Black Book (2006) is in Dutch, German, English, Hebrew, and probably something else, so turn on the subtitles to follow this excellent WWII Dutch Resistance drama. Black Book is director Paul Verhoeven’s first major film since leaving Hollywood and his string of big budget entertainments. He seems to have put everything into this project. There is a palpable sense of being there more than 60 years ago, so I imagine the period detail is spot-on. Surprise follows surprise, a gripping experience that makes the 2-plus hours go fast. The surprises are not just plot twists, although there are plenty of those. The main character is not some heroic macho man and leader of the Dutch underground, but, surprise, a Jewish night-club singer, Rachel Stein (Carice van Houten), whose original desire was simply to escape. When she takes on the dangerous job of cozying up to an SS commander (Sebastian Koch), surprise, the chemistry between them is palpable and they fall for each other. Thank goodness the war will end soon, but, surprise, when Germany capitulates, things become worse for the lovers. And who in, or connected to, the Resistance has been, and maybe is, betraying his or her confederates?
Some trustworthy film critics have given Black Book 3.5 out of 4 stars, which raises the question, “How could the movie have been better?” I’d like to mention three possibilities. First, the movie is framed by scenes from the present day. This removes some of the suspense because we know that Rachel survives and winds up on a kibbutz in Israel. On the other hand, the framing device has some advantages: It plants in our minds the amazing idea that the ordinary elementary school teacher (Rachel) we initially meet has a harrowing and extraordinary past, and it allows the movie a substantial concluding comment when we see the armed defences of the kibbutz half a century after WWII.
Second, would a senior SS officer and a Jewish resistance worker actually fall in love? This is difficult to believe, but the film does a commendable job of making it plausible. The SS officer believes the war is lost and he mainly wants to stop the killing. He also longs to replace his wife and children killed in a bombing raid. For her part, Rachel had no interest in the Resistance until her family was killed and now, somewhat rudderless, she is open to trying nearly anything. The chemistry between the actors Koch and van Houten is intense, and it helps us believe in the implausible.
Finally, when the traitor is disclosed, we’re surprised but wonder what his motivation was. Why go to all that trouble to betray people he knew and worked with? Why cozy up with the Nazis? This lack of motivation leaves one feeling like the screenwriter closed his eyes, spun around, pointed to someone, and cried, Guilty!. On the other hand, the film could not have developed the character’s motives extensively or else we would have figured out who dun it. But here are two possible solutions to this problem. For one, the film could have given just a hint or two about the character’s less than heroic nature. For example, the lawyer, who is a prime suspect as a traitor, early on tells Rachel that she should not be so trusting in such dangerous times. Throughout the movie you wonder if this was a slip that revealed his guilt. As another solution, the film could have developed the traitor’s character and motivation extensively, giving viewers a good chance to finger him as the culprit. When Rachael is dealing with him near the end of the movie, we would be shouting Watch out!