Reflections on “The Bridge at Remagen” (1969)
Directed by John Guillermin
Screenplay by William Roberts and Richard Yates
from a story by Roger O Hirson
Starring George Segal, Robert Vaughn and Ben Gazzara
Music by Elmer Bernstein
According to a
number of reviews of the film, “The Bridge at Remagen” is often dismissed as a
somewhat run-of-the-mill war film with questionable casting and unexceptional
direction. However, for me, this film is a particularly human and
thought-provoking presentation in which courage, comradeship, initiative and
determination are on display, but the effects of exhaustion, disenchantment and
issues concerning the place of ambition and humanity are also thrown into the
mix, making this a unique and highly engaging, if underrated and largely
forgotten, production.
Interest is added
by incorporating the points of view of both sides in the battle for the bridge,
with the implication that these “enemies” may share certain outlooks and
encounter vaguely similar problems with those in authority.
One of the main
themes is the endurance of humanity and idealism in the face of the reality of
the constant battle to survive and the ambition and pride of commanding
officers on both sides of the conflict.
There is a very clear
division between those giving orders and those whose job it is to undertake the
action necessary to execute them. While commanders seek glory, a place in
history or promotion, those under their command seek survival as they face and
attempt to overcome the enemy.
Phil Hartman and
his men are constantly pushed to advance the Allied front to reach the
strategically important bridge at Remagen and are eventually ordered to take
the bridge rather than simply destroy it.
Hartman’s immediate
superior, Major Barnes, is keen to gain glory and claim credit through the
actions of Hartman and his men, but he shows little understanding or
appreciation of the skill, effort and cost to these men of their engagements.
This is in direct contrast to Hartman who is all too aware of the effects of
constant action on his men and he shows little or no respect for his superior
as he addresses Barnes plainly and as a fellow human being, though he
recognises he must accept his orders.
Of course, Barnes
is, himself, merely following the orders of his superior who, inspired by the
prospect of unexpected victory, callously points out that they may lose a few
hundred men in taking the bridge rather than destroying it, but that action may
shorten the war and assure them a place in history.
Hartman is eventually
offered a citation by Barnes for his heroic actions in this assault but he
ignores Barnes in favour of joining his friend and comrade, indicating a
complete disregard for personal ambition and glory, and a recognition of the importance
of relationships, trust and reliance on others built up through common
experience and fellowship with his comrades in arms in the course of his
wartime experiences.
On the German side
of the conflict, Major Paul Krueger is expected to blow up the bridge in order
to protect the Fatherland from foreign invasion, but he and his immediate
superior are determined to keep it open as long as possible to facilitate passage home for the remaining 75,000 German troops
still in Western Europe. Krueger feels loyalty and duty toward his fellow
soldiers who have fought and suffered in the name of the Nazi cause, but High
Command considers their loss a reasonable price to pay for protecting Germany
and Krueger displays disillusion with policies and orders issued by Hitler.
He is hindered in
the fulfilment of both his official orders and his own take on the mission by
lack of manpower, outdated information and, eventually, inadequate equipment
and supplies, all the responsibility of his superiors. A man of honour,
principle and compassion, Krueger is willing to destroy the bridge but delays
execution of his orders as he values human life above immediate military and
political gain, an act for which he will pay the ultimate price as his
superiors do not share his priorities and deny truth, reality and
responsibility.
It is ironic that
Hartman and Krueger appear to share certain values and come under similar
pressure from above, yet they are on opposing sides.
Humanity is also
under pressure in the field, however. Hartman and his men may have lost the
edge of idealism and purpose with their principles and values buried under the
weight of accumulated disenchantment and fatigue as they face repeated
encounters with a deadly and determined enemy, senior officers focused on
ambition and advancement rather than the lives and morale of their men, and the
constant grind of living in one another’s pockets.
Hartman and
Sergeant Angelo (known as Angel) are forced to live and serve together and are
united by common experience, purpose and general culture, but are divided by an
almost existential difference in attitude toward death and commerce. Hartman
wearily and respectfully moves on from combat, leaving behind evidence of the
struggle to survive, wreckage and bodies, while Angel adopts a far more
pragmatic approach, checking out the corpses of the enemy in search of items he
can sell. Hartman clearly disapproves but Angel sees no reason why he shouldn’t
profit from the war. Although this is a source of conflict between the two and
a clear indication of a difference in temperament, there is an equally clear
professional respect and trust between them which develops into friendship and
brotherhood.
Angel’s conduct
suggests a lack of sentimentality but his implied self-interest and cynicism
have their limits as he shows compassion and understanding to the girl found in
the police cells and he is visibly shaken when he is forced to kill the young
sniper firing on his comrades from the hotel.
Hartman regularly
displays a caring and compassionate nature, showing thought and consideration
for his men and an awareness of the effects on them of the constant danger and
threat they face. Yet he can also be cold and heartless if that is what it
takes to ensure survival for him and his men.
Toward the end of
the film, after several brushes with death and having been convinced that Angel
had been fatally wounded, Hartman appears to jokingly accept Angel’s “foibles”,
as he sees them, and opts to appreciate and value the courage, self-sacrifice
and spirit of his friend. Perhaps Hartman and Angel complement and support one
another. Hartman provides heart, direction and perhaps even inspiration for
Angel while Angel keeps Hartman grounded in reality, drives him on and even protects
him.
The public or
common citizens are seen as virtual victims of circumstance forced to comply
with whoever is in charge in order to survive. The French girl found in the
cells was arrested by the Germans and offers to sleep with Hartman to ensure her
own safety. The hotel owner curries favour with both the Germans and Americans
and is treated shabbily by both Krueger and Hartman, who each have their own
reasons for their conduct, and it transpires that the German officer in charge
of bridge security was a schoolteacher before the outbreak of war and was
presumably compelled to “volunteer” for military duty.
War affects
everyone and for everyone there are consequences.
In my opinion, John
Guillermin’s highly assured direction maintains pace, interest and emotional
engagement as he handles intense and exciting battle scenes and more intimate
scenes of character exposition and development with equal skill and aplomb.
Sympathetic (and
sometimes unsympathetic) characters are well observed and drawn as they do
their best to survive in situations and circumstances not of their making, and
the script is cleverly lent breadth and a universal quality by examining
similar themes and attitudes on both sides of the conflict, suggesting that ambition,
power struggles and politics of all persuasions can have a negative impact on
people and principle.
The performances
throughout are excellent but those of the three leads deserve special mention
and praise. Robert Vaughn takes a potentially difficult and unsympathetic
character and makes him honourable, admirable and conflicted, while Ben Gazzara
manages to make the at-times despicable Angel touching, loyal and appealing as
well. George Segal is simply superb as he allows us to understand and share
Hartman’s humanity, frustration, disenchantment, anger and relief.
The music by Elmer
Bernstein is stirring, touching and highly memorable, and adds considerably to
the whole experience.
As I suggested at
the start of this video, for me this is an engrossing, entertaining and
thought-provoking film which is greatly underrated and deserves a higher
standing than it seems to hold in various reviews I have read.
My thanks for
taking the time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie
I can be contacted
at stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk .
