Stalag 17 (Billy Wilder, 1953)

Stalag 17 is another film by Billy Wilder which was made just two years after Ace in the Hole. Strangely, though, the film has a vastly different feel and atmosphere to it than Ace in the Hole. It is on a much lighter note, and can be billed almost as a comedy. This actually is quite perplexing, as this film is set in a Nazi POW camp during the Second World War. But hey, this is another genius stroke from Wilder, as the film mixes dark drama with light humour to great effect, and creates a film that is visually intriguing and always keeps the audience interested in the story.

The film follows a group of sergeants who live together in a barracks in the POW camp. They always attempt to scheme their way out of the camp, but whatever they try, the German guards are always a step ahead, thwarting all of their attempts. So, of course, they realize that someone amidst their group has to be selling the information to the Germans. The man everyone suspects is the cynical loner J.J. Sefton, played by William Holden with gusto. While the narrative then unfolds with this as its pretext, there is a lot more to this film than just the narrative. It is also a slice of life of the prisoners, and this area of the film is the comedy part. The interaction between the prisoners and the Germans are priceless, especially the way they know each other exactly. The Germans know that the Americans are trying to escape, and the Americans openly admit so, and in a way it becomes a compromise between the two factions. One of the best things about Billy Wilder films is how they blend humour and drama. I thought this worked at its very best in The Apartment, but it works very well here also. The comedy is a bit broader, and the contrast is a bit stronger, but it still works wonders, my favourite parts where the Sergeant nicknamed Animal’s obsession with Betty Grable throughout the film.

I thing the humour has a very important role in this film. The prisoners are constantly depressed about their situation and the meagre living conditions, but the humour keeps the spirit up, otherwise the film might have been too dark. So, in many ways, the film offers some of the best from two different worlds: wonderful broad humour and some wonderful visual storytelling when the William Holden character tries to find out who the traitor is. The films’ ending is also properly thrilling and satisfying. William Holden is great as the cynical outsider, trying to do the best with the situation he is stuck in. Like the films tone, the cinematography drifts between the light and the gritty, and some of the shots of William Holden contemplating look great, capturing his isolated nature perfectly and creating a sense of paranoia around him. Some might suggest that the mixture of World War Two and broad humour might be a tad bit tacky, but I don’t think so. It is simply a working-through, a way to handle the situation they are in psychologically. The film also handles it subject with a sense of grace and the respect it deserves, so it avoids just being stupid, a trap too many films fall into, especially today (e.g. Saving Private Ryan). But what this film has, which is featured in the best of Wilder’s films, is a penetrating gaze at the human subject and condition, vindicating our very nature and yet having a laugh at it.

Great film, again, from Billy Wilder. Not his best, but that is quite hard to achieve, and this stands as a wonderful classic of that great age of cinema. The casting is almost always perfect in Wilder films, and this is no different, with special remarks to William Holden’s performance, as well as the visual narrative parts and the slapstick parts. Wonderful experience.

Ace in the Hole (Billy Wilder, 1951)

Billy Wilder is perhaps one of the very best classic Hollywood directors, known for his stylistic dialogue and clever plots. His films are also darker than the usual thing you’ll find in Hollywood, particularly his film Sunset Blvd. I discovered this film when I found out that it was available as a criterion release, and even though I didn’t know much about it, I had to have it. It also stars one of my favourite actors of the era, Kirk Douglas, who I recently saw in Out of the Past and he was brilliant in Paths of Glory.

In this film, Kirk Douglas plays a reporter who is on the low point of his career, and seeks a job as a writer for a small newspaper in a town in the outskirts. Hoping to get his breaking story, he idly waits for it at his new job. A whole year goes by, with nothing spectacular happening and nothing relevant to report, he starts to grow frustrated. One day, on a mission for the newspaper, he comes by an old mine where a man is trapped deep down. He sees an opportunity for a human interests scoop, and quickly starts capitalizing on the emotions of the reader, and starts the rescue of the man. The rest of the film details how the protagonist, Tatum, covers the story and his control of all the events surrounding it. I think this film is perhaps Kirk Douglas’ best performance, even better than in Paths of Glory. He is a cynical business man type, who knows everything about the workings of news and how to utilize the media to its fullest. This is also, actually, one of Billy Wilder’s best efforts, the black and white cinematography of the barren desert is fantastic, and the way he continues to drive the narrative forward is excellent. But also, the film is very different from anything I have seen from Hollywood, it stands as a strong contrast to the classic story, and takes its own unique path, something that makes it one of the films of the time that stands out.

