Why it resonated: Who wouldn't love to watch indomitable Allied officers try to stick it to Nazis, especially with an all-star cast of macho men?
General comments on the film: Going into this film, I only knew a few things about it: the infectiously whistleable theme song, the fact that it's about trying to escape from a Nazi POW camp, and the presence of Steve McQueen. These factors, combined with the title, led me to expect a grim but gloriously triumphant tale, but that is not what I got.
The film's nearly three-hour runtime pretty much splits into two movies: a mostly-comedy about planning the escape and an action movie about what happens after the prisoners bolt. The lightheartedness of the first half was slightly surprising, but what I really didn't see coming was how badly the whole caper would turn out in the second part. The original scheme aims for breaking 250 prisoners out of the camp to at least force the Nazis to waste manpower in recapturing them, but they only manage 76 before the machinations fall apart. Of those 76, we only see three potentially succeed in getting out of Germany, and 50 are killed. The film plays up the moral victory of momentarily escaping from what was supposed to be an un-escapable prison and causing a bit of enemy consternation, but it wouldn't be unfair to argue that it was more of a "great try" than a "great escape."
Of course, the movie is constrained by its being based on a true story, and what the prisoners manage to do is really impressive, but if it were remade today, there's no way the film would end with Steve McQueen and James Garner back in the POW camp (although they'd probably still have Donald Pleasance shot). A modern production would undoubtedly only be satisfied with the audience thinking, "Yeah! Take that, Nazis!" Instead, this film leaves you thinking, "Gee, the SS isn't very sporting, executing POWs like that rather than treating them like gentlemen officers like the Luftwaffe does."
Don't get me wrong--I'm not complaining about any of this. The lack of a riding-off-into-the-sunset conclusion by no means makes this an unsatisfying film. I was just expecting more of a victory along the lines of Victory (1981) instead of a final scene in which one of the most charismatic tough guy actors of the time ends up right where he started--locked in an isolation cell.
I’m surprised to hear you speak of the concept of a “Hollywood ending” as something relatively new. I think The Great Escape’s ending was as much of an aberration in its time as it would be in ours, if not more.
ReplyDeleteUnrelated, I seem to recall hearing something about Steve McQueen being a prima donna about the script because his character wasn’t enough of a central hero, and then ultimately being placated into what really he really did correctly assess as a supporting role.
I wasn't really thinking of this as a "Hollywood ending" as much as a "Nazis win" scenario. If it were about trying to escape from a WWI prison camp instead, I think a film made in the 1960s or today would have no trouble having it turn out this way. I guess what I'm saying is that, especially after 9/11, there seems to be a much stronger sense of discomfort with "the bad guys" at least surviving, if not winning. Can you imagine Private Ryan not being saved? Inglourious Basterds was pretty much a revenge fantasy based on the idea that the Nazis didn't lose badly enough. Somehow popular culture of the 1960s seemed to demonize Nazis much less than today's pop culture. Can any of the older readers of this blog chime in on this with some historical perspective?
ReplyDelete