The Cross of Lorraine (1943) User Reviews

Light and shadow in every sense

[mik-19 · 7/10 · 27 June 2004]

Very effective American propaganda piece made in the beginning of the war and centered around a couple of handfuls of French soldiers capitulating at Marshall Pétain's order and being made prisoners of war in the German part of Alsace.

Director Tay Garnett was an acknowledged master of light and shadow, and not just in the cinematographic sense. Lots of issues are at stake here, and although all the characters are somewhat larger than life, the hesitant lawyer, wonderfully, luminously played by Jean-Pierre Aumont, and the cabdriver, acted by a young, doe-eyed Gene Kelly, both help to give human texture to the admittedly rather formulaic plotline, and neither is a hero in the textbook Hollywood sense. The most interesting conflict in the film would be how to deal with the Hume Cronyn character, a French soldier who sympathizes with the Nazis and serves as a translater / snitch in the POW camp. Should he be killed without a trial, or would that, even in wartime, be a violation of basic French principles of jurisprudence and democracy?

'The Cross of Lorraine' is a very, very good film and a far cry from American WW2 movies we see today, they are all much more banal and onesided.

The film was obviously inspired by Jean Renoir's ultimate antiwar movie, 'The Grand Illusion', and in its turn inspired Stuart Rosenberg's tough prison movie 'Cool Hand Luke'.

Tight and effective.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 2 March 2010]

The Cross of Lorraine is directed by Tay Garnett {The Postman Always Rings Twice/A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court} & it stars Jean-Pierre Aumont and Gene Kelly and was adapted from Hans Habe's novel A Thousand Shall Fall. The story is about French prisoners of war held by the Germans in World War II.

Yep, sure enough it's a propaganda piece, yep, sure enough it's low on budget, and, yep, the outcome will hold no surprises for anyone aware of propaganda based cinema. But don't let that in any way detract from what a tightly scripted and acted picture this is. Coming as it did in 1943 one could be forgiven for expecting a watered down tale of prisoners under duress; rising up and flipping the bird to those dam dirty Nazis. Yet, and with much thanks, we get a gritty and often brutal movie that's not afraid to call it as it sees it. The war, in case anyone was asleep during history class, was very much a case of the good against the bad and the makers here only reiterate that basic fact. With a couple of scenes memorable and worth the patience that is required to roll along with the predominantly dialogue driven tale.

Backing up Kelly & Aumont are Peter Lorre, Cedric Hardwicke, Hume Cronyn & Wallace Ford. Which alone speaks volumes as to why this is a nifty little treasure yearning to be dug out by other film fans. But this also has a good print which is devoid of fractures and makes for an easy on the eye experience. A film like this now would most likely be laughed out of the studio executive offices, but this is 1943, a troubled time, and this is a fine movie that certainly has enough intelligence and spunk to stop it getting weighed down by flag waving histrionics. 7/10

For what it was, it was exceptionally well-made

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 29 June 2007]

I read some reviews on IMDb that I felt were a bit too harsh for this film, calling it "propaganda" or complaining about how the Germans were all portrayed as evil. And my answer to that is of course it's propaganda and one-sided--plus, they were Nazis (and that IS bad if you paid any attention in your history classes). You need to understand the context---it was made during the war and was intended not as a perfect representation of the Nazis and the Free French movement but as way to bolster support for the war effort at home. In that respect, the film was a tremendous success and stands as one of the better wartime propaganda films made by the Americans. I respect the film for its ability to touch the viewer--ever today when it's easy to laugh at the jingoistic style of the film since the Nazis seem like a distant memory.

The film begins with the war in France in 1940. When a group of soldiers surrendered after the traitorous French government made peace with the Nazis, instead of being returned home they were sent to a German prison camp and starved and beaten in attempt to break their spirits. The Nazis were all the usual stereotypical bad guys you'd expect, though it was interesting to see the German actor Peter Lorre actually playing a Nazi. Despite his background, during the war he often played French or other non-German characters--this is a rare chance to see him play a German in an American film.

To me, the most interesting characters weren't the Germans or even most of the French prisoners, but the collaborators who actually worked for the Nazis and thrived. Hume Cronyn played a juicy role as a Frenchman only too happy to side with his captors and betray his people. His character was very chilling, but true to this style of film, he got his ultimate reward for his treachery (sort of like way Peter Graves in STALAG 17). Jean-Pierre Aumont, another collaborator, is another story. While he reluctantly worked with the Germans to save his skin, he could not live with himself unless he continued to resist and fight them covertly--setting up an exciting escape towards the end of the film.

The film ends on a very bloody and exciting note. In fact, now that I think about it, for a Hollywood film of the 1940s, it was an exceptionally bloody and violent film--though considering the subject matter, this WAS necessary. One particularly brutal scene that actually shocked me and my wife was when Aumont stabbed a German in the throat and it was done realistically and in a close-up shot! The bottom line is that most people viewing this film probably left the theater angry and wanting to kick Nazi butt--a good sign that the film achieved its goal. In fact, the film was so patriotic and uplifting that Aumont himself left the safety of the US after finishing this film and he joined the Free French himself and earning a lot of respect for his heroism.

Oh, YES!

[Anne_Sharp · 7/10 · 15 September 2000]

If you thought World War II Hollywood war movies were all sweetness and Casablanca fans, just wait till you see this gut-wrenching little propaganda piece, which must have come out the week the censors were all in Palm Springs. Perhaps the most realistic Hollywood portrayal of life as a prisoner of the Nazis until "Schindler's List," it's also quite intelligent and extraordinarily well-played by an excellent cast. You don't know the meaning of shock until you've seen Gene Kelly spit a huge gob of real sputum onto Peter Lorre's face--and then wait till you see what comes next. It's not Captain Renault and the roulette table, dearie.

Gritty WW2 POW drama years before "Stalag 17"...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 27 March 2007]

Basically the story of the French resistance during the early '40s when the Nazis overtook France, THE CROSS OF LORRAINE is a forerunner of films like STALAG 17, but without the humor. Instead, it's a straightforward dramatic tale of the harsh treatment meted out to the French POWs in a German prison camp.

There are no real surprises in the plot--you know from the beginning that there will be an escape plan being hatched by JEAN PIERRE AUMONT, who takes over when the former translator/informer HUME CRONYN meets his fate at the hands of prisoners. Aumont and GENE KELLY have the leading male roles and both give earnest performances in this gritty drama directed by Tay Garnett.

Although it appears to be a low-budget film, there's a splendid supporting cast including SIR CEDRIC HARDWICKE, RICHARD WHORF, PETER LORRE (as a despicable German sergeant), WALLACE FORD and Joseph CALLEIA.

Film is engrossing all the way through but suffers from an ending that pushes the propaganda envelope too far as the French resistance overcomes the Nazi recruiters while Aumont and Kelly take aim with machine guns to help destroy a bunch of bad Nazis.

Summing up: A flag waving tribute to the French resistance, it's well done for most of the way but that ending is too over-the-top to be taken seriously.

A Must-See Movie Despite My 7/10 Rating!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 21 January 2017]

Despite its title, this film is not exactly a homage to the French resistance. It is mostly concerned with a military prison in Germany in which members of the French army were interned during World War 2. Good performances (Peter Lorre is delightfully sinister) keep us glued to the screen. Gene Kelly also turns in a fine portrayal, even though he doesn't sing so much as a note or dance even a step! Also on hand is Jean Pierre Aumont. (Until I looked him up on IMDb, I didn't realize what a truly amazing career Aumont enjoyed in both France and the USA, and in both territories, both on stage and in movies. This remarkable doubling up seems also to be reflected in his married life. According to IMDb, Aumont married Marisa Pavan in 1956, but the marriage ended in divorce in 1963. Yet according to IMDb – which admittedly makes no big thing of this episode – Aumont re-married Marisa Pavan in 1969 and this re-marriage lasted until Aumont died at the age of ninety (or maybe ninety-three) on 30 January, 2001). Anyway, getting back to "The Cross of Lorraine", Tay Garnett's very capable direction highlights and really brings home the violence and sadism of the times. It's certainly a most unusual film for M.G.M. It's most definitely not escapist entertainment. Anything but! And the movie is also expensively mounted, although art director Daniel B. Cathcart does make use of some very poor and very obvious backdrops at times.

scorched earth

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 29 March 2014]

Jean-Pierre Aumont, Gene Kelly, Peter Lorre, Hume Cronyn, and Cedric Hardwicke star in "The Cross of Lorraine," a 1943 propaganda film.

I mean a propaganda film in the best way. Propaganda films made by the U.S. during World War II were often intended to inspire and show the people back home that their sacrifices meant something.

The Cross of Lorraine, referencing Joan of Arc's standard, adopted by Charles de Gaulle during World War II to mean the Free France, tells the story of French soldiers who surrender to Nazis and are lied to, and taken to a prisoner of war camp. There they endure terrible conditions and for some, death.

Hume Cronyn portrays a sniveling collaborator whom the Germans use as an interpreter. Cedric Hardwicke is a priest, whom he portrays with great dignity and quiet courage. Gene Kelly plays a defiant soldier put into solitary confinement. Jean-Pierre Aumont decides to cooperate with the Nazis on the surface only; he has another agenda. Aumont was older than God when he was still working in the '90s, and to see him as a young, gorgeous man, robust with incredible hair, is really something! The bravery of the French people is exhibited at the end of the film, when they make a decision to take action before the Nazis arrive at their town.

A really stirring film.

The Cross of Lorraine is A Cross to Reveal ***1/2

[edwagreen · 9/10 · 27 March 2014]

A story of courage and defiance of the French people following their surrender to the Germans in 1940.

French soldiers who surrendered are duped by the Germans and are instead taken to a prison of war camp where they are subjected to the most terrible conditions.

Gene Kelly, in a non-singing role, is one such soldier. Punished for hitting German soldiers he is locked in solitary confinement.

In his brief appearance as a priest, Cedric Hardwicke shines as a brave, defiant messenger of the Lord. He pays the ultimate price for attempting to conduct a religious service for someone shot trying to escape.

There is also treachery and collaboration on the part of Hume Cronyn, a prisoner who because he could speak German was made an interpreter by the latter and apparently this went to his head. He also pays the ultimate price as in the ironic case of Peter Lorre, a German soldier caught up in an escape attempt and mistakenly killed by his fellow Nazis.

The ending shows the determination and courage of a local village. This film is a tribute to such people.

Viva la France. Very good war drama.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 18 February 2002]

Directed by Tay Garnett, who was a Naval pilot in WWI, this war drama has substance. French soldiers, believing that WWII is over, unwittingly surrender to German forces and are placed in a POW camp. A terrific and realistic look at being held prisoner under the thumb of the Nazis. A very good collection of talent featuring: Jean-Pierre Aumont, Gene Kelly, Hume Cronyn, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Peter Lorre, Wallace Ford and Richard Whorf.

More propaganda than history

[edalweber · 3/10 · 28 April 2010]

The problem with this movie is that it, and others,tends to give an unreal picture of what the reaction of the population to enemy occupation was.Perhaps it exaggerated slightly in that it showed every last German to be a sadistic monster,which of course was not the case.Even in Japan, whose government and army actually encouraged brutality and sadism towards non-Japanese, there were decent, humane people.But there is no question that the occupation of unfortunate countries by both Germany and Japan was both harsh and cruel beyond belief.

