World War 2

Let’s Talk About What May Be The Ultimate Doomsday Weapon in ‘Indiana Jones And The Dial of Destiny’

/ Imperfect Glass / 1 Comment

After 12 long years, Indiana Jones is coming back to theaters for his final adventure in ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,’ the trailer for which was released a few days ago:

Jokes about Indy whipping kids off his lawn aside, part of the fun after seeing the trailer and reading Empire’s exclusive coverage of the upcoming film is theorizing about what’s going to happen. So far, this is what we know for sure:

*The film takes place in 1969

*The opening features Indy fighting Nazis in the 1940’s.

*Indy’s main adversary is a former Nazi

*Sallah is back

*Indy has a goddaughter

Beyond that though, everything is up for grabs. But after a few days of thinking and brainstorming, I think I might have an idea about what will happen in the film… and if it turns out to be true, then Indy will face his single greatest challenge of his life, and find the fate of Earth in his hands.

To begin with, let’s start with a very interesting quote from Empire Magazine regarding Indy’s nemesis, Jürgen Voller:

“He’s a man who would like to correct some of the mistakes of the past,” teases Mikkelsen of Voller. “There is something that could make the world a much better place to live in. He would love to get his hands on it. Indiana Jones wants to get his hands on it as well. And so, we have a story.”

Considering how the film has long been rumored to feature time travel, this quote seemingly all but confirms that it will be present in some form: After all, what would an ex-Nazi love more than the chance to go back in time and use more modern technology and advancements to give the Nazis what they need to win World War 2?

There’s another hint that this might happen: Empire’s magazine features a special subscribers-only cover featuring artwork inspired by the film. Looking at the picture and Indy’s body language makes me think of a man who is baffled at seeing something beyond his comprehension, like someone who has been transported from his own time to another (notice how Indy’s hair is dark, not white). Perhaps Indy’s watching New York City be morphed into something different; maybe that light is some sort of cosmic wave washing over New York and morphing it into an alternate version of itself due to messing with time?

There is, however, a far more sinister interpretation: What if the light doesn’t represent some sort of time-warping wave, but the Sun Gun? For those who don’t know, the Sun Gun is a hypothetical superweapon that the Nazis were researching as early as the 1920’s. To quote Wikipedia:

“The scientists calculated that a huge reflector, made of metallic sodium and with an area of 9 square kilometres (900 ha; 3.5 sq mi), could produce enough focused heat to make an ocean boil or burn a city. After being questioned by officers of the United States, the Germans claimed that the sun gun could be completed within 50 or 100 years.”

If Voller really wanted to help the Nazis turn the tide of the war, what better way to do it than by spending 24 years researching rocketry, technology, and weapons, and then using time travel to go back and give that research to Nazi scientists, who could then use rocket technology of the 1960’s to leap ahead of the Allies, construct the sun gun, and use it to incinerate Allied cities, armies, and fleets? Nowhere on Earth would be safe, and there would be nothing the Allies could do to stop the Nazis. It’s conceivable that what we’re seeing on Empire’s cover is the power of the sun being used to incinerate Manhattan with Indy watching on, helpless to stop it… unless he uses time travel to make sure the gun is never made.

Of course, this is all speculation, and we’ll have to wait until June 30th of next year to find out if the theory is true or not. In the meantime, here are a few other thoughts:

*What if the train that Indy rides in the 1940’s is the fabled Nazi gold train? He might find something of great importance on it, including research into time travel, or the dial itself. The train appears to be very well-guarded, suggesting that there’s something very valuable on it.

*If Indy does time-travel to a version of a world ruled by Nazis, it’s conceivable that he’ll run into Hitler again, giving him a second chance to either punch him or shoot him. After all, if he restores the timeline, then Hitler will die as he does historically, giving us two Hitler deaths for the price of one!

*Speaking of time travel, if it is involved, we’re likely to see Del Glocke, another Nazi superweapon that will likely be used as a power source, or as a way to find and retrieve the Dial of Destiny.

*Time travel may seem like a cheesy gimmick, but since this is Indy’s last adventure, I think it can be used well if handled carefully: As he nears his 80’s, Indy is seen as an old relic from a different time, someone who has no real place in the modern world. But thanks to his efforts, he manages to save everyone, and can walk off into the sunset knowing that he literally saved the world from being taken over by the Nazis. If you’re looking for a perfect ending for one of the most famous cinematic heroes of all time, it’s hard to top that.

What We Can Learn From ‘The Enemy Below’

/ Imperfect Glass / Leave a comment

Last time here on Imperfect Glass, we took a look at ship-to-ship combat in ‘Sink the Bismark!’ Now, let’s take a dive under the waves for the 1957 classic, ‘The Enemy Below,’ which follows a US destroyer and a German U-boat as they both seek to take each other out in a battle of wits.

