Cap sur Marseille

Wartime heroics never seemed exploited in quite so complex a fashion as "Passage to Marseille," directed by Michael Curtiz…

Bogart, a French journalist framed for murder because of his political views and sent to Devil's Island during World War II, escapes from his penal hell with four other convicts and winds up on a French freighter bound for home… Hoping to rejoin the fighting Free French resistance movement, the men, all fiercely loyal patriots, become involved in preventing a takeover of the ship by Fascist sympathizers…

This relatively simple plot line is then surrounded by a series of extraneous plots and subplots which were related in a series of single, double, and even triple flashbacks, making any semblance of coherency virtually impossible…

Bogart's characterization is equally vague and complicated as he maintained an opposing balance of virtue and vice… At one moment he is the picture of idealistic moral righteousness fighting against a callous system, and the next he debased his human nature as he brutally machine-guns some defenseless enemies… His moral platitudes do not balance his immoral behavior, making for ambiguity and confusion...

The most important saving grace of "Passage to Marseille" is the supporting cast headed by Bogart's "Casablanca" co-stars Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre, who all turned in strong character portrayals

I think some people have been unduly unfair on this film.

There is quite a complex sequence of flashbacks. But as a matter of fact, I didn't find them at all difficult to follow. My brain only hurts when I try to work it out afterwards. Maybe it's another of those things which work better in a cinema than on TV.

There is a scene where Bogart's character commits a war crime. I think we have to remember that Bogart did not always play saintly characters. He was not exactly saintly in the "Maltese Falcon" or "Casablanca". He was even less saintly in "The Caine Mutiny". I am sure that the audience in 1944 would have been shocked by the war crime just as we are

now; even Nazi propaganda sometimes emphasised the importance of being gentlemanly to prisoners. The easy and boring option would have been for

Bogart to play the all-American (or all-French) hero throughout; I find it

more interesting that in this case he isn't. I think the circumstances to some extent explain what Bogart's character does. The fact is war crimes happen in war. They happened then, and they happen now, and the perpetrators are not as through-and-through evil (or different from us) as we would like to think.

I agree with those who say this film is not as good as "Casablanca" or the "Maltese Falcon". The plot is a lot more lumpy and uneven than those films. But I've seen those two films several times already, and I can't watch them every night. "Passage to Marseille" is worth at least one viewing. In fact I would like to see it again, if I get a chance.

Quite a good film. I didn't have any trouble following the flashback-in-a-flashback scheme. Bogart was Bogart. What can you say? Greenstreet and Lorre were good. Claude Rains was excellent. Apparently, some people are upset at this film because it isn't "Casablanca". I don't really think it tried to be. It was probably just that the actors and director liked working together, and if that sold more tickets, well, no one would complain. Clint Eastwood and Woody Allen frequently cast their films with the same actors, presumably friends (and lovers), and no one thinks twice about it.

Many serious film buffs have made the comparison between this movie and Casablanca. The director and cast are almost identical. They also take issue with the nested flashbacks, claiming that it confuses the story. I disagree. Think for a moment; if Casablanca had never been made, this would certainly be a riveting movie in it's own right. It deserves to stand alone and be recognized - for the propaganda it was.

I won't go into the story itself, but I couldn't help making an observation about the cast. This is supposed to be a story about French convicts who recognize the errors of their ways and come to France's aid when she needs them most. Humphrey Bogart and George Tobias were from New York (the accents prove it), Philip Dorn from the Netherlands, Helmut Dantine from Austria, Peter Lorre from Hungary, Victor Francen from Belgium, Vladimir Sokoloff from Russia, and Claude Rains, John Loder, Sidney Greenstreet from England. Only Michelle Morgan was French and she seemed more like an afterthought.

An honorable mention for my favorite director: Michael Curtiz. Many people have called him a studio hack and criticized him for his dictatorial rather than directorial attitude toward cast and crew alike, but anybody who could construct such diverse masterpieces as "Casablanca" and "The Adventures of Robin Hood", deserves much more credit than he ever got. I urge you to review his screen credits. He was prolific and uncompromising in the quality of his work.

On the horizon a canoe that's a small crew, without sustenance, they're all just about through, the Ville de Nancy brings them in, a war wages from Berlin, through several flashbacks there's a story that comes through. As it transpires that they've escaped from Devil's Island, they are keen to get to France to fight for their land, but a Vichy sympathiser, and his sycophant adviser, try to scupper this bedraggled, ragged band. It's not the greatest film with folks you may admire, Sydney has an odd accent, that's rather dire, but generally it's fine, as they sail across the brine, you can tick it off your list if you require.