100 BEST WAR MOVIES #61. THE LOST BATTALION (2001)

 

“The Lost Battalion” was an A&E production that first appeared on TV in 2001. It was directed by Russell Mulcahy (“On the Beach” 2000) and filmed in Luxembourg. It was nominated for three technical ( sound editing and cinematography) Emmys. The movie tells the tale of the famous “Lost Battalion” that was surrounded by German forces in the Argonne Forest in 1918.

                The movie opens strong with a patrol coming in from no man’s land. The cinematography is reminiscent of “Band of Brothers”. Maj. Whittlesey (Rick Schroder) waits in the trench and is splattered with the blood of one of the men. Later, at the headquarters bunker, Gen. Alexander orders Whittlesey to participate in an attack that Whittlesey (given the exhausted condition of his unit) deems suicidal. Alexander, being a WWI general, questions the commitment of this “New York lawyer” and reiterates his standard “no retreat” philosophy. To Hell with losses.

                The pre-battle scenes are instructive. New replacements arrive and are sobered by the sight of wounded soldiers (like Taylor’s arrival in “Platoon”). The newbies are brought up to speed by the seasoned veterans like Sgt. Gaedeke (Jamie Harris) and Pvt. Rosen (Michael Goldstrom). The duo provide comic relief by using their thick New York accents to describe different types of German artillery. We are introduced to the main characters. Whittlesey is morose, but a respected leader. His able second in command is Capt. McMurtry (Phil McKee) who is brotherly to his men. We even get introduced to a little carrier pigeon named Cher Ami – “the runt of the litter”.

                The minutes before the attack are tense and foreboding. Whittlesey does the obligatory walk past his charges (like Dax in "Paths of Glory") then blows his whistle and its game on. The game is incredibly intense. We are plunged into no man’s land. The set is surprisingly realistic. The attack reminds one of “Paths of Glory” except with modern cinematography, effects, and sound. We have come a long way. This attack is possibly the best of any WWI movie that I have seen. It is very graphic and violent for a made for TV movie. I showed the scene in class to prepare my American History students for their writing assignment on trench warfare (along with the scene from “Paths of Glory”, “All Quiet…”, and the “Sgt. York” scene).

                After pushing the German front line back, the Americans enter a forested area that is eerily vacant. What they don’t realize is that as they push forward is that the support units on each flank are not keeping pace. This results in the Lost Battalion creating a pocket and when the Germans cut off their rear, they end up being surrounded. But not lost. Just cut off. Thus begins five days of pummeling by Germans intent on wiping out this salient. As anyone with any knowledge of military tactics can attest, salients are just begging to be pummeled and must be destroyed.

ACTING:                      B

ACTION:                      A+  10/10

ACCURACY:               B-

PLOT:                          A

REALISM:                   B

CINEMATOGRAPHY:    A+

SCORE:                       average

BEST SCENE:  the flamethrowers

 

BEST QUOTE:  Lt. Leak:  What you're up against Major, is a bunch of Mick, Pollack, Dago, and Jew boy gangsters from New York City. They'll never surrender. Never.

                This is a very underrated movie. The acting is good from an average cast. Rick Schroeder is excellent as Whittlesey. His surprise casting reminds of Matthew Broderick in “Glory.”  He gets the personality down pat. He does the opposite of scene-chewing which is appropriate for a reluctant hero who committed suicide because of the unwanted fame and sense of guilt. The subordinate characters are well-developed. The movie balances its portrayal of the officers with some meaty roles for the enlisted. Gaedeke and Rosen stand out and although some of their comic banter is lame, you do care about them and the death of one is very touching. They use terms like “apple knockers” and “mud crunchers” for the infantry. The Germans are “Hineys” or “Krauts.” The duo are part of a war cinema trope of the bantering buddies, like Friedman and Rivera in “A Walk in the Sun.”  The Germans are handled sympathetically (perhaps a bit too much). The German commander comes to respect the “New York gangsters” and admires their brashness.

                The thing that stands out is the amazing cinematography of Jonathan Freeman (a virtual unknown). He blends the “Saving Private Ryan” style with “Band of Brothers”. If this is the future of war movies (and it certainly looks like it is), we are in good shape. For a made-for-TV movie, the action is shockingly graphic. It would definitely have been rated-R for violence if shown in theaters. A&E deserves a lot of credit for green-lighting this movie and showing it on TV uncut. The story needed to be told, but who would have guessed it would be told as dynamically as this.

                The movie does not manage to completely break the tethers of a TV movie. The dialogue is PG and trite at times. There are the usual clichés. For instance, Gaedeke and Rosen give the new guy a hard time, learn to respect him, and then have to deal with his untimely demise. You also get the pompous, callous general. The dynamic between Whittlesey and Alexander reminded me of Capt. Staros and Lt. Col. Tall in “The Thin Red Line” (which by the way, this movie is better than – that’s right, I said it!). The unit is decidedly heterogeneous and they even throw in a cowboy to go along with the gangsters. The Brooklyn trope is well represented.

