User Reviews

Whoever was responsible for writing the first half of the movie botched it. The script fails to set up the story, leaving the movie without the necessary tension. The second half, on the other hand, is very good, and follows the the details of the book closely.

The first half of the movie is devoid of the suspense found in the book. The viewer is left with a bored, who cares attitude to the events we see of the French Resistance. The book is different.

I lent the book to a friend, who read it in less than two days. I, on the other hand, savored it, reading a portion at a time of the wonderfully detailed accounts of hundreds of French, Germans and Americans reported by the two authors, Larry Collins and Dominique LaPierre. I am a journalist, and this is the most magnificent job of reporting I have ever read. I asked my friend why she was in such a hurry, and she said she wanted to see how it ended! You see, the key to the book is found in the title, "Is Paris Burning?" This question recurs throughout the book. Will General von Choltitz have to destroy all of Paris, part of Paris, or will it be spared? How will he handle this order?

Von Choltitz' position on this is not made clear until more than halfway into the movie, and even then the issue, as described in the book, is never stated explicitly. When you know the whole story, von Choltitz' pivotal, heroic role is clear. But the movie drops the ball on this. Perhaps the French director was not willing to go that far. Back in the early 1960s, many Europeans who lived through the war were not willing to forgive the Germans, any German. My father was French. Nearly all of his family were killed by the Germans. So I know. But the price paid by the director is a botched movie.

General Dietrich von Choltitz is the true hero; it is he who saved Paris from destruction. He died shortly after the movie was released. I suspect he was at least a little disappointed by the movie, but from what I have read, he lived quietly, and I doubt he did what he did to be thanked; I think he did it because it was right. That's the picture I got from the book.

The book, and I am going from memory here, begins with von Choltitz being called to see Hitler, as does the movie. The book makes it clear that von Choltitz realizes that Hitler is now insane and the war is lost; the movie does not have von Choltitz state this until halfway through. Next, on a train he encounters a Gestapo officer by chance who has written new guidelines to make sure all officers in the field follow orders, despite the impending collapse of the war: If they fail to obey orders, their families will be slaughtered and their homes and possessions destroyed. So he now knows the price if he fails to destroy Paris on Hitler's orders. That is how the book opens. The movie NEVER states that von Choltitz's family could be killed. But at the end, right before his surrender, von Choltitz asks General Speidel to see that his family does not suffer.

Von Choltitz had destroyed other cities in Eastern Europe, a fact not stated by the movie. That is why Hitler chose him. But he realizes from the beginning that there was no military point to destroying Paris as a simple act of vengeance, and he never had any intention of carrying it out. Therefore, he had to perform a delicate dance with the Resistance to satisfy German command and to avoid things getting out of control so that the Germans forced the total destruction of the city. That is the tension that drove the book; it is almost completely missing from the first half of the movie. How will von Choltitz balance the two forces?

While von Choltitz acted the tough German general in the beginning, he soon had several sympathetic conversations with the Resistance, pleading with them not to force his hand. The most astonishing detail of the book is that it is von Choltitz who called in the Resistance and told them to cross the German lines and go to the Allies and ask them to invade Paris, and hurry! If they did not, he would be forced to set off the explosives set throughout Paris. This is almost entirely missing from the movie, though there is the scene with Consul Nordling that suggests this.

There are a number of historical inaccuracies, mainly in the first half of the movie, as I recall from the book. One odd error is that the movie has von Choltitz being asked by a German general why he did not call in the Luftwaffe to bomb Paris. Actually, he did do one bombing run to placate the Germans and buy time: of a Parisian slum. Not of the Parisian monuments Hitler wanted destroyed.

The second half of the movie is excellent; virtually all of the detailed dialogue is true, even of those who die seconds later, reconstructed by hundreds of interviews. The scene where the soldiers invite themselves into the old lady's apartment, who sits happily by, as if it were a tea party, as they kill Germans, is true. It was one of the highlights of the book, in my opinion.

One memorable detail missing from the movie is that as von Choltitz is taken through the streets as a prisoner of war, a woman spits on him, reminiscent of "A Tale of Two Cities." It was one of the great ironies of the book, for it was von Choltitz who had saved her city. But the Parisians did not know this.

Big-budgeted multi-story retelling of the liberation of Paris in 1944.

Some spoilers ahead

Movie starts off with firmly stating who the bad guys are (as if we didn't know) showing the German occupation forces at their most brutal : sending of wagon loads of prisoners to the concentration camps and the cold-blooded killing of dozens of young resistance fighters.