What does the story do well?

It humanizes both the protagonist and the antagonist

Whereas a WW2 propaganda movie would work hard to establish the protagonist as a squeaky-clean all-around good guy, and the antagonist a Nazi who kicks puppy dogs for fun and eats babies for breakfast, ‘Below’ smartly shows that its two main characters – Commander Murrell of the USS Haynes, and Kapitän zur See von Stolberg of the unnamed U-boat – are not walking avatars of patriotism or the embodiments of vengeance and revenge. Both have lost loved ones to war, are tired of the conflict, and are good men who could get along if there wasn’t a war going on. Even better, the film portrays them both as professionals doing their job. Neither holds any animosity towards the other; they both just want to go home, but can’t until their current conflict is resolved.

It has both parties destroy each other

While it would be tempting to have either the sub or the Haynes overpower the other at the film’s climax, ‘Below’ has both ultimately destroy one another: the submarine gets a fatal blow on the destroyer, and the Haynes inflicts a mortal wound on the sub by ramming it, and then having both be blown up.

Though the Americans ultimately win in the long term (they’re rescued and the German sailors become prisoners of war), having both parties inflict a fatal wound on each other makes the climax more exciting, as the audience is left unsure who will ultimately emerge triumphant.

It has an unexpectedly wholesome ending

So often we have war movies that end with either one combatant being destroyed, or where nobody wins, and everyone suffers. Very rare is war movie – especially a non-comedic one set in World War Two – that features both sides not only surviving, but an honest-to-goodness happy ending that doesn’t feel contrived or out of place. ‘Below’ is one of those rare films, ending with only one person dying (Stolberg’s executive officer), and the rest of both the submarine and destroyer’s crews surviving to see another day with no hard feelings between any of them. Heck, we even get to see both crews work together to get their captains off the Haynes before it’s destroyed.

While such wholesome, happy endings won’t always work, especially in a war movie, ‘Below’ proves that it can be done.

What would have helped improve the story?

Having Stolberg be more aggressive

Thought I may be more realistic to have Captain Stolberg hide his submarine for most of the running time, it does create an imbalance of power. He’s supposed be smart, clever, and cunning, but aside from a torpedo strike early on, it feels like he’s always on the defensive until the climax, never getting a chance to strike or damage the Haynes (though his means of escaping detection by sailing under it is very clever).

Following up on the crew’s boredom

Early on the film, it’s established that the Haynes hasn’t seen much action during the war, and her crew are getting bored. It’s a good set up for a ‘be careful what you wish for’ scenario later on, but with the film’s focus being mainly on Stolberg and Murrell, we don’t get any moments where the crew regret hoping for some action while their ship is sinking or they watch as their shipmates are injured and wounded.

Conclusion

Much like ‘Sink the Bismark!’ ‘The Enemy Below’ goes to great lengths to humanize its antagonist and protagonist, and it pays off in spades. While it would have been nice to see both captains get an equal shot to show off their combat intelligence and abilities, the exciting climax, wholesome happy ending, and the lack of a revenge subplot makes ‘The Enemy Below’ a wholesome war movie that the whole family can enjoy.

Huh… there’s a sentence you don’t see everyday.

What We Can Learn From ‘Sink The Bismark!’

/ Imperfect Glass / 1 Comment

Pop Quiz Time: If you were responsible for writing a movie based around finding, chasing, and sinking a battleship during World War Two, would you:

A. Focus entirely on the ship?

B. Focus on the logistics of finding said ship?

C. A mix of the two?

While action buffs (like myself) would pick A, and strategy fans would pick B, the 1960 film, ‘Sink the Bismark!’ which focuses on the real-life events leading to the destruction of the famed German battleship, tries to find a balance between giving us ship-to-ship action and the behind the scenes efforts to bring the boat down. As an action fan, I was surprised to see how well the film succeeds at accomplishing the balance of both action and strategy, turning the film into a battle not only of heavy shells and big guns, but also a battle of wits.

What does the story do well?

The movie has the protagonists under immense pressure from the very beginning

Much like in real life, ‘Sink the Bismark!’ portrays the British as being in dire straits during the early years of the war. They’re alone against Nazi Germany and their convoys – the lifeline keeping the island nation afloat – are being sunk at an alarming rate, leaving them with few resources to take on the Bismark. In short, the British are the ultimate underdogs in the film, alone and fighting against an enemy who has more resources, more ships, more men, more everything. Failure to stop the Bismark from attacking those convoys threatens to make an already terrible situation even worse.

