MovieChat Forums > Mission to Moscow (1943) Discussion > Robert Osborne's odd comment

Robert Osborne's odd comment


In his post-movie wrap-up of TCM's showing of MTM on June 3, Bob Osborne made a really strange statement for the channel's host.

He said that the film was a big hit with audiences back in 1943, then remarked that this was despite the fact that it's really a "dull film".

What? Last I knew the host of a channel that specializes in showing classic films shouldn't be saying that what they're running is "dull". Yes, he waited until after the movie had run, but even so, he's now on record, and I doubt he could now seriously claim that this is the only "dull film" TCM runs.

It's one thing to take a tongue-in-cheek attitude toward some films (a silly horror flick or some sort of "camp" movie, for example), but the one word you should never, ever use about any of your programming is dull.

Besides which, that's a matter of opinion. I find Mission to Moscow anything but dull. I love it, on many levels -- for what it says about its era, its flagrant historical bias and dishonesty, its terrific acting, direction, sets and so forth. Of course, I happen to be very into history, politics and filmmaking, so this movie is right up my alley. I can see someone not interested in these things finding this movie dull, and fair enough. Obviously that's the case with Osborne...but it's still all opinion, not fact.

In any event, as the channel's esteemed on-screen rep, the last thing he should ever do is slam any of its programming as dull, bad or the like. You're supposed to get people interested in what you're showing, not tell them, in effect, you're idiots if you like this film.

Really a pretty stupid thing to say, especially since he is only dealing with individual opinion, not some immutable fact.

reply

I like Osborne, but don't have his frame of reference, and, therefore, frequently disagree with his opinions. I'm not a history buff, but I found this movie very interesting, warts and all. As for Osborne, I dunno, maybe some scenes of U.S. soldiers playing beach volleyball might have spiced it up for him.

reply

As for Osborne, I dunno, maybe some scenes of U.S. soldiers playing beach volleyball might have spiced it up for him.


Ouch!

reply

I noticed that, too. Very odd remark by Osborne. And the movie is not at all dull. It's quite fast-paced and covers a lot of ground in two hours. Fascinating movie for good reasons and bad. It should be seen by students of history and propaganda.

reply

Excellent points, bcamphone. Right on target. You're right, this is the kind of film that should be seen, not just by students of history and propaganda, but as an example of very skillful propaganda and how the truth can be so easily manipulated and lost -- especially when it's done so entertainingly, and by people moviegoers should be able to trust.

reply

I found the movie fascinating. It is, however, fascinating based upon the historical context in which it was made. If you have no historical context it could be considered "dull". Robert Osborne calling the movie "dull" is more of an indictment on him then on the movie.

I think the real question is: what was the reaction from audiences when It came out?

reply

The movie was not a commercial success when it was released, kurt-210. It did decent business but not enough to overcome its cost, which was huge. Reviews were mixed, mostly because of the film's content, not filmmaking style.

Calling it "dull" does of course say more about Robert Osborne than the film (I guess that's true of anyone's opinion of any film), but my central point was that the host of a film channel shouldn't go around calling their movies dull. He doesn't have to claim they're all great and flawless but knocking something as dull or bad seems really counterproductive to holding an audience.

reply

It bored me into a stupor. The opening snooze-bait from Davies himself was excruciating enough to set the pace, but it went on to make Ann Harding, Stalin, Hitler, show trials, bugged embassies, pathological lying by your very own government, and World War II itself boring.

Those Soviets are so darn nice, we're going to give them the other half of Berlin for Christmas!

By the time Osborne piped back up after two long hours in happy, happy Moscow maybe stunned viewers had forgotten what the truth sounded like. Cinematic Stockholm Syndrome?

If ever a film needed random explosions, breasts, Bugs Bunny in drag, and Kung Fu edited in, it was this one.

reply

The real Davies is enough to drive anyone out of the theater but your criticisms of the film sound not like a complaint about its being dull but about its untruthfulness, jdsuggs. Frankly it sounds as though you really got into the movie because of its falsehoods and propaganda, not that you found it dull.

