Stalag 17 (1953) User Reviews

A wonderful war film that dares to be different

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 15 November 2006]

This is one of Billy Wilder's best films and still stands up very well today. Unlike the concentration camps of the Holocaust, prison camps for Allied prisoners were actually not all that bad in comparison (except for how the Russian prisoners were treated--they were often just shot). So, the prisoners enjoyed a little more freedom and were constantly trying to deal with the incredible boredom of being locked up with very little to do. As a result, films about these camps (such as this one and THE GREAT ESCAPE) are few and far between--they would just be too dull to merit a movie. However, in the case of this film, the monotony is disrupted because there apparently is a snitch within the prisoners' ranks--some rat is tipping off the Commandant (director Otto Preminger--in one of his few acting roles) about escape attempts, major rule infractions and who the actual perpetrator of a major act of sabotage was.

Naturally, prisoners begin to think that William Holden is the snitch. After all, he is living incredibly well compared to all the other Allied prisoners in the camp due to all his money-making schemes and black market activities. In addition, he is so cynical and apparently unpatriotic that he has no desire to escape--he's more than willing to sit tight until the war is over since he is safe and happy! In this role, Holden's character is VERY similar to the one he played in BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI--where he is also a schemer and mostly focused on saving his own sorry butt! However, the problem of the snitch isn't so simply solved and much of the film is about how Holden proves he was NOT the spy for the Germans.

The movie is odd in that it is a combination of both drama and comedy--with alternating moods throughout the film. Some of the ways the bored prisoners create their own fun are incredibly funny (especially the "MEIN KAMPF" scene) and some of the moments are poignant and exciting (such as the escape at the end of the film). All this comes together wonderfully in the marvelous ending of the film. The movie features exceptional acting, writing and direction and is one of the best WWII films ever made. See it--it's well worth your time.

"Nobody has ever escaped from Stalag 17. Not alive, anyway."

[ackstasis · 9/10 · 17 February 2008]

Director Billy Wilder was certainly no stranger to the horrors of World War Two. He was born in Austria-Hungary {now Poland} in 1906, but moved to Berlin to begin a career in movies. However, following the rise of Adolf Hitler, Wilder – being Jewish – fled for Paris and then the United States. His mother, grandmother and stepfather died at the Auschwitz concentration camp. As such, I think it'd be safe to presume that Wilder housed a considerable hatred towards Nazis, which makes his POW-picture, 'Stalag 17 (1953),' all the more remarkable. Whereas the film might have developed into a bleak, depressing drama, the screenplay by Wilder and Edwin Blum {adapted from a play by Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcinski} effortlessly blends drama and comedy, clearing the path for other similarly-themed war-time films {David Lean's 'The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)' and John Sturges' 'The Great Escape (1963)'} and even TV series {'Hogan's Heroes (1965-1971)' clearly used Wilder's film as a template – including an identical Sgt. Schulz – despite a failed court case in which producers sued for infringement}.

The year is 1944, in the week before Christmas. Stalag 17, a Nazi prisoner-of-war camp, is situated somewhere along the Danube River, and hundreds of captured Allied sergeants have been imprisoned there. The Americans of Barrack 4 endure a dull, deprived lifestyle, with each day consisting of unwholesome meals, tedious labour and uncomfortable living conditions. Displaying that typical American cleverness and resourcefulness, many of the prisoners have banded together to ensure themselves a few added luxuries – such a makeshift radio to listen to the latest war news – and to build an effective escape tunnel beneath the camp. However, it soon becomes apparent that there is a Nazi spy within their midst. After two escaping prisoners are immediately shot down, and their escape passage is inexplicably discovered, the men turn their suspicions towards J.J. Sefton (William Holden), a selfish and arrogant prisoner with a dog-eat-dog mentality that sees him openly bribing the German guards for luxuries. An unsympathetic character, one who nonetheless exhibits a certain streak of integrity, Sefton decides to uncover the true traitor of Barrack 4.

Though he was reluctant to play such an unlikable character, Holden won the Best Actor Oscar for his powerful performance {via the second-shortest acceptance speech in Academy Awards history – a simple "thank you"}. The other actors in the film also create distinct and likable personalities, and I particularly enjoyed the big, oafish Animal (Robert Strauss) and Shapiro (Harvey Lembeck). Goodness knows what compelled the writers to make Sgt. Schulz (Sig Ruman), a loathsome tyrant in any other film, a jolly and hearty buffoon, but it works absolutely perfectly, his character's incompetence best highlighted in the sequence where he is distracted into playing volleyball, and enjoys the game so much that he hands his loaded weapon to the nearest POW. As Sefton attempts to uncover which fellow prisoner is leaving secret messages for their Nazis captors, Wilder intersperses the drama with an episodic flow of comedic situations, placing particularly emphasis on the means by which prisoners will alleviate their desire for the opposite sex. A hilarious sequence sees the drunken Animal mistaking his dressed-up bunk-mate for the cinema beauty Betty Grable, of whom he has an undying obsession.

In Defense of "Stalag 17"

[bleakeye · 8/10 · 24 July 2001]

In defense of this great film "Stalag 17", I would like to say a few things. First of all, William Holden's performance in this film gives this film a very big lead against many other films like it. Holden is a very good actor given a very good role here as Sefton, a soldier that uniquely accepts his situation. The other supporting, and even prominent roles are good but seems "intentionally" underdeveloped for the benefit of not complicating viewers with unnecessary information. The story, consisting of a "whodunit" plot, wartime ordeals, and amusing dialogue between the characters is superb for it's time. All in all, watching "Stalag 17" is at least a fine way to spend your time.

