As tense as The Wages of Fear, and featuring cinema’s most refreshing beers, here’s why the perilous wartime adventure Ice Cold in Alex is worth your attention.
By Lou Thomas
When Captain Anson (John Mills) of the British RASC Motor Ambulance Company is ordered to leave the Libyan port city of Tobruk before it is besieged in 1942, he is forced to take a treacherous journey across the desert to Alexandria. Anson sets out with nurses Diana Murdoch (Sylvia Syms), Denise Norton (Diane Clare) and Mechanist Sergeant-Major Tom Pugh (Harry Andrews), and they soon pick up a South African officer, Captain van der Poel (Anthony Quayle). Together the five negotiate terrain that proves to be emotionally and physically draining.
Ice Cold in Alex (1958) has a simple, concise plot yet packs a hefty moral weight. Sixty years after its release, director J. Lee Thompson’s desert epic still stands up as an essential war film. Here are five reasons why it needs to be seen.
1. A realistic tone
Ice Cold in Alex is much less jingoistic than many war films of its time. The mission is about survival rather than victory or defeat – watching today you might be reminded of Bryan Forbes’ underrated PoW drama King Rat (1965) in which ethical certainties play second fiddle to the business of staying alive. With a script co-written by Christopher Landon, derived from his book, both character motivation and dialogue feel briskly authentic. A great deal of this must be due to Landon’s own experiences in the Second World War, when he served in North Africa with the 51st Field Ambulance.
2. The resolute protagonist
One of the biggest British stars of the 1940s and 50s, thanks to roles in terrific fare such as This Happy Breed (1944) and Waterloo Road (1945), John Mills had a big 1958. Having served during the Second World War, he led Leslie Norman’s epic Dunkirk and is excellent as Ice Cold’s protagonist. His Anson is a weary, alcoholic officer suffering from what we would probably call post-traumatic stress disorder. Battered by the desert and beaten by war before the events of the film begin, the indefatigable Anson is a recognisable and sympathetic soldier, brought to life by Mills’ believable and nuanced portrayal.
Ice Cold In Alex (1958)
3. Trucking hell
An ambulance is not a truck, but even so Ice Cold in Alex plays something like a British answer to the French suspense classic The Wages of Fear. Released five years prior, Henri-Georges Clouzot’s masterpiece is likewise a study of an epic journey involving extreme mobile peril in cumbersome vehicles and amid sweaty, uncomfortable conditions. The earlier film is certainly bleaker, and draws darker conclusions about human nature, but Thompson’s film gives it a run for its money in the tension stakes. Anson and van der Poel’s investigation of a mine field is taut and revealing, while a scene in which the latter gets caught in quicksand is as heart-stopping as anything shot by Clouzot.
4. More than method
Sylvia Syms once claimed that there was “very little acting” in the film because the conditions of filming in Libya were so difficult. Citing a “horrible” shoot, Syms explained, “We became those people… we were those people.” Thompson was apparently a particularly hard taskmaster, and the ambulance crew are often shown on screen as exhausted and filthy. While Syms would not be the first actor to exaggerate the toughness of location work, a glance at many scenes would suggest a genuinely taxing shoot.
Ice Cold in Alex (1958)
5. One of cinema’s greatest drinking scenes
The clue is in the title. The film is named for Anson’s own holy grail, the fine icy lager he’ll sup if he can just get himself and his colleagues through the baking desert. Knowing how appreciated a beer can be after a busy day at work, one can only guess at the incredible relief a soldier finishing a dangerous mission might feel when finally sinking a cold one. Mills was required to drink real beer during the shooting of the scene as nothing else looked right on film. He ended the day slightly worse for wear because of the many takes Thompson insisted on.
Centralize even more power and curtail even more civil liberties
By Robert Reich
Friends,
One of my goals in writing this letter to you every day is to alert you to dangers to our democracy so you can alert others, who then alert others, and by this means we enlarge and strengthen our bulwark against the tide of fascism.
Wars pose particular challenges to democracy because nations at war often become more xenophobic and willing to give those in power extra leeway to protect the homeland. That’s an underlying danger in Trump’s war with Iran.
Trump has already tried to use three pretexts to usurp power — terrorism, national emergency, and war itself — to justify his mass deportations, universal tariffs, and consolidations of power. And he has tried to use these to gain legal legitimacy under laws that give presidents additional power when the nation is threatened.
Federal courts and public opinion haven’t allowed him to go as far as he wished. But if Trump’s war with Iran escalates — which it’s almost certain to do if Iran retaliates — courts may be reluctant to impede a commander-in-chief and the public may be willing to go along.
