MovieChat Forums > Dark Journey (1937) Discussion > Spoilers: Dark Journey: A very confusi...

Spoilers: Dark Journey: A very confusing film

posted 18 years ago by oldsenior
15 replies | jump to latest

I enjoyed "Dark Journey" because of the production values and Vivian Leigh and the feeling created by the film of the life and times of that period (1918 WW1), but the story was pretty confusing to me, with all the different agents, (who was who?) every face looked sinister (couldn't figure out which side was which) and the ending was a complete muddle, who was shooting at who, where did the other ship come from (destroyer), what was the Baron trying to do, what was that whole sequence all about, (not so much who was who but why were they there?). The Englishmen jumping back and forth, from side to side across the ship was pretty laughable. Director Saville did what he could I guess, what with the writing. Saville always seemed to have fabulous settings (always seemed to have giant wall murals that were beautiful, etc). His musical scores were always timely and enjoyable, too. All things considered it's not a bad Journey.

[–] historianeverild 18 years ago

I agree with you. I did not understand the film that well..
I got some points though..
If anyone knows what actually happened can you please tell me!
I mean... About the ending.. That guy kind of like..? What happened to him?
Thank you

[–] crainee 17 years ago

Just saw this movie for the first time and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Though I agree the plot was a bit muddled.
The way I undersoot it is that once both sides knew who the spies were, Madeleine had to escape Sweden, or else the Germans, led by Von Markwitz, would capture her. Bob the Brit told Swedish authorities Madeleine was a spy in order to get her kicked out of the country, and out of the German's hands.
She was being sent to France on a neutral ship when she was captured by the Germans and taken prisoner. Here's where I think it gets a bit ... unrealistic. The destroyer that arrives is British (I think) sent by Bob to save Madeleine. It sinks the German sub, making Von Markwitz the prisoner now. So it ends with him being sent to a British prisoner of war camp, where he'll spend the duration of the war. Madeleine is now also out of the spying game, and presumably after the war is over they'll be able to be with each other again.
It did get sort of over the top in the final scenes, and ended rather abruptly; but overall I thought it was pretty good.

[–] Charlot47 13 years ago

Good summary but the ending is even more complicated. Masquerading as a neutral Dutch freighter, the captain of the British Q-ship is able to edge so close to the German U-boat that he can sink it before Madeleine is taken on board by Marwitz. The British destroyer, which would have been instantly recognised by the Germans, stays in the distance.

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

Just saw this movie for the first time and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Though I agree the plot was a bit muddled.

I thought the movie was a little confusing but I suspect it was intentional. By keeping the audience slightly off balance we get to experience the same uneasy, uncertain feeling the spies are experiencing. In the world of espionage there are always more questions than there are answers. Spies never know who or what to believe. Their own allies may be double agents feeding them incomplete or inaccurate information.

Von Markwitz the prisoner now... sent to a British prisoner of war camp, where he'll spend the duration of the war. Madeleine is now also out of the spying game, and presumably after the war is over they'll be able to be with each other again. It did get sort of over the top in the final scenes, and ended rather abruptly; but overall I thought it was pretty good.

I don't think it ends abruptly. To me, the ending fits the rest of the movie; with as many twists and turns. The way it ends made me think a lot about what point the movie was trying to make. I feel it's a commentary on war itself.

While war is raging, people find themselves on different sides but it's not always clear which side they're on or if they even support anything. But for the war, people who are allies would never have anything to do with each other. Friends and lovers may find themselves on opposite sides, fighting each other and taking actions that may lead to the other's demise.

After the war, everything goes back to 'normal'. Former enemies can be friends again. By calling out to the baron, we get the sense that he and Madeleine will find their way back to each other, still in love; but for now they did their duty. By turning each other in they're not betraying their country or the others they've been working with. They're also not fleeing; which would mark them as cowards and put them on the run even after the war.

Or is that really what happened? The way I see it, they pulled off the ultimate escape. Turning each other in blows their cover and marks the end of their spying careers. They both leave on top, Madeleine with her medal of honor and von Martwitz revealed as a solid citizen; neither traitor nor coward. As Madeleine calls out to him he can't very well answer in kind. All he can say is I can't hear you. That in itself is the response. They understand each other.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] NatachaRambova 17 years ago

Vivien Leigh even said herself she didn't understand the film, and especially didn't understand why her character would do some things that she did in the movie. So it's just a confusing movie, but I still love it cause of Vivien Leigh and Conrad Veidt and they played 2 of my fave songs in the movie during the dinner/dance scene(you know when Conrad is kissing girls and pulling out the little notes...). 1st they played "Oh, you beautiful doll" and then "Whispering" by Paul Whiteman! LOVED IT!