                The movie is commendably accurate with the usual exaggerations and simplifications.  It gets the gist of the incident right, but tends to inflate the significance of the battalion's accomplishment.  In this respect, it reflects the view of the media from that time period.  The historical characters are realistically portrayed, but Gen. Alexander’s family might have had a problem with his depiction as an uncaring jerk. He was under pressure from Gen. Pershing who was angry about the lack of progress by American forces.  The truth is that Whittlesey did not confront Alexander personally, but he did complain up the chain of command that his unit was not in the shape needed for the mission.  The “no retreat” order would have been pretty standard for a battle like this and partly resulted from previous incidents where Germans tricked units into retreating by sending false orders.  Whittlesey, McMurtry, and Holderman are all well done, but the German leader Prinz has been promoted to American expert in charge of interrogation.  The movie character is a Hollywood creation which works in an entertaining way.  The fighting is very small scale and simplified.  There was no visceral breaking of the enemy line to lead off.  They actually penetrated where the Germans had abandoned the line to reinforce elsewhere. The first day was easy and ended with the unit crossing a hill and then digging in in a ravine on the reverse slope of the hill. This was a tactical by Whittlesey. He should have either pulled back to the hill or proceeded forward to the next hill. The unit had stopped short of its objective – the Charlevaux Road. On day two, the Germans reoccupied the area the battalion had passed through and the unit was now surrounded and pummeled with artillery and machine gun fire. The unit was not “lost”.  Both American command and the Germans knew where they were. The Americans dug “fnnk holes” and weathered the storm. The subsequent German assaults on the pocket are fine and there was some hand-to-hand and the use of flamethrowers.  The movie attempts to show the hardships in the pocket, but cannot completely do them justice. The friendly fire incident and Cher Ami’s heroism are a highlight.  The film gets the details right.  The collection of dog tags.  Officers using whistles.  The use of carrier pigeons.  For the rivet counters, the movie has the unit equipped with the M1917 model rifle, not the famous 1903 Springfield. They used the “American Enfield” because they used an adaptation of the British rifle. Since the movie is a tribute to the unit and Whittlesey in particular, it steers away from controversies like whether Whittlesey’s incorrect coordinates were responsible for the friendly fire (he thought so and it may have contributed to his suicide) and why he refused to break out when it was apparent they were being surrounded.

                In conclusion, I am a big fan of what I call the Truthy Unit subgenre. These are war movies that cover a particular unit that is either famous or should be. I already mentioned “Glory”, but others in the subgenre are “The Devil’s Brigade” and “Darby’s Rangers”.  Those two did not do justice to their subjects, but “The Lost Battalion” does. Thank goodness, because you only get one chance to get it right. We do not need a remake of “The Lost Battalion.” It does a great job reviving a famous, but somewhat forgotten story.  After all, how many people have seen the 1919 version that starred several of the participants including Whittlesey, McMurtry, and Alexander? 

All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)

 

            Well, the day has finally arrived.  More than five years after I first heard of a remake of “All Quiet on the Western Front”, it is now streaming on Netflix.  It is a German film and is correctly entitled “Im Westen Nichts Neuss.”  This is appropriate because the novel by Erich Remarque is about German infantrymen in WWI.  The previous two versions – Lewis Milestone's Best Picture winner and the 1979 made-for-TV movie, were American pictures. Both did not show an American bias, but this new version promised to be better at showcasing the hardships German soldiers went through.  Edward Berger directed with an undisclosed, but probably hefty, Netflix budget.  Berger is a noted TV series director in Germany.  He co-wrote the screenplay.  The film was shot in Czechoslovakia.  It has been submitted by Germany for consideration for a nomination for Best Foreign Language Film at the next Oscars.

            The movie opens with a warning of “strong bloody war violence and grisly images”.  You had me at “bloody”.  A den of foxes in a woods shows the influence of Terance Malick (“The Thin Red Line”) on the cinematography (and the view that war does not harm wildlife and forests).  The camera moves to corpses littering no man’s land and then we are in the trench for a “Paths of Glory” journey through the trench pre-attack.  The over the top includes the oft-seen soldier killed as he climbs the ladder.  The “Paths” influence continues as we track a soldier named Heinrich as he avoids the random deaths to reach the French trench where he is last seen using his entrenching tool for hand-to-hand combat.  It’s a great combat scene, but sadly brief.  The revelation that Heinrich was killed starts a series of scenes moving his uniform from his corpse to women washing all the dead men’s uniforms to seamstresses repairing them to Paul (Felix Kammerer) and his school mates being handed them.  The boys are thrilled with their threads of glory.  The movie forgoes the usual boot camp segment to rush them to the front seemingly ill-prepared.  It is spring 1917.  Their first job is baling out the trench because of the constant rain.  Ludwig speaks for them all when he grumbles: “Somehow this is not how I imagined it.”  A sentiment soldiers of every war would agree with.

