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.

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.