I'm really having some trouble here folks. What was the intent of this film supposed to be? I think it might have been better off over all if the picture went for straight out comedy without the traitor among the soldiers angle. For me, the tone of the picture was all wrong, and considering it was made only eight years after World War II ended, I think it borders on the disrespectful.
It all starts right at the beginning of the movie. American prisoners of war all seem to be well fed, a couple of them wear fur lined bomber jackets and even wrist watches are allowed. I had an uncle who was a prisoner of war and his weight dropped to eighty pounds; I don't think he was having the kind of 'fun' these soldiers seemed to be having. A German guard hands off his rifle to a prisoner so he could take a swat at a volleyball? A soldier washes his socks in a pot of potato soup? Russian women prisoners arrive at the camp and except for their attire, look like they might have stepped off the pages of a fashion magazine?
It's not only that, but there are huge inconsistencies in the story line as well. After the escape attempt to open the picture, the Germans state that the barrack would spend it's time filling in the escape tunnel. But there was no escape tunnel, the soldiers simply descended through a trap door under the building and crawled their way out. At the finale, Sergeant Sefton (William Holden) and Lieutenant Dunbar (Don Taylor) were making their way out exactly the same way.
Not to mention all the jovial camaraderie between the prisoners and Sergeant Schulz (Sig Ruman). All of this seemed so wrong to me that it detracted from the actual reveal of Price (Peter Graves) as the plant in the barrack to communicate with his superiors. That's another thing, who uses the term 'barrack' to describe a barracks? It is a real word by the way, I just looked it up, but the term 'barracks' is more properly used for both singular and plural. Just another thing to agitate me throughout the story.
If the film had kept to straight drama like it did for the last half hour or so I wouldn't be going on this rant, but I really couldn't determine what director Wilder was going for here. Apparently I'm in a minority considering the complementary reviews on this board and the film's rating, but I just don't get it. The most creative thing coming out of this picture were the messages passed via a chess piece.
It all starts right at the beginning of the movie. American prisoners of war all seem to be well fed, a couple of them wear fur lined bomber jackets and even wrist watches are allowed. I had an uncle who was a prisoner of war and his weight dropped to eighty pounds; I don't think he was having the kind of 'fun' these soldiers seemed to be having. A German guard hands off his rifle to a prisoner so he could take a swat at a volleyball? A soldier washes his socks in a pot of potato soup? Russian women prisoners arrive at the camp and except for their attire, look like they might have stepped off the pages of a fashion magazine?
It's not only that, but there are huge inconsistencies in the story line as well. After the escape attempt to open the picture, the Germans state that the barrack would spend it's time filling in the escape tunnel. But there was no escape tunnel, the soldiers simply descended through a trap door under the building and crawled their way out. At the finale, Sergeant Sefton (William Holden) and Lieutenant Dunbar (Don Taylor) were making their way out exactly the same way.
Not to mention all the jovial camaraderie between the prisoners and Sergeant Schulz (Sig Ruman). All of this seemed so wrong to me that it detracted from the actual reveal of Price (Peter Graves) as the plant in the barrack to communicate with his superiors. That's another thing, who uses the term 'barrack' to describe a barracks? It is a real word by the way, I just looked it up, but the term 'barracks' is more properly used for both singular and plural. Just another thing to agitate me throughout the story.
If the film had kept to straight drama like it did for the last half hour or so I wouldn't be going on this rant, but I really couldn't determine what director Wilder was going for here. Apparently I'm in a minority considering the complementary reviews on this board and the film's rating, but I just don't get it. The most creative thing coming out of this picture were the messages passed via a chess piece.