Stransky: "Where is your company?"
Steiner: "You are. You're my company."
The ending to Iron Cross was the greatest scene of poetic justice ever committed to film. Steiner fights the temptation to just kill Stransky on the spot as he did with the Lieutenant, knowing that putting him in his proper place by revealing the incompetence and cowardice under the arrogant facade would be that much more satisfying than just shooting him.
I agree. The confrontation with Lt. Triebig already had the shock value of a German soldier fraqgging an officer and to simply repeat that with Stransky would have been anti-climatic. As am American, it shocked me because I had this view that a German soldier could never do such a thing regardless of the circumstances.
My only criticism of that scene is that Colburn did not leave a big enough hint to the viewers that he was intending to lead Stransky in a suicide attack on the Russians. I say this because there are so many commentators who are confused by this scene and in movies, as in life, the customer is always right. I know that had Colburn delivered his line in a menacing manner that the ever manipulative and cunning Stransky would have picked up his intent as well but sometimes realism has to be sacrificed for art.
I'll say for the billionth time, overall, I simply loved Colburn's performance. Colburn's concern for this men was the glue that kept the movie together but I do believe that he missed the mark here.
the concern for his men is strong except right at the start, steiner and stransky seem the wrong way round when steiner says one of his men is missing and that it wasnt worth risking the others to find him, and stransky is outraged. that part did not gel with the rest of the movie, steiner would go above and beyond for his men, yet if you get lost oh well i guess your dead? and the arrogant officer who sees losing men as expected and acceptable being upset? it kind of jolts you out of things, it would of been so much better if in that scene steiner was asking for volunteers to find his man and stransky was the one saying why risk it for one man, a lowly ordinary grunt at that, not an officer or one of the special ones.
shareSteiner could have been lying/covering for a guy who went AWOL. Keep in mind what Steiner did throughout the rest of the movie, and that Steiner saw what kind of man Stransky was when Stranksy ordered Steiner to shoot a child.
sharethe AWOL angle is the best idea on this, i agree totally that steiner dislikes stransky from the start, im not sure if going AWOL out in no mans land is the best idea, but that is by far the most satisfactory theory.
shareYes, I thought it was a very good ending too, which is rather ironic IMO, as that ending was kind of forced on Peckinpah, when the production ran out of funds and there was no more money forthcoming from the studio.
Yes, I thought it was a very good ending too, which is rather ironic IMO, as that ending was kind of forced on Peckinpah, when the production ran out of funds and there was no more money forthcoming from the studio.
"What was the ending he intended?"
Not sure Edward. But he was over budget already and a legendary drinker and the studio just shut the door on him as far as I know.
I agree with your second paragraph.
Is this the original ending?
http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Cross-of-Iron-script.pdf
It appears to be the case, but it is different from the ending in the novel.
shareSPOILER
If I remember correctly, in the novel Steiner got hurt badly in a city battle and gets transported to the infirmary, but you do not know if he will die or be alive.
Though Triebig and Stransky are also the villains there and set up Steiners forces (in a factory, I think), this intrigue is nowhere as dramatic in the movie.
All in all, I think the original novel of "Steiner" falls short to the movie a lot and is not outstanding or more impressive compared to other of the many war novels of its era. It is kind of more simplistic - so, unlike many war novels you don't learn much about the job and family background of Steiner and his comrades - and thats maybe what they liked about it and kept in the movie. But while the book is no masterpiece, the movie is. One of the rare occasions where the book loses to the screen adaptation.
I had the feeling Peckinpah was saving two squibs for Steiner and Stransky (like what happened to Michael Caine and Nigel Davenport in Play Dirty). It's satisfying that he resisted the shock ending and left their fate undecided. There's a bit of poetry about this film, with Steiner showing Stransky where the Iron Crosses grow. Coburn's laughter was a tad long, but Peckinpah used laughter to show men bonding (such as Ernest Borgnine in The Wild Bunch). It's not my favourite war picture, but it's way ahead of jingoistic rubbish like The Green Berets. Imagine John Wayne as Steiner. Final scene: "Stransky, you pilgrim, I aint gonna hit ya; the hell I aint" .
shareIt reminded me of online games. He talks big and then he gets in combat and he says, "How do you reload? :(" And Coburn looks at him like noob... and just says "LOL."
shareThe ending to this was pretty intense. It’s been a while since I saw it but I recall Steiner’s maniacal laughter as Stransky stumbles around trying to be a real soldier. Then that intense quote: "Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again."
shareI mostly agree but they should have dropped the stills from unrelated atrocities, and the Brecht quote. As if after making an awesome war film, they started feeling guilty about it, and tacked on a 1970's-style political message. Quite redundant.
shareWell I always thought the Brecht quote was just window dressing to 'atone' for showing Landsers as bad-asses, instead of a bunch of mopes.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?