A group of German boys, their first day in the army, are told to guard a bridge in order to keep them out of any real fighting.
I last saw this film in the early '70's when I was a little younger than the boys are in the film and when a certain war in South-East Asia was very fresh in everyone's mind. Needless to say, I thought it was one of the best things I had ever seen.
A quarter century has passed since then, so my perspective now is quite a bit different.
Is this actually supposed to be a realistic portrait of a German town in the spring of 1945? Especially one that's supposed to be only a few miles from the front line? You can't tell there's even a war on. No one seems to care about imminent, humiliating German defeat. There's no panic. No refugees. No malnutrition. No Hitler Youth or Gestapo. Is this a town in Germany, or some spa in neutral Switzerland? There is no tension in the town or in the film. The teenagers in "American Graffiti" were under greater emotional strain. The mood here is so relaxed it's like the fishing scenes in "A River Runs Through It". Surely I'm exaggerating? I only wish I were.
I was reminded strangely of the early scenes in "All Quiet on the Western Front" -- euphoria, jubilation, enthusiastic students joining up and receiving their first training. But those scenes take place in the flag-waving "Deutschland über alles in der Welt" of 1914, not the collapsing Germany of 1918.
I was appalled watching this. It hardly seems the same film I remember at all.
Things don't improve much once the battle gets underway. It's their FIRST DAY in the army. They know how to belt-feed a light machinegun, do they? They face hardened US vets, but our boys are knockin' out tanks with panzerfausts like they're hittin' cans with peashooters. The US Army in 1945 was noted for its hardened and totally inept infantrymen and tankers, was it? The Allies in 1945 were accustomed to fighting fanatical Hitler Youth children. As I understand it, their customary response was to shoot back, not shout "Go back to kindergarten!"
Panzerfausts are the sole reason for history buffs to see this film. You get to see them used. You get to see someone hit by the backblast. The film is "brutal" to that extent anyway.
Am I missing the whole point of "The Bridge"? Maybe. Or maybe I assimilated the point a couple of decades ago and my standards are higher now. Have I seen "Hell Is For Heroes", or "Castle Keep", or either version of "Red Badge" recently? No, I haven't. Perhaps I would see those classics with more discriminating eyes too.
I happened to see the subtitled video version of this film. The subtitles are © 1995, but you can tell they are still the haphazardly translated, low quality ones from the '50's. Panzerfausts are called "tank grenades". When a German says "Diese verdammten Schweine!", that is translated as "The swine!" in order to protect sensitive Eisenhower-era viewers from "strong" language. The translations are poor to say the least. Someone says "Schokolade"; it appears on screen as "candy" since there's no such English word as "chocolate". I think we are losing some of the impact the film probably does have, due to the casual and arbitrary way in which it was translated. If a German says "Yes, Captain", why do the titles read "Yes, sir"? How is that a quantifiable improvement? The German words "Heimat" and "Vaterland" both appear as "Fatherland". What happened to subtlety and shades of meaning? If a German says "Mutter", it's translated as "Mammy", but if he actually does use the informal "Mutti", then that's translated as "Mother". Isn't it easier to translate the actual film dialogue than to invent your own? Why aren't we being allowed to see the same film that Germans get to see?
I last saw this film in the early '70's when I was a little younger than the boys are in the film and when a certain war in South-East Asia was very fresh in everyone's mind. Needless to say, I thought it was one of the best things I had ever seen.
A quarter century has passed since then, so my perspective now is quite a bit different.
Is this actually supposed to be a realistic portrait of a German town in the spring of 1945? Especially one that's supposed to be only a few miles from the front line? You can't tell there's even a war on. No one seems to care about imminent, humiliating German defeat. There's no panic. No refugees. No malnutrition. No Hitler Youth or Gestapo. Is this a town in Germany, or some spa in neutral Switzerland? There is no tension in the town or in the film. The teenagers in "American Graffiti" were under greater emotional strain. The mood here is so relaxed it's like the fishing scenes in "A River Runs Through It". Surely I'm exaggerating? I only wish I were.
I was reminded strangely of the early scenes in "All Quiet on the Western Front" -- euphoria, jubilation, enthusiastic students joining up and receiving their first training. But those scenes take place in the flag-waving "Deutschland über alles in der Welt" of 1914, not the collapsing Germany of 1918.
I was appalled watching this. It hardly seems the same film I remember at all.
Things don't improve much once the battle gets underway. It's their FIRST DAY in the army. They know how to belt-feed a light machinegun, do they? They face hardened US vets, but our boys are knockin' out tanks with panzerfausts like they're hittin' cans with peashooters. The US Army in 1945 was noted for its hardened and totally inept infantrymen and tankers, was it? The Allies in 1945 were accustomed to fighting fanatical Hitler Youth children. As I understand it, their customary response was to shoot back, not shout "Go back to kindergarten!"
Panzerfausts are the sole reason for history buffs to see this film. You get to see them used. You get to see someone hit by the backblast. The film is "brutal" to that extent anyway.
Am I missing the whole point of "The Bridge"? Maybe. Or maybe I assimilated the point a couple of decades ago and my standards are higher now. Have I seen "Hell Is For Heroes", or "Castle Keep", or either version of "Red Badge" recently? No, I haven't. Perhaps I would see those classics with more discriminating eyes too.
I happened to see the subtitled video version of this film. The subtitles are © 1995, but you can tell they are still the haphazardly translated, low quality ones from the '50's. Panzerfausts are called "tank grenades". When a German says "Diese verdammten Schweine!", that is translated as "The swine!" in order to protect sensitive Eisenhower-era viewers from "strong" language. The translations are poor to say the least. Someone says "Schokolade"; it appears on screen as "candy" since there's no such English word as "chocolate". I think we are losing some of the impact the film probably does have, due to the casual and arbitrary way in which it was translated. If a German says "Yes, Captain", why do the titles read "Yes, sir"? How is that a quantifiable improvement? The German words "Heimat" and "Vaterland" both appear as "Fatherland". What happened to subtlety and shades of meaning? If a German says "Mutter", it's translated as "Mammy", but if he actually does use the informal "Mutti", then that's translated as "Mother". Isn't it easier to translate the actual film dialogue than to invent your own? Why aren't we being allowed to see the same film that Germans get to see?