I've read many reviews that say that they were disappointed with this film. Some were annoyed because it wasn't as realistically gritty and tense like "Saving Private Ryan". Well, that's the effect of the Hays Offices (censorship officials of American produced movies during the past). I have to say that although it may have lacked the grittiness of Spielberg's film, it still surpasses "Saving Private Ryan" for it's honest approach to it's characters such as the POW that responds to his wife's letter ("I believe it.") with a certain kind of feeling that can truly be described as honest and the German "Wake up caller" Scherbach's constant joking around with POWs while remaining true to his kommandant's wishes. The 'Animal' and Shapiro characters were obviously created for comic relief but it should only be taken as that, comic relief (Hell, everyone's a comedian and at least they tried). Most anybody that was disappointed with this film were probably disappointed for it's strange association with the TV show "Hogan's Heroes". I must say that I don't care much for that certain show but I do like this film.

I really don't think that any film should ever be compared with another film or a TV show (unless it's a spinoff, then they're just asking for it) no matter how related they are. A movie is a movie on it's own and never with the help of another, no matter the similarities. This is a classic film, worthy of it's praise yet unworthy of it's negative critique. Nobody should let personal opinions be considered flaws. Just watch it, when you have the chance, with an open mind.

A great film headed by a classic director and strong star William Holden

[NoArrow · 4 August 2004]

William Holden is always in the shadows in `Stalag 17', he's always behind the characters or off to the side of the camera. You see, despite Holden's character Sgt. J.J. Sefton being the film's main character, he is only seen through the eyes of his fellow POWs, rarely ever alone. When they start to think he's the spy so do we. Oh, sure, we know he isn't the rat (movies don't do things like that), but since the story is told by all of the POWs who think Sefton is the rat, we start to think like them too. That is the mastery of Billy Wilder's `Stalag 17', it takes the film's most interesting character and sets him apart from the rest for most of the film, letting us learn about him as the characters do.

The story focuses on a group of POWs living in the American section of Stalag 17, supposedly the 's best POW camp. Among them are barracks chief Hoffy (Richard Erdman), Price (Peter Graves), Shapiro (Harvey Lembeck) and Animal Casava (Robert Strauss). They all have their own special job when their fellow prisoners try to escape, Price, for instance, is ‘security'. The film starts when two prisoners try to escape the barracks. Everyone inside is enthused, thinking the two will make it very far, except Sefton, who bets precious cigarettes that they wont make it past the outer forest. When he turns out to be right the POWs start thinking there's a rat and that rat is Sefton. And as the first hour passes we think so too, it's only logical, Sefton has any luxuries because of his deals with the s.

The POWs start to bully Sefton, and once they beat him to a pulp he decides to discover who the real rat is (at this point, of course, we know he is ). His investigation isn't handled with dialogue though, we get this by seeing his facial expressions and his lurking in the shadows of the barracks.

So, what starts as a light, `gung-ho' type war movie (there's lots of comedy in the first hour) turns into a dark, sort of gritty thriller with a twist that left me with my mouth open. I wont reveal it, but I'll just say that Sefton smartly solves the mystery and redeems himself to the rest of the barracks (I didn't spoil anything, come on, it's expected).

As I said, there's lots of comedy in the first hour and some in the second, mostly from Strauss and Lembeck's characters. Some of the comedy is key in showing how these characters cope with their nearly hopeless situation, handled well by Wilder and the actors (Strauss' performance even gained him an Oscar nomination) but some of it just seems tacked on and out of place, like when a drunken Strauss thinks that Lembeck is a hell.

But that is a small qualm, and the rest of the film is excellent. The direction and writing are great in showing us a war film, a mystery, a thriller and a dark comedy all at once. I'd have to say I like the acting the most though, Holden (who won a leading Oscar for his work in this) is suave and charming, as well as mischievous and cynical, he creates a real `cool' character without trying too. And the rest of the cast - Graves, Otto Preminger - are admirable as well. The POWs aren't clichés or caricatures, they're all their own separate people.

`Stalag 17' is great as a war movie, a mystery, a thriller and a dark comedy. It's a classic film, for all who appreciate good cinema, 8.5/10.

Underrated? - understatement!

[jmcsween90 · 10/10 · 28 February 2000]

In his lengthy and eventful career, Billy Wilder created many films that have rightly attained classic status, but his WWII prisoner of war comedy-drama Stalag 17 is arguably one of his best. The scripting is a perfect example of how to marry a tight plot with sharp dialogue and great characters, and the acting is flawless on all counts. While William Holden's performance as the cynical American sergeant rightly won him an Oscar, it is the comic antics of Robert Strauss and Harvey Lembeck that steal the show. And if there was ever a more entertaining ensemble of previously unseen (and sadly subsequently unheard of) supporting players - with the possible exception of Casablanca - I would love to see it. This film predates the more famous WWII pow film The Great Escape by more than a decade, but had Wilder, Holden and company not caused havoc in Stalag 17, the world would never have seen Steve McQueen play the cooler king with such wry aplomb. Stalag 17 is easily one of the finest films of its time, if not of all time, and I would encourage anyone who has never experienced its unique blend of cynicism, comedy, suspense and drama to check it out at the earliest available opportunity.

Another WW II POW classic.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 10/10 · 27 June 2008]

Despite the fact that this movie got made 10 years before the WW II POW classic "The Great Escape", the movie is still known as the 'other' WW II POW movie. While I do admit that "The Great Escpae" is still a better movie than this one ("The Great Escape" is probably one of my favorite all time movies) this movie is a great and classic one as well.

Just like "The Great Escape", the movie knows to create a perfect balance between its drama and comedy. This movie could easily been turned into a heavy war drama but instead a more light approach gets picked, without loosing any of its serious and more dramatic power. It makes the movie entertaining as well as effectively powerful. It can be assumed that "The Great Escape" and its style got inspired by this movie.

The movie is a 'great' portrayal of the lives of American officer POW's, in a German stalag. They try to make the best of it, with very limited resources. Every small thing and things that are out of the ordinary are the things that make them go through their days and is what's keeping them alive. The first halve of the movie isn't even about the William Holden character and he is just one of the boys. It isn't after about halve way through the movie that the story takes to take shape and the main plot of the movie becomes obvious. In advance you would just expect from this movie to be one about POW's trying to escape. But the story is way better written and layered than that though.

