MovieChat Forums > Passage to Marseille (1944) Discussion > Shooting prisoners

Shooting prisoners

posted 16 years ago by gordon_comstock
25 replies | jump to latest

Having just seen this film for the first time, I was surprised by the inclusion of the scene referred to by several reviewers – shooting the surviving German airmen.
I found the scene oddly shocking, not in the sense of denying that that sort of thing didn’t go on, but that it would be included in a film made at that time.

I presume that apart from its art/entertainment value, this film also had a strong propaganda element and in particular showing that not all the French were cheese-eating surrender monkeys, but that some were patriots who were willing to stand up (go to great lengths even) and fight against fascism. Given that, why show this war-crime? Was it a way of saying “the French might be on our side but they’re still savages”? I find it curious.

I think that most wartime war films I’ve seen tend to show the enemy committing such crimes and the allies scrupulously following the Geneva Convention. After all, the war was projected as being about decency v barbarity.

Ironic also that Bogart, in justifying his actions, claims that innocent sailors and kids were being killed; he then goes on to join a bomber squadron taking part in what could itself be described as indiscriminate killing. At the time maybe, this irony wouldn’t be so noticeable.

Any thoughts?

[–] Fmartiterron 16 years ago

I don't think the scene was meant to take in this way. I assume we are suppossed to approve him killing the German aviators.

You have to think war was still going on in 1944, and probably the script was written even before that. I don't think much people at the time would have disapproved of his actions.

As for me, I consider myself a liberal and I understand your position, but in Matrac's shoes I would have killed those aviators as well. They lost any opportunity of fair play as soon as they started shooting a civilian vessel full of refugees.

[–] allor2000 16 years ago

The civilian vessel was a cargo ship carrying valuable strategic stuff, if my memory doesn't betray me. Airmen on the Condor plane couldn't know about any refugees on board, surely. Moreover, the civilian vessel mounted AA machine guns which proved effective against the Condor, didn't they? Shooting the aviators as they perched on their downed plane was simply murder. After all, Matrac wasn't a gentleman, was he? Even in wartime films, I've never seen a scene as revulsing as that one.

[–] paultbaker 15 years ago

This sort of event is hardly uncommon in war films.

Think of the scene in 'Das Boot' when the captain orders the U-boat to retreat from the burning ship it had torpedoed, leaving the surviving sailors to burn. And there's a scene in 'The Cruel Sea' where the British captain runs his cruiser straight over some downed British awaiting rescue in his chase of a German U-boat.

War is hell, as they say, and I imagine these kind of incidents happened. I see no problem with including them in war films.

"Film is a mosaic of Time."
-A. Tarkovsky

[–] jpr1961 15 years ago

In the heat of battle or shortly thereafter.....actions take place that we wouldn't accept at any other time. If you have seen "Saving Private Ryan"...German soldiers that are surrendering are shot by US GI's. Tom Hanks character observes this...looks disgusted....and does nothing more than look like he understands their actions after having survived the storming of the beach.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jarnoldfan 15 years ago

In the Pacific theater, it was a common practice to sink Japanese troopships, and then to gun down survivors. In the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, a Japanese convoy carrying soldiers to New Guinea was repeated attacked by Allied aircraft, many of which strafed the survivors in the water. It was felt that for every soldier killed in the ocean was one less enemy to fight on land. And-after the Malmady massacre of US troops in Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge-many American troops would not take Waffen SS troops alive. Indeed, Wehrmacht (regular German army) soldiers would sometimes yell "Nicht SS! ("Not SS!") when surrendering.

[–] doughazelrigg 15 years ago

The film itself seems to be ambivalent about the scene. On the one hand you have the captain berating the Bogart character about it, but Bogie -- the star and hero of the film -- defends his actions and keeps on shooting. Interesting

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pmiano100 15 years ago

I was in a war 40 years ago. "This is war" is the oldest excuse in the books for doing what you want to do anyway.

[–] noobzilla 14 years ago

ok heres a better one..

its a movie.

-- “A hot dog at the ball park is better than steak at the Ritz.” Humphrey Bogart

[–] pmiano100 14 years ago

BS. It's a real life situation that occurs all the time.

[–] edgein15 11 years ago

The lead character in Sam Fuller's THE STEEL HELMET kills prisoners of war in much the same manor. He meets the same fate as Bogart's character.

[–] pmiano100 11 years ago

As ye blow away, so shall ye be blown away.

[–] Bush_Pilot 8 years ago

It was not common American practice to gun down survivors. Only Mush Morton was ever accused of this and yes, he has been documented as doing it. He reported it himself both in his logbook and to headquarters on his return to port. It happened on January 26th, 1943. At 1342 that afternoon, he gave the order to fire on the boats with the Wahoo’s 4”/50 cal. deck gun and .50 caliber machine guns after having received incoming small arms fire as they approached the scene. The gun’s methodically aimed fire quickly turned the boats into flotsam. Morton’s intentions were to destroy the boats and thus their means of reaching friendly territory; in essence finishing the mission of sinking the transport. Reports of what actually happened differ depending how much one saw and where they were located during the action. According to Richard O’Kane, Morton’s executive officer (who was probably below during much of the action and thus had a poor vantage point), “some Japanese troops were undoubtedly hit during this action, but no individual was deliberately shot in the boats or the sea.” O’Kane also stated that Morton even sharply reprimanded a sailor who shot at a soldier with a .45 caliber pistol when it appeared the soldier was going to lob a grenade at the sub. George Grider, the Engineering Officer described the action as “nightmarish minutes”. One other account had at least one soldier deliberately killed with machine gun fire. By 1400, the action was finished and the Wahoo departed the area. A total of 282 men had been killed. Morton openly reported the incident in both message form and in his subsequent patrol report, which was reviewed by the chain of command and eventually received a glowing endorsement from Commander Submarines Pacific, Admiral Charles Lockwood. No attempt was made to hide or diminish anything. Morton actually badly overestimated the number of troops killed, estimating the number to be between 6,000 and 10,000. In a supremely ironic and tragic postscript, it was later revealed that the Buyo Maru also carried 491 British allied Indian P.O.W’s, 195 of which were killed. This was information that Morton obviously did not have at the time. The remainder of the ship’s 1,126 troops, P.O.W’s, and crew were rescued by the Japanese. All told 87 Japanese were killed.

[–] tarmcgator 14 years ago

Spoiler here:

I agree with "jsmmov" that this scene was more about delineating the character and transformation of Matrac than about approving of the action. His rage at the German aviators is the reawakening of his love for France and the men around him who died fighting for their nation. In the midst of a war against Germany, it would have been rather unseemly in a Hollywood film to show any overt sympathy toward German combatants who had just killed several Allied nationals, even armed ones. Captain Malo's protests over the killings was likely a sop to the Hollywood or U.S. government censors who oversaw the project.

It would be interesting to know how that scene evolved, with input from both the Production Code Authority ("the Hays Office") and the Office of War Information, which was vetting all major studio productions during WWII, from script to final product. I would be willing to bet that Matrac's death at the end of the film is related to the insistence of the the Hays Office that all movie killers (unless lawmen or military men acting "in the line of duty") be punished before the film ends, either by the law (e.g., being arrested) or by dying themselves.

One can imagine a final scene in which the wounded Matrac drops his letter from the plane and flies back to England, leaving his fate uncertain or even having him survive, while his wife reads the letter to their son. Such a scene would have had roughly the same impact as the reading as it stands now. But I suspect that killing downed fliers meant to at Matrac had to die before "The End" came on the screen.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tarmcgator 14 years ago

According to Jeffrey Meyers's Bogart biography (cited in the Wikipedia article on this film), the German aviators' murder scene was cut from prints that were prepared for exhibition outside of the U.S., on orders from the Office of War Information (OWI).

[–] pathfinder616 14 years ago

thank you tarmcgator for researching this scene. this implies that the Office of War Information (OWI) had no problem with showing Matrac's assassination of downed German aviators to an American audience but did not want to show non-Americans, (many who were Allies), that scene. very interesting indeed.

my personal take on this scene is that it was crucial to the final development of Bogart's character, Matrac. at this point Matrac is no longer on the fence about his French patriotism. the death of his shipmates being the deciding factor. he has not only taken up arms but has lost control of morality (right and wrong) and is caught in his pent up rage against the Germans. there is no turning back now and his fellow patriots know that to be true.

assassinating assassins is completely different from shooting prisoners. being a prisoner one must assume that the Germans 'surrendered' and were unarmed. we would need to see the Germans throwing their Luger sidearms overboard with hands held high in the air. we do not see this so we must not assume the downed Germans have surrendered.

the non-American audience was denied understanding the true development of Matrac's character. the OWI was wrong.

"only one food for the rest of my life? That's easy, cherry-flavored Pez. No question about it."

[–] geode 9 years ago

thank you tarmcgator for researching this scene. this implies that the Office of War Information (OWI) had no problem with showing Matrac's assassination of downed German aviators to an American audience but did not want to show non-Americans, (many who were Allies), that scene. very interesting indeed.

According to "Hollywood Goes to War" by Clayton R. Koppes and Gregory D. Black the OWI was offended by this scene.

"Warner Brothers felt his action was justified by the Germans' attack in the steamer. This scene offended OWI, which informed censor Rothacker of the objectionable encounter. The Legion of Decency also objected and placed the film in its category 'B' ('objectionable') because 'we were committing the same crime against humanity that we accuse the Germans and Japanese of.' In this case the legion had a point; such a scene was stock material to prove German or Japanese treachery. Warners did not want to give the Legion veto power over scenes, so it left Bogart's exploits intact for domestic release. To meet the objections of OWI and the Office of Censorship, however, it deleted the scene so the movie could get an export license. Cited from Bell to Rothacker, Jan 24, 1944, Passage to Marseilles file, OWI files.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] ABetterDay 14 years ago

Several of you are apparently too young or too ignorant of the times to understand the scene. During WWII, where Japs or Germans were concerned, there was no such thing as "murder." It didn't legally exist. Given the exact same scenario in real-time WWII, not shooting them would have been inexcusable. Shooting them would have been rewarded.

A different and much better time in our history than today. May we revert back to it as quickly as possible.

Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 13 years ago

Sounds to me like you are still fighting that war.

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

[–] zurichpoet 12 years ago

Tomorrow! 6 AM.

[–] joeparkson 12 years ago

The Germans sank the ocean liner Lusitania murdering thousands of civilians in WWI. The USA executed German would be saboteurs without due process. It was a different time.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

[–] Aloysius_von_der_Trenck 8 years ago

There were different ways of treating German airmen who were taken prisoner.

This was one of them: The One That Got Away (1957)