Valkyrie
Bryan Singer’s Valkyrie is an intriguing production, but it ultimately fails in generating much genuine emotion or tension. The film, based on the plot by German army officers to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944, is couched in solid subject matter and looks sleek, but the performances and overall pacing of the story leaves a lot to be desired. As such, it remains a very middling project and doesn’t stand out as a notable work in the Nazi film genre.
Tom Cruise generated a considerable amount of buzz for his part in Valkyrie, yet his performance is so stiff and uninteresting that one wonders if it was worth it. Cruise, together with Paula Wagner and United Artists, intended this picture to be the one that would help boost his studio over the top and back into contention. There was a lot riding on it, to say the least, and the stress around the movie was compounded with German complaints regarding the casting of the Scientologist in the role. It was difficult to get access to key landmarks as a result.
Cruise, leading an impressive cast, stars as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Stauffenberg is serving in Tunisia in World War II when he is wounded and later evacuated back home to Nazi Germany. Major General Henning von Tresckow (Kenneth Branagh) is attempting to assassinate Hitler as part of a resistance movement, but his plan is thwarted. Through a series of events, Stauffenberg is connected with the resistance movement and meets with their secret committee.
General Ludwig Beck (Terrence Stamp), Dr. Carl Goerdeler (Kevin McNally), and Erwin von Witzleben (David Schofield) are among the plotters, but Stauffenberg soon discovers that any plan held by the group is in need of serious tweaking. Along with General Friedrich Olbricht (Bill Nighy), Stauffenberg and the plotters begin to develop a plan that includes using Operation Valkyrie, a deployment of the army reserves in case of emergency, to help overthrow the SS and get in position to assassinate Hitler. The remainder of the film concerns how the plan plays out and the mistakes that were made.
At its core, Valkyrie is a cold procedural. The plot is labyrinthine in complexity, with all sorts of secret documents, phone calls, and meticulous conversations taking place. In that respect, it is fascinating to watch. It runs like a sleek technical thriller at moments, with the majority of the adventure and excitement coming from exchanges of information or attempts to win people over to the side of the plotters. Singer does well to direct and frame these sorts of sequences.
In terms of accuracy, many reports suggest that the filmmakers got most of it right for a change. While the movie suggests that the events came closer to impacting Hitler’s Germany than they perhaps actually did, most experts on the matter state that Valkyrie sticks with a relatively genuine accounting of the historical record with few expected cinematic liberties.
With all of this in mind, Valkyrie still somehow fails to make an emotional connection. Singer’s direction is capable, albeit a touch too “Hollywood” for the subject matter, and his interaction with regular collaborator John Ottman’s score adds excitement to scenes that would otherwise be quite drab. The effects are also quite good, providing solid, accurate historical imagery to go with the general feel of the picture.
The performers, however, fail to make any sort of emotional connection. This is especially problematic given the context and subject matter. Cruise is the leading culprit here, with his stiff portrayal coming across as disturbingly wooden and drab given the poignancy of his character’s reality. It’s hard to fault the other actors, with Nighy, Stamp, Branagh, and Tom Wilkinson all coming through with good but not great performances.
Overall, Valkyrie is a concise technical thriller with little emotional impact. It is an instantly forgettable but enjoyable rendering of a bold true story. Singer’s picture, through no fault of the movie’s look or style, simply fails to make a connection on any deeper level and, as such, remains a glossy take on history instead of a bold new vision taken from past events.
Trailer:
Thank you for an interesting review. As one who has studied the actual events of the Stauffenberg plot in some detail, I agree with those who have praised the film’s accurate depiction of the scheme. In terms of your overall reaction to the movie, my own was more positive. For example, you describe Cruise’s acting as “stiff and uninteresting.” Another view might be that it was “understated and restrained.” I think Singer and Cruise went out of their way to deliver exactly that kind of performance, with good reason. Imagine the feeding frenzy among film critics if the weird Scientologist who jumped up and down on Oprah’s couch had chewed the scenery (a la BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY) or had come across as the Hollywood mega-star in German uniform seeking to dominate the screen. Instead, Cruise was able to step back and allow Nighy, Stamp, and Branagh to shine, which enhanced the quality of the overall project. I also feel that Singer did an excellent job in depicting the tension and suspense involved (no mean feat in a story where everyone knows the outcome ahead of time). While not destined to become a classic, it remains a solid, very good film on this subject.
Those interested in the period might want to check out my new novel, THE FUHRER VIRUS. It is a fictional WWII spy/conspiracy/thriller for adult readers and can be found at http://www.eloquentbooks.com/TheFuhrerVirus.html, http://www.amazon.com, http://www.amazon.ca, http://www.barnesandnoble.com, and http://www.booksamillion.
Thanks!
Paul Schultz