MovieChat Forums > The Battle of the River Plate Discussion > The fate of Captain Langsdorff

The fate of Captain Langsdorff


One of the surprising things about this film is that it makes no mention of what happened to Captain Langsdorff, who after all is pretty much the central character of the movie.

Two days after the Graf Spee was scuttled, Langsdorff committed suicide in Montevideo. It's said he draped himself in an old Imperial German flag -- considered an insult to the Nazis -- before shooting himself.

Given the film's focus on the personalities involved, much more than on action sequences, it's very strange that absolutely no mention or even hint of Langsdorff's end is made, especially since Langsdorff is portrayed as a fair and noble adversary. It certainly was an integral part of the overall story of the pursuit of the Graf Spee, and considering that Frau Langsdorff is listed among those the producers thanked for their help on the picture, you'd think they'd have paid tribute to a gallant foe by describing his sad but principled end. It's certainly an inseparable part of the story, and its omission is unjust.

There was of course no need to include a scene depicting Langsdorff (Peter Finch) actually killing himself. But a coda could have been added where some of the other characters -- say, Captain Love -- learn of Langsdorff's finish, and their regretful reaction to it. This would have been far more powerful an end to the film than the sight (however poetic and beautifully photographed) of the British ships sailing off into the sunset. (Or rather, two sunsets, since the sun is shown having set as the vessels move out to sea, before we later see them sailing away, with the sun once more hovering above the horizon.)

All in all, a bad decision to omit this information, and what could have been a genuinely poignant scene. Far better than more of the turgid, stilted dialogue put in the mouth of that usually superb actor, Anthony Quayle...a rare lapse by the normally superlative Emeric Pressburger.

reply

He didnt use an Imperial Flag. He used the battle flag of the "Admiral Graf Spee", as a symbol of "going down with his ship".

He wanted to do just that, stay on board the "Graf Spee" when it was scuttled, but his officers convinced him to come with them, because they needed his diplomatic skills in the coming negotiations regarding his crew.

After all afairs were settled, he then commited suicede while lying on the flag of his sunken ship.

reply

Quite right, my error, it was his ship's battle flag. Thank you for the correction.

Nevertheless, it's incidental to the issue of why his end wasn't included, or at least alluded to, in the film. It's hardly unimportant, and the details of those last two days, as you demonstrate, were further testament to the man's character.

reply

It wasn't proper in those days (1956) to show suicide on film. It was also a sign of respect towards Langsdorff by the filmmakers. The battle itself was the film's subject and the film did that well.

Perhaps Lucio Fulci or Quentin Tarantino are more your kind of directors.


Jack Klugman 1922-2012 Juror #5 & the 1 & only Quincy M.E.

reply

Yes, that's right, birney_neruda: I wanted to watch him firing the gun into his head so we could see his brains, blood, and skull blasted all over the room, a big explosion with lots of gore and body parts splattered around. The film would have been so much better that way.

Congratulations on writing the most asinine post on this site.

If you'd bothered to pay attention to my OP, you'd note that I explicitly wrote:

There was of course no need to include a scene depicting Langsdorff (Peter Finch) actually killing himself.

Whether omitting any mention of Langsdorff's death was "a sign of respect by the filmmakers" neither you nor anyone else knows. That may or may not have been the case.

But taking note of what happened -- again, as I plainly wrote, and you ignored -- would have been a genuinely poignant scene. It would have been a fitting tribute to a gallant foe, and given the audience the sad conclusion to the story.

By the way, the subject of the film was not merely "the battle itself". If you think that, you've missed most of the picture and its meaning. The battle may have been the centerpiece but if you didn't happen to notice more than half the film concerns Langsdorff personally, his command, his ship's actions, and later the diplomatic and military calculations after the Graf Spee had taken refuge in Montevideo. It was in part a study of the men involved, no one more so than Langsdorff. Hence my belief that the film should have made some mention of his death, its nobility and futility.

If you believe the film is fine as it is, good. You could have written a respectful disagreement to that effect. Instead, you chose to post something breathtaking in its utter stupidity, not to mention dishonesty.

I'll close by saying that many years ago I had the honor to meet and get to know Michael Powell a little bit. I've had the pleasure of dining with him and discussing his films and other things. He was a remarkable and cultured individual whom I wish I could have gotten to know better. I state this only by way of responding to your ignorant and moronic suggestions as to who constitutes "more my kind of directors".

I'd suggest that in future, (a) you actually read a post you're commenting on, and (b) inform yourself of the truth, all of which might possibly allow you to (c) not make such idiotic and factually inaccurate comments, if such a thing is possible.

reply

Ya, whatever, Professor. I met Queen Elizabeth, myself.

Jack Klugman 1922-2012 Juror #5 & the 1 & only Quincy M.E.

reply

"Professor"? Another inane remark that makes no sense, a clear and pathetic indication you have no intelligent response to the facts.

As far as anything else goes, it's immaterial to me what you believe. It doesn't change the truth. But when you're going to reply to something, try reading what was actually said before shooting your mouth off.

reply

Perhaps not mentioning his suicide, in the film or as an epilogue was a mark of respect by the Archers. The last we see of Langsdorff he is once more being warmly greeted by a British captain. That speaks volumes. Plus, as skipper of the Graf Spee, he was expected to put up a fight once he sailed away from Montevideo and didn't, which speaks volumes too.

Away with the manners of withered virgins

reply

You may well be right, and the film does make the points you say. Still, it's strange that the film made no mention of his sad and poignant end. After all, it occurred just two days after the ship was scuttled, and so was very much a part of the story; had it taken place a year later there would have been no point in mentioning it.

