Skip to main content

Why do all my generals want to destroy my bridges?

A Bridge Too Far
(1977)

(SPOILERS) Deliberate and measured – some might say ponderous – was always the hallmark of Sir Richard Attenborough’s directorial career, but for the most part, that works to the benefit of A Bridge Too Far. It offers a liberal smattering of both personalised and cast-of-hundreds action sequences, but essentially his recounting of Operation Market Garden is all about talk, deliberation and a cavalcade of miscalculations, hubris and outright idiocy. Yes, there’s plenty of spectacle (and cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth, of 2001: A Space Odyssey fame, is no slouch in that regard), and the expense is all up there on screen, but its effectiveness comes from following William Goldman’s wordy screenplay.

Despite such pressures as producer Joseph E Levine putting his fortune on the line to get the film made and requiring that – in order to hit a release date – it went into production before he had even started on the screenplay, Goldman recounted that “Until the reviews came out, A Bridge Too Far was probably the best experience I’ve had in films”. He put that – which is to say, the American reviews, as A Bridge Too Far was notably nominated for Best Film BAFTA – partially down to their not wanting to believe key (factual) aspects of the “miasmal, mistake-filled conflict” that was the allied endeavour: “We were too real to be real”.

Goldman did rather overstate the picture’s box office failure in the US compared to the rest of the world, though (it came sixth for the year, nothing like as successful as the top four, or even five, but in adjusted terms it made $200m at a cost of $120m or thereabouts). Notably, however, it was teetering on the brink of a new form of popular moviemaking. This was the year of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the influx of the blockbuster, and a year before The Deer Hunter would entirely reframe the approach to telling war stories. Which isn’t to say A Bridge Too Far was pro-war – far from it – but it was a relatively bloodless, accessible affair, with the most extreme elements being a spot of cursing from James Caan.

It also tempered its heroism in a manner that distinguishes it from, say, Saving Private Ryan’s last-ditch nobility in the face of onslaught. Goldman commented that “Arnhem will probably go down as the last major battle in which any of the old romantic notions of war still held true” with regard to heroism on both sides. Whether or not that’s the case, the overriding sense is of any kind of rallying virtue being entirely undercut by the stark failure of the enterprise. Sure, we have Caan saving his captain in a daredevil driving routine that earned the scorn of critics (but which, according to Goldman, was all true), but more emblematic is the soldier who runs out to grab airdropped supplies and is gunned down upon very nearly getting them back… only to reveal the canister was full of useless berets.

The writer characterised the picture as a “cavalry-to-the-rescue story” (as Fox’s Horrocks says), in terms of the requirement to distil its unwieldy elements, but one in which the cavalry came up short. He also decided that, since all his main characters (the star parts) factually survived, he needed to make up types to kill; many of these extraneous roles feel like a mistake, the kind of padding you get in a disaster movie (and let’s face it, Levine’s model is exactly that of the Irwin Allen; get in enough big names and you have your feature sold for you). While the demise of Christopher Good’s character (based on Major Tatham-Warter, who survived) provides Hopkins with a poignant moment, there’s the Dutch resistance kid who gets killed, and rather tiresome Liv Ullmann and Laurence Olivier tending the wounded (although they don’t get killed).

Most entertaining is the stiff-upper-lip aspect of the British officer class, ranging from the recklessly unconscionable (Bogarde’s Browning ignoring all the warning signs) to at-a-glance frivolous but not so when up close and personal (Fox’s Horrocks), to dependably humane (Hopkins), to simply amusing (Michael Caine doing his posh voice and having a ball). The best part probably goes to Connery, though, permanently exasperated by the circumstances (radios not working, supplies dropped behind enemy lines) and surrounded on all sides (at one point shooting a German just outside the window!) He’s provided the final exchange with Browning, mystified that Monty could see the operation as a success.

Unfortunately, the American stars fare less well. Redford comes on two hours in with effortless confidence and conviction – reciting his Hail Marys during the shelled daylight river crossing at Nijmegen – even if he lacks a regulation haircut, and Caan’s hero cameo works for what it is. Gould chews cigar reasonably. But Gene Hackman’s Pole is a performance based on sounding hard Gs and looking pissed off (he can do the last part).

