"Waterloo Road" is a wartime melodrama set in England. The film opens at the end of 1944 or early 1945 with scenes of the destruction from the Blitz of four years earlier. The meat of the story occurs in a flashback to the winter of 1940-41 when London and other cities were under the German Blitz.
The movie was released in the U.K. on Feb. 5, 1945. Since the D-Day landings at Normandy on June 6, 1944, the Allies had pushed Germany out of most of occupied Europe and were at its gates. The Battle of the Bulge (Dec. 16, 1944 to January 25, 1945) was the last German offensive and desperate effort to turn the war. With the final Allied victory and the Russian victories on the Eastern Front, Germany's ultimate defeat was certain
Yet, some people see "Waterloo Road" as propaganda. One must wonder what in this film would be considered propaganda. The outcome of the war was certain in time, and there's hardly any mention of the Axis enemies. So, what is the political cause or point of view that the film is promoting? What type of propaganda and for what purpose? What are the film's messages to the viewing public? Is it a warning to wives about being faithful to their husbands who are in the service? It's nearing the end of the war – a fine time to do that. The film clearly puts down draft dodgers, black marketers ("spivs" in the British slang of the time), and dandies out of uniform who chase the girls back home. But where is the film misleading or biased?
Rather, I think it's a film, as the billing says, about marital fidelity, attempted adultery, profiteering by unscrupulous elements, and military desertion at the start of the war. If anything, the film at the end seems to be a morale builder. The last scene has Dr. Montgomery surveying the destruction of his neighborhood and talking about the young people and their children whose job it will be to rebuild their nation. The movie has some of the top British stars of the day in the male leads. John Mills is private Jim Colter; Stewart Granger is the draft-dodging spiv and dandy, Ted Purvis; and Alastair Sim is Dr. Montgomery. These actors and the lead females all play their roles very well.
The only thing that seems a stretch to believe is the light treatment of Colter by the military when he goes AWOL (absent without leave). Desertion in time of war is particularly heinous and carries heavy penalties – even death. Clearly, Colter isn't deserting but is going AWOL so he can go home to try to keep his wife and stave off Purvis. The screenplay treats his pursuit, capture and return to his unit lightly.
Again, the cast all do a good job. Some reviewers, who apparently know more about Mills as a mild-mannered person, can't imagine him coming out on top in a fight with Granger. But in this film, Colter is a soldier who probably had considerable training in self-defense and fighting. He wears a beret, so he may have been a member of the tough British 1st Airborne Division. Purvis had been a prizefighter and probably knew some street fisticuffs. But, he was out of condition, as he says himself. And, he had a bad heart – in reality (as Dr. Montgomery confirms at the end). That would have drained him of some strength in the first place. Then there's that element of adrenalin, fire, and extra strength that comes to a man who has something to fight for and protect. That is Colter and his wife and marriage. Whereas, Purvis had none of that.
Overall, this is an interesting enough film, and worth viewing because it's an unusual wartime story. I noted its original release early in 1945 in England, while the war was still underway. One wonders if the subject wasn't a very touchy matter at the time in America as well. Why else would "Waterloo Road" not be released in the U.S. until late December 1948 – more than three years after the end of the war?
Incidentally, author Ian Fleming appears in the film in an uncredited role. He is an officer in the railroad station, but darned if I could spot him.
The movie was released in the U.K. on Feb. 5, 1945. Since the D-Day landings at Normandy on June 6, 1944, the Allies had pushed Germany out of most of occupied Europe and were at its gates. The Battle of the Bulge (Dec. 16, 1944 to January 25, 1945) was the last German offensive and desperate effort to turn the war. With the final Allied victory and the Russian victories on the Eastern Front, Germany's ultimate defeat was certain
Yet, some people see "Waterloo Road" as propaganda. One must wonder what in this film would be considered propaganda. The outcome of the war was certain in time, and there's hardly any mention of the Axis enemies. So, what is the political cause or point of view that the film is promoting? What type of propaganda and for what purpose? What are the film's messages to the viewing public? Is it a warning to wives about being faithful to their husbands who are in the service? It's nearing the end of the war – a fine time to do that. The film clearly puts down draft dodgers, black marketers ("spivs" in the British slang of the time), and dandies out of uniform who chase the girls back home. But where is the film misleading or biased?
Rather, I think it's a film, as the billing says, about marital fidelity, attempted adultery, profiteering by unscrupulous elements, and military desertion at the start of the war. If anything, the film at the end seems to be a morale builder. The last scene has Dr. Montgomery surveying the destruction of his neighborhood and talking about the young people and their children whose job it will be to rebuild their nation. The movie has some of the top British stars of the day in the male leads. John Mills is private Jim Colter; Stewart Granger is the draft-dodging spiv and dandy, Ted Purvis; and Alastair Sim is Dr. Montgomery. These actors and the lead females all play their roles very well.
The only thing that seems a stretch to believe is the light treatment of Colter by the military when he goes AWOL (absent without leave). Desertion in time of war is particularly heinous and carries heavy penalties – even death. Clearly, Colter isn't deserting but is going AWOL so he can go home to try to keep his wife and stave off Purvis. The screenplay treats his pursuit, capture and return to his unit lightly.
Again, the cast all do a good job. Some reviewers, who apparently know more about Mills as a mild-mannered person, can't imagine him coming out on top in a fight with Granger. But in this film, Colter is a soldier who probably had considerable training in self-defense and fighting. He wears a beret, so he may have been a member of the tough British 1st Airborne Division. Purvis had been a prizefighter and probably knew some street fisticuffs. But, he was out of condition, as he says himself. And, he had a bad heart – in reality (as Dr. Montgomery confirms at the end). That would have drained him of some strength in the first place. Then there's that element of adrenalin, fire, and extra strength that comes to a man who has something to fight for and protect. That is Colter and his wife and marriage. Whereas, Purvis had none of that.
Overall, this is an interesting enough film, and worth viewing because it's an unusual wartime story. I noted its original release early in 1945 in England, while the war was still underway. One wonders if the subject wasn't a very touchy matter at the time in America as well. Why else would "Waterloo Road" not be released in the U.S. until late December 1948 – more than three years after the end of the war?
Incidentally, author Ian Fleming appears in the film in an uncredited role. He is an officer in the railroad station, but darned if I could spot him.