User reviews

To correct one thing the first critic said, KOLBERG was released on January 31, 1945. But it's release came to late to increase the morals of the Wehrmacht, because at the end of Janauary things went not so well for the German Army, because the Red Army reached the Oder, some 60 km near Berlin. Furthermore the powers of the Wehrmacht were nearly exhausted, due to the loss of arms and men. So it was clear to see for the most, that we would loose the war, unless the promised Wunderwaffen would not come to action. And that never happened. Nevertheless KOLBERG is an interesting experience. Alt last I'd like to point out HEINRICH GEORGE, who truly was one of our greatest Actors in Theatre and Film ever, in his role of the Bürgermeister of Kolberg. A stunning performance.

Kolberg's legendary status owes not a little to its unobtainability and complete absence from television. I have the distinct impression that the best of Veit Harlan's direction ended up on the cutting room floor as a panicking Dr Goebbels insisted on drastic revision before this thundering epic could be shown -should I say, inflicted on- the German public in the last days of WWII. There are some magnificent scenes of battles and the episode in the Kolberg town council chamber is brilliantly scripted and acted, but the something is very wrong about the way the final print was put together. Lead character Maria is a virtual stranger; the details of her trials and tribulations along with her affair with Schill have to be guessed at, as does much else. The sets throughout are splendid - but it's all a stage with nothing happening. Continuity is appalling. I understand that we are watching 1hr 45mins out of over 90 hours of footage taken and that all the negatives are lost. We will never know what we are missing.

Some legends rank around this last big budget nazi movie. Well, the battle scenes with more than 180.000 extras, the flood-sequence and the destruction of Kolberg are filmed with some enthusiasm. But as an instrument of propaganda it's not convincing anymore. It seems even director Veit Harlan didn't believe the plot he was ordered to tell (and which is historically wrong). There's a lot of shrill and loud shouting and the typical glorification of Prussian militarism that seems so ridiculous and pervert when you consider what has happened at the same time in real life when the movie was released (30 January 1945). An evil but nevertheless perfectly done picture which was fortunately released too late for maintaining the resistance of German citizens against Allied forces.

Kolberg is one of those more timeless tales, of a small town besieged by a vast, greedy enemy. It is a story of the small people holding to their honour and duty, and ultimately triumphing over the mighty. The movie is set in the Napoleonic Wars, but the message is for the people of Germany just as they are being invaded by the Red Army and the American and British armies.

Goebbels film studios managed to film and distribute this movie just as the final battles of World War II were being fought. Its message of defiant defense in the face of hopeless odds was meant to rally the severely demoralised Germans as their homes were being threatened by the enemy. The songs and vivid colours were meant to entertain and raise morale as life became darker and darker.

Technically, its a masterpiece, and makes use of all kinds of modern shots, angles, and special effects. Its colours were terrible, though, but I trust it was the copy I saw. Of course, it might have been a result of the war constraints.

Seen in this context, this film is even more interesting than the entertaining story it presents.

Jurched

Very few Nazi propoganda films achieved the effect for which they were intended and despite costing an estimated 8.5 million Reichmarks, this opus is no exception. Although conceived in 1942 it was not released until 1945 by which time its message that resistance is preferable to surrender was unlikely to appeal to citizens who had already paid a heavy price for their flirtation with National Socialism. Anyway, not many cinemas were still standing and the majority of film goers much preferred to watch 'Baron Munchhausen'.

That aside, 'Kolberg' is a marvellous piece of film-making. Beautifully shot in Agfacolor by Bruno Mondi with a powerful score by Norbert Schultze and intensely moving performances by some of Germany's finest.

The three leading characters of Gniesenau, Nettlebeck and Maria are basically symbols, respectively, of inspired military leadership, nationalist fervour and supreme sacrifice. Indeed, Gniesenaus' 'The people rise...the storm breaks' echos Goebbel's 'total war' speech from 1943.

Whatever one's feelings regarding demonised director Veit Harlan and the monstrous masters he served this film nonetheless remains an essential piece of cinematic history which no true cinephile can dismiss.

