Editing Watch on the Rhine (section)

==Critical reception==
[[Bosley Crowther]] of ''The New York Times'' called ''Watch on the Rhine'' "a distinguished film — a film full of sense, power and beauty" and added, "Its sense resides firmly in its facing one of civilization's most tragic ironies, its power derives from the sureness with which it tells a mordant tale and its beauty lies in its disclosures of human courage and dignity. It is meager praise to call it one of the fine adult films of these times." He continued, "Miss Hellman's play tends to be somewhat static in its early stretches on the screen. With much of the action confined to one room in the American home, development depends largely on dialogue — which is dangerous in films. But the prose of Miss Hellman is so lucid, her characters so surely conceived and Mr. Shumlin has directed for such fine tension in this his first effort for the screen that movement is not essential. The characters propel themselves." In conclusion, he said, "An ending has been given the picture which advances the story a few months and shows the wife preparing to let her older son follow his father back to Europe. This is dramatically superfluous, but the spirit is good in these times. And it adds just that much more heroism to a fine, sincere, outspoken film."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B07E2D71139E33BBC4051DFBE668388659EDE| title=Movie Review: Watch on the Rhine| work=The New York Times| last1=Crowther| first1=Bosley| date=August 28, 1943}}</ref>

''Variety'' called it "a distinguished picture...even better than its powerful original stage version. It expresses the same urgent theme, but with broader sweep and in more affecting terms of personal emotion. The film more than retains the vital theme of the original play. It actually carries the theme further and deeper, and it does so with passionate conviction and enormous skill...Just as he was in the play, Paul Lukas is the outstanding star of the film. Anything his part may have lost in the transfer of key lines to Bette Davis is offset by the projective value of the camera for closeups. His portrayal of the heroic German has the same quiet strength and the slowly gathering force that it had on the stage, but it now seems even better defined and carefully detailed, and it has much more vitality. In the lesser starring part of the wife Davis gives a performance of genuine distinction."<ref>{{cite news|url= https://variety.com/1942/film/reviews/watch-on-the-rhine-1200413959| title=Review: 'Watch on the Rhine'| date=December 31, 1942| work=Variety| access-date=2023-12-14}}</ref>

Davis stated in a 1971 interview with [[Dick Cavett]] that she played the role of the wife for 'name value' because the studio did not consider the film a good financial risk and that her name above the credits would draw audiences. Davis gladly took the secondary role because she felt the story was so important, and that Hellman's writing was "super brilliant".<ref>{{cite web| title=The Dick Cavett Show: Season 6, Episode 40: Bette Davis| url=https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0875850/| date=November 18, 1971| publisher=[[IMDb|Internet Movie Database]]}}</ref>

The [[National Board of Review of Motion Pictures]] observed "Paul Lukas here has a chance to be indisputably the fine actor he always has shown plenty signs of being. Bette Davis subdues herself to a secondary role almost with an air of gratitude for being able to at last be uncomplicatedly decent and admirable. It is not a very colorful performance, but quiet loyalty and restrained heroism do not furnish many outlets for histrionic show, and Miss Davis is artist enough not to throw any extra bits of it to prove she is one of the stars."<ref name=Stine />