Opiniones de usuarios

I truly enjoyed this film. The themes of individual responsibility in an evil world, and the problem of faith in God, are handled sensitively and well. Although it is unclear at the beginning, the main characters are the Colonel played by Walter Pidgeon and the Reverend Mother played by Ethel Barrymore. The romance between Peter Lawford's adjutant and Janet Leigh's sylph-like Russian refugee ballerina is, in a sense, just an excuse plot to build the movie around, although that storyline is satisfying as well, mainly due to these two talented actors. Also noteworthy is Angela Lansbury cast against type (at least, compared to her debut in Gaslight) as a highly sympathetic, yet somewhat salty woman officer.

I found others' comments on the relationship to McCarthyism and/or anti-Communism in general to be interesting. I do believe this movie showed the evils of the Soviet system, which to me, is fine. I have no idea if it fed McCarthyism, since I wasn't alive during that period. However, to me, it seems to be more about anti-totalitarianism of all stripes, rather than merely anti-Communism. In particular, the scene of the refugees in boxcars seems to be a direct reference to the Holocaust.

That The Red Danube was nominated for best art direction speaks, as well, to the technical beauty of this black & white film. This film reminded me of The Third Man, in its location, art direction, and storyline. (Orson Welles always said that "Black & white is the actor's friend" -- how true, in both these movies!) Although this film is inferior to The Third Man overall, in terms of its acting, atmosphere, and skill of the director, it is still worthy of viewing. Whereas The Third Man focuses on the moral dilemma of dealing with the evil in one individual (in a corrupt society), this film deals more generally with the morality of living in a corrupt society. In other words, The Third Man asks: "Why do men turn evil in an evil society?" (which, when you think about it, may not be such a profound question; although the further question of "What can be done about it?" is also explored), whereas The Red Danube asks: "How can men stay good in an evil society?" (which is really a much more useful question). So, although there's no denying that The Third Man is the better movie overall, I would highly recommend The Red Danube due to its high production values, the collection of wonderful actors in its ensemble cast, and a very engaging, philosophical script.

Possibly people who were not here at the beginning of the Cold War have difficulty appreciating this film. The film deserves at least an 8 for its skillful grappling with the issues which were to consume us for over forty years. The direction and script are tightly spun and intelligent; two characteristics which many later Cold War film lack. The Russian general is perhaps more caricatured than real, but this flaw is more than compensated for with sterling performances by Ethyl Barrymore and Walter Pigeon. It's also a great Christmas movie with the beautiful subplot of the little girl working the black market to survive. I wish the script were a little less rough on Angela Lansberry's character, but she somehow was able to pull it off. A good show. Recommended to be seen with "The Third Man"

Just what is the propaganda in the movie?

The following comments by "choosy" (from Seattle WA US) are, for the most part, accurate: "The other comments miss the point completely--the focus in the novel was not Cold War propaganda but the facts of the insane policies of the US and British in their respective zones of occupation in Germany and Austria to forcibly remove or return Eastern Europeans, not just Soviet citizens, even including ethnic Germans, most of whom had endured untold horrors trying to escape to the west, safety, and 'freedom' at the end of the war. That was the bemused Walter Pigeon's problem, not 'war guilt' but having to 'obey orders.' " (...AFTER the war.) "Most expellees were anti-Soviet, which is why they had escaped to the west to begin with, and thus went back to a certain death. It wasn't a small part of history--it was one of the biggest Allied mistakes and betrayals, and there were many, of the Occupation."

Here "choosey" has a reasonably solid handle on events, regardless of the novel or the movie. But the following of "choosy's" comments are off-base, primarily because he does not consider the whole picture. "The fact that this forceful expulsion was done because the Allies a. did not want to feed and care for refugees, and b. did want to curry favor with the Soviets at that pre-Berlin Blockade period makes the history even more poignant." The US Army (including the British Army) at that time was actually TWO armies in transition, as the combat forces who had fought their way across Europe to war's end gradually turned their functions and responsibilities over to a fresh Occupation Army - fully prepared to address whatever was needed in the immediate post-war period in their respective zones of responsibility. Not wanting to feed or care for the refugees or concern about currying favor with the Soviets simply did not enter the equation, nor was there any need to; this is pure revisionism. There were diplomatic protocols signed by the highest levels of all involved governments before the war ended; it was the duty of the soldiers of those respective governments to comply with those protocols, most of which at the time they were signed had solid rationale.

The policies mentioned in "chosey's" comments above were, in fact, in full agreement with procedures to which the Allies (US, GB, France and Russia) had worked out prior to the end of the war. Similar procedures were required of the Russians in repatriating "displaced citizens" to their proper homes in the west. Russia was seen during the war as a co-equal partner in the overall war effort on the European continent, and US combat forces (Patton's army), in fact, actually withdrew from forward positions they had reached in Austria and Czechoslovakia so that those regions could be turned over to Russian forces as per previous agreement concerning post-war occupation. (The US and UK could not have won the war in Europe without Russian participation, but all nations always exact a price for their cooperation. Russia under Stalin was no different.)

It rapidly became apparent, however, that Russia and its military, if not its political leadership, had very deep-seated scores to settle with those population groups who were seen as having fought against Russian forces, and thus had caused such horrendous spilling of Russian blood. (Probably the most confusing group was the Ukrainians - who had repeatedly been forced to turn and fight their previous "partners", back and forth, and even each other, during the ever shifting circumstances of the war in the Ukraine.) Russian rule in the zones over which they had control after the war very rapidly became quite ruthless, and it quickly became apparent to everyone that the KGB was, in fact, calling all the shots. There is also considerable evidence that the KGB was executing policies dictated by Stalin himself. Still, US and British military personnel stationed adjacent to the Russian zones or as liaison personnel were required to assist with the "resettlement" or "repatriation" procedures - which caused considerable internal turmoil among those men that lasts to this day.

On the other hand, there were also (fewer) numbers of people we were trying to repatriate from the Russian zones in the East to their proper homes in the West, including those warehoused in concentration camps and prisoner of war stockades. In order to accomplish that, we had to demonstrate some degree of reciprocity.

These things were, and remain, simple facts of history. War, and its aftermath, is rarely as neat and tidy as after-the-fact armchair generals would prefer. War is always, at best, a series of compromises and constantly changing circumstances. The procedures depicted in the movie had nothing at all to do with "feeding the red scare, the rise of McCarthyism, or as propaganda" to use somewhere else in the world. These days we ALL seem to use events for our own particular agendas, simply by putting some twisted ignorant spin on them, or by creating asinine cause-and-effect scenarios to best suit our own purposes. No one stops to consider that any two-bit twit can throw cheap stones from the very safe sidelines, and what is safer than the distance of a half century? But, in the end, facts are facts. The major events shown in the movie happened. Do with them what you will, but I prefer to keep them as they actually were - simple reality, facts of life, consequences of war.

As a life-long intelligence/liaison/diplomatic ground force professional, veteran of several wars, student of military history, who also served in Occupied West Berlin for five years watching good people die trying to get over The Wall to the West, I am .... Old Soldier

I had read the novel first, Vespers in Vienna, which was delightful as well as sad. The other comments miss the point completely--the focus in the novel was not Cold War propaganda but the facts of the insane policies of the US and British in their respective zones of occupation in Germany and Austria to forcibly remove or return Eastern Europeans, not just Soviet citizens, even including ethnic Germans, most of whom had endured untold horrors trying to escape to the west, safety, and 'freedom' at the end of the war. That was the bemused Walter Pigeon's problem, not 'war guilt' but having to 'obey orders.' The fact that this forceful expulsion was done because the Allies a. did not want to feed and care for refugees, and b. did want to curry favor with the Soviets at that pre-Berlin Blockade period makes the history even more poignant. Most expellees were anti-Soviet, which is why they had escaped to the west to begin with, and thus went back to a certain death. It wasn't a small part of history--it was one of the biggest Allied mistakes and betrayals, and there were many, of the Occupation. Angela Lansbury is terrific and got the character just right.

Russian colonel Louis Calhern is looking for prima ballerina Janet Leigh to take her back to the Soviet Union in post World War II Vienna in 1946. His quest is the heart of The Red Danube.

The Red Danube came out in 1949 and is set at the time when people thought it possible to keep the wartime Allies on the same page. That was not to be due to the differences in the two political systems that combined to defeat Hitler.

