Doctor Zhivago

By 1965, director David Lean had already completed two of his most highly regarded and well-respected movies of his prestigious career. With 1957's The Bridge on the River Kwai and 1962's Lawrence of Arabia, Lean basically defined how a director should make a gigantic film epic. So some three years later, he followed up with 1965's Doctor Zhivago, a film I'm still digesting -- for good and bad -- some three days later.

A doctoral student who grew up with an adopted family of sorts, Yuri Zhivago (Omar Sharif) is an aspiring poet in the early 1910s in Russia. He marries childhood friend and longtime love, Tonya (Geraldine Chaplin), and starts a family. Growing up with a single mother, Lara (Julie Christie) goes through some harsh teenage years as she deals with a troubled single mother. As Russia is thrust into World War I -- the fighting eventually turning into the Russian Revolution -- Yuri (working as a doctor) and Lara (as a nurse) meet amongst the aftermath of a battle. They are instantly drawn to each other as they work side-by-side, but as the conflict escalates, this is a relationship that seems doomed to failure.

Wow, I'm not proud of that plot synopsis. It sounds like I'm reading a cheesy romance novel. Anyways, onto bigger, better and more on-point things. This is a GIGANTIC movie as one would come to expect from a David Lean epic. With locations in Spain, Canada and Finland, the scale is a pleasure to watch. Lean and cinematographer Freddie Young shoot each scene -- the snow-capped mountains, the desolate wastelands, the flower-covered plains -- like a Renaissance painting. It is a stunningly gorgeous film, one you can just sit back and experience. Composer Maurice Jarre's score won the Oscar -- rightfully so -- with Lara's Theme (listen HERE) an instantly recognizable, beautiful tune, one that you'll be humming for days. The sets are expansive, the cast numbering in the thousands with extras, and the story covers a time in history (Russia in the 1910s/1920s) that is rich with depth.

So what happens then? Why do I feel conflicted about this Lean-directed epic? In a 200-minute movie, there exists little to no story. It moves from location to location and time to time with transitions that can be jarring at times. My lack of knowledge about Russian history certainly did NOT help my enjoyment and/or appreciation of what was going on. I don't think lyrical is the right description, but it's all I'm coming up with. Story is also a word I use lightly. It isn't really a story so much as a budding relationship that develops over many years and all the people caught up and effected by it. We see snippets of a time/conflict/place, and then zip to another spot. Because of that, I never felt in tune with what was going on, feeling at times very disconnected from the plot.

And onto the cast, much easier to decipher. For one of the all-time great love stories, I didn't think much of the chemistry (or lack of) between Sharif and Christie. Omar Sharif is a very talented actor, and he does a fine job as Yuri Zhivago showing a man's flaws, imperfections and talents. Christie too as Lara is an interesting character, neither individual perfect by any means. I appreciated that. We're watching human beings, not immaculate individuals, but in terms of on-screen chemistry I was not buying Sharif and Christie as a couple that is drawn to each other in an unexplained way, not letting time or circumstances tear them apart. Christie is stunningly beautiful as Lara with Lean electing to photograph her like an angel, especially her blue, blue, BLUE eyes.

The name recognition from the supporting cast will draw in many film fans and understandably so. You don't put a cast together with the likes of Rod Steiger, Alec Guinness, Tom Courtenay, Chaplin, Klaus Kinski and Ralph Richardson together without causing a stir in the acting department. Among that group, there isn't a weak link in the bunch. Some are more impressive than others -- Steiger, Guinness, Chaplin and Kinski -- but the lack of a true, developing story hurts all of the performances. Steiger and Courtenay disappear for long stretches, only to reappear as the story requires. I just don't know how to describe this. I enjoyed the actors, enjoyed seeing their performances, but something just didn't click.

There are moments of near perfection amidst some of the rather leisurely 200-minute running time. After a sluggish first 45-60 minutes, things get flowing at a quicker, more enjoyable pace. Not surprisingly, the high points are several chaotic, impressively staged action sequences. One especially, Bolshevik cavalry charging across an ice-covered lake, stands out. An encounter between Russian replacements and Russian deserters on a wayward, desolate plain is simple in its brutality. Much of the success in these moments come from the visual that Lean and Young created. A framing device at the beginning and end with Guinness (a veteran Communist officer) interviewing a young woman (Rita Tushingham) who could be Yuri and Lara's daughter too is especially effective. The ending too goes right for the jugular, a heart-breaking ending for Yuri and Lara.