Movie structure consists of two main segments, first the Parisian uprising then followed by the actual liberation by Free French and US troops. Due to the many characters and storyplots it all comes over rather incoherent and sometimes muddled as often quite important characters appear and disappear without no particular reason.

Every major French star of the sixties is in this. Delon( as the later famous politician Chaban-Delmas), Belmondo (who still can't keep a straight face) but also Michel Piccoli, Claude Rich, JP Cassel, Yves Montand (as a tank driver) and so on. Some US actors get also thrown in but, besides Orson Welles, they have really no more then an extended cameo appearance. The one pivotal character, who also holds together the 2 main segments of the movie is General Von Choltitz, the German governor of Paris,excellently portrayed by Gerd Froebe. Von choltitz is right in their-from the start and keeps being on the screen continuously until the very last minutes, his surrender of course.

By the way, the screenplay (based on the bestseller of Collins/Lapierre)was written by none other then Francis Ford Coppola and Gore Vidal.

But this is of course mainly a French show, besides the actors it has a French producer and a French director and last but not least Paris itself, so there is quite a lot of French flagwaving going on, giving the impression that 95 % of the Parisians were in the "Resistance'. In reality it was more of the opposite, at least until the liberation. Keep also in mind that a few months prior to these events large numbers of Parisians were cheering Marechal Pétain, the leader of the Vichy collaboration government.

But despite all its many plot lines and overall length it is competently directed and features quite some well-staged and realistic battle scenes, from numerous firefights in the Parisian streets, blowing up German vehicles, tanks crashing into each other and culminating in the storming of the German 'Kommandantur'.

All in all, this is like "The Longest day" 'à la française', featuring many stars and stories, filmed in black-and-white, in 70 mm (it really needs to be seen on the big screen) and essentially a propaganda piece on one of the few exploits of the French during WWII.

(I saw the letterboxed version on French TV with everybody speaking French. The best version is of course with everybody speaking their own language.

I have read all the user comments about "Is Paris Burning?" and I think that I understand the movie better now, but I still argue that it was an inferior opus. No, I have not read the book, but I will put it on my list of books to read. Nevertheless, good history doesn't always guarantee classic movies, and "Is Paris Burning" remains hopelessly questionable in my opinion. Before I generate a laundry list of flaws, let me tote up the assets. First, Maurice Jarre's orchestral soundtrack qualifies as nothing short of brilliant because he captures the atmosphere and the drama in the events. Second, Marcel ("Taxi to Tobruk") Grignon's black & white widescreen cinematography rivals Jarre's score in the epic scope that it confers on the film. The producers clearly filmed this movie on location in the City of the Lights and the filmmakers may be applauded for giving the film a documentary flavor. The performances raised no concerns for me, except for Kirk Douglas, looking like he was on vacation when the casting director caught him and convinced him to portray General Patton, did raise an eyebrow. "Is Paris Burning" is a professionally mounted motion picture and there is no evidence of a shoe-string budget. Ultimately, however, what undoes "IS Paris Burning" is the overlong Gore Vidal & Francis Ford Coppola screenplay, along with the other acknowledged contributions from other scenarists, because there are no truly sympathetic character--just too many to keep track of, the storyline is episodic to the point of incoherence, and the entire movie wears out its welcome by the time that it pauses nearly two hours later for an intermission. There is no quotable dialogue and I felt like a lot of information that I learned on IMDb.COM should have been in the film itself. At the intermission, I wish that Paris had burned in the movie, BUT NOT IN REAL LIFE. As a World War II military history scholar, I can now appreciate the historical contribution that "Is Paris Burning" makes in its cinematic context, but as a film consumer, this bland, obtuse yarn just makes me yawn.

I'd like to recommend this movie because it deals with a subject of such historic significance, but I found it confusing. It meanders all over the place, like the Seine. The Germans have been ordered to destroy the city, including its historical monuments, by an insane Adolf Hitler, if it is ever in danger of falling into Allied hands. That's clear enough, but then the waters turn turbid. The General in charge, Gert Frobe, is reluctant to follow the order for humanitarian reasons but will evidently do what he's told. He's held up by the French resistance, who gather their small arms and fire on German patrols. (They were a lot more organized than I'd realized.) A messenger is sent to the Americans to ask them to divert from their plans to destroy the German army and aid in the liberation of Paris. The request reaches General Bradley who agrees. The Free French Army enters Paris, followed by the Amis, and shortly the Germans are subdued and the city saved.