It's universally acknowledged that the film is a pack of lies but that has nothing to do with its being dull. If anything, it's its historical falsifications that make the film as interesting as it is.

reply

I can see how you'd say that, and I don't know how to convince you that I was bored to anguish, but I was. The absurdity and dishonesty of it was actually the most interesting part, and I have a high tolerance for wartime propaganda (at least for that war!).

Just for one example, though, Ann Harding, a fine actress and the reason I tuned in, being used sparingly as the chuckling/indulgent wife who makes the great man's hard work and self-sacrifice possible- what a colossal waste. A cardboard cliche reduced to its generic essence; a store dummy could've given that performance. It's the only film of hers I've seen in which she didn't have an interesting scene, and I'll bet she agreed. There was no attempt at chemistry or tension or anything between her and her husband, with Huston equally strait-jacketed by the wooden role of pre-converted acolyte.

Curtiz, coming off "Casablanca" pretty recently, really didn't seem to have his heart in it, either. There were a few touches where it came alive and I perked up along with him here and there- some montages maybe, nice shots of Soviet planes filling the sky. But he didn't even get much of any tension out of Nazi Berlin, and that might be a film first in my experience. The lying, swindling Ribbentrop just breezes through with little to distinguish him. Imagine Claude Rains and some good writing with that.

There wasn't a memorable line of dialogue, even from Churchill, really. The Roosevelt impersonator felt like something from SNL. A trial for treason, with men facing the firing squad, and they just shrug and agree with the prosecutors, like it's a parking violation.

reply

Oh, I certainly took you at your word you found it dull, it's just that your dissection of it sounded like you had more interest in it than the word "dull" would imply.

I agree with almost all your criticisms of the movie. I've never liked Ann Harding, who I find a wan, uninteresting sort of actress (and always looking ten years older than her age), but quite agree with you about how wasted she is in the film. But for me, as a history buff (real and falsified), I find the film fascinating -- not "great" but very engaging in its depiction of its bizarre falsehoods. (The demeanor of the prisoners at the purge trials is an excellent example of this.) I also agree that the characters are two-dimensional and seem more like props for the story. Even now, having seen this movie a number of times, I think that if I heard Walter Huston say just one more time, "Well I'll tell ya how I feel, boys, look at the facts" I'd kick the set in!

The FDR impersonator was Captain Jack Young, who also impersonated the president in Yankee Doodle Dandy and I think one or two other films. His voice was looped in so I'm not sure if Young did the voice too or was just the actor seen from behind. He was okay for the time but hardly subtle.

Anyway, I like Mission to Moscow and never tire of it. Perhaps because it was unavailable for decades has made me value it more. There's always something more to get out of it, if for nothing else than scurrying to check the veracity of yet another of its "facts".

Too bad these boards are closing in two weeks. Like Stalin, IMDb has decided upon a purge. And that, boys, is a fact.

reply

What??? IMDB is closing its boards? That's a tragic loss! Guess this place is off my list now...how incredibly sad and confusing.

Thanks so much for the cordial and very enjoyable discussion. I'll certainly miss this kind of exchange with fellow classic film lovers- and in your case, a fellow history lover. My experiences with TCM will never be as complete anymore.

I think in the end our only real disagreement is over Ann Harding! I think she was a really good one...

reply

Yes, check the notice atop this board (and every board). IMDb is disabling all its boards, across the site, on Monday, February 20. The last day for posting is Sunday the 19th. The boards aren't being frozen in place -- they're disappearing altogether. So not even these discussions will remain. Terrible and pointless -- everybody is upset.

Before we all sign off, have you see some of the other pro-Soviet films from the 40s? Most are out on DVD and if you haven't seen them I'd recommend them...though a couple are what not only you but I would call "dull"! A sampling:

Song of Russia (MGM 1943). Robert Taylor as an American composer visiting the USSR who's caught in the Nazi attack but of course finds love among the chaos. Taylor denounced this picture after the war and said he only did it as a personal favor to Louis B. Mayer. Taylor, a staunch right-winger who named names in front of HUAC, was proud of the fact that he never turned down a role the studio assigned him. A good company man -- so good he never asked for a raise, and an appreciative Mayer responded by making him the lowest-paid major star in Hollywood. But questioning your bosses is something only a Red would do.

