The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968)

 

                        “The Charge of the Light Brigade” is a revisionist take on the famous charge.  It was directed by Tony Richardson, who was looking for a comeback after his career had gone down after “Tom Jones” in 1963.  He put a lot of effort and money into the film.  The effort included prying the rights from Laurence Harvey (who was given a small part that ended up on the cutting room floor!).  The film was based on the book The Reason Why by historian Cecil Woodham-Smith.  He was offering the true story of the storied battle.  Adapting it proved a problem as the original version by Richardson’s partner John Osborne was deemed too close to the book.  When Osborne refused to rewrite, he was replaced by Charles Wood (a comic writer known for the Beatles’ “Help!”) who got sole writing credit.  This, and giving a part intended for Osborne to Harvey, caused a breach in their friendship.  The production was fraught with problems.  It was filmed in Turkey with the cooperation of the Turkish army.  Turkish soldiers played the British cavalry and were told to grow their hair long to reflect the British style of the time.  Before filming, a Turkish general arrived on set and insisted they cut their hair.  This forced Richardson to bring in hair stylists at great expense to fake the look he wanted.  Later, before filming the climactic charge, the soldiers were called away for NATO maneuvers.  Richardson was left with a few dozen stuntmen.  During the shoot an earthquake destroyed the production’s hotel.  Other headaches included several horses being killed due to errant swordplay.  The stunt coordinator was fired.  Speaking of horses, star David Hemmings was a horses’ ass.  His behavior and the failure of the film at the box office damaged his career a lot.  But he left an indelible mark on New Wave music by giving his hussar coat to Adam Ant.  Richardson managed to find a site in Turkey that stood in very well for Balaclava.  The farmers were paid a lot to not cultivate their fields (although some cheated, causing problems for the horses).  Plus, there were numerous fights between the Turkish soldiers and the locals.  The movie got off to a bad start at the box office because Richardson refused to screen it for critics and had some disparaging remarks for them.  In truth, the non-screening was due to a hold-up on the animation scenes, but the critics were in a mood to bash the film.  It ended up being a bomb and a costly one as it was the most expensive British film up until then.

                        The movie opens with the recruiting and training of the brigade.  The training is depicted as insufficient for the current state of warfare.  But the hide-bound British army had not been in combat in Europe since Waterloo and was not interested in brooking traditions.  The enlisted are depicted as mistreated by the uncaring officer corps.  The movie is mainly officer-oriented and none of the main characters comes off well.  The main character is a Capt. Nolan (Hemmings) who is a hero only in comparison to his callous, incompetent peers.  Nolan is atypical because he is a veteran of combat (he served in India) and he rose from the ranks.  And he wants humane treatment for the men.  What, what?  Tut, tut.  His commanding officer Lord Cardigan (Trevor Howard) hates him.  Especially after Nolan commits the ultimate faux pas by offering a toast from a black bottle!  All the lords are pompous asses.  Lord Raglan (John Gielgud) is the overall commander. He served with Wellington in the Peninsular Campaign and seemingly models himself after the opposite of Wellington.  He appoints Lord Lucan (Harry Andrews) as the commander of the cavalry even though Lucan and Raglan are rivals and hate each other.  It’s a big soap opera.  Plus add in a love triangle involving Nolan and his best friend’s wife (Vanessa Redgrave – Richardson’s wife at the time).  And there is a combat groupie named Fanny (Jill Bennett) who is infatuated with Cardigan (yes, we are talking about Trevor Howard).  This dysfunctional crew is off to the Ottoman Empire to show those Russians how the British army defeated Napoleon.  The Light Brigade has a date with destiny.

                        We have now had two major movies about the Charge of the Light Brigade.  The 1936 version is the romanticized version and this is the revisionist version.  Neither is a great movie.  The Errol Flynn film sacrificed historical accuracy and this movie sacrificed entertainment.  It is mean-spirited, which might be warranted, but hardly puts fannies in the seats.  There are no positive characters.  Even Nolan is unappealing.  There is some development of enlisted characters, but the movie is very command-centric.  It would have been nice to have cared about some of the men who were led like sheep to the slaughter.  The script shoehorns in two female characters, but the love triangle goes nowhere and Bennett is not hot enough to be interesting.  What most people remember about the movie are the animation segments that give historical background.  The animation was designed to mimic the cartoons from Punch magazine.  This was creative and without it the movie is forgettable.

                        The movie is for the most part boring, but the action scenes are outstanding.  The first battle (Alma) is well-staged and done without pumped up music (as is the final charge).  The Charge is the highlight of the film, of course.  The looks on the men’s faces are realistic.  Howard gives Cardigan the look of a man who knows this is a mistake, but he keeps his stiff upper lip.   The Russian cannons recoil!  There is plenty of action, including hand-to-hand.  Richardson uses long distance shots to give an epic look at the start, but when the unit picks up the pace, we are with the men.  The visual and sound effects are great and it is one of the great battle scenes.  It’s appropriately chaotic to where it is hard to tell who is getting killed.  You definitely are made aware of how suicidal the charge was.  I suppose even a British audience needed to be reminded of this in 1968.  As far as Americans, the movie was a history lesson and had the added bump of having some allusions to Vietnam.  I am referring to the arrogant overextension of power and the cluelessness of the leaders.  However, the movie bears a closer resemblance to the Battle of Little Big Horn than to any battle in Vietnam.  And the overall vibe is closer to WWI than the Vietnam War.

