It is 1943, and the German Wehrmacht is being overrun by a Russian counterattack. Oblivious to his army's declining fortunes, aristocratic Captain Stransky (Maximillian Schell) turns up to take command of a company of bedraggled troops. Stransky makes clear his primary goal is to win the Iron Cross, seeing the medal as merely an appropriate decoration for his social status, rather than something to be won for heroism. Stransky instantly clashes with Sergeant Rolf Steiner (James Coburn), an embittered non-commissioned officer who's seen more than his fair share of combat, and has some archaic notions of honor, loyalty and heroism. When Steiner refuses to endorse Stransky's bid for an Iron Cross, Stransky takes revenge by leaving Steiner's platoon behind - forcing Steiner and his men to undertake a hellish forced march through enemy lines, before setting up the final showdown between Steiner and Stransky - in the midst of a Russian offensive.
"Cross of Iron" is Sam Peckinpah's only war film, and is something of a disappointment. As with "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid", it's an interesting movie, but one can't help but think a more sober, reasonable early-career Peckinpah - the one that produced "Ride the High Country" and "The Wild Bunch" - would have made a masterpiece out of it. As it stands, "Cross of Iron" is still interesting and fairly entertaining, but far from a masterpiece, with many serious flaws.
The biggest problem with "Cross of Iron" is its lack of subtlety. The message is pretty clear: officers are evil and reprehensible cowards, letting enlisted men to die like dogs while capitalizing off of their sacrifice. This is a valid point, albeit an unoriginal one, but the message is as subtle as a neon sign. Stransky is a caricature evil officer; he introduces himself by outright stating his only goal is to win an Iron Cross, not even masking it as a joke. He baits two officers into admitting their homosexuality and then uses this information as blackmail. During his first battle, he cowers and hides in a bunker, then brazenly demands a commendation for heroism. Later, he leaves Steiner's platoon behind and, even later, orders his men to machine-gun Steiner's platoon. Although he has glimmers of humanity (his one-on-one with Steiner about the importance of the Cross to him), Stransky never rises above the level of caricature. James Mason's Colonel Brandt and David Warner's Kessel are presented more sympathetically, but in the end they're completely impotent and ineffectual (Kessel suffers from dysentery to emphasize the point), only emphasizing the message.
In any case, Steiner hates them all, as he makes clear in a speech to Brandt and Kessel. This serves as a self-defeating character trait, as Steiner is unwilling to help Brandt punish Stransky for cowardice. One might accept Steiner's viewpoint as valid, but one would also hasten to add that it's counterproductive. If he hates officers so much, why not go after the really nasty ones? Steiner is just a bitter, angry, cynical man, not without reason, but it's clear (as with many Peckinpah characters) that he thrives on combat, making his stance somewhat ambiguous and even self-contradictory. That may be the point, but it doesn't really endear us to Steiner.
That all might be excusable (Peckinpah, after all, never was much for subtlety), except that the entire film has an inescapably anemic feel. Major scenes lack the power they should; whether it was Peckinpah's own state of mind, or the film's low budget, the movie pretty much lacks any real force or drive. The major confrontations between characters seem forced; the battle scenes, with one major exception, lack the visceral power that one would expect of a Peckinpah film. The movie certainly has its share of effective moments: the first battle is a doozy, impressive considering the budgetary restraints, Stransky's baiting the two officers, the scenes of German soldiers struggling to remain sane between battles, Steiner's hallucinatory hospital stay - but they're counter-balanced by the weak, cliché and trite sequences that riddle the film. The confrontation between Steiner's platoon and a group of Russian women soldiers is a great idea that fizzles out almost before it begins. The scene where Steiner spares a Russian POW, only to see him machine-gunned by his own men, is rather trite. The final showdown between Steiner and Stransky is well-done but the conclusion is just baffling. The overuse of photo and video montage over the opening and closing credits provides another clunky note. (One might also point out that the use of Wermacht soldiers as protagonists is a novel idea that ultimately comes to very little.)
The acting is pretty good, with James Coburn giving arguably his career-best performance as the embittered Steiner (in spite of a dodgy attempt at an accent) - yet another "Peckinpah professional" trapped in an inescapable circle of personal hell. Maximillian Schell gives an intense performance, managing to overcome the cartoon constraints of his role. James Mason and David Warner comport themselves admirably, but they can't overcome their weak roles. Senta Berger (previously of Peckinpah's "Major Dundee") has a brief but effective role. There are many talented German actors filling out the supporting cast - Klaus Lowich, Roger Fritz, Dieter Schidor, Burkhard Driest - who give memorable characterizations.
