Diplomacy (2014) User Reviews

Intense, thoughtful, delicate, and if a hair too slow, also hair-raising stuff

[secondtake · 7/10 · 21 June 2015]

Diplomacy (2014)

Blow up Paris? Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre? Yes—almost. And for real. It's 1944.

In the final days (or day) of the German occupation of Paris, as the Allies were moving very quickly in, the Germans (under Hitler's orders) were increasingly desperate. And bitter. They were going to leave the lovely city in ruins—you know that kind of baby attitude, if I can't have it you can't have it either.

Well, we know that Paris was not blown up. (The city famously survived the truly brutal World War II with hardly a scratch, compared to the rest of Europe.) And the final decision —to do it or not—fell to one man, ultimately, aging commanding German General Choltitz. And a man appears in his quarters who we learn is the Swedish diplomat Raoul Nordling. Nordling sees the crisis, and sees the general's quandary, and has to find a way to stop the madness.

And so we have a condensed version of some very real events. The movie is based on a play which by necessity distilled this down to mostly these two characters in their hotel, though we are given a convincing sense of the city and the Germans around the hotel.

This is high drama in its purest simplest form—conversation. The men try to understand each other. The general knows the Swede is trying to persuade him, and the Swede knows the general is under orders that can't be defied. There is the moment, and then there is history, and how the world will later look on the moment. And it all is spelled out with such delicious economy and psychology, it's riveting.

And even though you know that Paris survives, you won't know why or how, or how close it came to rubble, until you see this.

marvelous

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 17 December 2015]

There's an old joke - how many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? Answer: No one knows. It's never happened.

That actually comes up in this film, "Diplomatie," from 2014, based on a play. It's basically a two-person movie about the conversation Swedish consulate Raoul Nordling (André Dussollier) has with Général von Choltitz (Niels Arestrup).

Germany has basically lost the war; the Allies are en route to Germany, and Hitler has decided to make Paris scorched earth, killing millions and razing the city to rubble. There was no strategic reason to do this. He was just feeling especially spiteful that day and figuring, why leave the Allies with this jewel.

Nordling, a Paris resident, comes to ask von Choltitz to spare Paris. von Choltitz has never defied an order, no matter how he felt about it, and he is very dismissive of Nordling. He points out that there's practically nothing left of Hamburg - did those civilians not matter?

He tells Nordling that the Parisians gave the Nazis Paris "with their legs open - like whores. We can do what we want with it." They go back and forth on this, and von Choltitz later admits that Hitler has gone off the rails. But there's nothing he can do - his family will pay the price if he doesn't do as he's told.

This is an excellent film with superb acting by both men. The most chilling scene takes place in the beginning, when von Choltitz and soldiers go over the plan to destroy Paris. It's absolutely shocking. They go through every landmark, every famous street, discussing how it will be taken down, how the city will be flooded when they break through the river barriers. It's awful.

I knew right away that Neils Arestup was not German - I could understand every word he said. When real Germans speak, I can't. He does a masterful job, so aggressive and cold in the beginning, and then gradually weakening. André Dussollier, with his quiet performance, is excellent in his persuasiveness.

I believe the mayor of Paris and Nordling both visited von Choltitz.

Well, we all know what happened. Here in the U.S., I think sometimes World War II has been glamorized a bit as it was not fought on our soil. And for many of our fathers, it was their first time away from home and their normal lives and, in reminiscing, for an 18-year-old who maybe went over at the end of the war, it was an adventure and the beginning of lifelong friendships. Sadly the outcome was not the same for all.

World War II was filthy, it wasn't the propaganda movies trying to keep our spirits up. It was a horrible war that killed many people through bombing, extermination, and starvation. For much of Europe, the aftermath wasn't that much better.

"Diplomate" is just a microcosm of one man's efforts to stop the carnage. Definitely worth seeing.

I enjoyed it very much!

[petarmatic · 8/10 · 31 March 2015]

I enjoyed this film very much! First of all it is a very interesting recreation of a stage play into a film. Plot is interesting well enough since the subject is of a great interest to the general public, one night in August of 1944 when general in command of Paris had to decide should he follow Hitlers orders and blow up Paris or to surrender without doing it. He made good decision, we should be grateful that he had piece of sanity left not to blindly follow those orders.

Acting is excellent by both principal actors, and other actors as well.

If you are a World War II buff this is a must see for you, but I strongly recommend that you see this film anyways, because it is just short of a masterpiece.

Worthwhile for the lead acting performances

[paul-allaer · 7/10 · 27 March 2014]

"Diplomatie" (2014 release from France; 90 min.) is the big screen adaptation of the theatre play of the same name by Cyril Gely. (Disclaimer: I have not seen the theatre play.) The story takes place on the eve of the liberation of Paris in late August, 1944. The German commander-in-charge, General von Choltitz, has orders to destroy all of the main landmarks of Paris (Louvre, Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame cathedral, etc.). Enter French diplomat Raoul Nordling, who tries talking von Choltitz out of implementing the orders from Berlin. To tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Several comments: this movie is directed by none other than legendary German film maker Volker Schlöndorff, yes he of "The Tin Drum" from the late 1970s. Who knew he was still around and making movies? Second, while on some occasions there are scenes shot outside, beware that most of the movie takes place in the room at the Hotel Meurice where General von Scholtitz is based, and it truly needs to be emphasized that this is a theatre play brought to the big screen, but still very much a theatre play. Last but certainly not least, the acting performances of the two lead actors (André Dussollier as Raoul Nordling, and Niels Arestrup as General von Choltitz) are nothing short of top-notch and truly carry the film.

