own soldiers for desertion. As an aside, the US executed one…Pivate Slovik made into a TV movie. I try to keep that in mind when I judge Nazi Germany. Stauffenberg et al attempt to kill Hitler does not release them from from the things they did earlier on Hilter’s command. It does, however, show how much they were willing to risk to stop him. There is a redeeming quality to that.
After reading your logical & historically accurate review the movie I had trepidation about seeing I will see this film indeed. You bring out several points that make a lot of sense. Yes there is nothing worse than actors butchering accents.
Thanks to this review and the comments here, I will check out this movie.
I think we should be wary, though, of saying that Hitler was “born evil” or that he was “just crazy.” I think Hollywood tends to portray him this way, ignoring that he had a lot of political appeal, bringing together people of both nationalist and socialist leanings. Of course it is fair and true that what happened later was based more on megalomania, hatred, and fear than anything based on ideas or political programs.
I think there is a certain leftist insecurity in Hollywood with regard to Hitler. They certainly cannot portray him as “a man of the left” (as Jonah Goldberg does). But nor can they portray him as an idealist of any kind. He is simply evil, and his evil has nothing to do with his leftist policies. Such is the portrayal.
I know it is petty, but I can’t help myself: We see a similar thing on a much, much, much smaller and nearly insignificant scale with someone like a Rod Blagojevich. He is shown to all to be a petty, vulgar and corrupt politician, and all at once the leftist media rises up: He is CRAZY! Ha-ha! Look at Blago! Crayyyyyzeee! Nothing at all do with his Democratic Party membership or liberal ideology. No sir. Crazy!
While I love the analysis of the new movie, I disagree with the assessment of the value of Saving Private Ryan.
Thanks Chuck for your great analysis of Valcyrie and its historical background. The motives for trying tp kill Hitler have long been under discussion among german historians in the past. Since Gorbatschow gave the German Chancelor Helmut Kohl copies of original documents made by Count Stauffenberg in 1943 these discussion have ceased. Stauffenberg had convinced young officer Axel von dem Bussche to kill Hitler ( and himself ) at Wolfsschanze in November 1943. He had given von dem Bussche written documents for the collaborators at Wolfsschanze. As Bussche´s action didn´t work out, they hid these documents in the nearby OKW. There they were found by the Russians in February 1945. These documents make it clear what Stauffenbergs and Tresckows motifs were. They couldn´t take the criminal murdering all around. By the way Bussche´s motifs you can read in the net in Wikipedia. As you write Chuck, people like that existed and exist.
I second ‘Downfall.’ I thought it was well done and very true to everything I’ve read or watched of the end of the Nazis.
Mr DeVore, great review of a major funded motion picture. I have a small independent film called FORGOTTEN HEROES here is the link to an interview I did on blog radio called YOUNG GUNS CONSERVATIVE. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/YoungGunConservative/2008/12/30/YGC-Radio-Jack-Marino
you can check out my site http://www.forgottenheroesthemovie.com I am an independent conservative filmmaker with a 35mm feature length motion picture that pays tribute to our vietnam Veterans. I am even making a dontating of 25% of the gross DVD sales to THE AMERICAN VETERANS DISABLED FOR LIFE MEMORIAL FUND.
My plan is to sell my DVD to as many conservatives and vietnam vets that learn about my film and what Hollywood did to stop its release. All these post we read about how conservatives can’t get films made or release, well I am the poster boy of this entire blacklisting or whatever name you want to give it. It is easy for to promote major films or conservative films with names, but to promte a filmmaker like myself with no name recognition is a hell of a job.
All i can tell you is to google my name, I am on facebook you are on there with me. I even got a letter from President Bush, who saw my DVD and gave me a compliment. How many conservative filmmakers get that kind of validation. What I need is national exposure to reach the vietnam vets out there, who by the way love the film. Too many people on both sides of this fence tend to be jaded when looking at indie films. The point of my film is to honor the troops who were vilified by Hollywood and I paid a 20 year price for this
First, an excelent review of the movie, I agree. I was amazed at how historically accurate it was. My wife wanted to go, so we went. I all prepared to sit through the movie blowing holes through hollywood’s skewed versions of history.