But as I said, the real problem was that it showed everyone rising up and striking back with violence.Satisfying, but unfortunately not practical under the circumstances."Burn down the town and retreat to the hills"?The Russians , with their huge country and vast areas of wilderness, could do that, but not people in the small, heavily populated countries of Europe.There was literally no place to run.This kind of thing didn't happen(until the Germans were retreating) not because the people were cowards, but because it would have been pointless and suicidal.It is insane to deliberately take action that will at best annoy the enemy but bring terrible disaster on yourselves and your family and countrymen.Costs always have to be balanced against possible results. The reality is that mostly people gritted their teeth,and resigned themselves to waiting as patiently as they could for the Germans to be defeated by superior force,avoiding provoking their occupiers any more than could be avoided,trying to keep their spirits up.Not spectacular movie heroism, but heroism nonetheless.

Gene Trades In His Dancing Shoes for Combat Boots........

[lrrap · 9/10 · 19 June 2018]

....and really shines in this shockingly violent film, which makes up in nail-biting tension what it lacks in subtlety. The scenes between Gene and Peter Lorre in the prison cell are as brutal as anything from the era, and the big escape scene with Jean Pierre Aumont driving the get-away ambulance will put you on the edge of your seat and keep you there. Kelly's acting chops are really showcased here, as his cocky, defiant spirit is shattered by his prison experience, transforming him into a broken emotional invalid.

But that's BEFORE the final moments of the film. When the wily, dashing JeanPierre unexpectedly turns the tables on the Nazis, we see a brief close-up of Kelly's tormented face, the explosive will-to-fight rekindled within him---a split-second image that continues to dominate my memory of this film 40 years after having first seen it on local TV.

A solid, extremely intense, and entertaining morale booster produced during the war's darkest days. The ending is so over-the-top it's almost operatic----but you'll stand up and cheer!

LR

PS-- Just watched the film again today (Jan 27, 2014); it's so darn good that I'm upping my rating from 8 stars to 9 Why? Because it is so expertly structured, paced, and directed. Each scene gives you JUST ENOUGH vital information to identify with the characters and the manner in which they evolve--especially Jean-Pierre Aumont and the way in which he takes over Duval's role as liaison with the Nazis and, in spite of the deterioration of his relationship with his comrades, gradually begins to hatch his daring plan to secure their release and that of his pal Gene Kelly.

Also, the interplay between Jean-Pierre and Peter Lorre, who changes in an instant from sadistic bully to flustered, subservient lackey when his commanding officer chews him out for his incompetence, is deftly scripted and carefully guided by director Tay Garnett's hand.

Other examples are the separate scenes between Jean-Pierre and Gene in the office of the camp commandant--- once again, superbly scripted and executed onscreen.

These are but a few examples of the superior craft that went into the making of this totally overlooked gem.

Jean-Pierre Aumont as the only Frenchman in a French war prisoner film

[clanciai · 7/10 · 28 June 2018]

The film is hopelessly marred and scarred by its propaganda nature, which brands it with a character that debases it for history when the war once is over, which is a pity, for it's a great story with great actors, who all do their best, and there are some instances which are more realism than propaganda, especially towards the end, as the intrigue thickens, when prisoners start to escape.

It's Jean-Pierre Aumont's film, he is the most interesting character, as you never really know where you have him, as he constantly has to change footing according to what is happening around him, while finally his character emerges in full glory. Gene Kelly is also quite good as an impossible slugger who is completely quashed by Peter Lorre and his Germans, but his annihilation is not quite complete. You can't keep down Gene Kelly for long.

It's the boy in the end who introduces the cross of Lorraine and lifts the whole performance to a higher level. This is very far from one of the best war films, but it certainly has some good scenes worth seeing.

Mostly impressive - but also flawed

[alanrhobson · 24 November 2012]

The Cross of Lorraine has many virtues - but also some serious flaws.

It is gripping and involving, and has excellent performances and characterisations. Gene Kelly's excellent performance gives the lie to the claims by most of the leading film critics (eg. Leslie Halliwell, David Quinlan) that he couldn't really act (Halliwell said that his acting ability was 'minimal', whilst Quinlan said that he 'never convinced' as an actor). Had they forgotten his terrific performance here? As another reviewer has also said, the half-forgotten German character actor Tonio Selwart is also very good as the German commandant, as is Jean-Pierre Aumont as the hero.

