Valkyrie :review

As you might have read in the last one year (almost), the making of this film became more infamous than the film itself. With Tom Cruise set to take the lead role, people were already panning the film as a bad idea. The Germans were not too happy either, they even prevented the film from being shot in quite a few actual historical locations, demanding that a scientologist should not be allowed to take on the role of a national hero. After a long uphill battle the film was finally canned, and released.

The plot is probably well known to all of you by now, Colonel Claus Von Strauffenberg , career army officer in the German Panzer division along with a few others hatch a plan to kill Hitler and replace him with a viable German leadership before the Allies reach Germany, and its name is tainted forever in the history books. Operation Valkyrie is so daring a plan, that one would have to either have balls of adamantium or be crazy, or both to launch it. But crazy as the plan might sound, the film is surprisingly faithful to the actual events. I have a special soft spot for WW2 films, and on top of that this is a film which introduced me a to a previously unknown(to me at least) part of WW2 history, so I was already hooked.

Any average history buff will know how Hitler died and therefore they should know that this operation had failed. So by that count, the movie had a very hard task, to make a thriller based on a widely known event in history, where everyone knows it wont end the way the heroes wanted to. Suffice to say, Bryan singer and his team proved more than adequate for the task. For all the loony antics of Tom Cruise in his life outside of his film roles, he is quite a good actor. Anyone, who at the beginning of his career can stand his ground against stalwarts like Dustin Hoffman and Jack Nicholson is a good actor in my book. If you are still unconvinced, I highly recommend Magnolia. Back to the topic at hand. In spite of all the negative criticism pointed towards him , his portrayal of Strauffenberg is quite sufficient for this role. His demeanor and mannerisms at least in my mind fit my idea of someone like Strauffenberg.

What aspect of this film should I praise? Every man has done his job quite well. The pacing of the film is very intense , it is a very old school thriller narrative which once starts doesn't slow down for even a single breathing moment. There are a few scenes in the film which really stood out in my opinion. The opening strafing of the Panzer division by British Spitfires, the first meeting between Strauffenberg and Hitler to name a few. There is one scene involving the standard Heil Hitler salute which is quite electrifying. I only had two complaints for this film, I honestly wished some of the British actors didn't sound so British, a neutral accent should have been aimed for if not necessarily a German English accent. The other aspect is the exclusion of a very important historical figure, Erwin Rommel. But in hindsight, including him would have increased the films time by at least 45 more minutes and would have complicated the plot further. Note- Erwin Rommel was one of the few people openly critical of the Nazis. Only his tremendous success as a military commander kept him out of harms way. When operation Valkyrie failed and the search began for anyone who might even remotely be part of this plan, Rommel's name came up, but there was no evidence. To this date its not known whether he was involved or not. But his wife had stated on many counts that Rommel was against the idea of assassinating Hitler, not because he had any love for him, but he didn't want to make a martyr of that man. Ultimately, because of his popularity and lack of proof, he was spared a long farce of a trial and allowed to commit suicide.

Filmmaking is such a tough job, I honestly sympathize with Bryan Singer and Tom Cruise. The amount of negative propaganda and criticism extended towards he and his team even before anyone had seen the film would be crushing for one's morale. And you are screwed if you decide to do a historical film. There will always be someone who will be unhappy. Take for example , the common reaction of the average american movie goer. The imdb boards are filled with people complaining that the film was too complicated, with people complaining why did Tom Cruise wear an eye patch(one even wondered if he thought himself to be a pirate!!!). This in spite of simplifying the plot, and making the film so easily understandable thanks to its taut narrative pace and clarity in the flow of events. Von Strauffenberg was a charismatic hero in real life. Apparently he was famous for being able to inspire people to follow him into his perilous plans with his speeches. When he was recovering from his injuries in Tunisia, he refused to take morphine , because he didn't want to become an addict. This aspect was not shown in the film, and was another point of criticism extended towards the film. Singer, in response asked a question- Can you imagine Tom Cruise on film, refusing morphine when he is in pain? People wouldn't believe it to be a true incident. I know I wouldn't have.

In the end, I am foremost thankful to Bryan Singer for pursuing this project with Tom cruise for almost a decade(why cruise? the picture above will show that Strauffenberg and Cruise had quite a bit of facial similarity), and Tom Cruise for daring to produce this film which many people had judged even before it was released. It is sad that films like Valkyrie and Lions for Lambs(both produced by Tom Cruise as chief of United Artists) meet this fate, I hope that Cruise continues to choose projects like these. Well done gentlemen, well done.
Highly recommended.