            The rest of the movie enlightens those who are not familiar with the Great War with scenes that reflect common soldier experiences.  The film makes an effort to bring something new to the table.  I mentioned the use of the entrenching tool as a weapon.  Paul has to collect dog tags from the dead.  A unit of replacements are victims of gas.  But for the most part, there is little that hasn’t been shown in other movies, especially the other two versions.  Davis clearly aimed his movie at Netflix viewers who would be seeing their second WWI movie (the other being “1917”).  The big difference is this film intercuts with the politics of the last part of the war.  Daniel Bruhl (who was originally tabbed for the Paul character but got aged out by the time production began) plays Matthias Erzberger, a Social Democrat (insert hissing from the generals) who is in contact with French Gen. Foch.  He is attempting to arrange an armistice.  This subplot necessitates Paul  making it to the end of the war.  This results in one of the worst endings of any prestigious war movie. 

            I recently watched the other versions of “All Quiet” for a comparison of scenes to each other and to the book.  I also listened to the book (the Audible version is outstanding).  It is one of my favorite novels and I have seen the movies at least four times each.  I couldn’t wait to add the new movie to my project.  Since the two earlier versions are both very good movies that cover the book well, I was intrigued to see how the new movie would handle the book.  Early word was that Davis’ version was outstanding and a worthy challenger to the other two.  The trailer had a lot of war movie fans salivating.  I am sorry to report you can towel off.

            I have had a hard time deciding how to approach this review.  Do I review it as a WWI movie or do I review it as an “All Quiet on the Western Front” movie?  So, I’ll do both.  As a WWI movie, it is logical to compare it to “1917”.  That film was overrated, but had the amazing cinematography to set it apart.  It is a much better movie than this movie.  The only strength is the combat scenes. One of them features French tanks and flamethrowers and is as graphic as the warning says.  This was an odd creative decision because if Davis meant his film to be the 21^st Century version of the novel brought to screen, he created an R-rated movie that students can not watch.  The rest of the movie has a poor flow to it.  Scenes end abruptly.  But the biggest problem is the Erzburger subplot brings the film to screeching halts whenever it leaves Paul and his mates.  My theory was the film did not want to lose its star Daniel Bruhl, so his lame political machinations were added.  Catastrophically, the creation of this subplot was responsible for the inexcusable final chapter for Paul.  (Think “We Were Soldiers”, but worse.)

            When I did my usual research, I looked at Wikipedia.  It says the movie has received “critical acclaim for faithfulness to the source material.”  You have got to be f’in kidding me.  If you were to see this movie with a different title, you would be hard-pressed to realize that it was another version of the novel.  Any student using this movie for a book report instead of reading the book will surely get a big fat F.  I would have to theorize that Davis watched the other two versions and decided he could not compete.  Of course, he could have taken the attitude that many haven’t seen the other two, so he would cover the main scenes and possibly better them.  Nope.  Other than Paul and Kat (Albrecht Schuch), the other characters barely register.  The movie is essentially a buddy film, not a buddies film.  Amazingly, most of the iconic scenes from the 1930 film are absent and some of the ones that are recreated are minor scenes. The few times that the movie uses the book, the scenes are far inferior to the other films.  For example, the charming liaison with the three French girls does not involve a river and only Frantz Muller goes!  The camera does not go with him.  My favorite scene did make it - Paul and the wounded Frenchman in the shell crater.  This being the 21^st Century, Paul stabs him 6 times!  The movie dispenses with Paul’s anguished response to what he has done.  Don’t hold your breath for the muddy field, the beat-down of Himmelstoss, the graveyard, Kimmerich’s boots (this movie moves a scarf from soldier to soldier), the Catholic hospital.  Paul does not return home on leave!  So much for contrasting the home front delusions with the realities of the front.  Instead, cover the disagreements between the generals and the politicians.  Yawn.

            As far as the acting, you will read some touting of Kammerer, but when you are out-acted by Richard Thomas…  The rest of the cast is not even well-known in Germany.  They must have saved money by cutting Himmelstoss, Kimmerich, Kantorek, Detering.  Kropp and Muller are blink and you miss them.  Bruhl is misused in a role that calls on him to mope. Technically the movie is eye-opening.  The combat features tracking shots and puts you in the middle of no man’s land.  The deaths are blood-chilling in their randomness.  When the soldiers reach the trench, all humanity is lost.  Wounded and unthreatening still gets you shot or bayoneted.  This is not a movie for children.  Although oddly, there is no swearing.

             I don’t want to discourage you from seeing the movie.  Watch it and make up your own mind.  Keep in mind this reviewer is very familiar with the previous movies and the book, so I am passionate about the subject. But I have seen hundreds of war movies and many WWI movies, so I feel I can weigh in on whether this movie holds up to the better movies in the subgenre.  If you have not seen "The Lost Battalion”, “Beneath Hill 60”, “Paths of Glory”, “Journey's End”, and “Gallipoli”, watch them ahead of this.  If you want a movie from the German perspective, try “Westfront 1918”.  And please watch the other two versions.

 

GRADE  =  C  (compared to other WWI movies)

GRADE =  F  (compared to 1930 & 1979)