Un château en enfer

Two World War 2 flicks involving a European castle came out in 1968-1969, "Where Eagles Dare" and "Castle Keep." If you're a fan of war films you've no doubt heard of "Where Eagles Dare," which is one of the greatest war action/adventure films ever made; but I wouldn't be too surprised if you've never heard of "Castle Keep" or only vaguely heard of it. There's good reason for this.

THE PLOT: The Germans are marching on a Belgium village in the Ardennes where a squad of American soldiers makes a stand at a 10th century castle.

"Castle Keep" has a lot going for it: a great cast, including Burt Lancaster, Peter Falk, Bruce Dern & more; fabulous Yugoslavian Winter locations & castle; thrilling action scenes; it's well-made on a technical level by renowned director Sydney Pollack; and it hardly comes across dated, even though it's fifty years old (as of this writing). Fans of the film describe it as "poetic" & "haunting" and it's obvious the filmmakers were shooting for something groundbreaking, meaningful, artistic and amusing.

Unfortunately "Castle Keep" is mostly uninteresting until well into the second half, which is when the great action scenes start. The characters have a lot of dialogue but you never get to know them or care about them. Maybe because the chatter comes across as unreal, artsy and inscrutable. Here's a sample: The Count comments to Theresa, his wife/neice, "They planned this war because there was something they hadn't yet smashed." She replies, "Who are we, Henri?" "We are the keepers."

The script is full of such "deep" nonsense. Which I suppose would be okay as long as the story itself is captivating, but it isn't.

Want another example of the "unreal" vibe? The soldiers go to the village with empty streets to kill time at the Red Queen, which isn't a pub if you know what I mean. When they enter, all the prostitutes are standing or lying around in various tantalizing poses in lingerie. I'm sure they were just hanging around like that waiting for five soldiers to walk in. Why Sure! You gotta see it to believe it. I busted out laughing!

Speaking of which, I busted out laughing quite a bit throughout, which shows that the movie works as a satire or low-key war comedy.

A reviewer offered the interpretation that one soldier, the writer, is simply remembering how it was, not how it really was, and that's why it comes across so dreamlike and bizarre. I find this a valid explanation. Others point out that it's an allegory about the futility of the Vietnam War which was raging at the time of release. Another interpretation is that the message is one of contrast: Life from death, and death where once life was.

Actually, the symbolism is too obvious: The castle represents art or anything celestial created by humanity whereas the countess represents inspiration and the writer imagination. War is the ongoing destructive force that destroys everything in its path: The village and the bakery (home and business), the church facility (religion and faith), militarists and civilians, conscientious objectors (that is, those who embrace the folly of ABSOLUTE pacifism, which is different from LIMITED pacifism, as represented by the Allies) and, lastly, art (painting, sculpture, architecture, literature and music). The only thing it cannot kill is inspiration and imagination, which will continue to reproduce art despite the ongoing specter of war.

Hey, I'm all for "message" films with deeper meanings as long as the film itself is interesting and done with tact; the original "Apocalypse Now" (AP) is a good example. Much of AP is surreal, but you know the characters and care about their fate; plus, surreal or not, AP never departed from reality. "Castle Keep," by contrast, contains parts that are SO contrived and unreal they're actually funny (note, for instance, when Rossi meets the baker's wife). The greatest sin in filmmaking is to be boring. The second is to be pretentious. Unfortunately "Castle Keep" commits both of these transgressions. But, thankfully, there are several amusing and thrilling moments. As far as the latter goes, the tower/plane sequence is great.

At the end of the day "Castle Keep" is an avant-garde film palatable to a chosen few. It was groundbreaking at the time but was doomed by its arty pretentiousness. I respect it and enjoy numerous aspects noted above, but I suppose it's somewhat of a failed experiment.

The film runs 1 hour, 47 minute.

