Amazon.com

Barbara Stanwyck and Burt Lancaster star in Sorry, Wrong Number, an odd telephonic thriller that starts off with a bang. Stanwyck, playing a shrill invalid, is at home alone and phoning around to find her husband. Thanks to a crossed wire, she overhears a murder plot, but she can barely get anyone to pay attention to her, let alone believe her. The rest of the film is played out in telephone conversations and flashbacks as our increasingly frightened heroine tries to find her husband and unravel the murder. Stanwyck, as always, gives a terrific performance, managing to make her character both unlikeable and compelling at the same time. Lancaster, as her kept husband, is handsome, virile, and trapped all at once. The plot, expanded to a film from a tight, dark little radio play, wanders at times but gathers itself back together for a corker of an ending. --Ali Davis ... Read more

Reviews (22)

A Romantic Love Classic
This film is really rather a classical love story will stay in my heart forever. In my opinion, no one can see this film remaining indifferent or apathetic without feeling the incomparable charm of Ingrid Bergman¡¯s and Yul Brynner¡¯s throughout the story. As I remember, the first time I saw the film, it had already been on for about 1 hour on TV. Even if I didn¡¯t see it completely, I was still fascinated by both the complicated plot of the story and the wonderful performances of the actors/actresses. Some scenes in the film were very humorous. And the music which showed the characteristic of Russia in it also leave a deep impression on me. Now I have seen this film for several times, but every time I saw it, it always moved me a lot. Having seen many other films acted by Bergman or Brynner, I still think ¡®Anastasia¡¯ is the one I like the most. Without kisses, embraces or sweet conversations, it would still be a romantic love classic forever. As a woman who roamed the streets, Anna might be the Grand Duchess of Russia or even only a poor, bewildered person. And what she only wanted was love. Since no one accepted her, no one cared about her, she even had a feeling suicidal. Then a Russian general found her and saved her. He wanted to train her to be Anastasia---the youngest daughter of Russia¡¯s last czar. What only attracted him was the ten million pounds. Bergman was weak, tender and gentle, on the opposite, Brynner was stern, hard and sharp. Is there any possibility that she would be able to change him? In the film, there were many very excellent details that showed the subtle relation between Anna and Bounine. On the one hand, Anna hated him for his only wish for money, hated his using her for his own purpose, hated his not understanding what she really longed for was. On the other hand, she had fallen in love with him. Therefore, she tried flirting with Prince Paul (her former fiance), trying to make Bounine feel jealous. Bergman¡¯s performance was so subtle, ingenious that make the story much more lively. Even if general Bounine was in love with her, too, he didn¡¯t show any concern on the surface. He wanted the money of the legacy, but he loved her more. He seemed rather fierce, but is kind at heart. How many ¡®contradictions¡¯! At the end of the story, Anna succeeded in changing him. The scene which left the deepest impression on me was their last conversation just before the ball. They tried to convey their real feelings to each other. But there were so many problems existing between them. Money or Love? The ending of he story was to be expected but unexpected as well. When Anastasia left from her grandmother again, who was so kind, was so approachable, was the person she had wanted to see for so many years. How sad she was at that moment! I was greatly touched by this scene. In the end, Anna and Bounine ran away to seek for their own happiness renouncing their claim to the money, in spite of the public. I supposed that Yul Brynner might be a most suitable actor to act the white Russian general. His looks, his expression, his posture, his performance, even his bald head were very great. The performances of the other actors/actresses (especially Helen Hayes and Martita Hunt) were also wonderful ones. Everyone must be deeply moved by Anastasia¡¯s close relation with her grandma particularly. The film was also memorable for the acting of the two main characters. The story told us that money or position doesn¡¯t mean love, happiness and freedom. In the film or in the real life, no matter what Anna was, whether she was real or just a imposter, it doesn¡¯t really matter. The most important thing is that the film showed us a history, a mystery, or even a legend. This film was written, directed, acted very well. When it was made in the 1950s, even my parents had not been born. But time doesn¡¯t mean discrepancy, either. I¡¯ll love the romantic splendid love story forever and I¡¯m quite sure that it would always be a classic in the film history forever.

