The Great Escape (1963) - movie review

Some time ago I wrote a blog post about the classic 1963 movie The Great Escape. Recently I watched the film again, and here are some more random thoughts about it.

One of the aspects of the film which intrigues me is the way in which relations between the camp authorities and the prisoners are portrayed. If not exactly warm or amicable, then there was at least some vague semblance of understanding, as fellow flyers perhaps?

The antipathy between the Luftwaffe officials running the camp and the Gestapo and SS is another significant sub-plot. This is displayed most clearly in the scene where "Big X" is first brought to the camp . One gets the impression that von Luger saw the Gestapo and the SS as enemies as much as he did the Allies. How closely all this was representative of the true historical picture remains open to discussion of course.

To most people The Great Escape is remembered for its action and adventure elements. However, it is often forgotten how much attention is devoted to moral issues and personal relationships. It's not exactly Ingmar Bergman, but the characters are not quite as one-dimensional as the film's reputation might imply.

Virgil Hilts, as played by Steve McQueen, is a rounded creation, and was seemingly a composite of several real-life characters. Truculent and abrasive, mostly towards his adversaries, but also capable of practicality and circumspection. His partnership with Ives is one of the more touching tangents in the movie. A similar scenario develops between Hendley (James Garner) and Blythe (Donald Pleasence). Contrasts in cultures and temperaments, but genuine warmth and affinity.

Mention of Hilts and Hendley leads us on to one of the perennially contentious topics surrounding The Great Escape, namely the notion that the American characters reap a disproportionate slice of the "glory". In my opinion this is a simplistic way of seeing matters. Yes, Steve McQueen participates in the iconic motorcycle sequences. However, at the same time it must be pointed out that the Americans come across as more realistic and measured in their approach to the proposed escape. Hilts, for example, initially questions the sanity of Bartlett's outlandish designs.

In contrast to their colleagues, the British seem to be placing too much emphasis on "duty", and are too sure of themselves, failing to take account of some sentiment and variables. There is a similar, if more acute, dynamic in The Bridge On The River Kwai, namely the tension between William Holden and his British colleagues.

As the character comes across in the film, Big X (as played by Richard Attenborough) is easy to admire and respect. He is the dynamic driving force and leader which all complex and fraught enterprises need. In Attenborough's portrayal he is single-minded, but watching the film unfold I wonder whether some of his subordinates are excessively deferential and receptive to his authority. Even Ramsey, who is nominally Big X's superior in the camp pecking order, seems powerless to intervene.

I know that it is churlish to nit-pick about the plausibility of aspects of the plot, but I'm going to do it anyway. The depiction of the planning stages for the escape makes one wonder how the Germans would not have uncovered or stumbled upon the preparations earlier than they did (they eventually found one of the tunnels). In all honesty, this small caveat does not detract from the quality of the film or its value as entertainment. After all this is a movie, not a documentary. Compromises such as this, and the compressing of timescales, were made to render the picture palatable and digestible for cinema-goers. The apparent ease with which Werner was able to procure a suitable camera for the prisoners is an example of this.

No minor gripes can obscure our admiration for the resourcefulness and courage required to get the escape bid organized in the first place, and co-ordinate the elaborate precautions. In spite of the occasional dissenting voice, there is a unity of purpose. The Germans scored an own goal by placing many officers together, with their obligations, and their wide range of technical expertise and personal attributes.

There are some "technical" matters which contribute to the flavour of The Great Escape. The tunneling scenes are beautifully shot, the set designs amply conveying the claustrophobia, the danger and the arduous nature of the work. The lighting in the tunnels is also beautifully executed and designed.

The sunlight in many of the "exterior" scenes has an almost baleful quality to it. This might have something to do with the film stock used, I'm not sure, and might therefore have been unintentional. Either way, it adds in a curious way to the atmosphere.

One of the more affecting relationships in the movie is that between Hendley and Werner, the camp guard. Werner's timid, vulnerable countenance belies a few stereotypes. These scenes almost leave one with a twinge of ambiguity, as the guard is manipulated and used by Hendley.

A criticism which I think is valid is that of the Gestapo and SS characters in the film. Both in their appearance and in their dialogue they feel like caricatures, and it is one of the few areas where a slight lack of finesse is discernible. Was it a rather clumsy attempt to introduce a clear contrast with the more moderate Luftwaffe personnel?

The pace and drama move up a notch with the "4th of July" festivities and the death of Ives. Elation and jollity turning to despair, but the grim resolve remained.

Does The Great Escape go on too long?  For the average 21st-century attention span maybe it does, but not to me. For a full appreciation of the intricacies and the twists, an above-average running time was imperative, and space is permitted for the various sub-texts to breathe.

Of the other acting performances, James Garner is assuredly, solidly impressive.  I have always liked him as an actor. Despite the often devious and underhand means which he employs, Hendley is a sympathetic character - compassionate, level-headed and strong, and Garner's persona is a major reason for this.

James Coburn's attempt at an Australian accent has attracted much comment down the years, but in his hands Sedgwick emerges as one of the most interesting figures in the group.  Despite his quirks, he displays more savvy than most in the aftermath of the escape.

The excitement and tension of the "post-escape" sequences is exacerbated by the contrast between the wide-open spaces of the German countryside and the confines of the camp. Life beyond the wire presented many perils, though. The escapees were running grievous risks, in wearing civilian clothing and carrying false identification papers, as is amply demonstrated in those sequences.

The Great Escape is not unremittingly gloomy, but neither is there much in the way of levity. The fate of those prisoners executed near the end reminds us that the realities could be very far removed from Boys' Own stuff, and also what this struggle was really about.

A thread which runs through the movie is that of Hilts' baseball glove and ball. It is unclear whether any special meaning was implied through this, but I suppose that the "thwack" of the ball hitting the wall of the cooler cell could be interpreted as a metaphor for defiance of the enemy, and/or a determination to carry on with established traditions. Also, a gesture of individualism, both directed at the enemy and against the world at large?

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!