Quell'ultimo ponte

I applaud Attenborough for having made this movie. What a headache its filming must have been. It's accurate in a sense both material and overall.

His P 47s may be mock ups, but he used genuine World-War-II era M-4 "Sherman" tanks. (God knows how he managed to muster them.) I can't vouch for the German tank -- there is only one shown on screen and it could pass for a Panther. I also admire him for having the daring to make a movie about an unmitigated Allied defeat. As a whole, movies in this genre depict a victory on the part of the nations producing the movie in the first place.

"The Enemy Below," "Zulu," "Torpedo Bay," "Die Brucke," just to give American, British, Italian, and German examples. The list goes on. About the only time we're permitted to witness defeats for "our side" is during a heroic last stand against overwhelming odds ("Bataan") or when the defeat is the result of dirty pool ("Pearl Harbor"). But here, with no excuses, Attenborough delivers a different message entirely.

The performances are as good as can be expected from actors who have so little time to develop their characters. The battle scenes are realistic enough, without their shoving our noses into spilled intestines.

Attenborough is not a splashy director but he has a couple of things go on that are worth noticing. The Dutch citizens who first greet the Allied troops joyfully as liberators wind up being slaughtered and their cities destroyed by the war that is thrust on them. Civilian suffering tends to get short shrift unless one of them is Sofia Loren or somebody. Another worthwhile touch, a small one. The British politely take over one of those large super-scrubbed middle-class Dutch homes as a hospital -- "just for the slightly wounded, Ma'am." And as the first soldiers enter they step over two kids playing with a toy train on a thick creamy rug -- and a few drops of blood sprinkle the carpet.

Two other observations. "The Longest Day" is sometimes compared unfavorably to this film for a number of reasons, many of them justified. But "The Longest Day" was made under restrictions that had been lifted by the time this movie was produced. Zanuck wanted to show more of the slaughter at Omaha Beach but was prevented from doing so. He was similarly prevented by prevailing folkways from showing Allied troops as more brutal. And he originally filmed the closing scene of the movie not with a triumphant parade of victorious infantrymen marching up the slopes to a peppy military tune but with an forlorn, exhausted, empty grunt, sitting at the water's edge and listlessly tossing pebbles into the waves. The scene had to be deleted. A bothersome thing about "A Bridge Too Far" is that, at least as I've seen it on TV, I can't easily tell who is where. In Ryan's book it's easy enough to follow events and characters but, as edited, this movie is pretty confusing. When five of the major actors all show up together on a balcony, it came as a big surprise. I thought Connery and one or two of the others were still trapped behind German lines! I don't know whether this confusion is due to poor editing or a ministroke.

The movie is a cut above most cinematic portrayals of historical events, likely due to it's being based on historian Cornelius Ryan's excellent book, and it's not as overproduced or staged as the film version of another of his books, The Longest Day. The producer admits to crediting one assault to the Americans, when in the event the British were first to attack, but overall the movie relates a good sense of history and geography, and respects the timeline of the actual events. It shows the national and class tensions affecting the Allied leadership, and gives a sense of the character of the participants. The writing gives the plethora of good actors something to work with despite no single leading role (and it's fun to watch so many actors in a single film.) Relevant information is included in the character's dialogue rather than through narration. The editing adds to the flow of events, balancing the suspense borne by the individuals involved with interest and action for the viewer. Add in the Intelligent direction by Richard Attenborough, and it makes this one of my favorite World War Two films.

In the autumn of 1944 Field Marshall Montgomery conceived a plan called Operation Market Garden that would open a corridor across the Rhine river and allow Allied troops to attack the heartland of Germany. When he and his staff devised the plan the Allied forces were being held in their positions by both German resistance and lack of supplies. At the time it appeared the war would evolve into the same static-front contest of attrition which occured in the first world war and led to horrible loss of life on all sides.

A Bridge Too Far is such an accurate portrayal of the events which occurred during Operation Market Garden that much of the criticism for the film is veiled criticism of the plan itself and of the actions of the participants. The criticism of Montgomery is undeserved, as he was a capable, if seemingly over cautious general. The plan was the boldest of any that were made during the war and the reasons Eisenhower approved it instead of one by Montgomery's rival Patton are valid. The results of the operation have been incorrectly regarded by some as a failure, but in fact it made the defense of Germany untenable and facilitated the final push into Germany during the spring of 1945.

The film itself is well written and contains imagery of battles and troop movements of a scale that has not been equaled, at least in any realistic manner. Earlier comments have been made that Attenborough's attention to detail has resulted in an overly lengthy film but I disagree with that assessment. Any film which depicts a part of the war which directly effected the second half of the 20th century should be given as much time as necessary to tell it's story. There is only one part of the film that has no direct bearing on the narrative of events and that is the sub plot involving James Caan's character, which does add 20 minutes to the running time of 3 hours.

The scenes showing the drop of the British and American airborne forces are visually stunning and worth the price of a DVD for their own sake. Anthony Hopkins is at his best as the unenviable forward commander at the final bridge at Arnhem. My only regret is that the actual glider landings were not depicted, presumably because of the risk involved.

The film should be considered required viewing by anyone who claims to be a war film fan, or anyone interested in the events which occurred during the second world war.

Last week, September 13 to 19, 2004, Operation Market Garden happened exactly 60 years ago. It was maybe the last remembrance of Operation Market Garden with a sizable number of veterans present from as far afield as Australia, the USA, Britain, and Poland. It was VERY impressive to see them marching or driving over the John Frost Bridge in the centre of Arnhem, where the battle had its climax. The veterans I talked to told me they really enjoyed the warmth with which they were received, by both the young and old Dutch people. Many were moved emotionally.. and many visit the remembrance annually, as far as their health permits (they are all in their 80s of course).

Other memorable events were the air droppings on the Ginkelse Heide (heath), and the ceremony at the military cemetery at Oosterbeek, attended by the Queen of Holland and the Prince of Wales.

For those who are interested, here are some good websites with info on the battle:

http://www.marketgarden.com

http://members.lycos.nl/marketgarden44

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/battle_arnhem_01.shtml

http://www.rememberseptember44.com

Hope someone found this useful. Hans, from Holland.

Even a relatively bad Richard Attenborough movie is a classic.

The final scene with Liv Ulman and Lawrence Olivier evacuating their estate turned into a graveyard is practically worth the price of admission by itself.

This is a sweeping, big budget epic movie with a star-studded cast. Definitely unfocused, but Attenborough pulls it off with considerable historical accuracy and his signature deft touch retelling of this sprawling military debacle. He makes excellent use of his tremendous cast, instead of just having them making appearances. He has plenty of subtle touches like that final scene.

The reception of the movie was hurt I think by its proximity to the Vietnam war. But it has aged very well.