A Romantic Love Classic Forever
This film is really rather a classical love story that will stay in my heart forever. In my opinion, no one can see this film remaining indifferent or apathetic without feeling the incomparable charm of Ingrid Bergman¡¯s and Yul Brynner¡¯s throughout the story. As I remember, the first time I saw the film, it had already been on for about 1 hour on TV. Even if I didn¡¯t see it completely, I was still fascinated by both the complicated plot of the story and the wonderful performances of the actors/actresses. Some scenes in the film were very humorous. And the music that showed the characteristic of Russia in it also left a deep impression on me. Now I have seen this film for several times, but every time I saw it, it always stirred me a lot. Having seen many other films acted by Bergman or Brynner, I still think ¡®Anastasia¡¯ is the one I like most. Without kisses, embraces or sweet conversations, it would still be a romantic love classic forever. As a woman who roamed the streets, Anna might be the Grand Duchess of Russia or even only a poor, bewildered person. She had suffered terribly for a long time and what she only wanted was being accepted. Since no one cared about her, she even had a feeling suicidal.At the begining,though acting a woman who was in dire straits, Bergman still had a unique noble disposition just like a princess wandering destitute far from home. Then a Russian general saved her and changed her life. He wanted to train her to be Anastasia---the youngest daughter of Russia¡¯s last czar. The only thing attracted him was the ten million pounds. Bergman was weak, tender and gentle, on the opposite, Brynner was stern, hard and sharp. Is there any possibility that she would be able to change him? In the film, there were many excellent details that showed the subtle relation between Anna and Bounine. On the one hand, Anna hated him for his only wish for money, hated his using her for his own purpose, hated his not understanding what she really longed for was. On the other hand, she had fallen in love with him. Therefore, she tried flirting with Prince Paul (her former fiance), trying to make Bounine feel jealous. Bergman¡¯s performance was so subtle, ingenious that make the story much more lively. Even if general Bounine was in love with her in spite of himself, too, he didn¡¯t show any concern on the surface. He wanted the money of the legacy, but he loved her more. He seemed rather fierce, but was kind at heart. How many ¡®contradictions¡¯! The scene that left the deepest impression on me was their last conversation just before the ball. They tried to convey their real feelings to each other. But there were so many problems existing between them. At the end of the story, Anna succeeded in changing him. Money or love? The ending of the story was to be expected but unexpected as well. When Anastasia left from her grandmother again, who was so kind, was so approachable, was the person she had wanted to see for so many years, how sad she was at that moment! I was greatly touched by this scene.... I supposed that Yul Brynner might be a most suitable actor to act the white Russian general. His looks, his expression, his posture, his acting, even his bald head were very great. And he had a quite different glamour that made him always attractive. The performances of the other actors/actresses (especially Helen Hayes and Martita Hunt) were also wonderful ones. Everyone must be deeply moved by Anastasia¡¯s close relation with her grandma particularly. The film was also memorable for the acting of the two main characters. It told us that money and position don¡¯t mean love, happiness and freedom. In the film or in the real life, no matter what Anna was, whether she was real or just an imposter, it doesn¡¯t really matter. The most important thing is that the film showed us a history, a mystery, or even a legend. This film was written, directed and acted very well. When it was made in the 1950s, even my parents had not been born. But time doesn¡¯t mean discrepancy, either. I¡¯ll always love this romantic splendid love story and I¡¯m quite sure that it will be a classic in the film history forever.

Anastasia
Great Movie - Horrible DVD! I'm rating this one star because the DVD quality is so bad. For the first time, I'm in the process of returning an item to Amazon. This makes me sad because I love this film and wanted to add this to my growing collection of classic films in my DVD Library. The sound is not always in synch and the volume goes up and down. The sound is absolutely terrible!

Special features
The DVD versionÕs special features of this classic film is jammed pack with historical information, not only about early 20th century Russian aristocracy, but also about the Ôbehind the scenesÕ making of this wonderful movie. For this humble DVD collector, I prefer as much expert commentary as can possibly fit into the format. Does anyone know more about the industry than Sylvia Stoddard? I donÕt think so.

Anastasia Is Finally On DVD.
I bought this DVD when it came out 2 months ago when it first came out. And I love this movie more than Any other movie that Ingrid Bergman played in. I especially liked it because they had an interview with Hellen Hayes (The Grandmother) son James MacArthur. I have been corresponding with him and i just really liked that.

Here Is A brief Description:

Anastasie (Ingird Bergman) is a woman who has no clue about who she is and where she comes from, she then meets (Yul Brynner) who thinks that if he can train her to act like the Real Annastasia he can pass her off and get the huge reward for her return. Well when they get to St. petersburg they find out that The Arch Duchess (Hellen Hayes) has lost hope of ever finding her Annastasia and refuses to see Ingrid Bergman. Well she finally visits Ingrid Bergman and realizes that she really is her grand daughter. And it ends happily.

Great Movie. 5 Star Rating. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

The Long Night
This was a very cool film. Henry Fonda did an excellent job as a man who is hiding from the law. Vincent Price plays the guy that gets killed by Henry Fonda at the very beginning. Almost the entire film is flashback, which explain why Fonda is in this predicament in the first place, and how it came to be that he killed Price. A great suspense movie.

1947 FORGOTTEN NOIR GEM
Henry Fonda is Joe Adams, a man pinned inside his third floor apartment after gunning down a mysterious magician Vincent price. Joe's fractured memories are told in an intricate web of flashbacks that reconstruct the events leading up to the murder. Barbara Bel Geddes plays the third corner of the tragic, complicated and mesmerizing love triangle. Exceedingly mody and atmospheric direction by the masterful Anatole Litvak ("The Snake Pit," "Sorry Wrong Number"). The DVD is a pristine transfer made from a 35 MM nitrate negative. Bonus material includes a gallery of photos and artwork as well as excerpts from Marcel Carne's Le Jour se Leve. (Full Frame, B&W, 68 minutes, Not Rated)

the long night
It is wonderful to discover forgotten gems and this is such a title. Too bad the producers, Kino Video, could have taken time to produce better sound. On Chapters #5 & #16 the sound cuts out on front speakers when using surround sound and comes only from the back. Very annoying. Kino Video offer a disclaimer sayin thisis due to the age of the film....bull. It is due to someone cutting out the sound when the film was being reproduced. I hope others will take time to write Kino Video...someone should be horsewhipped. Otherwise the picture quality is super.

Good story, GREAT PHOTOGRAPHY
A simple, tightly-told story with amazing art direction, sets and photography. Effective, hammy acting all around adds to the mix to make a very enjoyable short movie. The disc supplements are an entertaining and informative icing on the cake.

