The Flight of the Phoenix (1965)
Directed by Robert Aldrich

Poster from the original 1965 film
Poster from the original 1965 film
Click for an enlargement

Plot Summary: Not to be confused with an inferior 2004 remake, the plot is quite simple really-Survival. But how the writers, producers and director mould the basic premise into a complex and compelling 2 hours & 22 minutes of cinema is a delight. A cargo plane, a Fairchild C-82 Packet, forerunner of the Fairchild C-119B "Flying Boxcar " long past it's prime, goes down in a sandstorm in the Sahara while ferrying oil workers to Benghazi with less than a dozen men on board. One of the passengers is an aeroplane designer who comes up with the idea of ripping off the undamaged wing and using it as the basis for an aeroplane they will build to escape before their food and water run out.

To watch James Stewart, Peter Finch, Richard Attenborough, Hardy Krüger and company work in this movie is to see the difference between actors of yesteryear and movie stars of today.

I am watching the movie as I type this and I'm watching Attenborough react to finding out Krüger's "secret" that he is indeed an aeroplane designer...of model aeroplanes. His laughter is both hilarious and pitiable. And the look of shock and confusion on Stewart's face says it all.

When you think of classic cinema epics, films like "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Ben Hur" come to mind, but "Flight of the Phoenix" should fall in line right behind them. Unlike the others, it doesn't span a long time period, many locales, or monumental events. In fact, it is filmed almost entirely in one spot, covers just a few weeks time, and depicts an event of no real importance. But you'll feel as if you've actually lived those few weeks, the lives and actions of this small unremarkable group of people will have taken on a monumental importance to you, and you'll be cheering at the end. Make no mistake about it, the excellent acting, cinematography, and music are flawlessly combined to create a really "Big" movie.

While ferrying company employees going on leave, Frank Towns'(James Stewart) plane enters a sandstorm over the Sahara desert and crashes (Buttercup Valley in Arizona stood in for the Sahara). As various attempts at rescue or escape fail one passenger, Dorfmann ("Stringer" in the novel) played by Hardy Krüger suggests his plan to rebuild the plane as a smaller version and attempt to fly out, leaving the bulk of the damage craft behind. However tensions mount as personalities conflict as all the men face death. Instead of simply trying to escape, the characters do something fantastic - they come up with a way to survive that practically amounts to stealing fire from heaven. Gazing at a wrecked plane lying in the desert, Dorfman sees a new plane rising from the ashes, couched in the new language of math and aerodynamics. The rest of the film seesaws between who has the power of the future - analytic, engineer-style dreamers like Dorfman versus seat of the pants Stewart's pilot character. In the end, both are vindicated - only Dorfman can envision the Phoenix, but the Phoenix can't fly without Stewart the "outstanding" pilot. The film is more about the men under stress than it is about anything else. This is best illustrated by an important underlying theme on the conflict between the old and new era, in Stewart being the veteran pilot and Krüger as the German aircraft designer who is instrumental in building the so-called `ersatz' plane. When Stewart, while noting down in his logbook, reflects on his growing antagonism with Krüger he realises that`now the men with their calculators and computers will soon be taking over the world'. As Flight was made in 1965 this is quite a prophetic statement.

The majority of the drama and tension within the film is as much from these conflicts as it is from the pressure to escape the desert. The film is two hours & twenty two minutes long but it pretty much sustains itself for that length. The main reason for the film working so well is the cast, which has it's fair share of famous faces but also has more than it's fair share of good performances.

Stewart is really strong in the lead (although, in fairness, there is no one main character) and becomes increasingly grizzled as the film goes on. His character is not without flaws even if he does come out of this well. Richard Attenborough is also good but is less evident in the film than some of the others. Krüger has the least pleasant of the roles given that he plays a tough German. He manages to make the character likeable while still going about his task with strict organised German efficiency. Peter Finch is good as the stiff upper lipped, well meaning but naive Captain Harris and is well supported by Ronald Fraser as Sgt. Watson. The support cast includes strong performances from Ernest Borgnine, Ian Bannen, George Kennedy, Christian Marquand and the director's own son William Aldrich is thrown!

It is a film where the plane crash isn't a blaze of spectacle and the death scenes aren't played out for full effect. Instead it is a tension adventure story that is driven by some great performances by a cast full of well known actors.

There's a moment of Christian symbolism when, after a night of exhausting work, one of the characters gazes at their work and comments "it looks like an aeroplane." Actually, the Phoenix looks like a cross with the sun behind it, in contrast to the crosses marking the dead on a nearby dune. This motif is repeated as the engine of the Phoenix powers up on the last day - a thrilling scene. There's even a Calvary reference where the half-dead survivors drag the cross-shaped plane to its launching place - if they endure this last trial, they will be reborn.

But the most amazing thing for me is that the Phoenix was actually built for the film. The author of the novel Elleston Trevor worked hard to make sure that the story was possible. The movie producers went further - they built the actual, physical Phoenix and flew it. One stunt pilot, the legendary Paul Mantz, was killed, but it flew. Other scenes have the same reality that no longer exists in film - for example, A-list actors standing a few feet in front of an unshielded, roaring propeller. It wouldn't happen now.

What would we have done today making this film? We would have hired a computer graphics company to create an over hyped, impossible plane, that could only fly on their monitors. It's not the same. In this film's climax we see a real plane flying. The film shares a common mood of the era seen in the real desert of "Lawrence of Arabia" and the real bridge in "Bridge on the River Kwai."

It's a majestic piece of cinema lacking in todays CG-cushioned, health & safety muffled franchise culture. They really don't make em like this anymore. They wouldn't dare.

Since film today seems destined to go 100% CGI, in the future we won't be making films like "The Flight of the Phoenix". Is this a loss? Whatever you think of the culture of the early 1960s, their entertainment had a "reality check" that has vanished.

For more info on the planes used in this film & the legendary stunt pilot Paul Mantz who was tragically killed during production log on to http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Mantz-P1.htm.

Flight of the Phoenix Trivia:

Back

If you came to this page from a search engine click below to access the rest of the film section of this site
Home