Apparently, this propaganda film (funded by none other than Goebbels, with the aim of strengthening the idea of a "Volksfront") had the largest budget and took the longest to complete of any German wartime film. The producers mention that the events portrayed are rooted in historical events. Sorry. "Kolberg" is loosely based on the exploits of Ferdinand von Schill's Freikorps in the Hanseatic City of Stralsund. In the film, the citizenry, their patriotic passions aroused by the dashing Schill, successfully vanquishes the French troops. In reality (1809), the French routed Schill's Freikorps, decapitated him posthumously, and sent his severed head in a bottle to King Jerome of Westphalia (Napoleon's brother-in-law). Hmmm. I have to say that I prefer my Nazi propaganda straight, without the anachronistic melodrama. In short, this film can only be stomached by academics and true psychos.

Most people who know about this movie are aware that "Kolberg" was financed by Joseph Goebbels near the end of World War II, when Nazi Germany was in its final death throes. (Supposedly, Goebbels wrote many of the speeches himself.) Fittingly (though perhaps also surprisingly) enough, it was also one of the biggest budgeted German films at that time, with thousands of extras (and thousands of horses) employed - many of them taken off the front lines. The result is a big budget propaganda that actually, on its own, holds up pretty well. You don't have the blatant pro-Nazi message of "Triumph of the Will", and you don't have the blatant antisemitism of "Jud Suess", so it won't make even the most open-minded film critic squeamish. At the same time, and much like Soviet films that served similar purposes, if you know the worldview of the filmmakers and who budgeted them, then you can, at times, read between the lines.

The film opens in Prussia, in the period following Napoleon's ill fated Russian campaign. The Prussian (read: German) people are calling for the nation to go to war against Napoleon. Gneisenau, the famous Prussian general, goes to King Frederick William III to convince him to go to war. In the process of so doing, he begins to recount the story of the siege of Kolberg, which he himself participated in. The tale recounts the days shortly after the Battle of Jena, with the Holy Roman Empire dissolving into the pro-Napoleon Confederation of the Rhine, and with French troops storming across German lands. In the midst of all this, there is a hold out of hope in Kolberg, where the city mayor, Nettelbeck refuses to give in. After sparring with Loucadou, the military commander of Kolberg, Nettelbeck seeks help from the monarchy, and receives relief with the arrival of Gneisenau. Defenses are prepared, and the French launch their attack. The defenders manage to hold on until the bitter end, after which the French withdraw. Going back to the contemporary time, King Frederick is overcome, and decides to declare war on Napoleon.

As I said before, you can read between the lines about the message they were trying to convey to a German audience that was constantly hearing about shrinking front lines and constantly having Allied bombs fall on their heads. The setting here is almost the exact same one they would be in: an enemy force is overrunning Germany, and struggling German defenders are forced to make a last ditch stand as their society crumbles around them. The scene where the French begin to bombard the town mercilessly, resulting in destruction of homes en masse, was obviously a reference to the Allied bombing in the past, and an effort to ask the people to keep firm despite it. Nettelbeck is clearly presented as a man of the people, much like Hitler was portrayed by the party, and the people rally around him as their last hope. Also noteworthy is the emphasis on the unity of the people in working together to better the nation - it's easy to forget that the National Socialists were, at their core, socialists of a certain caliber, and hence they often spoke of themselves as friends of "the little guy". Perhaps the saddest part of the film's propaganda undertones is the ending. The film ends with the French merely giving up, realizing the city cannot be taken; in reality, the French only withdrew because Prussia signed a treaty that effectively made it a neutral nation. One wonders if the Nazi financiers and advisers for the film hoped that the war would end this way as well: with the Allies giving up after realizing how hard the Germans were willing to fight. Given how World War II ended, this makes the film exactly what it is: a Nazi fantasy.