Walter Pidgeon is recently transferred to Vienna and gets an order to find her and turn her over to the Russians. He doesn't count on three things, his aide Peter Lawford falling for Janet, the formidable presence of Mother Superior Ethel Barrymore who is sheltering Leigh, and his own growing conscience about what he sees around him.

People would rather die than return to the worker's paradise that Communism has created. I mean literally, both here in the film and in real life back in the day. It's easy to dismiss The Red Danube as a Cold War inspired film. But the situations are way too real.

Best performance in the film is Ethel Barrymore, followed closely by Pidgeon as the British Colonel with a conscience. Pidgeon is a nonbeliever and his debates with Barrymore about religion are the best thing in the film.

Part of the film has Pidgeon getting Barrymore on a military plane to see the Pope in Rome during a conference concerning refugees. Now mind you this is Pius XII we are talking about who before and as Pope never quite saw the danger Hitler was to the church that Stalin was.

But I'm willing to bet that seeing Ethel Barrymore delineate the character of the Mother Superior this was a woman who walked the Christian walk as well. I'm even willing to bet she probably sheltered a few Jews during the holocaust as well.

A very good piece of propaganda may best describe this 1949 film dealing with repatriation of people after World War 11.

Walter Pidgeon stars as the non-believer assigned to Rome and Vienna after the war. There he encounters the Mother Superior, played so well by Ethel Barrymore.

The story concerns itself with Maria Buhlen- a young and wide-eyed Janet Leigh, who has been living in Austria, but since she is a Russian citizen, she must return to the Soviet Union. Even as a ballerina, her fate will be sealed there. Maria manages to escape before being turned in by the British who are looking to appease the Soviets. Of course, legislation is pending in the U.N. that would help repatriates such as Maria.

Love blossoms along the way between Maria and an army man, Peter Lawford. Lawford, other than making love to Ms. Buhlen, has little to do here. Love seems to conquer all until tragedy intervenes.

The film succeeds in showing the deprivation and fear of such people caught up by world politics. That little Austrian girl will just tug at your heart.

The heavy here is Louis Calhern. He turns in a fine performance as a Russian soldier who goes by the book. He goes after Maria Buhlen with a vengeance.

Mother Superior? Maria? Hiding Maria? I thought I was back in "The Sound of Music" momentarily but this film is worthwhile and should be seen.

During WWII, the Hollywood propaganda machine went into full gear making tons of war films intended to drum up support for the fight against the Axis. Part of this included some extremely pro-Soviet films. After all, they'd been America's enemies for decades and now they were in an alliance to beat the new enemy. Nearly all of these films (such as "The North Star") are pretty terrible--idealizing the Russian people ridiculously. They all were happy, dedicated and, inexplicably, seemingly free.

By the time "The Red Danube" came out, however, the war had ended and relations with the Soviets had soured...badly. Now the Soviets had revealed their plan for 'a new world order'...and it included setting up puppet states all over Eastern Europe. And, the Russian people went from sweet and happy to ruthless and conniving!!

This film shows the transition. When the story begins, the Soviets are still allies...overseeing the administration of a portion of the conquered city of Vienna (much like with Berlin). Colonel Nicobar (Walter Pidgeon) is a Canadian officer in the British Army and he's just been transferred to Vienna with his staff. He is to cooperate with the Soviets with repatriating civilians. In other words, a lot of folks were displaced by the war and now they were being forced to go back to their original homeland. The Russians really want their citizens returned to them and at first Nicobar has no problem doing this, as it's part of his official duties. Over time, however, he has a crisis of conscience and realizes these displace people are likely being sent to gulags or death!

In some ways, I liked the cast and in others it was terrible...just terrible. Walter Pidgeon really was a Canadian and his staff (Peter Lawford and Angela Lansbury) were real Brits. BUT, as for the rest...well, it was just sad. Ethel Barrymore is cast as the Reverend Mother and seems about as Austrian as Betty Boop. But even worse is Janet Leigh, who sounds about as Russian as Mantan Moreland!! Inexplicably, she played a Soviet officer several years later in the god-awful "Jet Pilot"...with zero trace of an accent and all the acting skills of a mannequin! As for the story, it was enjoyable and worth your time. Overall, the film is a very interesting curio that COULD have been a great one had the casting been better.

