Die den Tod nicht fürchten

Although Gary Cooper doesn't appear on screen for the first ten minutes or so, this movie is clearly his. Charlton Heston is billed second, and while his part is substantial, Cooper ultimately gets the meat of the movie. It's downright striking when Cooper, as Patch, first appears. This sea-wary captain looks nothing like the dapper romantic lead we associate with Cooper. He's grizzled, tired and dirty from head to toe. Cooper never got his universally-praised swan song moment before he passed, mainly because critics at the time panned a wonderful little movie called Love in the Afternoon based solely upon the age difference between Cooper and Audrey Hepburn.

You may not even notice, but there's very little dialog for the first forty minutes of this movie. There's such an eerie feeling, and so much going on visually, that dialog isn't even necessary. The special effects are stunning in this film. Everything in this picture, unlike contemporary movies, looks utterly believable. The beginning in particular has a few breathless sequences which certainly stand the test of time visually.

This picture is directed very capably by Michael Anderson; it nearly became an Alfred Hitchcock production before Hitchcock decided to make a little film called North by Northwest instead. No matter, Anderson, of Logan's Run and Around the World in Eighty Days fame, does a fine job at the helm. Heston plays his part, Sands, very well; free of the grandness and scope that people usually peg him for from the epics. Richard Harris also takes the villain role which could have easily come off as silly and made it dangerous and creepy.

I give this movie a 9 because I think the script could have used a couple lighter moments between Cooper and Heston. The ending scene, while a little short, was especially well-done. It takes on added emotional weight by the fact that this film would be Cooper's second to last. Watch this movie for Heston. Watch it for Harris. Watch it to see the pairing of two heavyweights in Cooper and Heston, but especially watch it for Cooper.

The night scenes are filmed very well but you must see them in wide-screen format or letter-boxed. For example, close scenes inside the ship at night are well filmed and staged, but literally won't make sense if not viewed letter-boxed. The outdoor sea scenes (almost all dark) are awesome, probably better than if they had been computer-generated. But again, the movements of the ships will not make sense if viewed other than letterbox. The story is largely told through movement- of ships, or of men moving around in the dark. I mention this to help any potential viewer.

Cooper gives a compelling, desperate performance that makes you really want to watch what happens to his character, Capt. Patch. Also, this is probably the most believable performance by Heston as an ordinary, non-historical, non sci-fi character. I was pleasantly surprised by both Cooper's and Heston's performances. Both performances are essentially very modern-style screen acting, and are not dated after these many years.

The supporting roles are undeveloped and one-dimensional, including the role so forcefully played by the young Richard Harris. Its a shame the great Virginia McKenna is so underused here. She could have made the film appeal to a broader-based audience. The other supporting actors (Alexander Knox at his most wooden) don't add to the film.

Even if you don't like seafaring stories, watch this for the acting by the two stars, and for the marvelous night cinematography. Film students and buffs should look carefully at the night scenes inside the ship and on the docks. You will see true night cinema work, with perfectly set light meters and minimalist lighting. In other words: nighttime lighting and camera artistry, not gimmicks.

The Wreck of the Mary Deare was the next to last film of Gary Cooper and it pairs him with Charlton Heston who was fresh off his Oscar from Ben-Hur. Between the two of them they were the heroes of six sound Cecil B. DeMille films. And this film does have some special effects old C.B. DeMille might have enjoyed.

Salvage tug captain Charlton Heston based in the UK comes across an abandoned freighter named the Mary Deare. Only Gary Cooper, sporting a head injury, and acting very mysterious is on the vessel. When raging seas prevent Heston from reboarding his ship, Cooper saves his life by hauling Heston on board when he can't hold on to the rope.

In the meantime Cooper completes his objective which was to beach the ship on a series of jagged rocks in the English Channel named the Minquieries. He's doing this because he suspects skullduggery from the crew and the late captain of the Mary Deare.

Americans Cooper and Heston are given good support by a cast of players from the UK such as Emlyn Williams, Michael Redgrave, Alexander Knox, and Mary Ure. The villain of the piece is second officer Richard Harris in one of his early and acclaimed parts before he became a star.

The Minquiries have a lot of legend about them. They are the top of an Atlantic based plateau. None of them are big enough to rate being called an island. Smugglers and pirates in centuries passed piled many a ship on them and looted the contents. Today the only thing on them are small fishing huts. They are a well known hazard to navigation.

The scenes involving the wrecking and salvage of the ship are well done. Many years ago I saw a picture of MGM's special effects man Buddy Gillespie inside the tank with the model of the Mary Deare. It was an interesting insight into the special effects game on the high seas.

Fans of both Cooper and Heston will like this film. I suspect C.B. DeMille regretted not having a chance to direct his two favorite leading men in a joint project.

I realize that great special effects shouldn't make or break a movie, and they don't here, but they ARE really terrific. The shipwreck scenes in the beginning of the film are not only great for 1958, they're great by today's standards too. I'd love to see a making of documentary. I'm so bored with the special effects "making of" docs of today. It's always that everything was first shot against a green screen, and then come the interviews with the SPX guys telling you what they did and how hard it was to do. "Yep, we just programmed the computer and went for coffee while it rendered the action". Yeah, really impressive. No computer here. This is the true essence of what used to be a CRAFT. Albeit scaled down, everything you see here on the screen actually existed in real life and not in cyberspace. I don't know if anyone will ever read this, or even care to compare, but watch the similar ship scenes in the newer version of King Kong and then compare them to what was done here almost 50 years sooner. IMHO, the scenes in the 2005 "King Kong" look more like a very realistic cartoon! Same thing with this years "Flyboys". The dogfights had a lot of great "camera" angles and thrilling sequences, but nowhere near as thrilling as done almost 80 years before for "Wings". And besides, that cartoon look clashes with the live action stuff. Yes, NOT using a computer WOULD have made things harder for the "Flyboys" and "Kong" crews, but if they're really any good they would have come up with better results! That's why the director of "The Fugitive" crashed a REAL train for the film rather than stoke up the computer chips. You really want real, you have to have real in there someplace! I really think that the film industry has it backwards. Huge budget films should spend all that money on the harder to do but more satisfying "hand crafted" SFX and leave the computer generated junk for the low budget flicks.

This movie certainly could have used a re-write on the script. While the main theme of the movie is wonderful, all the little pieces that make up the lot just don't add up together. Repeatedly, Gary Cooper's character does things that just don't make a lot of sense. And, for the most part, Charlton Heston just goes along with him--even though much of the time Cooper's character seems like a bit of a nutter! For these flaws, the film's rating goes down to 7.

So, how does the film STILL merit a good score overall? Well, the plot is very unusual and makes a lot of sense once all the pieces are put together. In other words, although there are SOME disparate and inconsistent elements in the plot, it is all tied together wonderfully at the end--like a really good mystery. See it also because it's one of Cooper's last films and he generally did a fine job (aside from occasionally seeming nuts).