What I find tragic is some of the comments bred from the whoeful history education in this country. The comments that the General Staff ‘thought Hitler was okay at the beginning of the war’ is just silly and ill informed. Almost to a man, the General Staff could not stand ‘the little corporal’ as well as what could be called the ruling class that referred to the Nazi party as “rabble”. The story that should be told is about how broad the German resistance spread throughout Germany. Top to bottom. As an example, Admiral Canaris, head of the Abwer, had back channel communications with General (Wild Bill) Donovan from the begining. FDR made sure that any suggestion of German internal resistance was buried. The war could of easily been over in 1943 if not for FDR’s insistance on “onconditional surrender” that gave Germany little choice but to fight on. Stalin (maybe one of Hollywood’s favorites but not one of mine) was blackmailed by FDR to continue the war as he (Stalin) was trying to negotiate a seperate peace with Germany. Churchhill had no use for unconditional surrender but again FDR forced it down his throat. Reasonable estimates run between twenty and fifty million lives did not have to be wasted between 1943 & April 1945. As an example the Holocost would have been just as awful but maybe 25% of the death toll by 1945. Normandy didn’t have to happen,Polesti and the list goes on and on but for the ego of Franklin Delano Rosevelt. Unfortunately it’s doubtful the story will never be told from Hollywood where FDR is heald as a saint.
If the critics hate it, I know I will find something within it that is considered politically incorrect or socially unacceptable.
It will have black and white in it. It will have good and evil, darkness and light, love and hate, truth and lies. You can take it for granted that if they’re generally opposed to a movie, it’s because it suggests or proves the existence of right and wrong.
Critics are just the leaches on the underbelly of big media.
Bud The Fly Guy,
Not sure your comment is entirely accurate. Most of the disdain the German General’s had for Hitler was because of his military background — mainly being an enlisted man from Austria. As people before have brought up, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that serious attempts on Hitler’s life didn’t happen until later in the war, when it was clear that the Germans were going to lose. In fact, after deposing Hitler the plotters wanted a separate peace with the British and Americans to concentrate on what they really wanted to do, kill Russians. As far as FDR’s insistence on “unconditional surrender,” of course the Allies were going for that, didn’t you notice what happened after the First World War when there was no decisive outcome? The fact of the matter is that total war and unconditional surrender works, notice that Germany (responsible for two major world wars plus other wars) has completely lost their warrior spirit and the same thing has happened in Japan (from a warrior culture to a pacifist culture).
[...] Valkyrie: They Dared To Stop It [...]
through and well written review. Makes me want to pay to see the movie in the theater rather than wait to watch it on DVD – and that says a lot
very nicely done.
Just to add more. WW2 was merely the continuation of WWI. An armistice is not a finality to a war. It is a cessastion of battle. Twenty years later it blew open again. Hitler merely exploited the allies weaknesses, and America’s isolationism. He gambled that France and England wouldn’t do anything when he retook the Rhein and they didn’t. His gambles led him to Poland and the rest sadly is history. What is interesting is how many people are so tuned out that they cannot grasp a simple concept of not placating a dictator.
I was wondering if the movie would be able to convey the formality of these German officers to an American audience. What I saw were people who looked, moved and talked like German officers in a story which had huge tension mostly found in scenes from meetings, not normally considered dramatic, and even though I very well knew the outcome. The language or translation problem was handled very neatly at the beginning, which started with written English and spoken German, and then switched to written German and spoken English. I, too, agree that fake German accents would have been an annoyance.
Another neat aspect of the storytelling was the way dense symbolism took the place of dialog or other explanation. I knew von Stauffenberg was a devout Catholic and that his sense of noblesse oblige was a crucial motivator, that he didn’t say everything that he thought, and that he was a known quantity to the Generals he met, all with the sparest bits of dialog. Tom Cruise did no scenery-chewing, because that’s not what Von Stauffenberg would have done. All it all, it was a masterful performance, well matched by a strong, supple, subtle cast.
I noticed LOTS of German surnames in the technical credits.
Some points.
Resistance to Hitler PREDATED the turning of the tide for Germany’s chances in the war.
However, what the turn of the tide did was motivate men to move beyond mere abstraction, mere discussion, and move into REAL action.
So those suggesting that no resistance movement existed prior to the turn of the tide are quite wrong, and slander the memory of those involved in the plot.
Responsible men have to ask after Hitler, ———- what?
Thus there had to be a coup simultaneous with the assassination, otherwise the SS would unleash carnage, {in addition to that already transpiring}.
