User reviews

"B. for Bertie crashed on Sunday morning. 0431. But our story starts some fifteen hours earlier......."

With that simple statement Powell and Pressburger take us on another journey into cinema. A group of wise-cracking RAF crewmen take off on a routine bombing flight. The plane is shot and the crew manage to parachute off the before the plane stalls and crashes.

On the ground the men (minus the pilot) gather together. They first encounter a trio of children who ask "have you come to invade Holland?" The men are taken to the adults who debate about what to do with them.

Truly inventive film is well thought-out and photographed. Interest never wavers. What could have been a run-of-the-mill war film was skillfully crafted into a film of humanity in the midst of inhumanity.

Shameless Laudations!

During a raid on Germany a British bomber crew is forced to bail out after their plane is damaged. They land in Holland and are aided by the Dutch civilians.

Interesting WW2 drama. Quite realistic: very plausible and accurately told. The RAF operational scenes at the beginning of the film are excellent and could be from an actual raid they're that realistic.

Being made in WW2 you would think it would be quite jingoistic and propaganda-filled but writer-directors Michael Powell and Eric Pressburger manage to keep things reasonably balanced.

No big names in the main cast but it is worth spotting a 20-year-old Peter Ustinov in a minor role. This was his film debut and he is not recognisable. Look out for the young Dutch priest.

The crew also includes a not-yet-famous David Lean as editor.

One of the best war films produced World War II, `One of Our Aircraft is Missing' is the product of one of the best British filmmaking teams of the 1940s, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. The makers of such unusual and memorable films as `The Red Shoes' and `Black Narcissus', Powel and Pressburger's films were never like anyone else's. Their approach to a wartime propaganda film was equally different.

`One of Our Aircraft is Missing' begins dramatically with the crash of an RAF Vickers Wellington bomber designated `B-For Bertie', and then flashes back to the events leading thereto. The viewer is introduced to the six members of crew, and learns that they had actually bailed out of their crippled aircraft prior to the crash, landing in Nazi-occupied Holland. The remainder of the story describes their escape back to Britain.

What makes this film different from the conventional Hollywood treatment of similar subject matter is that `One of Our Aircraft is Missing' stresses the courage and resourcefulness of the Dutch civilians rather than the aircrew. Indeed, it made manifestly clear that the British crew could never have escaped without the assistance of a great many ordinary Dutch people of all ages and both sexes. The characters, both British and Dutch, are all well drawn Surprisingly enough, even the Germans are depicted as not entirely inhuman. `They want to be liked', says one Dutch patriot who has wormed her way into their confidence by posing as a Quisling.

From a historical perspective, this film is of interest due to its depiction of RAF Bomber Command operations during the early part of World War II, as well as details of the interior of the famous Wellington Bomber. It is also worth seeing as early example of the work of legendary film director David Lean (`Oliver Twist', `Bridge Over the River Kwai', `Lawrence of Arabia', Doctor Zhivago', Ryan's Daughter', etc), who served as Film Editor. There is also an early performance by a very young (and thin) Peter Ustinov, who acts in Dutch and Latin as well as English. All in all, this film is well worth a look.

A British bomber is shot over German-occupied Netherlands. The crew parachutes down and struggles to escape with the help of the local resistance. The most notable aspect is its release date. It's war film released in the heart of WWII. There is the use of a real British plane and some convincing miniatures. The bomber part of the movie is a bit dry but the authenticity is quite compelling. The occupation part is compelling if a bit easier than expected. It's probably their uniforms. The soldiers do not take their uniforms off and thereby maintaining the rules of warfare. This is obviously done to show that the British fight by the rules. The men don't differentiate themselves within the group. All in all, this is a solid war film in the heart of a truly tough real world fight. As for the title, it's an example of something simple and memorable. That's why it's so often copied even as a joke.

A solidly engaging WW2 thriller from the Powell/Pressburger team. This one's a straightforward story about a bomber crew who go on a bombing raid over Stuttgart but who are forced to parachute out of their plane when it's hit by anti-aircraft fire. They land in Nazi-occupied Holland and are forced to put themselves at the mercy of local resistance members in order to escape.

