CONSENSUS #33. Charge of the Light Brigade (1936)

 

SYNOPSIS:  "The Charge of the Light Brigade" is the very fictionalized account of the Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War.  Hollywood turns it into a love triangle, a Gunga Dinesque sojourn in India to acquire a hissable villain, and then it's off to the Crimea for the charge.

BACK-STORY:  “The Charge of the Light Brigade” was released in 1936 and is one of the “British Empire movies” like “Lives of the Bengal Lancers”.  It falls into the historical adventures subgenre.  The movie was directed by Michael Curtiz (“Casablanca”) and stars Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland.  The film was one of twelve made by Curtiz and Flynn (with de Havilland appearing in eight).  It was filmed in California with the Sierra Nevadas standing in for the mountains of India.  The movie had a large budget of $1.23 million.  It was a box office success and was nominated for Academy Awards for Sound and Original Score (Max Steiner).  It won the Oscar for Best Assistant Director (Jack Sullivan).  The production was difficult with Flynn and Curtiz at odds (as they always were).

TRIVIA:  Wikipedia, imdb. TCM

 

1.  It was based on a story by Michael Jacoby who based it on the poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

 

2.  The Sierra Nevadas stood in for the Khyber Pass.

 

3.  The film was green-lighted because of the success of “Lives of a Bengal Lancer”.

 

4.  It was the second of eight films with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. He was sexually attracted to her and evinced it by childish pranks like putting a rubber snake in her pants, making faces at her during her dramatic scenes, and putting a whoopee cushion on her chair! 

 

5.  Errol may have made Olivia’s life miserable, but he claimed this movie was his worst experience as an actor.  He hated director Michael Curtiz and with good reason.  Curtiz was a dictatorial ass-hole.  He did not care if his actors were freezing while he was all bundled up.  Flynn also had major disagreements with Curtiz lack of concern for safety.

 

6.  Some of the shooting was done in Mexico because of its lax regulations on the use of animals  in films.  In the climactic charge trip wires were used to take down 125 horses.  25 of them were killed or had to be put down.  Flynn was so upset that he confronted Curtiz and they had to be pulled apart.  Flynn contacted the ASPCA and they put pressure on Hollywood to increase safety of animals in movies.  Trip wires were banned.  Because of the notoriety of the charge, the movie was not re-released and was not seen again until the late 50s on TV.

 

7.  Another conflict between Flynn and Curtiz was due to Curtiz’s insistence on removing the protective tips from the swords.  A stuntman was impaled on a broken sword that was sticking out of the ground.

 

8.  Flynn loved practical jokes, but he was the butt of one when he was doing his own makeup on horseback and a stuntman prodded his horse with a lance.  The horse bucked Flynn off.  Flynn pulled the prankster off his horse and beat him up.  They became friends.

 

9.  Curtiz did not speak English well and at one point used the phrase “bring on the empty horses”.  David Niven used the phrase for the title of his autobiography.

 

10.  Scenes from the movie were used in Iron Maiden’s video for the song “The Trooper”.

 

11.  In an opening title card, the movie is dedicated to the brigade that made the charge at Balaklava in 1856.  The charge was actually in 1854.

 

Belle and Blade  =  N/A

Brassey’s              =  4.0

Video Hound       =  3.8

War Movies         =  3.8

Military History  =  #26

Channel 4             =  #77

Film Site                =  yes

101 War Movies  =  yes

Rotten Tomatoes  =  no

 

HISTORICAL ACCURACY:  I have already mentioned the disclaimer, so you know the movie is aware that it is mostly bull s***.  Kudos in that respect.  With that said, the movie is actually more accurate than many of the other “horse and sand epics”.  The two main set pieces are based on actual events and do bear some resemblance to them.  However, for a movie purporting to be about the Charge of the Light Brigade to start in India (where the Light Brigade was not stationed) and then end up in the Crimea, that takes some major balls.  Some of the chronology is also perplexing.  The dedication mentions 1856 when the Battle of Balaclava was in 1854, the same year as the publishing of the poem.  Sloppy!  (But not as sloppy as the numerous upside down Union Jacks.)

