Victim of its historical context ...

Rating: 8/10 (5 April 2012)

Although Germany would forever carry the 'moral' responsibility of World War II, a reasonable analysis would show that the peace concluded after World War I planted the seeds of an inevitable conflict, by allowing the rise of totalitarian dictatorships. History is so capricious that sometimes, the truth depends on the chronological limits you apply to your perception and as time goes by, it is written with more objective letters, and facts are gradually put into perspective and not carried away by some patriotic fever. The Holocaust will still be remembered as one of the most atrocious and shameful pages of Humanity's History, but the way the worldwide conflict ended with the dropping of two bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still leaving us uncertain about the meaning of what is right or wrong, or when a life starts to have more value than another.
That is for me the touchy issue of any war, any conflict, all lives are equal and if there might be such a thing as a good or a right side, there's not such a thing as a life that deserves to die more than another.
"Lifeboat" was not only made before some movies like "Das Boot" or "Downfall" would show that Germans suffered from World War II as much as any people, but it was made before the conflict even stopped, a time where propaganda was prevailing and somewhat necessary. "Lifeboat" was directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1944, when World War II was reaching its pinnacle, the Axis was suffering its first defeats, but the road was still long for the Allies, the D-Day, the two atomic bombs were not part of history and Hitler was still referred to in the present. The context here is important because it puts us right in the middle of the most important conflict that ever changed the face of the World and provides enough insights to judge the film with objectivity.
And two things occurred to me after watching "Lifeboat" several times: it is a great thriller film, but it's also a blatant case of propaganda, which would have been more acceptable if Hitchcock didn't make it.
Hitchcock's film is adapted from a novel by John Steinbeck and it tells the story of several survivors of a ship torpedoed by a German U-Boat, all from different backgrounds. Constance 'Connie' Porter is an international journalist with a strange yet appealing femme-fatale charm played by Tallulah Bankhead, Henry Hull is Rittenhouse, a rich businessman, William Bendix is Gus Smith, a radio operator, there is also a nurse, a steward, 'Sparks', a Biritish sailor played by a young Hume Cronyn and John Kovac, an engineer with communist tendencies played by the namesake Hodiak (an underrated actor who died at the early age of 41). The pivotal moment occurs when they rescue one of the very men who sunk the ship: Walter Sleazak as Willi, the German captain. Interestingly, while most of the survivors are American, two of them have European backgrounds, Kovac's parents are Tchekoslovaquian, and Smith's original name was Schmidt. Gus' resemblance with Willi is a remembrance that the issue was not with Willi being a German, but a Nazi, as if Willi automatically embodied the vileness of the Nazism.
"Lifeboat" plays like World War II in microcosm and in a way, all the characters convey the strengths and weaknesses of their side. The Allies are good-hearted, with this Christian generosity than can pass for weakness in the way they treat Willi, and Willi is the most intelligent, practical, capable to amputate a leg, to row, and with great notions of sailing. He represents the 'greatness' of Germania and he's also evil, treacherous and naturally inclined to kill. Of course, I wouldn't have expected Willi to be like the Captain from "Das Boot" and the film needed a suitable villain, on which I must admit that Sleazak did a great job, because although he was particularly evil, his demise was quite horrific. The problem is that he was meant to prove that the survivors were wrong not to have prejudices against him and should have thrown him in the water the minute he said 'Danke shon' as if any other German would have acted the same. This generalization was still ambiguous and I would have accepted Willi happening to be a vile Nazi if the film wasn't 'ruined' by the ending where another Nazi soldier showed that he was no better than Willi, proving in substance than any German is an evil Nazi.
I still give the movie an 8, because it started as a gripping thriller and ended in a brilliant piece of propaganda and for the sake of objectivity, I can't judge this with today's eyes. Still, I wish Hitchcock could have avoided the patronizing statements of the last minute of the film. "Lifeboat" could have been a real masterpiece, but a masterpiece it is not.
By the way, how do you determine what is or what is not a masterpiece?
Well, I remember an interesting statement made by Orson Welles on the "Dick Cavett Show". He said that basically you could make a masterpiece in anything: even in pornography, if you intended to excite people and stimulate them sexually. However, you could never make a masterpiece that happens to be a pornographic film, because a masterpiece is something that elevates human spirit and challenge the emotions to a unique and unknown dimension, libido is too low and too easily aroused to be considered. And on that aspect, I would also add propaganda, which is aimed to convey an instinct of superiority; you can make a masterpiece of propaganda, but not a masterpiece that happens to be a 'propaganda' film.
I don't know what was Hitchcock's intent with "Lifeboat", but I guess that by trying to make both, neither of them worked.