A premise like this is ripe for suspense and ONE OF OUR AIRCRAFT IS MISSING doesn't disappoint in this respect. The story has a ring of authenticity to it and is enlivened by the stalwart efforts of the cast members who include Eric Portman, Bernard Miles, and Hugh Burden among their number. I thought that the special effects for the era - let us not forget this was made while the war was still going on - were very good. The bits in Holland tone it down a notch but the story picks back up towards the climax, leading to a thrilling ending. There's very little to dislike here.

More than half a century after the happening, for anyone who still can't get enough of World War II, this is a movie not to be missed.

It tells the story of what happens to an RAF crew on a bombing mission over Europe. That story is told with skill and even though the movie was made clear back in 1942, its technical aspects still hold up beyond the millennium (something which cannot be said for many World War II movies that were made during, and even after, the happening). All credit for this movie belongs to the brilliant British (well, one Brit and one Hungarian by birth) writing- producing-directing team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

Two other movies in this genre that immediately come to mind and which likewise should not be missed by any World War II "junkie," are: "Command Decision" (1948) and "Twelve O'Clock High" (1949). The only difference(s) between these latter two and the one being reviewed are that the latter two are American movies (set in England) while "Aircraft" is a British effort (set in England and, well, Europe). Also, unlike "Aircraft," which was made during the height of the war, these latter two were made a few years following the war's conclusion.

Other than those quite minor differences, all three of these movies belong atop any World War IIite's must-see list.

If you are interested in seeing a fairly well-made WW2 picture that has no American involvement in it at all (either in its production, or its cast, or its story-line) - Then - "One Of Our Aircraft Is Missing" is certainly the one for you to watch.

Filmed in stark b&w - This 1942, British production, honoring the bravery, sacrifice, and patriotism of the R.A.F., featured some really notable camerawork, especially during the battle scenes which were taken from a dramatic aerial view.

With most of the action in the story taking place in Holland - My only real complaint is that, after being shot down by the Nazis, our heroic R.A.F. boys remained a little too neat and tidy in their uniformed attire (considering all of the "roughing it" that they had to endure).

Made in the middle of WWII, One of Our Aircraft Is Missing is quite a great film. The technical aspects and special effects are extraordinary. The script is wonderful (Oscar winning) and the British RAF members are all well developed. Some of the Dutch could use a little more characterization, but it's not too bad. One might think that the Archers' strengths lie in fantasy films, but they stick to realism here, and they do a great job. If you are a fan of the Archers, don't miss it. If you are a WWII buff, also make sure you catch it. 9/10.

With the Second World War at its height, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger here made their debut under the title of The Archers with this story of downed Royal Air Force men escaping through occupied Holland.

This is first and foremost a propaganda piece, and as such it works well. Pressburger created a story which at turns makes heroes of British soldiers, reassures and bolsters the civilians back home and, typically for the internationalist Pressburger but rare for propaganda pictures in general, pays tribute to the people of occupied Europe. While it would have been mostly aimed at the British public, and the heroes are British airmen, this is really a picture about the Dutch resistance. However the Dutch nationalism in the film does border on the ridiculous at times, such as when a resistance woman comments that she prefers the taste of Dutch water to French champagne.

The circumstances of the airmen's escape are extremely tame, it has to be said. Forget Steve McQueen on a motorbike – here it's all push-bikes, rowing boats and tea with the vicar. As a result the picture doesn't stand up well as pure entertainment. But it seems as if it's the domesticity and sheer ordinariness that Powell and Pressburger are wanting to stress. This film is as much – if not more so – about the home front as the western front. It's also interesting that the two main Dutch resistance characters are both female. Something Powell and Pressburger stress throughout their propaganda films is the role of women during the war, an aspect often overlooked in the more gung ho war pictures.

Michael Powell's bold and highly cinematic style seems well developed here. Here, even more so than usual in Powell's pictures, the direction is very self-aware and openly pointed at the audience. With the narrative moved along at every turn by text based devices – documents revealing the movements of the airmen or the occasional subtitles which directly address the audience – and the sweeping, highly-noticeable camera movement, it's almost as if you can feel the director's personality as he guides you through the story. It's the complete opposite of John Ford's "invisible camera" technique, but no less effective in its own way.

