L'étoile du Nord

In its time, this probably fulfilled its desired purpose reasonably well, with a fine cast and some effective scenes depicting the suffering caused by Nazi troops. It is probably more interesting now, when it can be viewed with more objectivity, and when it is interesting for a new set of reasons. Its depiction of life in the Soviet Union is a revealing statement about the priorities of its time. The actual movie and story, viewed apart from any and all political issues, work quite well at times, while falling short at others.

The first part of the story simply dwells on the daily lives of the residents of a Ukrainian farm town. This part is quite slow, and would be of little interest except for the sharp change of tone that comes with the Nazi attack. As banal as the lives of the villagers may have seemed, they certainly did nothing to deserve the suffering they bore as a result of the invasion. Things pick up dramatically in the second part, and at the same time the characters come more sharply into focus.

Naturally, the scenario is more fiction than fact, especially in its idyllic depiction of life under Stalin's rule. More than anything else, this reflects the urgent desire of the US Government (whose hand was supposedly quite active in the production) to promote full-fledged public support for working with the Soviet Union against the Axis. Like the majority of features in any era that address a then-contemporary issue, it looks much different when viewed years afterward. The truth about both Stalin and Hitler is much easier for us now to determine than it was for the movie's original viewers.

The cast helps considerably in making it work on a dramatic level. Experienced stars like Walter Huston and Walter Brennan combine with then-young performers like Anne Baxter, Farley Granger, and others to create a generally interesting set of characters. Jane Withers also has a good role, as a hapless but often endearing young woman who is desperate to help. Lillian Hellman brought her considerable reputation to the screenplay, although this kind of material is not really her strength. Lewis Milestone shows his steady hand in the battle sequences.

Because the cast, director, and writer all add their weight to the production, this works well enough as a fictional drama as long as you set aside what you thought or think about the USSR. As history, the story is not reliable, but the movie itself is interesting as one of the more earnest attempts of its day to use cinema to influence public opinion.

Director Lewis Milestone's "The North Star" shouldn't be viewed in embarrassed silence: it's a snapshot of a bleak period in World War II when Hollywood catered to the government's policy of portraying the recently despised and then of necessity embraced Soviet government and its population as heroic, implacable anti-Nazis.

Look at the credits: Anne Baxter, Dana Andrews, Two Walters (Huston and Brennan), Farley Granger, Dean Jagger and the aging but still chillingly evil Erich von Stroheim. And the screenplay - Lillian Hellman. Aaron Copland, the dean of American classical composers, provided a serviceable score that pales by comparison to the music that today is his contribution to the nation's music heritage.

"The North Star" tells the story, at any rate a story, of the resistance of Ukraine villagers to the thundering German blitzkrieg that brought incredible initial success following the launching of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. There is little historically accurate about either the portrayal of the German advance or the rapid mobilization of patriotic and death-before-submission villagers who love their land with a fierce and unquenchable patriotism. In reality very many in the invaded areas initially hoped the Germans would liberate them from malign Stalinism and only the occupier's stupid and counterproductive terrorism awakened a staunch resistance movement. But this didn't happen overnight.

The characters are largely one-dimensional and wooden, each playing out a politically correct vision of the real events. Children are slaughtered, German doctors engage in unorthodox practices, villagers rally around men and women of strength and character.

Obviously 1943 audiences, targets of American government efforts to persuade them of the necessity and justice of arming the Soviet Union though Lend/Lease (actually Give/Never Get Back Anything), had a different experience than I had when I last saw this film (this morning on cable TV while devouring bagels with cream cheese accompanied by ample juice libations). But "The North Star" is a window not only into the history of World War II film but also into the germination of the postwar search for Communists and fellow travelers in Hollywood. What brought kudos in '43 led to scary and destructive investigations in the late forties and early fifties. "The North Star" deserves some credit for careers later ruined, lives destroyed and the Blacklist.

