Brennt Paris?

This film was a notorious turkey in 1966, but thanks to the recent DVD release it can be re-evaluated. It still doesn't come anywhere near classic status, but now we can see it in a format at least a little closer to how it should have been seen in the first place.

First, the dubbing -- the original theatrical release, which is the version released on VHS, is the single greatest case for subtitles in the history of film. It was execrable. On DVD, in French with English subtitles, the rhythms of the language are preserved and the distraction of having lip movement and the soundtrack so totally at odds with each other is gone. Unfortunately, the French track runs through the sequences featuring American stars, and that's a little disconcerting (though the French actor who dubbed Orson Welles does a very good Orson Welles impression). The solution of switching language tracks is inelegant, but useful. And there is no German track for the sequences featuring Gert Frobe. A better solution would have been to go the route of THE LONGEST DAY and run each sequence in the appropriate language with appropriate subtitles, but this film did not have a Darryl F. Zanuck producing it, willing to make those hard choices.

Second -- the screen format. Again, the VHS release was not letterboxed, and many of the shots and sequences demand the 2.35:1 ratio, particularly in the shots when the Resistance raises the French flag over the Prefecture of Police and Notre Dame. The VHS version is like going to Paris and looking at everything you see through a cardboard toilet paper tube.

What they couldn't do anything about in the DVD release was the "all-star" American actor casting. Kirk Douglas looks nothing like George Patton, and they made no effort to even try. Glenn Ford could have looked more like Omar Bradley with a little more attention to makeup, but when you're only in a couple of shots, and maybe working a couple of days, hey, why bother, right? At least with Orson Welles as Nordling and Robert Stack as Sibert we don't have the baggage of comparing a historic image to the image of the actor.

The biggest complaint about this movie was that it was confusing -- well, yes, but they were confusing times, which this movie brings out very well. But to the French a lot of the characters like Colonel Rol and General Leclerc are legendary. No real explanation of who they were and what they did is needed, like Patton would be to an American audience. So you really do have to know some of the background already. But for an American audience it is a lot easier if you don't try to keep straight who's who among the Resistance as long as you get the point, which IS clear, that there were several groups at odds with each other in the days before the Liberation and finally they were able to force the hand of the Allied generals and get them to change their strategy.

This film is basically a victim of American ethnocentrism. As an illustration: a while back I was visiting England not long after the film version of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN had been released, and it was shown on the flight over. At one point while I was there I was discussing the film with our English hosts, and they made the telling point that they never could understand what all the fuss about Watergate was about anyway. In Great Britain, a simple vote of no confidence would have been put to Parliament and the government would have been turned out in a Knightsbridge minute. In IS PARIS BURNING?, Americans have no idea of what Nordling (Orson Welles) is talking about when he asks the German General Choltitz (Gert Frobe) if he is prepared to take the responsibility for destroying a thousand years of culture, and mentions Notre Dame and Sainte-Chappelle. We all know Notre Dame (or think we do, hunchbacks and all that), but Sainte-Chappelle? Ay, there's the rub. Most Americans don't know that Sainte-Chappelle is the absolute jewel of High Gothic (13th century) architecture. Where Notre Dame is imposing and overwhelming, Sainte-Chappelle is elegant and delicate. And most Americans are not aware that Choltitz is one of the most interesting figures of the war. He had a reputation for being a very efficient destroyer of cities, which is why Hitler gave him the job in the first place -- Rotterdam is not mentioned in the film, though Stalingrad is -- but his face-to-face interview with Hitler when he was given the assignment for Paris convinced him that Hitler had completely lost his mind. His disobedience of the Fuhrer's order meant he was shunned by Wehrmacht veterans after the war, but he saved Paris.

But if you forget the "hey-there" stunt casting ("Hey there, it's Kirk Douglas! Hey there, it's Orson Welles!") and forget trying to identify every single character in every single plot thread, and instead view Paris itself as the central character around which everything else revolves, then IS PARIS BURNING? can be a very rewarding film.

Paul Wilson, Theatre Department, Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC

In August 1944, Adolf Hitler assigns General Dietrich von Choltitz (Gert Froebe) to be in the military governor of Paris and to burn the city in case of the Allied forces arrival. Meanwhile, the French resistance has internal fights of the different factions and leaderships. One French major convinces the Allied forces to liberate Paris from the Germans. General von Choltitz disobeys Hitler's orders and spares Paris from destruction.

"Paris brûle-t-il?", a.k.a. "Is Paris Burning?", is an underrated French super production about the liberation of Paris in World War II. It is impressive the number of stars in this movie, directed by René Clément; screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola; music by Maurice Jarre. There are many cameos of great actors and also a huge number of bit players. Unfortunately the dubbing in English is awful. Fortunately this German general did not destroy one of the most beautiful cities in the world. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Paris Está em Chamas?" ("Is Paris Burning?")