This picture also has significance for me as featuring the screen debut of my favourite actor Peter Ustinov, here playing a Dutch priest. It's not a huge part, but he gets enough room to make some funny little gestures and facial expressions that are typical of his style. Had he been given much more screen time he could probably could have stolen the film, even at this young age. Aside from Peter the Great, none of the performances really stand out.

One of Our Aircraft is Missing is an interesting propaganda piece, but it's a weaker Powell and Pressburger film today. Taken out of the context in which it was made it's not particularly enjoyable. It's probably only really of interest for Powell and Pressburger completists or those who have an interest in the specific ground it covers.

Given that this movie was made about the then contemporary World War II times, without the benefit of a huge budget (compared to now), generations before computer graphics became the norm, it is refreshing to see a sensible depiction of those wartime conditions. Imagine making a picture of the bombing raids over Germany in the (I presume Mosquito) bombers, not known to be that secure from ground based A.A.C. fire— they could not fly higher, as could the later Lancasters. I feel the directors chose correctly in making it a character driven piece, with the action sublimated somewhat.

I caught this movie on a relatively new local TV station, it was one of their first offerings albeit in the early morning, I did not know about the movie before. What also surprised me was the appearance of later 'stars', Robert Helpmann, Peter Ustinov and Googie Withers, though she was fairly established by then. By co-incidence, I had viewed earlier that evening a British Documentary feature where the grandchildren of the original RAF bomber crew-members were to learn to actually fly a remaining WW II aircraft. And that reference was cool. The atmosphere exhibited in that doco, certainly the old time news clips, recent interviews of the veterans, rang true to the movie, especially with the actual ( or the perceived depiction if it was only that ) film of the raids over Germany and the resultant destruction.

The characterisations were laid back, as befits the RAF types, and the Dutch citizens, who organised the Resistance, were well played. Besides the unexpected cast members, there was another piece of 'recoginition' I found fascinating, and I hope it wasn't used in the film, (made in either 1941 or 1942, both are given in various sources), and gave away the Resistance as the war was only half over then. Of course the film makers had no idea how long the war would last or just what was in store for them. The pace of the film was a bit pedestrian, all the better I think, to enable the characters to be developed, and the bits of business the group had to 'endure' was fairly realistic, reasonably true to life. I guess there must have been some propaganda value in the movie as I couldn't imagine that opportunity would have been missed by the British authorities, maybe even instigated it, in league with the Dutch. I could hardly blame them.

All in all, I thought it was a fascinating movie, a benchmark. For others to come it also was a benchmark, to be creditable one had to do at least as well. Whether our later techniques make it easier, or convenient, or cost effective, or entertaining, or thought provoking, is a matter for our future, but looking back sixty odd years I think they produced a fine movie.

"One of Our Aircraft is Missing" was the fourth collaboration between Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger and the first film to use their trademark "The Archers" designation. Like their previous film "49th Parallel" it is a wartime propaganda film about a group of servicemen stranded in enemy territory and trying to escape, but reverses its plot. "49th Parallel" was about a group of Germans marooned in Canada and trying to escape to the then-neutral United States. "One of Our Aircraft is Missing" is about a group of British airmen (the crew of an RAF Vickers Wellington bomber) stranded in the German-occupied Netherlands and trying to get back to England. (The title derives from a standard phrase used by the BBC and the Ministry of Information when an aircraft failed to return from a mission).

Like "The Day Will Dawn", set in Norway, the film was made to draw attention to the plight of European countries occupied by the Nazis and to the role of the Resistance movements in those countries. The British bomber crew, forced to bale out when their aircraft is hit by enemy fire, are reliant upon the Dutch Resistance to help them escape. The film places great stress upon symbols of Dutch patriotism such as the "Wilhelmus", their national anthem, and pictures of their Royal Family. The film ends with the words "Nederland zal herrijzen!" ("The Netherlands shall rise again!") on the screen.

I would not rank the film as highly as "49th Parallel", which was given extra dramatic force by the tensions which arise between the "good" (i.e. anti-Nazi) and "bad" Germans and by the ironic ending in which the Nazi commander, who thinks that he has reached sanctuary on American soil, is returned to Canada by a twist of fate. The various British airmen, by contrast, are not really differentiated except at a superficial level; they are all what in the slang of the period would have been referred to as "jolly good eggs", united by their belief in the Allied cause and their sense of comradeship. Unusually Pressburger, who generally acted as the Archers' scriptwriter, did not include any "good Germans" in this film; the Germans we see are generally a faceless enemy, although we are left in no doubt as to their capacity for brutality or as to the treachery of the Dutch Quislings who collaborate with them.

