Cross of Iron

[General Brock]

Hi all,

I just saw the movie Cross of Iron all the way through for the first time. Why has this movie not been praised to it's due?? It's a great movie and more than this, it's just about the ONLY good eastern front movie out there.. this would never be made today so enjoy it now.

[General Brock]

But as rare as a film like this is, can you imagine one from the Russian perspective?? Would never happen, at least not from any non Russian film maker. The USSR is the real enemy of WW2 despite policical posturing.

[JasonC]

Nazi punks, nazi punks, nazi punks

F...

You know the rest.

Yes it is a good movie, though it has some simply awful scenes and some simply laughable ones, too.

No, no grand political judgments follow.

[David I]

Sam Peckinpa's (spellings wrong I think) east front flick. I liked it, own it. General Brock and Jason are both right on this one. Excellent but seriously flawed. One of the few western movies about the East Front (although "A Time to Live and a Time to Die" a really good Italian movie, title forgotten, "Winter War" and "Stalingrad" come to mind).

Sam got the look and did a decent job on the novel. I would, however, recommend that you do not wear enemy head gear, and you should change that drum mag on the PPSH to sticks as soon as possible (I hate being shot at by my own guys). T-34/85's looked bitchin. Cpl Stiener with Sgt's tresse could have used an explination, needs a haircut too - bloody Colonel's pet.

One of these day's someone will do a bitchin movie from the Russian's perspective without the Soviet blatant propaganda. A recent, but difficult to watch movie "Come and See" was an interesting approach.

My two bits.

DavidI

[General Brock]

Well they did with the movie staring Jude Law. Enemy at the gates. (Come to think of it)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by General Brock:

Hi all,

I just saw the movie Cross of Iron all the way through for the first time. Why has this movie not been praised to it's due?? It's a great movie and more than this, it's just about the ONLY good eastern front movie out there.. this would never be made today so enjoy it now.

STALINGRAD was good though flawed.

Cross of Iron had good acting, but no one in it looked anything at all like an actual German soldier, from the fake uniforms to the 1970s hairdos and male afros. The production values were zero though probably okay for the time the film was made.

The book was much better; Willi Heinrich was an actual infantry officer in Russia. The story is loosely based on a real life Knight's Cross holder - more info on one of my websites at

http://deutschesoldaten.com/books/cross.htm

The film has some 1960s sensibilities thrown in for good measure - the inclusion of an SS "special action squad" soldier was ridiculous, for example. It would be unthinkable to portray German soldiers in any post war film as essentially anti-semetic, which the nation was, or expressing admiration for Hitler, which many actually did up until April 30th, 1945. Just as it would be unlikely to depict American, Canadian or British soldiers as racist, which they widely were, being mostly white (and in US combat units as a matter of policy, black were segregated out until late in the war) and possessed of a greater sense of "white man's burden" than would be acceptable today (and it is a good thing that has changed).

Good Eastern Front film you say? I'd like to see one that stops apologizing and faces the issue of who they really were head on. It's such a convoluted issue, I doubt even the Germans can untangle it all anymore.

[ August 03, 2007, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[stoat]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

(and in US combat units as a matter of policy, black were segregated out until late in the war)

The US Army wasn't desegregated until 1948. Blacks had to serve in separate combat units, though led almost entirely by white officers. Perhaps that's what you meant, and I just misunderstood. *shrugs*

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by stoat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

(and in US combat units as a matter of policy, black were segregated out until late in the war)

The US Army wasn't desegregated until 1948. Blacks had to serve in separate combat units, though led almost entirely by white officers. Perhaps that's what you meant, and I just misunderstood. *shrugs* </font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by General Brock:

Hi all,

I just saw the movie Cross of Iron all the way through for the first time. Why has this movie not been praised to it's due?? It's a great movie and more than this, it's just about the ONLY good eastern front movie out there.. this would never be made today so enjoy it now.

I have never understood why anyone likes this film -- I watched it years ago and recall it as the cinematic equivalent of the "flying guts picture library" school of comic trash. Nevertheless I hear people waxing lyrical about it from time to time. Would anyone care to attempt to explain why?

All the best,

John.

[Antman]

>>>>>Ruthless, ambitious, medal-hunting officer

causes the death of several good men, before

revealing his essential incompetence as the unit is overwhelmed by a massive enemy attack...

