Home > Drama >

Is Paris Burning?

Watch Now

Is Paris Burning? (1966)

November. 10,1966
|
6.8
|
PG
| Drama History War
Watch Now

Near the end of World War II, Gen. Dietrich von Choltitz receives orders to burn down Paris if it becomes clear the Allies are going to invade, or if he cannot maintain control of the city. After much contemplation Choltitz decides to ignore his orders, enraging the Germans and giving hope to various resistance factions that the city will be liberated. Choltitz, along with Swedish diplomat Raoul Nordling, helps a resistance leader organize his forces.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

VeteranLight
1966/11/10

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

More
LouHomey
1966/11/11

From my favorite movies..

More
Suman Roberson
1966/11/12

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

More
Bob
1966/11/13

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

More
chuck-reilly
1966/11/14

Director Rene Clement's 1966 film, the all-star extravaganza "Is Paris Burning?" regarding the liberation of Paris from Nazi occupation in 1944, makes for an interesting movie even if it is top-heavy with every well-known French actor and actress of that era and some obvious miscasting (Kirk Douglas just doesn't cut it as General Patton). That said, the story itself is one that should be familiar to every American school-age kid and all knowledgeable adults. The fact that it isn't speaks volumes about our own educational system. The title "Is Paris Burning?" refers to Adolph Hitler's ranting and raving into the phone at General Choltitz, the German commander of the city played by Bert Frobe (Mr. "Goldfinger" himself). The film does an exceptional job of portraying Choltitz's decidedly mixed feelings about whether he should obey Hitler's order to destroy the city or preserve his own reputation for posterity. He made the right choice. The rest of the cast holds up well and does justice to the serious material and historical events. They include Jean-Paul Belmondo, Charles Boyer, Leslie Caron, Glenn Ford (as General Omar Bradley) and many other familiar names and faces. As for the real General Choltitz, he forever fancied himself a hero in the eyes of the "liberators" even though his decision was based mainly on saving his own skin. There's no doubt that Choltitz would've been hanged (or worse) if he had followed orders. But being the loyal German soldier that he was, Choltitz did not hang up on Hitler that fateful day. He merely left the phone off the hook and took a nice stroll.

More
robert-temple-1
1966/11/15

What gigantic and difficult project! Gore Vidal and Francis Ford Coppola collaborated on a screenplay which would portray the vast subject of the liberation of Paris in a lively and coherent manner, despite the sprawling content and disparate multiple story lines and endless variety of locations. The fact that they succeeded at all is a miracle. Many characters appear in the film as miniature cameos, their stories lasting only one or two minutes, which is one reason why these cameo appearance were 'heightened' by using a cast consisting of a large number of famous movie stars of the 1960s, all of whose faces were well known at that time, both American and French. The best production decision taken was to entrust the directing of the film to the famous French director, René Clement (1913-1996), who even at this time was a grand old man of French cinema, and commanded transatlantic confidence due to the success of FORBIDDEN GAMES (1952) in America and Britain (nominated for an Oscar, won a Bafta and New York Critics Circle Award, etc.) He had also just directed THE LOVE CAGE (1964) with Alain Delon and Jane Fonda in English. This film was made in both French and English versions, with a lot of German speakers as well, and had dubbing which was often imperfect. The film was also based on two separate books dealing with the subject. French and German script collaborators prepared the dialogue for scenes involving those nationalities. Making this film was practically a military exercise, it was so complicated. Orson Welles has a substantial role as the Swedish Consul in Paris, who was always trying to save French prisoners, but the main part in the film is really that of General von Cholitz, brilliantly performed by the German actor Gert Fröbe, who has a wonderful way of swallowing 'Ja', mumbling, frowning, and looking troubled, for all the world as if he really is in charge of the occupation of Paris. The title of the film refers to the fact that von Cholitz has been given explicit orders by Hitler to destroy Paris. Near the end of the film while the liberation is taking place, a phone lying off the hook in his now-abandoned office is screaming: 'Is Paris burning? Is Paris burning?' Obviously, I am giving away no secrets about the film by revealing that von Cholitz defies the order to destroy Paris, as most people are presumably aware that Paris still exists. But just in case viewers of the film had their doubts about what it really means to destroy a city, this film includes horrifying footage of the total destruction of Warsaw. Throughout this film, eager SS men are seen planting bombs beneath the Eiffel Tower, the bridges over the Seine, in Napoleon's Tomb and the Chamber of Deputies, ready for von Cholitz's order to detonate everything at once. And this is a true story: it came within a hair's breadth of happening. This film was made in black and white so that there could be seamless inter-cutting with real footage of the liberation. The result is totally satisfactory and very unnerving. Much of the footage was shot by Resistance fighters at the time. The film thus achieves a tremendous sense of immediacy and realism in many parts. The French Government and Municipality of Paris gave total cooperation: whole streets such as the Champs Elysée and the Place de la Concorde were cleared of people and traffic, and no effort was spared to make the entire city of Paris available to portray itself. This film really does ultimately star the city itself in a way which has probably never happened before or since in the entire history of the cinema. The achievement should thus not be under-estimated. Such a thing will and can never happen again. It is true that Kirk Douglas does not at all resemble General Patton, and Glenn Ford looks nothing like General Omar Bradley, but these factors were wisely ignored by the producers, who focused only on the events and the epic itself. (Jacques Chaban-Delmas must have been very flattered to be portrayed by the handsome Alain Delon.) Billy Frick does an excellent cameo of Hitler near the beginning of the film. Some of the stars, such as Anthony Perkins, have more extended roles, and he in particular lends great pathos to the eager young GI who has always wanted to see Paris and is so thrilled to enter a real Paris café even though he has never drunk wine before and wonders if he should. Simone Signoret's smile as wide as a boulevard lights up a small part but poor Yves Montand gets shot in the back by a German sniper. Tragedy is not at all spared in this gritty portrayal of real events and many genuine persons. Jean-Louis Trintignant gets stuck with the part of a slimy collaborator responsible for the murder of 30 young people. I remember so well seeing this when it first came out, in a huge cinema in 70 mm wide-screen, with the rousing music of Maurice Jarre blaring out. It made a huge impression on everyone I knew at the time and was a major cultural event, not just a cinematic one. Maybe it never earned its money back, despite the fact that the French authorities probably did not charge. But it stirred the public and brought the lessons of history home to them. After seeing this, no one could say that Paris was a faraway city of which he knew nothing. And that is what this project was all about, to portray the world's most romantic city in its greatest moment of danger, and to see how narrowly it survived being wiped from the face of the earth by madmen. When I see the plaques all over Paris today to the brave Resistance fighters, I always give a thought for their courage.

