Resisting Enemy Interrogation

Thanks to TCM for giving us an opportunity to see this gem. Made by the Army Air Force's famous First Movie Unit well into the war (1944), this is one of their most polished efforts. It has a simple, but effective narrative: a US air crew of 5 is downed by the Nazis, who use every trick in the book (short of torture) to pump information out of them: ingratiation, intimidation, deceit and psychological welfare. None of the downed fliers means to co-operate with the enemy, but each in his own way contributes some information to their clever Nazis captors, which is then pieced together by the Nazi commanding officer, somewhat flamboyantly portrayed by Carl Esmond. The consequences are disaster.

The point of the film as a training device (forcefully driven home by Lloyd Nolan in the closing sequence) was that ANY information, no matter how innocent or trivial seeming on its face, could complete the jigsaw puzzle for Nazi intelligence services. All that should EVER be revealed to ANYONE outside your own crew once you were captured was name, rank and serial number. A simple lesson, you would suppose, but for 70 minutes (rather lengthy by the genre's standards, I think) the point is expertly honed by a fairly effective little drama.

In addition to Nolan, the other "big name" actor here is a young Arthur Kennedy, who appeared in many excellent films over the following quarter century.

Dear All,

Please read "The Interrogator," by Raymond F. Toliver. Toliver tells the true story of Hanns Joachim Scharff, one of the Luftwaffe's best P.O.W. interrogators. Sheer psychological tricks let him extract loads of information from his "guests." He tortured nobody because he did not need to do so. Years after the war, in the United States, some of these same men threw a party for him, despite the fact that several had felt severe remorse over having inadvertently disclosed so much.

How successfully a viewer of "Resisting Enemy Interrogation" could have withheld information from Scharff, I cannot say.

Sincerely,

Gordon F. Corbett

Because this film doesn't appear to have been made for viewing by the public at large, it's very hard to rate it. Instead, I assume that it was a Hollywood film meant as a training aid to show flight crews the importance of keeping quiet and recognizing various means the enemy might use to interrogate them. I am not sure how true all the scenarios are, though they seemed way too subtle and nice for Nazis. I assume in reality, if the Germans really wanted to get these secrets they would probably just torture it out of them. However, soldiers needed to be aware of the mind games that might be played and the consequences to America fliers if they gabbed to their captors.

When seen today, the movie is quite fascinating for historical reasons. Plus, it's neat to see some stars in various roles (such as Kent Smith as a Nazi as well as Arthur Kennedy and Don Porter as American fliers). Considering I am an old movie fan AND a history teacher, it's natural I'd enjoy it. However, even for NORMAL folks, it's pretty entertaining and worth a look.

Low-budget army training films seldom get nominated for an Oscar. But that is what happened with this longer-than-usual 1944 effort by the Army Air Force, instructing American aircrews in how to resist interrogation when captured.

It starts with quite a good joke. While being driven to the prison camp, the crew are chatting in the back of the van, when the German sergeant turns round and barks at them "You will not talk!" Their leader answers quietly and significantly "No, we will not talk." That is, of course, their brief - just to give their name, rank and number, as decreed under the Geneva Convention. Anything more, however trivial, could be added to the enemy's intelligence jigsaw, perhaps revealingly.

The main theme is that the interrogators will probably be trying methods more subtle than whips or knuckle-dusters. Such as innocent small-talk to relieve the boredom of camp life. What could be wrong with that? And for the officers, perhaps a little drink in the mess? Hmm...

Bit by bit, through careless revelations (even the trees have ears), their mission is revealed, almost in its entirety, though the enemy are still having to guess at the key question - which big city is the bombers' target? How they figure this out is a triumph of ingenuity, which we cannot reveal here.

In black-& white, the uniforms all look the same colour, so we aren't always able to distinguish between captives and captors. (I had always assumed that prisoners could not wear headgear, but it seems they did.) Also it sounded at first as though there was a musical code to indicate penalty-points for an indiscreet statement, but this turned out to be an illusion, rather disappointingly. Meanwhile we are left wondering how the Americans would have known so much about enemy interrogation techniques, unless they were simply replicating their own. And noting that Oscar nomination, this must have played to a large civilian audience, for whom it would have been doubling as a propaganda film. As such, it doesn't leave you hating the enemy as much as it should. But even after 77 years of vast changes in warfare, the message remains just as valid as ever: silence is golden.

Resisting Enemy Interrogation (1944)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

WW2 drama got an Oscar nomination as Best Feature Documentary. The film tells the story of a group of American soldiers who are taken prisoner by German's and must keep their mouths shut so that they won't tip off the enemy. The German's, however, have their own form of interrogation to try and break through and learn of a future attack. This film was made to teach soldiers the type of tricks they might come across if taken hostage and on that level the film works just fine the real bonus here is the fact that the movie is told through the eyes and minds of the German's. I've seen a lot of these WW2 documentaries and for the most part they always look at things from the American point of view so it was great seeing it from the other way. I'm not sure how true the film is because all of the German officials promise not to torture the soldiers and they don't but it seems like they would have crossed the line if they really needed information on an upcoming attack. The performances are also very good with Arthur Kennedy leading the way as the main American soldier. I'm really not sure how this film got into the documentary department as it really plays out like a feature film, running 66=minutes and the only documentary type film-making is some opening and closing narration, which is aimed at American soldiers. As with a lot of these WW2 shorts, the film is pretty graphic at times, which the production code at the time seemed to overlook in this type of a film.