Watch Lifeboat For Free

A Masterpiece!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

LIFEBOAT impressed me so much more the second time around, considering I was a kid the first time. Back then I thought Bankhead's kiss of Hodiak was the sexist thing I ever saw on screen.All the performers were superb. Character development couldn't have been better in every case. Much has been said about everyone except maybe Henry Hull. Here was a "bend over backwards to be fair", millionaire industrialist in a splendid performance, who changes his tune at the end.Oh, I wondered why Tallulah was immaculately alone in the boat, and how they miraculously avoided the shelling and collision, and how Nazi captain Walter Slezak was so deft removing a limb as a non-surgeon using merely a pocket knife, and other trifling incidents, but it didn't change my opinion one iota of this terrific film. For Hitchcock's extraordinary direction, splendid close up photography, and great story telling, it is hard to beat LIFEBOAT.

This is one of the disappointing Hitchcock films. It is not that it is bad, it is just that it is not particularly good. It proudly proclaims that it was written by the then famous American author John Steinbeck. However, several other fingers were in that pie, and not all of them were called Steinbeck. (Never believe what you see on credits.) The story is simple, and there was only one set. Of course, all the cast got repeatedly drenched, because they were in a lifeboat and passed through storms, pulled themselves out of the water, etc. It was no fun for the actors to make. This film is the only Hitchcock film of which I knew the star very well personally. Of course I did not know her at the time, because this film was made before I was born. I am referring to Tallulah Bankhead, whom I knew well in the 1960s when I was in my teens and she took me under her wing for a while. This is the only film Tallulah made in her 'middle period' between being a glamorous Paramount starlet in several thirties films and making some when she was older. Tallulah dominates this film, just as she dominates the lifeboat. That was what she was like. It is important to know that she did not dominate situations for egotistical or narcissistic reasons at all. To assume that would be to misunderstand her. She did so simply from the overwhelming force and energy of her personality. She was like a human hurricane, and she could not be turned off like a fan or an air conditioner, she was simply on all the time. But she had that droll manner where she could deliver a one-liner put-down spontaneously upon any occasion, and she needed no script for her raucous life. Her close friendships with such writers as Noel Coward and Tennessee Williams were based not just upon her liveliness but upon her scintillating intelligence, razor sharp wit, gift for repartee, wide-ranging knowledge of people and events, and superb dry humour. I cannot imagine her and Hitchcock becoming friends under any circumstances. To describe them as chalk and cheese or oil and water is to underestimate the difference between them. He was essentially a neurotic, closed personality, whereas Tallulah was as open as a shattered French window. If he had let her get close to him, she would have let him know in no time that she thought he was a cowering wimp. She could be withering, but she was never cruel, and often kept her devastating appraisals of other people to herself so as not to hurt their feelings. She was really the perfect choice to dominate a lifeboat on the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of World War Two. Any German encountering her had better be worried. There is a patriotic tinge to this film, with disparaging remarks of the Nazis emphasized in a proud and flag-flying manner. In wartime it is hard to resist beating a few drums, which can throw subtlety overboard sometimes, and not just from lifeboats. The story cannot avoid being rather corny, nor is it realistic. I hesitate to call attention to what are tactfully called natural functions, but when and how did they take place over the many days in that lifeboat? What did they do with William Bendix's leg which had to be amputated? And how did they mop up all the blood? Things like that. Also, why are they all so unconcerned about getting seriously sunburned? But the film was never intended to be realistic, because Alfred Hitchcock was not Roberto Rossellini, and you went to a Hitchcock film knowing that you would get a Hitchcock film, and you always did. And this is one of them that has some holes in the curtain and is not as good as many of the others which sweep you away with his vision-of-the-day. Some of the cast are better than others. Tallulah is the best, of course. Walter Slezak is superb as the German U-boat captain whom they pick up. Henry Hull is excellent as H. J. Rittenhouse (as in the Philadelphia square), a charming multi-millionaire who has thousands of employees but cannot command a lifeboat. John Hodiak as 'the hunk' overacts and clearly suffered from Hitchcock's usual lack of directions to his actors. Canada Lee as the black man has a thankless task, since his role is to stand off to the side and take no part in decisions or events. In the script this was doubtless meant to highlight his oppressed social status, but in the film it merely comes across as his being feeble. No acting challenge there, as all he had to do was stand in the background looking powerless. Two unconvincing romances blossom during the time the cast are stuck on the lifeboat, but it is impossible to believe in either of them. Why Hume Cronyn should suddenly fall in love at the most unlikely time could not possibly be contrived, could it? This film is essentially a 'concept film' which fails its 'proof of concept' test. However, it has its moments.