The film is also very well directed, for the most part, and has many good scenes.

However, there are some disturbing aspects, partly due to the presence as co-scriptwriter of Ring Lardner Jr. Lardner was a member of the American Communist Party, despite the fact that Communism had been responsible for millions of deaths in Russia in the 1920s and 1930s. His sympathies can be seen in the film in a number of ways. The traitor, Duval, played by Hume Cronyn, is shown as a capitalist wine merchant who puts business above loyalty. The traitor could have been given any occupation at all by the scriptwriters (French collaborators were from all sorts of occupations in real life) but Lardner had to make a heavy-handed swipe at capitalism.

Similarly, the Spanish republican, Rodriguez (Joseph Calleia), is shown as as a heroic figure even though this charming character's aim in life is to kill as many fascists as possible. His positive portrayal is despite the fact that Spanish republicans were responsible for the murder of thousands of priests, nuns, middle class figures and other 'enemies of the state' in republican-controlled areas of Spain in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39).

There is also another uncomfortable aspect to the film, due presumably to a combination of script and direction. The film positively revels in the slaughter of German soldiers in the climatic battle - even though in actual fact those particular Germans hadn't killed anyone in the village at the point when the insurrection starts. The film gleefully shows German soldiers being burnt alive, bludgeoned to death, and so on, seeming to take pride in allocating them grisly deaths.

So, although this is a high quality film in most respects, it is also deeply flawed.

yet another poor propaganda piece..

[Prosinecki · 1/10 · 17 July 2002]

The Cross of Lorraine is yet another poor propaganda piece, goose stepping stereotype nazis, ordinary peasants turned to overly patriotic resistance fighters, it's all there..

Straight from the beginning you can guess how it all ends, I've read better comic books about the WW2 and the resistance than this ridiculous propaganda stunt.

Entertaining Propaganda... may contain spoilers.

[sadako1998 · 7/10 · 26 July 2010]

The POW movie is a genre that was at the height of it's popularity in the 1950/60's sometimes giving an amusing almost nostalgic gloss of the treatment of prisoners during WW2, therefore this movie (made in 1943) is an entertaining if somewhat historically dubious entry into the category.

The movie opens just before France falls to the Germans in 1940, with a group of French soldiers rounded up and placed in a camp ran by the most sadastic Nazi's Hollywood conjure up, amongst them one of the 1940's favourite villain's Peter Lorre. The movie is gritty, the Nazi's gleefully watching the men tear each other apart over bread, shooting a Priest for praying or brutally kicking chained up men in the face. Seeing Gene Kelly's battered face, (effective and shocking make-up)what patriotic, moral human wouldn't want to spit a huge, gob of saliva in a Nazi's face or cheer when the hero stabs a Nazi in the throat. In fact some of the scenes were so shocking when the film was first shown, audiences walked out as the gore was just too much. Yet the movie was never charged with exaggeration as it was based on "A Thousand Shall Fall" by Hans Habe, himself a refugee from the Nazis.

In reality, POW conditions of Western prisoners while not a holiday were tolerable, one character even shouts "this is not a concentration camp I have rights" but it is not in the interest of the producers to dwell on this or the Geneva Convention. The movie stirs patriotism from the minute La Marseillaise booms over the credits. Gene Kelly is effective, as a hot headed Frenchmen that refuses to bend to the rules. Hume Cronyn is suitably sleazy as a treacherous POW only wanting to serve his own interests while lead Aumont only serves as the moral voice of the story, his transgression from idealistic law student to a daring member of the Resistance not that realistic. Underused as always is Peter Lorre, who in the first few scenes is typically evil but latterly has a couple of the very few lighter moments as he smuggles contraband across the French border, making his character a little less two dimensional and it's a pity he wasn't used in more scenes.