I would, however, rank the film higher than something like "The Day Will Dawn" which was a slapdash film, made on a small budget, and it shows. It also suffers from a tendency to try and score propaganda points at every opportunity, even when this is to the detriment of the story. Powell, however, who generally acted as the Archer's director, handles his material well, producing a tense, gripping adventure story. "One of Our Aircraft is Missing" may be propaganda in the sense that it was made with the express purpose of keeping up British morale in wartime, but in the hands of skilled film-makers like the Archers propaganda is not necessarily a bad thing. 7/10

Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger were one of the great director-writer teams in the history of cinema (Ozu and Noda being possibly their only superiors; others come to mind, though they have smaller bodies of work -- Losey and Pinter, certainly Antonioni and Guerra, or De Sica and Guerra, maybe Lean and Coward). When they first began collaborating, Powell was the director, and Pressburger the writer, and although in time they would come to share those responsibilities to some extent, this more or less remained the nature of their partnership until it ended in 1957.

"One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" is the duo's fourth collaboration; however, it is the first film officially by The Archers, the production company started by Powell and Pressburger for this film. Prior to this one, they had worked together on three feature films, for which Powell was the only credited director and Pressburger the only credited writer of the two. Those films were "The Spy in Black", "Contraband" (a.k.a. "Blackout"), and "49 Parallel". "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" marks the first time that both the directing credits and the writing credits were shared between them, a trend that would continue for the remaining extent of their working relationship.

These early efforts by Powell and Pressburger are not especially good, and are by no means their best work. Formally, they're pretty flat, utilizing the plain, minimalistic, realist aesthetic that was popular in British cinema at the time. In terms of content, they're lacking in thematic depth, and they're highly propagandistic. There's not much to praise in these films, except that we can see the beginnings of the duo's gift for storytelling that would eventually elevate them to the great filmmakers we now know them to be.

Powell had been directing films since the beginning of the '30s. I haven't been able to find many of those early films from before his days with Pressburger, but the one I did find -- his 1934 film, "The Fire Raisers" -- was superior to anything else I've seen from that period in British cinema, including Hitchcock's work from that time. By 1939, when Powell and Pressburger teamed up for their first effort, a spy thriller called "The Spy in Black", the war was breaking out, and this called for an influx of propaganda into British cinema. As degrading as that would inevitably be to the quality of their films, Powell and Pressburger felt it their duty to use the tools available to them to serve the cause they believed in, and to help in some small way to win the global war against fascism. I can't possibly blame them for that, but it is worth noting that these films, including "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing", are overtly propagandistic, and that will certainly be frustrating at times for any unbiased, unprejudiced viewer.

Unfortunately, even outside of the propaganda element, there's just not that much to say about "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing", except that it's neither a good nor a bad film. It's similar to Powell and Pressburger's previous collaboration, "49th Parallel", in many ways. "49th Parallel" was a British film about Canada. It was a love letter to Canada intended to encourage a cross-cultural connection between the two wartime allies. "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" does the same thing, except instead of Canada, it is the Netherlands this time. Both films feature Eric Portman, a quality actor.

Bernard Miles is another familiar face in the film. He was a minor British actor that has popped up in many of the films I've seen from this era (he had small roles in "The Spy in Black", "The Lion Has Wings", and "Contraband", and was later in a couple of David Lean films, "In Which We Serve" and "Great Expectations", as well as Hitchcock's American remake of "The Man Who Knew Too Much"). Also keep an eye out for a young Peter Ustinov, as the priest.

"One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" and "The Spy in Black" are the weakest films that I've seen by Powell and Pressburger (unless you include their short film, "The Volunteer", also from the war years). "49th Parallel" is a slightly better film, as is "Contraband", with its levity and wit, but this stretch of propaganda work by Powell and Pressburger is certainly the weakest period in their otherwise impressive oeuvre. It's not until their fifth collaboration, "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp", that we see the legitimately impressive Powell and Pressburger cinema that would become their standard of quality from that point forward (again, barring "The Volunteer", their sixth film). "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp" was the last of their feature propaganda films. Their seventh collaboration, "A Canterbury Tale", begins to break away from that irritatingly patriotic mode of filmmaking. While it certainly retains some of the propaganda elements from their previous films, it begins to see them liberated from the necessity to make those kinds of films, and that was a big step forward for their cinema.