Underrrated film noir drama.
I liked this forgotten film, i think it is very well directed by Anatole Litvak. Henry Fonda gives a fine performance as the doomed fugutive, who barricates himself in an attic room while the police tries to make him surrender and come out. During the night he thinks back on the events leading up to a murder, and the situation he is in now. Much of the story is told in flashbacks, interrupted by scenes where the police try in different ways to make him come out. Vincent Price plays an evil magician with whom Fonda has a dramatic encounter, Price is both smarmy and unplesent in this role, and he plays very well. Both Barbara Bel Geddes and Ann Dvorak are good in their roles as a naive young girl, and a more down to earth woman. The photography by Sol Polito is very good, giving it a wonderful noir sheen, also the sets by Eugene Lourie are intriguing, giving the film a dark, dirty look, that at the same time is glossy, but filled with low key images that makes shadows on the walls. This was an american remake of a french film by Marcel Carne called Le Jour Se Leve, and it is by no means as inferior as many filmguides might lead you to think, its more dramatic and has more background musik. The original film is intense in a restraind way, more poetic while the remake goes more out for dramatic effects, and is more hard boiled. The Long Night uses almost the same screenplay as in the original, ecept for the ending which is different. The story is grim and gloomy, but i think this is one of the more visually dynamic american films from the 40s, very well directed by Anatole Litvak, no camera tricks were used in the scene where Price performs his magic show, Litvak wanted the actor to learn to make tricks from a real magician, so he could make a realistic magic performence. This film is a minor gem. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

The concluding chapters of Frank Capra's "Why We Fight"
The first five volumes in Frank Capra's celebrated "Why We Fight" series focused on Hitler's Nazis overrunning Europe in the first half of World War II. The final two volumes shift the focus to the Pacific Theater and those are what we have collected on this DVD. "The Battle of China: The Assault on the Great Wall" looks at the Chinese defense against Japanese aggression. Like the previous chapter, "The Battle of Russia," an important part of the intent here is to establish a sense of identification between the American people with a foreign ally. Fortunately Capra does not have to gloss over the political ideology of the Chinese the same way he did with the Communist Soviets.

This explains why "The Battle of China" provides a brief history of China and its people and then details why the Japanese wanted to conquer the country, namely getting the raw materials and slave labor necessary for taking over all of Asia. The War in the Pacific covered, showing the valiant effort by the Chinese to stop the Japanese. Also featured are General Claire Lee Chennault's famous Flying Tigers, the American Volunteer Group who had joined the battle to defend China. This 67-minute black & white 1944 documentary is narrated by writer Anthony Veiller (Walter Houston just does the voice of Abraham Lincoln this time) and Anatole Litvak served as an uncredited co-director. In the next volume, "War Comes to America," the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brings the United States into the war.

"War Comes to America" is the seventh and final episode in the celebrated "Why We Fight Series." Anatole Litvak was the uncredited co-director of this chapter, with music by Alfred Newman, and actors Walter Huston and Lloyd Nolan provided the narration for this 67-minute black & white documentary produced in 1945 as the war was ending. This final installment celebrates the good qualities of the United States and establishes those things worth fighting for. "War Comes to America" also looks at the history of the United States and traces how the shifting opinion of the public towards supporting the Allies against the Axis forces was clearly shifting in that direction when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. As such the film presents the mood of the American people on the eve of World War II and how the isolationist position changed in reaction to the aggressive policies of the Axis powers (a.k.a. "Death, Inc.") as traced in a revealing series of Gallup Polls. There is also a summary of Japanese aggression from the invasion of Manchuria to Pearl Harbor.

This particular chapter is one of the most interesting because Capra is going out of his way to present America as an inclusive society when Hungarians, Portuguese, American Negroes and Chinamen all work together, although it is interesting that the first two are shown more often and more progressively than the latter pair. Even Germans and Italians are included in the mix, but not the Japanese, which is not surprising given the internment camps in California (which were actually called concentration amps at the time). But we do see an indictment of activities of the German American Bund as well. The perspective here is decidedly liberal, seeing the U.S.A. as a nation proud of having trade unions and capable of correcting mistakes like Prohibition. While covering December 7, 1941, the day that "will live in infamy," Capra ends with the uplifting music of Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" and the idea of an inevitable Allied victory.

Capra served as a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps and was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall to make a series of films that would explain the government's policy to the troops hastily being assembled, trained, and sent overseas. The "Why We Fight" series is the supreme example of propaganda put out by the U.S. government during World War II. Eventually the "Why We Fight" series was shown to the public in theaters. At the end of the war Capra also made a pair of films for the occupation forces, "Your Job in Germany" and "Know Your Enemy: Japan." In 2000 the "Why We Fight" series was added to the Library of Congress National Film Registry and remains a prime source of archival footage for the period. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Well Done!
I've found it's hard to review such a piece without turning Amazon into my own private forum.

This is a thought provoking piece. Especially knowing what we know now. I learned a couple historical facts that I never knew and gained further understanding about the atmosphere at the time of WWII. After viewing this I found myself talking about it with family and friends, opening the door for dibate on issues of involvement and non-involvement. At what point should you go to war? How far can you dibate an issue before it's too late? The thought process is almost dizzying. This film gives a possible view of what might have happened should action not have been taken. I highly recommend this as both a learning source and also as something to provoke you into thought.

I also want to bring to attention that this is 2 out of ? number of films by Frank Capra. This is also sold as a set that includes all of the collection. These two films have left me hungry to see the rest of his work. I myself will probably end up buying the collection and wanted to recommend you make the same consideration.

