Sirocco (Curtis Bernhardt, 1951)

1925. Syrians are fighting to rid their homeland of the French, who have been in control since the end of the Ottoman Empire.

As the conflict excelates, the French are increasingly brutal in their response.

American smuggler Harry Smith (Humphrey Bogart) has made a living off both factions, but finds his neutrality threatened when he becomes entangled with a young woman, Violetta (Märta Torén), who just so happens to be the mistress of the French officer (Lee J. Cobb) on his tail...

Auckland’s Academy Cinema is screening a festival of Humphrey Bogart’s films. I had not seen most of them and so added them to the Midnight Ramble’s schedule. 

Not a movie I was aware of, Sirocco is reasonably entertaining, although it feels a little softened.

My overall impression of the movie is that it is a more cynical retread of Casablanca - Bogart is a black market wheeler-dealer in the middle of a conflict in a foreign land. There is a beautiful woman (Märta Torén) who is trying to escape, and draws Bogart in. Her romantic partner (Lee J. Cobb) is involved with said conflict.

 

It is not cynical for trying to repeat a successful formula - it is cynical within the text e.g. Violetta is a kept woman; Col. Feroud may want to broker a truce with the Syrians, but he is also obsessed with keeping Violetta under his thumb - even beating her at one point; Bogart’s Harry Smith sells contraband to French and Syrian alike, including weapons.

The movie is bleak and compelling, but weirdly muted.

Bogart’s character is a little flat - the actor also seems to be checked out.

Because the characters are so crudely drawn, the attraction between Smith and Violetta seems purely opportunistic. And without a major shift in his character, his final sacrifice feels underwhelming. 

I found it hard to figure out the character’s change of heart - and then there is everyone else.

The characters are not so much contradictory as they are random.

The French commandant is introduced issuing a proclamation to execute civilians as reprisals for dead soldiers - later, when Smith is arrested and informs him of his scheme with Feroud, the Commandant is completely honorable and believes he should keep to his subordinate’s word.

While he has reneged on his initial proclamation, the fact that he is willing to countenance it seems to go against the idea that he would not use it as an excuse to escalate his campaign against the Syrians - maybe that is my own cynicism, but it seems like a weird softening.

That leads me to the portrayal of the warring parties.

 

While Cobb’s Feroud shows an empathy for the Syrian cause, the portrayal of the Syrian resistance is limited. 

There are no main characters to represent their point of view, and most of the supporting characters we do see are either out for themselves or weak-willed.

The Syrian resistance has an understandable lack of scruples - they are the underdogs in this fight.

But as with the Commandant mentioned earlier, the film gives the French occupiers an empathy and sense of honor that seems totally out of proportion.

There are times where the movie touches on the grim realities of a long siege - the bombing of Smith’s club is a prime example (after the bomb goes off, the scene lingers, as survivors scramble through rubble and smoke, and a woman howls).

But the movie never collasces - it feels like the sketch for something more profound. And its similarities to past Bogart vehicles only accentuates how shallow it feels.

If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!