More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Discussions on WW2 and pre-WW2 related movies, games, military art and other fiction.
User avatar
valkyrie
Member
Posts: 667
Joined: 20 Dec 2003 03:09
Location: canada

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by valkyrie » 29 Dec 2008 21:12

Hi Arty & welcome aboard.

I think Valkyrie was meticulously researched, so I too doubt the presence or absence of medal bars and other awards in certain scenes was an accident. I think that officers expecting to be in the presence of the Fuehrer or other senior officers generally would wear their awards while those on less formal duty or especially in the field may have been less likely to do so. I'm not expert on medal protocols but this would make sense to me.

I was amazed by some critics lambasting the film for inconsistency because they coudln't figure out that Stauffenberg would only wear his glass eye when he had to (ie.. in Hitler's presence). My 12 year old figured that out without assistance! Check out the famous pic of Stauffenberg with Hitler at Wolfschanze on July 15 and you will see no hint of the eye patch. Ewald Heinrich v. Kleist confirmed to a friend of mine that Stauffenberg was wearing his patch at the Bendler on July 20. I would think that the galss eye woudl have been uncomfortable and would have been removed as soon as possible and appropriate.

Colin

User avatar
Adam Carr
Member
Posts: 2644
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 13:40
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Adam Carr » 30 Dec 2008 07:37

I haven't seen the film yet and I don't know when I will (I'm curently travelling in Asia and I've no idea if it will be screening in Australia when I get home), but you don't need to see a film to know a bad review, one that is more about the reviewer venting his own views than it is about the film. Roger Friedman's review is one such. Even if hadn't made a fool of himself with his errors about the armbands and the glass eye, some of his other comments are just as dumb. Tom Cruise is supposed to do Stauffenberg with a German accent? What is this, Hogan's Heroes? It's an American film, so of course it's in American English. Hitler speaks English in an English-language film? How shocking! Did Claude Rains speak French in Casablanca? Much more important is Friedman's total political blindness. I hate Nazism as much as anyone, and I agree, as I have said here before, that the "hero" status of the July 20 plotters needs to be carefully put into its historical context. But to suggest that all Germans were uniformly evil and that to make a film about the German resistance is somehow to exonerate Nazism is just fatuous. Did Friedman say the same thing about the recent White Rose movie? I doubt it. His point about the plotters and the Holocaust is factually wrong. Officers who served on the eastern front had become increasingly aware of the Holocaust from 1941 onwards, and it was the motivating factor for many of them in becoming involved in the conspiracy. It was why they increasingly felt that the criminal acts of Hitler's regime were a betrayal of their allegience and thus nullified their oath - no easy conclusion for a German officer. So why did they wait until July 1944, he asks? As anyone who knows the history of the conspiracy understands, 20 July was the result of two years of planning and false starts, in the most dangerous of circumstances. It's possible of course that the movie, constrained by its two-hour scope and the tolerance level of its audience for history lectures, doesn't explain this well enough. But it's an entertainment, not a documentary, as Friedman should acknowledge.

User avatar
Fallschirmjäger
Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 04:12
Location: New Zealand

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Fallschirmjäger » 30 Dec 2008 08:32

Germans warm to Cruise in Nazi film
Dont realy like when they use nazi to describe it though yes nazi's like hitler etc... in it,rather say WW2 movie.
http://nz.entertainment.yahoo.com/081229/5/a0ki.html

User avatar
Gren-Schell
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 09 Oct 2007 15:13
Location: Essex, Great Britain

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Gren-Schell » 30 Dec 2008 09:35

arty05 wrote:Please forgive my newness, I came across this site in my search for an answer to a question I had after watching Valkyrie. I noticed, throughout the movie, that the uniforms would alternate between wearing the ribbon bar(s) and not... showing just the holes for the mounting pin on the left breast. You can see it in the picture in the above post if you look at Von Tresckow's (Kenneth Branagh) uniform.. note the holes above the left pocket rather than the ribbon bar.

I can't seem to find an explanation for this and I thought the educated minds here might be able to shed some light on this for me. It happened enough that it couldn't have been an unintentional oversight.

The help and wisdom is much appreciated!

~Arty
Ask anyone who actually has medals and wears them on occasion... they are heavy and cumbersome and get snagged on everything around you. If and when you get the opportunity, you tend to take them off.
In the presence of their leader however, I think they would have been obliged to wear them.

Michael Dorosh
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 01:04
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Michael Dorosh » 30 Dec 2008 17:45

There are orders of dress in modern militaries telling you when to wear your medals and when not to. Often, you don't have a choice.

User avatar
valkyrie
Member
Posts: 667
Joined: 20 Dec 2003 03:09
Location: canada

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by valkyrie » 01 Jan 2009 00:54

Here's a link to a fairly long interview with write/producer Chris McQuarrie.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/12/31/ ... mcquarrie/

Colin

Blintokahf
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 03 Jan 2009 17:54

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Blintokahf » 03 Jan 2009 18:12

Greetings all

saw this film yesterday. Found it enjoyable and fairly true to life as to the actual event.
A few points i want to mention. It has been a while since i read the book about this incident
(Secret Germany - Claus von Stauffenberg and the Mystical Crusade Against Hitler)

in the movie they show CvS walking away from the meeting and the building explodes ...but i am sure i read
that in reality the bomb exploded when CvS was at the first check point ...

maybe i missed it..but i do not recall seeing ANY SS men in this film..not one SS uniform do i recall seeing. Not on the guards around Hitler before and after the blast and not even at SS headquarters when the troops were arresting people.