Well done!
As a german blooded american (three generations removed), I'm constanly in search for understanding. As I've visited german websites I've become increasingly irratated by the anit-american views.* I believe america is a county of good intention, not that our intentions always work out well but, we try. I would never wish another Vietnam tragedy.

Is there a time to fight? Do you believe in shunning? Do you take a non-partisan view? In our current situation we should be all asking ourselves these questions. Imagine a world without diplomacy... What a crazy place that would be. But, what do you do when diplomacy fails? What do you do if there isn't a cop on the beat to intervene?

This film gives an idea of what might have happened. With this in mind I applaud the English, Australians, New Zealanders and Indians for stepping up to the plate and getting involved as quickly as they did.

This film is great food for thought and I question whether it shouldn't be required viewing in schools.

For those in search of german pride, I highly recommend "The Rommel Papers". You will read a tragic story of a true german soldier and a very honorable man. We could have used him on our side.

* The anti-american views were viewed only on a couple websites and in no way implicate that germany as a whole shares such views.

This movie will make you want to kill Nazis.
The heck with _Triumph of the Will_, Capra's got the Nazis beat! The whole cavalcade of human suffering during the war, the "gangsterism" of the Facists, even the racist stereotyping of the Japanese are woven together to create a moving, inspirational, and compeling history of World War II before the US got into the fight. This is both great entertainment and important primary historical documentation. No wonder they still show it on TV. Watch with your family, your children, and don't forget to bring some tissues. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Frank Capra's Oscar nominated "Why We Fight" chapter
"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen" is the fifth in director Frank Capra's celebrated "Why We Fight" series that is the supreme example of American propaganda during World War II. Capra was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps and was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall to make a series of short documentaries that would explain the policy of the U.S. government to the troops that were being hastily assembled, trained, and sent overseas to fight. Eventually the "Why We Fight" series was shown to the public in theaters and prints were distributed to American allies in England and the Soviet Union as well.

"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen," on which Anatole Litvak also worked as an uncredited director, followed "The Battle of Britain," both of which were released in 1943. The 57-minute black & white documentary narrated by both actor Walter Huston and writer Anthony Veiller. "The Battle of Russia" begins with Hitler deciding to betraying his alliance with Stalin and attacking the Soviet Union. However, at the end of this documentary the Soviets stop the Nazis at the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's army suffers a crippling defeat at the gates of Moscow. "The Battle of Russia," which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature-Length Film Documentary, is a prime example of the way the Soviet Union was presented as a strong ally during World War II (check out "Mission to Moscow" in this regard as well).

Even today the "Why We Fight" series remains a prime source of archival footage of this period, with film of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Haile Selassie, Vyacheslav Molotov, Hermann Göring, and a score of German and Soviet military figures. "The Battle of Russia" is followed by "The Battle of China," which finally introduces the Pacific theater of World War II. In 2000 the "Why We Fight" series was added to the Library of Congress National Film Registry.

Frank Capra's Oscar nominated World War II documentary
"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen" is the fifth in director Frank Capra's celebrated "Why We Fight" series that is the supreme example of American propaganda during World War II. Capra was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps and was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall to make a series of short documentaries that would explain the policy of the U.S. government to the troops that were being hastily assembled, trained, and sent overseas to fight. Eventually the "Why We Fight" series was shown to the public in theaters and prints were distributed to American allies in England and the Soviet Union as well.

"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen," on which Anatole Litvak also worked as an uncredited director, followed "The Battle of Britain," both of which were released in 1943. The 57-minute black & white documentary narrated by both actor Walter Huston and writer Anthony Veiller. "The Battle of Russia" begins with Hitler deciding to betraying his alliance with Stalin and attacking the Soviet Union. However, at the end of this documentary the Soviets stop the Nazis at the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's army suffers a crippling defeat at the gates of Moscow. "The Battle of Russia," which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature-Length Film Documentary, is a prime example of the way the Soviet Union was presented as a strong ally during World War II (check out "Mission to Moscow" in this regard as well).

Even today the "Why We Fight" series remains a prime source of archival footage of this period, with film of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Haile Selassie, Vyacheslav Molotov, Hermann Göring, and a score of German and Soviet military figures. "The Battle of Russia" is followed by "The Battle of China," which finally introduces the Pacific theater of World War II. In 2000 the "Why We Fight" series was added to the Library of Congress National Film Registry.

Frank Capra's Oscar nominated World War II documentary
"The Battle of Russia" is the fifth in director Frank Capra's celebrated "Why We Fight" series that is the supreme example of American propaganda during World War II. Capra was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps and was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall to make a series of short documentaries that would explain the policy of the U.S. government to the troops that were being hastily assembled, trained, and sent overseas to fight. Eventually the "Why We Fight" series was shown to the public in theaters and prints were distributed to American allies in England and the Soviet Union as well.

"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen," on which Anatole Litvak also worked as an uncredited director, followed "The Battle of Britain," both of which were released in 1943. The 57-minute black & white documentary narrated by both actor Walter Huston and writer Anthony Veiller. "The Battle of Russia" begins with Hitler deciding to betraying his alliance with Stalin and attacking the Soviet Union. However, at the end of this documentary the Soviets stop the Nazis at the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's army suffers a crippling defeat at the gates of Moscow. "The Battle of Russia," which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature-Length Film Documentary, is a prime example of the way the Soviet Union was presented as a strong ally during World War II (check out "Mission to Moscow" in this regard as well).

Even today the "Why We Fight" series remains a prime source of archival footage of this period, with film of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Haile Selassie, Vyacheslav Molotov, Hermann Göring, and a score of German and Soviet military figures. "The Battle of Russia" is followed by "The Battle of China," which finally introduces the Pacific theater of World War II. In 2000 the "Why We Fight" series was added to the Library of Congress National Film Registry.

Dreadfully Bad
Ok, the topic is great... the Soviet repulsion of the Nazi military might. But the war-time propaganda, the lack of depth of the "documentary", the missing facts, and the poor quality of the film make this a horrific failure when one considers the title.

I don't care if this is a known propaganda film used for recruiting in the United States during WWII... it simply has no social context sixty years later. Shouldn't we be concerned with the facts of the Nazi siege and the Soviet repulsion as they relate to a deeper understanding about the two nations of the 20th century that produced the worst dictators (Hitler and Stalin)?

Consider the following facts:

1) There was a major event in the 20th century, commonly referred to as "World War II", when most of the nations of the world were at war.

2) During that event Nazi Germany terrorized all of Europe (and especially the Soviet Union), through their military might and demonic plans (the Holocaust).

3) The Nazi's invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

4) The Soviet Union repulsed the Nazi invasion.

I would guess that the mentally ill and the recently born make up the vast majority of the population that isn't aware of the above-mentioned facts. This movie is for them.

Propaganda? Yes. But also something else.
Yes, this is propaganda. But this is also a rare film. You will see a million WWII movies that gloss over the russian side of the story. They fought bravely with their backs against the wall and prevailed against some serious odds. The director had to work with the russian propaganda footage, and so it is a glimpse into their world at the time. It is a rare film because it does not brand the whole nation "evil". And, actually, it gives you a piece of history you don't know. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

American Propoganda
These movies were perfect for the US troops in World War II. They caused anger in the troops. It made them want to fight.

As for being of historical value - well... they aren't. Take anything you watch with a grain of salt. Some of it may be true, some is not correct at all. The Americans use basic propoganda techniques like constantly repeating what Hitler said, and then showing what he did. The movies don't bother to tell how the political climate had changed and Hitler had been forced to act against what he had originally promised.

I'm a history professor at a well-established university (sorry, can't tell you which one... anonymity is key to survival). I would not use this to teach my classes. The real facts are very different from what the movies portray.

As I said... They served their purpose to boost morale in the troops back in 1944-45... but to the general public it is just hogwash.

The opening volume in Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series
The famous "Why We Fight" documentary series was produced by Frank Capra when he was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The series was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, as a way of indoctrinating all the troops who signed up in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war. The idea was to make it clear we were doing more than just remembering Pearl Harbor as we mobilized for a war to be fought across two oceans . Eventually the series was shown to the public in theaters across the country.

"Prelude to War," the introductory film in the "Why We Fight" series covers the events leading up to the Second World War, focusing on the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany, the Japanese attacks on Manchuria, and the United States' lack of military preparedness. The last is particularly interesting because it implicitly explains Pearl Harbor not as a Japanese victory, but rather as an American defeat (we lost rather than they won).

This first chapter in the "Why We Fight" series defines World War II in black and white terms as the totalitarian worldwide conspiracy threatens to turn the free world into a slave world. Admittedly a propaganda film, this 1942 documentary is quite informative, explaining about Hitler's book "Mein Kampf," Lebensraum, the Tanaka Plan, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Nuremberg Laws, and even such details as the Roman fasces.

This 54-minute black & white film won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1942 and the series as a whole is credited with redefining the documentary as an art form. Of great historical value, it must be underscored that "Prelude to War" is not exactly propaganda in the most pejorative sense of the term. The film's great "sin" along those lines is that it makes the case that public opinion was moving in the direction of joining the war. Instead of dismissing this film and Capra's efforts as the American counterpart to what Goebbels was doing in Nazi Germany, it is more accurate to think of it as being the film equivalent of a prosecutor's speech in a trial. "Prelude to War" makes much better use of evidence without the radical distortion you usually find in classic examples of propaganda.

"Prelude to War," the first volume of Capra's "Why We Fight"
As you probably know, the "Why We Fight" series was produced by Frank Capra when he was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The series was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, as a way of indoctrinating all the troops who signed up in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war. The idea was to make it clear we were doing more than just remembering Pearl Harbor. Eventually the series was shown to the public in theaters across the country. "Prelude to War," the introductory film in the "Why We Fight" series covers the events leading up to the Second World War, focusing on the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany, the Japanese attacks on Manchuria, and the United States' lack of military preparedness. The last is particularly interesting because it implicitly explains Pearl Harbor not as a Japanese victory, but rather as an American defeat (we lost rather than they won).

"Prelude to War" defines World War II in black and white terms as the totalitarian worldwide conspiracy threatens to turn the free world into a slave world. Admittedly a propaganda film, this 1942 documentary is quite informative, explaining about Hitler's book "Mein Kampf," Lebensraum, the Tanaka Plan, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Nuremberg Laws, and even such details as the Roman fasces.

This 54-minute black & white film won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1942 and the series as a whole is credited with redefining the documentary as an art form. Of great historical value, it must be underscored that "Prelude to War" is not exactly propaganda in the most pejorative sense of the term. The film's great "sin" along those lines is that it makes the case that public opinion was moving in the direction of joining the war. Instead of dismissing this film and Capra's efforts as the American counterpart to what Goebbels was doing in Nazi Germany, it is more accurate to think of it as being the film equivalent of a prosecutor's speech in a trial. "Prelude to War" makes much better use of evidence without the radical distortion you usually find in classic examples of propaganda.