I fear that Trump’s war with Iran will enable him to use these three pretexts — terrorism, national emergency, and war — to further suppress dissent at home, narrow freedom of speech and expression, make warrantless searches and arrests of Americans, imprison opponents, and put more military onto our streets.
Terrorism
The use of terrorism has already begun. A bulletin issued just yesterday by the National Terrorism Advisory System within the Department of Homeland Security warns of a “heightened threat environment in the United States” following the U.S. military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.
The bulletin notes that U.S. law enforcement “has disrupted multiple potentially lethal Iranian-backed plots in the United States since 2020,” and goes on to warn of Iranian retaliation for Sunday morning’s attack.
Surely Iran is planning retaliation. During a Sunday phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted that the U.S. “receive a response to their aggression,” according to Iran’s official news agency, IRNA, as reported by The Times of Israel.
Any retaliation by Iran will be used by Trump to justify an intensifying crackdown on “terrorism.”
Even before Trump’s attack on Iran, he appropriated the term “terrorist” to describe various groups he deemed threats to the United States — including drug cartels and migrants.
Trump framed the rendition of Venezuelans to El Salvador as necessary to protect the U.S. from the scourge of “terrorism.” And he described fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.
Now that we are at war with Iran, expect Trump to use the rhetoric of terrorism far more often, and the Department of Homeland Security to lead the charge against such threats.
National emergency
In his first hundred days in office this term, Trump declared eight “national emergencies” — far more than any other modern president in that same period of time. By comparison, Biden declared 11 national emergencies over his whole four-year term. Obama declared 12 in his eight years. George W. Bush declared 14 in his two terms.
The declaration of a national emergency automatically allows a president to use “emergency” powers in laws intended by Congress to be utilized rarely, when the nation is seriously imperiled.
Trump has been using such so-called “emergencies” to achieve domestic priorities more quickly than he’d be able to if he tried to pass laws through Congress.
The pattern began in his first term when he declared a “national emergency” to help fund the southern border wall after Congress didn’t approve the full amount. His declaration of an invasion on the southern border paved the way for intensified deportations.
Trump’s declaration of an “economic emergency” in April, based on the nation’s trade deficit (which has existed for decades), enabled him to impose unprecedented global tariffs.
An “energy emergency” made it easier for him to ease environmental regulations. His pronouncement that fentanyl entering from Canada was an emergency provided legal justification for sanctions, as did a similar finding on the International Criminal Court’s approach to Israel.
Trump invoked a “national emergency” to justify sending the National Guard to Los Angeles at a time when state and local officials said they had the protests there under control. Had he not federalized the National Guard, Trump said, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”
Trump’s stream of emergency declarations has also contributed to a sense that America is facing perpetual crises, under threat from foreign nations and domestic enemies. Trump thrives in this atmosphere, adopting the role of fighter and savior.
His war with Iran will fuel even more “national emergencies” and the legal authority that accompanies them.
War
Trump has tried to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify his mass deportations without due process, but unsuccessfully in the courts because the Act allows a president to detain and remove nationals of an enemy nation only during a “declared war,” “invasion,” or “predatory incursion” against the United States.
The law was invoked only three times before Trump, each during a war declared by Congress: the War of 1812 (with the United Kingdom), World War I and World War II. Each gave the U.S. government heightened powers to remove from the U.S. nationals of the party it was fighting. It was used during World War II to justify the internment of Japanese Americans and has since become synonymous with some of the nation’s most shameful civil liberties violations.
Trump’s attempt to use this centuries-old statute to conduct mass removals—outside of immigration law, with no hearings or judicial review—has been another authoritarian power grab posing grave threats to civil liberties and the rule of law.
On April 7, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that people targeted by Trump under the Alien Enemies Act must be given notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, including arguments over the law’s constitutionality and application.
Yet a war with Iran may be enough to seemingly legitimize his use of the Act.
In addition, Trump has not ruled out invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the deployment of active-duty U.S. military personnel within the United States in cases of unrest or rebellion — a prospect also made more likely when the nation is at war.
Trump wants to be a war president. Everything he has done to date has been aimed at concentrating power in his hands and undermining democratic institutions, which are far easier to do as a war president.
I write this not to worry or depress you. My purpose is to encourage you to be extra vigilant in guarding against Trump’s further use of these three pretexts to erode democracy and attack our freedoms.
Wars almost always challenge civil liberties. Given Trump’s record, that challenge could be enormous.
