|
|
Post by telegonus on Jul 3, 2018 23:36:59 GMT
I had an interesting discussion with a friend the other night on war and prison escape movies, and Stalag 17 came up as a good one we agreed upon but for one major thing: the character of Sefton, played by William Holden, and his reasons for helping the respected upper class POW, Lt. Dunbar, escape at the end of the movie. My friend said that the motivation of wheeler and dealer Sefton was based entirely on selfishness: Sefton was already under suspicion by the other men as an informer, and generally disliked by the other POWs. He claimed to expect a reward from Dunbar's wealthy family, a major motivation in his (Sefton's) willingness to take such a risk as to help Dunbar escape. In a key dramatic scene Sefton had exposed the real informer, which earned him some grudging respect from the other prisoners.
My contention was that Sefton, while a cynic and an "operator" who sold cigarettes, candy and other valued items he conned out of the guards, with whom he did "business", was actually, at the core, an okay guy, and that the film showed this coming out when he was tested (spurned and then beaten up badly by his fellow prisoners for his dealings with the Germans, for money, not information on planned escapes, as things turned out--and thus not an informer) he proved that he had the makings of a hero. My friend, trained in European history (though not in psychology) claimed that Sefton was merely an opportunist, his seeming heroism in working with Dunbar in his daring and from what the viewer can tell successful escape, was merely an extension of his innate selfishness and opportunism.
As I saw it, the character of Sefton was an extreme instance of American individualism, so strong as to make him come off to his fellow prisoners as a bad actor, a guy with what we'd now call an attitude problem; in other words, someone you can't trust. The movie, and the play it was based on, showed Americans as flawed, often extremely so, and yet capable of rising to the occasion and achieving true heroism. Sefton, in other words, changed; and he evolved; thus when faced with the opportunity to prove himself to be a hero, he did just that. By the end of the movie his cynicism had become a mask (it probably always was, to a degree). He showed his true colors in helping Dunbar escape, and going along with him; and yet he chose to retain the mask of his "public self", as his fellow prisoners knew him, as a somewhat ironic gesture on his part, providing the movie a true hero after all, if a somewhat ambivalent one.
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Jul 4, 2018 5:03:22 GMT
I had an interesting discussion with a friend the other night on war and prison escape movies, and Stalag 17 came up as a good one we agreed upon but for one major thing: the character of Sefton, played by William Holden, and his reasons for helping the respected upper class POW, Lt. Dunbar, escape at the end of the movie. My friend said that the motivation of wheeler and dealer Sefton was based entirely on selfishness: Sefton was already under suspicion by the other men as an informer, and generally disliked by the other POWs. He claimed to expect a reward from Dunbar's wealthy family, a major motivation in his (Sefton's) willingness to take such a risk as to help Dunbar escape. In a key dramatic scene Sefton had exposed the real informer, which earned him some grudging respect from the other prisoners.
My contention was that Sefton, while a cynic and an "operator" who sold cigarettes, candy and other valued items he conned out of the guards, with whom he did "business", was actually, at the core, an okay guy, and that the film showed this coming out when he was tested (spurned and then beaten up badly by his fellow prisoners for his dealings with the Germans, for money, not information on planned escapes, as things turned out--and thus not an informer) he proved that he had the makings of a hero. My friend, trained in European history (though not in psychology) claimed that Sefton was merely an opportunist, his seeming heroism in working with Dunbar in his daring and from what the viewer can tell successful escape, was merely an extension of his innate selfishness and opportunism.
As I saw it, the character of Sefton was an extreme instance of American individualism, so strong as to make him come off to his fellow prisoners as a bad actor, a guy with what we'd now call an attitude problem; in other words, someone you can't trust. The movie, and the play it was based on, showed Americans as flawed, often extremely so, and yet capable of rising to the occasion and achieving true heroism. Sefton, in other words, changed; and he evolved; thus when faced with the opportunity to prove himself to be a hero, he did just that. By the end of the movie his cynicism had become a mask (it probably always was, to a degree). He showed his true colors in helping Dunbar escape, and going along with him; and yet he chose to retain the mask of his "public self", as his fellow prisoners knew him, as a somewhat ironic gesture on his part, providing the movie a true hero after all, if a somewhat ambivalent one.
