Showing posts with label Peter Weir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Weir. Show all posts

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Master and Commander (2003)



                Someone finally had the nerve to try to bring Patrick O’Brian to the screen.  For you non-literary types, O’Brian was an acclaimed writer of nautical fiction.  He wrote a series of novels set in the Napoleonic Wars.  The main characters were a British captain named Jack Aubrey and a ship’s doctor/espionage agent named Stephen Maturin.  They are best friends although of very different personalities.  In the novels, their relationship takes precedence over traditional plotting.  O’Brian had a way with words that resulted in a legion of fans.  I am not among them.  This is surprising because I am a big fan of Napoleonic naval warfare fiction.  I love the Horatio Hornblower series, for instance.  I have never been able to get into O’Brian, although I have read the first book.  I guess I just prefer traditional plotting.  And more ship-to-ship combat.  Peter Weir (“Gallipoli”) took on the task of adapting O’Brian.  He wisely decided to start in the middle of the series with book 10 – “The Far Side of the World”.  He also wisely decided to stick to a traditional narrative structure. 

                The effort that went into the film is truly incredible.  Weir was able to convince the studios to invest $150 million in a movie that had a sketchy market.  In the cinematic world of “Fast and Furious”, who wanted to see a movie about fighting frigates?  Thankfully, enough to make a profit, but not enough to warrant a sequel.  Much of the cost went into Weir’s obsession with making the movie as perfect a depiction of Napoleonic naval warfare as possible.  Weir bought a replica ship called the “Rose” for $1.5 million and then had extensive changes made to it to portray the HMS Surprise.  It was used for the sailing scenes.  A full scale model on a gimbal in a giant water tank (the same one used for “Titanic”) was also used in the filming.  27 miles of rope were on the model.  The costume department made 1,900 pairs of shoes, over 2,000 costumes, and around 2,000 hats.  The prop department was fixated with getting even the tiniest details accurate, including items that would not even make it onto film.  The efforts paid off as the movie was rewarded with ten Academy Award nominations including Best Picture and Best Director.  It won for Best Cinematography and Best Sound Editing.

                “April, 1805, Napoleon is master of Europe and only the British fleet stands before him – oceans are now battlefields.”  The HMS Surprise is cruising off the coast of Brazil.  It is a 28-gun frigate commanded by Capt. Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe).  His crew of 197 call him “Lucky Jack” because he has always brought them success.  His mission is to intercept a French privateer named the Acheron which has been raiding British commerce.  The French frigate is American-made and has 44 guns.  In naval combat, it was all about the number of guns and America made some very stout warships.  For this reason, the Surprise is the underdog.  It doesn’t help that in their first encounter the Acheron surprises its hunter and kicks its butt.  This battle takes place within the first ten minutes of the movie.  So much for developing the Aubrey/Maturin relationship.  Weir will let us figure it out as we go along.  One thing we learn early about Aubrey is he is not the type to give up after an ass-whipping.  Instead of returning to port for repairs, they will continue pursuit and repair themselves along the way.  As far as Maturin (Paul Bettany), we learn that he is a way better doctor than you would expect on a warship. (In other words, he is not a drunken hack.)  He is also a man of the Enlightenment and not enamored with the ways of the Royal Navy.  This is the key difference between him and his warrior best friend.  The only thing they really have in common is love of music.  Aubrey plays the violin and Maturin plays the cello.

                The movie is not just a buddy film.  It also has a touch of the chase film in it.  You know the chase is going to end in a show-stopping duel, but to get to that scene we get some entertaining subplots.  The Surprise survives a horrific storm, although not every character survives.  Midshipman Hollum (Lee Ingleby) gets a reputation as a Jonah (the naval equivalent of a jinx) and this has to be resolved to continue the voyage.  Maturin has to operate on himself after an accident on board.  The operation takes place on the Galapagos Islands!  Join the Royal Navy (or get impressed into it) and see the world.  And kill people.  That last is a reference to the climactic battle which is well worth the wait.