Individuals in plain clothes with their faces covered and without badges or name tags are snatching people off the streets and taking them away. Todd Lyons, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is housed within the Department of Homeland Security, claimed that such measures for anonymity are imperative because “ICE officers have seen a staggering 413 percent increase in assaults against them.”
Philip Bump of the Washington Post looked into that claim and noted that by using a percentage, ICE avoids the question of just how many assaults there have actually been. He points out that year-to-date assaults against Customs and Border Protection are currently 20% lower than they were in 2024 and that at least one ICE news release blurred the distinction between “threatening to assault” and “assaulting.” ICE would not provide evidence for their claims.
Bump concludes: “[W]e should not and cannot take ICE’s representations about the need for its officers to obscure their identities at face value.” After Bump’s article appeared yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security posted on social media: “New data reveals that ICE law enforcement is now facing a 500% increase in assaults while carrying out enforcement operations.”
Bump noted that ICE “has been eager to level dubious charges against Democratic legislators,” and the message from Homeland Security bears that claim out. After claiming a 500% increase in assaults, it continued: “Make no mistake, sanctuary politicians are contributing to the surge in assaults of our ICE officers through their repeated vilification and demonization of ICE. This violence against ICE must end.”
The Department of Homeland Security appears to be trying to convince Americans that their agents must cover their faces because their opponents, especially Democrats, are dangerous.
On Tuesday, masked, plainclothes ICE agents assaulted and arrested New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander, the city’s chief financial officer. Lander was accompanying an immigrant to a scheduled court hearing to try to protect him from arrest in one of ICE’s sweeps of those showing up for their court hearings. Lander asked the agents to produce an arrest warrant for the man they were arresting, and was himself arrested.
Yesterday began with the horrific news that a gunman had shot two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses in what Minnesota governor Tim Walz said appeared to be a “politically motivated assassination.” State representative Melissa Hortman, who was the top Democrat in the Minnesota House, and her husband, Mark, both died in the attack at their home in Brooklyn Park, a city near Minneapolis. The gunman also shot Democratic Minnesota state senator John Hoffman nine times and his wife, Yvette, eight at their home in Champlin. The hospital reports they are in stable condition after surgery.
Law enforcement officers encountered the suspected gunman, 57-year-old Vance Boelter, coming out of Hortman’s house. He was dressed as a police officer. Officers exchanged gunfire with him before he fled, leaving behind his vehicle, which looked much like a police car. In it was a list of dozens of people he wanted to kill. They were mostly Democrats or people connected to abortion rights efforts. Law enforcement officers captured Boelter tonight.
MAGA Republicans are working hard to identify Boelter with what Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) called “Marxism” and Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) called “the extreme left,” but as investigative journalist Phil Williams of NewsChannel 5 Nashville notes, public databases show Boelter was in the past a registered Republican. His evangelical religion and his anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion stances reflect MAGA positions. Boelter’s roommate told reporters that Boelter was a “strong” supporter of President Trump.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) noted that MAGA has been “bathed in political violence” for the last five years. Trump’s pardoning of the January 6 rioters, including those convicted of extreme violence, “became a clear endorsement of violence committed in his name.” Trump has encouraged violence and cozied up to brutal dictators, while MAGA has fetishized guns. When he celebrates violence, unhinged people listen. Murphy points out that while people of all political persuasions commit violence, no Democratic leader encourages violence as a political norm the way Trump and MAGA have done, citing “a straight line from Jan 6 to the pardons to the assault on Sen[ator] Padilla to Minnesota.”
After the shootings, Andrew Solender of Axios reported that lawmakers of both parties are concerned about their own safety as political violence increases. The Minnesota attacks happened just days after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s security guard shoved Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) to the ground and handcuffed him after he asked a question. This assault sparked apparent fury among the Democrats on Capitol Hill as they challenged their Republican colleagues—largely unsuccessfully—to speak up against the assault on a senator.
The entire Minnesota delegation to the U.S. Congress issued a joint statement on politically motivated shootings. Democrats and Republicans together wrote: “Today we speak with one voice to express our outrage, grief, and condemnation of this horrible attack on public servants. There is no place in our democracy for politically-motivated violence. We are praying for John and Yvette’s recovery and we grieve the loss of Melissa and Mark with their family, colleagues, and Minnesotans across the state. We are grateful for law enforcement’s swift response to the situation and continued efforts.”
After that start to the day, the country turned to the “No Kings” protests. In a dramatic rejection of Trump’s consolidation of power, at least five million Americans turned out for peaceful protests across the country. Cities turned out huge numbers of protesters at more than 2,000 planned events, and small towns, including those in Republican-dominated states, also boasted rallies. The mood was festive as people held signs with anti-Trump and pro-American images and slogans and sang Woody Guthrie’s famous American anthem, “This Land Is Your Land.” American flags were everywhere.