i agree with your assessment. great stuff! |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jul 4, 2018 6:09:46 GMT
I had an interesting discussion with a friend the other night on war and prison escape movies, and Stalag 17 came up as a good one we agreed upon but for one major thing: the character of Sefton, played by William Holden, and his reasons for helping the respected upper class POW, Lt. Dunbar, escape at the end of the movie. My friend said that the motivation of wheeler and dealer Sefton was based entirely on selfishness: Sefton was already under suspicion by the other men as an informer, and generally disliked by the other POWs. He claimed to expect a reward from Dunbar's wealthy family, a major motivation in his (Sefton's) willingness to take such a risk as to help Dunbar escape. In a key dramatic scene Sefton had exposed the real informer, which earned him some grudging respect from the other prisoners.
My contention was that Sefton, while a cynic and an "operator" who sold cigarettes, candy and other valued items he conned out of the guards, with whom he did "business", was actually, at the core, an okay guy, and that the film showed this coming out when he was tested (spurned and then beaten up badly by his fellow prisoners for his dealings with the Germans, for money, not information on planned escapes, as things turned out--and thus not an informer) he proved that he had the makings of a hero. My friend, trained in European history (though not in psychology) claimed that Sefton was merely an opportunist, his seeming heroism in working with Dunbar in his daring and from what the viewer can tell successful escape, was merely an extension of his innate selfishness and opportunism.
As I saw it, the character of Sefton was an extreme instance of American individualism, so strong as to make him come off to his fellow prisoners as a bad actor, a guy with what we'd now call an attitude problem; in other words, someone you can't trust. The movie, and the play it was based on, showed Americans as flawed, often extremely so, and yet capable of rising to the occasion and achieving true heroism. Sefton, in other words, changed; and he evolved; thus when faced with the opportunity to prove himself to be a hero, he did just that. By the end of the movie his cynicism had become a mask (it probably always was, to a degree). He showed his true colors in helping Dunbar escape, and going along with him; and yet he chose to retain the mask of his "public self", as his fellow prisoners knew him, as a somewhat ironic gesture on his part, providing the movie a true hero after all, if a somewhat ambivalent one.
A very american play for its period. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jul 4, 2018 7:02:09 GMT
I had an interesting discussion with a friend the other night on war and prison escape movies, and Stalag 17 came up as a good one we agreed upon but for one major thing: the character of Sefton, played by William Holden, and his reasons for helping the respected upper class POW, Lt. Dunbar, escape at the end of the movie. My friend said that the motivation of wheeler and dealer Sefton was based entirely on selfishness: Sefton was already under suspicion by the other men as an informer, and generally disliked by the other POWs. He claimed to expect a reward from Dunbar's wealthy family, a major motivation in his (Sefton's) willingness to take such a risk as to help Dunbar escape. In a key dramatic scene Sefton had exposed the real informer, which earned him some grudging respect from the other prisoners.
My contention was that Sefton, while a cynic and an "operator" who sold cigarettes, candy and other valued items he conned out of the guards, with whom he did "business", was actually, at the core, an okay guy, and that the film showed this coming out when he was tested (spurned and then beaten up badly by his fellow prisoners for his dealings with the Germans, for money, not information on planned escapes, as things turned out--and thus not an informer) he proved that he had the makings of a hero. My friend, trained in European history (though not in psychology) claimed that Sefton was merely an opportunist, his seeming heroism in working with Dunbar in his daring and from what the viewer can tell successful escape, was merely an extension of his innate selfishness and opportunism.
As I saw it, the character of Sefton was an extreme instance of American individualism, so strong as to make him come off to his fellow prisoners as a bad actor, a guy with what we'd now call an attitude problem; in other words, someone you can't trust. The movie, and the play it was based on, showed Americans as flawed, often extremely so, and yet capable of rising to the occasion and achieving true heroism. Sefton, in other words, changed; and he evolved; thus when faced with the opportunity to prove himself to be a hero, he did just that. By the end of the movie his cynicism had become a mask (it probably always was, to a degree). He showed his true colors in helping Dunbar escape, and going along with him; and yet he chose to retain the mask of his "public self", as his fellow prisoners knew him, as a somewhat ironic gesture on his part, providing the movie a true hero after all, if a somewhat ambivalent one.