But it above all things is also a very well made and especially directed one, by 6 time Academy Award winner Billy Wilder. He also received a directing nomination for this movie. It's a '50's movie but it doesn't feel like one. The movie seems to be ahead of its time with its story handling, directing and just overall style of film-making. The camera-work is especially great and worth mentioning.

William Holden does a great job at portraying a complicated character. At first you just don't know what to think of him and he isn't a very likable character but he slowly turns into a strong and more important character, that starts doing the right thing. Holden also actually won an Oscar for his role in this movie, despite the fact that he never really wanted to do this movie. It was the only Oscar he ever got, which makes it quite ironic.

A great powerful, entertaining classic, which was truly ahead of its time.

10/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Quasi-realism and burlesque: a comedic drama

[DennisLittrell · 10/10 · 7 February 2004]

There was surprisingly enough a lot of humor in the American attitude toward the Nazis and the Germans during World War II. Life goes on even under the conditions of being prisoners of war, and people need to laugh. In such circumstances, they especially need to laugh. We can see that in some of the songs from that time and in this play from Donald Bevant and Edmund Trzcinski that Billy Wilder made into an unusually good movie. It should be realized that the full extent of the horror that the Nazis had visited upon Europe was not known until after the war was over and we saw the films of the concentration camps.

William Holden stars as Sgt J.J. Sefton whose amoral cynicism and gift for the cheap hustle allow him to feather his nest even while a prisoner of war.

He's the guy who always had a storehouse of cigarettes, booze, silk stockings, candy, etc. under his bunk, the guy who always won at cards, whose proposition bets always gave him the edge. We had a guy like that when I was in the army. We called him "Slick."

But William Holden's Sefton is more than Slick. He is outrageously cynical and uncommonly brave. He takes chances because he doesn't have the same kind of fear that others have. Most people would feel self-conscious (and nervous) eating a fried egg while everybody else in the barracks had watery-thin potato soup. Others might feel uncomfortable with bribing German guards for bottles of Riesling or tins of sardines. Not Sefton. He flaunts his store of goodies.

Perhaps that is overdone. Perhaps the real hardships that prisoners went through are glossed over in this comedic drama--a comedy, incidentally, that plays very much like a Broadway musical without the music. Perhaps it is the case that from the distance of 1953 the deprivations of Stalag 17 have faded from memory and it is the "good times" that are recalled.

At any rate, I think it is this kind of psychology that accounts for the success of this unusual blend of quasi-realism and burlesque. Certainly Stalag 17 has been widely imitated, most familiarly in the TV sit-com "Hogan's Heroes" and to some extent on Rowan and Martin's "Laugh-In." Roberto Benigni's Life Is Beautiful, on the other hand, which also finds humor in the horrific, is of a different genre. Like Ionesco's Rhinoceros, Benigni's movie is from the theater of the absurd, not the Broadway stage.

Holden won an Oscar for his performance and Robert Strauss who played Animal was nominated in a supporting role. Otto Preminger, the legendary director and producer, was excellent as the two-faced Col Von Scherbach, the ex-calvary commander and camp commandant who can only take a phone call from the high command with his boots on so he can click his heels. I also liked Sig Rumann as Sgt Johann Sebastian Schulz ("always making with the jokes, you Americans") whose previous career as a wrestler in the US accounts for his English-language skills. Gil Stratton, who for years did the sports for CBS Channel 2 in Los Angeles, is interesting as Sefton's sidekick and funky.

Indeed, what is responsible for the success of this movie as much as anything is this fine cast playing well-defined character roles. By the way, Strauss and Harvey Lembeck ("Sugar Lips" Shapiro) were reprising their roles from Broadway.

Important is the fine plot line in which Sefton is accused of being a spy for the Nazis while the real spy is exposed step by step. At first we don't know who it is, and then we do, and then the prisoners find out.

This should be compared with Sunset Boulevard (1950). While very different movies they have similar elements which reveal part of the psyche and methods of director Billy Wilder. First there is the anti-hero as the protagonist, in both cases played by William Holden. Then there is a lot of the old Hollywood crowd appearing in both films including directors appearing as actors, Erich von Stroheim (not to mention Cecil B. DeMille in his memorable cameo as himself) in Sunset Boulevard, and Otto Preminger here. Sig Rumann has over a 100 credits going back to at least the early thirties. Finally there is the discordant mix of comedic and dramatic elements, a mix that works on our psyches because life is to some very real extent filled with tragedy in close congruence with the laughable.

But see this for William Holden who was the kind of actor who was best playing a compromised character as here and as the failed writer/reluctant gigolo in Sunset Boulevard, an actor who drank too much and tended to undistinguished, but when carefully directed could rise above his intentions and give a sterling performance.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

the perennial 'feel-good' American POW movie

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 9 April 2008]

Billy Wilder's Stalag 17 relies on folds of comedy and a cynical attitude to elevate a story that seems out of a crime novel. Here we have a cast of characters, and the undercurrent is 'who's the rat?' in a bunker as the secrets shuffled around (i.e. that there's a tunnel for escape) and the Germans know right away. There's fun in that, and in being able to 2nd guess who the informant really is- at one point I thought the old adage "it's the quiet ones you got to watch" would come forward- but Wilder is brilliant at transforming this as some solid suspense and dramatic tension while ALSO making a really snappy (sometimes) dark comedy. It's a movie about personality, despite the plot being somewhat important, and with the actors themselves delivering a lot for the characters' sakes.

William Holden is the first given attribute as the star, playing the sort who, for a conventional movie-goer audience, seems easy to peg: too full of himself, sneaky, has the motive to be the informant. But as the layers come into focus, he's more than meets the eye, and Holden (against his better instincts, as he didn't want the role originally) fills it in with his subtle swagger and great sarcastic touch carried over from Sunset Blvd. Then there's Otto Premminger, a big surprise as he is mostly known as a director, as the Commandant, taking up and stealing every scene he's in (only Erich von Stroheim in Grand Illusion beats him out as tour-de-force Commandants). Then there's supporting work from the desperate 'clowns' (Robert Strauss's Betty Grable obsessed Animal and Harvey Lembeck's Shapiro), and the cool Don Talyer in a turn as Dunbar. They're all at their best.

