Stanley Kramer's "Ship of Fools" was an entertaining story of a congeries of disparate characters aboard a German cruise ship in the 1930s. It must have been a success because this negligible film is a shameless and bathetic rip off. This time, the entire ship's passenger list is Jewish and they suffer crisis after crisis. The fact that German Jews in 1939 were actually suffering those crises makes this blatantly commercial attempt at exploitation a cheapening of the historical experience.<br /><br />It really IS a rip off. I mean, that's not rhetoric. Oskar Werner plays a doctor in both movies. Jose Ferrer is cheerfully villainous in both. There is a liaison between a member of the crew and a desperate passenger in both. There is a costume party in both. There's the familiar rabid Nazi commisar whose job is to keep an eye on party loyalty among the crew. It reminds me of the way cars are remodeled year by year, a bit of new chrome here, a set of new tail lights there, all in an attempt to cash in on novelty.<br /><br />Nice cast, though. Not just expensive Hollywood actors -- in fact, no leading stars at all -- but a lot of competent supporting players, some of whom have made careers out of gracing the screen for a few moments with superb performances. Orson Welles is on hand, as are Max von Sydow, Malcolm MacDowell, Lee Grant, and the endless list of recognizable faces that these kinds of films require. The budget must have been sizable. Faye Dunaway appears in a costume that looks like a copy of John Singer Sargent's Madame X. Add a black choker. The wardrobe is emblematic of the whole enterprise. Copy something and then add a few disguising touches.<br /><br />But it's still tragedy played for lower middle-brows who will weep generous tears as the director manipulates their sentimentality and rakes in the shekels. The director is Stuart Rosenberg. I can't imagine how he managed to turn out a magnificent movie like "Cool Hand Luke." This stuff is all in your face.<br /><br />I don't like propaganda movies in general regardless of their source region. They don't really convert anyone or change already existing sentiments. Most attitudes follow the usual bell-shaped curve, with the overwhelming majority of people occupying the middle part -- ignorant or indifferent or genuinely moderate -- with a few extremists at either end. But I suspect that movies like this, carrying the heavy burden of an "important" social message, will reach respondents that form a rarer U-shaped curve. Those who are already sympathetic to the message will applaud it. Those who aren't, will dismiss it bitterly as the kind of propaganda they've come to expect from Hollywood. So, if it isn't going to improve our souls, what is its purpose, aside from commercial success? A rite of intensification for those of us who agree with its message. The people who made the movie know which side the angels are on, and so do we. It allows us to despise those who don't. I'm afraid movies like this generate as much hatred as empathy.<br /><br />I'd watch "Ship of Fools" again any time, but not this. It shows nothing that we didn't know or guess before. The fact that it resembles a genuine historical incident is irrelevant. I don't mean to seem, well, carried away but I do wish there had been some understatement here. I suppose it would be too much to ask for a little poetry too.