I found the film captivating. It addresses subjects such as faith and morality, and the conflict between being both a soldier and a human being. It gives no easy answers. It presents a piece of history rarely shown in film, and attempts to side-step making everything black and white. Yet The Red Danube is, foremost, good entertainment, a tale of love in the midst of war. Focusing on entertainment is necessary in the entertainment business, and the film does it well, with a few gratifying twists, too. Walter Pigeon and Ethel Barrymore are their grandest dignified selves. Sometimes its nice to be able to be reminded what that is. Interesting to note that Ethel Barrymore was seventy years old when making this film.

This is Leonard Maltin's assessment of this film: "Meandering drama of ballerina Leigh pursued by Russian agents, aided by amorous Lawford; heavy-handed at times." This is like saying "Titanic" (1997) is "a meandering drama of artist's model Winslet caught between fiancé and a shipboard romance; heavy-handed at times". The man is an idiot. This film is a stylish and courageous exposition of the necessary process of humanization that the Allied armies had to go through in dealing with the refugee problem in Eastern Europe following WWII. The acting is uniformly excellent, even Peter Lawford managing a moment or two to shine among the superlative performances of Walter Pidgeon, Angela Lansbury, Ethel Barrymore, Louis Calhern, Janet Leigh and a handful of others. The music is by Miklos Rozsa who must have found the subject inspirational. The lighting, photography and the director's ability to express human tragedy through human faces are transcendental. This film even has its moments of humour. Not your average war film. Highly recommended.

A solid film, which it is strange to see people calling controversial, since one would think that there would be little doubt any more about the nature of Soviet Communism, and the horrors perpetrated by Stalin. The cruelty of the allies turning over innocent expatriates to the Gulag and worse is rather convincingly portrayed. The moral dilemmas are decently examined, there are outbreaks of actual Christian faith and, of course there is a love story, because western audiences could hardly handle a movie without one. Barrymore is pungent, Leigh is beautiful, Lawford is sentimental, and Pigeon is as stiff as you could want a Brit to be. And Angela Lansbury makes a charming supportive appearance. Not a great movie, but a reasonably honest one which has nothing to do with McCarthyism and is definitely worth a viewing.

It's post war Rome. In the British headquarters, one-armed Col. Nicobar (Walter Pidgeon) expects to go home but is instead reassigned to Vienna to fight subversive activities. He is joined by his aides, Junior Commander Audrey Quail (Angela Lansbury), Major McPhimister (Peter Lawford), and Private David Moonlight. They are told to repatriating citizens back to the Soviet Union which is still an Allie. They are assigned to live in a convent run by Mother Superior (Ethel Barrymore) which is also hosting ballerina Maria Buhlen (Janet Leigh). McPhimister falls for the dancer.

The Soviet Union is transitioning from an Allie to an enemy. It portrays the situation with good realism. I would prefer to center the movie around McPhimister and his ballerina. They could go on the run and make a great thriller out of this. Instead, this is a little flat. It has some compelling scenes but it lacks tension. This wears its anti-communist sentiments on its sleeves. It even has the familiarity of the cattle train.

A sort of thriller with noir overtones set in the days immediately following WWII, when countries were working together to repatriate displaced persons.

In a humorous coincidence, I had watched "Mission to Moscow" a few days before this, which is all about how wonderful Russia was and what an advanced, open, happy culture Americans didn't realize it had. Then in "The Red Danube," the Russia we see is the Cold War version, a scary, secretive place where people are controlled and abused. What a difference the end of a war makes.

Janet Leigh is lovely as a musician in hiding who Russia wants back. Walter Pidgeon gets the film's most complicated and compelling character, an officer whose personal work ethic butts up against the morality of what he's being asked to do. He has some great scenes with Ethel Barrymore as a wise nun who acts as his conscience when his conscience stays quiet. Peter Lawford is a whiny love interest and Angela Lansbury is a scene stealer in a role that doesn't feel very necessary to the movie but which nevertheless gives her the chance to bring some needed spunk to all the gloomy soul searching.

"The Red Danube" received an Oscar nomination for its black and white art direction, one of the bazillion nominations over the years that feel completely random in retrospect. There were only three nominees in that category in 1950 -- why this film?

