Scenes of immense natural beauty in the frozen north contrast with the plain peril of shifting ice in frigid open water. The setting for this tale is ripe with possibilities, and the essence of the narrative is solid. Regrettably, while 'S. O. S. Eisberg' is passably entertaining at times, it's filled with very distinct flaws that drag it down.
The basic scenario is great and full of promise, and the screenplay is generally sound. There are a few especially noteworthy shots, and some scenes are especially well orchestrated. To that point: to read a little bit about the production history, it's clear that 'S. O. S. Eisberg' was created without the benefit of stunt doubles, and with very present danger for cast and crew alike. While it's never acceptable to put people at genuine risk for a movie, the fact that the stunts captured on film were very real, and the situations at hand a true hazard, elevates the thrills and excitement beyond what we would otherwise get. It's unfortunate that this realism may actually be one of the most rewarding aspects of the feature.
Everything sounds good on paper, but the execution leaves much to be desired. Editing accordingly helmed by Hermann Haller and Andrew Marton is blunt and sloppy. Whether by their hand or that of director Arnold Fanck, or by studio interference, transitions between shots and scenes, and even the sequencing of the picture, feel not just disjointed, but disorderly. The dramatic weight of each passing moment is drastically undercut by a presentation that repeatedly makes us ask "wait, what?" Fanck and his stars - Gustav Diessl, Leni Riefenstahl, and Ernst Udet - previously made the highly successful mountain adventure 'The white hell of Pitz Palu,' in which all very much proved their capabilities. Here, the cast mostly goes to waste; while provided the benefit of sound and dialogue, the actors are mostly given little more to do than stare forlornly into the distance. For as direly rough, unrefined, and ill-considered as 'S. O. S. Eisberg' is, their performances aren't meaningful - only crudely perfunctory.
It all culminates in a climax and ending that seems incredibly forced, ham-handed, and unconvincing. And that final tawdry impression reverberates so much as to paint the whole length in the same unwelcome hue. The end result of a storied production in which cast and crew had to be hospitalized for the conditions they experienced is that its real-life history vastly oversells the cinematic endeavor. I'm willing to watch almost anything, and to learn that this was not received well upon release in 1933 didn't dissuade me from viewing it for myself. But clearly the high expectations I had developed from recently checking out 'Pitz Palu' for the first time set me up for failure in following it with this. I am gravely disappointed.
It's far from the worst movie you'll ever see, and I hope other viewers can get more out of it than I did. But I watch this and see only great potential that was all but wasted in a realization that broadly feels so garishly undisciplined as to be amateurish. With so many great movies to watch instead, I can't particularly imagine ever recommending 'S. O. S. Eisberg.' Two thumbs down.
The basic scenario is great and full of promise, and the screenplay is generally sound. There are a few especially noteworthy shots, and some scenes are especially well orchestrated. To that point: to read a little bit about the production history, it's clear that 'S. O. S. Eisberg' was created without the benefit of stunt doubles, and with very present danger for cast and crew alike. While it's never acceptable to put people at genuine risk for a movie, the fact that the stunts captured on film were very real, and the situations at hand a true hazard, elevates the thrills and excitement beyond what we would otherwise get. It's unfortunate that this realism may actually be one of the most rewarding aspects of the feature.
Everything sounds good on paper, but the execution leaves much to be desired. Editing accordingly helmed by Hermann Haller and Andrew Marton is blunt and sloppy. Whether by their hand or that of director Arnold Fanck, or by studio interference, transitions between shots and scenes, and even the sequencing of the picture, feel not just disjointed, but disorderly. The dramatic weight of each passing moment is drastically undercut by a presentation that repeatedly makes us ask "wait, what?" Fanck and his stars - Gustav Diessl, Leni Riefenstahl, and Ernst Udet - previously made the highly successful mountain adventure 'The white hell of Pitz Palu,' in which all very much proved their capabilities. Here, the cast mostly goes to waste; while provided the benefit of sound and dialogue, the actors are mostly given little more to do than stare forlornly into the distance. For as direly rough, unrefined, and ill-considered as 'S. O. S. Eisberg' is, their performances aren't meaningful - only crudely perfunctory.
It all culminates in a climax and ending that seems incredibly forced, ham-handed, and unconvincing. And that final tawdry impression reverberates so much as to paint the whole length in the same unwelcome hue. The end result of a storied production in which cast and crew had to be hospitalized for the conditions they experienced is that its real-life history vastly oversells the cinematic endeavor. I'm willing to watch almost anything, and to learn that this was not received well upon release in 1933 didn't dissuade me from viewing it for myself. But clearly the high expectations I had developed from recently checking out 'Pitz Palu' for the first time set me up for failure in following it with this. I am gravely disappointed.
It's far from the worst movie you'll ever see, and I hope other viewers can get more out of it than I did. But I watch this and see only great potential that was all but wasted in a realization that broadly feels so garishly undisciplined as to be amateurish. With so many great movies to watch instead, I can't particularly imagine ever recommending 'S. O. S. Eisberg.' Two thumbs down.