The film is a scathing indictment of the media and its potential to trick people and capitalize on their emotions. For its time, it is truly innovative, and it is kind of scary to see that it actually is worse today than before. The place where the man gets trapped becomes a tourist attraction, and Tatum’s handling of the situation is as brilliant as it is frightening. As the tourist attraction grows, the circus also comes, and it creates a great symbol for the media and the press. This is probably Billy Wilder’s darkest and most negative film, showing the greed of Tatum manifest itself in the community and people that he influences. Particularly the wife of the guy stuck in the mine is a very negative character, and unlike most Hollywood films of the time, here there is no redemption. There is a bit of subtle humour in there as well, and the film does work as a comedy in much the same manner as say Dr. Strangelove, but this is actually darker and more sinister. It is a film that is angry, and it sneers at humanity, as well as aptly point out our mistakes and foils. That is why, for me, the film left a strong emotional impact, and stands above most of Hollywood of the time. Its intelligence, the wry and sharp script, and the great performance by Kirk Douglas makes this film stand a whole bunch above the rest of the crop.

One of the finest by Billy Wilder, this might though not be for everyone’s tastes as it is a much more dark and sarcastic film than most from the time, and people who just want to be nostalgic or have a good laugh with a Hollywood classic might not like this film for its grittiness. However, I can do nothing but heap praise on this film, as it stands out as one of the finest of its time period, and in fact, it hasn’t aged in the slightest.

Sabrina (Billy Wilder, 1954)

Billy Wilder is one of my favorite directors of the classic Hollywood era, and Humphrey Bogart is one of my favorite actors. I thought; how can a film featuring Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, William Holden and Billy Wilder as the director not be anything else but great. Well, you might be surprised that it wasn’t that great, or maybe you are not surprised at all. Maybe when a film fills itself up too much with star power it is crushed under its own weight, or maybe the many egos just became too much for the production. Who knows?

The plot sort of relates to the Cinderella tale. The young Sabrina played by Hepburn lives in a huge mansion with her father who is the chauffer. She is in love with one of the family members who live there, the playboy type played by William Holden. His older brother, played by Bogart, is a cynical businessman. However, Sabrina cannot get the attention of the young playboy and is sent away by her father to become a Jedi knight, no wait; she is sent away by her father to become a cook in Paris. Two years go by at an alarming rate and she returns, now a proper gentleman of stature, sorry again; a proper lady. But all the narrative is for naught because I could tell how the film would end already in the first five minutes. This is one of the faults of watching too many movies, they can quickly become predictable, and this was indeed. Now that doesn’t mean all the while it wasn’t enjoying, because it quite was. There is a lot of humour in here, and that is quite good. I love Roman Holliday (William Wyler, 1953) and it was similar to this in many ways, however Sabrina falls a bit short. The chemistry between the three leads is also not too perfect; it works at times, but falls a bit flat. While Hepburn was great, the best actor was indeed John Williams, who played Sabrina’s father. He had an own sense of humour, and played greatly upon that. Bogey is also good, and takes a very different type of role than he usually does. Here he is not tough talking, but is quite weak, and not to good with the ladies, which lead to some funny scenes. William Holden, who I haven’t seen in too much, felt like he was a bit gone, and didn’t make a noticeable appearance.

What this film lacks compared to Roman Holiday or Billy Wilder’s other comedy masterpieces such as Some Like it Hot (1959) and The Apartment (1960) is that it isn’t particularly inventive. The jokes are good, some of the interaction between the actors is good, but on the whole the film feels slightly flat, particularly towards the end. Roman Holiday revoked much more in me and at the same time was funnier and sharper. Sabrina lacks an overall goal; it fumbles quite a bit at times. The film feels like it was hurried, not just in production but within itself as well. In my last review I complained about the film but still though Huston’s directing was great. Here though, I cannot say much about Billy Wilder’s directing. It’s okay, but lacks a bit subtlety that I usually find in his films. He also doesn’t feel as comfortable directing comedy here as he does later, and the film is far from as cynical as say Sunset Blvd. Although not being cynical is not a bad thing, it might have made this film more interesting, but as it stands it is a fairly straight forward comedy from classic Hollywood. The film lacks depth is what I feel is the main problem, and remains quite superficial.

I can understand why this was a hit in its day. It works on several levels, but looses its sight and falls flat a couple of times. I did enjoy it a bit, but the film didn’t leave me anything significant, and in the end I felt a bit down. A mediocre effort from Wilder, but Bogart and Hepburn do a good job.