Amère victoire

Bitter Victory is directed by Nicholas Ray and adapted to screenplay from the novel of the same name written by Rene Hardy. It stars Richard Burton, Curd Jurgens, Ruth Roman, Raymond Pellegrin, Christopher Lee and Nigel Green. Music is by Maurice Leroux and cinematography by Michel Kelber.

It's a film that has proved most divisive over the years, where some have seen fit to devote in depth studies to it, others have bitingly dismissed it as a stretch to far in pretentious posturing. Personally I found it rather dull, a dreary trudge through the World War II deserts as Burton and Jurgens butt heads because Burton's character had an affair with Jurgens' wife (Roman).

The pace is purposely sedate, except for the battle sequence that is, so we are left to rely on the skills of the writers and actors to carry us through to film's end. Burton is good value, he almost always was when he got to brood and pontificate, while Green is his usual irrepressible self. Jurgens, however, is miscast and very uncomfortable with the moody machinations of his character. While the editing is at times awful and a couple of scenes don't really make sense.

Undeniably there is some potency bubbling away in the writing, the deconstruction of machismo and military cynicism angles carry thematic weight, but the film is structured in such a cocksure way it just comes off as being preachy instead of taking full advantage of the emotional core of the characters as written by Hardy. Just because I don't like the film doesn't mean it's bad, as previously stated, many find it fascinating and powerful, but it's not for me and I feel it's one of the great Nicholas Ray's lesser works. 4/10

As it were...The 2 films (this one and Flying Leathernecks) have more in common than one would like to believe, given the fact that F.L. is often thought of as not a "real" Ray film. But the rivalry between 2 military men who dance around the same rank (one being generally subservient - not by choice - to the other) is in both cases treated as as much a psychological issue as an issue of military discipline. The difference is that in F.L. the psychological aspect is soft-pedaled (except for a couple of key scenes). I have to admit that there are a couple of ways that I prefer F.L. Obviously, Bitter Victory is a much finer and more fully realized film. But it feels failed to me in some important ways: it seems to aspire to the status of independent artwork (the score, the long scenes of trudging through the desert), and as such it is not totally successful. It doesn't break free of its genre moorings the way Fuller or Sirk or Ophuls (etc.) can and often do. F.L. doesn't pretend to be more than it is: it stays solidly within genre conventions, easy resolution and all. Its lack of aspiration makes it easier to watch, to some degree. There are unforgettable moments in Bitter Victory: the scorpion, the camel bladder, the raid, the dance, the fight in the street (pure Ray). But the whole doesn't convince me, the issues don't move me. Ray often seems poised between Kazanian script and actor - driven film-making on one hand and more personal crazy auteurist cinema on the other. I haven't had that revelation that caused Godard to say "the cinema is Nicholas Ray". I'll keep trying.

Apart from acting performances I couldn't find many redeeming qualities in "Bitter Victory", and WWII movie about British troops in North Africa. The story revolves around Burton and Roman who were once lovers, and her husband, Curt Jergens. The two men are selected for a secret mission led by Jergens, who lacks courage to do what's necessary and is mocked by Burton throughout the picture.

It is an action picture but descends into a clash of minds and temperaments at the expense of tension and suspense. It is one of Nicholas Ray's poorer directing jobs and the film lacks good set design as well, leaving the viewer to wonder if all production money was spent on the cast. The musical score was tuneless and inappropriate, but in keeping with the overall sub-par nature of the film. Can't recommend it and wished I hadn't wasted the two hours.

Before entering the cinema theater I read a review of the film made by Godard in Cahiers du Cinéma. He defined this movie 'more than cinema' and a pure reflection of life. The miserable and coward behaviour of the character (played superbly by Curd Júrgens), a bewildered Richard Burton when futilely carries over his shoulder a dying soldier through the desert until he realizes his death: 'I kill the living and save the dead! or the moment when Ruth Roman looks for "Jimmy" among the survivors of the expedition, and many more... are all beautiful pieces of life, probably bigger than life... How easy is killing!? I also wanted to emphasize the brilliant expressionist photography used in the film. Especially in the nocturnal sequences.

A heavy-handed thing to say, but that's what Jean-Luc Godard proclaimed upon seeing this film at the Cannes Film Festival. The French knew it long before we did: Nicholas Ray was one of the most original and wisest directors to ever make films. He took a French anti-war book and he made it into a film that was so much more than that. Unlike his previous routine assignment to confirm his allegiance to Howard Hughes during the Red Scare FLYING LEATHERNECKS, there are more layers that stretch far beyond the sea of sand that cast Richard Burton and Curt Jurgens away from society. Unlike most war films of its time and like almost every film Ray ever made, the conflict lies not in the battles between the nations, but inside the hearts of the film's protagonists.

The brooding Richard Burton is given a great role as disillusioned soldier Captain James Leith, forced to carry out an assignment with Major Brand, a man he dislikes (the feeling is mutual--Leith had an affair with Brand's wife Jane a few years back, and the desire still lingers on, showing Leith's last trace of humanity). Their assignment is to travel behind enemy lines and take some German documents. The long journey through the desert becomes even more heated as Leith reminds Brand of his cowardice (Brand hesitated to kill a German soldier during an attack) and Brand tries in subtle ways to kill Leith to cover up his cowardice. But this isn't a black and white good-guy/bad-guy caricature; there are so many shades of gray in both characters. As Leith later says, the two are almost mirror images (although he is much wiser than Brand and accepts his futility, Leith is not as strong as some might make him to be; he admits to leaving Jane because he was scared to get close to someone else--like all of Ray's anti-heroes, the ones who reject love are the ones who need it the most), possibly explaining why Brand feels compelled to kill Leith.

BITTER VICTORY wasn't the first anti-war film, but it was one of the few to make its statement so eloquently (and it had the most profound title). Too subtle to connect with American audiences (the film flopped badly at the box-office and when the studio re-cut it several times, each time farther and farther away from Nicholas Ray's original vision, it didn't work) but revered by French audiences, BITTER VICTORY has grown more potent in the decades since its release. The futility of war isn't proclaimed by the horrible violence of battle like countless films, but through the impossible absurdity of a man's role in the war. After all, if Leith "kills the living and saves the dead," what difference does it make, other than that little matter of when and what for? By the end, how is Brand any different from the training dummies with hearts painted over them? The enlightenment that Brand finds by the film's end comes too late; he's already lost what's precious to him and all he has to show for it is a DSO. It truly is a bitter victory.