"Diplomatie" has garnered rave reviews in Europe, and the screening I saw this at in Antwerp, Belgium last week during a recent family visit, was very well attended. Still, I don't know to what extent this success could be replicated in the US. For me, the movie was a slight bit too static to fully engage me from start to finish. But I would readily suggest that you check this movie out if you get the chance, and draw your own conclusions.

The gentle art of Diplomacy.

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 26 June 2021]

Cyril Gély's play 'Diplomatie' opened at the Théatre de la Madeleine in 2011 with Niels Arestrup as Dietrich von Choltitz and André Dusollier as Raoul Nordling. It ran for three hundred performances so both actors certainly had long enough to get it right! Although the ways of Film are mysterious, when it came time to adapt the piece for the screen they were obvious choices and luckily for us they were able to reprise their roles.

The relationship between the characters of von Choltitz, Governor-General of occupied Paris and Swedish consul Nordling had been touched upon in René Clément's sprawling and star-studded epic 'Is Paris burning?' in which they were played by Gert Frobe and Orson Welles. They met on several occasions but for the dramatic purposes of the play Gély depicts one fictional meeting that takes place in the L'Hotel Meurice on the Rue de Rivoli just hours before von Choltitz is due to carry out Hitler's order to destroy Paris rather than let it to fall into the hands of the advancing Allies.

Here, as opposed to the earlier film, the emphasis is on individual rather than collective action. The means by which Nordling allegedly convinces the hard-nosed and brutal General to rescind Hitler's maniacal order are of course purely hypothetical but results in excellent theatre. Presumably Gély had access to the General's memoirs but how reliable are these one wonders? There are some who have suggested that von Choltitz is merely motivated by the desire to save his own skin, knowing that his previous military actions in Rotterdam and Sevastopol would mark him out as a war criminal(in fact he only served two years in prison) and that anyway, he lacked sufficient time and resources to carry out the order effectively. What is plausible and very much in keeping with the characters is that Nordling promises to get von Choltitz' wife and children out of Germany and into safety in Switzerland if he surrenders the city. It is known than Choltitz had previously refused to obey Himmler's order to ransack the Louvre so already the seeds of defiance were being sewn and like so many officers of the Wehrmacht he had serious doubts about Hitler's sanity. Perhaps after all Nordling wasn't required to do too much persuading.

As for the film Volker Schloendorff has done a marvellous job in sustaining our interest in what is essentially a two-hander. The camerawork of Michel Amathieu is excellent and although shot in colour the contrasts between light and dark aid the drama immeasurably. The director mainly keeps the action within the proscenium arch but a filmically effective scene is where von Choltitz rescinds the order whilst on the roof of the hotel so that both he and the audience have the panorama of Paris in view.

Schloendorff has achieved a perfect balance here between film and filmed theatre and has the advantage in Arestrup and Dusollier of two consummate professionals at the top of their game.

Seventy-five years on it is difficult to appreciate just how close Paris came to destruction. One would dearly love to believe that Nordling's arguments won the day as it gives us a feeling that maybe, just maybe, 'the strength of one in tongue and speech is mightier than all fighting.' We live in hopes!

Thought provoking

[ragingbull_2005 · 7/10 · 3 July 2020]

When Hitler's army was on the verge of withdrawal from Paris, they were ordered to destroy all major structures, such as Louvre, Eiffel Tower et al and to pulverize the city. We all know that the city still stands with all its monuments. It is the story of that fateful night when the destiny of a city hung in balance.

The acting is great. The run time is super short (75 minutes). The twists are many. The dialogues are sharp. The debates between the two principals are thought provoking and force you to empathize.

Highly recommended. Well made.

Refreshing Humility in an Age of "Big" Movies

[wpedmonson · 9/10 · 9 December 2014]

I got the chance to see "Diplomacy" last night at the Angelika in Dallas, and I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it. Twenty minutes into it, I saw where the movie was heading, the set up of it, and enjoyed every minute. The movie is a shining light on the wisdom, gentleness, and burden of age and power. Two elderly men are grappling, albeit with very different styles, over the future of Paris and its iconic treasures. It's a snapshot of history that I never saw, and holds a profound depth I won't forget.

The play-turned-movie is the story of the general in charge of the Nazi Occupation of Paris, and the Swedish diplomat who has a passing relationship with the man when the play begins. All of Paris' great architectural treasures are to be destroyed to buy time for the retreat of the Nazi army across France, and it's only a matter of hours before the order is given. The Swedish diplomat in his powerful and sly persuasive style takes on the general in trying to dissuade him through some of the most artful, intelligent and brilliant rhetoric I've seen in a movie. In many ways the film feels like a boxing match, a final scene in a Rocky movie between an underdog boxer and his strong but weary opponent who seemingly has no weaknesses.

There is both the German and French culture's strengths and weaknesses on display (even though the diplomat represents Sweden he openly says that Paris has embraced her and she him). I love this sort of contrast, particularly in showing that Germans have a softer side that's deep and valuable to them, and the French have a gristly fighting spirit that was formidable and feared up to this day; unfortunate stereotypes for both cultures. I read a quora article today about how the French didn't flee the Germans, they fought but in the WWI style that was ineffective against the Blitzkrieg (now adopted by all modern militaries in the world today). We also forget the British lost to the Germans shortly afterward, and were driven back to their island.

