"Captured" (1933) with Leslie Howard and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.

"Captured" starring Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Leslie Howard, Margaret Lindsay, Paul Lukas and J. Carroll Naish may at first seem like an innocuous forerunner to later POW films, but it is much more. It is an exploration of both the captured and their keepers. It explores the duty to ones comrades as well as the duty to what both are fighting for in the first place. And the validity of it all.

The prisoners are French, British, Italian and American. At first they are held in inhumane circumstances and likely to die of starvation and disease. The ranking British officer is able to come to an agreement with the prison camp commander, guaranteeing more humane treatment for all the prisoners. To effect this agreement, he guarantees their obedience to the Commandants rules, which are not unreasonable.

Is brutality ever justified, or does some leniency result in a more ordered situation for both sides? And just how far should this cooperation extend? And, how far does personal vengeance go in the scheme of larger issues? All eternal, and still unanswered, questions in these modern times.

Although these things may seem obsolete in the modern era, the theme of the film is still valid. When other powers, with whom we have no personal quarrel,  are at war, how far should the common soldier go in his personal struggle to escape, and what are his obligations to his comrades who have been temporarily removed from the larger struggle by their captivity?

In this film, all of these themes are played out when a British prisoner of war becomes imprisoned alongside his best friend from home, unaware that while he was captured earlier, that same friend began an affair with his wife. When that friend then escapes, jeopardizing the other prisoners safety, he is also charged with criminal rape and murder of a local peasant woman. What then is the moral obligation of his friend, who is also the superior officer?

When the enemy calls for the British Command to return the escapee to face trial for war crimes. The question then arises as to whether any loyalties remain to unite these two friends in their common struggle, personal differences notwithstanding.

Is that struggle, in which they are only pawns, undermined by personal betrayal? And more importantly, at what point do personal differences between friends, and responsibilities to those under ones command, begin or end?

Are the actions of the senior officer in this instance motivated by personal revenge, a sense of right and wrong, or is he doing his duty to protect the many for the war crimes of one man?  

This film delivers on all these points, and with its pristine restoration, and a rousing finish, is well worth the viewing.