Grade: B+

I liked this movie very much; it resonated clearly. I grew up during the 2nd WW, and the aftermath was often a mystery; this relates to that time vis-a-vis Russia and her ex-patriots. This is not a formula movie; we care about the main characters and it really reaches to the heart. The points the script made about our choices in life were well made, and the reference to religion was fair. I'm going to use the metaphoric model of the painter, paint, ladder and ceiling in my own work. The actors were wonderful, and the camera work was exceptional at getting to the feelings that shine through the face. The lighting was part of that effect. I knew something was up when I saw the close-ups with artistic lighting, but I didn't know how strongly they would tie to later scenes and evoke emotions. This added to our caring about the sweet innocent Janet Leigh, and the young, idealistic Peter Lawford. I didn't agree with all the philosophy, but it certainly was mostly a tribute to listening to the conscience.

First, I was amazed a film like this could be made in International Socialist (Communist) infested Hollywood in the late 1940's. Read the book "Hollywood Party" by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley. A huge proportion of Hollywood's behind the scenes employees (not the stars) took their marching orders from Moscow. This was at the same time the studio heads were in cahoots with the National Socialists of Germany in making sure nothing bad was said about Herr Hitler.

The funny part was the Ribbentrop/Molotov Non-aggression Pact where the Nazis and the Communists agreed to carve up Poland. Up until then the Hollywood myrmidons blindly followed the anti-Fascist line of Stalin. Stalin needed a word to describe his internal enemies so he picked "Fascist". I mean the loyal Communist apparatchiks he executed by the thousands were suddenly 'Fascist'? The word stuck both in the UUSR and the US and the blind left today who won't read history still use this epithet against everyone they disagree with, not remotely knowing the word's true meaning. Mussolini of course came from a famous Socialist family and was the editor of Italy's leading Socialist publication: "Avante". Fascism, Nazism, Communism -- all repressive Socialist political systems. Anyway, the hard leftists in Hollywood after denouncing Nazis and Fascists for a decade now had to praise them to the sky by orders from Stalin. Being the rotten people they were, they turned on a dime without even blinking - like Orcs.

Why does this all matter? Well, Walter Pidgeon's character like 99% of Allied soldiers had little clue about the horrible nature of Communism given the propaganda about Uncle Joe Stalin being our ally. Pidgeon gets a first hand glimpse of the forced repatriation of USSR dissidents when the first man he tries to turn over, an elderly gentleman, requests that he pack a few things, walks into the next room and you hear an instantaneous gunshot - he had blown his brains out. Pidgeon takes his orders in turning over these poor people waiting to be executed or put in the Gulag back in the "Workers Paradise" but finally realizes with the help of Ethel Barrymore's Character - Mother Superior - that he is committing an awful crime against humanity and fights back. Just watch the rest of the movie as it plays out.

If you want to learn more about the Allied treachery, read "Operation Keelhaul" by Julius Epstein.

Hollywood is pretty craven - imagine a Spielberg type being given this script - no way he would make this film. He would never turn on his ideological masters. The enemy in Hollywood will always be Nazis and Fascists, the ideological allies of the Communists. Muslim terrorists could blow up Hollywood and the first script about that event would have the Muslims being replaced by the Waffen SS without even the slightest hesitation.

"The Red Danube" is a strong 1949 film about post-war Europe, starring Walter Pidgeon, Peter Lawford, Angela Lansbury, Janet Leigh, and Ethel Barrymore.

There are several levels to this film. One is the agreement among the Allies to repatriate people to their native countries after the war. This film deals with the British sector, led by Pidgeon and his team, who are charged with aiding in the repatriation. Another level is the spiritual aspect - the Pidgeon character, "Hooky" Nicobar, has begun to doubt the existence of any entity that could allow such horror to happen in the world, including his own personal tragedy. And there's the love story between Maria (Janet Leigh), a Soviet ballerina, and Major 'Twingo' McPhimister.

When displaced Russians would rather commit suicide than return to Russia, Hooky begins to doubt what Colonel Piniev (Louis Calhern) is telling him about what awaits these people back in the homeland. But he has to follow orders, so in spite of protests, he turns over ballerina Maria to the Soviets.

MGM made a film later on, "Never Let Me Go" about a ballerina trying to get out of Russia; here a ballerina tries to keep from going back. This film has much more depth than "Never Let Me Go," and is more gritty, showing the old and weak DPs, unusable for slave labor, that the Russians foist upon the British sector toward the end of the film.

