BACK-STORY: Would you believe one of the
longest novels was made into one of the longest movies? Sergei Bondarchuk’s version of Tolstoy’s
novel is 431 minutes long, divided into four parts, and took six years to
finish. There are 300 speaking
characters. It was the most expensive
Soviet film ever made. The Soviet
government funded the film as a matter of national honor after the King Vidor
version released in 1956 achieved some critical acclaim. The Soviet Army provided technical advisers
and thousands of extras. Over 40 museums
loaned historical artifacts. 60 Napoleonic
era cannons were cast for the film.
Bondarchuk took advantage of the Khrushchev Thaw to craft a new style Soviet
film. The movie was a big success and
won Best Foreign Film at both the Golden Globes and the Academy Awards. It is the longest film to win an Oscar.
OPENING: A camera pans over a countryside
with sounds of battle in the background.
A narrator tells us that because corrupt people unite, honest people
must also. The year is 1805 and we are
in St. Petersburg at an upper class “soiree”.
There is discussion of the “anti-Christ” Napoleon. The camera moves around as we peep in at
various converstaions. A woman named
Lisa is complaining about her husband deserting her to go off to war. “Why can’t men live without wars?”
SUMMARY: Okay, how much do you want to
know? Don’t worry, this will not be four
times as long as my usual summary.
Basically the movie is the story of a love triangle. Pierre (Bondrachuk) is the illegitimate son
of a wealthy count who is a social outcast and is looking for purpose in his
life. His best friend Andrei (Vyacheslav
Tikhanov) is the son of a famous general who is unhappy with his loving, but
shallow wife. He leaves her behind to
become an aide-de-camp for General Kutusov in the lead up to the Battle of
Austerlitz. Natasha (Lubmila Savelyeva)
is the flirtatious daughter of the Rostovs.
The Rostovs live in Moscow and enjoy life and hosting parties. Their lives will intertwine in the events
leading up to Napoleon’s occupation of Moscow.
When
Pierre’s father dies he inherits the estate and now is high in society. He gives up his days of debauchery with
military types like the dangerous Dolokhov (Oleg Yefremov). He marries a woman named Helene (Irina
Skobtseva – Bondarchuk’s wife) because dude’s gotta marry, right? Meanwhile, Andrei drops his pregnant wife off
at his tough-love father’s home before he goes to war. His dad tells him to come back with his
shield or on it.
The
Russian army marches to join Gen. Mack’s Austrian army. As the ranks march by, the camera picks up
eachs soldier talk. “Singers to the
front!” The army lustily belts out a
folk tune. Gen. Mack himself informs
Kutusov to not bother joining him. "I
have no army". Gen. Bagration (with
Andrei tagging along hunting for glory) fights a rearguard action at
Schongrabern. Smoke clears to reveal
French columns approaching. A Russian
column marches to meet them. Drums
beat. “Left, left.” Marching feet. Now here comes the cavalry. Natasha’s brother Nicolai is part of it. POV.
He’s down. We hear his
thoughts. I’m going to die. Not if I run.
Camera follows him through foliage. (It's a little silly.)
It’s now the artillery’s turn (the cannons recoil!). Tushin’s battery holds out to the last. Hellish aftermath of a losing battle.
Kutusov spectates |
Next
comes the Battle of Austerlitz. The Czar
orders Kutuzov to begin the attack prematurely.
Amateur! The cavalry charge results
in numerous riderless horses leaving the battlefield (are you telling me noone
was just wounded?) Andrei leads a
counterattack carrying a flag and is wounded.
He awakes with Napoleon gazing on him.
“That’s a beautiful death” says the Little Corporal. A
bird’s eye view shows the cavalry forces circling like a maelstrom. Get it?
Pierre
is being cuckolded by Dolokhov. He
challenges him to a duel. What an
incredible scene! Andrei’s wife dies
giving birth and before he can beg forgiveness for being such a huge jerk. However, he meets the vivacious Natasha at a
grand ball. The cinematography is
masterful. The camera flows through and
around the crowd (the cameramen were on roller skates). Sometimes the shot is blocked by people in
the crowd. Down in front! Andrei proposes, but gives Natasha a year to
think about it. Big mistake.
It
is now 1812 and Napoleon’s Grande Armee invades Russia. Kutuzov is back in command and Andrei
commands a regiment. Here comes the
Battle of Borodino! Pierre shows up at
the site dressed as a dandy. He visits
Andrei and tells him that he thinks the left flank is too weak! Thanks, armchair general. Andrei guarantees victory because the
Russians want it more.
The
battle lasts 33 minutes of screen time.