The film's cast is also an interesting cavalcade of who's-who in early-to-mid 20th century German cinema. Kristina Söderbaum, who also played the ill-fated heroine in Goebbels' more well known pet project "Jud Suess", stars as the main female lead here. Paul Wegener, of "Der Golem" fame, plays Nettelbeck's foil Loucadou. Otto Wernicke, who played the police inspector in Fritz Lang's masterpiece "M" (as well as starred in two other Nazi propaganda pieces, "Uncle Kruger" and "Titanic"), also plays a part. Surprisingly, an actor with very little film experience, Horst Caspar (check out his IMDB page - only four films are listed), probably shines the most as Gneisenau.

As I said before, the film stands well on its own, and is worth at least one viewing, even if out of mere curiosity for its historical significance. It's rare that people outside of Germany get to see films about Germans in the Napoleonic Wars, so perhaps from that perspective alone, it might be worth a viewing.

There are some mistakes in the other reviews, which I would like to correct. "Kolberg" is by no means the last film of the Third Reich. The film production kept on going until April 23 in Berlin-Babelsberg, and as long as the early days of May in Prag, the last major colour film shot being "Shiva und die Galgenblume". Until that time there were about 90 films being either completed or shot in the Prag studios. If you want to find out the really "last" film, perhaps you should check out Käutner's absolutely beautiful "Under the Bridges", which didn't pass censorship in March 1945. But I'm not sure even that was the last completed film. Amazon.de sells about 6 different films on DVD which are marked as completed in 1945 (Frech und Verliebt, Monte Miracolo, Peter Voss - Millionendieb, Fledermaus etc.) Plus there are several, which were completed in 1945, but released only after the war.

Then, Kolberg hadn't fallen when this film premiered in Berlin and La Rochelle (which, perhaps inspired by the film, capitulated only two days after Germany had fallen). Kolberg was finally abandoned on March, 18.

There is a beautiful restored print sold by the International Historic Films. It has beautiful colours and a good soundtrack, plus some extras. This film can be watched - and indeed enjoyed - as a work of art, unless you absolutely want to read propaganda into it. Sure, it was made as an ultimate propaganda vehicle, but as a viewer I am permitted to distance myself from the politics and see this film as a cinematic near masterpiece. We know, that it was radically edited in January 1945, since Dr Goebbels found it to be too bloody, "nearly pacifistic". Every trace of human suffering (aside from the lame love intrigue) was removed, and that's probably what makes this film uneven and jumpy at times. What the director's cut could have looked like, we can only guess.

Politics and propaganda are as important today as they were back then. It's important to remember the atrocities of war and the crimes of Nazist regime. But a film starts living its own life since the moment it's completed, and we are stupid if we fail to recognize its merits merely because we know, that we are supposed to be blind to them.

A few months ago I watched 'Der alte und der junge König' ('The making of a King'), Hans Steinhoff 1935, and was impressed in spite of myself. For a piece of Nazi-propaganda, that film was remarkably subtle. Kolberg was filmed almost a decade later, during the dying days of the Third Reich, and 'subtle' is about the last word of which you'll think when watching it. The message of the film is driven home like a Panzerfaust. It is (as you would expect in late 1944/early 1945) what Hitler, Goebbels and the whole gang of depraved criminals at the apex of Nazi-Germany thought they needed in order to prolong their lives by another few weeks or maybe even months: fight to the last bullet, even if the result means death under the rubble of Germany's towns and cities. To demonstrate how commendable such a course was, 'Kolberg' draws on the history of the eponymous small Pomeranian port during the Napoleonic wars. Back then, Kolberg had held out for months against a besieging French army; the town had struck its colours only once news of the Franco-Prussian Peace of Tilsit (1807) reached the defenders. The film, by contrast, claims falsely that defence lasted until the French gave up the attempt to conquer Kolberg, and it shows the result of the French shelling in pictures evidently intended to remind the audience of the consequences of the allied bombing campaign during WWII. In short, viewers were expected to draw the conclusion that if they were prepared to fight the allies to the last bullet, Germany might still win the war. It says something about German public opinion (hard to gauge given that the Nazi terror machine went into overdrive towards the end of the war) that 'Kolberg' flopped. As far as acting is concerned, the film has its impressive moments. Heinrich George (as Joachim Nettelbeck) is great. Kristina Söderbaum (who plays Nettelbeck's niece) does far less well; especially her undercooked romance with Lt. Schill (Gustav Diessl) cannot convince. The pacing of the film is uneven. There are impressive action sequences, but especially the first half hour with its background story in Breslau 1813 and its other historical vignettes does not work. By the way: the background story claims that the war of 1813 was a 'people's war' of the kind Goebbels wanted to unleash against the allies. Modern historical research has put paid to that myth. Popular participation was actually quite weak in 1813. This is another historical detail that 'Kolberg' distorts in the interest of Nazi-propaganda, and another reason why I am adding the film to my 'Horrible Histories'-list.

