There have been enough films, both fictional and biographical, centered around World War II that any new entry in the canon must add something substantially unique to the subgenre. “Pressure” certainly takes an angle that hasn’t been explored before, as it focuses specifically on the meteorology involved in planning the D-Day invasion. While this might seem insignificant, that’s something that “Pressure” uses to its advantage.
Predicting the weather isn’t an exact science, but it was essential when plotting an attack that relied on natural conditions to succeed, thereby determining the success of the war. There are moments when “Pressure” strains credibility for the sake of the dramatic, but it is, by and large, a successful, small-scale approach to the military intrigue behind strategic decision-making.
Adapted from the British stage play of the same name, “Pressure” is set in the week before D-Day, in which Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) prepares to make a bold, covert attack that could mark a decisive victory against the Nazis and retake Europe. In his extensive preparations, Eisenhower is paired with the Scottish Met Office meteorologist James Stagg (Andrew Scott), who is told to make a forecast in order to anticipate what D-Day will look like.
As an outsider in the upper tier of the war effort, Stagg finds it difficult to make bold proclamations and earns significant pushback from Eisenhower’s veteran Air Force meteorologist Irving P. Krick (Chris Messina). The friction is intensified when Stagg and Krick come to different conclusions. Krick anticipates a sunny, bright morning that will be ideal for the planned assault, but Stagg predicts a disastrous storm will ruin the capacity for military success.
“Pressure” is smart enough to recognize that its audience is familiar enough with World War II films to get the gist of why D-Day is important, who Eisenhower is, and why the Allies were so hell-bent on finding a quick conclusion to the war in 1944, when resources were depleted, and countless lives were already lost. Still, the film creates tension based on the irrationality of both those in command and the inherent unpredictability of nature. No one can control the weather, but those in positions of authority may choose to behave erratically as a result of their plans being halted.
It’s a testament to the sharp screenplay by original playwright David Haig and director Anthony Maras that the military leaders showcase high degrees of emotion, yet never feel unreasonable. There’s surprisingly little ego involved because everyone is on the same page, but the mix of leaders from different countries, departments, and levels of experience results in some fraught communication.
Although there are a few moments that depict the literal costs of war (which are relatively sparse as a result of the film’s PG-13 rating), “Pressure” is best when showing how overwhelming the entire campaign is. Eisenhower’s initial dismissiveness of Stagg doesn’t feel like a slight because he is tasked with leading multiple nations into a surprise attack that is dependent on timing.
His insistence that the decision of when to attack is his alone is a reminder that he will also bear the consequences of failure. Although he might first appear to be an aggressive, almost dictatorial leader, Eisenhower is depicted with more empathy when allowed to show deep empathy with those under his command. Fraser’s performance is absolutely magnetic, as he is both intimidating and humane. That Fraser literally towers over Scott, who plays a more diminutive figure, makes for the ideal physical representation of the source of their friction.
Scott’s performance is unique in a similar sense because he is not initially made out to be particularly likable. Stagg is a professional who can only rely on facts and does not have the time to suffer fools. Although it would have been easy for the film to depict him as the lone genius on a team of tempestuous military figures, Stagg is made out to be someone tasked with the burden of delivering an uncomfortable truth.
Even when the film returns to the same note with regards to that expectation multiple times, Scott is never unbelievable in the part, and is even given more room for sympathy as a result of a storyline involving his pregnant wife (Tamsin Topolski). A bit more detail on Stagg’s background might have made some of the more theatrical moments of the film feel profound, but Scott is the type of actor who can bring history and interiority to every role he’s given.
Eisenhower and Stagg are undeniably the focal points of the film, and both actors are given the opportunity to deliver the type of scenery-chewing monologues that any stage veteran would dream of. Although there are a few isolated moments of open contemplation that feel as if they may have felt more profound in the intimate stage environment, “Pressure” is able to make the most of its liminal space, giving a sense of claustrophobia to the largest conflict in history.
Messina is also adept at giving depth to a historical figure who develops an impersonal professional rivalry with Stagg, and manages to bring much more to the role in the second half, where he is something other than being a bully. Kerry Condon might seem a bit overqualified for the role of Kay Summersby, Eisenhower’s personal secretary, but she also suffices as the source of reason within a combustible meeting of experts.
It’s a compliment to say that “Pressure” feels deliberately old-fashioned, as is the type of film that could have been made directly after the actual conclusion of World War II and felt at home within that generation of Hollywood classics. A look at the “facts and figures” of World War II is refreshing enough, given how many combat films are out there, especially since “Pressure” doesn’t have language so complex that a layman couldn’t understand it. While it might have needed a more established ensemble and less traditional structure to feel like an instant World War II classic, “Pressure” would be well-suited for any program of films documenting different perspectives on “the war to end all wars.”