While it almost appears to be more entertaining than it perhaps should- considering, as Cookie's opening narration says, movies about the army have been glamorized and this story is different- it's kind of like the Hollywood 50s answer to something like A Man Escaped. Bresson's film is cold and detached and immediate in dramatic impact, while Stalag 17 wants to be a big hit. There's a lot of humor, some unexpected, some that are meant to be big laughs (i.e. Animal and Shapiro's scheme to get into the Russian prison), and they all connect. It's simply a really entertaining movie that has transcended its period, thanks to Wilder's faith in (and more than likely proponent of) an ironic, witty sensibility to otherwise dark and gloomy cinematic terrain.

The first great WWII prison film, bordering on farce, but compact and terrific

[secondtake · 7/10 · 29 January 2011]

Stalag 17 (1953)

A far reaching precursor to the Stalag 13 of television's "Hogan's Heroes" and a bracing splash in the face for Americans grasping, still, the repercussions of WWII, "Stalag 17" was and is sharp, funny, and compact. On one simple level, it's enjoyable as a tightly made film, period. The acting, writing, editing, and photography--coordinated of course by now legendary director Billy Wilder--snaps like a whip, and two hours goes by fast. A host of minor actors pull of major performances, and the one really big name, William Holden, has the most unusual role, and he gives it an unfriendly edge that really helps save the movie.

Save the movie, that is, from a kind of frivolousness. It is, at its core, a really well made sitcom. The situation is a Nazi prison camp, not the kind of place we expect humor. And the comedy comes from making fun of the Nazis, who are always fair game. The reference to "Hogan's Heroes" is no joke, for those who have seen that 1960s series around the same situation (even including a comic Sgt. Schultz). The producers of "Stalag 17" sued the producers of "Hogan's Heroes" and won. But Stalag is not just a comic romp. There are shades of bitterness that reflect a real camp--almost the kind of gallows humor you need to survive a horrible situation. And there is also a serious strand about who you can trust, about finding the traitor on the inside, and about persecuting the wrong man.

Strictly a studio production, this falls just three years after Wilder's "Sunset Blvd"which uses Holden in another embittered role, and which makes fun of studio productions and Hollywood in general. Though based on a Broadway play, it rises above any sense of being set on a stage, and yet it really does not achieve any sense of realism. It's just short of a farce. The narration at the start announces that here, at last, we will have a movie not about the front and fighting, but about prisoners in a prison camp. It announces, that is, that it will be a different kind of WWII film.

And it is. Holden won best actor for his role. Otto Preminger, the great German director working in Hollywood (and bucking the censors there), plays the commandant of the prison. And Peter Graves is another prominent prisoner, a counterpart to Holden. The photography is by none other than the great Ernest Laszlo, and Franz Waxman heads up the music. It's no wonder it's a smart, sharp, snappy film. What it isn't, however, is deep or probing or moving. It's an entertainment, and a great one, but it keeps any larger expectations in check. And so should you.

Suspenseful and Engaging

[blankica · 10/10 · 20 November 2005]

I'm a woman younger than 30.

Saw it for the first time in 2005- knew nothing about the director or the actors- and I couldn't turn away because I needed to know the answer to the mystery. The acting is superb, the dialogue quick, the plot unexpected. The film seems fresh and subtle compared to Hollywood films of now. Perhaps this is because the special effects are simple; the emphasis is on dialogue. We also watch for clues in the changing surroundings and the characters in the shadows.

I held my breath for the last few minutes. Even after the movie had ended, I wondered "What will happen now? Will the guards burst into the barrack? What will happen the next morning?" The last seconds of the film are peaceful, but the whistling at the end seems too hopeful...surely something will go still wrong!

Nazi Prison Camp Rigmarole

[Karl Self · 6/10 · 31 August 2008]

Stalag 17 is easily the strangest movie I've ever seen. It's a whodunnit, a slapstick comedy, a thriller, and a gritty war movie, all rolled into one. Made by people, Billy Wilder among them, who knew full well about the horrors of Nazi camps, and a mere eight years after the end of the war. And this wild concoction managed to snaffle an Oscar and was later ripped off as a TV series. Wow.

While this has some hallmarks of Billy Wilder's genius, it's simply too wild a mixture. I never knew whether to laugh about the prison guards or to be afraid of them, and ended up doing neither. For the same reason the suspense doesn't work. The humour from the comedic trio Animal, Shapiro and Sgt. Schulz ("Do you speaken ze German?" - "Ya!" - "Then droppen Sie dead!") or Marko The Mailman ("Alright, at ease, at ease!") was a bit too low-brow and grinding for my taste, and eventually got onto my nerves.

Watch out for the evil Nazi camp commander played by Otto Preminger, an Austro-Hungarian Jew like Wilder. I'm sure he had a blast in his role.

While it's probably safe to say that no real POW camp was much like the depicted Stalag 17, the movie wasn't that far off the mark in many aspects. For an Anglo-American or French POW, life at such a camp probably was an ambivalent experience. I guess the jovial rapport between the prisoners and guardsman Schulz, for example, wasn't entirely without precedent. But don't make the mistake of mixing up the relatively sheltered situation at camps for Western POWs with the situation of Russian POWs (who were routinely murdered), the situation in concentration camps inside the Reich or even the large extermination camps in Eastern Europe.

Incidentally, I visited the memorial site of a real Stalag the day after I saw the movie. The contrast couldn't have been bigger. While the depicted Stalag 17 was like a summer camp behind barbed wire set in idyllic California, the camp I visited was an enormous, industrialised affair, with many tens of thousands of prisoners from all around the globe. And the nearby camp of foxy female prisoners was sadly lacking.

The title is erroneous, by the way. A POW camp set inside of the German empire would have been numbered with Roman numerals, i. e. "Stalag XVII".

Anyway, the movie. Like I said, it's a mixed bag, and hasn't aged too well. There are better Billy Wilder movies.