                The attention to detail in “Master and Commander” is astounding.  This is one movie that I have to single out the suits for allowing Weir to make the movie his way.  I would guess the movie could have been made for $50 million less and still have been good.  And much of this effort was to impress the rather small community of Napoleonic naval warfare nuts.  It is a shame that the average viewer did not have a clue what went into making the film.  Unless you did research, you would not have known that the movie used a replica, a full-scale model in a tank, and a smaller model.  We just assume CGI these days.  I defy you to tell which is which in the movie.  The sets are authentic to the time period.  The verisimilitude is noteworthy.  This is especially true for below decks.  (With one caveat, the ceilings were a lofty five feet, which was higher than on an actual frigate.)

                The cast bought into Weir’s vision.  They went through a two-week boot camp that included gun training, swordsmanship, and practice in working the ship.  That included going up the rigging.  The speaking roles were given to mostly British stage actors that Americans would not recognize, but they are uniformly excellent.  (Weir’s decision to confine the movie to the ship resulted in no speaking roles for women.  This is the rare nautical film with no romance.) The script gives fair treatment to the tars as well as the officers.  Several characters get to shine, including two of the young midshipmen.  Special mention must be made of the extras.  The casting director combed the world for faces that would reflect the cosmopolitan nature of a British crew.  They knew their roles as crewmen of a frigate and they knew their actions on the peripheries of scenes would enhance instead of detract from the authenticity of the movie.  With this said, clearly the movie depends on the performances of the two leads. 


                Crowe was the perfect choice for Aubrey.  He has the commanding presence of a captain.  Aubrey is one of the great characters of literature and Crowe is up to it.  (By the way, he does not look like the literary Lucky Jack.) I learned new respect for Crowe when I discovered he learned how to play the violin for his role.  He has the physicality for the action scenes.  Bettany is a match.  Maturin is the more intriguing character as he is unique on board the ship.  The man of science amongst the military men.  The scenes in the officer’s mess are great for the banter of seamen, but also because Maturin squirms and sometimes makes cynical remarks about the military ethos.  A subplot involves Aubrey and Maturin’s disagreement about the dictatorial nature of a captain’s power.  The movie does take the time to provoke some thinking.  As in the tradition of cinematic captains, is Aubrey too reckless?  Bettany shines and gets some show-stopping scenes like when he traverses one of the Galapagos Island searching for specimens.  (The movie was the first non-documentary to be allowed to film there.)  He takes acting honors with his self-surgery for a bullet wound.  (A scene that appears in the novel “HMS Surprise”.) 

                “Master and Commander” closes with one of the great combat scenes in war movie history.  It is almost seven minutes of total mayhem.  The exchange of cannonballs is followed by a boarding that results in a melee.  The choreography must have taken weeks.  It’s all very believable and graphic.  This is followed by a twisty ending that left fans expecting a sequel which has sadly not materialized.

                Will “Master and Commander” crack my 100 Best War Movies list?  After reading this review, what do you think?  It is certainly the best movie for teaching details about Napoleonic naval warfare.  See below.

GRADE  =  A

Napoleonic Warfare Details from “Master and Commander”

1.       Cannons on Royal Navy ships had nicknames like “Jumping Billy” and “Sudden Death”
2.       They used a lead weight to measure fathoms and a rope with knots to measure the ship’s speed.
3.       “Beat to quarters” meant prepare for combat.
4.       Young boys called “powder monkeys” had the job of bringing powder bags to the cannons during battle.
5.       Before a battle, the captain’s valuables would be put In boats towed behind the ship.
6.       The “weather gauge” was important.  It meant your ship was upwind of its opponent.
7.       Corpses were stitched up in their hammocks for burial at sea.  The last stitch was put through the nose to be sure they were dead.
8.       Plates for food were square (as in “square meals”).
9.       Men kept their possessions in sea chests.
10.    Sailors saluted by touching their knuckles to their forehead.
11.    Sailors were given a ration of “grog” which was a mixture of rum and water.
12.    Some of the sailors were “impressed” which means they were forcibly enrolled into the service or tricked into it.
13.    “Boarding pikes” were used by boarding parties.
14.    Capt. Aubrey inspires his crew by saying “For England, for home, and for the prize”.  “The prize” is a reference to capturing an enemy ship which when returned to England would result in the crew sharing in “prize money”.
15.    Boarding parties used grenades. 
16.    One of the boarders carries a Nock gun which is a multi-barreled flintlock smoothbore with one hell of a kick.
17.    A surrendering captain would offer his sword.
18.    A “prize crew” consisting of one of the officers and a few of the men would sail the captured ship back to a friendly port.