Most of our time is spent with Pierre who hooks up with an artillery
unit in a redoubt. The cannons are
firing in two directions. WTF, but makes
for some great tracking shots. Andrei’s
regiment is being held in reserve and stoically takes losses as they sit and
wait. Cavalry attacks massed
artillery. Crescendo of violence. Overhead view of squares. Buildings on fire. Andrei is wounded by a shell and has his leg
amputated. Pierre gets his green coat
dirty.
It’s
a moral victory, but Napoleon marches into Moscow. Pierre has not joined Natasha’s family and
the rest of the evacuees. Suddenly, the
city is aflame and Pierre is in the middle of it. Soot is flying like a blizzard. Chaos.
Drunkenness. Looting. Pierre is arrested as an arsonist. The music gets increasingly bizarre to match
the vibe. For no apparent reason Pierre
is spared execution. He is taken along
when the French retreat.
CLOSING: The Grand Armee
disintegrates. Somehow Pierre escapes
and returns to a rebuilding Moscow. He
is reunited with Natasha.
RATINGS:
Acting = B-
Action = 7/10
Accuracy
= B
Plot = B
Realism = B
Overall = A-
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? They’ll like the peace parts and their man will like the war parts. Something for everyone. Natasha is a great character and the romance
aspects are strong.
HISTORICAL ACCURACY: Tolstoy got into a lot
discussion about how historically accurate the novel was. He argued that the “artist” deserves some
latitude in historical fiction. Besides,
he added, even historians make choices on what to emphasize in their
non-fiction. With that said, the movie
conforms closely to the book and the book is accurate enough considering
Tolstoy did not intend it to be a history lesson. His main characters are fictional and he
places them in historical events.
However, the film and book are giving a personal view of the events, not
a view from command.
The main focus
historically is the battles and Tolstoy does not try to give the big
picture. To tell the truth, historians
are still debating exactly what happened in the three battles. The first, the Battle of Schongraben, is
simplified in the film, but it gets the essentials right. Bagration was ordered by Kutusov to fight a
delaying action. The battle did take
place at night and was chaotic. Several
French assaults were beaten off in six hours of fighting before Bagration made
an orderly withdrawal. It is unclear
whether the Tushin battery incident was based on fact.
At Austerlitz, the
film is accurate in showing Czar Alexander ordering Kutusov to advance when he was not
prepared. What the film does not make
clear is the fact that the Russians were being ordered to leave the
strategically dominant Pratzen Heights.
The huge cavalry action did take place, but it was towards the end of
the battle not the beginning. The French
did empty a lot of Russian saddles, but not all of them.
Borodino opened with a
cavalry attack. Maybe Tolstoy got them
confused. The Russians had left their
left flank underdeveloped, as Pierre correctly pointed out. The action at the Raevsky Redoubt is handled
well. The Russians had 19
twelve-pounders there. Apparently, it did have
to defend itself from attacks from both sides.
The movie does give a correct impression of the high level of losses on
both sides.
As far as the burning
of Moscow, Tolstoy and the film imply it was accidental whereas historians
believe it was the ultimate example of the Russian scorched earth policy.
CRITIQUE: “War and Peace” is a remarkable work of cinema. Parts of it are amazing and the credit goes
to Bondarchuk who pulled out all the stops in making it. The variety of techniques that are used make
it a must for any film class. There are
off-center shots, fades, POVs (including a wolf’s – hell, we hear the wolf’s
thoughts!) , double exposures, split screen, hand-held (on roller skates), and more. There is even a surreal dream sequence based
on Bondarchuk’s experience from being “dead” for four minutes after a heart
attack. When he depicts the meeting of
Napoleon and Alexander at Tilsit he even throws in a three screen look in
homage to the classic “Napoleon”. The
balls are shot literally from within the crowds. There are lots of outdoor scenes that are
shot through and of foliage (which reminded me of Malick’s “The Thin Red
Line”). The only fault I have with the cinematography
is it seems as the story gets weaker, the “bells and whistles” increase
in compensation. Also, some of the
cinematic flourishes get tedious at times.
For example, the things waved in front of the camera during the ball scenes.
The acting is
average. Lubmila Savelyeva is the
stand-out as Natasha. She captures the
mercurial nature of the young woman perfectly.
The rest of the cast is adequate, but not outstanding. No one embarrasses themselves, even
Bondarchuk.