Whereas before the turn of the tide, the actors weren’t much inclined to put their hides on the line, {AND THAT OF THEIR FAMILY, for that HAS to be understood here…} after Stalingrad they were ready to do so.
An understanding of the trauma of Stalingrad is really necessary here, and moreover, an understanding of the failure of the death or glory ride of Operation Zitadelle, {Op Citadel, better known as the Summer, ‘43 Kursk offensive}.
Chuck,
Excellent review. It is getting to the point that reading reviews by so-called “critics” is futile in trying to determine the quality of a film.
I agree with your assessment of Cruise’s portrayal of Graf Von Stauffenberg – Graf is German for Count. Not only was this man an officer, he was an aristocrat, not a critic with no idea of what life is really like.
During WWII a Time writer put it this way: “In cold and mud and anguish the brotherhood of battle leaps across barriers of place and ideas.”
You and I are in that brotherhood, most of Hollywood has no clue.
Communists killed 100 million.
Name the Russian Stauffenberg.
Or the Chinese Stauffenberg.
1)”Downfall” is indeed an outstanding film.It made a lot of people uncomfortable because it didn’t take the easy route and show Hitler merely as a “monster”,but as a human being,which made him all the more frightening,i.e.,that any of us could be a Hitler,or Stalin,or Pol Pot.
2)I would recommend 2 more films…”Conspiracy”,about the Wannsee Conference,where the Final Solution was mapped out(Kenneth Branagh plays Reinhard Heydrich to Stanley Tucci’s Adolf Eichmann)…the other is “Sophie Scholl”,about some young Christians in Munich 1943 who stood up to the Nazis and were martyred for it.
Dave-
I was thinking during the movie how Hitler wasn’t nearly as efficient as Stalin at rooting out dissent. In Stalin’s Russia, all of these generals would have been executed long ago, no matter how good they were militarily.
In interviews, Cruise said this was the greatest evil ever known to man. Let’s not forget that this ideology is a stone’s throw away from Communism. Yet we allow it to flourish.
The conspirators who tried to overthrow Hitler didn’t do it out of some noble cause. They did it because they wanted to surrender to the Americans instaead of the Russians. And, forget this idea that they didn’t know about the Holocaust. When they conquered Europe they were specifically ordered to help round up the Jews and give them over to the killing units and SS for extermination. Also, tons of regular German army units participated in massacres against Russian civilians.
I saw Valkyrie in a sold-out movie theatre on Christmas afternoon, and it was the second sold-out showing of the day. I found the movie to be very compelling. It doesn’t matter that we know what happened with this 15th attempt to assassinate Hitler – this movie is still suspenseful from the first moments to the end. It is an excellent story well told, well written, well acted, excellent soundtrack, stunning scenery. It will stay with me as most movies do not.
It is a story of a nation in the grip of an untenable situation. A lot has been written about the Holocaust, but not so much about the German experience, where the compromised choices of the citizenry ended up being their own nightmare. We see in this movie how there are huge circumstances in life where a person must find the courage within themselves to act, even when the outcome is beyond risky. These situations repeat themselves. Look at Cambodia, Rwanda, and now Zimbabwe. History repeats itself. Valkyrie is worth seeing for the questions that it leaves you with. What would you do?
I’m quite familiar with von Stauffenberg and the assassination attempts (his and all of the other ones), and I do plan to see the movie when it comes out on DVD. But I’ve seen enough clips of the film to know beyond any doubt that Tom Cruise is absolutely awful in the role.
Useless Dissident – I agree that a film on Communist evil is way overdue, Stalin was a evil man no doubt, (read: Triumph and Tragedy by Dmitri Volkogonov) but we must remember that many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood have had communist/marxist leanings for decades. If anyone made a movie about leftist evil, they would be pariahs in the industry and might have a hard time at cocktail parties with the women.
Also, you stated that Stalin was opposed to Hitler. While this is a true statement, remember that Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler in an attempt to gain more territory for his empire. He was a political man rather than an ideological one. The left’s attempt to equate Hitler’s Germany to the political right is not historically accurate or at least is not applicable to the modern American political situation. Hitler’s Germany was a government directed society and economy not to mention that his party was a National Socialist party. The Fascism of Germany and Italy before and during the war years is more comparable to the liberal movement in America today than to the conservative movement. Oh yea, I saw the movie and it was great.