If Billy Wilder were making this today.

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 14 July 2005]

Stalag 17 is my favorite Billy Wilder film. This is Wilder at the top of his cynical game. Not a frame of film is wasted in this movie and even the most minute performances shine.

Of course the big prize here is the Oscar won by William Holden for Best Actor of 1953. In a recent biography of Wilder, I learned that Kirk Douglas was Wilder's original choice to play Sefton. Douglas wanted to do it and I'm sure would have been very good in the part, but he had prior commitments. So Wilder turned to Holden with whom he had done Sunset Boulevard and the results were sensational.

While making the film, Holden grew to hate his character. He urged Wilder to do something to soften Sefton and Wilder refused. I think the results vindicate Wilder and Holden was the first to agree.

Stalag 17 was a play set in only the barracks for the stage. To adapt it for the screen, Wilder created one character that was not in the original play, that of Cookie. Gil Stratton's performance blends so nicely in with the cast that that fact came as something of a surprise to me. Cookie is the offscreen narrator and it is through his eyes in which we see the action unfold.

Wilder has such a marvelous sense of the absurd here. In Stalag 17 he created in my opinion one of the great absurd moments in film history. During the mail call scene Harvey Lembeck is getting a ton of letters and poor Bob Strauss is pining away that no one wrote to him. He questions Lembeck and he finds that all the letters were from a collection agency about his overdue payments on his Plymouth.

Instead of love letters to "Sugar Lips" Shapiro, the collection agency wants "the third payment on the Plymouth, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, they want the Plymouth."

I don't know about the rest of you, but the sublime absurdity of a collection agency tracking some soldier all the way to a POW camp in Germany for overdue car payments just cracks me up every time I see Stalag 17.

Lembeck and Strauss were a great team together. Strauss was nominated for best Supporting Actor, but lost to Frank Sinatra.

Lembeck has another favorite moment of mine in the film. The main plot is to discover who in the barracks is a stoolie. Almost at the end of the film when the stoolie is discovered, the stoolie tries to protest. Lembeck, who's been a comic character throughout the film, drops his voice down and just says "he said to shut up." There is such a chill in his voice it will frighten the audience. Again sublime film technique by a master.

If Billy Wilder were making the film today some of the homoerotic overtones would be a lot more explicit. These men have not had any female companionship for a while and I'm sure some of the other prisoners would have started looking good. There's the Christmas dance in which poor Bob Strauss with some homemade hooch in him, starts dancing with Harvey Lembeck and thinking she's Betty Grable because Lembeck is in some impromptu drag.

Also at the dance the blonde naive pretty kid Peterson played by Robert Shawley who you see being held rather tightly by one of the other prisoners. That was about as far as you could go back in 1953.

In fact one of the reasons that Holden is hated so much by the rest of the barracks is that he's worked it out so he could consort with the Russian female prisoners in another part of the camp. The best thing the rest of them have in that barracks is Robert Shawley. He'd be a lot more explicitly gay by necessity or maybe even inclination today.

Fellow director Otto Preminger is great as the camp commandant and Billy Wilder favorite Sig Ruman is Sergeant Schultz. But he's not your Hogan's Heroes Sergeant Schultz. In fact as the plot unfolds Ruman is not quite the buffoon as we are originally led to think. It's a very subtle piece of acting by Sig Ruman, probably the best performance in his career.

In fact Stalag 17 is a wonderful ensemble gathering of great players performing a timeless story.

"Sort of rough, one American squealing on other Americans."

[classicsoncall · 6/10 · 20 February 2016]

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.

Excellent drama that tries too hard to be a comedy

[Whythorne · 5/10 · 21 February 2008]

This is a difficult film to rate because there are equal parts that deserve a ten and those that deserve a one. That's why I rate this a five.

The plot elements that focus on the drama and intrigue of an informer in the midst of allied prisoners in a German WWII prison camp are excellent. If the film had focused only on that, along with the addition of the acting and screen presence of William Holden, this would have been a wonderful film. Unfortunately, it is hindered by an overabundance of stupid shenanigans by a few characters who are supposed to be the standard comic relief. I think the intention was to depict these figures as lovable goofballs who are doing what they can to cope with prison life. That intention fails completely, since they never give any indication that life in the POW camp is anything but a time for frivolity and pranks, as if they are just grade school brats away at summer camp.

Evidently, the idea was to have a film that was half-comedy and half-drama, but the comedic portions come off as annoying, time-consuming filler until the film can resume the interesting drama - and real story - involving Holden as the self-centered and unpopular fellow prisoner who is singled out as the traitor in the barracks.

Actually, the dry, cynical humor from Holden and some others would have provided just the right balance of comic relief. Unfortunately, the scenes in which the Shapiro and "Animal" characters all-too often dominate are virtually unbearable. Their inane antics are pathetically unfunny. The presence of the "Animal" in particular is made even more repulsive by the over-the-top attempt to appear grungy-charming while only coming off as a constant, grotesque and distracting irritant to what you really want to see.

It really is a shame. You can also take away the guy with the nasally voice who reads announcements. Toss him out with Shapiro, and the "Animal" and actually you might have a very enjoyable film.

Absorbing & Very Entertaining

[Snow Leopard · 16 September 2004]

This absorbing and very entertaining movie creates a believable and interesting cast of characters, puts them into an intriguing story, and uses its settings, props, and other resources very creatively. It is a fine combination of drama and comic relief that stands up very well against anything else of its type. The setting and atmosphere are quite believable, and they make it easy to enter the characters' world.

The opening sequence sets up everything nicely, with most of POW's helping two of the prisoners in an escape attempt, while William Holden as the cynical Sefton separates himself from the rest. Sefton is interesting enough as it is, a man who simply by remaining true to his nature cannot help arousing suspicion and antagonism, and Holden was quite a good choice to play him. The story builds up nicely, with developments coming at a careful pace, and some good stretches of lighter material.