The spiritual angle in this film is interesting - has God failed man, the nun (Ethel Barrymore) asks, or has man failed God? Is "following orders" when you know you're sending people to certain death sufficient? "The Red Danube" is well acted. Discovered by Norma Shearer, Janet Leigh had only been in films two years when she made this, but she had already racked up some experience. She's fresh-faced, sympathetic, and sweet as Maria Buhlen. Peter Lawford doesn't have much to do; Angela Lansbury is delightful as part of the team, and Walter Pidgeon does an excellent job as the troubled colonel. As the Mother Superior where Audrey Quail, the colonel, and Twingo are billeted, Ethel Barrymore gives a superb performance as a woman of implacable faith who tries to help Hooky with his crisis and aid Maria.

I thought this was a very good film, thought-provoking, with good direction by George Sidney.

The story take place in 1946 post-war Vienna when the city was divided into allied sectors, including British and Soviet sectors. World War II was over, but the Cold War between the Western Democracies and Communist Russia had begun. The issue of repatriation of citizens (in the sectors) to their respective countries is the main issue that contributes to this very good movie.

A delegation of British officers is sent to Vienna to handle this assignment and occupy Vienna during this transition period from war time to peace time. The delegation is headed up by Col. Nicobar "Hooky' (Walter Pidgeon) who had lost his arm in World War I. Other delegation members include Marjor McPhimister "Twingo" (Peter Lawford) and Audrey Quail (Angela Lansbury).

When they arrive in Vienna, they are billeted in a Catholic Church headed by the Mother Superior, "Mother Auxilia" (Ethel Barrymore). Besides housing nuns, this Catholic Church also serves as a sanctuary for a Russian ballet dancer, Olga Alexandrova (Janet Leigh), who disguises herself as a nun, (aka Maria Buhlen), so that she can escape being repatriated with Russia.

When the Russian Army Colonel Piniev "Pinhead" (Louis Calhern) demands to search the church for his missing Russian ballerina, Mother Auxilia allows it but is mum on anything that is not a direct question.

The subject of former war allies—now post-war enemies--occupying post- war Vienna sets up many conflicts that go beyond direct orders to repatriate citizens to countries of their origin. There are duties, and then there are moral issues involved too.

Clearly Maira Buhlen does not want to return to Russia. So, what happens when Hooky's military orders tangle with Mother Auxilia's moral duties?

As far as I can tell, the Lawford ("Twingo") and Lansbury (Quail) characters seem to be just part of a love triangle, with "Twingo" in love with Leigh (as Buhlen) and Quail suffering from the unrequited love of "Twingo."

This is a great story with interesting conflicts on several levels: romantic, duty, and spiritual to name but three.

Apparently very few people today, especially products of government schools, know about Operation Keelhaul, one of the most shameful episodes of a shame-filled history of the U. S. central government.

"Leaders" of the U. S. and U. K. governments were so eager to lick the boots of the second-worst butcher in human history, Josef Stalin, they almost blithely sentenced to death millions of anti- or at least non-communists who had fled Soviet Russia.

Some of those fleeing willingly joined armed forces fighting the Soviet armies, and many others were drafted into labor units and then often into fighting units.

Of the millions who had fled communist tyranny, many were women and children, but nothing mattered: They were all sentenced to be forcibly repatriated.

Operation Keelhaul was so evil, even the "news" media as well as the politicians (including Anthony Eden) and government bureaucrats have tried, ever since 1945, to keep this horrendous act covered up.

Only in relatively recent years have the facts been disclosed, about the lies told the prisoners and about the Allied troops literally using bayonets to herd the victims onto trucks and -- interesting optics -- cattle cars for the return, with many thousands of the prisoners being murdered immediately upon reaching Soviet soil!

"Red Danube" only barely hints at the other vicious and barbarous acts known as Operation Keelhaul. What is on the "Red Danube" screen is a microcosm, some quite specific acts by the Soviet authorities in the divided city of Vienna to capture and imprison individuals sought by the communist tyrants and butchers in Moscow.

It is sickening and horrifying that some reviewers here are "offended" by an accurate history of communist tyranny. What is worse is that Hollywood would not make such a historically accurate movie today.

