The Silver Fleet

Dutchman Van Leyden (Richardson) knows his shipyard will be used by the Germans whether he like it or not, so chooses to play a dangerous double game, ostensibly playing along with the Germans -earning the ire of his countrymen who think he is a Quisling- whilst anonymously organising acts of sabotage under the name 'Piet Hein' -a historic Dutch naval hero.

Powell and Pressburger's film was made as war propaganda and it shows; however it is both a good film in its own right and it portrays the Germans in a less bad light than was originally intended.

The script is credited to Sewell and Wellesley, but the first draft was written by Emeric Pressburger, who had been forced out of Germany by the Nazis and had first hand experience of what they were like. He originally wrote it not only with threats of Nazi reprisals, but reprisals on civilians made real. He refused to have his name put to the script once these had been edited out by Sewell.

The story is inspired by real events; Dutch dockyard workers did hijack a Nazi submarine during WWII. Much of the film was shot at Denham studios, with dockyard scenes in Dundee and some street scenes in King's Lynn. Oddly enough parts of King's Lynn were built with Dutch-made bricks and tiles (they were brought back as ballast by ships exporting wool from East Anglia) so the resemblance to Dutch streets is more than coincidental.

It would have been easy to make every part in this film a mere caricature (as many are) but Richardson's role is much more nuanced than that. Nothing of course could do justice to the many selfless acts carried out by partisans during WWII but this does more than make a token gesture in that direction.

Overall this probably isn't one of P&P's best films but that certainly doesn't make it a bad film in absolute terms; it is a lofty canon. For what it was and when it was made it gets eight out of ten from me.

Dutch shipyard owner Ralph Richardson (van Leyden) works with the Nazis to allow his yard to manufacture submarines. Only does he? He certainly is at the helm in his organization to the extent that the townspeople don't trust him or his family that includes wife Googie Withers (Helene) and son Willem Akkerman (Willem). At the same time, the mysterious Piet Hein is masterminding some anti-Nazi underground sabotage. Can the 2 planned submarines be completed for Nazi use or can Piet Hein and his colleagues win the day?

First of all, the identity of Piet Hein is obvious from the very beginning but this is not to the detriment of the film. Just the opposite. It is necessary for the audience to know who he is in order for the film to work. The main cast – Richardson and Withers - are good and that includes young Willem Ackerman. I don't normally like kids in films but he plays his part well. However, at the opposite end of the spectrum, Bobby Davro turns up to play a comedy Gestapo officer with scrunched up face, woeful accent and typical comedy shouty Nazi attitude, He is dreadful! The film loses a mark for his performance given that he has so much screen time. Davro should just stick to performing bellyflops as he is most recently famous for.

The story doesn't rush things but this adds to the sentimentality of the proceedings at the film's end when the idea of human sacrifice comes into play. It's a sad end that is aimed to rally the audience to support the war effort and be brave. The film is told in flashback by Withers as she reads a diary and it is a good mechanism to unravel the story.

I missed the first few minutes of this (and somehow entirely missed the entire of Kathleen Byron's part unfortunately!) but was able to pick up the main plot line - Ralph Richardson is a Dutchman in charge of a shipyard who plays up to the Nazis to win their trust, but garners himself a bad reputation in the anti-Nazi community, which bodes poorly for his small son who gets beat up at school, and his wife, Googie Withers (the only reason I recorded this film!) who can't buy groceries anymore because no one will serve her. It's ultimately a very sad story but equally engrossing and you'll never guess who Piet Helm is!

This is a wonder of a film, completely unknown and gradually being discovered as an exceptional gem of priceless interest in the flood of war propaganda films of the second world war. Emeric Pressburger wrote the original story, and you can trace his hand everywhere, so that it actually could be suspected on reasonable grounds that this was an ordinary Powell- Pressburger film all through, but Vernon Sewell, who lived to be almost 98 and made many praiseworthy films, together with Gordon Wellesley softened the script somewhat and made it more stringent with marvellous results for the action, the developing plot of constant surprises, the very sensitive nuances of the characters and all supported by the perfectly adapted dramatic music by Allan Gray. Although Ralph Richardson makes as eloquent and clearcut a character as ever, always reliable for interesting and straight-backed integrity, the most interesting performance is by Esmond Knight as the leading nazi, making quite a nazi character out of the ordinary in hilarious serious caricature. Pressburger disagreed with turning the character thus, but it's a great success - you'll never forget his plater of spaghetti, perhaps the best scene in the film. In brief, this is a surprisingly sparkling film of suspense and intelligence to discover and enjoy and with great delight never to part with.