The movie feels like a play, which I would somewhat fault it for in some ways, but it doesn't become a distraction or take away from the film. Also the movie seems small at times, with 90% of the dialog happening in one room in a hotel where the Nazi general works. Granted, this is likely due to the low budget and it does help the motif of the movie being about the power these two men have over the fate of Paris.

This movie falls in line with a string of films lately that could almost make a genre itself: the artist/culturally sensitive figure fighting to preserve and save artistic treasures amidst a raging battle. "Monuments Men" and "The Train" come to mind immediately.

I can't help but think of all the destruction caused by wars, the Abbey at Monte Cassino being one, as well as several that we're seeing in the Middle East. I remember reading about how many important buildings and museums were threatened and attempted to be preserved as the US army went through Iraq.

Historical treasures that are destroyed by war is one of the greatest arguments against it, its chaos and disregard for what's most valuable in the world. A broader theme though is the value of an entire culture and its history, and how often war and strife easily take those down, possibly because they're so prominent and essential to a city's character. Coming from a country like the US, I don't have as acute a sense of this as those who live in Europe, but there is still something in humanity in which we are drawn to monumental art, and value it as more than just a tourist site. Paris is an easy example of this.

The movie is worth seeing, and it's quaint in its setting, and beams a sense of humility which is refreshing when movies in our time seem to fight to be the biggest (though the consequences of the decisions made in the movie are massive). It's where live theater has something to offer the world of movies, a kind of depth through being as small as possible.

Man is a reed, a thinking reed

[shunsuke-amanai · 6 October 2016]

This is a brilliant film.

Masterfully set in the tense historical and ideally theatrical moment, the story demonstrated that the combination of the power of the iron will and the eloquent linguistic skills, both built on the trust of the two human beings, was able to defy something impossible.

From the linguistic point of view, the film was made very realistic, switching between German and French. This is a relief, given a flood of supposedly European movies of recent with a way too many English speaking characters.

I want my children to watch this film to eyewitness the history and perhaps something more important than that: Words, not the sword, saved Paris and her people from calamity.

Theatre

[olastensson13 · 6/10 · 6 January 2015]

The Nazis destroyed Warzaw and had the same plans for Paris, when the Allies were approaching. So why didn't it happen? Was it because of this Swedish consul's night talks with the German commander or?

This is obviously filmed theater. This can function if it's film in its own right, but here it isn't. If it wasn't for the camera changing positions, it could as well be filmed from a stage.

But surely it's exciting anyway with passable acting and including a big moral dilemma. but telling that Paris was saved cannot be considered a spoiler. Night talks are not to seen as banalities. Not even in theater.

Tenacity of a European Diplomat and the Open-Mindedness of a German General May Have Saved a European Treasure

[classicalsteve · 10/10 · 26 October 2014]

We often think of history as inevitable outcomes, but sometimes we forget that many things we hold dear were held in the balance in history. In late summer, 1944, the L'Arc de Triomphe, la Place de la Concorde, the Louvre, and the many ancient and modern streets of Paris could have been blown into oblivion in less than one day. Towards the end of August, 1944, the allies had retaken many of the Reich's former strongholds such as Rome and Tropoli. And now the allies were on the borders of German-occupied Paris about to storm and retake the most famous French city.

When the Reich realized they had no chance of resisting the allies from liberating the city from German occupation, Adolph Hitler made a final ultimatum: make Paris a "scorched-earth". In other words, destroy the city and lay it waste. It would be destruction on a massive scale which would not only destroy one of the most beautiful cities in the world but also murder potentially millions of lives. And yet there was neither strategic nor tactical advantage to razing Paris, only killing and mayhem. And the many monuments and art would be lost forever. Whether Hitler's order was out of pure insanity continues to be debated, although one thing is certain. The order was made most likely out of malice towards the allies and the rest Europe when it became obvious Hitler and Germany would be defeated and not as a puzzle piece towards any larger strategy to win the war.

For 3 to 4 days, General Von Choltitz, then German general in charge of Paris, orchestrated his young soldiers and engineers to plant hidden explosives under the many bridges over the Seine, the main waterway which runs through Paris. Explosive U-boat torpedoes were also deployed in tunnels under the city that, if ignited, would destroy Paris from the ground-up. At the same time, Resistance fighters had tried, unsuccessfully, to stop the deployment. At the beginning of the film, General Choltitz meets with his top commanders to begin the process of laying waste to Paris.

Then, the General receives an expected visitor, Raoul Nordling of the Swedish Consul in Paris. (In fact, the man who visited the general was Pierre Charles Tattinger, the mayor of Paris. For dramatic purposes, the characters of Tattinger and Nordling may have been combined into a single person.) The film becomes a dialogue between Nordling and Choltitz in which Nordling has to find a way to persuade the general that destroying Paris is not only a heinous criminal act even by wartime standards but also not in his best interests. After each of Nordling's arguments, Choltitz counters with other arguments, such as he cannot disobey orders from the Reich, particularly those of Hitler, no matter how monstrous they may be. Eventually, Choltitz offers Nordling a trump card which the diplomat can't seem to counter, unless he has something else up his sleeve to persuade the general.