There are numerous interesting characters and good performances among the other prisoners, and in particular Robert Strauss and Harvey Lembeck steal more than one scene with their antics which, though goofy, are also an appropriate complement to the main plot and the setting. The German characters are more stylized, but both Sig Ruman and Otto Preminger make them come to life, and help them fit in seamlessly with the others.

Billy Wilder's direction and the photography also deserve praise. Besides the way that each sequence fits together so nicely with the others, there are several individual scenes and shots that are done in an impressive fashion - not flashy, but creative and thoughtful. The scene with Holden lying on his cot while most of the others sing and celebrate is one particularly good example. There is a wealth of good material throughout, making "Stalag 17" a classic that has lost nothing over the years, and one that can be seen and enjoyed several times.

One of Billy Wilder's best!

[Eli-Tuco · 10/10 · 28 April 2013]

One of my all time favorite movies which I never tire of seeing. We must remember that this is a comedy of a war movie.

This film has an all star cast, great dialog and directed by an Academy award winning director.

The setting is in a WWII German prison camp where U.S. servicemen try to find a way to escape. But the Germans seem to be one step ahead and foil these attempts.

In the mix of all of this is a great comedy performance by actors Robert Strauss and Harbey Lembeck, two of the camps clowns.

Not to forget the Academy award winning performance of William Holden who barters his way around camp for those "extra items" or for "extra curricular activities". There's a serious side to this film which is why Billy Wilfer again won't disappoint. It's a must-have film to add to one's movie library.

Top notch WWII film. A must see.

[eaglejet98 · 10/10 · 7 November 2003]

Some viewers criticize Stalag 17 for technical inaccuracies and conflicts between comedy and drama in the story. I strongly disagree. I think the film is perfect.

I saw Stalag 17 in 1954 at age seven, with my late uncle. He was shot down over Germany in 1944 and spent 14 months in Stalag Luft I (Barth, Germany). He said the film was an accurate depiction of "kriegie" life.

When I was a teenager he and I discussed the film and both agreed it was excellent. Yes, there was much suffering and death in POW camps. But he said there was humor as well. In fact, it was the only way he maintained his sanity. His POW Log (a hard cover diary type book with blank pages for writing and drawing, donated to POWs by the International Red Cross) contained many tales of POW hi-jinks and other funny stories, so I think that aspect of the movie was on target.

American and British POWs viewed escape as both a serious endeavor and a "game" to outwit the Germans. The Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio has a display devoted to Luftwaffe POW camps and displays one German poster from 1944-45 that declared "Escape activity is no longer considered a game and POWs attempting to escape will be shot", so it appears that, at least up to the last year of the war, both sides saw escape activity as a test of will and competition. It also reduced boredom, on both sides.

Viewing this film, one should remember the Luftwaffe considered allied airmen to be brothers of sorts and gave them better treatment than other POWs received. And they certainly treated military prisoners much better than civilians in concentration camps. On the other hand, the Japanese were extremely brutal to all prisoners. An excellent film about Japanese POW Camps is 1965's adaptation of James Clavelle's book "King Rat", with George Segal, who also plays a character like Sefton. Clavelle also co-wrote the screenplay for The Great Escape.

Stalag 17 is well paced and the characters fully developed. William Holden is perfect as Sefton. I think he was probably the first film anti-hero; a role he played throughout his acting career (Bridge on the River Kwai; The Bridges at Toko-Ri). Sefton wasn't a collaborator. He just "traded sharper than other guys". And of course he ran lucrative floating games of chance and a black market operation.

Neville Brand shines as a tough POW who hates Sefton and leads a group who give him a 'blanket party' one night. Shapiro and 'Animal' are classic clowns and foul ups who continuously provide hilarious comedy relief. Otto Preminger is nothing short of superb as the arrogant Prussian who was transferred from the cavalry to be a POW camp warden. His daily diatribes to the "sergeants" are priceless. Schultz is exactly what we expect, a mindless boob. Clearly, the TV series Hogan's Heroes' Sergeant Schultz was based on him. By the way, my uncle and I both thought Hogan's Heroes was absolute trash and an insult to all POWs.

POSSIBLE SPOILER: The best surprise in the entire movie is the discovery of the "stool pigeon". We never expect Peter Grave's character, Sgt. Price, to be the English speaking German masquerading as an American in order to rat out the POWs' escape plans. It is poetic justice that after Sefton is beaten up because the guys in his hut think he's the stoolie, he is the one who catches Price. 'Pricehoffer' (Graves) is gunned down by his "own soldaten", when he is tied up and noisily thrown out into the yard as a decoy the night Sefton and Lt. Dunbar escape.

In the end, Sefton does the right thing and clearly redeems himself. He uses an inner courage we didn't think he had to help LT Dunbar escape before he's turned over to the Gestapo as a saboteur. But then Sefton does do it for a reward from Dunbar's rich family, so he's still playing the angles up to the end.

This is one of the best films about WW II. Holden clearly deserved his best actor Oscar.

An Absolute Classic

[davidjanuzbrown · 10/10 · 14 August 2012]