And yet, even these early films, from before Powell and Pressburger truly hit their stride with "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp", are enjoyable enough to justify a watch. "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" serves its purpose as a propaganda film, and also is mildly satisfying as entertainment. It has a plot that is probably just engaging enough to keep the viewer's interest, and while there's no real substance of any kind, it is certainly not a bad film. It is simply a mediocre film. Those who aren't watching it as a Powell and Pressburger film, and who are simply watching it in its own right, may not find it especially fulfilling. However, fans of Powell and Pressburger's work (or other, similar films from the time period) will likely find it to be worth the time.

RATING: 4.67 out of 10 stars

Director Michael Powell's World War II-drama is a clever reworking of his "The 49th Parallel" (1941), a story of six German sailors marooned in Canada after their submarine is destroyed; the movie chronicles their failed attempt to cross over into then-neutral America. This time, in "One of Our Aircraft...," the heroes are six members of a British RAF bombing crew. We watch as they take off for the Continent and sample their conversation. However, after dropping their bombs on a Stuttgart industrial plant, their Wellington aircraft suffers a direct hit from German flak. The crippled plane flies as far as Nazi-occupied Holland before the crew decide to bail. The rest of the film chronicles their efforts to return to England, assisted by various Dutch civilians.

"One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" is Powell's wartime love letter to the Netherlands. The film opens with a close-up of a document, signed by the Dutch government-in-exile, informing us of the names of Dutch citizens who were executed for insurrection against Germany's Occupation - e.g., helping downed Allied fliers return to England. This visual device, the close-up of official paperwork, is repeated throughout the film. At certain intervals between episodes, Powell fills the screen with other documents and bureaucratic red tape - mostly applications to the Nazis, requesting permits to attend churches and soccer matches or to visit relatives in other villages. Off-screen, we hear the disgruntled commentary of a German Commandant as he stamps his reluctant approval on each application. The purpose of this motif is clear: to establish to British audiences what life in England would be like if overrun by an enemy with "an orderly mind." Thus, the whole film is a wartime morale-booster.

The crew represents an interesting cross-section of England: Sir George Corbett (played by Godfrey Tearle, who was the treasonous villain in Hitchcock's "The 39 Steps"), the "old man" WWI vet who wants to have another go at the Hun; Geof Hickman (Bernard Miles), the amiable Cockney; Frank Shelley (Hugh Williams), an actor; Tom Earnshaw (Eric Portman), a Yorkshire sheep breeder; Bob Ashley (Emrys Jones), a professional soccer-player; and the pilot, John Haggard (Hugh Burden), who bears resemblance to a younger version of the film's director, Powell. (Powell himself appears early in the film as an air-traffic controller - or "director" - reciting such lines as "Q for Queenie, you are now clear for takeoff.") The Dutch patriots are a fine, spirited lot: Pamela Brown and Googie Withers play two women who in large part are responsible for the downed fliers' safekeeping. Robert Helpmann, appears as a leering Nazi collaborator. And Peter Ustinov has a small role as a Catholic priest.

Produced at the height of the Second World War, One of Our Aircraft Is Missing stands as a compelling example of how narrative economy, technical constraint, and ideological clarity can intersect to form a film that is simultaneously taut, ideologically charged, and stylistically sophisticated. What it achieves, especially given its 1942 production date, is an understated but resolute affirmation of Allied moral superiority-not through spectacle, but through a meticulous orchestration of realism, character interplay, and atmospheric control.