Frank Capra's documentary on the origins of World War II
As you probably know, the "Why We Fight" series was produced by Frank Capra when he was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The series was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, as a way of indoctrinating all the troops who signed up in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war. The idea was to make it clear we were doing more than just remembering Pearl Harbor. Eventually the series was shown to the public in theaters across the country. "Prelude to War," the introductory film in the "Why We Fight" series covers the events leading up to the Second World War, focusing on the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany, the Japanese attacks on Manchuria, and the United States' lack of military preparedness. The last is particularly interesting because it implicitly explains Pearl Harbor not as a Japanese victory, but rather as an American defeat (we lost rather than they won).

"Prelude to War" defines World War II in black and white terms as the totalitarian worldwide conspiracy threatens to turn the free world into a slave world. Admittedly a propaganda film, this 1942 documentary is quite informative, explaining about Hitler's book "Mein Kampf," Lebensraum, the Tanaka Plan, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Nuremberg Laws, and even such details as the Roman fasces.

This 54-minute black & white film won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1942 and the series as a whole is credited with redefining the documentary as an art form. Of great historical value, it must be underscored that "Prelude to War" is not exactly propaganda in the most pejorative sense of the term. The film's great "sin" along those lines is that it makes the case that public opinion was moving in the direction of joining the war. Instead of dismissing this film and Capra's efforts as the American counterpart to what Goebbels was doing in Nazi Germany, it is more accurate to think of it as being the film equivalent of a prosecutor's speech in a trial. "Prelude to War" makes much better use of evidence without the radical distortion you usually find in classic examples of propaganda.

Frank Capra explains to Americans how World War II started
As you probably know, the "Why We Fight" series was produced by Frank Capra when he was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The series was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, as a way of indoctrinating all the troops who signed up in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war. The idea was to make it clear we were doing more than just remembering Pearl Harbor. Eventually the series was shown to the public in theaters across the country. This introductory film in the "Why We Fight" series covers the events leading up to the Second World War, focusing on the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany, the Japanese attacks on Manchuria, and the United States' lack of military preparedness. The last is particularly interesting because it implicitly explains Pearl Harbor not as a Japanese victory, but rather as an American defeat (we lost rather than they won). "Prelude to War" defines World War II in black and white terms as the totalitarian worldwide conspiracy threatens to turn the free world into a slave world. Admittedly a propaganda film, this 1942 documentary is quite informative, explaining about Hitler's book "Mein Kampf," Lebensraum, the Tanaka Plan, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Nuremberg Laws, and even such details as the Roman fasces.

This 54-minute black & white film won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1942 and the series as a whole is credited with redefining the documentary as an art form. Of great historical value, it must be underscored that "Prelude to War" is not exactly propaganda in the most pejorative sense of the term. The film's great "sin" along those lines is that it makes the case that public opinion was moving in the direction of joining the war. Instead of dismissing this film and Capra's efforts as the American counterpart to what Goebbels was doing in Nazi Germany, it is more accurate to think of it as being the film equivalent of a prosecutor's speech in a trial. "Prelude to War" makes much better use of evidence without the radical distortion you usually find in classic examples of propaganda. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Greatly valuable film of all war archives!
What a vividness and reality in this film! Some people may criticize it as a propaganda film, but it can not be more realistic than any other war docomentary film. Hundreds times better than "Lost archives of WW¥±". Fantastically nostalgic! ... Read more

Reviews (9)

American Propoganda
These movies were perfect for the US troops in World War II. They caused anger in the troops. It made them want to fight.

As for being of historical value - well... they aren't. Take anything you watch with a grain of salt. Some of it may be true, some is not correct at all. The Americans use basic propoganda techniques like constantly repeating what Hitler said, and then showing what he did. The movies don't bother to tell how the political climate had changed and Hitler had been forced to act against what he had originally promised.

I'm a history professor at a well-established university (sorry, can't tell you which one... anonymity is key to survival). I would not use this to teach my classes. The real facts are very different from what the movies portray.

As I said... They served their purpose to boost morale in the troops back in 1944-45... but to the general public it is just hogwash.

The opening volume in Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series
The famous "Why We Fight" documentary series was produced by Frank Capra when he was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The series was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, as a way of indoctrinating all the troops who signed up in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war. The idea was to make it clear we were doing more than just remembering Pearl Harbor as we mobilized for a war to be fought across two oceans . Eventually the series was shown to the public in theaters across the country.

"Prelude to War," the introductory film in the "Why We Fight" series covers the events leading up to the Second World War, focusing on the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany, the Japanese attacks on Manchuria, and the United States' lack of military preparedness. The last is particularly interesting because it implicitly explains Pearl Harbor not as a Japanese victory, but rather as an American defeat (we lost rather than they won).

This first chapter in the "Why We Fight" series defines World War II in black and white terms as the totalitarian worldwide conspiracy threatens to turn the free world into a slave world. Admittedly a propaganda film, this 1942 documentary is quite informative, explaining about Hitler's book "Mein Kampf," Lebensraum, the Tanaka Plan, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Nuremberg Laws, and even such details as the Roman fasces.