For me, the most stirring moment is when two men activate the bells of Notre Dame. What a job. The huge old chimes weight tons and are covered with cobwebs and it takes a heap of huffing and puffing to get the clappers going but this is the liberation of Paris.

It's one of those "spot-the-stars" movies, with more famous faces than you can count, and every other time one of them first appears on screen, the director, Rene Clement, moves the camera in for a close up in case you might miss the dimple in the middle of Kirk Douglas's chin. Well, maybe it's understandable since you've only got about 30 seconds to spot it. A central character would probably have helped to integrate these loosely linked tesserae.

The sound is so terrible it distracts a viewer from the already fragmented story. The voices are all dubbed, of course, and only occasionally by their real-life owners, like Orson Welles and Tony Perkins (in a stereotypical and dispensable role). The gun shots sound as if they were lifted from an inexpensive Italian war movie. Loud incidental noises have been added to the sound track -- the crunching of boots on gravel, the clicks of a bolt action rifle. Maurice Jarre's score isn't bad, however closely it resembles some of his other works during this period.

The visuals are okay. Some black-and-white news footage from the street fighting is integrated into the drama. But it's not a gripping film and not very innovative. If a man is shot, he twirls around and dies in conventional Hollywood fashion. Nice shots of some Parisian tourist spots though. We get a good look at Napolean's tomb.

I'm glad that Paris wasn't destroyed. The greatest sandwich I ever had was at a nondescript café in the Gare du Nord. And it's good to see the Free French Army in combat in a movie like this. They may have been organized in exile but they did a splendid job alongside the rest of the Allies in Italy, particularly at Monte Cassino.

Made 20 years after the end of the second world war possibly in an attempt to expiate their sense of guilt "Paris - Brule -t'il?" presents a Franco - centric view of La Liberation that might lead the unwary viewer to think that although it was nice of the Yanks to turn up,the French could have done it all themselves,merci beaucoup.Er,would that be those same heroes who surrendered ignominiously four years earlier leaving the Brits to fight the war on their own until Pearl Harbour?The same heroes who set up a pro - Nazi government in their own capital city?"Yes" is the word you're looking for. Having got that straight let's get on to the much - vaunted "Resistance". In the immediate post - war years half the population claimed to have been involved in a united effort to send the Hun packing,but of course had that actually been so,the country would have very quickly become ungovernable and the Germans would have either had to move out or bring in huge amounts of men and machines from other theatres of operation to impose their rule.As this didn't happen one can only assume that membership of the Resistance after the war increased in inverse proportion to German membership of the Nazi party. Victory does indeed have many fathers. In reality the Resistance was composed - certainly in its early manifestation - of different political groups each with its own agenda. It was also riddled with informers,collaborators and downright crooks. Only when the S.O.E. became actively involved did it become an effective force.Valiant though some of its members were,it was too fragmented to be anything more than a slight nuisance to the Germans. After the Normandy landings when it became clear that the initiative had swung towards the Allies,more and more French ceased to cooperate with the Boches,seeing which way the wind was blowing. The movie "Charlotte Gray" despite its faults will give you a truer picture of the efficiency of the partisans and the ambivalence of the French towards Les Anglais. The hero of this movie is General Frohlich (Herr Gert Frobe),a pragmatist with an eye to history who defied Hitler's order to destroy Paris in the face of the Allies' advance.By brokering a deal with the partisans and the Americans he assured the survival of his troops,and,incidentally,guaranteed that one of Europe's most beautiful cities would remain intact.For this intelligent,compassionate act he was ostracised by his countrymen which says more about them than it does about him. There are lots of cameo roles for American actors that were probably demanded by Fox.They add nothing to the movie,merely distract from its efficacy. Any Rene Clement production is worth watching and "Paris,Brule t'il?" has some deft touches.The fact that it was made in black and white gives it that "authentic" 1940s look,Messrs Belmondo,Delon and Montand are always worth watching,and it puts on record an important event in European history,but it tends to give the impression the Paris - indeed all of France - was saved by ugly blokes wearing trenchcoats and riding bicycles.Not quite true,I'm afraid.

I remember sitting alone in the dress circle of a huge city cinema when this film was released in its 165-minute version. It was dubbed, of course. Only Orson Welles, Leslie Caron, Kirk Douglas, Glenn Ford, Charles Boyer, Anthony Perkins, Simone Signoret, Robert Stack, George Chakiris and Skip Ward were permitted to dub their own lines. Everyone else in the cast was at the mercy of some very inept dubbers indeed. So, with the DVD, I decided to watch the French version, which is certainly a vast improvement. Welles, Caron, Boyer and Signoret continue to voice their own lines, but now they are joined by the entire French cast. Main drawback is that Gert Fröbe, who has the movie's lead role, is still inadequately dubbed.

