Corazón cautivo

The movie is a broad photo montage of several stories--from one setting--of British soldiers who were captured early in WWII (1941) and placed in a German POW camp. Is depicts what happens to them and their loved ones, back home, as they are separated by time and space.

How do the relationships change?

How do they remain the same?

What holds them together or drives them apart?

Four years can be like a lifetime to those it affects.

This is no Stalag 17 or Hogan's Heroes-type movie. I found the movie to be very engaging and enjoyable, even as half of a long-range relationship undergoes very big changes. Changes can range anywhere from physical disability, to "Dear John" letters, to birth and/or death. The relationship often—usually—depend on letters and photos back and forth.

Great plot, excellently under-stated performances, writing and direction. The fact that this film was made in 1946, so close to the events its depicts, seems to add an almost documentary-like quality to this film. Indeed, in the opening credits, the line 'Filmed in the British Zone of Western Germany' suggest that the realistic prison-camp scenes were probably shot in genuine locations. The cast is almost a repertory company of British 1940s actors - but no-one is taking an easy ride. There are fresh and challenging performances, even though the faces are familiar. What struck me is how the film is free of the gung-ho 'smart prisoners, dumb Krauts' type of prison camp film that dominated the genre later on. This film is the product of a people tired of war. At the same time, it retains some of the stiff upper lip feel of many British wartime films, but with the confidence of victory, it does not need to indulge in the 'beastly Hun' elements. Moving without being sentimental. A very 'human' film, only a few steps short of a masterpiece.

This is a deeply human and almost documentary account of the life of prisoners after Dunkirk who are not released until towards the end of the war, Michael Redgrave as the leading actor being far from alone among suffering fellow soldiers, as there is a number of tales told of dire destiny in this concentration camp of arduous fates. Redgrave is of course the most interesting case, a Czech escaped from the Germans and sought by Gestapo, hiding as an Englishman with a fake identity with suspiciously good knowledge of German, as his father was a diplomat in both London and Berlin. There is also Gordon Jackson with the loss of his sight and his despair about having to give up his betrothed, there is the family man whose wife is having a baby in his absence with that whole family story, there is the major (Basil Radford) struggling with the challenges of his responsibility, there are the sore trials used by the Germans make the camp existence more difficult than necessary for the prisoners, who nevertheless manage to break loose into comedy when an occasion arrives. It's heartrendingly human all the way, and the great love story developing in the ruins with inevitably critical consequences makes this film a definite and almost obligatory classic.

This is an immensely sensitive and very moving film about British POWs rounded up by the Germans at Dunkerque (Dunkirk) in 1940 and marched 220 miles to be interned for the rest of the War in a German POW camp. The film is half about them and half about their lives and loves back home, utilising flashbacks as well as real time events intercut with the men in the camp. The technique is carried out so well that it is highly effective and never seems forced. Much of the film was made in Germany, including the reconstruction of the POW camp. The film aimed for absolute authenticity, and was made with the passion and intensity which was perhaps only possible in the year immediately following the War, when all the issues raised were at their peak of relevance, both to the people making the film and the viewing public. The film is full of wonderful, sensitive and deeply-felt performances. They all really put their hearts into it, and it shows. For instance, rarely can the character actor Mervyn John have embodied such pathos. And the intensity of emotion conveyed by both Rachel Kempson and Jane Barrett is remarkable. Barrett died tragically young at the age of only 46, in 1969, having worked a great deal in television but never obtained the quality roles worthy of her in feature films. Thus she is little known today, but this film shows her qualities admirably. This was one of director Basil Dearden's finest films. He made it immediately after his two episodes of DEAD OF NIGHT (1946), and three years later he directed two episodes of the wonderful classic, TRAIN OF EVENTS (1949, see my review), one of which also dealt with prisoners of war. (The ironical thing is that Dearden made films all through the War and was not in the services, so had no military experience.) It is apparently in this film that Dearden's long professional association with Michael Relph commenced. Relph was both Associate Producer and Art Director on this film. Later he would produce most of Dearden's films. The lead role in this film is played by Michael Redgrave. He had already been married to Rachel Kempson for eleven years when they played in this film together. Redgrave plays a Czech soldier who has escaped from Dachau and is being hunted by the Germans. He speaks perfect English and indeed has been Professor of English at Prague University. He comes across the dead body of Captain Geoffrey Mitchell, a British officer, and takes his identity and uniform, is captured by the Germans and sent to the POW camp as an Englishman. The real Mitchell had been estranged from his wife (played by Rachel Kempson). Redgrave is forced to engage in correspondence with his 'wife' in order to convince the Germans that he is not an impostor. He smashes his right hand so that he is forced to write with his left, as a way of excusing the change of hand-writing to his 'wife'. They then exchange increasingly passionate letters to one another over the years, leading to an awkward situation when the War finally nears its end and Redgrave is 'repatriated' to England as Captain Mitchell. There are wonderful character parts for Gordon Jackson, Jack Warner, Gladys Henson, and others. Derek Bond is excellent as a sensitive concert pianist, Lieutenant Harley. The following year he was to make a big hit as Nicholas Nickleby in the film of that (1947). He never achieved lasting star status, and died as recently as 2006 after appearing in 67 titles. This film, done with such passion and integrity, is a classic of the time, and makes compulsive viewing today considering what it conveys of historical importance, of the manners, situations, and modes of feeling of that period.

Having read a lukewarm review of "The Captive Heart" in Time Out (my cinema bible) and thinking, "They're bound to trash this one," I leaped to the IMDb reviews ready to play my "champion of the turkey" role. What a pleasurable surprise to find it not needed, that I am indeed at one with sympathetic users and critics alike in admiration for this rather special offering from the Ealing archive. Whereas the comedies from the West London studios are still admired with affection, their more serious fare tends to be overlooked. "The Captive Heart" is something of a forgotten treasure, a tribute in the wake of victory, to our gallant servicemen who spent much of the second world war as prisoners in German camps. It's another team piece in the mode of Carol Reed's better known "The Way Ahead" which takes a cross section of class types and closely observes their behaviour as they share an enforced coming together. It's all very stereotypical but if treated with sincerity, as in both films, a measure of character cliché can be forgiven. If the level of acting is fairly mediocre, particularly some of the women with those period prissy upper class accents, one part, that of Michael Redgrave as a Czech who has assumed the role of an English soldier killed in battle to escape being identified by the Germans, stands out for its quality. Where the film really scores is in its reminder of a time when people were really nice to one another particularly when brought together in adversity. Everyone mucks in to help, from comforting the young soldier when first confronted with the permanence of his lack of sight to the initially unsympathetic character who gives up his chance of repatriation to aid one who needs it more, welcome reminders of an age when it was generally normal rather than exceptional to emerge from the cinema feeling good.