Sahara

The great thing when Sahara opens is Bogart's relationship with his tank. Maybe he's been in the desert too long! But he's fairly explicit in his attitude, and can't talk about his tank without likening it to a girlfriend. He says that that the sound it makes is sweeter than anything any woman can say. Five minutes later he runs into an uppity British officer in the dunes, who disparages his tank - and Bogart gets quite upset. In one of his few displays of aggression in the film Bogart defends his tank's honour. The others fight for their causes – yes – but the only bait Bogart will rise to is another man disrespecting his Lady Tank.

Meanwhile there is a play of nations going on around Bogart. The Nazi is arrogant and won't be touched by the Sudanese. There is a vengeful little Frenchman and a comic Italian for pathos (his name is even Guiseppe). The British display constant pluck. Now the tank is carrying so many men, that it has become a mother figure, and 45 minutes in it's already "old girl".

It's a greatly entertaining film, and it's fun watching Bogart negotiate, strong arm and wisecrack his way to glory. I think Bogart served the Allies just fine by shooting not overly propagandist movies like this. The ghostly German army, struggling forward for thirst, is a great image to finish on.

"Sahara" is a 1943 film starring Humphrey Bogart, directed by Zoltan Korda, and intended as a propaganda film during World War II. It succeeds.

Bogart is a Sgt. Joe Gunn, and after Tobruk falls in North Africa, he leads a tank unit into the desert. He's joined by French, South African, British, and Sudanese soldiers. They come up against a group of Germans that want the water well where the tanks are stationed.

Besides Bogart, the great cast includes Bruce Bennett. Lloyd Bridges, Dan Duryea and J. Carrol Naish, and they all do an exemplary job. What I like best about this film is the atmosphere - the sun beating down, the dryness, the filth - you're thirsty just watching it.

It was films like this that probably kept people in the U.S. going during the war, I imagine. World War II has been highly romanticized, but despite the pretty songs, there wasn't anything romantic about it. Since there are no women in this film, there's nothing romantic about "Sahara" either. Very good work.

"Sahara" is interesting from several standpoints. First, it is an excellent drama, well acted and directed, with good production values. Second, it raises an interesting moral question. Third, it has implications regarding the main actor and his future movie career.

"Sahara," the story of a rag-tag group of soldiers fleeing from Rommel's Afrika Korps in a US tank, is enjoyable throughout. The cast is fine, representing a number of nationalities and even races. I think this is one of Bogart's better acting jobs, and J. Carrol Naish, Lloyd Bridges, Rex Ingram, Dan Duryea, and the others are equally good.

While this may be a propaganda film, it is no "our hero wipes out an enemy division without a scratch" potboiler. On the contrary, the decision made by Sgt. Joe Gunn (Bogart) to stay and fight a German regiment rather than heading for British lines is a desperate gamble little better than a suicide mission. This brings up my second point; the ethical question.

St. Gunn gets the idea to stay at the oasis they have reached in order to fight and delay a German regiment in hopes that such a sacrifice may help the Allied cause. He must convince the others, and one or two do not go along without some persuading. "I don't mind fighting and dying," one says, "but this is pointless." Well, that's the issue. How easy it is to find reasons NOT to stay behind and fight! Makes me appreciate the plight of our soldiers on Bataan and Wake Island, who had no choice. But this little band does stay and fight, and the story hangs on their decision.

My third point is a bit arcane, and has to do with Hollywood business practices of the 1940s. Bogart was, when this movie started production, about the biggest star in Hollywood. Remember, he had already made High Sierra," "The Maltese Falcon," and "Casablanca." Why then, did Warner Brothers lend him out to Columbia to do this picture? Columbia was still barely a second rank studio. What did they have to trade in return? Rita Hayworth? I don't think she made any films for Warners, but I may be wrong.

Lastly, it's interesting to note that Bogart, when he started his own company (Santana Productions) in the late 40s, signed a releasing deal with Columbia. I guess he must have been impressed with Columbia while making this picture, as well as "Dead Reckoning" (1947).

I strongly recommend "Sahara" to anyone who has not seen it. It's exciting action combined with interesting characterizations.

Shot in the American desert instead of the real Sahara due to the war, this movie is one of the best war films ever made. The desert is so bleak and barren, and the sun so bright, you can almost feel the heat in your living room. Sahara shows us just how brutal the conditions were in North Africa during the war, and how nature brought suffering to both sides. The Allied soldiers are a mix of a lot of different nationalities (American, British, French, South African, Irish, Sudanese) and we see how these men from diverse backgrounds come together to survive against the elements and the Germans. The Germans themselves have the usual stereotyping of nastiness that is found in most films of the 1940s, but even they are shown to be individuals and not a faceless enemy. Get a cool drink and watch Sahara - it's a great movie.

This Zoltan Korda-John Howard Lawson World War II curio is at times a superb war film, with fine pace, excellent location photography and some excellent, unflashy acting. It is a story in the tradition of The Lost Patrol, as experienced U.S. Sgt. Humphrey Bogart, in a tank, helps a motley crew of soldiers, mostly British, in search of either their unit, safety or water, whichever comes first. They wind up at a desert fort and are eventually attacked by a German regiment that is also desperate and thirsty, and some exciting action scenes of fighting and exhausted men are the result.

Bogart is his usual charismatic self in the lead, and the supporting cast is nearly as good, especially Bruce Bennett and J. Carrol Naish; the former is quiet and dignified, as was his custom, the latter typically flamboyant, but this time his florid acting is appropriate. Overall I like this movie a lot. Like all the best war films, it focuses on seemingly small things, such as well that has gone dry (or has it?), the glaring sun, the little stories of home life,--for once not corny. There is a black African solider who is treated as an equal, and well-acted by Rex Ingram. Now and again, though, the movie turns preachy, as a certain internationalist tendentiousness creeps in, which, even if one finds its agreeable, detracts somewhat from the exciting story and makes it at times feel like a tract on the need for cooperation among nations.