In the city of Berlin, capital of Germany, there stands a memorial centre to one of the Second World War's lesser known stories, the struggle of the German Resistance. The centre stands close to a place where perhaps the most famous incident in that struggle took place. An event which occurred on this day, July 20, 1944; when Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg and his close associates attempted unsuccessfully to kill Adolf Hitler, overthrow the Nazi regime and bring the war to an end. Close to the spot where Stauffenberg and others were executed, there stands a plaque, which translates thus...

'You did not bear the shame.
You resisted.
You bestowed the eternally vigilant symbol of change
by sacrificing your impassioned lives for freedom, justice and honour.'

We shall of course, never know for sure what might have happened if the plotters had succeeded in killing the Führer. Some historians have argued that they did not have a strong enough apparatus in place to seize control of the country and ask for a peace with the allies. The failure of the plot had fateful consequences not only for the conspirators, but for millions of others. It has been estimated that as many people died in the European theatre of the conflict between July 1944, and the end of the war on May 8, 1945, as did in the entire preceding period.

​The picture above is a production still from the movie: Valkyrie (2008), showing the Actor, Tom Cruise in the role of Stauffenberg. I love this movie, which also featured some outstanding British talent in Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy and Tom Wilkinson. What interests me in this case is that I have heard and read various different opinions of Tom Cruise' performance in the film. Some think he was miscast, others that he was dreadful, through to 'adaquate' and to sharing my view, that he was brilliant. As one who has always been absolutely fascinated by the rise and fall of the Third Reich, I am well versed with this event and in my minds eye, I can see Stauffenberg exactly as the Actor portrayed him. I remember being interested by an interview Cruise gave, in which he said he knew nothing of the character or the historical events before he was asked to play the role. The question then, is why did the Actor really touch me with his performance, when perhaps other viewers were less impressed?

The answer I think, lies in something which I have begun to appreciate from my studies of the Meisner Technique: The character doesn't exist. The idea for the character is created by the writer, either as fiction, or as a portrayal of an actual historical person. The Actor, or Actress has the task of bringing that character to life, and they do this by providing a series of illusions which the viewer then uses to 'create' the character in their mind. I remember one Meisner Tutor describing it to us as a children's 'join up the dots' puzzle. The Actor provides the 'dots', but it is the audience member who joins them up to create the 'character', and each person joins them differently. For me, Tom Cruise provided a perfect array of 'dots', and thus I was able to completely suspend reality and literally see Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg on my screen.

I dedicate this blog to the memory of those who did not bear the shame. In this event and many others... they resisted.

Requiescat In Pace...

I recently put on a DVD at home and sat through just over two hours of one of the most powerful pieces of cinema ever made, Mel Gibson’s: The Passion of the Christ (2004). The performances of the Actors and Actresses; Jim Caviezel in the title role, Maia Morgenstern as Mary, (who brought me to tears more than once), Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene and so many others was truly monumental. (The role of Satan was actually played by an Actress named Rosalinda Celentano, who never spoke and yet was truly evil incarnate… Brilliant). And Mel Gibson's direction was absolutely flawless. No matter how many times I see this film, I never cease to be as profoundly moved as I was when I first watched it. But of all the accolades I can give this wonderful piece of work, the one which really speaks to me is a factor which I personally think is extremely important in films which are seeking to give factual accounts of the past... Historical accuracy. It is astonishing the lengths that Gibson went to, to ensure that the events of almost two thousand years ago were relayed truthfully on screen. The Actors actually spoke the now dead languages of that period, Aramaic, (which was the language of Christ), Latin, and some sequences using ancient Hebrew. The costumes were faultless and the dusty, grimy, real-life environment of the ancient Middle East was palpable. But by far the most powerful part of the experience was the sheer unadulterated brutality in all its raw horror. The scourging of Jesus at the whipping post is surely the most horrific ever filmed, (Jim Caviezel was accidentally whipped twice during shooting this scene and suffered several other injuries in production). I found myself biting my knuckles and on the point of calling out from my sofa: “Please Stop!” And then of course, the crucifixion, the full horror of which was graphically portrayed. So accurate was the film, that I have always been just a little disappointed with Mel Gibson that he allowed two errors. Firstly, at the crucifixion, the common mistake is made of showing the nails being driven through the hands. In reality, the nails would almost certainly have been driven in just above the wrists, in between the two forearm bones. Secondly, at the whipping post and especially at the crucifixion, Christ is portrayed still wearing his cloth. In reality Jesus, like all Roman prisoners, would have been stripped naked. There may have been reasons why Gibson and his team preferred not to portray full nakedness, but given how much effort was put into making this masterpiece historically correct, I am surprised this mistake was allowed.
If you haven't seen it, and have the strength to endure it, I can recommend this deeply moving experience.

Historical accuracy, as I indicated above, is something which I think is of paramount importance when doing historical based dramas. Inevitably there will be times when telling the story effectively to an audience requires a degree of ‘artistic license’, and times of course, especially with ancient history, when the actual events may be unclear, or disputed. However, what we must never, ever do in my opinion, is re-write, or ‘water down’ aspects of history to suit politically correct sensitivities in our modern age. I remember becoming embroiled in a furious online discussion once about a dog’s name! The discussion arose when it was revealed that they were doing a remake of, (wait for this), The Dam Busters. Well first of all, why? As if they could ever better Richard Todd and Michael Redgrave et al. But the question arose because, (in actual real-life historical fact), Wing Commander Guy Gibson who was destined to lead the famous raid, owned a Black Labrador Retriever who was the squadron’s mascot, and whose name would later be used as the code signal to indicate that the operation had been successful. The dog’s name was ‘Nigger’.

Now of course, few people nowadays would name a pet using what is generally regarded as a pejorative term. But this wasn't nowadays. This was May, 1943. And the point I have emphasized previously and will again now, is that history is not racist, history is not phobic, history does not make judgments. History just is. If the dog’s name was ‘Nigger’ in 1943, then it's ‘Nigger’ in a film about 1943. So you can imagine my dismay when I heard talk of changing the name. Nineteen Lancasters of 617 Squadron RAF took part in ‘Operation Chastise’ on the night of May 16-17, 1943. Eight were lost, 53 aircrew were killed and 3 taken prisoner. On the ground some 1,600 people died, of which some 1000 were (mainly Soviet) forced labour. Two of the three targets were breached, a third damaged, and the industrial area of the Ruhr was catastrophically flooded. The survivors returned home still unaware that Nigger had been killed in a road accident the night previous. Gibson had kept it secret for the sake of morale. Now you can call me an idealist, but I think if you are going to tell the story of people like this, then tell it properly, and truthfully. We cannot allow modern day sensitivities to force us to re-write the past to accommodate sectional interests in the present. Otherwise where will we end up?...

“You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party”

From the Novel: Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).
Author: George Orwell.

In his career the Actor in this production still made fifty-eight movies, and he virtually defined the male archetype of his era, which is the stuff of dreams to this very day. In many ways, his were the forerunners for the characters later portrayed by Actors like Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson et al.
Essentially a 'Personality Actor', his life was often as colourful off-screen as it was on, and undoubtedly he made enemies; but that in no way should detract from the massive contribution that he made to the history of the motion picture, and the enormous pleasure his films have brought to millions of fans like me. Errol Flynn died almost fifty-seven years ago, on October 14, 1959. Never once recognized by his peers at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), he never attended a ceremony in his honour, never won an Oscar, and was never nominated. And as I reflect on this icon from the golden age of Hollywood, I cannot help but wonder sometimes if the industry has forgotten that the movies should, above all, entertain people. Perhaps that’s why they truly ‘don’t make them like that any more’...