19.    Sailors could be badly wounded or even killed by splinters created by cannon balls hitting the wooden ships.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

CRACKER? The Way Back (2010)


                “The Way Back” is a film by Peter Weir (“Gallipoli”).  It is based on the very popular memoir by Slawomir Rawicz entitled The Long Walk.  Weir and Keith Clarke wrote the screenplay.  The movie cost $30 million and made only $20 million.  It received an Academy Award nomination for Best Makeup in what must have been a slow year for makeup.
                The film is set in WWII Russia.  Janusz Wieszczek (Jim Sturgess) has been ratted out by his wife to the NKVD for being critical of Stalin and for espionage.  He is sent to a gulag in Siberia.  The prisoners are a mixture of political prisoners and career criminals.  They are working in mines that are very dangerous and claustrophobic.  Janusz joins a group of seven prisoners who escape in a snow storm.  The movie now has a “who will survive?” subplot.  It does not take long for one of them to freeze to death.  They have a 4,000 mile journey ahead of themselves.  Along the way, they are joined by a teenage girl named Irena (Saoirse Ronan).  In a surprise twist, even the amoral Valka (Colin Farrell) does not mess with her.  The movie is not burdened by clichés.
                Suddenly the subtitle budget ran out and all the trekkers are speaking English.  They also look way too healthy and fit.  Their clothes are also holding out remarkably well.  Good thing because they have a lot of hiking to do.  Surprisingly the journey is not really fraught with serious problems until they reach the Gobi Desert.  By that time, Valka has left the group, taking a lot of tension and drama with him.  More walking gets the final four to their destinations.
                I found this movie boring.  It’s mostly a movie about people walking.  There are not enough dangers or problems along the way.  There is also not enough dysfunctionality in the group and what little there is leaves with Valka.  Most of the characters are undeveloped and few make an impression.  The cinematography is nothing special although the scenery is a strength of the movie.  The lack of dazzle is perplexing considering that Weir’s cinematographer (Russell Boyd) had won the Academy Award for “Master and Commander”.  The score is sparse.  There is little evidence that this is a Peter Weir film.
                Before you call me a hypocrite for wanting the movie to be less of a “true story”, consider the fact that the “true story” as told by Rawicz has been refuted.  Apparently he did not escape from a gulag, but was in fact released by the authorities.  And by the way, he was imprisoned for killing an NKVD agent, not for being an anti-communist spy.  The incredibly popular book appears to be a fraud.  Even Weir was forced to admit the film is “essentially a fictional film”.
                My main problem with the movie is that it was made.  This was Weir’s big follow up to “Master and Commander”?!  That movie was a tour de force of directing and created high expectations for his next film.  So what happened?  Not only did he not do a sequel, he waited seven years to release a new feature length movie and it was this dud.  What was he thinking?  After the disappointing box office of “Master and Commander” I can see why he would take a break from filmmaking, but why return with a film that was bound to land with a thud?  This was a wasted opportunity.

GRADE = D

Friday, February 4, 2011

"Gallipoli" (1981)

 


     “Gallipoli” is a war movie by Peter Weir. It was part of the wave of Australian classics of the 1980s that included “Breaker Morant” and “The Lighthorsemen”. Weir was inspired by the story of the ANZAC (Australian - New Zealand Army Corps) contribution to the British effort in the Gallipoli campaign of WWI. Early on the project evolved from a study of the entire campaign to a more personal study set in a brief period of the campaign. It stars Mel Gibson (coming off of “Mad Max”) and a debuting Mark Lee.