A brilliantly written and acted film based on the play of the same name by Cyril Gely who also adapted the screenplay. André Dussollier as Nordling and Niels Arestrup as General Choltitz offer tour-de-force performances about a meeting which determined the fate of an historic city. Although we know the ending, we don't always know how we arrived there. "Diplomatie" ("Diplomacy") shows us how we got there.

Needed More Time for Breathing but Great Performances Make it a Watch

[comicman117 · 7/10 · 15 February 2015]

Diplomacy is based off a play by Cyril Gely, and, in many respects, it feels like a play brought to film. This is, however, probably the movie's biggest weakness, as it moves very slowly at times. Despite this though, the film is very well acted and does feature some very interesting uses of editing and directing.

Set during World War II, Diplomacy tells the story of the relationship between Dietrich von Choltitz (played by Niels Arestrup), the German military governor who is currently occupying Paris, and Swedish consul-general Raoul Nordling (played by Andre Dussollier), as Nordling attempts to convince Choltitz not to bomb Paris.

Diplomacy features some very good acting by the two leads, especially Dussollier as Nordling who looks very stern and strong throughout most of the movie. The majority of the film is set inside the office room where the two main characters are talking. At first, it seemed like the film would primarily be a one-room movie, but after the first forty or so minutes, we see some action happening outside, as soldiers are fighting for their lives. The shift is unexpected, but works in the film's favor.

The film doesn't shy away from the violence of war, and showed it in a very realistic manner, even if only for a few scenes. The others thing I appreciated about the film is the musical score, which at times was very effective, being both chilling and dramatic. The sets were excellent and made the film look like it was actually occurring during the 1940's in France. Overall, I'd say these positive attributes as worked together to make this film very enjoyable.

Overall, the film could have benefited by giving the audience more time to breathe, but if you're a fan of war movies, I definitely recommend seeing this film.

Not quite the classic it could have been

[denizsi · 8/10 · 18 February 2014]

I saw this film with my girlfriend in Haus der Berliner Festpiele on February 14th as a Berlinale 2014 Special.

I went into the film with little to no knowledge on the production beforehand (ie. the actors, director, producer, scenarist) and hence, what type of film to expect, e.g. more of a "Is Paris Burning?" (1966) or a "Downfall (Der Untergang)" (2004)?, with only a vague knowledge of the subject itself plus a vague memory of reading the synopsis from the Berlinale catalogue.

Originally a play, this screen adaptation tells a fictionalized* account of the negotiations between Dietrich von Choltitz, the German General and Governor of Paris, and Raoul Nordling, the Swedish consul-general, at Hotel Meurice, the headquarters of the former on the eve of The Liberation of Paris in 1944.

It is a dialogue-driven film with very few cuts between different scenes, characters and events and maintains a very fine and serenely intriguing pace with a good script and a focus on the interplay between the main characters.

The script shines with brilliant moments of reason and questioning where humble, thought provoking and beautifully humane concepts are elegantly waved into the dialogues.

Without giving spoilers, one such particular moment was the question of future cohabitation and peace between two peoples, which I found to be the strongest and the most haunting point raised in the entire film. Clearly, the script was written to haunt the viewers with similar notes of contemplation.

However, intentions aside, the backbone of the film is the solid acting by André Dussollier (Raoul Nordling) with his ever so slightly and mischievously probing and also understandably desperate demeanor (with a devilish resemblance, as my girlfriend put it -a very fitting impression I find) and Niels Arestrup's (von Choltitz) stoic and war-worn cynicism while effortlessly switching between German and French, adding to the phonetic richness of the picture, not to forget the few if brief appearances by others. Quality of acting keeps the film together above all else and despite its flaws.

So I was quite very pleased with it during and immediately after viewing and some of the things one might call shortcomings or flaws didn't become immediately apparent to me (though they quite very much did to my girlfriend, who was quick to remind me of those).

I haven't seen the play so maybe this will be an inaccurate impression as I can't compare but it feels as though little work has been put into the script to adapt it for camera and screen or whatever effort was made, it didn't quite manage to step out of the comfort zone of theatrical traditions, to build a cinematic identity of its own.

You can tell as devices most often saved for theatrics creep into the film in manners that stick out where the lack of more convincing cinematic adaptations leave their traces.

One such particular moment was of Parisian romanticism which I felt was lifted straight from a stage performance where it would fit right in and easily find resonance with the viewers but ended up rather disconnected and overblown in the cinematic context of the film.

Likewise with introductory expositions and small editing touches reminiscent of use of prerecorded medium in theatre which didn't quite line up with the rest of the film and ended up feeling rather amateurish.

To compare to other "Chamber Play" films, it is not as dramatically tense and conflict-driven as Twelve Angry Men or, say, filled with as much suspenseful characterization and camera-work as Der Untergang. The film doesn't concern itself with so much suspense and drama to progress the plot but with intelligent questions that aim to haunt and beg to be contemplated in a serene state of mind which, I find, is where the film attempted to be and could have been the strongest and is intellectually the most significant.

That the quality of acting ended up as the strongest suit of the film, doing most of the heavy work to carry the film with all of its flaws sadly leaves it at a place short of being a classic.

Then again, what do I know?