Sensing that times and tides had changed, an atrociously butchered recut of "The Dark Star" appeared in 1953 as "Armored Attack," the same film de-Sovietized. They had to cut the original from 105 minutes to a mere 82 to "cleanse" the film of the Red Menace. It's worth watching the two versions sequentially. They showcase the impact of the Cold War on Hollywood.

It's hard to give a rating to "The North Star." Except for the joy of seeing Von Stroheim roll out his patented dark side this is an artificially tame war film in the age of "Saving Private Ryan" and "Platoon." But as a history lesson it well rewards the time spent viewing this page from a perilous time.

Please, if you're going to rent this film, respect the original and don't get the "colorized" version.

This film was encouraged by the U.S. Government in the early days of WW II following the German invasion of Russia. It is a propaganda masterpiece centered around the former "freedoms" of prewar Soviet Russia life and the changes brought about abruptly by the invasion. Communism was not very popular in the United States even then, so this film was engineered to achieve widespread visibility in the early war years and to engender public approval for our "allies." At that it may be said to have achieved its purpose. Americans did not wish to be identified with any kind of comrade-bashing. Maybe subconsciously Americans desired Soviet victory so as to avoid a three-front War should the Russians have been subdued.

Historically, the Russians have been able to avoid loss of Moscow to invaders but doubtless this would not have been the case without all of the materials we sent them. Most do not know that over 6,000 fighter aircraft were sent to the Russians, nor do many Americans remember that the four or more B-29s that were badly damaged in combat over Japan and who later sought refuge in Russia, remember that these were seized by Stalin. They were never returned and in fact, they were copied rivet-for-rivet; screw-for-screw as the TU-4 and later turned into long range atomic bomb delivery aircraft whose purpose was to carry atomic weapons to the former ally, the United States. And this (the Cold War) was the only pay-back ever received for our shipments of billions of dollars of armaments. Still, our economic policies and GNP were the very things that brought about the demise of the Communist system.

With these facts in mind, it is entertaining to view this film and to identify the propaganda pronouncements and the truisms it contains.

I saw "The North Star" when I was a child of 6 or 7 and it made a lasting impression on me. I believe older cousins took me to see it while they were baby sitting. I will say without hesitation that it was not intended as a movie for children and that is as true today as it was in 1943. For years I could vividly remember scenes from the movie but did not remember the title. I happened to see it on TV by pure chance late one night during the '70s. I think it was about halfway through the film before I realized what I was watching, but from there on everything was as I remembered it.

It might correctly be labeled a propaganda film as it was made during a time when we were engaged in WWII. Germany was our enemy and Russia was our ally. As the saying goes, "war makes strange bed fellows." The Nazi war machine is depicted as evil and Russians are shown as innocent victims. Both are indisputable facts. The purpose of the film may have been to propagandize just how evil we believed the Nazis to be but we see films like that all the time. One example, "Empire of the Sun" (1987), a very fine film by Steven Spielberg. That was also an evil empire. Its not considered propaganda now because the war is long over. Its "art." Some might consider "JFK" as a lot of propaganda. Oliver Stone considers it "art".

If one is interested in films of historical periods, such as WWII, this might certainly be a film of interest.

This film has all the right ingredients; good production values, good actors and a well-known writer and director. It is missing one thing; believablity. A vierer has to believe the story is viable for the story to have any positive effect on the viewer. This story does not seem too realistic. A commune where everyone has plenty of food, is well-dressed and has every member of the family fully contented seems a bit absurd to me. Both Russia and China eventually did away with their commune systems because they were abject failures. So this setting is a complete fantasy. The German intrusions are real; and the resistance is real, but the Russian resistance to the Germans at the beginning of the German invasion was practically negligible; not as fierce as portrayed in this film. The Germans would never have been able to conquer one third of Russia in less than a year unless there was little resistance. So basically, this story is a nice fantasy; but the military resistance of the Russians was minimal in the first year or so. Entertaining as a fantasy, but some people might think it is real.