A grand and tragic theme, worthy of perhaps Tolstoy or Homer...James Mason is good, too.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by General Brock:

Hi all,

I just saw the movie Cross of Iron all the way through for the first time. Why has this movie not been praised to it's due?? It's a great movie and more than this, it's just about the ONLY good eastern front movie out there.. this would never be made today so enjoy it now.

I have never understood why anyone likes this film -- I watched it years ago and recall it as the cinematic equivalent of the "flying guts picture library" school of comic trash. Nevertheless I hear people waxing lyrical about it from time to time. Would anyone care to attempt to explain why?

All the best,

John. </font>

[Snowbart]

I love the movie. I think the best thing about it is the actual characters themselves. Coburn plays a great Steiner, and how can you not love Kruger and Snowbart?

Peckinpah's style is unique and helps emphasize the terrible things you are exposed to. For example, notice how most action scenes are slowed down dramatically, starting with the raid on the mortar section at the start.

[JasonC]

Mortar raid is the best part of the whole picture. Coburn is good throughout. I agree with John about most of the rest of it, though I still manage to find the main assault scene fun. Yes it is a bit comic book, but not "Battle of the Bulge" level idiocy.

As for why it is overpraised, see the first line of my first response.

[Snowbart]

And what a catchy tune the German nursery ryhme at the start is!

[undead reindeer cavalry]

regarding Eastern Front movies, you can get a good taste of Finnish movie "Winter War" at YouTube over here.

[The_Enigma]

I had taped the movie when i was younger but the tape ran out just after Steiner makes it back to his lines and the squad gets shot up.

There it ended, the tape ran out. I looked forward to the day i could catch it again, in the end i ended up buying it and was bitterly disappointed with the ending.

I do wonder what would have happened if they had not run out of money.

I think being overly critical of a movie due its realism back in the 70s seem a bit too far.

If you look at all the other films, Bride Too Far, Battle of the Bulge etc they all have there own faults i think that is just one of the things you have to accept when people make films (they have to take liberaties either due to availabilty, time or money).

To be honest, i dont care if they were wearing tartans or if they got shot a zillion times and didnt die, it was an entertaining movie (accept for the end lol)

[Michael Dorosh]

The ending wasn't that bad, to me. I didn't "get" it when I was younger, but it was a hell of a lot better than the Typical Hollywood Ending™ where the hero resolves all the conflict in the movie with a gun.

The book's ending was unsatisfying too; Steiner dies. Of course, for the amount of time they had in the movie, they did a good job of recreating the tension and drama of the book, which involved long scenes in the factory (in the book, it was on a waterfront) and switching POV between characters. The actual resolution of the conflict too place well after the factory - Triebig kills Schnurrbart there, too by the way - when Steiner stalks Stransky and his orderly and instead of inviting him to come find out "where the Iron Crosses grow" he simply scares the **** out of him and makes him run away, losing face. The movie ending provides more dramatic punch - basically, "let's see who the real man is."

Unfortunately, Stransky's bumbling can only come off as comic-book bungling in the final scenes - how likely is it he wouldn't know how to reload, or wear his helmet - but Schell did a good job throughout the movie of playing the pompous rich airhead one can forgive his performance in the ending.

Coburn, on the other hand, plays very nicely the guy with nothing to lose. In the book, his wife is dead, and the last thing he sees is her. In the movie, no one mentions his wife, though he doesn't know where his children are. Coburn's desperation in the last scenes is palpable. He has no idea what he wants - besides out of the Army - and simply walks in to ask "leaving without your Iron Cross, captain?" The invitation to go fight seems like an afterthought, but it works logically, emotionally, and cinematically.

All in my own opinion.

[Aragorn2002]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

regarding Eastern Front movies, you can get a good taste of Finnish movie "Winter War" at YouTube over here.

Indeed. I bought it a couple of weeks ago. Excellent, and a lot better than Cross of Iron.

[Michael Dorosh]

I should add that the only thing that bothers me about military movies from the German POV, aside from the apologetic "we didn't know what was happening" tone, is the demonization of the Iron Cross.

In Stalingrad, the captain/company commander shows up with the Knight's Cross, and is descibed as an idiot. It is implied he didn't deserve it.

