Sirocco

Bogie's role was not really unsympathetic unless you happen to be a Francophile. This can be looked at as a prequel to Casablanca. Harry is very much like a young Rick would have been in 1925. Problem is, Bogie is 10 years older and is basically playing Rick as he was in the 20's. The woman is,though, one of the most unsympathetic creatures ever in films. High maintenance, manipulative, out for everything she can get wherever she can get it. Damn sexy too. Not by any means a great picture but if you like Bogie and you like older films, it is worth a summer night.

This could have been a better film; but it was made to conform to the strict rules of the Hayes Commission. One of those strict rules was that any obvious acts of "immorality" (whatever that is) must result in the demise of the person committing such immoral acts. Bogart is not a good guy or bad guy in this film; he is just a guy playing both sides of the fence to make some money. If that is immoral, then 90% of American CEOs would be killed off in any film they were in. I did not buy Lee J Cobb as a French officer as well, although the female lead did a pretty good job. The end result is a pretty watchable film that could have been much better. And the conclusion of the film is not the least bit believable, nor satisfying.

SIROCCO is a film which has gotten mixed reviews, or at least mostly bad reviews. And they are right. My favorite Bogie films (or at least the ones I've seen) are IN A LONELY PLACE, CASABLANCA, THE BIG SLEEP and a couple more. And they have the right to be called "classics". Or even by some, "masterpieces". But SIROCCO doesn't get that chance because, well, it's really nothing special. Being a huge Bogie-fan, I was disappointed when the movie ended and I felt that person who can be referred as "supporting role" was Bogie. Being the superstar that he was, he should have been able to be in the film a little more. I wouldn't advise anyone to not see this film. OK, see it. But don't expect a masterpiece, or even a great movie cause' it's not, unfortunately. the acting and the whole black/white thing were the only good things. But, hey, I would advise IN A LONELY PLACE to anyone, anytime, anywhere. So don't get your hopes up for SIROCCO, instead go rent/buy IN A LONELY PLACE, because that is a film worth calling a classic. Hope I helped.

This is a most unusual movie for its time, and it is fascinating to read the comments on it here on the IMDb. Many viewers are apparently undecided what to make of Sirocco as it does not fit any of the known stereotypes. This is neither Algiers (1938) nor Casablanca (1942), there is no romance, you don't find anything exotic about the place in question (Damascus, Syria) and no great friendships are about to develop. It is basically a movie about people who are confronted with a drab and hopeless situation (messagewise I would compare it with The Sand Pebbles (1966)). It painfully reminds todays viewers of the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq (well, the Jasmine salesman bolts off before his handgranades go off in the cafe, the suicide bomber had not been invented yet). Western powers (they have a mandate from the League of Nations) are pitted against so called "patriots" (they have no mandate at all) in a bloody battle without a discernible cause. The Bogart character is an opportunist arms dealer and a coward to boot. At one time he really hits rock bottom in the Catacombs underneath the city as he tries to hide in his tattered Bogey-raincoat - one of the many great visual moments in this beautifully photographed nightmare of a movie with its superb set design.

The main message of Sirocco is a depressing one: If things turn bad, the efforts of single individuals are of negligible effect. We have a disillusioned French officer (Lee J. Cobb who I have never seen better). He wants to prevent a planned execution of civilians as a retaliatory act after an ambush, not out of idealistic motives or with any hope but just because he is sick of all the killing. Like all the other characters he gets bogged down by the circumstances and in the end departs on a meeting with the "patriots" with the Bogart character's help. Everyone agrees that this action is meant to be a suicide. The officer even gets out of his uniform which heretofore had the function of a corset.

Great sets and scenes abound here. Damascus is a place of eternal night - and we never get out of the place into the open. The Roman Catacombs seem to be inspired by Giovanni Piranesi's "carceri" drawings. There is a great scene in which the Bogart character buys a belly dancer's finger cymbals. Another scene begins with the focus on a visibly tender and juicy steak which the Bogart character starts cutting into. "He brings his own food", the waiter explains to other patrons who would like the same. What a better way to depict a war profiteer?

As the lines above suggest, the storyline of Sirocco is pretty sprawling and the film is more of a situation than a story. That makes it only more realistic and instructive. Our time is right for anti-war movies of this kind. In can recommend it.

Not a great flick, but interesting to see that conflicts between foreign occupiers and arab locals has been going on for a long time, with similar results. Its a recurring theme in Arabia - foreign armies come in hoping to pacify the locals, only to fall into a bloody pattern of terrorism and retribution. The amazing thing is that its been going on for so long and in so many places. It's an insight on today's middle-east events.

And like so many middle-east conflicts, in this movie you are left being not very sympathetic to either side. Yes, its the Syrian's home, but their tactics are sickening. The French come off no better as the aggressors and oppressors. The third parties, such as Bogart's character, are just vultures feeding off the tragedy.

Good one to watch if you're thinking of invading an Arab nation.