"He who gazes upon the sun, need not debate it's brilliance! ... Uh, Ling Po." -Harold Lloyd

[–] eden_echo 17 years ago

I guess I myself got the gist of the story even though the VHS copy from the library was of some poor quality, sound especially and the picture too, had to adjust the tracking.

"I promise you, before I die I'll surely come to your doorstep"

[–] bittermilk2 13 years ago

the one thing I don't get is the comment on the fashion of her clothes, is it really so '30s?

[–] DonnaLevin 12 years ago

Funny thing: I logged on to IMDB to make comments fairly similar to oldsenior's. (But different enough, I hope, to justify another post.) First, the story is terribly confusing. At the end of the movie, I didn't know if Vivien Leigh was telling the truth when she called out to Veidt, "I'll wait for you!" When she says (a bit earlier), "Thank God, no more lies," I thought it was a ploy to keep him off balance so that he doesn't have her arrested as a counter-spy. Conrad Veidt is so much older, and so unattractive, that the idea that she was in love with him was ludicrous. Not that women don't fall for older, unattractive men (say Ingrid Bergman and Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca), but this movie needed a far better screenwriter and director to pull it off.
The scene in which someone from some country takes Leigh off of one boat onto a rowboat just in time for her to watch the carnage was laughable in so many ways I can't list them. I'll only mention that Vivien Leigh's expression on the rowboat never changes - and she was one of the finest actresses of her time!
The biggest puzzle of all: in 1937 the Nazis were already in power and there were already rumblings about war, not to mention lingering ill feelings toward Germany about the devastation of WWI. So the idea that the audience would root for these two lovers to get together dwarfs all the other mistakes, including the costumes elaborately designed for another era.

"I've loved you my whole life."
"You've only known me three days."
"That's when my life began."

[–] bittermilk2 12 years ago

Yet I believe you undervalue the tension between two agents of that caliber in time of war and in a neutral country could easily become explosive! At least in books and movies)

[–] letess 11 years ago

The story takes place in 1918. The movie was made in 1937.

[–] DonnaLevin 11 years ago

In the spirit of spirited discussion, two additional comments: first, it's true that a relationship between Leigh's and Veidt's characters could be of the classic Romeo-and-Juliet type. If I have a chance to watch it again, I'll see if I can make that interpretation work for myself. As of this writing, though, I still have trouble believing that the young and exquisite Leigh would be interested.
As for the historical setting: one can't separate the time a film takes place from the time in which it was made. *Dark Journey* is inevitably haunted by the increasing fears about another World War, just as when Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio get on the Titanic you know that the ship isn't going to make it to New York. (Granted, a more dramatic example.)

"I've loved you my whole life."
"You've only known me three days."
"That's when my life began."

[–] letess 11 years ago

(minor spoilers) I know. What you say is completely true. When I first saw the movie - not too long ago- I really didn't pay attention. I thought the Germans were the British. I thought it was in the late 30s because of the style. I thought she was a spy for the British and not a double agent. I thought Marvitz was the bad guy and she was seducing him for....? I didn't see the love connection. At the end, I was completeley baffled because he was captured, and she said she'd wait. And I thought if he hadn't been captured and she continued along with him, what would have happened to her? I thought surely she would have been killed. But it was such a delight in seeing Vivien Leigh - she floats, she's lyrical - the costumes, the music, the setting, and the dialogue were fantastic. I realize many key scenes were cut which might have made the plot more successful, but it was a really good movie. It's been on On Demand so I have had the chance to watch again and now I see the romance. I still don't know who killed Anatole and if he was a spy and if so, for what side. I don't think it was either but a "loyal servant" who got caught up in the buying/selling info at the Cherry Orchard and it got him killed. I still don't know what would have become of Madeleine if Marwitz has successfully whisked her away to the Germans. If this love affair had been at the end of WWII, it couldn't have happened.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

Conrad Veidt is so much older, and so unattractive

Veidt was very dashing and not at all unattractive.

I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

[–] HollyHop 10 years ago

I think his appearance made him very versatile, I've watched him in films where he was hideous and ghoulish but also in roles where he was beautiful. I can for example see why he was chosen for the role as Oppenheimer, who is in the book described as a man with the advantaged of beauty.

I had no problem seeing the attraction between the characters, we don't know for sure when they found out about each other's occupations as spies, but when they revealed that they both knew it was clear that they were in love.

Don't tell me, it's no use to me. Tell yourself if you want to but don't tell me.

[–] vanboom 9 years ago

It really lifts my spirit to see so many people commenting about this movie.
You all, are very special, and I am glad to see the thoughts and comments coming from everyone.
A++