I recall seeing this film on first release and being astonished by its cynical portrayal of Allied war planning. Except for an odd-man-out like Attack (1956), WWII was treated in this pre- Vietnam period as a difficult yet idealistic march to victory. There was little hint of such ruthless tactics as are portrayed here. Thus the movie's grim version of the logic of war became something of an eye-opener for a new generation used to less disturbing accounts of the people in charge.
I doubt that many people saw the film. It's not the kind of production that invites an audience, with its ugly b&w photography, deglamorized Suzy Parker, and downbeat 100 minutes. Then too, the screenplay's use of flashback undercuts the suspense in an odd dramatic turn, since we know from the outset that Lieut. Raine (Dillman) survives his ordeal no matter how bad it becomes. My guess is the producers wanted to reassure audiences from the outset that Raine was not being deliberately sent to his doom. That may have lightened the mood and lessened the guilt, but it comes at the expense of both impact and suspense.
Dillman's excellent as the conflicted Lieutenant, while Parker does a lot better than expected for an ex-super model. And, of course, there's jut-jawed Harry Andrews as the Machiavellian captain in charge, who gives his cynical scheme all the military authority of Moses passing down the Ten Commandments. Also, I like the way Capt. Stein, the lead Nazi interrogator, is portrayed against stereotype as a civilized, sympathetic type. In passingnote how the infamous water-boarding technique is used as a last resort to pry information from the hapless Raine, a surprisingly topical note from a 50-year old movie.
The movie makes a significant point, I think, whether the point was intentional or not. Now, the logic of war has long approved sacrificing a few men in order to save many more. It's not a happy logic, but it has a certain utilitarian morality to itbetter to lose 10 men than 1000. At bottom, this is the accepted reasoning Capt. Rawson is applying to Lt. Rainebetter to sacrifice this one man than the thousands who might otherwise be saved. So, why does the process of preparing Raine for sacrifice cause so much unease, as I think it does. There are several disturbing factors in play that are unlike more standard military situations.
Above all, Raine is not only being deceived about his mission, he's being exploited as a person whose frailties are being turned against him. Rawson is counting on fear of pain overcoming what shame Raine might feel as a result of being tortured into releasing information that will mislead German defenses. Thus it's not death that Rawson is counting on or that Raine is facing, instead it's permanent shame. As a result, it's not so much Raine's body that's being sacrificed to the Allied cause as it is his soul. Even if he survives, he will carry that burden of guilt and shame, which for the brave man Raine is, comes at the cost of his self-respect. And Rawson knows it. And that I think is what's so unsettling about the captain's scheme even though the military logic is pretty straightforward.
Anyway, I wish the movie had had the capacity to follow through on its provocative premise with an unhappy ending. That way I think it would have achieved some of the distinction of a Paths of Glory (1958) that did follow through on its cynical premise. But this was a studio production (TCF) and I guess as a business in 1960 they felt they could only go so far. However, note how the very last shot of the lovers reconciling is shot from an impersonal distance, thereby fulfilling story requirements but canceling the all-important emotional impact. Looks to me like some kind of effort at softening the happy ending. Compromised or not, the movie is still worth viewing for its provocative premise, though I wouldn't recommend it after a hard day at work.
