Sahara

"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.

The Good Guys are desperate for water. The Bad Guys are desperate for water. Everyone is obsessed with the impossibility of getting water. Water. Water. Water.

There just isn't any. It's central to the plot. Everyone is terrified of dying for lack of it. They're ready to kill for it. They're ready to die for it. They travel miles and miles out of their way to get to wells.

And yet... when they start seriously shooting at each other, both sides are laying down a practically non-stop withering fire with.... WATER-COOLED machine guns!!!!!!

I guess they must have had a whole bunch of water all along!

Bogart does well as an American tank commander early in WW II coming across some retreating British infantry. They later make a dramatic last stand against the attacking Germans.

Two actors make this movie a standout. J. Carroll Naish was of Irish descent, and he never played an Irishman in his long and great career as an actor. Check his movies and look for his great performances. Here he is magnificent as a tormented and disillusioned Italian prisoner (a German ally) who has to fianlly decide if he'll fight with the Germans or stand with the Allies, who could have let him die in the desert.

Rex Ingram was a fine black actor who here plays a Sudanese soldier in British colonial service. The depiction of a heroic black soldier was rare during World War Two (see my review of "Bataan"). He too was memorable. It's a fine film and worth catching whenever you can find it.

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.

"Sahara" is a first-rate War film, well directed by Zoltan Korda, which qualitatively balanced its superb action sequences with penetrating character studies…

Bogart is seen as a tank commander who, when separated from his unit in the Libyan Desert, picks up a group of allied (and eventually several enemy) stragglers and heads out in search of badly needed water… Once they arrive at a nearly dry oasis, and after he learns that a motorized battalion of Germans is also after the water, Bogart decides to make a valiant stand…

Bogart's characterization is excellent as he gave what many considered to be the most realistic portrait of the truly "American" fighting man yet pictured on the screen…

Assisting in the overall success of "Sahara" was a masterful musical score by Miklos Rozsa, who did similar duty the same year in another "tank" picture, Billy Wilder's "Five Graves to Cairo."