MovieChat Forums > Watch on the Rhine (1943) Discussion > Agree with some of the reviews of this f...

Agree with some of the reviews of this film


This movie is very stagy. And not by happenstance: the director was primarily a theater director. It's not terrible by any means, but it would have benefitted from tighter editing and cutting down on the dialogue-- mainly by someone who was oriented towards film rather than the stage.

reply

I want to first say that I hate message films. There was a famous dirctor who said that if you want to send a message, then use Western Union. I try to look at the movie from the eyes of someone living in that period the movie was made, but it even then, the movie was dull and tedious.

"Rules? In a knife fight? No rules."

reply

No, it isnĀ“t.

reply

I did not care for this movie the first time I saw it. AFter veiwing this film a couple of times... there are things I like about this film.


1. Lucille Watson gives a splendid performance.. she deserved her Oscar nomination.

2. Paul Lukas is very good in the male lead.... but Humphrey Bogart deserved the Oscar award for "Casablanca". His performance is legendary in that film.

3. Bette Davis plays with role of Sarah with great dignity.

4. The movie's message about Nazism is a lesson we should never forget.

5. The movie is slow, could of used a stronger Director, but There a lot good things in this film.

reply

Bette Davis plays with role of Sarah with great dignity.

Her acting was too theatrical and highly-strung for my taste.

reply

I've seen most Bette Davis films, but never "Watch on the Rhine" until this week thanks to Turner Classic Movies. It's a very good movie, a bit plotty, but it's based on a stage production. I agree, but would add that I really enjoyed the performance of George Coulouis as the Rumanian diplomat/villain. I believe he was an actor who came to Hollywood via the Mercury Theatre and Orson Welles. His scenes with Ms. Fitzgerald, Ms. Davis, Ms. Watson and Mr. Lukas are marvelous.

reply



I want to first say that I hate message films.


Message films take great skill to carry off with artistic success. This film is clearly flawed in this respect; its extreme sense of urgency makes it now feel rather contrived.

That said, there are some messages that are extremely important to convey. There is something repugnant in so flippantly dismissing as a "message film" a movie that bravely warned of the Nazi menace before most of the U.S. had awoken to the dangers.

reply

This film came out in the middle of 1943; the Nazis had been on the end of a bashing in the American media for the last decade, let alone since 1939. I certainly don't have an objection to anti-enemy propaganda during wartime but the subtext of this message seems to be that we should look sympathetically on our Communist allies and not let their prediliction for mass murder upset our bourgeois sensibilities. If that seems a little OTT, the fact that the Warner Bros' DVD of this film includes, in the extras, a trailer for another of their 1943 films, the notorious Mission to Moscow, you'll excuse my cynical eye.

reply

Regarding Davis' acting: yes, she was theatrical and melodramatic, but that was the style in dramatic films up until the late 1960s, early 70s.. I always think of Jane Fonda as being probably the first actress whose acting was natural and believeable, in particular with her performance in Klute.

The film may be dated, but I loved watching it. Such different times. I'm a great fan of Lillian Hellman and Dashiell Hammett - I hope they were satisfied with the film.

reply

[deleted]