Il Danubio rosso

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.

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.

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.

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 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.