Though we know that Nazi Germany will ultimately be defeated, the film does an excellent job in quickly setting up what’s at stake for the British should they fail, and how important it is that they sink the Bismark.

The movie focuses on the risks commanders take during wartime.

While most war movies would focus on action and ships blasting each other into scrap metal, ‘Bismark!’ takes the time to show the British struggling with how best to take on said ship. The number of vessels they have at their disposal is limited, and even sending some of them to take on the Bismark is a gamble, as they have to pull those ships away from convoys, and thus gamble with the lives of thousands of sailors and soldiers.

Smartly, though, ‘Bismark!’ shows that the commanders, while aware of the risks that they’re taking, are not cold-hearted monsters who don’t care about the lives that could be lost. They’re fully aware that they could lose thousands of people and don’t like having to take that chance, but they still do, which results in an agent losing his life after transmitting information on the Bismark leaving port, and Captain Shepard thinking he’s lost his son after ordering his ship to find and engage the Bismark.

One of ‘Bismark!’s biggest strengths is showing that these commanders, while still gambling with people’s lives, are people themselves who have to deal with the consequences of those choices. It gives the film an emotional weight that’s more engaging than something like this:

Commander Guy: I say, let’s send our forces here!

Second Commander Guy: Jolly good!

Battleship Guns: BOOM BOOM BOOM.

Showing blood drip out of a communication tube

It’s a minor moment in the film, but an unsettling one: After being hit by a shell, the compass platform of the Prince of Wales is sheared away, and a navigator in a room below has his work interrupted by drops of blood dripping out of the communication pipe. Had we not seen the platform be destroyed, seeing the blood would have been equally chilling, for it would have told us what had happened and left our imaginations to imagine how horrific the carnage would have been.

Even more chilling is knowing that this actually happened during the battle and isn’t the result of the filmmaker’s imagination.

The main character goes through a believable emotional arc

When I first saw ‘Bismark!’ I expected that the highlight of the movie would come from the Bismark blowing up the HMS Hood, and her subsequent final battle and sinking. But to my surprise, I was more engrossed in Captain Jonathan Shepard, the man in charge of finding and destroying the Bismark.

When we first meet him, Shepard is a typical no-nonsense military man, the kind who demands order and discipline and gives no leniency to those who are late, sick, or about to see their girlfriends be shipped overseas. The movie quickly and efficiently shows that he’s good at what he does, and is the right man for a very stressful job, but it’s easy to take a disliking to him. Typically military hard head, we think.

However, as the film goes on, we learn that there’s more to Shepard than meets the eye. He lost his previous ship to German admiral Lutjens (conveniently onboard the Bismark) and wants revenge. Furthermore, Shepard’s coldness to those around him is not because he’s a jerk or a control freak, but from being unable to deal with the grief of losing his wife in a bombing raid by the Nazis, leading him to not wanting to get close to anyone. Yet, after thinking he’s lost his son (after ordering his ship into battle), Shepard breaks down emotionally. While he does learn that his son is alive by the end, it’s these events that make Shepard realize (with the help of his assistant, Anne Davis) that he does need the help of others to get through tough events, and that he doesn’t have to be so hard or cold.

Shepard is a great example of a military man who goes through an emotional arc: at the beginning he’s an efficient, but cold man, but by the end he’s warmed up to others and remains more of his humanity.

It’s also worth noting that ‘Bismark’ also does a good job of setting up Admiral Lutjens as the main antagonist of the film. In the span of just a few minutes, we learn that he’s a Nazi with a big man-crush on Hitler (historically inaccurate, by the way). The movie could have ended there, but it gives Lutjens a little more depth by making him both wanting glory for himself, but also for Germany, due to feeling forgotten and ignored after the First World War. While he’s not a sympathetic character, he does believe in a cause greater than himself, and that’s admirable… even if the movie version of the character is a Nazi.

What would have helped improve the story?

More focus on ordinary sailors on the Bismark

With the film running at a tight and focused 97 minutes, ‘Bismark!’ has to be picky about which characters to focus on, generally choosing to focus on Shepard on land, and the admiral and captain onboard the Bismark, with a few intercuts to sailors on the Prince of Wales and other English ships. While we do get to see the sailors onboard the Bismark fighting for survival, I would have liked to see a focus on one or two of them throughout the story as well, if only to see the story from a pair of people who aren’t involved in command positions.

Conclusion

‘Sink the Bismark!’ manages to achieve the delicate balance between wartime strategy and wartime combat, showing how the decisions made during the former have consequences in the later. While it might have benefited from being just a little longer to allow for a subplot showing two ordinary German sailors and their perspective on things, the movie is still a tight, focused film that engages the audience with the emotional weight wartime commanders have to deal with.