Ryan O’Neal, with the largest role among the American contingent, is an outright disaster, though. Goldman commented “A lot of people didn’t believe Ryan O’Neal in the role of General James Gavin” on the basis of his being too young (he was actually age appropriate); it’s not. It’s because he’s terrible and looks hopelessly out of his depth and outclassed in any scene with his peers (even Redford). At one point, there’s a hero line about him being slightly tetchy because he may have cracked his spine parachuting in, but it utterly fails to give him any welly.

The German side is amusingly as oblivious in places as the British top brass, with a refusal to believe the enemy could want to take the bridges if they parachuted so far away, and dismissing enemy maps found as misdirection. Maximilian Schell (great in the same year’s – superior – Cross of Iron) is more sympathetic, and even offers Ant some chocolate (“It’s very good. Your planes dropped it to us yesterday”).

It’s not so much a “war is hell” as a “war is a massive blunder” film, without the satirical content of Oh! What a Lovely War or The Charge of the Light Brigade, a tone perfectly captured by John Addison’s deceptively jaunty-military score. Some cite A Bridge Too Far as a bit of a bore (see those American critic reviews), but I find the scale and procession of tactical blunders, and the star-heavy cast, keep it interesting for the most part. I’m not an enormous fan of Sir Dickie as director – a very emotional man, noted Goldman “He will cry if you tell him the wind is changing” – but this is probably his best work, and while it may not be Goldman’s, he deserves maximum credit for even attempting to juggle and synthesise all these elements into a coherent narrative.

It did lead to him forswearing any further stories that involved living people (the actual Frost called him, upset about being given a line he didn’t say, because it would make him seem self-inflating – it ended up with someone else). There was also a deal with Levine that inadvertently ended up casting Goldman into the Hollywood wilderness for a spell (writer, director and producer collaborated on Magic the follow year, though). As for the costly gamble of A Bridge Too Far, it paid off; with stars to sell it internationally, it was in profit before it was even released. Added to which, Attenborough brought it in on schedule and under budget. A few years later, post the Heaven’s Gate debacle, and the kind of risks involved here would be blanched at even by major studios.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

A ship is the finest nursery in the world.

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) (SPOILERS) An odd one, this, as if Disney were remaking The Swiss Family Robinson for adults. One might perhaps have imagined the Mouse House producing it during their “Dark Disney” phase. But even then, toned down. After all, kids kidnapped by pirates sounds like an evergreen premise for boy’s own adventuring (more girl’s own here). The reality of Alexander Mackendrick’s film is decidedly antithetical to that; there’s a lingering feeling, despite A High Wind in Jamaica ’s pirates largely observing their distance, that things could turn rather nasty (and indeed, if Richard Hughes’ 1929 novel  had been followed to the letter, they would have more explicitly). 

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Duffy. That old tangerine hipster.

Duffy (1968) (SPOILERS) It’s appropriate that James Coburn’s title character is repeatedly referred to as an old hipster in Robert Parrish’s movie, as that seemed to be precisely the niche Coburn was carving out for himself in the mid to late 60s, no sooner had Our Man Flint made him a star. He could be found partaking in jaundiced commentary on sexual liberation in Candy, falling headlong into counter culture in The President’s Analyst , and leading it in Duffy . He might have been two decades older than its primary adherents, but he was, to repeat an oft-used phrase here, very groovy. If only Duffy were too.

Just wait. They’ll start listing side effects like the credits at the end of a movie.

Contagion  (2011) (SPOILERS) The plandemic saw Contagion ’s stock soar, which isn’t something that happens too often to a Steven Soderbergh movie. His ostensibly liberal outlook has hitherto found him on the side of the little people (class action suits) and interrogating the drugs trade while scrupulously avoiding institutional connivance (unless it’s Mexican institutional connivance). More recently, The Laundromat ’s Panama Papers puff piece fell fall flat on its face in attempting broad, knowing satire (in some respects, this is curious, as The Informant! is one of Soderbergh’s better-judged films, perhaps because it makes no bones about its maker’s indifference towards its characters). There’s no dilution involved with Contagion , however. It amounts to a bare-faced propaganda piece, serving to emphasise that the indie-minded director is Hollywood establishment through and through. This is a picture that can comfortably sit alongside any given Tinseltown handwringing over the Wa