MovieChat Forums > Stalag 17 Discussion > this movie was degrading

this movie was degrading


I don't know. I only had one little chuckle during this whole movie, and that was when Bill Holden walks into the barracks, sees everybody staring at him, and says "Hi."

But overall I thought the comedy was wince-worthy. Awful. And as for the drama, it was so undermined by insulting and unbelievable plot points that it lost all effect.

I usually like Billy Wilder and I love Foreign Affair, another WWII comedy he made. And, I don't insult easily. But this one was so synthetic, it hurt. Just a few of the outrageous misrepresentations include:

The scene with the prisoners and their Hitler mustaches. The guard says "One Fuehrer is enough" and waves them off. Okay, not all the Germans loved Hitler, but a guard in a prison camp was certainly aware of how dangerous he was, and could never have let this gotten by, out of fear, if nothing else.

Ah, those cute little prisoners in the Russian sector. Anybody who knows the slightest thing about the treatment of Russian POWs in WWII couldn't possibly find any humor in this (or any possibility that someone could break into their camp by pretending to paint a line in the dirt). Too stupid to be funny. As for the scene where the prisoner smears paint on the (armed) guard's face...

I know some poster claimed he knew a Jewish POW who said he was treated "no differently" than the others. Not if they knew he was Jewish, he wasn't! Jews went to the death camp in Nazi Germany, even if they weren't POWs.

There's so much more. Why was somebody supposed to "take the Lieutenant out"? Why didn't they just hand him the wire cutters in the smoke-out, or better yet just go through the fence then? If it was possible to just sneak out (even with the extra guards??), why hadn't anybody done it before?

Nobody noticed that the cord on the light (which was low enough to bump you in the head sitting down), was sometimes up & sometimes not? The Germans weren't suspicious when the prisoners hold a blanket up over their window? And where did everybody get those nice haircuts?

reply

Whew! As Mr. Hitchcock might have said -- "It's only a movie."

reply

The original play Stalag 17 was written by Donald Bevan and Edmund Trzcinski; when it came to POW camps they knew exactly what they were writing about, because they were both former prisoners of Stalag 17B in Austria. And if they'd wanted to prepare a documentary about life in a POW camp, they would have done so. But Stalag 17 isn't a documentary; it's a dramatic work. It's heightened reality, and this is something most filmgoers are aware of. Billy Wilder was certainly aware of it, and the changes he (and Edwin Blum) made to the script were in the interest of making it an entertaining and suspenseful film.

And before you start generalizing about Jewish POWs, keep in mind there were countless different cases throughout the war; some ended badly and others didn't. You don't have to do painstaking research to learn about them; a simple visit to Google should suffice.

reply

Yes. And nicely said.

reply

Agreed.

reply

The movie surprised me. i was expecting some kind of classic but such a prominent part was some of the worst humor I could have imagined. Broad, obvious. It was the kind of simpleton humor where they might as well have just been holding keys up to the camera and jangling them.

The plot about the barracks rat was interesting and worthy, but that "humor" was not just done as isolated comic relief attempts. It was half the movie.

I rate it 4.9 out of 10 altogether.

reply

I found it occasionally funny but yes, occasionally unrealistic. 6/10.


"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

reply

Occasionally unrealistic?

You can't be serious. It had some realistic elements, but it was almost entirely a pure fantasy.

Heaven forbid you watch The Great Dictator or To Be or Not to Be, your head might explode with the "They call me concentration camp Erhard" joke.

I'd say half of this is to you, the other half to OP.

reply

Okay, 'occasionally', as in, 'infrequently,' is not a correct, exact term to use. How about 'mostly'?


"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

reply

I'm the OP and I loved both The Great Dictator and To Be or Not To Be. To me the difference in the level of humour between these and Stalag is obvious, but I guess not...

reply

And while it's never been officially stated, there's no way To see Animal from the muppets and not see some influence from Animal here.

And not only did it inspire mash, but it was an even heavier inspiration for Hogan's Heroes, in which the similarities are far too great to just be a coincidence. HH was still amazing, and I knew of it well before Stalag 17, but that undisclosed settlement says A LOT.

reply

I served 25 years in the Air Force. About five of those years were as an enlisted aircrew member. I went through survival training including a mock POW camp. I also went through "Special Survival" training that was given in a classified course that only a select group of us received. It was classified, but I think I can state that only SR-71, U-2, and RC-135 crews received the training. Since the SR-71 has a crew of two officers, the U-2 holds only 1, and I already said that I was enlisted, you can guess which aircraft I flew aboard.

I've also done a lot of reading of history, including three books on POWs of the German Luftwaffe. Airmen were held in camps operated by the Luftwaffe, not by the Wermacht or the SS. All American and British POWs say that the Luftwaffe followed the Geneva Convention reasonably closely, including their treatment of Jewish POWs. The Jews who went to the death camps were those living in Germany and the occupied territories of Europe.

I think that "Stalag 17" is probably spot on in its portrayal of a typical camp. Note that all the American prisoners are in their own camp and they are all enlisted. The officers have been put in a separate camp because they fall into a separate category in the Geneva Convention. The lieutenant was "passing through," being in the camp temporarily until they could move him to the officer's camp.

reply

thank you, sir, for your time spent in the military!

reply

You should REALLY be careful what films you view.

Short Cut, Draw Blood

reply

[deleted]

I agree with you, it was a complete farce. The humor was so bad, especially Strauss, and there was so much of it pretty much ruined the whole film for me, it was more often annoying than funny. The Bridge on The River Kwai was just 4 years later and it's a million times better WWII POW film.

reply

Yeah, and LUST FOR LIFE was a million times better film about painting than AN AMERICAN IN PARIS. That, though, isn't the point.

reply