GRADE: B-/C+

"Castle Keep" is a film looking to find an audience in all the wrong places. Wrapping a 1960s free sex and love anti-war message around a World War 2 suicide mission is like trying to shovel crap against the tide. Seriously surreal, this failed film is nevertheless not without interest, because of the cast. The movie more belongs on an art gallery wall than in a theater, because the photography is stunning, with each shot vivid and memorable. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the film. Because it is so disjointed, the whole experience is somehow lacking in impact. By the time the bang bang ending appears on the screen, most audiences will be so bewildered by what has preceded it they will hardly be awake. - MERK

I remember watching Castle Keep many times as a youngster. The film was a staple on local TV and showed up several times a year. I loved it then and recently saw it again, for the first time in 20 years, on TCM. The film has lost none of its lustre and in its widescreen format is even better than before. Cinematographer Henri Decae (The 400 Blows) creates a surreal fairytale atmosphere without sacrificing wartime realism in this tale of stranded GIs in the Ardennes at the end of World War II. The squad, led by an eye-patched Burt Lancaster, try to halt the German advance by hunkering down in a medieval castle that has been miraculously unaffected by the tribulations of the war. The film has echoes of Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast and it's stylistic contemporary, King of Hearts, but stands on it's own as a superb philosophical exploration of warfare and violence. If you enjoyed A Midnight Clear, you will enjoy Castle Keep.

I had been wanting to check this one out for over 20 years (it used to be available as a VHS rental at the local outlet but I never got around to it) but especially after reading up on the film on the internet since its 2004 DVD release(s) where its unusual "artiness" a'-la Alain Resnais' LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD (1961) was played up. Now that I've watched CASTLE KEEP for myself, all I can say is that it's arguably the strangest mainstream war movie ever and decidedly not for all tastes!

The relatively large cast (for what turns out to be an introspective film) is uniformly excellent and is well up to the requirements of the brilliantly surreal, funny and literate script; Burt Lancaster, wearing an eye-patch throughout, has an unsympathetic role as the formidable leader of a group of misfit soldiers taking over a Belgian castle against unseen invading German troops. He is skillfully abetted by Peter Falk (as a soldier who abandons his post to indulge in his vocation as a baker), Jean-Pierre Aumont (as the "degenerate" owner of the titular castle), Patrick O'Neal (as a celebrated art historian all at sea on the battleground but well in his element surrounded by the castle's objets d' art), Scott Wilson (as a soldier who gets into quite a unique relationship – more on this later), Tony Bill (as the most spiritual of the men) and, the other side of the coin, Bruce Dern as a Bible-thumping conscientious objector who walks the Belgian rubbles with his ragged band of revivalist deserters-followers. The terrific cinematography of the awesome European locations – courtesy of Henri Decae – is complimented by a fine Michel Legrand score and, when they finally come, spectacular battle sequences.

But it's the odd, surreal touches – including Scott Wilson falling in love with a Volkswagen, the same car rising from the sea after it has been drowned by his envious companions and floating ashore all by itself, the moving sequence between Tony Bill and an unseen German soldier (subsequently needlessly shot by Peter Falk) where the latter teaches the former how to play the flute correctly, the unusually realistic talk of fornication, sexual organs, impotence, the ambiguous (perhaps ghostly) nature of the characters involved and the events being enacted, etc. – which really make this show stand out from the crowd of WWII spectaculars and stick in one's memory – not to mention endear it to its legion of fans (who have famously decried online its original abominable pan-and-scan DVD incarnation, forcing Sony to re-release it in the correct Widescreen aspect ratio a mere four months later). The theme of the relevance of art in times of war brings forth comparisons to John Frankenheimer's THE TRAIN (1964), also starring Burt Lancaster, whose third (and final) collaboration with director Sydney Pollack – after the previous year's THE SCALPHUNTERS and THE SWIMMER (where Pollack replaced original director Frank Perry but goes uncredited) – this proved to be…perhaps as a result of the critical beating the film received upon its original release!

Saw the movie yesterday. I liked the fact that there was noshow and glamour about the soldiers, they are dirty and tired, they actually look like a war is going on. The whole castle theme adds an interesting poetic dimension to the story. The characters are brilliantly developped, as there seems to be a personal quest to each and everyone of the squad, the yougster wants to go to the red queen, the local whorehouse etc... The count or baron and his wife are by far the trippiest characters, i didn t understand their story but they are some kind of magical couple in theire fairy tale castle. The wife Therese is mesmerizing as she is of outstanding beauty (Astrid Heelen). The combat sequences do not look fake, the tanks, and bazookas are cool. As I said it actually looks and sounds like war, with blood and explosions... It is a great movie for those of you who, like me, enjoy those artsy, semi fantastic retro movies with a beautifull female character.