During the waning years of WWII, it was obvious to just about everyone that ultimately the Germans would lose the war. However, the Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels insisted that a rousing German epic about war MUST be created in order to inspire their people in the defense of the nation. And so, while the country was being incinerated from the air and troops were being slaughtered by the 100s of 1000s on the Eastern Front, HUGE resources were rather inexplicably being diverted to the creation of "Kolberg". 10s of 1000s of soldiers were cast as extras and the great power of the sleeping German movie industry was mustered. And seeing that it was a full-color film with all this money being thrown into it, it's not surprising that this is a great film--though also one most would probably want to forget simply because of who made it and why it was created in the first place.

The film is set during the Napoleonic Wars--back around 1807. Town after Prussian town have surrendered to the oncoming French juggernaut. Yet, inexplicably, the town of Kolberg isn't ready to welcome the invaders. Despite a very weak commander of the Prussian army in the region, the Mayor isn't about to surrender and he's encouraging his people to fight to the death, as by slowing down the enemy, ultimate victory may result. But, he must contend with the wimpy commander and send a rather ordinary lady on a mission to have the King replace the commander and support the defense of the city. What follows are some exceptional battle scenes and the only ones which I have seen which are better are from the insanely large Russian version of "War and Peace" (a film you just have to see at least once in your life).

Overall, the film is very rousing and inspiring. It's obvious that the purpose of the film is to get the German people to be very willing to lay down their lives as well as convince them that this is not a sacrifice in vain (which is was). As a result, the film probably contributed to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people--when there was no possible way to stop the inevitable. Plus, unlike the Prussians during the time of Napoleon, they were NOT fighting for what was right. Sad...but amazingly effective...provided the local movie houses had not been blown up so the folks could see it in the first place! By the way, the scene where the peasant girl meets the queen was exceptionally well done--even brilliant. See this and you'll understand what I mean.

In 1945 Kolberg was the Third Reich's big budget "epic" and the latest release in a slate of Nazi propaganda movies that were ordered into production, owing to Hitler and Goebbels' fascination with the motion picture as a means of controlling the populace. As it turned out, Kolberg was the swan song for this chapter of Adolf's war machine. The plot of Kolberg was based on historical events, namely Napoleon's attack on the Pomeranian city of Kolberg in 1807. Adapted from the autobiography of the Mayor of Kolberg, Joachim Nettelbeck, and a previous stage adaptation by Paul Heyse, it aimed to inspire the German people by showing how the embattled citizens triumphed over the Napoleonic hordes. Of course, accuracy was not Goebbels' primary concern. In the actual siege, Napoleon took the city, but facts have NO place in a propaganda film! This also applied to the writers. Paul Heyse was a Nobel Prize-winner but because he was Jewish all references to him and his play were removed. Despite its aim to be seen as an important and inspirational "historical" document, it is in fact just a bloated puff piece for Hitler's fascist cause.

I saw "Kolberg" on French television some time ago. What was most interesting about it was how desperate the propagandizing looked in this film - as if the filmmakers knew that they were on a sinking ship and that time was running out. I don't think the film is as "evil" as other Nazi films but it's only watchable for the historical interest of witnessing the final product, the last gasp, of a dying, militarist, and anti-humanistic culture. It looks like a film shot on borrowed time.

Herr Goebbels mentioned that "Kolberg" was an attempt to one-up the Hollywood style and clearly, he's given his director, Veit Harlan, the financial and manpower resources to stage some big scenes. Or, at least, what I think were big scenes. Goebbels, worried that the sight of Prussian troops (the film is set during the Napoleonic wars) getting wounded and killed in battle might demoralize the flagging German spirits - the film was shot in 1944 - and thus cut most action sequences out of the film. You'll get an army charging a hill abruptly cut into a shot of a burning house(whose ignition is never seen) cut again into someone encouraging the dedicated Prussian citizenry to hold fast against the merciless French troops. Cut back to a charging army that never really engages with the enemy. Cut again to panicking villagers. In between these gaps, which become more egregious as the film progresses, you get hamfisted attempts at colorful local humor, an impossibly convulted plot that crosscuts between several German towns to no avail, and an overbearing Valkyrie peasant woman forever spurring her fellow subjects to the Higher Cause (she's the most sexless woman in movie history). Everything in the movie is impossibly crude to the hammer-on-anvil dialouge, to the declarative acting (each actor seems to be wearing his or her own Greek mask while at the same time failing to make any impression whatsoever), to the whole stilted and incoherent pacing of this film.

The film is terrible but fascinating, especially given the context of when and where it was made. Goebbels diverted troops from the eastern front for the battle scenes that he subsequently mutiliated. And when one learns that Goebbels considered this the film that would revive the Nazi cause and that it was filmed at the time and near the locations where the Final Solution was shifting into high gear, it leaves you with a strong feeling of disgust for the whole enterprise. Even the subject matter, about Kolberg's citizens futilely defending themselves against a French onslaught, seems out of place. The tale is obviously used to rally support for the flailing German cause but the Kolberg citizenry's efforts were lost (the Prussian army was vanquished) and thus the message of the film is cancelled out. In an even greater historical irony, by the time the film debuted (30 January 1945), the Pomeranian town of Kolberg had been taken over by the Russians and today is a part of Poland.

"Kolberg" is a unique document showing a well-oiled propaganda machine collapsing in the face of its immanent demise. It achieves the opposite of its intent. The stolid face at the end of the film with the proto-Nazi flag as a backdrop is supposed to convey a sense of determined conviction but there's fear in those eyes.

"Kolberg" is impressive for several reasons; it is not only a piece of art, but also highly entertaining. It features some very good acting (Heinrich George is considered by many as one of the greatest actors ever), impressive cinematography which makes the movie also look very modern, in fact the makers of "Kolberg" seem to have been ahead of their time. John Wayne's "The Alamo" from 1960 could have been inspired by this movie. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes classics and anyone who likes the big screen at all. A must-see.

I suppose some kind of cosmic justice has been meted out to all concerned in regard to Kolberg the town and Kolberg the final propaganda product film of the Third Reich. This piece of turf that became the symbol of German resistance to Napoleon whose story Josef Goebbels had hoped to inspire the Reich populace to resist and fight the invaders from east and west in 1945 is now part of Poland.

The film is an awesome piece of spectacle especially when you consider the money spent and the manpower appropriated from the battlefield by Dr. Goebbels to be extras, playing being French and Prussian soldiers for the camera and missing the real war where doubtless a lot of them would be killed. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of candles were lit for Goebbels in many German households today because of it.

The story is after Austerlitz Napoleon pretty much had the run of things in Europe for a while. In his march toward Russia he met this incredible resistance from the former Hanseatic League town of Kolberg. Inspired by its mayor played by Heinrich George and Horst Caspar as General Gneissenau the place held out against incredible odds until the Treaty of Tilsit was signed, one of the few places in the future united Germany to do so. A whole lot like the way the City of Leningrad held out for years against the Nazis invading though that was a comparison the Third Reich would not be making.

George who was a favorite and favored player during the Third Reich is brilliant as Mayor Joachim Nettelbrick who spent as much time battling with Paul Wegener as the first commandant of the garrison as with the French. I had to think about that one for a bit, but it occurred to me that Hitler would probably have liked the citizen mayor showing up the professional army man as George continually does. After he was just a corporal and had conquered most of Europe against the advice of most of his generals. Of course then Gneissenau who is an ideal Aryan teams up with the mayor and they triumph.

The battle scenes populated with extras who were thanking whatever Gods they worshiped that they were not in the real war only miles away are staged brilliantly. The message of Kolberg is resistance and none of the other Nazi prejudices made its way into the film.

Veit Harlan one of the Third Reich's favored directors brought this one in which in Hollywood would have had the studio bean counters tearing the hair out of their heads. Krista Soderbaum who was the symbol of blond Aryan womanhood and Harlan's wife is also in the film who sustains several tragic losses, but carries on.

In a booklet that accompanied the DVD of Kolberg I ordered it pointed out the film did not have quite the impact that Goebbels thought it would after its Berlin premiere on January 30, 1945. First of all it had limited bookings because 90% of the theaters in Germany had been destroyed by Allied bombings. And by the time it came out the people were really not responding too well to the Propaganda Ministry's pablum.

I have to say that this last film from Goebbels is brilliantly conceived and executed. But after World War II Kolberg became and remains part of Poland with its German population expelled or worse by the Russian Army and Polish resistance. So what was it all about?

First of all, this one will not be out in the stores or at your local rent-a-flick...The movie is the last effort of 1945´s german movie propaganda to strengthen the people´s will to fight on. Therefore, this - as many other propaganda pictures - is not offered to the public. Still, you might get it in universities with an interest in history of the third reich.

The story of the movie is not all that important... What matters is the great heinrich george, the rich colours, the hateful atmosphere of the movie - and the tragedy of reality as a background: Shortly after the making of "kolberg" was finished, germany was finished either:

The movie has a romantic perspective on a reactionary, aggressive, irrational and leader-oriented ideology... Not too far away from John Wayne, though I find him very entertaining as a green beret, either.

Kolberg isn't remotely a good movie, but at the same time it's no worse than 99.9 percent of the tripe that is and has always been made by Hollywood. It's hard to objectively discuss this film because of having to precede any actual comments with obligatory expressions of PC horror. But even more so, the quality of the copy in general circulation is so terrible it is difficult to form a fair opinion of how the film does or does not work as a piece of entertainment and or art. The structure of what I saw is so far beyond episodic as to be virtually incomprehensible at times - and I doubt that a film this professional on other levels could ever originally have been so choppy and unclear. It looks to be very heavily edited, with a meat cleaver, by a blind person. Perhaps it was cut to remove as much material as possible that would make the German cause sympathetic, or perhaps just for length (it is still quite a long movie). The color (in the copy I have) is close to indescribable. In fact, when a friend asked me if I saw it in color, it took me a few minutes to think of a way to answer him. It isn't color and it isn't black and white - but it is hideous and must be far, far removed from what Kolberg originally looked like. It's got a cast of thousands, impressive and beautiful (or so it seems through the dim veil of putrid picture quality that I experienced) locations and sets and some good acting, particularly by the patriarchal male lead. The person who plays the Queen of Prussia is outstandingly beautiful. As to 'horrible' 'terrifying' etc., propaganda, Kolberg is much subtler and less specific than the typical exercise for the moron millions churned out by Hollywood such as Casablanca, or any number of movies in which Errol Flynn or Harrison Ford single-handedly-defeats-the (fill in the blank), etc. I find it rather refreshing to get another perspective, as the old one is wearing quite thin these 60 years after 'freedom' supposedly won, and all that. Kolberg's effectiveness as propaganda (the dark days descending over Germany) is interestingly substantiated in the history of genocidal mass rape and murder of Germany civilians in the wake of the Soviet conquest of just the provinces in which Kolberg is set. That the leading actor - an actor, not a politician - was starved to death in a Soviet (you remember the Soviets - our allies in right vs. wrong, freedom vs. slavery World War II?) concentration camp in 1946 certainly gives a certain air of credence to the pronouncements of the film.

This was one of the most remarkable films ever made, and surprisingly stands the test of time extremely well. In many ways it is a much better film than Münchausen. Its problem is that it is irrevocably tied to the period it was made, and the reasons for making it. On the one hand it is a timeless tale of the need for ordinary people to stand up and resist tyranny and aggression; on the other it encourages Germans to support their Great Tyranny at the height of the Final Solution. On the practical level, one is continually astound by the cast of thousands, both civil and military assembled for the grand set pieces, and the fact that they were all correctly clothed for the time. Goebbels' ability to divert vast amounts of scarce resources into the making of the film, was truly amazing. One is also surprised by the quality of the acting, which apart from Gneisenau, was generally restrained and authentic. Some of the set pieces in which the citizens discuss whether to surrender to the French, and thus protect their livelihoods, or resist the invader and at least maintain their honour, if nothing else, were well argued and believably presented. A particular plus point in the film, is that the Germans speak German, and the French French. (The version we saw came from Arté so had French sub-titles.) The story itself may well distort history. In 1813 the citizens of Breslau demand the right to form a citizens' militia to fight the French. The King of Prussia refuses: war is for soldiers, not civilians. Gneisenau points out that (a) there are a lot of civilians outside, and (b) if it hadn't been for civilians, Kolberg would have fallen to the French in 1807. (Kolberg is a town in Pomerania, now part of Poland, which shows how the future mocks the past). The time then switches to 1807 and a grand scene in which the Emperor of Austria renounces the title of Holy Roman Emperor, showing himself to be morally degenerate. In Potsdam, the King of Prussia, fearful of the French, flees to Konigsberg. In Kolberg we see much peasant merrymaking until the military commander objects to the Mayor's interference in military matters, and says he has orders to surrender the town to the French, who now lay siege. The film's heroine, torn in love between two officers, is smuggled out and sent to Konigsberg to press the King to send a new commander. After a moving scene with the Queen, Gneisenau is sent and takes charge of the defences. About the only light moment, is when he orders trenches to be dug across roads, and the Mayor orders them to be filled in. Gneisenau insists they be dug out again. However, the Mayor explains they will hamper movement in town. The message is clear, the military give orders, but they must be sensible, and advice must be sought and considered. To protect the south of the town, a canal is dug and the low lying ground flooded in one of the film's great spectaculars. A huge battle ensues as the French try to raze the town, and we are treated to a spectacle of what it must have been like in Lubeck and Rostock when the RAF bombed these old Hanseatic towns. In the end the resistance of the town and political developments elsewhere, lead to the French halting the bombardment. The people have won, but they paid a heavy price. Back in 1813, the King agrees to the formation of a citizen militia.

In retrospect it is bizarrely amusing that at the time Kolberg was filmed, France was our glorious (more or less) ally and Germany the seriously bad guy. However, at the time it was set, France in the form of Napoleon was the Big Bogeyman (and children were scared to sleep by the threat of his coming, and Prussia was on our side (and helped us at the Battle of Waterloo, even if they did arrive late). Russia too was an ally of Prussia against the French.

KOLBERG was an attempt by the Nazi Party to make a GONE WITH THE WIND sized epic to boost morale. There were some small problems. First, many soldier, supplies, etc that were to be used in the real war were diverted to the shooting location of this big period piece and used there. The film was finished circa April 1945, when the Nazi party was reduced to a few frightened fanatics huddled in bunkers, awaiting surrender or certain death. Third, except for a few well staged moments, this is a boring, overly sentimental epic. As on criitc put it, "It's music score is so sweet, it makes THE SOUND OF MUSIC sound like punk rock." A film worth having in your video collection.

This film, the pride and joy of Goebbel's propaganda machine, was filmed during the last year of the war. Lavish financial and materièl resources were expended to make the film and it premiered just ahead of the advancing allied armies. Reportedly, Goebbels and company diverted precious rolling stock from a hard pressed Reich to bring in loads of salt to use as "snow" in one wintry scene. Munitions factories were ordered to produce the dummy ammunition expended in the fighting scenes. And Wehrmacht troops were drawn from the battle fronts to serve as extras. For the Nazi hierarchy propaganda had BECOME reality.