When we find out that Gus, who loves to dance, has a wound in his leg, we know right then he is doomed. Sure enough, the leg becomes gangrenous. As it turns out, Willi was a surgeon before the war and says that he can amputate. Gus does not want to have his leg removed, because he is afraid that he will lose Rosie, the girl back home whom he loves. He fears that she might not want to marry him if he comes back without one of his legs, especially since she loves to dance as much as Gus does. To make matters worse, Gus has a rival, Al Magaroulian, whom Rosie used to date and who is also a good dancer, even though fallen arches have kept him out of the war. Gus is afraid Rosie will go back to Al if he has his leg removed. But eventually he relents, and Willi performs the surgery.Later in the movie, while everyone is sleeping lethargically from dehydration, Gus catches Willi sipping a drink of water from his flask. To keep Gus from telling the others about the water, he pushes Gus overboard. When the others awaken from hearing Gus's cries for help, they realize Gus has drowned, and they ask Willi why he didn't do something. Willi does not, of course, tell them that he pushed Gus overboard to keep him from talking. Instead, he tells them that Gus voluntarily jumped overboard and that he thought it would be best not to do anything about it, saying, "You can't imagine how painful it was to me. All night long, to watch him turning and suffering and nothing I could do for him…. The best way to help him was to let him go. I had no right to stop him, even if I wanted to. A poor cripple dying of hunger and thirst. What good could life be to a man like that?"Yes, German Nazis are evil, but are we all that good? Consider Willi's justification for letting Gus drown. The lie that Willi thinks will be an acceptable justification for "allowing" Gus to drown is actually repugnant to the other survivors, who listen to his words in horror. And we who watch this movie are likewise repulsed by Willi's callous remarks. But now let us ask ourselves why those who made this movie put this into the story. We cannot say it was to show that Willi was evil. We already knew that before he killed Gus. But if a murder was needed to really drive home the point, it was not Gus that had to be murdered. For example, it could have been Canada Lee that saw Willi sneaking a drink of water and who was then murdered by Willi and thrown overboard. Willi could then have tried to justify why he didn't save Canada by saying, "Like the Jews, Negroes are inferior. They are better off dead and the world is better off without them." That would definitely make it clear just how evil Willi is.One could come up with other ways of dramatically showing how evil Willi is, but there is no need. The point is that those who made this movie had a special reason for killing Gus off beyond making it clear that Willi was evil. They did it to make those in the audience feel better. The audience then and we today would have been uneasy if the movie had ended with Gus still alive in that lifeboat. Sure, Rosie might have not cared about Gus's leg. And she might have married him because she truly loved him. In a movie like "The Best Years of Our Lives" (1946), Hollywood could make sure that things would turn out that way. In that movie, Wilma (Cathy O'Donnell) agrees to marry Homer (Harold Russell) despite the fact that both forearms have been replaced by prostheses and despite the fact that her parents want her to break off the engagement. But in real life, we know things do not always work out that way. Rosie and Gus were not even engaged. Instead of being like Wilma, Rosie might have tried to put a good face on the situation for a couple of months and then broken up with Gus and gone back to Al Magaroulian.And so, rather than leave the audience suspecting just such an outcome for Gus and Rosie, which would have been depressing, those who made this movie killed Gus off. In this way, the audience was able to leave the theater feeling much better about the movie than if Gus had lived. You might even say that Gus's death was necessary for there to be a happy ending. But does that not imply that those who made the movie as well as those who watched it then and those of us who watch it now are essentially in agreement with Willi when he asked, "What good could life be to a man like that?"We shake our heads No. We insist that Gus could have gotten over the loss of Rosie and dancing, that he could have lived a full, rewarding life nevertheless. But if that really were the way we all feel, Gus's death would not give us a sense of relief. Those who made the movie and those of us who watch it are all complicit in wanting Gus's death so that we can all feel better.Of course, there is a big difference between committing an actual murder and merely writing a story in which a man is murdered, between saying the dead man is better off and saying that the death of that man makes the story better. And so, whereas Willi was guilty of a horrible crime, we are only guilty of liking a movie better because such a crime takes place.And yet…, and yet….

Lifeboat (1944) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Alfred Hitchcock lined up a terrific cast to tell the story of a group of survivors who find themselves together on a lifeboat without much hope for survival. The American and British people end up saving a German man who was on the sub that struck their boat and must decide if he's worth trusting or not.I've never really understood why LIFEBOAT never gets mentioned when critics or fans discuss the work of Hitchcock. It's certainly not a masterpiece like PSYCHO, VERTIGO or NORTH BY NORTHWEST but it's certainly a highly entertaining and very good movie that deserves to get more praise than it does. For some strange reason the movie is rarely mentioned whenever people discuss the famed director and that's really too bad because it shows what the director was able to do with just one set.I really liked the fact that the movie starts off with the boat already sunk and we immediately start on the lifeboat. A lot of times movies like this will take place on a ship where we get to know the characters then the disaster will strike and we will then see them try to survive. Writer John Steinbeck did a marvelous job at starting the acting in the lifeboat and this is where we get to know the cast as the characters get to know one another.The screenplay is quite simple as it tells a strong story and obvious there are messages scattered throughout, although we're never beaten over the head with that message. Hitchcock does a very good job at keeping the stakes extremely high and he manages to build up tension during a lot of small scenes that of course add up to something big. It certainly doesn't hurt that we've got a terrific cast of actors to bring these roles to life. Walter Slezak is wonderful as the German man plus we get John Hodiak, a terrific William Bendix, HUme Cronyn, Mary Anderson and Henry Hull. Canada Lee also deserves a lot of credit as the black man on the boat. One of the few instances where a black man was shown respect in a Hollywood film from this era.LIFEBOAT is a nice little drama that gets better with each new viewing. Again, I'm really not sure why more people don't talk about the film but it's certainly worth rediscovering to those who haven't seen it.