                The movie is clearly based on the 17th Lancers.  There was no 27th Lancers involved in the Charge.  They were not in India, but the massacre is based on the Siege of Cawnpore.  There was no Suristan or Surat Khan, but one of the causes of the Sepoy Rebellion was mistreatment of local emirs like him.  The East India Company did routinely cut off subsidies to sons of deceased rulers, creating much ill-will.  In the movie, there is no reference to a rebellion by Indian soldiers serving the East India Company (sepoys).  Instead, the movie invents a local rebellion by an aggrieved ruler.  The attack on the fictional Chukoti is similar to what happened at Cawnpore.  A British unit and its civilian component were besieged in this fort by rebels led by Nana Sahib.  The Sahib was the adopted son of a ruler and when he succeeded, the East India Company cut the subsidy.  His personal grudge coincided with the anger of the sepoys.  The siege lasted three weeks and featured bombardment, sniping, and failed assaults.  Inside, the British suffered from heat and lack of food and water.  The Sahib offered safe passage which the British commander accepted.  Similar to the movie, the ambush occurred as the British boarded boats.  Unlike the movie, historians are unsure whether to blame the Sahib for treachery or chalk it up to itchy trigger fingers.  The elimination of the survivors was aftermathed accurately by the movie.  The actual murders were much worse than implied in the film.  Nana Sahib disappeared from history after the recapture of Cawnpore by the British.  No revenge here.

                The Crimean War is not backgrounded in the movie.  It occurred from 1853-1856.  Russia was hoping to carve off part of the decaying Ottoman Empire, but when Turkey declared war, England and France joined it in a classic European balance the power scenario.  The Anglo-French forces invaded the Crimea and laid siege to Sebastopol.  The Battle of Balaclava was the historical highlight and Tennyson’s poem immortalized the Charge of the Light Brigade.

                The movie Hollywoodizes the Charge by making it into an act of revenge and totally avoiding the controversial aspect of the order.  Lord Raglan ordered the Light Brigade (with the 17th Lancers in the center) to attack in response to the withdrawal of a Russian battery on one part of the heights.  When Capt. Louis Nolan delivered the already vague order to Lord Cardigan, Nolan broadly gestured toward a different part of the heights where the Russian artillery was firmly positioned.  Since Nolan was killed in the charge (possibly trying to rectify his error), the mystery will not be solved.  The charge is realistically depicted in the film.  The “valley of death” was indeed a killing ground with fire coming from three sides.  Like the movie, some horses were killed in the action.  This resulted in strict restrictions against shooting at horses in future wars.  Just kidding.   French Field Marshal Bosquat famously remarked:  “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre”.  Some of the Lancers did make it into the redoubt, but soon after had to pull back due to lack of support and heavy losses.    They rode back with grapeshot and cannister chasing them.   Unlike the movie, Cardigan survived (and rushed home to a champagne dinner).   Of the plus 600 cavalrymen, 118 were killed, 127 wounded, and 60 were captured.

                Typical of a movie like this, it forces a happy ending where there was none.  It is strongly implied that the charge was successful in causing the fall of Sebastopol.  In reality, the Charge was a failure and the men died valiantly but in vain.  Sebastopol did not fall until the next year.

OPINION:  “The Charge of the Light Brigade” is classic old school.  It is black and white, but that’s not a problem because most of the scenery in India is lacking in color.  The cinematography is crisp, but not special until we get to the Charge.  The score is what you would expect from a 1930s historical adventure.  It is hammy and sappy and designed to manipulate your emotions.  The acting is not a strength.  Flynn is satisfactory playing a 1930s hero who is too good to be true.  The characters are all stereotypes.  The torn-between-two-gentlemen female.  The dashing, but sensitive hero.  The likeable romantic rival.  The bonhomme best buddy.   We even get the busy-body, husband-nagger for comic relief.  Surat Khan starts out interesting, but ends up stock.  His motivation for the massacre is out of character and unclear.

                The movie is very predictable and cliché-ridden.  Nothing happens that is unusual.  Of course,  American audiences could have been shocked if the result of the Charge had been shown historically accurate.  The last twenty minutes piles on the cliches.  A duel between the hero and the villain at the climax – check.  The love triangle solved by the noble death of one of the two men – check.  A postscript which assures that the hero did not die in vain (or commit a court-martial offense) – check.

                The biggest problem with the movie is the lack of realism.  For instance, with all the dusty marching the British uniforms remain pristine.  Geoffrey’s calm reaction to his brother’s betrayal is possible, but improbable.  The Khan’s appearance in the Crimea is laughable.  These types of things are pretty standard for movies of this kind, however.  They are what they are.

                In conclusion, once again we have a head-scratcher.  You could possibly make a case for it making it into the Greatest 100, but #33 is astounding.  Some of the overrated Greatest 100 could possibly have gotten their higher than deserved rankings because the panel deemed them “important”, but that could not have been the case here.  “Lives of a Bengal Lancer” would fit better if you are looking for a similar movie that is important in cinematic history.  It did not even make the list.