I have read a lot of reviews of this film, and sad to say, people do not get it. The problem (From the POW point of view) is a lack of discipline. The way that "Animial" and "Blondie" conducted themselves would not be tolerated according to any kind of military code you can possibly think of. This goes back to Duke (Neville Brand) who as barracks head, is responsible. The exception to this is of course, Sefton (William Holden), who although out for himself, is always neat, and organized. This kind of lose atmosphere makes it easy for the Germans (Or any other enemy) to slip a mole into the camp. Spoilers: The reason I like Sefton is he is smart. He knows that he does not really have a chance of escape, and will wait out the rest of the war (If necessary). In particular he is smart not befriending anyone except "Cookie" (Gil Stratton), who the film is shown through the eyes of. There is an old NAVY adage, "Loose Lips Sink Ships" and there are always informants (If not outright moles) in almost every kind of prison environment, so Sefton's strategy is correct. It basically is survival for Sefton, until he is suspected of being a traitor by the camp(Two POWs were killed by the Germans), and he is given a "Blanket Party" by his fellow POW's and beaten up bad. He realizes his strategy of deal making and having fun with Russian Women will end, and he has to uncover the traitor or he will get killed. His opportunity comes, when Lt. James Dunbar (Don Taylor) is snatched out of the Commandant Von Scherbach's (Otto Preminger) office, and Von Scherbach needs to contact the mole in order to find out where he is. What happens is a phony air raid warning is given and the men are ordered out of the barracks, and Sgt. Schultz (Sig Ruman) meets with the mole who turns out to be Sgt. Price (Peter Graves), who runs security. They set up a system where Price signals Schultz by tying the cord on the light, and the air raid warning comes, and he sends notes to Von Scherbach via a chess piece. This time however, who is hiding in the shadows but Sefton who now knows the truth. But the key is proving it. What happens is the POW's have to hide Dunbar (It turned out to be in the water tower), and Price was going to be involved, but Sefton demanded to be guarded my security, so if something bad happens, they don't have a patsy. Thus Price has no idea where Dunbar is. At the end of the film, the plan is to smuggle Dunbar out of the camp, and Price volunteers to do it. Everyone agreed except Sefton says that Duke already turned over Dunbar to the Germans, and Duke says how he had to keep everyone off of Sefton, but keep his mouth shut. Sefton then starts to interrogate Price and asks him when did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, Price says December 7th. Sefton asks "What were you doing?" Price said "Eating Dinner". Sefton: "Eating Dinner in Berlin." Price said: "That means nothing, you are not listing to him are you?" Duke says "I want to hear what he has to say." Sefton then searches Price, and finds the chess piece, and has the proof he needs. Sefton then comes up with a plan about how to get Dunbar out of the tower, and the camp, which is to use Price as a decoy, throw him out in the yard, while Sefton takes Dunbar out. Duke is reluctant but Sefton points out "It is Price or Dunbar, its up to you?", and Animal says "if we kill him they can retaliate and if he is freed, he can be placed in another POW Camp, but if the Germans do it, nothing can happen to us." They agree to do it, and Price gets shot, and Von Scherbach has an evil smirk on his face, until he sees who got killed, as this occurs, Sefton and Dunbar get away. Much is made of the smile on Sefton's face when he said goodbye to the Camp, showing he is not the total hard ass as he seemed to be, but keep in mind, that he brought Dunbar with him, so he was a hero. What is unsaid but you know will happen is Von Scherbach and Schultz will pay for what happened to Price (The Reich did not tolerate failure) and will end up at the Russian Front or before a Court Martial. Note: Both were extremely deserving of this, in particular, Von Scherbach with his abuse of prisoners (In Nazi Germany itself, Field Marshal Hermann Goering would not approve of those actions (The Luftwaffe ran the POW Camps and he respected POW's, unlike the Gestapo, and what they did to Jews and other enemies of the state). Finally, I cannot believe anyone who has seen this film can give it less then 10/10 stars. It is an absolute classic.

Suspense more than comedy

[igornveiga · 8/10 · 24 July 2022]

Although the film has several comedy scenes, I believe that the focus of the film is not that, the story is very believable, it deals with espionage, anger, doubt, revolt, envy among other feelings. Approaching such a serious topic, comedy comes to alleviate the tensions experienced by the characters. A great movie, I think it ended up revealing its secret too soon.

A classic without a shadow of a doubt, showing in a relaxed way life in a camp of pioneers approaching aspects that may have happened in a certain way. Actors fluent in English and German is a great differential for the film as it further enriches the narrative.

Too Much Inappropriate Humour

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 30 January 2017]

At the beginning of this film the narrator, Sergeant Clarence Cook, states that although there are plenty of films about World War II you don't see many about the experiences of prisoners of war. This is certainly one of the earliest war films to deal with this subject, although not the very earliest. The earliest I can think of is the British-made "The Wooden Horse" from 1950; this was to be followed by the likes of "The Colditz Story", "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Danger Within", "The Great Escape" and "King Rat". Strangely enough, "Stalag 17" was made in 1952 but not released in that year, apparently because Paramount believed that audiences would not be interested in its subject-matter. They changed their minds the following year because the end of the Korean War and the subsequent release of American prisoners had focused public attention on the problems facing POWs.

The action takes place during December 1944 in a German POW camp "somewhere along the Danube" and concentrates on the inmates of one particular hut in the camp, all of them sergeants in the U.S. Air Force. The film opens with two men from the hut attempting to escape through a tunnel, but when they emerge outside the barbed wire fence they are shot dead by the guards. (This is unusual but not impossible; German guards generally preferred to recapture escaping prisoners alive rather than shoot them, although there were exceptions). The inmates conclude (correctly) that one of their number must be an informer who is letting the Germans know about planned escape attempts. ("Danger Within" also had a plot involving an informer inside a POW camp).

The most obvious suspect is J J Sefton, an enterprising would-be capitalist who has a knack for turning any situation to his own profit. (He is in many ways similar to King in "King Rat"). Although the other prisoners are happy to take advantage of Sefton's illicit alcohol and gambling rackets, he is not a popular figure, partly because of his cynical attitude- he regards escape attempts as foolish- and partly because he has no qualms about doing deals with the German guards for luxuries such as eggs, silk stockings and cigarettes. Of course, Sefton is so unpopular and such an obvious suspect that the audience will immediately realise that he must be innocent- indeed, much of the film is taken up with Sefton's efforts to clear his name by exposing the real traitor.

When I reviewed "From Here to Eternity" I had not yet seen "Stalag 17", so said that I would reserve judgement on the justice of William Holden's Best Actor Oscar, an award which he won ahead of Burt Lancaster and Montgomery Clift. Holden, in fact, always felt that he did not deserve the award and, having now seen "Stalag 17", I am inclined to agree with him. Certainly, his performance here as Sefton is a good one, but I felt that both Lancaster and Clift were better.