“While the film won five Oscars, Saving Private Ryan was entirely devoid of any meaning beyond that of soldiers fighting for each other.”
Thanks for putting your finger squarely on what has always been the core weakness of this movie. Veterans will tell you that, yes, they do fight for the guy next to them and not to let their buddies down. BUT they will also tell you that they were keenly aware that they were fighting tooth and nail against one of the blackest villainies the world had ever seen, and that it put steel into their spines.
But the Left dare not acknowledge that moral core: that we were free men fighting against totalitarianism and tyranny, the exact same tyranny they want to impose on us still.
The issue with this movie is less Tom Cruise – American down to his tighty whities – and more the legion of Brits playing German Army officers. There are more British accents in this cast than you’ll find at the Oxford Union. Its bizarre and nearly undoes an otherwise great movie, as the ethos of German militarism and martial honor that animates the story simply rings false when articulated by Brits and Yanks.
[...] that “24″ is about to start up again. California Assemblyman and huge history buff Chuck Devore gave two thumbs up for “Valkyrie.” More elected officials and aspiring candidates to [...]
It’s both an acknowledgment of the breadth of the German Resistance, and a tribute to Stauffenberg as its most determined and most nearly successful proponent, when we realize that Stauffenberg is the tip of the Resistance iceberg, the part we see most clearly.
“The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945″ by Peter Hoffmann (first published in West Germany in 1969) is a very substantial book of 850 pages. The variety of anti-Nazi groups within Germany, the uncertainty of the course of the war and of Allied intentions, make for a complex and shifting opposition. Stauffenberg’s story makes up about two-fifths of Hoffmann’s text, and is told with great detail.
The book also is well supplied with notes, and maps and plans not only down to the level of the headquarters complex and the briefing hut, but even extend to diagrams of the available telephone and teleprinter links, which proved crucial.
As it clearly states at the end of the movie, in all thirteen attempts were made to assasinate Hitler. This was just one. Because it came late in the war, does not negate the guts and courage it took to impliment the plan in play and carry it out.
Try to imagine what would surely have happened in Germany after Hitler’s death had the SS taken control of the government. The changes in the plan for Valkyrie were far reaching and meaningful to those left behind in a country that would have been at the mercy of Hitler’s hand-picked successors.
I just went to see it last night with my family, motivated in part by your review, Chuck. I can’t say that it’s a great movie from an artistic point of view, but the story is one well worth telling, and it was told well.
On the way out of the theater, my mom said that “it makes you realize how important it is to fight for our freedom while we’re still free.” I think she nailed it. It’s important to think about what we would do were we in Colonel Von Stauffenberg’s shoes, but we also have a here and now to deal with. We must always stay vigilant.
Beverly, to say that every American soldier clearly understood that they were fighting a “totalitarian evil” badly oversimplifies the actual EXPERIENCE of war. My great uncle died in the German Army on the Russian Front. Does this mean that he was a Nazi working to install that evil around the world? No, it means that he was drafted. I take it that you studiously have avoided seeing movies like Letters from Iwo Jima and Das Boot because they dared to humanize the Axis soldiers and sailors.
By all means, the Allied cause WAS truly moral, no debate there. But once you’re in the thick of battle, the geopolitics and big themes of WAR go away. Then it becomes about survival and fighting for the man next to you. Saving Private Ryan captured that magnificently, although it’s wobbly final sequences kept a good movie from being a great one.
Great story. Too bad it’s star is Tom Cruise. Should have been done with a cast of nobody’s. Tom Cruise playing the part of Tom Cruise playing von Stauffenberg, Tedious!
I saw it and was pleasantly surprised at the quality and historical accuracy. As for the critics lampooning it because there were no fake German accents, what a bunch of rubes. Fake accents detract from a movie’s quality not add to it.
They said the same thing about the Boy In The Striped Pajamas – all the “Germans” and the 2 boys had British accents.
It’s the acting that either makes it or breaks it and in both cases the acting came through.
Knowing what I have read about Rommel (he was to be installed as a head of the new govt to negotiate with the allies – because he was one of the few respected German Generals – and the fact that about 5,000 were rounded up after this attempt – both not mentioned but it did not detract from a good movie.
You must be logged in to post a comment.