I'd love to hear other types of possible interpretations you have for other movies. |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jul 4, 2018 7:07:12 GMT
Thanks for responding, guys. Stalag 17 is a fascinating films, feels somewhat different with each viewing. For me, it played best the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Jul 4, 2018 8:04:01 GMT
Sefton was pragmatic but definitely had a moral centre.
He bets against Manfredi and Johnson but derives no pleasure from "winning". A case of simply business, nothing personal.
He helps Dunbar at the end because for the first time, the odds are in his favour.
Fantastic William Holden performance.
Compare Sefton to Corporal King in King Rat. Superficially very similar, but I'd suggest miles apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jul 4, 2018 8:29:52 GMT
Sefton was pragmatic but definitely had a moral centre. He bets against Manfredi and Johnson but derives no pleasure from "winning". A case of simply business, nothing personal. He helps Dunbar at the end because for the first time, the odds are in his favour. Fantastic William Holden performance. Compare Sefton to Corporal King in King Rat. Superficially very similar, but I'd suggest miles apart.
I appreciate your comment, Old Aussie, and I think you put it perfectly: Sefton did have a moral center.
Yes, it helped Sefton and Dunbar at the end that "security guy" Price had been taken out of action. The commandant could not have known what was up this time, although it might have been wise for him to have been a tad more attentive to detail, or rather, tell his men to be.
William Holden was spot on throughout the film. It took Billy Wilder to see his potential to portray men who were cynics and heroes, as well as men who didn't want to even get involved (The Bridges At Toko-Ri and The Bridge On The River Kwai) and yet came through at the end. The Fifties was such a perfect time for Holden to be a star in films.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Jul 4, 2018 8:34:03 GMT
P.S. I had this gif saved up for a thread on Film General. Great moment ...  |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jul 4, 2018 11:12:23 GMT
telegonus nice thread and essay Reminds me of the debates about Stalag 17 on its IMDb page …. great reading. All sorts of tiny details were thrashed over .. like the possibility of surviving overnight in the cold water of the watertank and what the temperature if the water probably was that time of year. I wonder what ever became of hobnob. Miss him.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Jul 4, 2018 12:03:47 GMT
Maybe that was why Wilder had Holden pop back up before his escape and give the guys a 'Sunny Jim' smile and salute -- to show he wasn't such a bad fella after all (the only part of an excellent film that was off-putting).
At Wilder's urging, Holden went to see the original stage play on Broadway first -- and walked out before the start of the second act. Wilder had to convince him to take on the role, telling him he could very well take home the Oscar that he missed out getting for SUNSET BOULEVARD.
STALAG led to Wilder's breakup with Paramount Pictures. After making a bundle for them for ten years, the bean counters wanted to deduct the huge profits and the director's percentage deal from the loss they took over his previous film -- ACE IN THE HOLE. The minute he finished shooting SABRINA, Billy walked off the Paramount lot and never looked back.
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jul 4, 2018 18:10:57 GMT
telegonus nice thread and essay Reminds me of the debates about Stalag 17 on its IMDb page …. great reading. All sorts of tiny details were thrashed over .. like the possibility of surviving overnight in the cold water of the watertank and what the temperature if the water probably was that time of year. I wonder what ever became of hobnob. Miss him.
I don't recall that page well, Bat, but it must have been lively. Sunset Blvd had a great one, and even better, for Holden's films, Bridges At Toko-Ri There some of those old message boards preserved on other sites (Filmboards, Moviechat), however they're not complete. I remember the IMDB people (admins?) tinkering with and deleting much (of, sadly, the best) of Toko-Ri's boards, which really annoyed me, and I made an issue of it on the main boards but it was never addressed.
They got more censorious there over time, and by the last few years a lot of the spontaneity was gone, even from its history!  At least they retained most of their old reviews. There were some great threads on Tora! Tora! Tora!'s boards, too, also much of it gone by the time of the boards shutdown, and not preserved for posterity. Of the posters from the old site, Hobnob does seem to have, sadly, fallen off the face of the earth, unless he's over at TCM's site, which would seem a logical place for him to have gone.