(*: Fictionalized though still anchored in memoirs, apparently. For instance, you will find that a lot of moments from the film line up perfectly with the accounts of a particular article authored by a Kelly Bell, published online in August 19, 1996 by a World War II Magazine -src: http://goo.gl/KIFTi0 -, presumably both drawing from the 1965 novel "Is Paris Burning?" which I haven't read. -mind that the specific parallels between the film's script and the article will inevitably act as spoilers)

Playing by ... rules

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 24 May 2015]

It makes sense that this is based on a play (which I haven't seen and didn't know prior to watching the movie). The movie itself feels like a play. Which might not be your cup of tea of course but is handled with great care. It's a tough subject nonetheless, though mostly not in a visual sense.

It's a movie where there is a lot of talks and which gives you a feeling of what politics and decision making is all about. It's about what orders are, what the consequences can be if they are not followed and the absurdity to know when something is over but still having to try to maintain an order and do/say despicable things. Great acting in a dual language film (german/french), that is riveting in its own rights ...

Misleading movie

[hof-4 · 2/10 · 2 April 2017]

First, the movie itself. It is filmed theater, complete with Grand Guignol (secret passages) and a few clumsy attempts to open up the play with outside shots. It is an extended (and mostly imagined) conversation between General Dietrich von Choltitz (military governor of Paris) and Raoul Nordling, Swedish consul in Paris shortly before the liberation of Paris in August 1944; the subject is the destruction of historical monuments ordered by Hitler but not executed. Since Niels Arestrup and André Dussollier are accomplished actors, the movie keeps your attention. On this basis only, it would deserve a medium good rating.

The problem is distortion of history. The dialogue lends nobility to Choltitz and minimizes the Free French contribution to the liberation (the Resistance is not present in this movie, except for a few fighters being executed or engaging German soldiers in firefights without taking cover, like the Japanese in wartime American movies). Choltitz, as most of Hitler's generals, was a scoundrel and a war criminal who at the time was trying to find ways to avoid execution at the hand of partisans or a postwar trial for war crimes followed by hanging. No need to worry; he was treated with kid gloves in postwar America and West Germany. He was freed in 1947 after some mock repentance, and he even wrote a memoir where he named himself the Savior of Paris. This was thereafter echoed unthinkingly by the mainstream press.

In this movie, Choltitz is allowed every excuse. He posits the standard Nazi defense ("I am following orders") and compares the proposed destruction of Paris with the Allied bombing of German cities. Dubious call. True, Allied bombings of German aimed to kill civilians (although most cities were heavily defended). However, terror bombing from the air was proudly introduced by Germany in Guernica (and other Spanish cities) during the 1936-1938 civil war, and perfected in Warsaw and Rotterdam.

The movie contain falsities as well as omissions. Examples of both.

Falsity: some of the soldiers that take Choltitz prisoner wear American uniforms. They did not: all were Frenchmen and Spaniards and served in the 2nd Free French Armored Division under general Leclerc's command, the first force to enter Paris well ahead of the Americans.

Omission: The beginning of the movie shows Warsaw after the Nazis destroyed 90% of the city. It does not clarify why this was not contested by the Polish underground. Reason: they had been crushed as a result of the Warsaw Uprising of August 1944.

One wonders where the director's sympathies fall. One wonders less after the end titles. Schlöndorff dedicates the movie to "his friend Richard Holbrooke," a neocon and one of the the architects of the disintegration of Yugoslavia at the hands of NATO, in which Germany was an accomplice.

A far more balanced and truthful account of the liberation of Paris can be found in a popular 1966 movie by René Clement, "Is Paris Burning?" It's a lot more entertaining too.

How Paris was saved from total destruction at the last minute

[robert-temple-1 · 9/10 · 4 April 2015]

It is amazing how few people seem to be aware of how near Paris came to total destruction just as the Nazis were pulling out in August, 1944. Hitler gave the order to the military governor of Paris, General Dietrich von Choltitz, to raze Paris to the ground and kill as many of its 1.5 million inhabitants as possible, just as the American troops were approaching the city. Hitler threatened to kill von Choltitz's wife and children if he did not carry out the order. Von Choltitz had only been in place for two weeks, and his predecessor had just been executed and his family killed because he had displeased Hitler. So all the major monuments and all the bridges except for the Pont Neuf were mined and ready to be blown up. The whole of the Marais and the Bastille would have been flooded in water 30 feet deep. The Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, everything of note, was ready to be blown up. All the explosive charges were in place. But then the Swedish Consul, Raoul Nordling, intervened and managed to persuade von Choltitz at the last minute not to destroy the city. Why is this hair-raising story not better known? The story was made the subject of a play, DIPLOMATIE (DIPLOMACY), by Cyril Gely, and now this has been intensely and brilliantly turned into a film by the genius Volker Schlöndorff. He has chosen two fantastic actors to play the two leading characters. Niels Arestrup plays General von Choltitz with such iron conviction that you really do believe he is about to blow up Paris and nothing can stop him. And Nordling is played by André Dussollier, with equal effect. The two of them play psychological chess with one another and eventually Paris is saved, but only just. There is a lot of genuine archive footage of the Liberation included in the film. This is a magnificent bringing alive of a turning point in history. All young people should be made to see it.

