Review: Valkyrie (2008)

[Mark R. Leeper]

                             VALKYRIE
                (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)

     CAPSULE: VALKYRIE is the story of Claus von
     Stauffenberg and his attempt in World War II
     to save Germany by murdering Adolf Hitler during
     a meeting at the Wolf's Lair.  How good can one
     expect to be a film about Stauffenberg starring
     Tom Cruise and directed by Bryan Singer who is
     best known for writing and directing superhero
     films.  Well, actually quite good.  This is a
     nice tense political thriller that sticks fairly
     closely to history.  Cruise is not a bad match
     for Stauffenberg.  Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4)
     or 8/10

Spoiler warning: Those who forget history may find spoilers herein.
Those who never knew it may likewise.

I think that most people who know much about the history of World
War II knew that Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg was a hero.  And
there are even memorials to him and his fellow conspirators in
today's Germany.  They are, in fact, the only World War II veterans
to whom there are memorials in Germany.  But his story has not been
one that filmmakers have wanted to put into film.  He was at once
treacherous and noble.  He tried to murder his leader Adolf Hitler.
Treachery in a humane cause can be a noble thing.  And any American
ten-year-old I hope would be able to tell you that Stauffenberg
must have failed because a bombing at Wolf's Lair is not how Hitler
died.  So obviously the story of Stauffenberg is a story of
failure.  And the outcome has to be a real downer, the producers
must have realized.  The producers had a job to do to make this
film a popular one.

Even more surprising is the casting of Tom Cruise.  Cruise's
pretty-boy looks and action hero roles have done a lot for him, but
now they are working against him.  But Stauffenberg himself did
have boyish good looks and Cruise's interpretation of Stauffenberg
is not inaccurate.

The story should be familiar from history.  Claus von Stauffenberg
determines that Adolf Hitler is leading Germany to destruction.
The film (and history) are a little unclear on Stauffenberg's exact
motives.  Hitler really was destroying Germany, and Germany was
going to suffer for his terrible leadership.  Mentioned also is
Stauffenberg's indignation at the inhumane offenses being
perpetrated by Germany.  One set of motives is practical and
selfish, the other motivation is on a higher level.  In any case,
Stauffenberg determines that action must be taken to remove Hitler
 from power.  This was in a society where disloyalty was a capital
crime.

Early on the film Stauffenberg seems a little too open about his
opinions, but loses some of his over-confidence when his heroics
get him badly maimed and nearly killed in a battle in Tunisia.
Returning to Germany he continues his campaign to remove Hitler,
though a little more discreetly than he did in the field.  He finds
others willing to join the plot against Hitler.  In fact, one
apparent expedient of the script is that he finds like-minded
people just a little too easily.  He seems all too ready to put his
life into other people's hands.  This is obviously a very dangerous
practice and Stauffenberg had to survive many times putting his
safety and fate into the hands of strangers.  It seems from the
dramatization that to varying degrees just about anybody he takes
into his confidence is willing to some degree or other to
cooperate, even if it is just willingness to omit reporting
treasonous conversations.  In Hitler's Germany that could not have
been easy to do.  But the plan progresses to the assassination
attempt and its tense aftermath.

Scriptwriters Christopher McQuarrie and Nathan Alexander have done
a surprisingly good job.  Too frequently, films called "political
thrillers" turn out to be mostly gunfights and car chases.  Yes,
there is one battle scene and one short gunfight, but for the most
part the tension comes from the dialog and the plot.  Words are
traded, but rarely bullets.  The style is much like my personal
favorite political thriller, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY.  Both films are
driven by good dialog and each deals with a military hero
attempting to take the reins of government in a coup d'etat.  But
of course the attempt here is seen from just the opposite point of
view.  This film is shot with subdued lighting and filters.
Frequently the camera is placed just chest-high on the actors to
make them seem a little larger than life.  In spite of the English-
speaking actors, it seems to have the feel of the period.

It is rather ironic that the producers are making a story of a man
who failed and in a good cause brought about disaster on his co-
conspirators because though he was merely a bomber and not a
suicide bomber.  Had he remained to make sure the bomb killed
Hitler, history would have been quite different.  Had he been
willing to die in the effort, he might actually have been a
success.  This is a high-tension thriller that that survives the
fact that much of the audience knows how everything turns out.  I
rate VALKYRIE high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10.

Side-note: It is fascinating to speculate how the world might have
been different had the plot had succeeded.  Had Germany sued for
peace in July or August, 1944, the Soviets would have had much less
of a foothold in Eastern Europe.  That part of Europe would have
much more like Western Europe.  Germany would have escaped a great
deal of the destruction that came in the remainder of the war.
Rebuilding Germany would not have been as necessary.  The country
would not have the modern atmosphere that it does today and might
be a good deal less forward-looking.  After August the Pacific War
would have gone a lot faster, having the full wartime resources of
the United States.  This would have brought American troops to the
shores of Japan before the nuclear weapon was ready.  The only
other alternative would probably have been the invasion of Japan.
The Japanese were ferocious fighters on the small islands of the
Pacific they would have been really terrifying defenders of their
homeland, trained to die rather than lost honor by surrendering.
The cost in lives might easily have been over a million with each
side taking very large hits.  The Allies had greater access to
resources so Japan probably would have eventually lost, but it is
unclear what would have been left of their country when they did.
This would have left lasting hatred on both sides.  The resulting
future of nuclear weapons is very unclear.  Word would have
eventually gotten out that it had been a success.  It might have
been used on Japan eventually anyway.  And it probably would have
leaked to the Soviet Union in much the way that it did.  This is
all just speculation but Germany, Japan, and the United States
might all have been considerably worse off in the remainder of the
20th Century.  [I thank alternate history expert Evelyn Leeper for
some of the ideas in this paragraph.]

Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/>

What others say: <http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/valkyrie/>


					Mark R. Leeper
					mleeper at optonline.net
					Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper