One of Our Aircraft Is Missing

More than half a century after the happening, for anyone who still can't get enough of World War II, this is a movie not to be missed.

It tells the story of what happens to an RAF crew on a bombing mission over Europe. That story is told with skill and even though the movie was made clear back in 1942, its technical aspects still hold up beyond the millennium (something which cannot be said for many World War II movies that were made during, and even after, the happening). All credit for this movie belongs to the brilliant British (well, one Brit and one Hungarian by birth) writing- producing-directing team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

Two other movies in this genre that immediately come to mind and which likewise should not be missed by any World War II "junkie," are: "Command Decision" (1948) and "Twelve O'Clock High" (1949). The only difference(s) between these latter two and the one being reviewed are that the latter two are American movies (set in England) while "Aircraft" is a British effort (set in England and, well, Europe). Also, unlike "Aircraft," which was made during the height of the war, these latter two were made a few years following the war's conclusion.

Other than those quite minor differences, all three of these movies belong atop any World War IIite's must-see list.

Made in the middle of WWII, One of Our Aircraft Is Missing is quite a great film. The technical aspects and special effects are extraordinary. The script is wonderful (Oscar winning) and the British RAF members are all well developed. Some of the Dutch could use a little more characterization, but it's not too bad. One might think that the Archers' strengths lie in fantasy films, but they stick to realism here, and they do a great job. If you are a fan of the Archers, don't miss it. If you are a WWII buff, also make sure you catch it. 9/10.

"...one of our aircraft is missing ..." is a well-cast and well-written piece from Powell and Pressburger, key film makers in 1940s Britain.

The crew of B for Bertie find themselves lost in enemy territory and have to depend on the resources of others to get them to safety. The crew are played by some of the best actors of the time: Godfrey Tearle as the upper-class rear gunner; Eric Portman as the bluff Yorkshire co-pilot; Hugh Williams (father of 1970s actor Simon) as the refined navigator; Bernard Miles - better than usual - as the front gunner; High Burden as the pilot; and Emrys Jones as the Welsh sportsman who became the radio operator.

In support are Googie Withers, P&P regular Pamela Brown, Joyce Redman, Robert Helpmann (as the quisling), Alec Clunes (father of Martin) as the church organist, and Peter Ustinov (in his film debut) as the priest.

This film has been done as a drama-documentary so has a very realistic feel and look, pulling the viewer right into the action alongside the aircraft crew. It is less atmospheric than the 30s P&P films featuring Conrad Veidt and perhaps represented a more grounded style to their work before their Technicolor fantasies of the late 40s.

"B. for Bertie crashed on Sunday morning. 0431. But our story starts some fifteen hours earlier......."

With that simple statement Powell and Pressburger take us on another journey into cinema. A group of wise-cracking RAF crewmen take off on a routine bombing flight. The plane is shot and the crew manage to parachute off the before the plane stalls and crashes.

On the ground the men (minus the pilot) gather together. They first encounter a trio of children who ask "have you come to invade Holland?" The men are taken to the adults who debate about what to do with them.

Truly inventive film is well thought-out and photographed. Interest never wavers. What could have been a run-of-the-mill war film was skillfully crafted into a film of humanity in the midst of inhumanity.

Shameless Laudations!

Given that this movie was made about the then contemporary World War II times, without the benefit of a huge budget (compared to now), generations before computer graphics became the norm, it is refreshing to see a sensible depiction of those wartime conditions. Imagine making a picture of the bombing raids over Germany in the (I presume Mosquito) bombers, not known to be that secure from ground based A.A.C. fire— they could not fly higher, as could the later Lancasters. I feel the directors chose correctly in making it a character driven piece, with the action sublimated somewhat.

I caught this movie on a relatively new local TV station, it was one of their first offerings albeit in the early morning, I did not know about the movie before. What also surprised me was the appearance of later 'stars', Robert Helpmann, Peter Ustinov and Googie Withers, though she was fairly established by then. By co-incidence, I had viewed earlier that evening a British Documentary feature where the grandchildren of the original RAF bomber crew-members were to learn to actually fly a remaining WW II aircraft. And that reference was cool. The atmosphere exhibited in that doco, certainly the old time news clips, recent interviews of the veterans, rang true to the movie, especially with the actual ( or the perceived depiction if it was only that ) film of the raids over Germany and the resultant destruction.

The characterisations were laid back, as befits the RAF types, and the Dutch citizens, who organised the Resistance, were well played. Besides the unexpected cast members, there was another piece of 'recoginition' I found fascinating, and I hope it wasn't used in the film, (made in either 1941 or 1942, both are given in various sources), and gave away the Resistance as the war was only half over then. Of course the film makers had no idea how long the war would last or just what was in store for them. The pace of the film was a bit pedestrian, all the better I think, to enable the characters to be developed, and the bits of business the group had to 'endure' was fairly realistic, reasonably true to life. I guess there must have been some propaganda value in the movie as I couldn't imagine that opportunity would have been missed by the British authorities, maybe even instigated it, in league with the Dutch. I could hardly blame them.

All in all, I thought it was a fascinating movie, a benchmark. For others to come it also was a benchmark, to be creditable one had to do at least as well. Whether our later techniques make it easier, or convenient, or cost effective, or entertaining, or thought provoking, is a matter for our future, but looking back sixty odd years I think they produced a fine movie.