Gripping and masterfully played

[christian_fournier · 9/10 · 7 May 2020]

The "blanche-2" review starts with the old joke saying that "Paris has never been defended"; maybe a good joke but a historical untruth! Since the end of the Roman Empire, Paris has been besieged by Attila (461), by Childeric Ist (465), and by Clovis (494). During the Viking invasions, Paris has been attacked in 845, 856, 857, 866 & 876, then besieged during two years (885-887) when the Franks under Eudes, count of Paris, did defend successfully the city; but in the end the Emperor (Charles le Gros) chose to pay off the Vikings. The 978 siege, by Emperor Otton II was thwarted by Hugues Capet. During the Hunded years war, Paris was besieged eight times (by the Burgundians, the English and the French); eventually reclaimed for King Charles VII by Marshal Ambroise de Loré. Let us forget the sieges of Paris during the internecine wars (Guerre du Bien public, 1465; Guerres de Religion, 1567, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591; and Guerre de la Fronde, 1649).

In 1814, after the defeat of Napoleon during the campaign of France, Paris was energetically defended (6'000 dead) but Marshal Marmont soon capitulated; after which the Russian Emperor Alexander Ist opted for the return of the Bourbon Kings. In 1815, at the end of the Hundred days, Paris was only briefly defended. Napoleon's Marshals signed an Armistice three weeks after Waterloo: the Emperor had been persuaded to abdicate, and the restoration of Louis XVIII had been masterfully engineered by Fouché and Talleyrand. During the 1870-1871 war, Paris was besieged unsuccessfully for six months by the Prussians. When the French government signed the peace (march 1871), the much bombarded but still untaken Paris revolted under the leadership of the Paris Commune. The siege became that of the Government army against the 'Communards' (at least 7'000 dead), with the Prussians watching by. The 1914-1918 war, demonstrated that the fortified redoubts around Paris would have been useless, had the German army been able to come close to them. Accordingly, a law was voted (1919) to dismantle the fortifications: the city became utterly indefensible - save for a "house to house guerilla" retarding action.

The city in 1940 was never meant to be defended; it was evacuated by the French government early June and declared "Open city"(June 11, '40) - in the same way as have been Brussels ('40), Oslo ('40), Belgrade ('41), Rome ('43) and Athens ('44). In 1944, the Allied armies did not intend to penetrate Paris, not wishing to be glued in "house to house fighting". The decision to send in two divisions (French 2d Armored Div., Gen. Leclerc de Hautecloque; American 4th Infantry Div., Gen. Raymond O. Barton) occurred several days after the revolt of Paris (Interior 'Resistants', Police forces, and the ill-armed populace) and was only taken by Gen. Eisenhower after a strong political request by de Gaulle - who feared a massacre in Paris, similar to the one which was occurring in Warsaw this same month of August '44.

Thus Paris was for a few days on the brink of catastrophe, and this is the subject of the play turned into this excellent film by Volker Schlöndorff. There is a striking similarity between « Diplomatie » and another play turned into a film: « Le Souper » (1992, with Claude Brasseur as Fouché and Claude Rich as Talleyrand). A lively dialogue within closed doors and windows; the subject is the 1815 invasion of Paris by the Allies: what next? Fouché and Talleyrand discuss alternatives. But the focus of "Le Souper" is power, that of "Diplomacy" is moral decency.

Even for a Parisian interested in history, there are things to be learnt from « Diplomacy » - in particular what would have been the consequences of a blowup! But this history is to be "learnt with a grain of salt": Obviously some artistic latitude has been used to strengthen the intrigue (of the play and of the parallel film script) - save for some actual WWII footage. This does not distort the general picture of the immense good resulting from the negotiation carried out between Von Choltitz and his counterparts, Raoul Nordling and the Mayor of Paris, Pierre-Charles Taittinger. Still, the unanswered question for this viewer is: how much romanced is the history in this gripping and masterfully played film? ___.

Theatre and history

[paul-franssen · 27 March 2014]

My wife and I went to see this film a few days ago, I loved it. Excellent acting! I find the title, "Diplomatie" to fit in very well with the observation that the Swedish diplomat clearly had no intention whatever to honour his promises to the German general (i.e. to take care of his family in mortal danger of suppression by the Nazi establishment). In other words, my reading is that diplomatic practice apparently provides the practitioner of that particular political act the green light to do whatever he deems necessary to reach the objective of the "raison d'état", not excluding playing on emotions or even outright lying. Not a pretty observation. Is it correct? Neither am I convinced the film is to be taken as historically correct: the decision not to destroy Paris was the result of a balanced appraisal of the fact that it was not the communists (resistance) that liberated Paris, but ...Spanish... troops in the service of General De Gaulle executing an agenda not quite in line with American instructions. Comme quoi History is often written with a small "h".

Interesting and tense, dialogue-driven drama

[punishable-by-death · 8/10 · 4 April 2015]

This film made for a very interesting modern double to follow the classic french war film Le Grande Illusion, which I saw mere hours before watching this. Much like the older film, we do not see the front line here. The key difference though is the tension caused by the rapid retreat of the German frontline due to the Normandy landings and Allied progress since then. The story takes place in the heart of Paris, where we are introduced to General von Cholitz. He is the man tasked with, for no real strategic purpose, to level the city of France, destroying not only the priceless, ages old monuments that make the city so beautiful, but also millions of innocent civilians having not fought against the German army at all. General Cholitz is extremely critical of the French people who he comments at one point 'opened her legs to us, like a whore.' Much has been written about WWII and in particular the French surrender, and whether Cholitz said those words in real life is obviously debatable. But nevertheless, it conveys the message perfectly as we hear what Cholitz thinks of the French people as a whole, regardless if they are a part of the resistance or not. What bothered me here was Cholitz' constant use of the term terrorist. Was that word even in use during WWII? Perhaps it was, but I doubt it would have been used to this extent back in the 1940's. This is one of few problems I have with this film though.