Cinematically, the film operates with remarkable restraint. It eschews bombast and melodrama in favor of procedural tension, realism, and a documentarian visual rhythm that still feels distinctive today. The camera moves with a kind of modest intelligence; the mise-en-scène is composed with a quiet sense of duty, never calling attention to itself, but always serving the narrative logic. Day-for-night shots are used sparingly and effectively. Interiors, particularly in the occupied Dutch village, are rendered with shadows and candlelight in ways that subtly echo German Expressionism without ever losing the British matter-of-factness. There is no score. That absence is deliberate, and it's powerful: silence, ambient sounds, and the whisper of boots on wood amplify the anxiety more than any orchestral cue could. The decision to work almost entirely without non-diegetic music is a formal gesture that aligns the film with the emerging aesthetics of wartime realism, anticipating the restrained atmospheres of later escape films such as The Colditz Story (1955).

The acting, uniformly strong, is defined less by individual bravura than by collective coherence. There is a democratic ethos in the performances: each crew member of the downed bomber contributes equally to the group's survival, and the Dutch resistance characters are drawn with enough sharpness and dignity to avoid the kind of exoticized victimhood so often imposed on occupied civilians in Allied cinema of the time. Dialogue is functional but never flat; it resists both heroics and over-scripted cleverness, lending the film a lived-in plausibility. No role dominates, and this flattening of hierarchy feels ideologically consistent with the British wartime self-image of shared burden and collective effort.

Stylistically and thematically, the film shares a certain procedural kinship with 49th Parallel (1941), which similarly turned wartime escape and pursuit into vehicles for moral contrast and geopolitical allegory. Yet unlike that film, which often veered into didacticism, One of Our Aircraft Is Missing maintains a steadier tonal register, rarely lecturing its audience. It trusts in the intelligence of its viewers and the moral clarity of its constructed world. If anything, its restraint is its most effective form of persuasion.

This cinematic discipline is inseparable from its political and historical context. By 1942, the British public had endured the Blitz, witnessed the loss of European allies, and faced a long war with no clear end. In that environment, the film industry-particularly under the guidance of the Ministry of Information-functioned as both a mirror and a lantern: reflecting existing fears and ideals, while projecting a vision of coordinated, transnational resistance. This film is a paradigmatic instance of that vision. Its portrayal of Dutch civilians who risk everything to help stranded RAF crewmen is not merely a narrative device; it's an ideological assertion. The occupied people are not just sympathetic victims, they are participants in the Allied cause. Their courage is shown not as local resistance, but as an extension of British virtue. In doing so, the film internationalizes British heroism-turning occupied Europe into a moral ally long before it can be a military one.

It is within this ideological frame that the film stages one of its most striking-and underdiscussed-narrative choices: the representation of a British bombing raid over the Netherlands. While the initial downing of the aircraft is tied to a mission over Stuttgart, there is a later scene in which German troops in the Dutch village run to bunkers under the sound of incoming RAF bombers. Though the destruction is never shown on screen, the implication is unmistakable: the British are bombing a location within the Netherlands, a territory populated by the very civilians who are now risking their lives for the Allied cause.

The film's treatment of this moment is nothing short of masterful in its propagandistic subtlety. By staging the air raid only through offscreen sound and reaction, the filmmakers avoid the troubling visual of Allied bombs falling near Dutch homes. Yet the impact is there, refracted through the panic of German occupiers-a clever inversion of perspective that reassigns vulnerability to the enemy and agency to the local resistance. This kind of narrative sleight of hand allows the film to engage with a highly complex moral issue-Allied bombing of friendly occupied territories-without ever confronting the collateral consequences. Instead, it reinterprets the act of bombing as a welcomed form of intervention, even liberation. The Dutch characters, far from showing fear or resentment, move with resolve and coordination. The message is clear: these bombs are not invasions, but signals of hope.

This dimension must also be understood in the real historical context: by 1942, the United Kingdom had already conducted bombing raids over Dutch cities-both intentional and accidental-as part of attacks on German military positions within occupied territories. However, the film neither dramatizes nor addresses the civilian consequences or potential resentment; rather, it operates as a propaganda tool designed to justify these bombings to both British and Dutch audiences. In other words, the film helps shape a moral perception in which bombings on allied-occupied soil are viewed as necessary and legitimate acts within the broader fight against Nazism. Thus, the film builds consensus on the home front while simultaneously reinforcing the image of the Dutch resistance as active and willing collaborators with the Allied cause, obscuring the more problematic aspects of strategic bombing.

