MovieChat Forums > Cross of Iron (1977) Discussion > Saw it again for 1st time in 34 years; s...

Saw it again for 1st time in 34 years; some comments


I saw this movie at the theater when first released, and just saw it for the first time since then (found it available full-length on YouTube).

This is a great movie, but, having read about a dozen memoirs and diaries of German soldiers who fought on the Eastern front (which does NOT make me an expert), I’ll just comment on some areas that I thought fell a little short:

--the opening credits are widely admired, probably because of the interesting archival footage. However, Peckinpah seemed to be trying to convey a deep contrast between the bleak Eastern front and life back in Germany, which is almost made to look like peaches and cream. However, life at home, though far better than the Eastern front, was no piece of cake—Germany’s cities were being ruthlessly firebombed, and the war was certainly felt strongly there. On the other hand, maybe Peckinpah’s intention was to underscore the contrast between the ideals and the realities of war.

--When Stransky arrives at the front, he tells Steiner that it is strictly against orders to take Russians prisoner. While many prisoners were killed on both sides, I have never read of a general order that no Russians were to be taken prisoner. I have read many accounts of Russians being captured. They often provided invaluable information on the strength, position and intentions of the enemy; any general order to never take prisoners would have been strategically foolish.

--If I understood it right, an SS soldier (made to look very evil) is assigned to Steiner’s platoon. However, as far I have read, SS soldiers stayed with SS units; I never heard of an SS soldier being assigned to a regular Wehrmacht army unit, although sometimes during retreats, stragglers from various units were hastily reformed into a fighting force, and I suppose that would have resulted in some mixing of SS and men from the regular army. But in the movie it seems to be a very planned thing.

--There is a general theme in the movie conveying widespread resentment between the front-line grunts and the “aristocratic, Prussian” officer class, as emulated by Stransky and the general who visits the hospital. In all the first-hand accounts I have read from the Eastern front, I got that that the grunts looked with great respect on their commanding officers, who were quite willing to die with the grunts. The exception—the officer they didn’t like--would be the rare one who proved incompetent, which put their lives at risk.

--Finally, I felt Peckinpah really pushed the suggestions of kinky sex—homosexual talk, one soldier openly kissing another, oral sex. This is not to say these things never happened, just that Peckinpah seemed to be making the unusual look more usual than it was, probably for shock value.

Again, I don’t claim to be an Eastern Front expert; that is just my take after reading a number of first-hand accounts. The movie does have great action, an interesting story, and perhaps most importantly, it conveys sympathy deserved by front-line grunts fighting sacrificially everywhere, regardless of the war or which side they were on.

reply

I've watched the movie a few times in the 28 or so years since I first saw it. I take it you haven't read the novel which formed the basis for the movie? It is a very good read; the author was a member of the 101st Jäger Division, the same unit as in the movie. There's speculation that Steiner is based on the real Oberfeldwebel Johann Schwerdfeger, one of the heroes of the division.

--the opening credits are widely admired, probably because of the interesting archival footage. However, Peckinpah seemed to be trying to convey a deep contrast between the bleak Eastern front and life back in Germany, which is almost made to look like peaches and cream. However, life at home, though far better than the Eastern front, was no piece of cake—Germany’s cities were being ruthlessly firebombed, and the war was certainly felt strongly there. On the other hand, maybe Peckinpah’s intention was to underscore the contrast between the ideals and the realities of war.


It isn't my impression that the juxtasposing of the propaganda and the frontline images are supposed to show the situation at that time. It is more like the propaganda images show the glamour of Nazi Germany in general, not in 1943. The stark contrast to the frontline images is more a comment on what the Nazi fervour led to. Also, it allows the director to "phase in" the first scene.

--When Stransky arrives at the front, he tells Steiner that it is strictly against orders to take Russians prisoner. While many prisoners were killed on both sides, I have never read of a general order that no Russians were to be taken prisoner. I have read many accounts of Russians being captured. They often provided invaluable information on the strength, position and intentions of the enemy; any general order to never take prisoners would have been strategically foolish.


