MovieChat Forums > The Lady Vanishes (1938) Discussion > Prelude to War (spoilers)

Prelude to War (spoilers)

posted 9 years ago by beegeebright
7 replies | jump to latest

This movie came out in November, 1938 and it is important to remember that Chamberlain had just come back from Munich in September of that year. The whole scene at the end of the movie when they are barricaded in the train car proves the analogy. The British are divided between those who will take action and those who will not. When the pacifist, Mr. Todhunter, decides to surrender instead of shooting his gun, he is shot dead although he is unarmed. The moral laid out is that only by taking action, on their own, can the mostly British people in the train, save themselves, surrender will not work. Even the cricket obsessed pair come to realize that there are more important things happening in the world than cricket. At the beginning of the movie, it is all they can talk about. They come to realize that they cannot remain an island as it were. Faced with an attack, Michael Redgrave fires first. He does not wait to be shot. In this historical context, I think this may actually be Hitchcock's most political movie.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Nice analysis of the scene. It certainly fits, although I'm not sure how much of this was intentional on the part of the film makers, and how much was coincidence that you made parallels to in real life due to your impressive analytical skills.

Either way, it's fascinating.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Ok, I just read some other threads explaining how Bandrika was meant to be a representation of Germany, and the bad guys are Nazis. So I now see you were in fact right, and the symbolism was all meant to be there.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Iron_Giant 8 years ago

After he refuses to fight, one of the cricket fans says, "Pacifism won't work. The early Christians tried it and got fed to the lions."

Please don't call someone a _____tard.

[–] jd-276 8 years ago

That explanation only works if you accept one explanation of the Munich agreement, which, by the way, was signed on September 30, 1938. It's a bit hard to believe Hitchcock would have cobbled together something as quickly as that. Besides, we have no way of knowing what his opinions on the subject were. I would advise against making any kind of populaist judgement in that regard.

[–] bazt-93964 8 years ago

At the beginning the two chums appear to be wanting news of Britain re Germany until they ask the chap on the phone the Test match score.

[–] bazt-93964 8 years ago

And that years match in Manchester was actually abandoned without any play duebto rain.

[–] jd-276 7 years ago

By the way, the original story "The Wheel Spins" was penned in 1936, before most would consider the Nazis a real threat. Granted, that doesn't mean the script couldn't have changed but I wonder if they might not have been referring to the Soviet Union. Remember Charters' line early on about always having revolutions? Germany didn't have a revolution. Russia did.

The second part to this is that, even as late as 1938, the Nazis were not perceived to be as great a threat as the Soviet Union. This was amply echoed in the allegiances of the Spanish Civil War (which was still going in when this film was made). Stalin backed the Republic. Everyone else backed Franco, including the United States. Most people thought they could deal with Hitler, however reluctant they might have been. Nobody wanted to deal with Uncle Joe.

Finally, there is the line "I'd rather be accused of being a rat than die like one", which doesn't exactly portray pacifism in a favourable light.

So was it a "prelude to war"? It would be easy to think so but on closer examination, probably not. Just MHO.