                        As far as historical accuracy, the Charge itself is as good as you will get.  Its fidelity is amazing considering it is inspired by a poem.  Raglan did spot the Russians absconding with British artillery pieces and ordered an attack to recover them.  Nolan delivered the message, but for some reason pointed to the wrong valley.  The valley he sent Raglan charging up was one dominated by Russian artillery.  It was clear to everyone that it was suicidal.  Nolan apparently realized his mistake and was trying to get to Raglan when he was killed by a shell.  He was the first to fall.  Some of the horsemen got to the guns and mixed it up a bit before being forced to retreat.  Contrast this to the Flynn version which is more magnificent with astounding stunt work and a rousing score, but is weak historically.   Most of the characters are fictional including Flynn’s Vickers who forges an order calling for the charge so he can get revenge against a dastardly fictional villain.  The charge is much less suicidal and in fact, it is implied that it was a success.  Thus we see the difference between a 1930’s war movie and a 1960’s war movie.

                        I’m not a big fan of either film, but the 1936 version has some verve to it and you could not have expected it to be accurate.  The 1968 movie is certainly a better history lesson, just realize that when you watch the true story you are watching the story of lunacy, not bravery.  And do I need to tell you David Hemmings was no Errol Flynn?

GRADE  =  C

Nine Lives (1957)

 

                        “Nine Lives” (Ni Liv) is the first Norwegian movie about Jan Baalsrud.  Baalsrud was a resistance hero from WWII.  He survived a long stretch of hiding from the Germans under very adverse circumstances.  The movie was based on the book We Die Alone by David Howarth.  It was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 1958 Academy Awards and in 1991 Norwegians voted it the greatest Norwegian film.

                        The movie leads with credit to the more than one hundred Norwegians who helped Baalsrud (Jack Fjeldstad).  He is in a hospital in Sweden.  Queue the flashback.  Jan and nine Norwegian commandoes land in Norway on a sabotage mission.  They make contact with the wrong A. Hansen and he tells the Germans.  A German gunboat is sent and the commandoes have only enough time to blow up their explosives (along with their fishing boat) and attempt to escape.  Only Jan makes it.  Let the chase begin.  He’s got a long way to go to get to neutral Sweden.  Besides Nazis on his trail, he has problems with the freezing temperatures and snowy conditions.  He suffers from snow-blindness and frostbite.  At one point, he has to amputate his toes.  He goes through periods of hallucination.  He spends weeks alone holed up in hideouts with little food.  He survives through strength of will, aid from strangers, and blind-ass luck.  The movie makes it clear that he is not the only hero.  There were brave Norwegians who were willing to risk their lives to help him. 

                        This movie was nominated for an Academy Award?  I can see it being nominated for the Norwegian equivalent of best picture, but Best Foreign Film?  I give it credit for being historically accurate and not enhancing the narrative into an action film (like the recent “The 12th Man”), but that does mean that there are stretches that are kind of boring.  While this is accurate, imagine how boring it was for Jan as he spent weeks in a shed, for instance.  Hell, he was so bored he cut off his toes!  The story was probably familiar to most historically literate Norwegians, but it did provide cinematic recognition for one of their greatest heroes and brought him to people like me who watch a lot of foreign war movies.  It also nicely gives credit to the brave civilians who helped him.

                        The problem with the film is most of it is unrealistic.  Baalsrud goes through a lot, but he doesn’t look like it.  He never looks like he is in terrible shape.  His facial hair does not keep up with his experiences.  There is no suspense.  He has few close calls.  This is probably accurate, but does not make for a exciting movie.  Contrast it with the recent Baalsrud movie and you can see how modern movies use more artistic license to get you on the edge of your seat.  I faulted “The 12^th Man” for over-enhancement.  For instance, it has a fictional Gestapo villain to cat and mouse with Jan.  But “Nine Lives” has no villain at all.  And it doesn’t show him cutting off his toes.  There we have the basic differences between a 1950’s war movie and a modern war movie.  I bet a current poll of Norwegians would not place it as the greatest Norwegian film.

GRADE =  C

THE FORGOTTEN BATTLE (2021)

 

                    “The Forgotten Battle” is a Dutch movie whose title is actually translated into “Battle of the Scheldt”.   It is the second most costly movie made in Holland.  Second only to “Black Book”.  The director is Matthijs van Heijningen.  It is only his second feature film.  His last movie was ten years ago, “The Thing”.  The forgotten battle is the Battle of the Scheldt.  The movie has been a big hit for Netflix viewers. 