The film as a whole has the potential to be a very good one; it has an exciting plot, some well-observed characterisation and some well-written dialogue. Like some other reviewers, however, I feel that it suffers from the defect of too much inappropriate humour. It is, of course, quite possible to write a comedy set in a POW camp – the television series "Hogan's Heroes" was an example- but "Stalag 17" is not really intended as a comedy. It is, for the most part, a serious drama- it opens with two men being shot dead, and towards the end another character finds himself in danger of his life. Against this backdrop the antics of the German Feldwebel Johann Sebastian Schulz- clearly a frustrated comedian in civilian life- and of the American Sergeant Stanislas "Animal" Kuzawa- equally clearly a congenital idiot- seem rather out-of-place. "Animal", in particular, seems so mentally defective that I could not imagine why the U.S. Air Force ever accepted him in the first place, let alone promoted him to sergeant. I have heard it said that director Billy Wilder, himself a Jewish refugee from Nazism, found himself psychologically unable to deal with the subject of the war unless he leavened his seriousness with humour. That may be so, but I nevertheless feel that "Stalag 17" would have been a better film had it concentrated on its serious main plot rather than on its would-be humorous sub-plots. 6/10

The essential POW drama!

[jem132 · 10/10 · 7 April 2008]

This exciting POW drama has to be one of Wilder's best films. Like nearly all his work, it is extremely well-written, cynical and very witty. It also surprises how much (dark) humour Wilder managed to pull out this situation.

William Holden (winner of the Best Actor Oscar, an interesting and worthy choice by the Academy) stars as Sefton, a Sergeant in a POW camp in Germany in WW2, who may or not be selling out his fellow soldiers in order to get a better deal from the Nazi's. Another thing that really impressed me was how Wilder sustained the suspense of the plot (Who is the traitor?) for so long. Wilder encourages us, nay, implores us through his silently roving camera and objectivity, to question everyone. And we do, from Sefton to "Animal" to Joey.

This should be regarded as one of Wilder's best films. It's exceptional film-making. Wilder's films remain so fresh today because of his near-perfect scripts that have possess honesty instead of sentimentality, and his willingness to let his characters and story impress instead of burdening the film with showy technique. He also took on a range of different story lines. Bravo, Billy Wilder!

Solid film in the vein of (but preceding) the Great Escape

[ksneath · 7/10 · 9 March 2008]

Among the countless WWII films, there are a relative few that focus on what transpired in prison camps. The most famous of course is The Great Escape, which is well deserving of its recognition. This subject matter makes for a very watchable film, as Stalag 17 is.

The plot focuses around a "stoolie" within one of the bunkhouses. The captives in this house are constantly having their secrets discovered and their plans stymied, with sometimes serious consequences. Obviously there must be a traitor among them, but who is it? This problem creates a certain tension throughout most of the film and keeps the film quite viewable throughout. This movie does an excellent job of progressively revealing more and more about the true nature of what is happening (to the point where you know exactly what is going on), while at the same time sustaining the tension.

The film also provides much comic relief, some of which is genuinely funny, and some of which fell flat (in my opinion) and distracted from the actual plot. Particularly distracting was the over the top performance of Robert Strauss as "Animal" who was just too goofy for my tastes. In several scenes the film almost gains a "screwball" feeling, which didn't fit the content of this movie.

However, in spite of that the film is very well worth watching for its underlying plot and the interaction between many others of the cast. Good war film which deals with an unusual subject.

An Absolute Winner

[Jacknife-Megs · 9/10 · 23 December 2009]

Reading the plot Before I watched the movie I thought I was gonna set through a predictable , out-dated movie , this is not the case here , despite this movie was made before about 56 years ago it still holds its charm and it's absolutely more refreshing and original than almost every movie has ever tried to tease these genre , after all this years I think it stands out as the best Escape movie of all time , not counting The Shawshank Redemption .

What I like most about Stalag 17 is the character development , all the characters here are written clearly and carefully , with so many memorable characters that in the end you feel knowing all of them which leaves an impact on you that makes it one of the most well-written movies of all time .

The movie at times especially in the beginning is more of a comedy before it turns into drama , and the way the elements of comedy here is handled is just sharp-witted , in a way that it does not detract from the movie's credibility.

Recommended :)

Sentimental and Pushy

[vceross · 6/10 · 30 November 2008]

I was looking forward to seeing this film, after all the rave reviews, and was stunned by how flat-footed and obvious it was, not to mention how tone deaf it was. Hitchcock was a master at tone-blending (see, for example, North by Northwest). The tones in Stalag aren't integrated or meaningful. They're simply out of control, as the script veers from schtick to sentiment to hints of the brutal reality of World War II. Strauss and Lembeck are eating the scenery. Holden earns his name and Wilder's undying gratitude for giving this blather a center, providing someone to watch and something to think about. That said, the cinematographer and editor do a nice job despite being saddled with stage rather than film sets.

Edit!

[Sickfrog · 5/10 · 14 August 1998]

What is trapped inside this film is a wonderful, intense mystery drama. The reason I say trapped is because so much time is wasted on comedy relief. Now, in this film, everyone inside a POW bunker in WWII Germany is accusing Sefton of selling the Germans information, because of his ample supplies and acerbic attitude. And so, Sefton has to find out who the informant really is, before his co-prisoners fully decide to blame and punish him accordingly. Sounds like a really great premise, doesn't it? And when it does focus on the premise, it sure hits the mark. Sadly, the drama is unsustained as two characters are thrown in simply to do a comedy relief every other scene. Obviously, someone decided that a flat-out serious WWII drama just wouldn't have enough impact at the box office, and tried to make it more popcorn audience-friendly with these scenes. And sadly, that's what ruins this film. However, it is still worth it for any William Holden fans to view the only film for which he won and Oscar, and well deserved. Holden is cunning enough that it feels like he belongs on the modern cinema screen , as opposed to many stiff male actors of Hollywood's early year. Truly, I believe Holden to be among cinema's first realistic, modern actors. Also, a young Peter Graves gives a stellar performance as well. So, pick up this classic if you are a William Holden fan, though not before you've seen his better films, like "Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Network."