This 54-minute black & white film won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1942 and the series as a whole is credited with redefining the documentary as an art form. Of great historical value, it must be underscored that "Prelude to War" is not exactly propaganda in the most pejorative sense of the term. The film's great "sin" along those lines is that it makes the case that public opinion was moving in the direction of joining the war. Instead of dismissing this film and Capra's efforts as the American counterpart to what Goebbels was doing in Nazi Germany, it is more accurate to think of it as being the film equivalent of a prosecutor's speech in a trial. "Prelude to War" makes much better use of evidence without the radical distortion you usually find in classic examples of propaganda.

"Prelude to War," the first volume of Capra's "Why We Fight"
As you probably know, the "Why We Fight" series was produced by Frank Capra when he was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The series was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, as a way of indoctrinating all the troops who signed up in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war. The idea was to make it clear we were doing more than just remembering Pearl Harbor. Eventually the series was shown to the public in theaters across the country. "Prelude to War," the introductory film in the "Why We Fight" series covers the events leading up to the Second World War, focusing on the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany, the Japanese attacks on Manchuria, and the United States' lack of military preparedness. The last is particularly interesting because it implicitly explains Pearl Harbor not as a Japanese victory, but rather as an American defeat (we lost rather than they won).

"Prelude to War" defines World War II in black and white terms as the totalitarian worldwide conspiracy threatens to turn the free world into a slave world. Admittedly a propaganda film, this 1942 documentary is quite informative, explaining about Hitler's book "Mein Kampf," Lebensraum, the Tanaka Plan, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Nuremberg Laws, and even such details as the Roman fasces.

This 54-minute black & white film won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1942 and the series as a whole is credited with redefining the documentary as an art form. Of great historical value, it must be underscored that "Prelude to War" is not exactly propaganda in the most pejorative sense of the term. The film's great "sin" along those lines is that it makes the case that public opinion was moving in the direction of joining the war. Instead of dismissing this film and Capra's efforts as the American counterpart to what Goebbels was doing in Nazi Germany, it is more accurate to think of it as being the film equivalent of a prosecutor's speech in a trial. "Prelude to War" makes much better use of evidence without the radical distortion you usually find in classic examples of propaganda.

Frank Capra's documentary on the origins of World War II
As you probably know, the "Why We Fight" series was produced by Frank Capra when he was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The series was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, as a way of indoctrinating all the troops who signed up in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war. The idea was to make it clear we were doing more than just remembering Pearl Harbor. Eventually the series was shown to the public in theaters across the country. "Prelude to War," the introductory film in the "Why We Fight" series covers the events leading up to the Second World War, focusing on the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany, the Japanese attacks on Manchuria, and the United States' lack of military preparedness. The last is particularly interesting because it implicitly explains Pearl Harbor not as a Japanese victory, but rather as an American defeat (we lost rather than they won).

"Prelude to War" defines World War II in black and white terms as the totalitarian worldwide conspiracy threatens to turn the free world into a slave world. Admittedly a propaganda film, this 1942 documentary is quite informative, explaining about Hitler's book "Mein Kampf," Lebensraum, the Tanaka Plan, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Nuremberg Laws, and even such details as the Roman fasces.

This 54-minute black & white film won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1942 and the series as a whole is credited with redefining the documentary as an art form. Of great historical value, it must be underscored that "Prelude to War" is not exactly propaganda in the most pejorative sense of the term. The film's great "sin" along those lines is that it makes the case that public opinion was moving in the direction of joining the war. Instead of dismissing this film and Capra's efforts as the American counterpart to what Goebbels was doing in Nazi Germany, it is more accurate to think of it as being the film equivalent of a prosecutor's speech in a trial. "Prelude to War" makes much better use of evidence without the radical distortion you usually find in classic examples of propaganda.

Frank Capra explains to Americans how World War II started
As you probably know, the "Why We Fight" series was produced by Frank Capra when he was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps. The series was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, as a way of indoctrinating all the troops who signed up in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war. The idea was to make it clear we were doing more than just remembering Pearl Harbor. Eventually the series was shown to the public in theaters across the country. This introductory film in the "Why We Fight" series covers the events leading up to the Second World War, focusing on the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany, the Japanese attacks on Manchuria, and the United States' lack of military preparedness. The last is particularly interesting because it implicitly explains Pearl Harbor not as a Japanese victory, but rather as an American defeat (we lost rather than they won). "Prelude to War" defines World War II in black and white terms as the totalitarian worldwide conspiracy threatens to turn the free world into a slave world. Admittedly a propaganda film, this 1942 documentary is quite informative, explaining about Hitler's book "Mein Kampf," Lebensraum, the Tanaka Plan, the London Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Nuremberg Laws, and even such details as the Roman fasces.

This 54-minute black & white film won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1942 and the series as a whole is credited with redefining the documentary as an art form. Of great historical value, it must be underscored that "Prelude to War" is not exactly propaganda in the most pejorative sense of the term. The film's great "sin" along those lines is that it makes the case that public opinion was moving in the direction of joining the war. Instead of dismissing this film and Capra's efforts as the American counterpart to what Goebbels was doing in Nazi Germany, it is more accurate to think of it as being the film equivalent of a prosecutor's speech in a trial. "Prelude to War" makes much better use of evidence without the radical distortion you usually find in classic examples of propaganda. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Frank Capra's Oscar nominated "Why We Fight" chapter
"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen" is the fifth in director Frank Capra's celebrated "Why We Fight" series that is the supreme example of American propaganda during World War II. Capra was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps and was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall to make a series of short documentaries that would explain the policy of the U.S. government to the troops that were being hastily assembled, trained, and sent overseas to fight. Eventually the "Why We Fight" series was shown to the public in theaters and prints were distributed to American allies in England and the Soviet Union as well.