Director René Clement of La Bataille du Rail (1943) and Plein Soliel (1959) would seem an excellent choice, but the movie's longwinded script seems to have overwhelmed him. The sluggish pace is not helped by extraneous episodes (Montand, Perkins, Chakiris) and vignettes. I can appreciate an editor's reluctance to eliminate many of the guest spots, but the movie's pace would undoubtedly improve a great deal without them. Some of the action, well-staged though it is, also needs to be trimmed. On the other hand, Gert Fröbe's character is poorly developed and needs more exposition. What do we know about him at film's end? Virtually nothing! So little, in fact, that his acts and final summation all come as a complete surprise.

Is Paris Burning is the description of the fall of Paris, and Hitler's order in such an event to destroy the city. It is a detailed description, giving point of perspectives from all participants, from German Commander Choltitz, French Resistance Leader Rol and the advancing Allied Army. Thus it is quite long, approaching almost three hours, and feels like a combination of a drama and documentary. Even though some events and actions may be disputed, it feels plausible. And if you like me, like war movies Is Paris Burning is interesting despite its length. It actually never became dull, but not really entertaining either because of the documentarian feel. There was little suspense or surprising developments. We just tagged along with the story, with neither we or characters being able to change anything.

It is quite interesting that the movie was filmed quite recent after the fact, when measured up with seriousness and the trauma of the event. Also that German officers are portrayed by Germans, most notably Fröbe. Also check the trivia why it was filmed in black and white.

The movie is also augmented by its cast list, it is almost worth watching because of it, which among many others include Alain Delon, Kirk Douglas, Orson Welles, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Anthony Perkins, Yves Montand , Jean Pierre Cassel and along with Fröbe (Goldfinger) Michel Lonsdale (Sir Hugo Drax (Moonraker)) is the second Bond villain to appear. Also written by Gore Vidal and Francis Ford Coppola.

5/10

The first sixty minutes or so of this long film are harrowing, but only up to a point. Two points in fact. At these points, the film depicts and betrays at the same time. In the first, a concentration camp train leaves, and the horror is depicted in full. In the second, a group of young resistance men and women are massacred thanks to a collaborator. All very truthful, but both collaboration and concentration camp are narrowed to a very safe viewpoint. There is no mention or even suggestion in the film of the mass deportations of Jews nor any examples of the collaboration which was rife in every sector of French society. But then this was basically a Gaullist film made under a Gaullist regime (I was living in Paris at the time it was shot) and the lily-white purity of the French was, for the majority of the French, sacrosanct. Even recent truths about the Algerian War were heavily white-washed, and why, while on that subject, did I only count three black faces? These are all major flaws in what is essentially a middle-brow film.

As for the acting three stand out: Leslie Caron was extraordinary. Forget 'Gigi' and her other films. Within the space of a few minutes she stole the film with a great performance and I will give no spoilers as to when. Orson Welles was second for me in a role where I forgot he was Orson Welles; like looking at Mount Everest and forgetting it is a mountain. And third Pierre Vaneck, probably unknown to most outside France, but one of the greatest stage actors who ever lived. He was subtle and exact. For these three I give the film a six. This may seem unkind, but the others (like Belmondo and Delon) were there, but vacant, and the perfunctory roles for Signoret and Montand were so fleeting if you lowered your head for a moment you would miss them. As for Rene Clement's direction, it was at times inspired, but mostly pedestrian.

I saw this film for the first time in April 2019, and the sight of Notre Dame throughout the film and especially at the end was heart breaking. As is what I call the fall of our Western culture at present. Just as the heart of the Cathedral has been burnt out, so the heart of Europe is falling into the hands of the wilful, the wicked and the politically blind. Like this film we are not facing up to truths which must have been in the minds and hearts of many of the more worthy actors who took part in it.

A final few words. Where were the actors who really counted in 1965? Jeanne Moreau, Jean-Pierre Léaud, Anna Karina, Michel Piccoli, Maurice Ronet, Delphine Seyrig or Emmanuelle Riva? Were they asked? If they were, I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall. Except for Belmondo, who worked sometimes for such greats as Godard, there were none of the real representatives of the time. Delon of course worked for Jean-Pierre Melville, but most of the actors were from former times. Maybe this is why I did not go to see the film at the time.