Not a bad movie but its propaganda elements are too obvious and quite ridicules.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 30 April 2006]

This movie does provide a good and realistic view of French POW's in a German camp. The story and its characters are gritty and those are the main reasons why this movie is quite a good one.

It however is too bad that it's too obvious that this movie was a piece of allied WW II propaganda. This movie was made in the middle of WW II and it's quite ridicules to see how incredibly black and white the story and its characters are at times. The Nazi's are made to look incredibly ruthless and without an heart and conscience while all the French prisoners want to do is practice their religion, be kind to each other and make the best out of it. The story and its characters are so incredibly black and white at times that the movie becomes quite ridicules and not a credible one to watch at times.

The movie also obviously tries to send out a message. To POW to keep fighting and resisting against the Nazi's, to French citizens to revolt against the oppressors (according to the movie, they should even burn their houses down, just like the Russians used to do, so the Germans will find nothing but ashes along their way) and to help the resistance in any way they can.

The whole message and propaganda elements in the movie are all way too obvious. It makes this movie really a ridicules one to watch at times.

There are some good actors in the movie but due to the simple way of directing and storytelling, none of them really shines. The talents of Gene Kelly (in one of his first movie roles) and Peter Lorre are wasted in this movie.

Still I can't rate this movie any lower than a 6 out of 10, since the story and atmosphere are quite good and also have some nice elements in it. I guess it's a pretty good though rushed, early, low budget WW II movie that intends well but is too obvious with its propaganda. Not much interesting is really happening in the movie and the action toward the ending comes too late to makes this movie a better paced- and in general a better and more interesting movie to watch

A watchable movie that however by no means is a must-see or a really recommendable one.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

good propaganda

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 15 March 2022]

Various Frenchmen head off to fight the Germans but the war is soon over for France. The soldiers have differing opinions on what's next for the country. Instead of returning home, they find themselves POWs in Germany.

The cast is international with some big names like Gene Kelly, Peter Lorre, and Hume Cronyn. I do wonder if surrendering French soldiers would end up in a POW camp. Maybe if they continue to fight after the amnesty. Anyways, it's good propaganda and that's what the country needed during this time.

Solid WW2 French Resistance Film; Despite Hollywood Ending - The Cross of Lorraine

[arthur_tafero · 7/10 · 25 July 2021]

Yes, the film has just about every stereotype you have ever seen in WW 2 films, and also has almost every hackneyed phrase you ever heard in most WW 2 films, but despite these drawbacks, the film is engrossing. Gene Kelly doesnt sing or dance in this film; he acts. Similar to the role that Frank Sinatra had in From Here to Eternity several years later, this film established Kelly as a fine dramatic actor; allowing him to do more than musicals. The man people love to hate, Peter Lorre, is wonderful in this film as a slimy nazi. A fine ensemble cast, including the model for Colonel Klink on a later TV show is also very good. Hume Cronyn is especially good in his role as a nazi collaborator. He was great at weasel roles, such as the warden in Brute Force years later. Yes, the film is over the top and the French resistance is greatly exaggerated, (in reality, the Vichy collaborators controlled 90% of all the French towns) but it is still a solid WW2 French Resisitance film. Don't miss it.

Fine Performance by Gene Kelly contains spoilers

[dgniewek · 9/10 · 17 October 2009]

Tonight I watched Cross of Lorraine and I thought the film was a well done and a fine example of a "message movie" during wartime. The plot was predictable, but engaging. The characterizations were well drawn and believable. I thought it was fascinating to have such flawed characters among the "good guys" in a war-time message movie. The cast was excellent. Jean-Pierre Aumont and Hume Cronyn gave captivating performances. Gene Kelly played Victor, the brash hothead always looking for a fight who is tortured into submission. He reminded me of a young John Garfield in this role. It was a a truly heart-wrenching performance. Gene Kelly really has been so very underrated as a dramatic actor.

