Valkyrie

Bryan Singer's Valkyrie is a taut thriller starring Tom Cruise and chronicling the events leading up to the July 20, 1944 plot in which German military officers attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler. The plot's ring leader, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, played by Cruise, attempted to assassinate Hitler with an explosive device and implement a coup using Hitler's very own protocol for suppressing a domestic uprising. The protocol's codename serves as the film's title.

The film's attention to detail is impressive, from Tom Cruise's resemblance to Stauffenberg down to the drab Berlin governmental district and swarming, gray-clad Wermacht troops. Taking a page from Judgment at Nuremberg, Singer introduces Cruise speaking in a German voice over (quite believably) and smoothly morphs it into English. When the film begins we find Cruise fighting in North Africa. He is a man convinced that the war is lost and that, most importantly, the time has come to defy his Fuhrer in order to save his country from ignominious defeat. He is seriously injured by an Allied strafing attack and, thereafter, with the support of senior military officials, plots to kill Hitler.

Cruise delivers a passionate and sharp performance as von Stauffenberg. He is a man that understands that in order to stop Hitler, as his character puts it, bold - even rash - action is needed. Cruise manages a steely and intense determination in his portrayal and Singer does a commendable job in playing up the tension at all the right moments. English and German supporting players like Kenneth Brannagh and Terrence Stamp, among others, are serviceable in their roles as military leaders committed to ending Hitler's reign. The cinematography is crisp yet unimpressive and Singer's compositions achieve the nuts and bolts necessities of the plot but offer little to walk away with.

Et tu Brute?

While the film is clearly designed as a thriller and it succeeds in this regard, the bigger questions it raises are the ones which could have set it apart and elevated this film to the level of great drama. The question of when exactly does treason constitute an act of patriotism as opposed to one of overt criminality is left largely unexplored, yet its shadow hovers over every minute of the film. It is a fascinating distinction, that of the government and country. At what point does the former stop representing the latter? How important is morality in the legitimacy of a government? Whose morality counts? And what is a military person's breaking point in terms of how far s/he will go in following a leader's orders? There is passing mention of the shame and dishonor Stauffenberg's children will suffer if Hitler is allowed to live but there is little meditation on the evil Hitler represents and why exactly did so many Germans willingly enable him. Why, after all, did so many in the military follow Hitler and continue to do so even when the war was lost and in spite of the atrocities they were ordered to carry out? That is the more illuminating question. It is one which, had it been explored, would have, by way of contrast, made Stauffenberg's heroism shine all the more brightly.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, the film's focus is elsewhere and in that regard it would rather deal with the facile. When the leader is Hitler, treason is the obvious and necessary answer. I only wish the film had demonstrated the same valor as its protagonist and tackled, head-on, the tough questions so many films would rather leave for other filmmakers to explore. I know Mr. Singer has the ability. The question is, will he have the courage to do so? Time will tell.