Released in the midst of 1943, this film emerges not only as a product of wartime urgency, but also as a calculated cultural weapon, forged in the crucible of Britain's effort to consolidate civilian morale and reinforce the mythology of individual resistance against totalitarian occupation. The historical moment of its production permeates every layer of its construction: from its austere mise-en-scène to its economical yet ideologically charged performances. Its technical modesty is unmistakable, yet not without craft; rather than relying on spectacle, the film turns inward, compressing tension into confined spaces and drawing suspense not from battles but from the slow, dangerous rhythm of subversion under surveillance.

The cinematography adopts a utilitarian style, frequently relying on shadow-filled interiors and subdued key lighting to suggest both psychological claustrophobia and the literal darkness under occupation. There is an intentional rigidity to the camera work, avoiding expressive movement in favor of composed, stable framings that mirror the protagonist's need for outward calm and inner calculation. It's in the deliberate absence of kinetic visuals that the film finds its unique tension-an effect enhanced by the sharply defined contrasts, often pushing the image toward high chiaroscuro in moments of moral reckoning. While the visual palette is limited, it is not careless; compositions are controlled, and the lack of visual flourish speaks to a kind of narrative discipline appropriate to the film's thematic core.

Sound design is equally measured, almost ascetic in its restraint. Ambient noise is sparse, reinforcing a sense of social vacuum and isolation under enemy control. The score, used with surgical precision, supports the drama without overwhelming it-a notable difference from the emotionally insistent cues found in many contemporary British productions of the same era. It avoids the overt sentimentalism one might expect, which lends it a psychological gravitas uncommon in wartime films primarily designed as morale boosters.

What elevates this film is its central performance, which avoids the typical binary of stoic heroism versus villainous excess. Instead, the lead exudes a kind of moral weariness beneath his calculated composure. His portrayal suggests not just bravery, but the loneliness of acting without visible allies-a subtle register that adds complexity to what might have been a propagandistic cipher. His adversaries, too, are rendered with an unexpectedly measured approach. There is no cartoonish villainy here, but rather a cold, procedural menace that is all the more chilling for its restraint. Secondary characters serve more as ideological functions than psychological portraits, but even within those limits, they are performed with conviction and clarity.

The influence of other wartime thrillers of the period is noticeable, particularly in the way ideological symbols are dramatized on screen. One moment in particular-in which a collaborator is publicly marked with a stark, accusatory letter-calls to mind Hangmen Also Die! (1943), then being produced in Hollywood under the direction of Fritz Lang. While the narrative frameworks differ, both films share a stylized depiction of occupied Europe filled with theatrical, almost ritualized acts of resistance. Given Lang's standing and his admiration among British filmmakers, the visual and thematic parallels are unlikely to be accidental. The gesture toward symbolic justice through visual branding aligns the film, at least momentarily, with the heightened moral stylization characteristic of Lang's exile-period cinema.

One of the film's more intriguing qualities is its tonal ambiguity. Although clearly intended as a work of wartime propaganda, it resists the urge to indulge in triumphalist tropes. Instead, it leans into doubt, portraying resistance not as glorious defiance but as a quiet, grinding calculus of risk. In this respect, it bears comparison to Went the Day Well? (1942), though where that film embraces moments of pastoral disruption and community awakening, this one chooses a more singular, introspective path. Its closest cousin in tone and subject matter might be Tomorrow We Live (1943), another sabotage narrative that leans into the morally gray choices forced upon occupied citizens. Yet this film is far more stripped-down in both style and scope, resisting even the melodramatic flourishes found in Uncensored (1942), which, while thematically similar, ultimately offers a far more conventional arc of resistance and victory.

This stylistic minimalism is in part dictated by the film's production context. The war had entered a new phase in 1943-Allied confidence was growing after El Alamein and Stalingrad, but victory was far from guaranteed. British wartime cinema of this period reflects this dual consciousness: a desire to affirm resistance, but also to reckon with the cost and moral strain of sustained defiance. This film does not offer hope as spectacle; it offers determination as quiet inevitability. It reflects the home front's psychological atmosphere more than any specific battlefield-a subtle nod to the micro-history of war, to the unrecorded acts of sabotage and moral decision-making that take place not in barracks or trenches, but in backrooms and dockyards.

There are, of course, limitations. The film's pacing-so carefully deliberate-occasionally drags under the weight of its own solemnity. In its commitment to understatement, it sometimes lapses into emotional monotony. Secondary characters, while competently portrayed, rarely escape the functional flatness of allegory, serving more as symbols than people. And its refusal to indulge in spectacle may leave viewers yearning for a more visceral representation of the stakes involved. Yet, within the framework it sets for itself, it remains remarkably coherent. The film draws its tension not from the scale of action, but from the gravity of quiet defiance-a slow-burning atmosphere that finds its power in understatement, and in doing so, it captures a form of wartime experience that is rarely dramatized with such internal precision.