Tue 22 May 2018
A Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: TEN SECONDS TO HELL (1959).
Posted by Steve under Films: Drama/Romance , Reviews[13] Comments
TEN SECONDS TO HELL. Hammer Films, 1959. Jack Palance, Jeff Chandler, Martine Carol, Robert Cornthwaite, Dave Willock. Sreenplay by Robert Aldrich and Teddi Sherman, based on the novel The Phoenix by Lawrence P. Bachmann. Director: Robert Aldrich.
Three years after Jeff Chandler portrayed a heroic U.S. Navy captain in Away All Boats (1956), he would co-star with Jack Palance in the stunningly well photographed drama, Ten Seconds To Hell (1959). Based on Lawrence P. Bachmann’s book The Phoenix, the plot follows a German bomb disposal unit tasked with dismantling unexploded ordinances in post-war Berlin. They are a coterie of men whose work would allow the German capital to rise, like a phoenix, from the ashes.
Directed by Robert Aldrich, who had worked with Palance in The Big Knife (1955) and Attack (1956), Ten Seconds to Hell was a Hammer Films Production/Seven Arts Pictures feature and was the auteur’s only film to feature Chandler as an actor. Aldrich made apt use of not only both men’s acting skills, but also their imposing physicality, as both Chandler and Palance were tall men. In Ten Seconds To Hell, a sublimely claustrophobic film, they portrayed men locked in a peculiar existential struggle, who both literally and figuratively, towered over the other men in their unit. Although Chandler and Palance had appeared together as opponents in Douglas Sirk’s Sign of the Pagan (1954), that mediocre costumer failed to fully utilize either man’s talents in portraying strong men locked in battle.
At the time of the theatrical release of Ten Seconds To Hell, the New York Times recognized the impact that Aldrich’s direction had on eliciting strong performances from the two male leads, noting that Aldrich “has drawn from Jack Palance a performance that is perhaps the finest of the actor’s career†and that he “has deftly maneuvered Jeff Chandler as [Palance’s] evil alter-ego.†It is also the case that the characters portrayed by Palance and Chandler, much like the actors’ performances, are best understood primarily within the context of their antagonistic relationship and the period of time in which both men live.
Ten Seconds To Hell takes place at the end of the Second World War, but it still can be considered central to the World War II War film genre. Set in the ruins of Berlin, the film tells the story of a bomb disposal unit who work at the behest of Major Haven (Richard Wattis), a British officer working in the Allied-occupied city. The unit consists of six men, with Erich Koertner (Palance), a former architect, and the nasty, sarcastic Karl Wirtz (Chandler) as the two primary characters.
Their distinct worldviews and opposing personalities create exacerbate the already existing tension of working as bomb disposal technicians. The other four men, Franz Loeffler (Robert Cornthwaite), Peter Tillig (Dave Willock), Wolfgang Sulke (Wes Addy), and Hans Globke (Jimmy Goodwin), are less prominently featured in the story, but serve to further highlight the antagonism between the more introspective Koertner (Palance) and the fatalist Wirtz (Chandler).
What unites these men is their status as History’s losers. In their study of Robert Aldrich, Alain Silver and James Ursini note that the “men of the bomb disposal unit “. . . are defeated. They are literally so, as soldiers on a losing side. They are figuratively so as well, for when they return to Berlin at the beginning of the film, they are carrying that defeat as an emotional burden.†Indeed, none of the men, with the exception of Solke, has a wife or a child to return to.
The movie opens with a camera shot of a train pulling into a rather dismal looking Berlin station. On board are soldiers, defeated men from the losing side of the cataclysmic war that left German cities in ruins. The first person off the train is Wirtz (Chandler), signifying the pivotal role he is to play in the movie’s narrative. But, as it turns out, he will not be the film’s protagonist. That role is reserved for Koertner (Palance), the soldier to immediately follow him off the train.