After finalising the plans for the demolition, he receives an unexpected visitor, Swedish consul Raoul Nordling. When he announces the reason for his visit, the reasons are trivial at best. He was to deliver a letter from a French general, but Scholitz shows no interest as Nordling had expected. Slowly his reasons for the visit unfold, and the dialogue between Nordling and Cholitz take centre stage and make up most of the movie. Which makes sense, it is based on a play. Apart from the hotel-room-turned-General's-office where this vital conversation is held, we see events unfolding outside the hotel three or four times maximum, not including the few scenes that take place in a bunker, where the charges for the demolition all lead to. As the allies advance, communication is cut off from this unit and Cholitz, and the German soldiers know that they must hear the order from the General before detonation.

Knowing of the Allied advance, Nordling almost mocks Cholitz as he is about to be shown the door, and the knowledge he possesses makes Cholitz suspicious of ties to the Resistance. Nordling seems to have intended for this to be the case, as he is now detained by the general and the consul can start working on the psyche of the one man who is responsible for whether the historic monuments of Paris are to remain standing or to be blown into pieces. This is of course his real agenda, which Cholitz quickly catches onto. Considering that we know the basic ending – Paris still stands – the urgent and supremely written dialogue, along with two near-perfect lead performances, create a tense feeling for the majority of the movie. We may know the end result, but we do not know how we got there. After doing some reading, this play (which was adapted for the screen by the same man who wrote the play) follows history rather closely and doesn't majorly distort events. The only real difference is that in the film, the time between Nordling's arrival to convince Cholitz, with the allies advancing in the background, is condensed and is depicted as having happened over a day or two, rather than a week or two. However this is necessary given that this is a movie, based on a play no less. Hardly a flaw in my eyes.

Both lead actors are on point, with sharp dialogue and engaging facial expressions making for compelling viewing, as we hear the sounds of war faintly in the distance. Their discussion see-saws consistently, with the German general stubborn, but not without reason. Among the many subjects that the two converse about, what is notable is the commentary on Nazi Germany post-D-Day. Cholitz talks fondly of memories where Paris was a German officers' dream post, given the amount of land they conquered early in the war. The fact alone that the order has been given to blow a city like Paris into pieces shows just how insane and lost Adolf Hitler was in his later years, and furthermore just how desperate the Germans were after the landings at Normandy and after, as both the Red Army and American troops closed in on occupied Europe. Much like Le Grande Illusion then, this is a fascinating movie about war where barely any shots are fired, one that says a lot about the state of the Third Reich in its final days, the attitude that permeated this army. It is also a fantastic statement on soldiers blindly following orders, which seems particularly relevant in today's political climate.

The malicious, war-like intent is here within General Cholitz, and this is what makes the picture as his conversation with Nordling becomes more personal and increasingly real for the German general. The way this general is forced into making difficult calls, and the language and tenacity that the German general uses in his exchanges with Nordling is often intimidating and war-like. One could almost say that their conversation is a dialogue-set metaphor for the frontlines, or for war itself, with both gaining an advantage at some point. This leads to a thoroughly memorable last act that will surprise you.

Essential viewing for anyone interested in WWII history, or anyone who enjoys intense, dialogue-driven dramas.

epilepticmoondancer.net/

André Dussolier and Nils Tavernier are 'must watch' actors in this 'Volker Schlöndorff' film.

[FilmCriticLalitRao · 8/10 · 8 June 2015]

History is a difficult subject to understand as it is not possible for everybody to remember numerous dates and events which have shaped it over a period of time. The arrival of cinema has been a great blessing in disguise for history as it enables people to have a better understanding of one of the most boring subjects studied in colleges, schools and universities. The field of cinema allows history to be faithfully recreated in front of viewers' own eyes in order to enable them to witness events which happened in their absence. Diplomatie is one film which finds its roots in the history especially second world war which was responsible for breaking many European bones. Apart from an honest depiction of war especially the debacle of German forces at the hands of allied forces, Diplomatie touches upon some key ethical questions too. These questions help us to understand the motivations of this film's leading men who respect each other to such a large extent that they do not mind hearing different opinions. For a film based on a famous play about the planned destruction of Paris, 'Diplomatie' shows itself as a fast paced film with the minimal provision for slow scenes. Director Volker Schlondorff has maintained his neutral stance as his film clearly eschews the custom of taking sides in order to hide a group's weakness. Finally, there is something for everybody in 'Diplomatie' as viewers are going to watch how close Paris and its inhabitants came to seeing massive annihilation and ruthless destruction from some very close quarters. Journalists also have a lot of learning ahead of them in the form of Swedish consul Raoul Nordling who did everything possible with words to save Paris from a senseless attack of high impact.

very much enjoyed this brilliant film

[sriksp · 10/10 · 10 September 2014]

as i watched this film i also remembered the film "Is Paris Burning". Brilliant acting by two of the main actors. excellent cinematography and background score. Paris looks devastatingly beautiful from the balcony of the hotel they were staying. i very much would like to know the name of the singer and the name of the song as the credits roll at the end of the movie. this movie is not for everyone unfortunately. people who like the current crop of American films will definitely find this slow and boring. i have always enjoyed french and German films. it is great that Volker Schlöndorff is still making meaningful cinema, and we are so lucky. This must have been a very successful play and clever adaptation of the play is well appreciated. i simply wonder if the Swedish governor kept his word and helped the general's wife and children escape to Switzerland. at the end when he looks at the ring i wondered what he was thinking. hard to say. i really wish he kept his word.