Cross of Iron is a very mixed bag. It's entertaining enough, but really it lacks much in the way of depth or originality. Perhaps if Peckinpah had laid off the coke while shooting - or, better yet, been given a reasonable budget to work with - we could have a very good film on our hands. Instead, we have an interesting film that exists mostly as a "what-might-have-been".
6/10
"Cross of Iron" is Sam Peckinpah's only war film, and is something of a disappointment. As with "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid", it's an interesting movie, but one can't help but think a more sober, reasonable early-career Peckinpah - the one that produced "Ride the High Country" and "The Wild Bunch" - would have made a masterpiece out of it. As it stands, "Cross of Iron" is still interesting and fairly entertaining, but far from a masterpiece, with many serious flaws.
The biggest problem with "Cross of Iron" is its lack of subtlety. The message is pretty clear: officers are evil and reprehensible cowards, letting enlisted men to die like dogs while capitalizing off of their sacrifice. This is a valid point, albeit an unoriginal one, but the message is as subtle as a neon sign. Stransky is a caricature evil officer; he introduces himself by outright stating his only goal is to win an Iron Cross, not even masking it as a joke. He baits two officers into admitting their homosexuality and then uses this information as blackmail. During his first battle, he cowers and hides in a bunker, then brazenly demands a commendation for heroism. Later, he leaves Steiner's platoon behind and, even later, orders his men to machine-gun Steiner's platoon. Although he has glimmers of humanity (his one-on-one with Steiner about the importance of the Cross to him), Stransky never rises above the level of caricature. James Mason's Colonel Brandt and David Warner's Kessel are presented more sympathetically, but in the end they're completely impotent and ineffectual (Kessel suffers from dysentery to emphasize the point), only emphasizing the message.
In any case, Steiner hates them all, as he makes clear in a speech to Brandt and Kessel. This serves as a self-defeating character trait, as Steiner is unwilling to help Brandt punish Stransky for cowardice. One might accept Steiner's viewpoint as valid, but one would also hasten to add that it's counterproductive. If he hates officers so much, why not go after the really nasty ones? Steiner is just a bitter, angry, cynical man, not without reason, but it's clear (as with many Peckinpah characters) that he thrives on combat, making his stance somewhat ambiguous and even self-contradictory. That may be the point, but it doesn't really endear us to Steiner.
That all might be excusable (Peckinpah, after all, never was much for subtlety), except that the entire film has an inescapably anemic feel. Major scenes lack the power they should; whether it was Peckinpah's own state of mind, or the film's low budget, the movie pretty much lacks any real force or drive. The major confrontations between characters seem forced; the battle scenes, with one major exception, lack the visceral power that one would expect of a Peckinpah film. The movie certainly has its share of effective moments: the first battle is a doozy, impressive considering the budgetary restraints, Stransky's baiting the two officers, the scenes of German soldiers struggling to remain sane between battles, Steiner's hallucinatory hospital stay - but they're counter-balanced by the weak, cliché and trite sequences that riddle the film. The confrontation between Steiner's platoon and a group of Russian women soldiers is a great idea that fizzles out almost before it begins. The scene where Steiner spares a Russian POW, only to see him machine-gunned by his own men, is rather trite. The final showdown between Steiner and Stransky is well-done but the conclusion is just baffling. The overuse of photo and video montage over the opening and closing credits provides another clunky note. (One might also point out that the use of Wermacht soldiers as protagonists is a novel idea that ultimately comes to very little.)
The acting is pretty good, with James Coburn giving arguably his career-best performance as the embittered Steiner (in spite of a dodgy attempt at an accent) - yet another "Peckinpah professional" trapped in an inescapable circle of personal hell. Maximillian Schell gives an intense performance, managing to overcome the cartoon constraints of his role. James Mason and David Warner comport themselves admirably, but they can't overcome their weak roles. Senta Berger (previously of Peckinpah's "Major Dundee") has a brief but effective role. There are many talented German actors filling out the supporting cast - Klaus Lowich, Roger Fritz, Dieter Schidor, Burkhard Driest - who give memorable characterizations.
Cross of Iron is a very mixed bag. It's entertaining enough, but really it lacks much in the way of depth or originality. Perhaps if Peckinpah had laid off the coke while shooting - or, better yet, been given a reasonable budget to work with - we could have a very good film on our hands. Instead, we have an interesting film that exists mostly as a "what-might-have-been".
6/10