Ordre de tuer

This World War II movie has a realistic well written script, good acting and presents the viewer with a powerful moral dilemma to contemplate about war. Do you follow orders regardless of what your own observations suggest you do? I saw this movie 40 years ago and have never forgotten it. The tragedy is that it apparently did not have big promotional dollars behind it so has never reappeared. Nine stars out of ten.

Although Eddie Albert, Lillian Gish, and James Robertson Justice are the first, third, and fourth billed actors, the largest and most important parts are played by Paul Massie, Leslie French, and Irene Worth.

British intelligence believes they've identified a traitor in the French Resistance, and they send in a war-weary pilot (Massie) because he has lived in Paris and speaks fluent French. His mission is to execute the traitor, a different matter from dropping bombs on anonymous targets. He's eager to do the job and gets specialized training in methods of killing (James Robertson Justice is one of his eccentric instructors).

When he arrives in Paris, he meets his contact, a seamstress (Irene Worth) who, unlike him, understands exactly what is involved. Worth's energy and passion leap off the screen, yet she's never theatrical in the wrong way. The target turns out to be an apparently harmless old man (Leslie French, who resembles Donald Pleasence). Is he really guilty? Can the pilot carry out his mission? Should he? What will happen after he makes his decision?

Paul Massie, a Canadian actor, had played Brick in Peter Hall's London production of CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF. His voice is very much like Richard Chamberlain, and like Chamberlain he is well-cast as a sensitive and decent man. His other big film roles were in LIBEL as Dirk Bogarde's accuser, and in SAPPHIRE. Around 1966 he appeared as a guest artist at the University of South Florida, and he became a professor of drama there, apparently finding a profession he liked better than film and professional stage acting.

I found it amusing that the French people encountered were so English, but it didn't hurt the film which was engrossing and thought provoking and an interesting look at the morals of the war.

Spoiler alert

What I remember most about this film is the way the idealistic young soldier in manipulated by a wheeler-dealer senior officer who is essentially a self serving bureaucrat. It rings so true of what can when the patriotism and of an innocent young man can be manipulated. The mission is based on flawed intelligence. The mission is poorly planned and puts the young operative at greater than necessary risk. In a way it is a microcosm of larger events with which we are all too familiar. As it turns out in the film, an innocent man is killed, a young man must live with having killed an innocent harmless man in cold blood. As for the senior officer who issued the orders, it is just a bureaucratic error. Not really anyone's fault he assures the guilt ridden young man. Besides he is very preoccupied with getting his fat butt over to Paris as soon as it is liberated to enjoy its I think it would be very This is a beneficial for young people to see to help them recognize one of the more subtle forms of evil so well represented. Maybe that is one of the true benefits of film art, it broadens our experience without the negative consequences that can result. As for the young man in the film, he had to learn the hard way. It is available on Amazon in new and used copies mostly shipped from UK but also new copies fulfilled by AmazonPrime at a higher price. All copies are Region 2 format.

I've searched in vain for this very fine movie, which I saw many years ago and has clung firmly to my memory. It's about a cocky young soldier who is sent to kill a French collaborator. He later develops serious moral qualms about the mission.

This film has a fine cast and has some very interesting touches. I am sure, for example, that those of us who have seen it still remember the collaborator's cat, who adds tremendously to the humanity of that character. At times, the tension and psychological pressure of this movie is almost unbearable. Filmed on location in Paris, I believe. The score, which also stands out in my memory, is melodramatic but appropriate.

This wartime tale directed by Anthony Asquith confronts full-on the essential moral dilemma of the necessity to commit murder in the cause of war. It does not take place on a battlefield, but in the starker situation of a covert assassination of a man believed to be compromising the Resistance Movement in occupied Paris. The man chosen to kill the suspected person is played by the young actor Paul Massie, aged 26. It was his first credited screen role, and he does an excellent job. For some reason, this highly talented and promising young actor never achieved the prominence in his career which he would seem to have deserved. After 1973, he only worked four times (the last time in 1996), and he died in 2011. The other film for which he will be remembered is SAPPHIRE (1959, see my review). The most powerful performance in this film was delivered by Irene Worth, as the character Léonie. Massie is sent to Paris to kill the suspect man, and Worth is his contact, with whom some very tense scenes indeed transpire. Worth's embittered intensity is very convincing and deeply disturbing. Lillian Gish appears briefly early on in the film as Massie's mother, but it is not a significant part. Eddie Albert is very good as a commanding officer, and James Robertson Justice has immense gravitas and a suitably ominous quality as the man who trains Massie how to kill an individual quietly and quickly by taking off a pair of long socks and turning them into a murder weapon. Leslie French is superb as the unfortunate Marcel Lafitte, who is wrongly suspected of having betrayed the Resistance, whereas he is not only innocent but a gentle, caring soul who loves his family and his cat and would not hurt a fly. The film is based on a novel by the American author Donald Downes, another of whose novels was filmed as THE PIGEON THAT TOOK ROME (1962). This film starts very slowly because Asquith and his writers are so keen to make their moral point that they dwell on the minutiae of Massie's recruitment and training to carry out his assignment. Today that would be sketched in a couple of minutes, but in this film it takes a long time. Once the action gets going, the film becomes very tense indeed, and finally it becomes very grim, as we face the moral dilemma. Asquith was clearly determined to make this film in this way because he was trying to examine the dilemma and drive home its insolubility. In a sense, we could call this fifties film a true existentialist film, in keeping with the prevailing philosophy of that Heidiggerian decade. It explores 'what a man must do' and the 'nausea' following his actions. It bears some resemblance to the concerns of André Malraux, who in the novel MAN'S FATE contemptuously says that anyone who has not killed someone face to face is 'a virgin'. One wonders if Jean-Paul Sartre visited the set, steeped in nausea, and whispered existential doubts into the ear of the director. Much of it is filmed on location in Paris, and there are some very fine and atmospheric location shots. This film evidently meant a great deal to Anthony Asquith, who had a social conscience which he wore somewhat on his sleeve, and we owe him the consideration of listening to his message, which after all is a very worrying one, even if we find it deeply disquieting.