It is important to remember that this approach is no accident but the product of a total war context and political necessity. In 1942, the United Kingdom was at a critical juncture and needed to maintain morale and unity both at home and in occupied territories. Cinema, under the influence of the Ministry of Information, became an instrument to legitimize war strategy, including air missions that posed risks to friendly civilians. In this sense, One of Our Aircraft Is Missing exemplifies how British wartime cinema functioned not only as entertainment but as a vehicle to educate, persuade, and consolidate collective values amid the moral complexities of conflict.

Here, the film reaches a level of sophistication seldom matched in its subgenre: it not only celebrates Allied virtue against Nazi brutality, but transforms sacrifice and strategic violence into a shared and justified act of international solidarity. Its sobriety, narrative economy, and subtle use of sound and visual absence to depict bombing help transform an uncomfortable reality into a hopeful, cohesive message. This ideological complexity is mirrored in the film's formal restraint, where the absence of spectacle and the focus on procedural details and human relationships consolidate its distinctive style. Every gesture, every line of dialogue, every shadow contributes to building an atmosphere of contained tension and moral purpose, making the film a continuing reference point for understanding how the Allied air war was conceived and communicated in times of extreme uncertainty.

So begins The Archers, one of the most important directing partnerships in cinema history when Michael Powell shared directing, writing, and producing credit with Emeric Pressburger for the first time. They largely focused on different aspects of production, though one was never completely removed at any time except, maybe, the editing phase when Pressburger took over, but Powell insisted for the rest of his life that they were equal creatives on their films despite the tendency of some people to call Pressburger no more than Powell's screenwriter. Freed from the dictates of direct propaganda in 49th Parallel, they came up with a companion piece, another travelogue through a beautiful country with a timely story where the opposition between Nazism and western democracy are front and center except with a whole lot less sermonizing, which is very welcome.

"B" for Bertie, a bombing aircraft from England with six men in its bowels, flies over the Channel, over Holland, and straight for Stuttgart where it successfully hits its target, takes some flak, but is able to get away long enough for the engines to fail over Holland on the way back, necessitating the crew to bail out. Five immediately come together, led by the second pilot Tom (Eric Portman), he's joined by the pilot John (Hugh Burden), the navigator Frank (Hugh Williams), the front gunner Geoff (Bernard Miles), and the rear gunner Sir George (Godfrey Tearle) while the sixth man, the wireless operator Bob (Emrys Jones) is no where to be found once they collect themselves.

Uniformed in enemy garb, only one of them able to speak any Dutch, and in an occupied country, the five decide that the best thing to do is to stick together and head westward across the country to the western coast. How they'll do that, they don't know, but they're fortunately encountered by some local children who take them to their schoolteacher, Jet (Joyce Redman), who can speak English, verifies their identity, and tells them that she can get them to the coast almost 60 kilometers away, through enemy patrols and checkpoints, that very evening if they do what she says.

What follows is an episode travelogue through Holland filled with beautiful imagery, a calm and gentle mood, and frequent spikes of suspense as they navigate the dangerous terrain. Most of this works really quite well, feeling less episodic than it could. The scenes with the schoolteacher have a direct purpose of getting them on the right path. There are scenes that are designed to show how dangerous the journey is, in particular the scene in the church, and there's this wonderful undercurrent of resistance from the locals that gets repeated with the motif of the Dutch national anthem. However, there's one scene that really just sticks out and irritates me.

The five get handed off to a reasonably wealthy Dutchman and have lunch in his home. He lives across the street from a German garrison where his young son runs out after having given the German soldiers some records. There's also a neighbor who's been trying to get on the Germans' good side who used the boy to send the records, except the boy relabeled multiple copies of the same record, all playing the Dutch national anthem, and gave them to the Germans instead. When this neighbor figures out that there are English soldiers in the house, he is ready to turn them in, but the situation has quickly changed where he can't do it because he needs to hide from Germans because of the records. This is A LOT of plotting, and it all happens over the course of about five minutes in the middle of this film about escaping British aviators, all with brand new characters just introduced in that scene (some of whom never show up again). From a thematic perspective, it makes total sense, so I can't hate it. However, from a basic narrative construction point of view, it's such a giant sore thumb in the middle of the film. It's weird that it's so prominent, so busy, and so easily dismissed once it's done.