Voice over narrative, conducted in semi-documentary style, tells the viewer that Wirtz is concerned primarily with his own survival and that he plays for “high stakes†and deals “from the bottom of the deck.†It’s a blunt characterization and is designed to intrigue the viewer into wanting to know more.
The first speaking part for Chandler occurs soon thereafter. Wirtz, Koertner, and the other four men are meeting with Major Haven, their British liaison. Wirtz takes control of the salary negotiations, forcing Haven to provide the men with a higher salary than originally suggested. Soon, the discussion among the unit turns antagonistic, as Wirtz (Chandler) challenges Koertner (Palance) to a bet that he will outlive him.
The stakes are high. As bomb disposal technicians, the men know that one false move can mean sudden death. But they agree to Wirtz’s bet, pooling half their salaries into a pool for the winner of this morbid game. It is here that we learn just how smug, arrogant, and selfish Wirtz truly is. He knows exactly how to taunt, how to push people’s buttons. Chandler is able to convey Wirtz’s ruthlessness not merely with words, but also with a smirk, body language, and posture. It is not so much that Chandler portrays Wirtz as vicious, as it is that he is able to instill a sense of what could only be best described as creepiness into Wirtz’s persona.
Living in the ruins of Berlin, Wirtz and Koertner share a boardinghouse run by Margot Hoefler (Martine Carole), a Frenchwoman who married a German soldier during wartime. Margot is now both a widow and a societal outcast in Berlin. Carole, the French actress who had starred as the eponymous lead character in Max Ophüls’ Lola Montès (1955), portrays Margot in a rather subdued, although occasionally too melodramatic, manner. Like Koertner and Wirtz, she too is defeated, her status as a German war bride having left her a perpetual outsider, alienated from mainstream society.
It does not take long for Wirtz, a man without shame, to make unwanted romantic advances on Margot. One evening he comes back to the boardinghouse inebriated. His loud voice wakes up Koertner, as the former attempts to seduce an unwilling Margot. Chandler portrays Wirtz in this scene with understated ferocity, in some ways similar to the character of Luke Darcy he portrayed in The Jayhawkers (1959).
Wirtz is a man who utilizes pitiful attempts at humor to mask his rage, telling Margot that, “biology used to be [his] best subject.†and “Why not take Dr. Wirtz’s introductory course?†Koertner, awakened by Wirtz’s booming voice, rushes into Margot’s room and stops him from going any further. This scene fuels the increasing tension between the two primary characters and serves to delineate the men’s differing attitudes toward women. While Wirtz is a man who seeks conquest, Koertner is a man who seeks companionship.
Koertner will go on to develop a romantic relationship with Margot, although this will not cause the ultimate rupture with Wirtz. Rather, it will be the discovery of the British thousand-pounder, a type of unexploded ordinance with which the team was unfamiliar. Not only does this type of bomb cause the death of team members, it plays a pivotal role in furthering the antagonism between Koertner, the brooding outsider and Wirtz, the dissolute cynic.
When Koertner suggests that they call off the bet, Wirtz refuses, leading to a verbal confrontation between the two men. A distraught Koertner tells Wirtz that he would like to see him dead and blasted to hell. It is then that Koertner realizes that there is something bigger at stake in this dispute than just money. He tells Margot that it is a “battle for survival between the Karls of the world and the me’s of the world.†Koerner’s revelation stems, to a large degree, from his reaction to Wirtz’s radical selfishness, a particularly chilling worldview that he learned from his uncle.
[PLOT WARNING] Ultimately, it is Koertner who survives the bet and who is freed from the shackles of Wirtz’s cynicism. In the film’s final sequence, we see Wirtz (Chandler) deep in rubble, defusing a bomb. With jazz music playing on the soundtrack, Koertner walks out of the abandoned building where Wirtz is working. Seconds thereafter, the bomb explodes, killing him. Koertner is now free, liberated from the bet and his existential struggle against Wirtz.