     The movie begins in western Australia (lovely vistas) in May, 1915. Archy (Lee) is a promising sprinter, but longs to enlist in the Light Horse. He represents the stereotypical naïve patriot. “If we don’t stop them [in Turkey], they could end up here” (the Australian “Domino Theory”?). His family is against him going to war because he has a bright future being alive. They relent, of course but not before his uncle/mentor reads the scene in “The Jungle Book” where Mowgli decides to leave the jungle saying “Now I will go to men.”

     Archy befriends Frank (Gibson) who represents the stereotypical reluctant, cynical warrior. “It’s not our bloody war! It’s an English war. It’s got nothing to do with us”. He bonds with fellow runner Archy and through their friendship and the application of the wonders of peer pressure, he enlists too. They go into different units, but are reunited in Egypt for the training/whoring scenes obligatory for a war movie. There is some local color featuring a bazaar and a brothel. The lads are seeing the world.


     Then it’s off to the Gallipoli beachhead and a wonderfully staged nighttime landing. The Australians are trapped along a narrow stretch with the Turks holding the high ground where they are dug in with artillery and machine guns. Fortunately ladies, the Bruces insist on bathing in the ocean with shrapnel roiling the water. This is fortunate because Mel Gibson exposes his bare butt. The life in the trenches is realistically depicted. The soldiers eat hard tack and there are flies! Critters in a war movie, imagine that.

     The big battle is coming and it is to be a diversion for a British landing at Suvla Bay designed to break the deadlock. Those dastardly Brits are going to use the colonials in a suicide attack to suit their own purposes! If the landing succeeds, it’s on to Constantinople to knock Turkey out of the war which will lead to the defeat of Germany. Just like the Somme! Oh, and not to worry Aussies, the preliminary bombardment will make the attack a cake walk. Just like the Somme!

     The bombardment is cinematically short, but realistically violent. The first attack is futile against the Turkish machine guns as is the second. Major Barton (representing the stereotypical sensitive officer like Col. Dax in “Paths of Glory”) wants to get the attack called off, but the telephone wire has been cut. He needs a really, really fast runner to rush the request to Colonel Robinson. Lucky for him Frank is a very fast runner. He runs to new ageish music which sounds like “Chariots of Fire”, but clashes with the rest of the mostly classical sound track. Col. Robinson (a stereotypical British twit reminiscent of Gen. Mireau in “Paths”) refuses to cancel the attack so Frank is sent to the general. The general decides to cancel the attack, but meanwhile the line is repaired and even Frank cannot outrun a telephone call from the colonel that orders the attack.

     The soldiers, including Archy, are unaware of the race against idiocy. They prepare for death by leaving mementoes in the trench. Archy leaves a track medal (lost potential) and a watch (lost future). The movie ends with Archie reenacting Robert Capa’s iconic Spanish Civil War photo entitled “The Falling Soldier”.

     “Gallipoli” is well done and was influential on war movies of the eighties. It is fairly accurate, but piles on the British to elicit nods from its core audience which still resents Britain’s misuse of the ANZAC. In actuality, Col. Robinson was a Col. Antill who was Australian, as was the general who planned the attack. Also, the Battle of the Nek was a diversion for a New Zealand attack, not the British landing at Suvla Bay. It is obvious Weir changed the facts to enhance the anti-British theme. He had to apologize later.

     The acting is okay, if a bit over the top. Gibson is a young Mel Gibson, nuff said. Lee is a little e bland, but so is his character. It’s themes of the loss of innocence and the futility of war are commendable. It is definitely anti-war. It is a buddy picture with some hints of a bromance between Archy and Frank which I feel it’s safe to say escaped Gibson’s notice when he read the script. I do think some critics have overemphasized the homosexual angle. Although the unrealistic way the cynical Frank runs off to a war because of his friendship with Archy gives ammunition to their argument.

     Not a bad movie, but not as good as "Breaker Morant" and not worthy of the 100 Best.

GRADE  =  B-