Considering how history played out, I don't think disclosing his suicide, in a discreet, respectful and sympathetic manner, would have diminished the impact of the aspects you rightly bring up.

reply

I'm surprised you feel it as an 'omission'; I don't. I mean, as you say over the course of the film the audience has got to know Langsdorff as a person, and we all understand that he has spiritually and emotionally gone down with his ship - surely nobody imagines him walking away, getting a job and making a new life for himself in South America! I don't think there was any need to dot the I's and cross the T's in that respect.

In the 1950s suicide was still an actual crime in the UK many states of the USA, and most European states. In addition, it was still regarded as a terrible sin by most Christian denominations, far more so than now. Even disclosed in 'a discreet, respectful and sympathetic manner' it wouldn't have been easy to handle. And you mention Frau Langsdorff; for all we know she preferred it not to be shown or mentioned, for just these reasons.

reply

Well, I still regard it as an omission, but you make some valid points.

Back then suicide was something US censors, at least, frowned upon showing. Under their (rather idiotic) rules a character could commit suicide only if it was plainly demonstrated that he was suffering from some undefined mental lapse. It couldn't be depicted as a rational decision, even one of despair. I don't know what the censorship rules on this subject were in the UK but it wouldn't surprise me if they were similar.

You're also quite right that in those days more people would have regarded it as a sin, which would have risked alienating some of the audience's sensibilities and undermined some of the sympathy for Langsdorff. And suicide was indeed a crime in many places, which is undoubtedly one of the most monumentally stupid laws ever conceived by man: kill yourself, and you'll go to jail. (Or worse, we'll throw you in prison if your suicide attempt fails.) Regardless, the censors also regarded going unpunished for committing a crime as a no-no...even if the "crime" was taking your own life!

Perhaps your best point was the possible reaction of Frau Langsdorff. She may have indeed requested that no mention of her husband's suicide be made. We don't know of course, and back then many if not most people in the audience would have known what happened anyway, but the Archers may as a matter of taste and respect decided to simply forgo "dotting the i's and crossing the t's", as you put it.

So I think you've come up with very reasonable suggestions as to why Langsdorff's end was omitted. Yet even so, I still believe it was an omission -- well, clearly it was an omission, even if one made for justifiable or understandable considerations -- for two reasons.

One, the story is left hanging -- we don't get even a glimmer of Langsdorff's mood or intentions. We last see him standing watching his ship go down, noble and respectful, but with no hint of his impending doom. Even without explicitly mentioning the suicide, I believe some portent of it could have been included. For example, another poster mentioned that in real life Langsdorff wanted to go down with his ship but that his crew insisted he leave it. None of this was depicted in the movie either, but had it been it would have given us a window into his mood and intentions. Langsdorff's death is a part of the story. Noting it may have been dotting the i's, but it's hardly an incidental aspect, especially considering how character-driven the film's narrative is.

And two, while the story of the Graf Spee was still fresh in people's minds in 1956, 17 years after the incident, it would become less and less so as the years went by. Agreed, it would be asking a lot of Powell and Pressburger to make a film with viewers decades later in mind; they were creating a movie for contemporary audiences, with little concern for the distant future, and this was not unreasonable. Still, some indication of the ultimate tragedy of the story would I think have been in order, both for audiences in the 50s as well as those who might see the film 30 or 40 or 50 years on.

So I still believe this was an unfortunate omission. That said, I also believe the reasons you postulate for not including any reference to Langsdorff's end are not only likely but reasonable given the context of the time. A well-considered and thoughtful post!

reply

In those days suicide was regarded much differently than it does today and his family might have not wanted it mentioned.

Its that man again!!

reply

Very true and very possible. Even if those weren't actual considerations, P&P might have decided it was more respectful to Langsdorff's family to skip the story of his end.

reply

Capt. Lansdorff had disobeyed orders by attacking the more heavily armed British cruisers when he was supposed to only attack Merchant shipping, and thus had risked his ship which suffered damaged. After the incident in Montevideo, he left the harbor thinking that the Royal Navy had several ships waiting for him, and scuttled his ship. Having disobeyed orders and lost his ship, he is hardly likely to have been welcomed with open arms if he had been repatriated to Germany. I am not sure if the crew were interned for the duration of the war, but the fact remained that a ship and its crew were effectively lost to the war effort. Capt. Lansdorff faced trial in Germany and therefore took the easy way out and avoided a trial.

reply

I don't think Langsdorff disobeyed orders by defending his vessel against his pursuers. But though the Graf Spee outgunned the British ships the fact that they outnumbered him put him at a huge disadvantage, and sheltering in Montevideo, while perhaps his only option, proved a mistake.

When he was forced to depart port he not only thought he faced a larger force than he in fact did, but he had used up most of his ordnance and could not have fought much longer in any case. Since he had orders not to be interned in Uruguay Langsdorff believed he had only one option, scuttling. This did infuriate Hitler but since the German press claimed the battle a success for the Kriegsmarine, it's unlikely Langsdorff would have been tried or faced any lethal consequences if he had somehow made it back to Germany.

The crew was interned in Argentina, but were allowed to move fairly freely, and many were taken into communities founded by German immigrants. Some are rumored to have escaped back to Germany during the war, and many settled in Argentina or Uruguay after it. Had he lived Langsdorff would almost certainly never have faced any threat back in Germany for the simple reason he too would have been interned.

In any case, saying that shooting oneself is taking the "easy way out" is pretty absurd considering both the near-impossibility of his being sent back or facing a trial, as well as the fact that suicide is hardly an "easy" choice.

reply

[deleted]