Anyway, the sense of danger increases as the film works towards its conclusion, ending at the port city as the men are guided by Jo (Googie Withers) about how to get out to sea, including a wonderful moment where they have to row under a swing bridge without being seen by the German guard.

It's very well made, quite suspenseful, and has this gentle heart that never goes away, but I do have a couple of other smaller complaints. The ending hinges on the men getting onto a survival buoy already populated by two German soldiers, but we don't see it actually happen, so there's this jarring moment where it's hard to understand the cut. Also, the film starts with text implying that this was based on real life, including a letter describing the execution of five Dutch civilians for helping the English escape, but there's no sense in the film itself that anyone was ever caught. It's a weird contrast in retrospect.

Still, these are small concerns, smaller than my issues with 49th Parallel which I thought worked in spite of itself. This is the better version of a similar story, less prone to polemic and more concerned with a straightforward application of thriller mechanics (we actually root for our main characters instead of against them). For a first film where The Archers were independent, they chose to remain topical but more firmly rooted in solid dramatics, and it works quite well. They probably have a bright future ahead of them.

Definitely agree with Ben Mankewiecz that the first half hour is, by itself, worth the price of admission. Absolutely first rate, WW2 aerial action. And even for a jaded 2024 viewer, used to being dazzled by computer generated special effects, that mock up of night time Stuttgart, with the white flashes and streaks lighting up the doomed city and the equally endangered airmen above, is gripping. To employ the cliche, I felt as if I was in the plane with them.

Alas, once the six fliers are grounded the film sags and becomes an infomercial for Dutch resistance with wall to wall brave, resolute, cheerful Hollanders...and one bug eyed Quisling, who over acts. And Powell/Pressburger's decision to jettison a musical score for the sake of "realism" is misguided, in my opinion. In a wartime propaganda film such as this verismilitude is the last thing on the viewer's or film maker's minds so that the absence of music simply reinforces the flatness of the long middle part of this movie. The pace picks up in act three as the Brits get closer to escape but the film, in my opinion, never re-scales the heights of the initial bombing sequence. B minus.

Good flick; a different perspective (night bombing) than most of the air force world war two movies-12 O'clock High or Memphis Belle, for instance. Worth the price of admission to see Peter Ustinov thin (and young!)

This is a really weird Powell and Pressburger film that came out in the same year as "The Invaders" (aka "49th Parallel") and shares a lot in common with it, notably the episodic structure and the similar plot (downed officers try to reach safety while trekking through hostile territory).

"The Invaders" is much better. "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" isn't bad, but it just feels so inconsequential. The British officers at the center of the story never seem to be in much danger despite having to constantly hide out from Germans patrolling through Holland. And none of them really emerge as a fully-formed character to care about, so I never felt vested in what was happening.

The film received two Oscar nominations in 1942, for its original screenplay and its special effects. Emeric Pressburger actually became the first person (and now that I think of it maybe the only person) to be nominated in all three writing categories in the same year back when the Academy had three writing awards. In addition to his original screenplay nomination for this, he was also nominated for Best Original Story and Best Screenplay for "The Invaders," since eligibility rules split those two contributions into separate categories.

Grade: B.

"...one of our aircraft is missing ..." is a well-cast and well-written piece from Powell and Pressburger, key film makers in 1940s Britain.

The crew of B for Bertie find themselves lost in enemy territory and have to depend on the resources of others to get them to safety. The crew are played by some of the best actors of the time: Godfrey Tearle as the upper-class rear gunner; Eric Portman as the bluff Yorkshire co-pilot; Hugh Williams (father of 1970s actor Simon) as the refined navigator; Bernard Miles - better than usual - as the front gunner; High Burden as the pilot; and Emrys Jones as the Welsh sportsman who became the radio operator.

In support are Googie Withers, P&P regular Pamela Brown, Joyce Redman, Robert Helpmann (as the quisling), Alec Clunes (father of Martin) as the church organist, and Peter Ustinov (in his film debut) as the priest.

This film has been done as a drama-documentary so has a very realistic feel and look, pulling the viewer right into the action alongside the aircraft crew. It is less atmospheric than the 30s P&P films featuring Conrad Veidt and perhaps represented a more grounded style to their work before their Technicolor fantasies of the late 40s.