In Cross of Iron, Steiner tosses his medal at Stransky and tells him it's just a worthless piece of metal. Colonel Brandt jokes that if Stransky wants the Iron Cross so badly, he could have one of his.

Yet a look at the literature of the time suggests that great importance was placed on these things. The Germans had an elaborate system of awards, and while it would not be uncommon for frontline soldiers to joke about how meaningless they were, the fact is they wore them all the time. To receive the Iron Cross, even in the I Class, was considered an honour. Stransky's hunting for it without deserving it is a perfectly rational characterization, but it seems to be the only one we see in movies from the German POV. Hitler was so proud of his Iron Cross that he wore it for the rest of his life. Unlike Mussolini, he knew what awards had importance, and didn't feel the need to decorate himself like other petty dictators. (Stalin did the same, I believe, wearing the Hero of the Soviet Union on its own). Hitler earned that EK I honestly, in the trenches, and so any number of other awards he could have given himself would have had no meaning. Compare to Hermann Goering, who oddly won medals honestly in the air in the Great War, but still insisted on bedecking himself with regalia.

I don't know that the average German soldier especially revered medals - "Blech" (Tin) was the nickname they used - but they certainly revered their Knight's Cross holders - the men who won them, for bravery or for leadership. Photos of newly created Ritterkreuzträger being carried off of parade on the shoulders of their men are not uncommon. It was a big deal to them. The closest we've seen in the movies is The Blue Max. George Peppard is also seen as an opportunist and a medal-hound - necessary for drama, I suppose - but the mixture of nervousness and gratitude at his investiture is real (and probably the limit of Peppard's limited acting range). They even had the Kaiser's gimped hand correctly portrayed IIRC.

I doubt very much we'll ever see a "war movie" in which the hero is given a Knight's Cross for his deeds and met with the acclaim of his men and a thankful German public. Perhaps that is just as well.

The investiture in Stalingrad was quite the opposite of Peppard's, of course. The bitter sergeant refusing to dress properly and having his award revoked is portrayed as a matter of little consequence. To us, it can be. To the men serving - I'm not sure they were so cavalier, but would love to know other opinions on that score. All front line soldiers who have seen action probably have a certain disdain for medals on many levels, but I can't believe they were so meaningless as we've seen portrayed on film.

When I visited an ex Panzer-Lehr officer, his Iron Cross I Class and Assault Badge were proudly framed in his den. He mentioned them more than once in conversation.

[The_Enigma]

I agree i found Stalingrad to be, again a good movie but there were scenes as you have described which seemed odd.

But i guess we all act like that, it doesnt have to be war or medels but everyday things which i guess you could use as a thin example, which do loose there meaning if you are thrust into a crappy situation etc (although if they dont actually provide that sort of context to explain said attitute it could just be like you have stated)

[Snowbart]

Agreed MD, awards meant a lot and were not tossed around such as Steiner suggested....I think his charachter was supposed be an extremely disillusioned old vet though. Who wouldnt be, but i agree that is probably a bit dramatic.

Overall though, Enigma has a great point...its way more accurate than most films of the time, or since.

[Crinius]

Why only films from the western point of view?

Dunno if they`re available in the US but I own a couple of Soviet movies which are rather good. Ok theyre full of propaganda from the Cold War but if you`re aware of this and keep it aside these movies are extremely enjoiyable.

http://www.amazon.de/Befreiung-Teil-1-5-6-DVDs/dp/B0007TFJDM/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/028-1918957-7098906?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1186557771&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.de/Morgengrauen-noch-still-Teil-DVDs/dp/B000CFX4UG/ref=pd_bxgy_d_text_b/028-1918957-7098906?ie=UTF8&qid=1186557771&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.de/Ich-war-neunzehn-Jaecki-Schwarz/dp/B00009CR8I/ref=pd_sbs_d_2/028-1918957-7098906?ie=UTF8&qid=1186557771&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.de/Come-See-UK-Alexej-Krawtschenko/dp/B000EOTSZA/ref=pd_sbs_d_1/028-1918957-7098906?ie=UTF8&qid=1186557771&sr=8-1

[onodoken]

Grogs will be grogs. Although the movie has a fair amount of "innacuracies" it is a story about soldiers, their day to day dealings with good and bad officers, about the loss of comrades, and the movie's final and more important statement about the ultimate absurdity of war. If you want "real" see a documentary, Cross of Iron is a great movie that any military man will enjoy.