The plot is based on
one of the greatest novels ever written and is faithful to the book. Thankfully, the movie leaves out some
periphery characters and a lot of Tolstoy’s philosophizing. I read the chapters about the Battle of
Borodino and the movie does a great job recreating the novel. It is interesting to note that the film omits
most of the book’s coverage of Napoleon. The movie not only summarizes the book so you
do not have to read it, but is a good historical and cultural experience. Bondarchuk includes the balls and the wolf
hunt for local color. The religiousity
of the Russian people is highlighted. In
general, the film is very strong in depicting upper class life in Russia at the
time. It is less firm in recreating military aspects. The strategy and tactics are either too
unclear or too simplistic. The “fog of
war” could be applied to the recreations of the battles. Perhaps this was Bondarchuk’s goal. The staging of the battle scenes is amazing,
however. The Battle of Borodino is
certainly one of the greatest cinematic
battles.
One theme is the
effects of war on civilians, especially wives. A corollary to that is war’s effect on the
environment. There are shots of
beautiful countryside that pan over to a ravaged countryside. Of course, the movie means to be anti-war and
it is, but not as overtly as you would think.
At one point, Andrei swears off war but returns and seeks glory. His death is meant to overshadow this and
return emphasis to the theme. Pierre
also cannot resist the lure of combat.
Tolstoy may be hard on the generals, but he lauds the Russian soldiers
that saved his country.
The film is not
perfect. There are some plot flaws. The Natasha elopement was implausible. Andrei swings from warrior to pacifist back
to warrior. Why does Helene become
evil? Why isn’t Pierre executed along
with the other arsonists? (Probably so he can travel with the bedraggled Grand
Armee and then return home.) Not too bad
for a movie that is 431 minutes.
CONCLUSION: If you don’t want to read a book that is 1351
pages long, this production of “War and Peace” will do the trick. Not only will you get a summary of the
remarkable novel, but you will see one of the outstanding cinematic achievements
in history. I am so glad that this blog
project forced me to buy the DVD set and watch the film. And I have to admit that even though I have
been a fan of military history since a teen, I never had any intention of
reading the book or watching a 431 minute movie based on it. I still don’t plan on reading the book, but
the chapters that I read about the Battle of Borodino were entertaining. I wonder if you could find an edited version
entitled “War Without Peace” on the Internet. Just the cool chapters. None of the mushy stuff.
Does the movie belong
at #20? That is debateable because it is
unclear whether it should have been considered.
The panel of experts responsible for Military History Magazine’s 100
Greatest War Movies list obviously precluded made-for-TV movies and miniseries,
so there were limits on what films they considered. “War and Peace” is unique among the 100
chosen because it is actually a theatrical miniseries. I would not have included it, but if you
allow it in the door, it certainly belongs in the top twenty.
Certainly one I'd like to watch sooner or later although it is very long. There are different versions, as far as I know, maybe others were better in the acting department. Still, this sounds like an impressive movie and I have a feeling it's worthy of a place among the Top 100.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about my 100 Best. I have to think hard about whether I would classify it as a movie. If so, why not Band of Brothers, etc.
ReplyDeleteI have the BBC miniseries in my Netflix queue and Anthony Hopkins stars as Pierre. However, the King Vidor movie has a miscast Henry Fonda! I guess this version is somewhere in the middle, acting wise.
I did read the book. I took a literature class devoted entirely to War And Peace in college. The BBC version pales compared to the other two.
ReplyDeleteThe King Vidor version isn't so bad, but the Bondarchuk version is the grandest. We saw it in a repertory theater in the last week of our class. A fifteen minute intermission at the 90 minute mark, and one full hour intermission in the middle with another fifteen minute break at the other 90 minute mark of part two. In all, an eight hour ordeal. Too bad Borodino comes at the end, my ass was killing me by then.
I highly recommend the book (which was ripped off shamelesly by Herman Wouk btw for his Winds of War). It is steeped in military culture. As for Tolstoy not wanting to write a history lesson, I don't buy it. There are long introductory passages of Kutuzov lecturing on the cause and effects of history.
I would have loved to have seen it under those circumstances. I had not made the connection with Wouk's book.
ReplyDeleteI would say "clearly inspired by" instead of "ripped off shamelessly." The Winds of War (and its sequel, War and Remembrance) do center on a couple of families who are somewhat improbably mixed into many of the significant events of World War II in order to give the reader a close-up and personal view of them, but the characters and the events are very different. Wouk references Tolstoy openly at several points in the work and engages with some of his ideas.
ReplyDeleteThey're great books and well worth the read, even if they may lose to War and Peace as literature. The miniseries were also very well done, although the holocaust scenes are so frank and emotionally powerful that I would be careful about watching it in the presence of children.
Thanks for the input. I have reviewed both miniseries, but have yet to post them.
Delete