As for the issue of accents ..i look at it this way... (the movie opened with CvS speaking and writing in German. Then it melds into him speaking english) its not that he is speaking English..its that we all can now understand German. (kind of like a Star Trek universal translator :) ) so that is why there is no accent.

as for German actors..i saw 2 that were in the movie Downfall (the one that played the Dr .. and the other Fegelain<sp> in that DF)

User avatar
Adam Carr
Member
Posts: 2644
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 13:40
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Adam Carr » 03 Jan 2009 18:18

I don't think anyone was arrested at SS headquarters. If you mean the Bendlerblock, that was the Army HQ, not the SS.

Blintokahf
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 03 Jan 2009 17:54

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Blintokahf » 03 Jan 2009 20:11

Adam Carr wrote:I don't think anyone was arrested at SS headquarters. If you mean the Bendlerblock, that was the Army HQ, not the SS.
it was the building with all the red flags on the tall poles
i am sure the subtitle said this was an SS building - maybe not headquarters but atleast a SS building

would make sense to occupy SS buildings especially if the reason for implementing plan Valkrye was that
the SS were staging a coup

Michael Dorosh
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 01:04
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Michael Dorosh » 03 Jan 2009 20:39

Blintokahf wrote:
Adam Carr wrote:I don't think anyone was arrested at SS headquarters. If you mean the Bendlerblock, that was the Army HQ, not the SS.
it was the building with all the red flags on the tall poles
i am sure the subtitle said this was an SS building - maybe not headquarters but atleast a SS building

would make sense to occupy SS buildings especially if the reason for implementing plan Valkrye was that
the SS were staging a coup
You are correct on all counts.

User avatar
valkyrie
Member
Posts: 667
Joined: 20 Dec 2003 03:09
Location: canada

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by valkyrie » 03 Jan 2009 21:08

I think this was another compression of history for movie making purposes - the SS and Gestapo were actually arrested en masse only in Paris. Other compressions include the removal of Generloberst Hoepner and Berthold v. Stauffenberg among aothers, the use of only a single Wolfschanze checkpoint, and a much truncated phone call bewteen Hitler and Major Remer. All acceptable in my view to allow time for Tresckow's 1943 attempt and the July 15 false start.

Colin

Blintokahf
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 03 Jan 2009 17:54

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Blintokahf » 04 Jan 2009 00:05

so no one refuted so far what i said - i do not recall seeing any SS runes or men in SS uniforms
but is it not so that the LAH would have been guarding Hitler?
At that point in the war the only people Hitler could trust was his SS and i believe from day one it was only SS guards for Hitler. It was the original reason and purpose for the formation of Liebstandart AH was it not? - major historical inaccuracy here or worse, revisionist?

Michael Dorosh
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 01:04
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Michael Dorosh » 04 Jan 2009 00:10

Blintokahf wrote:so no one refuted so far what i said - i do not recall seeing any SS runes or men in SS uniforms
but is it not so that the LAH would have been guarding Hitler?
At that point in the war the only people Hitler could trust was his SS and i believe from day one it was only SS guards for Hitler. It was the original reason and purpose for the formation of Liebstandart AH was it not? - major historical inaccuracy here or worse, revisionist?
LAH shared guard duties with the Führer Begleit, which was part of the Grossdeutschland establishment. It was half and half Army/SS.

There were SS uniforms in the film.

Remer was GD, and the Guard Battalion GD was prominently shown in the film because of their prominence in the actual event.

User avatar
Adam Carr
Member
Posts: 2644
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 13:40
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by Adam Carr » 04 Jan 2009 04:04

He probably means there were no BLACK SS uniforms, being (like many people) under the impression that the SS always wore the black uniform. In fact this was only a dress uniform, and most Waffen SS never wore it. After 1941 it went out of fashion even among General SS, because it came to be associated with SS bigwigs dodging duty at the front. By 1944 almost all SS were wearing a uniform which looked very like a Wehrmacht uniform except for the collar tabs and other trimmings.

User avatar
DNS
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: 09 Sep 2008 02:55
Location: Olympia WA

Re: More on Cruise's Stauffenberg film

Post by DNS » 04 Jan 2009 07:01

Hello all

I had read earlier that when Beck had requested a pistol to commit suicide. Supposedly he fired twice, both attempts failed, prompting Fromm to have a sergeant finish him off.
Having said this, am I mislead or was this scene altered for cinematic purposes.

I thank you for info you can offer me on this subject.
DNS

note: I have not read this thread in its entirety, so if this has been discussed earlier have patience with me.

Return to “Movies, games & other fiction”