                    The movie begins with an animated map that takes us from D-Day to the capture of Antwerp.  The action begins with the Germans pulling out of Zeeland.  Unfortunately, they’ll be back.  Before they go, Dirk Visser commits a spontaneous act of resistance that will have ripple effects for himself and his family.  His sister Teuntje (Susan Radder) becomes involved with the underground.  Her arc will be one of three that make up the movie’s plot.  Another of our trio of characters is Marinus van Staveren (Gijs Blom).  We meet him fighting on the Eastern Front against the Red Army.  He’s Dutch, but has volunteered to serve with the Wehrmacht.  He is wounded in a desperate fight in a village.  His unit loses to Russian tanks and infantry in a combat scene that features the modern battle cinematography associated with movies like “Saving Private Ryan”.  Marinus ends up with a cushy desk job back in Zeeland.  He works for the local Nazi commander.  The third leg of our trio is Brit William Sinclair (James Flatters).  He is the one and only hot shot glider pilot in history.  He is supposed to take part in Operation Market Garden, but his glider gets shot down over the Scheldt.  The arcs of these three will soon intersect.                  

                    “The Forgotten Battle” has gotten good reviews, from critics who are not war movie lovers.  A war movie lover will immediately recognize the unoriginal plot.  Diverse characters are drawn together through the crucible of war.  The script has to jump through hoops to get the three main characters together.  We have a traitor to his country, a glider pilot with daddy issues, and a naïve young woman with a brother who is an incompetent resistance member.  The cast is not strong enough to take your mind off the falling dominoes.  They are wooden.  Speaking of wooden, the biggest drag is Flatters.  He doesn’t have the charisma to play a rogue warrior.  If you are going to make a Brit the hero in a battle involving Canadians, he needs to be focus-worthy. 

                      This is not a documentary, so we are expected to accept the improbabilities in the story.  The worst of those is getting Sinclair from glider pilot to infantryman, but getting Marinus from the Eastern Front to the Scheldt deserves mention also.  Since the payoff is an action-packed final act, I can excuse the finagling a bit.  The assault across the dam is worthy of a good war movie.  You might think you wandered into a WWI movie because it looks like trench warfare.  The camera stays on and with Sinclair, our glider pilot.  You will definitely wonder why he didn’t avoid this by using his noncombat status as an specialist.  And wonder why anyone would make such a suicidal attack.  Credit to the effects department for some truly gruesome wounds.  And the weapons department for authentic firearms.  You have to admire the Canadians for such a sacrifice. 

                    And here’s the rub.  If you are going to call your movie “The Battle of the Scheldt”, it should be about the battle.  That battle is still “forgotten” because this movie does little to teach about it.  It starts out seemingly interested in being informative.  The scene with the Germans pulling out is Sept. 5, 1944.  The day is known as “Dolle Dinsdag” (Mad Tuesday).  It happened the day after Antwerp was liberated.  The Germans assumed the Allies would follow up the fall with a continuance of the offensive.  They underestimated the incompetence of Bernard Montgomery.  Antwerp was an extremely valuable port that should have solved the Allies’ supply problem.  Unfortunately, Antwerp is not on the coast.  Ships have to reach it by way of Scheldt estuary.  With the Germans controlling the Scheldt, Antwerp was unusable.  Montgomery, who was preoccupied with his war-winning vanity project Operation Market Garden, did not push for capture of the Scheldt.  It took a threat of being fired by Eisenhower to get him off his arse.  And even then, he did not provide the forces necessary to dig out the dug-in Germans.  The flooded Scheldt area was ideal for defense and the Germans were ordered to defend it at all costs.  The Canadian 1^st Army was given the unenviable task of bashing its head against this wall.  Its losses were very high.  The movie chooses to memorialize the Canadian sacrifice by depicting one battle within the campaign.  The Battle of the Walcheran Causeway started on Oct. 31.  The causeway gave access to Walcheran Island and Canadians (with some British soldiers) were tasked with smashing their way across it.  The movie alludes to the Germans blowing a hole in the causeway to stop tanks.  The assault was just as unsuccessful as the movie depicts.  The movie does not include the flamethrowers.  Including them would have helped the movie illustrate the hellacious nature of the fighting.  The stalemate was broken by a landing of British commandoes.  I found no evidence that a glider pilot took part.  I did find evidence it was not as simple as the movie shows.

                    Even if the movie had a high budget (for a Dutch film), it was not capable of more than a simplistic portrayal of the Battle of the Scheldt.  That is not my beef with the movie.  The problem is that for a movie about the battle, it is very hazy on the battle.  You get the impression the causeway was difficult to capture, but no idea how difficult the whole campaign was.  Or the incompetence of the asses who sent the lions into battle.  I know that is a Great War reference, but this campaign was very WWIesque.  And speaking of those lions, the Canadians do not get the due they deserve.  It is frankly insulting to have a British hero for the Battle of the Walcheran Causeway.

                    I started off with a crack about the movie being popular with the general public.  I also know some war movie lovers, who I respect, who like the movie.  As a movie, it is entertaining, if manipulative.  If you have seen as many war movies as I have, you will recognize the plot template.  It is competently laid out, but with weak acting.  If you watch it as a generic war flick and overlook the implication that it is about a specific battle, you might enjoy it.  Canadians might want to avoid it. 

GRADE  =  C