"Red Danube" is not perfect, but in the context of accurate history of communist butchery, it is a must-see movie.

The production values and care of an MGM factory style motion picture is evident in the "big picture" called "The Red Danube". It was a failure back in 1949, and when I finally caught it at a Mid-Manhattan Library screening the pre-show poll of the audience of 80-plus revealed not a single fan had ever seen it before.

It had no significant afterlife, though Ted Turner's buying MGM meant some TV exposure plus a 2012 WB archive DVD issuance, but surprisingly the movie's themes and contents are still highly relevant nearly 70 years later.

Set in 1946 in Rome and Vienna, it concerns the displaced persons issue that was so significant after WW II, and treated in several classic films, notably Geza Von Radvanyi's neo-realist "Women Without Names" made a year after this movie and released in America on the art-house circuit by trailblazer Ilya Lopert.

A terrific cast is headed by legends Walter Pidgeon, as a cynical British colonel stuck with the unsavory assignment of turning over "subsersives" to the Russians for shipping off to Siberia, and Ethel Barrymore as a mother superior at the convent where Pidgeon & staff are billeted in Vienna. They have an ongoing dialectical battle of words, as her deep Catholic faith is played off of Pidgeon's depressive lack of any moral compass, down in the dumps since the death in the war of his son.

Two hour movie is separated into two distinct parts: the first half after some comic relief (Angela Lansbury as Pidgeon's assistant is terrific in adding warmth and Eve Arden style humor to the picture) settles into a glossy love story of officer Peter Lawford, as dashing as they come, falling in love with a beautiful Russian ballerina on the lam but due for deportation, played empathetically by Janet Leigh. Leigh even gets to show impressive dancing skills in a ballet class rehearsal, typical of the MGM class approach to an A picture.

Second half broadens the scope of the movie's themes, as Barrymore cleverly manipulates Pidgeon and the dire situation, even to get him to take her against orders on a trip to Rome so she can meet with the pope, all in the cause of saving the hapless refugees caught between lily- livered allies (represented by Pidgeon and his fellow Brits) and the duplicitous and patently evil Soviet regime. The film makes it points vividly against the authoritarianism and sneaky tactics of the Russkies, without lapsing into the blatant propaganda of the usual Hollywood Cold War movie, for example "My Son John", which starred Helen Hayes in a role Barrymore might have played (but it was a Paramount, not MGM, release).

George Sidney's direction is impressive, especially when he inserts tight close-ups of romantic Leigh and Lawford at key moments, looking as lustrous as silent era shots and having as much impact. I kept trying to guess how the ending would turn out -would it be the usual and derided "Hollywood Ending" or a more trenchant one given the dead-serious subject matter. The last couple of reels verge on camp, but both scripters and Sidney are to be commended for such clever audience manipulation as to deliver laughs and tears on cue.

Biggest surprise, beyond the clear relevance today of the Refugees problem, was an uncanny and comical reference to a specifically 2017 issue. The screenplay has many colloquial expressions as tag lines, notably an American phrase "like nobody's business", as well as the cutesy singing of Row, Row, Row Your Boat in many scenes, that pay off with a most amusing Barrymore/Pidgeon encounter. She compliments him, calling him a tramp, then correcting her English, "you're a Trump!". I wasn't familiar with the British colloquial term, which has other meanings in Blighty referring to farting, but here it occurs right after Pidgeon's character has been revealed to be easily duped by the Russians, led by imperious Louis Calhern as his colonel counterpart for the USSR. The relevance to President Trump's very odd taking everything President Putin says as truth and his incessant cozying up to the Russians is inescapable and amusing - Black humor in our current time of Trumpian woe.

The underlying theme of the movie -- Uncle Joe Stalin's mania for grabbing displaced people he wanted after WWII -- is unusual, and the cast is an odd lot: Walter Pidgeon as a one-armed British colonel with plenty of war guilt; Janet Leigh's starlet turn as a Russian ballerina; Angela Lansbury as a young and saucy WREN; and, as the strangest casting, Ethel Barrymore as a nun. Plenty of Cold War anti-Red flavoring throughout that looks pretty stilted today, but the acting -- especially from Pidgeon in the lead -- is heartfelt without being maudlin.