"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen," on which Anatole Litvak also worked as an uncredited director, followed "The Battle of Britain," both of which were released in 1943. The 57-minute black & white documentary narrated by both actor Walter Huston and writer Anthony Veiller. "The Battle of Russia" begins with Hitler deciding to betraying his alliance with Stalin and attacking the Soviet Union. However, at the end of this documentary the Soviets stop the Nazis at the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's army suffers a crippling defeat at the gates of Moscow. "The Battle of Russia," which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature-Length Film Documentary, is a prime example of the way the Soviet Union was presented as a strong ally during World War II (check out "Mission to Moscow" in this regard as well).

Even today the "Why We Fight" series remains a prime source of archival footage of this period, with film of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Haile Selassie, Vyacheslav Molotov, Hermann Göring, and a score of German and Soviet military figures. "The Battle of Russia" is followed by "The Battle of China," which finally introduces the Pacific theater of World War II. In 2000 the "Why We Fight" series was added to the Library of Congress National Film Registry.

Frank Capra's Oscar nominated World War II documentary
"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen" is the fifth in director Frank Capra's celebrated "Why We Fight" series that is the supreme example of American propaganda during World War II. Capra was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps and was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall to make a series of short documentaries that would explain the policy of the U.S. government to the troops that were being hastily assembled, trained, and sent overseas to fight. Eventually the "Why We Fight" series was shown to the public in theaters and prints were distributed to American allies in England and the Soviet Union as well.

"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen," on which Anatole Litvak also worked as an uncredited director, followed "The Battle of Britain," both of which were released in 1943. The 57-minute black & white documentary narrated by both actor Walter Huston and writer Anthony Veiller. "The Battle of Russia" begins with Hitler deciding to betraying his alliance with Stalin and attacking the Soviet Union. However, at the end of this documentary the Soviets stop the Nazis at the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's army suffers a crippling defeat at the gates of Moscow. "The Battle of Russia," which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature-Length Film Documentary, is a prime example of the way the Soviet Union was presented as a strong ally during World War II (check out "Mission to Moscow" in this regard as well).

Even today the "Why We Fight" series remains a prime source of archival footage of this period, with film of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Haile Selassie, Vyacheslav Molotov, Hermann Göring, and a score of German and Soviet military figures. "The Battle of Russia" is followed by "The Battle of China," which finally introduces the Pacific theater of World War II. In 2000 the "Why We Fight" series was added to the Library of Congress National Film Registry.

Frank Capra's Oscar nominated World War II documentary
"The Battle of Russia" is the fifth in director Frank Capra's celebrated "Why We Fight" series that is the supreme example of American propaganda during World War II. Capra was a major in the U.S. Army Signal Corps and was commissioned by Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall to make a series of short documentaries that would explain the policy of the U.S. government to the troops that were being hastily assembled, trained, and sent overseas to fight. Eventually the "Why We Fight" series was shown to the public in theaters and prints were distributed to American allies in England and the Soviet Union as well.

"The Battle of Russia: The Nazi March Frozen," on which Anatole Litvak also worked as an uncredited director, followed "The Battle of Britain," both of which were released in 1943. The 57-minute black & white documentary narrated by both actor Walter Huston and writer Anthony Veiller. "The Battle of Russia" begins with Hitler deciding to betraying his alliance with Stalin and attacking the Soviet Union. However, at the end of this documentary the Soviets stop the Nazis at the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's army suffers a crippling defeat at the gates of Moscow. "The Battle of Russia," which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature-Length Film Documentary, is a prime example of the way the Soviet Union was presented as a strong ally during World War II (check out "Mission to Moscow" in this regard as well).

Even today the "Why We Fight" series remains a prime source of archival footage of this period, with film of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Haile Selassie, Vyacheslav Molotov, Hermann Göring, and a score of German and Soviet military figures. "The Battle of Russia" is followed by "The Battle of China," which finally introduces the Pacific theater of World War II. In 2000 the "Why We Fight" series was added to the Library of Congress National Film Registry.

Dreadfully Bad
Ok, the topic is great... the Soviet repulsion of the Nazi military might. But the war-time propaganda, the lack of depth of the "documentary", the missing facts, and the poor quality of the film make this a horrific failure when one considers the title.

I don't care if this is a known propaganda film used for recruiting in the United States during WWII... it simply has no social context sixty years later. Shouldn't we be concerned with the facts of the Nazi siege and the Soviet repulsion as they relate to a deeper understanding about the two nations of the 20th century that produced the worst dictators (Hitler and Stalin)?

Consider the following facts:

1) There was a major event in the 20th century, commonly referred to as "World War II", when most of the nations of the world were at war.

2) During that event Nazi Germany terrorized all of Europe (and especially the Soviet Union), through their military might and demonic plans (the Holocaust).

3) The Nazi's invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.

4) The Soviet Union repulsed the Nazi invasion.

I would guess that the mentally ill and the recently born make up the vast majority of the population that isn't aware of the above-mentioned facts. This movie is for them.

Propaganda? Yes. But also something else.
Yes, this is propaganda. But this is also a rare film. You will see a million WWII movies that gloss over the russian side of the story. They fought bravely with their backs against the wall and prevailed against some serious odds. The director had to work with the russian propaganda footage, and so it is a glimpse into their world at the time. It is a rare film because it does not brand the whole nation "evil". And, actually, it gives you a piece of history you don't know. ... Read more