In contrast to the huge turnout for the protests, the military parade in Washington, D.C., was a bust. Although Trump had claimed it would be a celebration of the 250th anniversary of the American Army, it was also his 79th birthday and was widely interpreted primarily as a celebration of that occasion. Trump has wanted a parade since 2017, when he viewed the traditional Bastille Day military parade in Paris. At the time, he told reporters: “It was one of the greatest parades I’ve ever seen…. We’re going to have to try to top it.”
But organizers had had only two months to arrange for the parade, and the result was badly organized, with relatively few people turning out, especially after forecasts of storms that evening. Far from the crisp marching of the military parades that Trump seemed to want to top, the U.S. soldiers appeared to shuffle, leading to a social media debate over whether they had been ordered to march in an “at ease march” instead of a more rigorous step, or whether they were silently protesting. Photographers recorded empty bleachers and thin crowds. Few Republican lawmakers attended, but cameras caught Trump looking miserable and Secretary of State Marco Rubio yawning.
The contrast between the protests and the military parade suggested an important shift in political culture. The momentum and the joy, as well as the American flags, were on the side of those protesting Trump’s growing authoritarianism. Trump looked weak and discouraged, and the crowds were clearly on the side of the protesters. Today, social media, including a Russian account, got into the act of making fun of Trump’s military parade.
At the Philadelphia Inquirer, Will Bunch noted that “the flag is mightier than the tank.”
The rejection Trump faced yesterday, podcaster Jack Hopkins noted, “was a big tub of rock salt poured on his wounds of lifelong insecurity.” That profound injury to Trump’s sense of self braced observers for a lashing out of epic proportions as he tries to demonstrate that he is, in fact, powerful.
We got that anger and fear in a social media post at 8:43 p.m. tonight. In a post almost certainly not written by Trump, his account backed off on Trump’s recent retreat from mass deportations. Instead, the account said “ICE Officers are herewith ordered, by notice of this TRUTH, to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History.”
The account then declared war on Democrats. The day after a gunman shot two Democratic lawmakers and their spouses in their homes, Trump’s account posted:
“[W]e must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America’s largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside. These, and other such Cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens. These Radical Left Democrats are sick of mind, hate our Country, and actually want to destroy our Inner Cities—And they are doing a good job of it! There is something wrong with them. That is why they believe in Open Borders, Transgender for Everybody, and Men playing in Women’s Sports—And that is why I want ICE, Border Patrol, and our Great and Patriotic Law Enforcement Officers, to FOCUS on our crime ridden and deadly Inner Cities, and those places where Sanctuary Cities play such a big role. You don’t hear about Sanctuary Cities in our Heartland!”
The post promised ICE that “REAL Americans are cheering you on every day” and urged them to “reverse the tide of Mass Destruction Migration that has turned once Idyllic Towns into scenes of Third World Dystopia.” It doubled down on the neo-Nazi idea of “REMIGRATION” and concluded: “To ICE, FBI, DEA, ATF, the Patriots at Pentagon and the State Department, you have my unwavering support. Now go, GET THE JOB DONE! DJT”
Will Trump’s demands swing people behind him? Americans have already turned against Trump’s handling of immigration and deportations by significant margins. G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers summarized the polls from June 9–13. Answering the question “Do you approve of the way the president is handling…immigration?” respondents for YouGov/Economist were the only ones to produce a majority—of just four points—saying yes. For AP-NORC, Quinnipiac, and Washington Post/GMU, the answer was no by as much as 15 points. On every other question dealing with immigration, more people opposed Trump’s policies than supported them by as much as 16 points.
Trump’s other policies are underwater—meaning more people oppose them than approve of them—as well. Only 27% of registered voters support the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill, while 53% oppose it. As for Trump himself, a Quinnipiac Poll from June 11 showed that 38% of registered voters approve of the way he is handling the job of the presidency, while 54% disapprove. Only 30% of registered voters approved “strongly” of the way he is handling the job, while 49% strongly disapprove.
While Trump and his loyalists are trying to project an image of invincibility, their actual power seems to be faltering.
Ten years ago tomorrow, on June 16, 2015, Trump rode down the escalator at Trump Tower to a lobby filled with extras, to announce he was running for president. One reporter called his speech, in which he claimed that Mexico was sending criminals and rapists to the United States, “eccentric.”