Although Hitler somehow survived the failed July assassination attempt his paranoia increased. One of the few high-ranking officers he felt he could still trust was Dietrich von Choltitz. He had served Hitler well and was an officer who could be relied upon to obey orders implicitly. Hitler appointed him Governor-General of Paris with instructions to restore order and if need be destroy Paris rather than let it fall into Allied hands. Every bridge and monument was mined. This and the general insurrection led by the French Communist Party combined to make this a momentous and perilous time in the history of the French capital. As the Allies approached, von Choltitz rescinded Hitler's order. Seventy-five years on it is almost impossible to appreciate just how close Paris came to total destuction.

These events should, in theory anyway, provide sufficient material for a first-class movie, especially with René Clément at the helm.

In reality alas the film is a dud. One can try and find reasons. Personally I think it is down to a variety of factors: at a little under three hours it rambles; the newsreel footage is far more interesting and thrilling than the filmed action; there is an irritating mish mash of accents with some decidedly dodgy dubbing; there are too many writers and far too many famous faces. One critic at the time observed that the flames were extinguished by the shower of stars! The performance that stands out is that of Orson Welles as Swedish Consul Raoul Nordling, an unsung hero whose diplomatic relationship with von Choltitz assuredly influenced the latter's thinking. This relationship is very well depicted in Volker Schloendorff's film 'Diplomacy' with Niels Arestrup and Andre Dussollier as General and Consul.

The scene that really packs a punch is the sight and sound of the bell of Notre Dame which had been silenced for over four years. This is especially poignant in light of the recent fire that engulfed this monumental edifice. Clement has also included a rendition of 'La Marseillaise' which never fails to move. Needless to say the film was a tremendous success in France and Maurice Jarre's rather hurdy-gurdy 'Paris Waltz' theme extremely popular in its own right. Big budget plus well known actors equals great film? In this case decidedly not. Strange indeed that 'The Longest Day' which had no less than five directors, seems to work better than this with just the one. The real star of course is Paris itself.

This film is a very well done dramatisation of the account of the liberation of Paris in August of 1944.History buffs take note;notice the mascot names of the tanks in General Leclerc's Free French armoured division.Many had Spanish names such as "Madrid" "Teruel" & "Zaragosa" as these vehicles were manned by anti-Fascist Spanish refugee fighters who played a largely important yet mostly un-acknowledged part largely ignored by mainstream historians about the WW2 period.

This is a good movie, but only if you have read the book. Otherwise, it would appear to be muddled and difficult to follow. There were so many different resistance factions operating in Paris at the time of the liberation it is difficult to keep them straight. The movie doesn't help you in that regard. Reading the book gives you a much better perspective on the part each faction played in the liberation.

The little vignettes you see with characters appearing in the film for only a few minutes are all true. Unfortunately, they don't always make sense to an uninformed viewer and they give the viewer the sense of a badly edited film.

The true story of the last few days before the liberation is extremely remarkable. Hitler sent a hard core general he trusted to destroy Paris. It is incredible that he disobeyed orders and saved the city.

What I really loved about the movie was the city itself. It is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. The film was shot mostly in the actual locations where the events portrayed took place. As a lover of history, I have been fortunate to have visited Paris more than once and walked these locations fully aware of what happened there. That makes this movie special for me. But, the film does have problems.

Besides being a bit disjointed, the French and German dialog were dubbed in English. It would have been better with subtitles, although many of the same actors did their own English dubbing. The film is in black and white, which doesn't bother me, but it might have been better in color. One of the main reasons for B&W was the Nazi flags. The French authorities refused to allow red and black Nazi flags to fly in Paris, even for a movie. They agreed only to have black and gray flags. But the black and white filming also allowed the blending of authentic war footage with the movie. Also remember that another similar film, The Longest Day, was shot a couple of years earlier in B&W.

The film is filled with a small army of great international actors. That was fun, although I didn't buy Kirk Douglas as General Patton. Gert Frobe (Goldfinger) was excellent as the German general in charge of Paris and Charles Boyer was also excellent in his small role. The music was composed by Maurice Jarre and is just wonderful. Whenever I am in Paris, the music continually runs through my head. As a side note, Jarre obviously borrowed much of this soundtrack for use in "Grand Prix".

In short, this is a historical movie rather than a great film. I recommend you read the book to get the full impact of the movie. But understand this remarkable story of the liberation is stranger than fiction, which makes it a good read. And, if you ever visit Paris the movie will take on a whole new perspective.