One of the best-acted movies in recent memory.

[JohnDeSando · 23 January 2015]

"The dark outside world of Paris under German occupation exerted a strong containing pressure." Gerard Debreu

In Diplomacy, the conflict between Nazi commander Dietrich von Cholitz (Niels Arestrup) and Swedish pacifist Raoul Nordling (Andre Dussollier) comes in 1944 as the Allies are marching on Paris. A vengeful, mad Hitler has ordered General von Cholitz, now acting as the mayor, to raze Paris. Consul Nordling from neutral Sweden, has the daunting task of convincing this hardened German to spare the City of Light.

Adapted from Cyril Gely's smash French play and directed by the acclaimed Volker Schlondorff, this historically inspired two hander superbly combines the high drama between polar opposite antagonists and the historical reality that Paris, an essentially non-strategic city, did not burn. How does the director keep a hardened critic like moi engrossed for 84 min? By employing dialogue as crisp and knowing as you could hope for in an adaptation and camera work that creates intimacy while emphasizing the big stake of Paris in the background. Diplomacy is one of the best-acted films I have seen in years.

The issue of saving the world's most romantic city and von Cholitz's own family, condemned if he fails to implement the order, gives energy to what could be a talkie bore. It helps that the lead actors are French veterans, among the best film actors in that country.

One of the genius twists is for von Cholitz to ask Nordling what he would do in von Cholitz's shoes, thereby placing us directly in the action as we question ourselves if we would save Paris and its million and a half population or our spouses and children.

As these two historical figures fight it out to the last minute of the Occupation's death, we are privy to their grand and small arguments. In the end diplomacy calls for Nordling's talent to convince von Cholitz of his honesty and yet use unseen means to gain the goal of saving Paris.

We know he succeeds, so the next time you stand by the Arc de Triumph as that no-good Fuhrer so famously did, lift a glass of wine to the consul who saved a transcendent city just for you.

"Is Paris burning?" so allegedly asked Hitler of the general. Thank goodness diplomacy prevailed.

Saving Paris

[westsideschl · 8/10 · 26 July 2015]

Did not know this story of the final days of German occupation of Paris at the close of WWII. Good script, acting, directing and filming. The fundamentals to the story seem to be truthfully portrayed in this dramatization except for those parts dealing with saving the family (ring scenes) of the German officer assigned to oversee the implementation of the explosives.

Four stars because it would have been useful to viewers to be given information as to what was researched to be true and what was added fiction. Might have been better to have the personalities of both the General and the Swedish consul be more accurately portrayed.

As Allied forces close in, the fate of Paris hangs in the balance.

[dixty · 9/10 · 9 October 2015]

By late August of 1945, Allied forces that had broken out of the Normandy beach head in July were racing across France and were approaching Paris. It was their intention to bypass the city and continue their push toward Germany. French Partisan fighters rose up against the German troops occupying their capital, but lacked the strength to quickly dispatch their enemies and take control of the city.

Adolph Hitler had ordered the Paris commander to blow up or burn much of the city before leaving it, and the Germans set explosives and prepared to follow those orders. Learning of this, Allied Supreme Commander Eisenhower gave the go ahead to Charles de Gaulle's French forces to take Paris, but their ability to prevent the city's destruction was in serious question.

In 1965, the Collins/ La Pierre historical book, "Is Paris Burning?" was published and became a best seller. A movie of the same title was released the following year. This book describes in broad detail how the situation in Paris developed and how it ended.

Almost half a century later, Zeitgeist Films released "Diplomatie". This film focuses on the dramatic interchange between German commander Von Choltitz, who felt compelled to carry out his Fuhrer's orders, and Swedish consul Nordling, who hoped to change his mind.

The acting and the dialogue of these two main characters is a tense and captivating debate. Rarely do contemporary films focus so intently on a non-violent confrontation between adversaries. The acting is excellent, the script top notch, and the attention to period detail marvelous. This is an outstanding motion picture.

An Ode to Diplomacy

[willians_franco · 8/10 · 24 August 2020]

VERY GOOD. Interesting and engaging story based on an event from the end of World War II. It is an Ode to diplomacy. Although the film is centered on two men, inside a living room and contains little movement or action, it attracts the attention of the viewer. You are well entertained by the plot. The dialogues are perceptive and well-paced. One detail that caught my attention is the language used in the film: Germans speaking German and French speaking French. This sounds much more pleasant than seeing the English language always used in such cinematic circumstances, especially when it comes to portraying the Second World War. I enjoyed watching the movie, I gave it a high grade and therefore I RECOMMEND IT.

A rare pearl

[natalyafrance · 10/10 · 18 November 2023]

You have one night to talk the nazi general out of destroying Paris. How would you go about it? What would your arguments and the words be???

The kind of movie you want to come back to, as to a beloved and trusted friend: it is done so tastefully, the actors play impeccably, the setting, the story, the inevitable emotional rollercoaster.. one of the films you will remember because it does not follow the formula, it is based on a true story and the story itself is of one person, who have managed to make an immense difference, not by force but by sheer sens of duty and appreciation of beauty.

This film will not hide behind the tricks ans technology, behind some speedy action or flipping through scenes and camera angles ... it is a GOOD cinema of a very authentic kind.