Men of the Blue Cross

[1] The film reconstructs the authentic action of the Tatra Volunteer Search and Rescue, which in February 1945 evacuated a partisan mountain hospital through the German-Soviet front line during World War II.

Only years later was the Men of the Blue Cross partially rehabilitated, largely due to the presence of non-professional actors and the cinematography of Sergiusz Sprudin [pl].

It is to them that the authors dedicate this film – to the mountain partisans of the war years and the rescuers of the Tatra Volunteer Search and Rescue – the people of the Blue Cross.

[3] Taking Adam Liberak's short story as the starting point for creating Men of the Blue Cross was a novelty for the director, who was an experienced documentarian.

[5] However, unlike the events depicted on the screen, the involvement of the mountaineers was not voluntary; the rescuers undertook the action under the threat of death from the Soviet authorities.

[4] In a review for Życie Warszawy, Stanisław Grzelecki wrote that the director: "Limited by the size of the documentary film, and above all by the fundamental assumption, did not go beyond the sketch and, by creating something saturated with possibilities, left the viewer feeling unsatisfied".

[15] On the other hand, Aleksander Jackiewicz [pl] argued that Munk's film lacked dramatic intensity,[16] and the Men of the Blue Cross is only "a neatly made adventure story, in which the man, nature, and fight are just a pretext for sensational action".

[17] Similarly, Jan Antoni Szczepański from Trybuna Ludu evaluated Munk's work as "a mixing of genres that creates a not very fortunate hybrid and causes dissatisfaction".

In a polemical review against Pitera's voice, Czesław Michalski [pl] stated that "Munk [...] is a good rider and firmly sits in the saddle riding on this imaginary barrier, supposedly separating the documentary film from the narrative one".

[20] Kazimierz Dębnicki [pl] also attacked Pitera, "who addressed the theoretical problem of whether such a mixture should be made at all and, having come to the conclusion that it should not, condemned the film in a purely speculative way, defending the principle".

[21] Despite the predominance of negative criticism, the director himself admitted that "the Men of the Blue Cross convinced me of the impossibility of fully showing the inner experiences of the hero by documentary method".

Barbara Mruklik stated that "from today's point of view, the discussions at that time seem academic, even scholastic", and the main value of the Men of the Blue Cross is precisely "the blending of genres [...].

[23] Małgorzata Hendrykowska [pl] wrote that the presence of non-professional actors in the Men of the Blue Cross "gave this sensational story an extraordinary value of authenticity".

[25] Kevin Filipski from The New York Times stated that "non-professional actors add tension and authenticity to the film", and most importantly, "Munk focuses less on conveying ideological messages and more on deepening the drama of the dangerous and heroic mission of the men".

[27] However, Stuart Klawans from Film Comment had a different opinion, sarcastically assessing the Men of the Blue Cross as a "typical tribute to the Soviet bloc, full of admiration for the simple, smiling, indomitable people who managed to defeat fascism and still found time to pose for their close-ups".