The soul of free France upon the spirit of Charles Degaulle

[moatazmohsen78 · 7/10 · 8 January 2009]

This movie is an oracle of french Independence before it one year by the symbol of liberty (Charles Degaulle) in 1944 with American aim in the beginning of (Normandy operation) but he decided to make the liberty of Paris by french resistance without any aim from foreign countries to put the french trademark in the eternal pages of history by his speeches that he announced his invitation for french people (men , women , students) to take their arms for liberty and free France under his administration of pending government of (Free France) and the symbol of (Cross Lorraine) the saint cross of (Joan of Arc) the holy spirit of victory in 15th century against English occupation at France but he quoted this symbol by the spirit of 20th century and he did it for France and his famous shout after victory and during the vectorial ceremony (Vive La France).

Stalag of indecision

[dbdumonteil · 17 February 2010]

You hear "la Marseillaise " during the cast and credits ;you hear "La Marseillaise" during the whole movie;then again as the finale;Rouget De Lisle should thus be credited for the soundtrack but as he wrote it in 1792,he will not get any royalties.

"The Cross of Lorraine" suffers from a very low budget (the "village" where the French rebel) and a rather weak screenplay.One of these countless propaganda movies,it features French romantic young lead Jean -Pierre Aumont who really joined the "Forces Françaises Libres" .Other luminaries include the always reliable Hume Cronyn as the fellow-who-betrays-his-pals (compare with Sefton in Billy Wilder's "stalag 17");Peter Lorre ideally cast as the sadistic but dumb warden;sir Cedric Hardwicke as the noble priest who comfort his hungry brothers;Gene Kelly a soldier who has feelings of self-doubt.This first-class cast partly saves the movie .

But there are colossal mistakes: all the prisoners are supposed to be French and they never speak a word in their first language (at least Aumont -obvious- and Hardwicke were fluent in French).Besides,the Germans often speak English between them ,so why an interpret?and the young resistant fighter they meet as soon as they are out of the camp? In spite of the excellent cast ,all sounds bad.

Propaganda has not worn well

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 15 April 2017]

I'm agreeing with the viewer who said that The Cross Of Lorraine was well made propaganda for its day. This film was a product of one of the big colossal studios in Hollywoood, MGM. But it wasn't accurate even at the time and people knew it even back then during World War II.

A cross section of Frenchmen join to fight the Germans for the second time in the 20th century. But instead of protracted trench warfare like in 1914, the Germans overrun France as they did with the rest of Europe with their infamous tank Blitzkreig. This same group of Frenchmen are now prisoners taken to Germany.

All different types become prisoners of the Nazis, the cautious and practical Jean-Pierre Aumont the only authentic Frenchman in the crowd, belligerent Gene Kelly between musicals, willing collaborationist Hume Cronyn and a priest Cedric Hardwicke forbidden to practice his religion. Among those guarding them is Peter Lorre, a German sergeant with a nice sadistic bent.

The ending was ludicrous then. Unlike what you see most of the French neither collaborated or actively resisted, they just sat and waited and prayed for liberation. Very much unlike China or Russia in that conflict, no scorched earth for France in any way.

You watch The Cross Of Lorraine it may be your cross to bear.

the crock of lorraine

[mossgrymk · 5/10 · 15 October 2023]

That Tay Garnett regarded this crude piece of Gallic agitprop as among his best films calls into question not only the guy's aesthetic judgment but his sanity, as well. A full blown bodying forth of the myth of mass French resistance to the Nazi invaders, with the word "Vichy" neatly excised, you can basically file this one under "Isn't It Pretty To Think So?" While watching it the viewers should ask themselves the question, If Everyone In France except Hume Friggin Cronyn fought the Jerries then how come France collapsed like a cheap souffle about a month after Germany invaded? And when they're through answering that question try this one: Weren't there any French actors other than Jean Pierre Aumont hanging around the MGM lot in 1944? Give it a C.

PS...Far and away Gene Kelly's worst acting job.