I'm torn on what to do here. I can appreciate why so many film fans adore this movie. I can also easily appreciate why some struggle to go along for the ride. Not to use a cop out, but I fall somewhere in between. I loved parts of it, liked others and struggled to go along for other portions. I love both 'River Kwai' and 'Lawrence' so Zhivago had some big shoes to fill in the expectations department, but it never quite lived up to them. Still a must-see film just for the scale and talent involved, but not the classic I was hoping it to be.

Doctor Zhivago <---trailer (1965): ** 1/2 /****

Operation Crossbow

Most of the war movies I watch are depictions of front-line action or at least the generals/headquarters making the decisions that affect the front-line soldiers.  But what about the Intelligence agencies doing their damnedest to help the war effort through espionage, gaining information and sabotage behind enemy lines.  So goes 1965's Operation Crossbow, a British-Italian production telling the true story of British efforts to slow down Germany's rocket/technological advances as WWII reaches its middle years.

As much as WWII was about one Allied soldier facing one Axis soldier, there was a race at home to be the first country to develop the atom bomb.  On less destructive levels, both sides tried to create weapons technology that could cause more death and destruction than the average grenade or artillery shell.  Obviously, these advances were kept as top secret as possible, but that doesn't mean each side wasn't trying to one-up their enemy by playing a little defense courtesy of the Intelligence community doing a little sabotage.

It's midway through 1943, and the Germans have developed a new flying bomb that they plan to unleash on London and other English cities.  The Allies are aware of the new development, and do their best to slow down the advances by consistently bombing German work sites where they believe the bombs to be built and launched.  But as dangerous as the bombs are, the Germans have a new weapon in the late stages of development; the V-2 rocket, that could drastically change the course of the war, including the D-Day invasion.  Facing such a huge game changer, Allied Intelligence is forced to use a desperate plan; send Allied agents into Germany disguised as engineers who will help develop the rockets.

You might have noticed there's not a single actor/actress listed in the plot description.  Basically, it would have taken too long to include them and make that paragraph a behemoth to read.  Like other big budget war movies, 'Crossbow' utilizes an ensemble cast with talent from all over the world taking part.  And in terms of story, the ensemble works better because the plot is very episodic.  The first 30 minutes is almost exclusively from the German perspective, the next 30 the Allied Intelligence, and the last hour mostly with the agents working deep undercover.  Each of these segments could have been expanded for their own movie, but together they work to form a coherent storyline.

The cast listing is an odd one because producer Carlo Ponti listed his wife Sophia Loren as the lead when really she makes a 20-minute or so appearance and is an add-on more than anything else.  That's not being critical of Loren because she's a fine actress, but big picture her part isn't essential to the movie.  Starring as Germans the ensemble includes Paul Henreid and Helmut Dantine as two high-ranking German generals, Barbara Rutting as German aviator Hannah Reitsch, and Anthony Quayle as Bamford, a secret agent/spy.  Allied Intelligence includes Richard Johnson, Trevor Howard, John Mills and Richard Todd as the men trying to halt the German advances.  The agents sent into Germany include George Peppard, Jeremy Kemp and Tom Courtenay, all posing as deceased scientists so they can access the German rocket plants with Lilli Palmer playing a resistance contact.

The whole movie is a good example of a solid WWII ensemble, but the best and most interesting/exciting part is when the story follows these three agents.  They are all forced to become someone else, knowing if they are caught they will be summarily shot on site.  Even getting to that point is difficult as Peppard's Lt. Curtis finds out when the scientist he is posing as is visited by his wife (Loren).  Courtenay's Henshaw is dealt a cruel twist of fate and must decide how much he is willing to sacrifice.  Kemp's Bradley is dropped into Germany as a last-minute resort with little knowledge of the man he's impersonating.  Their scenes as they try to dupe the Germans are tense and difficult to watch, those scenes where you get butterflies hoping everything doesn't hit the fan.

Crossbow's story covers a lot of ground -- almost a year and a half -- but never feels like we're being let out.  Supposedly a much longer finished product was turned in by director Michael Anderson only to have it cut heavily to the movie we see now which clocks in at just under two hours.  You can see where certain segments were cut, especially the German segment to open the movie, and other odd instances like Peppard gaining a bandage on his forehead, but we never see why.  But these are little things, not big disturbances that could ruin the movie.

While the V-2 rocket was actually used by Germany in WWII -- over 3,000 were fired at England -- the movie does have to have some sort of resolution if not necessarily a happy ending.  The finale is a whopper as Peppard and Kemp desperately try to pinpoint their underground location to a passing bomber force.  The huge underground facilities sets look like something out of a James Bond movie and provide quite an ending to a strong story.  Not as well know as some of its 1960s WWII counterparts, but definitely worth a watch or two.

Operation Crossbow <----trailer (1965): ***/****