You are correct. It seems like it is more a way for Stransky to establish authority, and to establish him as a cruel @$$hole. Given that hundreds of thousands of Russian PoWs were employed as HiWis by the Germans, it is evident that no such order was in effect.

--If I understood it right, an SS soldier (made to look very evil) is assigned to Steiner’s platoon. However, as far I have read, SS soldiers stayed with SS units; I never heard of an SS soldier being assigned to a regular Wehrmacht army unit, although sometimes during retreats, stragglers from various units were hastily reformed into a fighting force, and I suppose that would have resulted in some mixing of SS and men from the regular army. But in the movie it seems to be a very planned thing.


You are correct in this, too. In the novel, Zoll is just identified as a troublemaker and shirker.

--There is a general theme in the movie conveying widespread resentment between the front-line grunts and the “aristocratic, Prussian” officer class, as emulated by Stransky and the general who visits the hospital. In all the first-hand accounts I have read from the Eastern front, I got that that the grunts looked with great respect on their commanding officers, who were quite willing to die with the grunts. The exception—the officer they didn’t like--would be the rare one who proved incompetent, which put their lives at risk.


It is more a question of Steiner resenting officers. Note that Brandt, Kiesel and Meyer are shown as good guys.

--Finally, I felt Peckinpah really pushed the suggestions of kinky sex—homosexual talk, one soldier openly kissing another, oral sex. This is not to say these things never happened, just that Peckinpah seemed to be making the unusual look more usual than it was, probably for shock value.


The kiss was to shock the soldier who was cracking up; it wasn't sexual. As for the homosexual talk, it is something that occurs among the other bad jokes and ribbing in all-male groups. When Stransky is using it, it is to bait Triebig and to use the knowledge in the future (having Triebig as witness for his Iron Cross application, etc). Oral sex wasn't invented in the 1960's; it has been around for a while... In the movie, it is probably used to make Zoll appear to dominate the female Soviet soldier (if one is into symbolism, it is a picture of the Nazis conquering Mother Russia, with her biting back...). In the novel, it was a standard missionary position rape, with Steiner arriving just as Zoll was pulling up his trousers.

If you read the novel, you'll see that several scenes in the movie were moved around, and the ending is different. It doesn't diminish the fact that the movie is one of the best war movies around, but there are differences.

reply

Excellent post.

I agree about what you say about the credits. It is showing the lie that was Nazi Germany about how everything was going to be wonderful under them and instead leads to massive death and destruction. It is one of my favorite opening credits ever in a movie.

The novel ,as you mention, makes for some truly fascinating reading. Especially to see how things were shuffled around for the film. The commentary track by Stephen Prince on the DVD does a good job talking about the differences.

Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.

reply

Thanks for those thoughts. I had not been aware that the movie originated in a novel written by a German veteran; however, that makes the film’s authenticity much more understandable. One scene (just for example) that struck me as very authentic, though very subtle, was during Leutnant Meyer’s birthday party, when the young recruit Dietz toasts “survivors.” Everyone is staring resentfully at him—until Meyer melts the ice and bails him out by joining him in the toast. That struck me as one of those moments that could only be recounted by someone who was there.

reply

"It is more a question of Steiner resenting officers. Note that Brandt, Kiesel and Meyer are shown as good guys."

yes, thats right.

all your answer is realy great

reply

When Stransky arrives at the front, he tells Steiner that it is strictly against orders to take Russians prisoner. While many prisoners were killed on both sides, I have never read of a general order that no Russians were to be taken prisoner.

I always understood that dialog as referring to the local situation, i.e., no prisoners to be taken in the regiment/battalion sector.