But it’s not a joyous or celebratory victory, for Koertner still, in both a literally and metaphorical sense, walks alone. While the film ends with optimistic voice over narration and positive imagery of rebuilt Berlin, one cannot help escape the theme of post-war alienation just below the surface.
Ten Seconds to Hell is closest thing to an “art house†film that Jeff Chandler ever starred in. Indeed, Aldrich, who had caught the eye of French critics well before he became widely known in the United States, allowed Chandler to take on a role quite distinct from many of his previous films. His character, Wirtz, is not so much a villain as a spiritually defeated man tasked with a dangerous and dirty job. He is a man who has irreparably lost a moral compass – his center, as it were – in a chaotic, tumultuous society, a claustrophobic world in which the concrete possibility of an inadvertent horrific death looms large. He is most certainly not a hero.
Andrew Sarris, longtime film critic for The Village Voice and a leading proponent of the auteur theory, has noted that Aldrich’s “films are invariably troubled by intimations of decadence and disorder.†When applied to Ten Seconds To Hell, Sarris’s observation seems particularly apt. Filmed in the ruins of Berlin, physical decay is visually omnipresent throughout the movie.
But it is the theme of moral decay, however, that propels the narrative. It is largely Chandler’s alternatingly subdued and overpowering portrayal of the decadent Wirtz that propels the narrative forward to its simultaneously tragic (for Wirtz) and liberating (for Koertner) conclusion.
May 22nd, 2018 at 10:50 pm
This film, with an emphasis on mechanical objects, unexploded bombs, is truly about the remnants of an army that was on a mission to conquer the world and were happily defeated. No sympathy, no empathy and no one went.
May 23rd, 2018 at 7:49 am
Interesting thoughts, Jonathan, and well put. I was intrigued by the visual metaphor of defeated me in a ruined city, and the theme of removing bombs as a quest for redemption.
May 23rd, 2018 at 9:21 am
For the flip side, there was a BBC series, name now forgotten, about British bomb defusers, that was very good. I saw it when it was broadcast.
May 23rd, 2018 at 10:11 am
Rick, Danger UXB with Anthony Andrews is the series and far superior dramatically to this thing reviewed here.
May 23rd, 2018 at 8:46 pm
My father was in post war Germany repatriating soldiers he had been fighting only months before, and he said this nailed the feeling and existential shock post Hitlerian Germany experienced.
It is a grim film, and oddly doesn’t particularly use Palance and Chandler as representative of the “good German” vs. the Nazi, but instead as conscience vs. evil so that this could be set in any defeated nation after a long bitter war.
I agree the film is beautifully shot, though at times the conflict between the two archetypes borders on melodrama, only saved by strong performances by Palance and Chandler, though I think Aldrich was mistaken in choosing such an analytical approach, he perhaps stands too far apart, bends too far backward, and fails to explore the evil done by good men like Palance’s character who chose to go along with evil rather than oppose it.
I get no sense here that these men accepted they were part of a murderous lot of gangsters, a problem of conscience that is dealt with in films like A FOREIGN AFFAIR or even BERLIN EXPRESS, but here boiled down to the conflict between a primitive Nietczhean (broadly defined) and the more natural man.
It leaves the film in a peculiar limbo, the forest lost for the trees, the elephant in the room emasculated and hidden behind mano a mano
posturing and a rather basic pathology. It’s a bit like some of the pychological Westerns of that era where the actual Old West is transformed to couch of a chic Madison Avenue psychologist.
May 23rd, 2018 at 9:32 pm
Barry, I didn’t see a need to quarrel with your reason for disliking the movie, as stated back in Comment #1, but I personally I didn’t feel that movie emphasized the mechanical objects in it (the bombs). I was far more caught up in the personal conflict between the two men very basically caught up themselves in the situation they were in.
May 23rd, 2018 at 9:40 pm
Steve, I suppose my comment came from a strictly judgmental place. I did not like the men, and did not care. No resolution could possibly work for me. David’s comment covered all the ground, but was far too academic and understanding. These guys were still the enemy.
