The Great Escape

I recently viewed The Great Escape yet again. Rather than just write a dry "review" for this blog, I decided to examine a few of the neglected aspects of the film, as well as address a few myths, and generally make a few random observations.

One of the interesting subtexts in The Great Escape is the rapport which develops between individual British and American captives, in spite of the glaring clash of cultures.  The major instances of this are the tie-ups involving Hilts (Steve McQueen) and Ives, and then Hendley (James Garner) and Blythe.

The Hendley-Blythe collaboration was fascinating for several reasons. They seemed an unlikely duo, the streetwise, taciturn American and the rather eccentric Englishman, but the affection was genuine. Not really a case of opposites attracting, but more the recognition of essentially human qualities. Hendley sensed the vulnerability of Blythe, whose eyesight was deteriorating.

By agreeing to act as Blythe's escort during and after the escape, Hendley almost certainly saw his own chances of eventual freedom diminish. This brings us on to a perenially contentious subject, namely the role of the American characters in the movie. The screenwriters did push the prominence of the Americans in their adaptation of the story, but this does not tell us the whole story.

A frequent charge is that the Americans were portrayed as the most heroic and smart of the Allied POWs. There is some foundation to this, but equally I would assert that they were far from one-dimensional characters.  Hendley in particular shows much compassion, humanity and shrewdness in his dealings with others. This is an interesting counterpoint to his role as "the scrounger", during which he sometimes had to resort to less wholesome methods. However, on balance we can allow that on this occasion the ends justified the means!

It is tempting to draw the conclusion that Steve McQueen was the "action hero", and that the British and Commonwealth officers were the brains of the operation. That is an over-simplification. At times he showed genuine clarity of thought, while the British appeared to become mired in detail and bureaucracy.

How do we interpret the scene during which the US officers hold a ceremony to celebrate the Fourth of July?  One could choose to see it as a subtle dig at British imperialism, but I prefer to view the sequence as signifying the ability of the prisoners to acknowledge the past, but at the same time to recognise that they were now united in facing a common foe.

In assessing the contribution of the McQueen and Garner characters, it should also be recalled that the only escapees who were ultimately successful were non-American, and Hilts and Hendley, although surviving, were returned to captivity in the camp.

It is also probably true to say that the Americans expressed the most misgivings and cynicism about the whole enterprise, whereas the others appeared to be in thrall to Bartlett in particular. Towards the close of the film, the dissent in the ranks makes itself felt more, as the human cost begins to sink in, and much of the bravado and idealism dissolves.

When assessing The Great Escape, Bartlett (Big X) comes across as one of the less appealing characters, and one who I suspect divides opinion. The more I watch the film, the more I see him as vain and manipulative, even narcissistic. He was capable of persuading his men to do things which they might normally deem to be inadvisable.  At the same time, I can appreciate that he was the catalyst and the motivator,  and the one who made things happen.

Group Captain Ramsey (James Donald) initially sought to advise caution, and to act as a voice of reason and moderation, and to curb some of Big X's excesses. However, even his authority seemed to be over-ridden by the forceful personality of Bartlett. A more ideal formula may have been the zeal and vigour of the escape group leadership, tempered by cooler heads and the more detached approach of the likes of Ramsey.

It also seems to me that the MacDonald character (played by Gordon Jackson) is one of the weak links, although nominally seen as important. He displays sychophancy towards Bartlett at times, but Bartlett seems to have less than total confidence in him. Was excessive loyalty shown to some of the operatives, when their roles could have been more effectively performed by men from outside the "clique"?

One of the characters who shows some individuality and ploughs his own furrow is Sedgwick, the Australian. Mocked by his fellow prisoners for insisting on taking a suitcase with him on the escape, and constantly harrassed over deadlines, he displayed greater savvy and assurance than the others once it was every man for himself. As something of a loner and individualist myself, I could emphathise with Sedgwick's approach!

A part of the film which increasingly grates with me is the characterisation of the Gestapo men in the movie. They feel unduly "cartoonish", as if they were intended to be caricatures, derived straight from War Comics Central Casting. This, however, is quite a minor criticism in the overall scheme of things.

Over the years, much has been made about the supposed "rapport" between the Luftwaffe men staffing the camp and the Allied POWs. There may have been some level of understanding and common ground as "flyers", but it may have been over-emphasised. There was certainly a battle of wills, and if anything the Germans may have shown too much trust and leniency at the outset, and under-estimated the determination and resolve of the prisoners. The commandant and guards found it difficult to deal with the insubordination, defiance and sarcasm which they encountered.  Ironically, in seeking to distance themselves from, and ignore the advice of, the Gestapo and the SS, the camp authorities partly contributed to their own downfall. They allowed Bartlett to integrate with the others, rather than housing him separately.

One of the strengths of The Great Escape is its depth, certainly in comparison to most other mainstream war films. No doubt before long I will be writing a follow-up to this article, with more observations!