[JasonC]

War isn't absurd. War for moral profanities is wrong and even the virtues it elicits are ultimately futile and self defeating in any consequential sense, but that is a side effect of the moral emptiness of the cause. (The whole point of such bits of art is of course to explore the moral issues involved in bravery in combat).

The figure of Steiner is meant to distinguish real valor from the propagandistic uses that the idea of it is manipulated to further, by bastards. As for the medals point others are discussing, they apparently do not see how central it is to this theme - those handing them out are mountebanks and manipulators and their esteem is not something any truly virtuous man wants or seeks.

They are not fit to judge the men they are praising; their praise is hollow and an attempt to manipulate men to a conduct that cannot actually be elicited by manipulation by the morally worthless. The desire of the morally worthless to emulate the morally worthy is hollow; they want the reputation or the ribbon but not the reality; the reality scares the daylights out of them. Because the reality requires precisely a contempt for worldly baubles, including any praise from the worthless, while regard for those things is the entire inner life of the morally shallow.

The "hero" can't even fight for the sake of his comrades (the most radical point the film tries to make) because too many of them are morally worthless themselves. He fights to not be as low and worthless as everything around himself, that is all. And this is without issue or consequence (to show no consequence is the point or motivation, merely the possible excellence itself). Ultimately, Steiner is brave merely because he is revolted by those around him who merely want or pretend to be and does not want to be as ugly as they are.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

War isn't absurd. War for moral profanities is wrong and even the virtues it elicits are ultimately futile and self defeating in any consequential sense, but that is a side effect of the moral emptiness of the cause.

And fighting a war for moral profanities while not recognizing that they are moral profanities isn't absurd? I find that thought...absurd.

The figure of Steiner is meant to distinguish real valor from the propagandistic uses that the idea of it is manipulated to further, by bastards. As for the medals point others are discussing, they apparently do not see how central it is to this theme - those handing them out are mountebanks and manipulators and their esteem is not something any truly virtuous man wants or seeks.

On the contrary, I don't think anyone's vision is faulty here. To suggest otherwise is only an act of self-elevation. But since you haven't lowered yourself to actually reply to specific comments, or indeed, do anyone the courtesy of using their name, there can be little further discussion on that point.

They are not fit to judge the men they are praising; their praise is hollow and an attempt to manipulate men to a conduct that cannot actually be elicited by manipulation by the morally worthless. The desire of the morally worthless to emulate the morally worthy is hollow; they want the reputation or the ribbon but not the reality; the reality scares the daylights out of them. Because the reality requires precisely a contempt for worldly baubles, including any praise from the worthless, while regard for those things is the entire inner life of the morally shallow.

Nonsense. The reality requires feats of bravery first and foremost; one doesn't have to adopt a contemptuous attitude towards medals in general in order to be brave enough to win one. And this is my point entirely. Do you think Joe Foss had a contempt for "worldly baubles" when he got stopped at the airport with his Medal of Honor? Hardly.

The "hero" can't even fight for the sake of his comrades (the most radical point the film tries to make) because too many of them are morally worthless themselves.

Which of Steiner's contemporaries are described as "morally worthless"? I think you're reading far too much of your ingrained anti-Nazi agenda into what you want the film to be about.

He fights to not be as low and worthless as everything around himself, that is all. And this is without issue or consequence (to show no consequence is the point or motivation, merely the possible excellence itself). Ultimately, Steiner is brave merely because he is revolted by those around him who merely want or pretend to be and does not want to be as ugly as they are.

Steiner's bravery predates Stransky's arrival; by the time he is on the scene, Steiner has already been decorated with the EK I and the close combat bar. He has saved Col Brandt's life (and Captain Kiesel's). There is nothing more or less morally reprehensible about Schurrbart, Kruger or the others than Steiner himself. Veiled references are made by Steiner to "do you think they'll ever forgive us for what we've done?" but these are not personal moral statements describing him or his immediate comrades.

I think if you read the book, you will find much more insight into Steiner than the film has allowed you. Steiner fights because he is responsible for the men placed under him. Their morality is of little consequence. This is why he opposes Stransky, and why the matter of Stransky's Iron Cross is seemingly inconsequential to him.