May 23rd, 2018 at 11:25 pm
To clarify the above. When I call them the enemy, they are, and unsympathetic to boot, that does not mean I personally want to harm them, but it does mean, I do not relate, and am satisfied with that. A final thought: At the time of its release most film reviews were negative, for an array of reasons. And the public stayed away. Who am I to say they were wrong.
May 26th, 2018 at 1:19 am
Barry,
Like you I have some trouble relating with the, “they were just soldiers fighting for their country” trope. I think it lets off the very real crimes committed by an entire nation and not just a handful of gangsters and madmen. I feel much the same about the Japanese though at least they came from a near feudal society with no history of better behavior in war or peace.
There was no excuse for what the German’s did, and what the nation was in its complicity even it was only silence. Germany was supposed to represent the ultimate in education, technology, and Classical Western culture, and descended into barbarity and madness in less than a decade. No German who did not speak out is innocent.
CROSS OF IRON, based on Sven Hassel’s popular novels, comes to mind as a film that glorifies SS murderers during the Russian campaign as if they weren’t the same troops who slaughtered American prisoners of war at Malmedy. I give some leeway to the works of Hans Helmut Kirst since he himself was an anti-Nazi and his heroes tend to be either outcasts, rebels, screw-ups, or men of conscience who pay for their complicity. He at least deals with the dubious morality of just going along with evil.
The whole late fifties into the sixties sub-genre of the Good German soldier borders on the offensive, though some films like DECISION AT DAWN handle it better than others do.
This film fails to actually confront a nation’s guilt or to engage the fact that even the finest men in the German army were complicit in “just following orders.”
I should mention the Bachman novel this is based on does tackle those issues Aldrich does not making it much clearer that Palance character is complicit in allowing Chandler’s character to exist and that the conflict between the two is for the soul of post war Germany, but still it is hard to have much sympathy for a so called good man who has taken so long to open his eyes.
I understand and have no problem with your simply disliking it and its protagonist, but I’m saying more, because I think too many people today are willfully ignorant of the crimes committed in that war that went well beyond the usual horrors of war. I hear too often the sick and ignorant question “were we any better?”
Yes, we were.
May 27th, 2018 at 9:04 pm
David, just beautifully written. And to quote Randolph Scott, as I often like to do, “My sentiments, exactly.’
July 11th, 2021 at 12:37 am
‘Danger UXB’ was indeed a very fine BBC television series.
I can’t comment on the Aldrich film as I haven’t yet seen it. I sure wish I’d had.
However, I’ll add a plug for a novel which dwells on this subject matter in moving detail: Len Deighton’s “Bomber”. One of his ventures into straightforward dramatic literature, no espionage.
I’ve rarely encountered a more unnerving, more harrowing read. The icy intricacies of aerial bombardment can haunt a reader for years afterward when penned by a master novelist like this. At least, it did for me.
I applaud the superb review-writing and also the subsequent commentary in the entire page above (before my humble contribution).
July 11th, 2021 at 12:45 am
p.s. I agree with the notion that it takes a whole society to participate in genocide, not ‘just a few aberrant madmen’. Krupps and many other German firms willingly built the technology for Auschwitz and the other death camps. That’s a matter of fact.
There are heroic German protestors on record during the war. Rebellious teens fled into the subway system in Cologne, there was an ‘underground’ of Dada-esque artists who went through the streets of the Nazi regime planting handbills in people’s pockets, and there was also my favorite graphic artist: Kathe Kollwitz.
October 23rd, 2024 at 11:01 pm
Lame-o update: I’ve already UNDULY over-burdened this chat with own remarks but must add one more. Finally enjoyed the opportunity to view this flick from end-to-end, it being one which has long been on my ‘to-see’ list.
Verdict: a corker. Fine, intriguing, little nail-biter. Fascinating in very many aspects.
Not without a few tiny flaws but overall, a huge treat to see the mighty Jack Palance given full room for all his talents.
Better than ‘Attack!’? I’d say on par with that role.