Luxuriate in the eclectic...
http://www.eccentric-cinema.com

reply

Good point. Though I have not personally run across such an order per se, there were obviously many times that the German army was spread so thin that it was not possible to quarter prisoners or even send them to camps behind the lines.

reply

Still, as Stransky had just arrived the same day, he couldn't be aware of any such local orders - and Colonel Brandt didn't seem like the type to issue such orders, either.

reply

1. I interpreted the opening credits as showing the disconnect between the home front and the war front. I am certain that the German people were not aware of the devastating losses they were suffering on the eastern front until they could no longer be denied.
- I like the opening credits a lot, it showed the increasing desperation and decline into barbarism of the front line soldiers dealing with an increasingly deteriorating situation. Showing some of the atrocities also balances out the portrayal of Steiner's unit as being so likable. Ie. Peckinpah is showing two sides of a coin so that he could not be accused of being a nazi sympathizer.

2. SS soldier? I thought that they just called him a nazi, I don't remember him being identified as SS.

3. The officers vs the enlistee's, I absolutely loved the general meeting the wounded in the hospital. The actor did such a wonderful job, he had about 1 minute of screen time and he came off as such a dick. Brilliant performance. I liked how he was trying to feign compassion for the troops and then he just shudders w/contempt when he meets and armless one. This contrasts very nicely with Steiner who ONLY cared about his troops and nothing else including awards.

I saw this movie for the first time in college in the 1980's and then again about 2 yrs ago and my opinion of the movie just gets better.


reply

Well I have to take exception with pt.3: practically every non fiction account I have read from Landsers & others usually speak very highly of 'their' officers...they mention 'weedy types' as exceptions but most bespeak of the 'comradeship' between the ranks...as for the General being disgusted/contemptuous of the wounded man, I'd be willing to say most German General officers were already veterans of WW-1 as either enlisted men or 'tip of the spear' lower level officers...they'd probably seen things, done things or had things done to them that most of us couldn't dream of...

NM

reply

Yup, the number of German generals (and other high-ranking officers) killed in action far surpassed that of the Western Allies.

reply

Yes...while a lot of it was due to the imbalance of firepower & air superiority of their opponents, clearly most of them did not shirk their duty & spend as much time near the action as was feasible.

NM

reply

[deleted]

Based on what? Your say so?

reply

With nothing to back up your comments against other people's opinions, your post is invalid.






"Hitler! C'mon, I'll buy you a glass of lemonade."

reply

Some answers:

1)As already said, the footage shows nazi propaganda before WWII

2)Hitler's orders that the commissaries of the People, NKVD personell, members of the Communist Party, women in uniform and partisans (fighters without uniform) had to shot on the place, but you're right the germans captured milions of Soviet POWs, most of them were sent to the extermination camps to die of starvation (most of the people who died there weren't jews but soviet citizens). Anyway the germans were fighting a war of extermination against the russians so it's believable that such an order was issued locally.

3)I don't remember SSs in Steiner's platoons...perhaps I've to rewatch the movie.

4)As already said, Steiner hates all officers, this hasn't to be taken as a general comment.

5)The oral sex scene is with a russian woman POWs as far as I remember, the only homosexual scenere were the kiss and the lieutenant's story, both of them worked well in the movie as plot devices.

Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!

reply

Upon Steiner's return from the hospital, Kern introduces him to Zoll, 'Compliments of Captain Stransky..SS Special Actions Squad'. In Nazi speak, 'Special Actions Squads' or in German 'Einsatzkommando' were nothing more than units who massacred civilians. Not many of them had any front line experience, but I'm sure a few of them ended up fighting on the front lines as the situation worsened.

reply

Correct, but the re-assignment of an einsatztruppe to a regular Wehrmacht unit was quite a stretch, these people would have been sent to Waffen SS units, or Military police, not to a recon squad (which is BTW a very delicate job).

Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!

reply

The contrast in the opening credits is between the song (little Hans who went into the great big world all on his own) and what Hitler was facing; Hitler being Hänschen klein (little Hans) thinking he could take on the world all by himself.

Special SS forces were not Einzats-kommandos but Sonder-kommandos; the latter did mingle on occasion with the Wehrmacht...

reply

Actually sonderkommandos were the squads of jews in charge of disposing the corpes of other jews in furnaces...

Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!

reply