Then there's the name change issue, as many old time IMDB people have changed their names or simply now use variations of their real names at other places. Some places I go to have made lists of ex-screen names of ex-IMDB users. It would be nice if someone would start a thread and do that here, assuming, that is, that lots of people from the other site have changed their screen names. Many good people have vanished. Hobnob is one of many. WeatherViolet seems to have fallen of the earth's face. Funkyfry, a great poster when at the top of the game, is another whose name I haven't seen in quite some time. Oh well. OT. I didn't mean to turn this into the "dearly departed" thread... 
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jul 5, 2018 18:26:50 GMT
Maybe that was why Wilder had Holden pop back up before his escape and give the guys a 'Sunny Jim' smile and salute -- to show he wasn't such a bad fella after all (the only part of an excellent film that was off-putting).
At Wilder's urging, Holden went to see the original stage play on Broadway first -- and walked out before the start of the second act. Wilder had to convince him to take on the role, telling him he could very well take home the Oscar that he missed out getting for SUNSET BOULEVARD.
STALAG led to Wilder's breakup with Paramount Pictures. After making a bundle for them for ten years, the bean counters wanted to deduct the huge profits and the director's percentage deal from the loss they took over his previous film -- ACE IN THE HOLE. The minute he finished shooting SABRINA, Billy walked off the Paramount lot and never looked back. Paramount was so dumb that way. They lost Alan Ladd, they lost Bill Wilder. In the early Fifties they had so much going for them: Wilder, Ladd, Holden, Martin & Lewis, Audrey Hepburn, Charlton Heston, the Hal Wallis unit, George Stevens and William Wyler, George Pal and then, Alfred Hitchcock. It wasn't so much a "star rich" studio as a "talent rich" one, and over the years nearly all that great talent vanished. I believe Jerry Lewis lasted the longest . |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jul 6, 2018 1:39:22 GMT
Interesting thread to read, thanks. It's my all-time favourite p.o.w. movie. One for the ages.
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jul 7, 2018 6:26:40 GMT
Interesting thread to read, thanks. It's my all-time favourite p.o.w. movie. One for the ages.
There are an awful lot of good POW movies, Petro. I agree that Stalag 17 is among the best, but there are some really outstanding lesser known ones. Many from from England, too: The Wooden Horse, The Colditz Story,The Coming Out Party (no, not what it sounds like  ) and, of course, The Great Escape.
Then there's odd little 1965 picture about what is a sort of army prison camp, with the Brits both the prisoners and the guards: The Hill. Directed by Yank Sidney Lumet, it's a superb study of integrity versus sadism, with odds weighed heavily against the former. Some super acting, with Harry Andrews really stealing the picture from star Sean Connery.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Jul 7, 2018 6:37:40 GMT
Sefton was an American. A hustler, not a traitor.
He saw an opportunity to get out and make some cash.
Just my opinion, of course. It IS a movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jul 7, 2018 10:42:57 GMT
Interesting thread to read, thanks. It's my all-time favourite p.o.w. movie. One for the ages.
There are an awful lot of good POW movies, Petro. I agree that Stalag 17 is among the best, but there are some really outstanding lesser known ones. Many from from England, too: The Wooden Horse, The Colditz Story,The Coming Out Party (no, not what it sounds like ) and, of course, The Great Escape.
Then there's odd little 1965 picture about what is a sort of army prison camp, with the Brits both the prisoners and the guards: The Hill. Directed by Yank Sidney Lumet, it's a superb study of integrity versus sadism, with odds weighed heavily against the former. Some super acting, with Harry Andrews really stealing the picture from star Sean Connery.
Of those, I like 'The Great Escape' and 'The Hill'. One I didn't think of is Michael Cimino's 'The Deer Hunter' (1978), that's another great movie. |
|
At least they retained most of their old reviews. There were some great threads on Tora! Tora! Tora!'s boards, too, also much of it gone by the time of the boards shutdown, and not preserved for posterity. Of the posters from the old site, Hobnob does seem to have, sadly, fallen off the face of the earth, unless he's over at TCM's site, which would seem a logical place for him to have gone. 
) and, of course, The Great Escape.