More
zardoz-13
1966/11/16

I have read all the user comments about "Is Paris Burning?" and I think that I understand the movie better now, but I still argue that it was an inferior opus. No, I have not read the book, but I will put it on my list of books to read. Nevertheless, good history doesn't always guarantee classic movies, and "Is Paris Burning" remains hopelessly questionable in my opinion. Before I generate a laundry list of flaws, let me tote up the assets. First, Maurice Jarre's orchestral soundtrack qualifies as nothing short of brilliant because he captures the atmosphere and the drama in the events. Second, Marcel ("Taxi to Tobruk") Grignon's black & white widescreen cinematography rivals Jarre's score in the epic scope that it confers on the film. The producers clearly filmed this movie on location in the City of the Lights and the filmmakers may be applauded for giving the film a documentary flavor. The performances raised no concerns for me, except for Kirk Douglas, looking like he was on vacation when the casting director caught him and convinced him to portray General Patton, did raise an eyebrow. "Is Paris Burning" is a professionally mounted motion picture and there is no evidence of a shoe-string budget. Ultimately, however, what undoes "IS Paris Burning" is the overlong Gore Vidal & Francis Ford Coppola screenplay, along with the other acknowledged contributions from other scenarists, because there are no truly sympathetic character--just too many to keep track of, the storyline is episodic to the point of incoherence, and the entire movie wears out its welcome by the time that it pauses nearly two hours later for an intermission. There is no quotable dialogue and I felt like a lot of information that I learned on IMDb.COM should have been in the film itself. At the intermission, I wish that Paris had burned in the movie, BUT NOT IN REAL LIFE. As a World War II military history scholar, I can now appreciate the historical contribution that "Is Paris Burning" makes in its cinematic context, but as a film consumer, this bland, obtuse yarn just makes me yawn.

More
Robert Bouchet
1966/11/17

Don't waste your time. This is a movie about WWII from the French perspective so I wasn't completely shocked when it depicts the French as the sole liberators of Paris from "those damned Nazis". I was very disappointed in the portrayal of Americans as reluctant combatants that couldn't fight if not urged on by the French!SPOILERSSPOILERSAt one point, a French General wants to know why an underling hasn't cleaned himself up because "we have to look good liberating Paris!" Another great scene is when a fire team barges into an elderly Parisian woman's living room to fire down on some Germans. She calmly sits sipping tea while the firing is going on around her. Oh, those brave Parisians! The fire team leader then thanks the lady and orders his men to pick up their spent shell casings.As I said before, don't waste your time (unless your French and you like fairy tales)!

More