Sirocco (1951)

the audience applauded

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

it reminds Casablanca and a lot of other films about same theme. it has the virtue to be a kind of crossroad of genres. and , the great thing, it is a film with Humphrey Bogart. the same. nothing new or original or seductive. at the first view. but... . each film with Bogart is a form of revelation about him. because it is really the best American actor but that title has a profound source. not only the art or the dialogs, the script or the gestures but something who becomes magic, a spectacular mixture of force and vulnerability who has as result a hero out of each ordinary definition. a war film and a love film. and, more important, a magnificent actor. that is all. Sirocco is not a surprise. maybe not a delight. but a very useful lesson. and that is a serious great stuff.

An old novel (Coup de Grace, 1931) offered Humphrey Bogart the type of tough Casablanca role that made his name. In fact, Bogey even wears his Casablanca trenchcoat. Alas, the character here doesn't have the redeeming virtues of Rick, despite his last-minutes change of heart. The resemblance, and the character himself, is too superficial. His end is a disappointment too. As the hero, co-star Lee J. Cobb cannot carry the film at all. In fact, he is miscast. He is too heavy, too dull. Producer Robert Lord had made good use of Bogey in The Black Legion but in this Sirocco he is totally wasted. On the other hand, the film does feature Marta Toren. Any movie with Marta Toren is a must-see movie in my book. Zero Mostel and Everett Sloane are present in this one too.

This story of Bogart as a gun runner unwilling to commit himself is set in 1925 supposedly. A Western army of occupation runs an Islamic country in the Middle East and is in a constant battle with fervent but treacherous insurgents fighting an asymmetric war. And this is 1925. Not that anyone would know it was 1925, not judging from our contemporary circumstances or from the dress or demeanor of the performers in this movie.The role of man in the middle, the disillusioned idealist, wasn't a new one for Bogart. He practically defined the role in "Casablanca" and repeated it several times after, as in "Key Largo." But here, he's disillusioned not by having seen where his earlier idealism has led but, as far as we can judge, from his betrayal by a wife. And it's turned him into an exceptionally bitter and irritable opportunist. He's rather a skunk, right up to the end in which he commits an act that isn't so much heroic but still involves courage.Lee J. Cobb is the French colonel. He's fighting the insurgents who are being provided with weapons by Bogart. Cobb is also in love with Marta Toren and Bogart is trying to steal her away. Bogart's motives have nothing to do with love. There is, needless to say, considerable friction between Cobb and Bogart. Neither gets the lady because she's on her own trip.Marta Toren made few movies and died at an early age but she was stunning. Although Swedish, she resembled the Italian Alida Valli -- the actress who loved Orson Welles in "The Third Man." Marta Toren really was a knockout. Whew! Her eyes were slanted at an alarming dihedral and each looked at the world from a slightly different angle. They were blue, with thin dark circles around the irises. They were eyes you could fall into.The plot has a few moments of action that evoke real-life events, if anyone remembers Algiers. (The movie doesn't take sides. The Syrians slit your throat, but the French shoot you.) In an early memorable scene, a raggedy Syrian nationalist explodes three grenades in a café full of Europeans. It's to the director's credit that it takes the survivors several smoky minutes to shake themselves of dust and slowly recover from the blast. It's nicely photographed too, although the whole movie is shot effectively.Outside of that the story is routine -- full of spies, intrigues, betrayal -- and generally a little unpleasant. That includes Bogart's character. In other films, enacting similar roles, Bogart always had a hidden spark of fundamental decency. He may be disillusioned -- "I stick my neck out for nobody" -- but he was basically just waiting for the right moral moment. Here, he's old and cranky throughout.

The film was awful went it came to the fighting between the French and the Syrians. There should have been a lot more gun fire between the French and the insurgents. There should have been a lot more explosions of French artillery shells bombarding the city. They show the city against the background of a early sunrise; however, there was no heavy columns of smoke that resulted from the French artillery shells exploding in the city There was also no sound of French airplanes and having them bomb and machine gun the Syrians' positions.In addition, the way the French troops move around the city was terrible. In a combat situation, troops would have their rifles at port arms so they be ready to bring their weapons to a firing position just in case they get fire upon. They would not be walking around the city with rifles on their shoulders and walking in a parade ground formation.One person stated that the American people during the 1920s never heard of the Syrian revolt. I suspect one reason why the Americans never heard about it that the American press was concentrating on Prohibition, robbers like Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, organized crime like Al Capone, labor strikes that occurred after World War I, and the communist scare of the 1920s. Even if it was printed in the paper, it was just a sideshow event that never got much notice. I bet that today most Americans still don't know about the revolt in Syria. The only time we paid attention to Syria was during the various Arab-Israeli Wars and Syrian intervention in Lebanon.It was and still easier to concentrate on doing war movies against the Japan and Germany since we won those wars.