Man on the Hill

The sacrifice of young men thrown into the meat grinder of World War One and the hollow differences between soldiers of both has been pondered endlessly through cinema history. World War Two is more commonly seen through an unequivocal lens – obviously due to the genocidal intent of the Nazi regime. Man on the Hill examines two soldiers from opposite sides of the conflict who end up bonded by their experience.

 

During Operation Overlord, a British platoon stranded behind enemy lines is picked off one by one. Jim (Michael Tait) is the last man standing and is confronted by lone German soldier Oskar (Alexander Clark). After a fight breaks out, Jim takes Oskar hostage and marches him back towards British encampments. But on their journey, Jim discovers that there is more to Oskar’s story than he could have predicted, and his commitment to the German cause is not one formed by ideology alone.

 

Perhaps contemporary international politics have conspired against Man on the Hill. ‘Just following orders’ has long been a lamentable excuse for Nazi atrocities during World War Two, but one would have thought the passage of time would allow for more nuanced approaches to the moral centre of those who served under Hitler, not less. As it is, watching masked stormtroopers on American streets, Russian troops in Ukraine and a genocide unfold in Gaza mean that understanding and sympathising with the other side feels a long way down the list of priorities for those who care about democracy and liberty – the bedrock of the ethos of the Allies in World War Two. Oskar may not care for Hitler’s racial theories, but his commitment to nationalism and willingness to look the other way permit them. And asking an audience to have empathy or consideration for him may be tough for some to swallow – even if he does invite his enemy round for dinner.

 

The plot itself is straightforward, focusing on the unexpected bond between two men who find themselves in grave danger. Each man discovers the other’s nobility in a well-paced manner triggered by gripping enticing events that are dripping in tension. It gets a little far-fetched at times, and some of their decisions stretch credibility in what is meant to be a combat setting, but the emotional drive comes through. The ending is pure Sunday afternoon schmaltz, tear-shedding for the John Lewis crowd but vomit-inducing for others.

 

There are other highlights, such as Michael Tait’s performance as Jim as well as impressively strong design across the film that largely convincingly recreates the Second World War despite a lower budget. Writer/director Jacob Stockton has clearly given some thought to plot holes and logical inconsistencies that, whilst still present in some areas, are addressed in others – such as why Oskar doesn’t run when German troops are present.

 

But it is that central conundrum around the film’s moral core that prevents it from fully working. Oskar’s love of his country may be his motivator, but for most, a Nazi is a Nazi. And where reconciliation and forgiveness are essential for healing the wounds of the past, moments in which the two men feel like they are being placed on equivalent moral footing are a misfire. The holocaust, inextricably linked to the German war machine, is barely given a passing mention in the film. And where Jim may be willing to offer Oskar an olive branch, it does not feel like it is his to offer on behalf of the viewer. Those looking for a quick shot of sentimentality will leave Man on the Hill satisfied, but anyone with more than a passing interest in the war will find its narrative difficult. It is a shame, because the direction, performances and story structure are largely fine. Ultimately, it’s about the wrong war.