Days of Glory (RKO 1944). Russian guerrilla fighters battle the Nazis. As stilted and unreal a script as any ever written. The picture is mostly remembered today as the film debut of a young actor from the Broadway stage -- Gregory Peck. You must hear him deliver the stirring line: "The kasha is exceptionally good today." He was busy stirring it, you see.

Both those are available from Warner Archives and turn up every so often on TCM. But the one you must see if you haven't is The North Star (1943), Sam Goldwyn's contribution to the war effort, by way of fellow-traveler Lillian Hellman. This movie not only shows us a happy, prosperous collective farm (the village is called the North Star) but features three or four interminable songs that the cast indulges in before the Nazis attack. A good cast: Walter Huston (again!), Anne Baxter, Dana Andrews, Jane Withers, Farley Granger (his film debut), Walter Brennan, Dean Jagger, and as the lead Nazi, Eric von Stroheim. The first, pre-attack half is excruciating, dull and stupid, but things do pick up once the Germans invade. Von Stroheim is a "civilized" German who hates the Nazis but does their bidding.

This movie was such an embarrassment that after the war Goldwyn not only renounced it but ultimately sold it off to a consortium that heavily edited and revamped it into a movie called Armored Attack, released directly to TV in 1957. This truncated version mutes the pro-Commie stuff and ends with a voice-over about how the characters hoped for a better future but it was not to be under the Soviets, and how we must all keep fighting until people everywhere are free. Yay! The North Star shows up once in a while on TCM too, but it was never available on DVD except in truly abysmal, unwatchable prints until a couple of years ago, when Olive Films released both versions on DVD and Blu-ray. But weirdly, they made the knock-off version, Armored Attack, the primary movie on the disc -- if you look for it, type in Armored Attack -- while the original film, The North Star, is an added feature! But at least both are preserved and in good condition.

All this stuff should be seen once, like a trainwreck. But allow me two more recommendations, not of Hollywood films but Soviet ones. Try to see The Fall of Berlin and The Battle of Stalingrad, both produced by Mosfilm in 1949 for Stalin's 70th birthday. The latter is a meticulous re-creation of the battle (using captured German equipment) and of course shows Stalin as the brilliant strategist behind the victory. But the one to really see is the first, a bizarre, color film that depicts Stalin not only as all-knowing and brilliant but even an expert on giving advice to the lovelorn. The film was hugely expensive and depicts not only the Soviet leadership but the Nazi hierarchy from Hitler on down, as well as Roosevelt (portrayed fairly benignly) and Churchill (seen as a growling hunchbacked dwarf), while a parallel love story unfolds. The finale has Stalin arriving by plane in Berlin at the end of the war, greeted by delirious throngs at the airport, where he reunites the two lovers separated by four years of war, as thousands of people of all nationalities (some fresh from the concentration camps) cheer wildly. In truth Stalin was terrified of flying and arrive in Berlin for the Potsdam Conference months later by train, at night. The movie was screened for him and when it ended of course no one said a word until Stalin spoke. The director was terrified that the dictator wouldn't like it and of what might happen to him if he didn't. But then, Stalin rose, turned to the director and with tears in his eyes took both his hands and said, "That is what I should have done!" He loved it, so everyone was free to breathe and love it too.

Both films are available from International Historic Films (ihffilm.com), which is a great source for German and Soviet propaganda films as well as Allied and other fare, not only from the WWII but WWI and other conflicts, as well as documentaries, historic epics and other kinds of films. Worth a look even if you don't plan to buy. Many very rare and curious titles, all beautifully restored.

Hope to see you before the end! Remember, the last day to post is Sunday, February 19.

reply