Closing the Ring, Britain / Canda / USA 2007

Richard Attenborough with Mischa Barton on the set of Teddy’s house

This turned out to be Attenborough’s final film as a director. The film was scripted by Peter Woodward. He was an actor, also a stuntman and then fight arranger. He branched out into post-production, including some script writing and scripted and produced a feature film. This was his first film as the scriptwriter proper. The basic idea seems to have been prompted by the discovery of an old gold wedding ring on an Irish hill. However, quite a lot has been added in the final film version.

The film has two main settings and cuts between them during World War II and the 1990s. The flashback structure is complex but relies on cast or locations to tie the plotting together. And important aspect of the plot only become clear to the audience at the climax.

The film opens in 1991 at a funeral in rural Michigan, in the North East USA. This obsequies for Chuck Harris are attended by a number of US war veterans. The eulogy is delivered by his daughter Marie (Neve Campbell). His widow, Ethel Ann (Shirley MacLaine) sits in the church porch, apparently drunk and supported by a close friend Jack Etty (Christopher Plummer). Following the graveside ritual it becomes apparent that Marie is furious with her mother and that there is a history of marital and maternal discord in the family.

In 1941 we meet the young Ethel Ann (Mischa Barton). She is friendly with a trio of young men; Teddy Gordon (Stephen Arnell): the young Jack Etty (Gregory Smith): and the young Chuck Harris (David Alpay). All three men are enamoured with Ethel Ann but she loves Teddy. A poor boy from farming stock. Teddy is building a house for himself and for Ethel Ann. All three friends are signed up for the USAF. When Pearl Harbour happens all three are called to service. Before they leave Teddy asks that if he does not return one of the others should care for Ethel Ann and selects Chuck. It is clear that despite his apparent disinclination Jack is upset by this.

In the same year in Belfast we meet the young Michael Quinlan (John Travers), working in the fire service during heavy bombing raids on the city. And in a scene in an air raid shelter we  meet the young Eleanor Riley  (Kirsty Stuart), an attractive girl with a reputation as a flirt. We also meet the young Cathal Thomas (Matthew McElhinney), a republican activist. In Belfast 1991 Eleanor now is a single mother with a son Jimmy (Martin McCann). On the Black Mountain [more a hill, just over a 1,000 foot in height], overlooking the city, Jimmy meets the older Quinlan (Peter Postlethwaite) who searches the mountain for debris from a B-17 bomber that crashed in 1944. Helping Quinlan Jimmy finds a gold and inscribed wedding ring. A complication for the future is that the mountain is also used as an observation post by the older Cathal (Ian McElhinney). And Cathal himself is being trailed by protestant members of Special Branch.

Jimmy brings the two separate groups, Michigan and Belfast, together when he manages to identify Ethel Ann as one of the names inscribed on the ring; the other is Teddy. The couple went through a non-legal marriage ceremony before he departed for war service. Jimmy is threatened by both the IRA and the Specials so Quinlan gives him the money to leave Belfast and he travels to  Michigan. His arrival brings the ghosts of the past to the surface for Ethel Ann, Jack and Marie. We learn that Jack had do tell Ethel Ann that Teddy had died. After a number of years she married Chuck but a wall of memorabilia for Teddy was kept and covered by a partition. This is now revealed to the anguished Marie, who leaves home.

Jimmy returns to Belfast but Ethel Ann follows. We learn that Jack and Teddy were flying in the same B-17 crew. However at a dance where Jack was dating Eleanor he and Teddy fought over Ethel Ann. Jack injured his leg and so did not fly next day. It was on the return from that bombing mission that the B-17 crashed into the mountain, killing the crew including Teddy. The final revelation occurs at the climax. A street bomb explodes killing a British soldier. Ethel Ann seems to find this a parallel to the death of Teddy and goes to cradle the dead body. But there is another second bomb. Quinlan manages to pull Ethel Ann away and then tells her that he was on the mountain when the B-17 crashed. He heard Teddy’s dying words for Ethel Ann; that she should be free to choose who she loves. Qunlan’s searches on the mountain were to find the ring that Teddy asked him to return to Ethel Ann.

In parallel on the hill Jimmy stumbles on Cathal who is shot by the Specials but dying sets off the second bomb, but no-one further is injured. Freed of past traumas Ethel Ann and Jack start a relationship and they are seen walking up a hill whilst Eleanor,  Jimmy and Quinlan are last seen at a picnic overlooking both the city and the sea.

The film received mixed reviews from critics. It failed at the box office taking far less in receipts than the production costs. IMDB states that it only received a video release in the USA. The film had a number of problems, many related to the basic script. The story seems to fail with the long arm of coincidence. The ring is found by Jimmy whilst Quinlan has spent fifty years searching; and just at the moment that Ethel Ann has become a widow and is therefore free for a new relationship. Jack conveniently breaks his ankle the night before the flight that ends in a crash; and the fledging replacement navigator appears to be lost just before it happens. And the use of time and space seems especially convenient. Teddy tells his friends he is broke which is why he is building the house himself. Yet in the space of less than a year it is completed and furnished. And Jimmy travels all the way to  Michigan from Ireland, seemingly with few problems en route; his first aviation trip.

The production values on the film are fine. Several of Attenborough’s regular collaborators worked on it. Roger Pratt’s cinematography is well done and there are overhead travelling crane shots, an Attenborough favourite. One opens the film and the closing shot is a reverse away from the final family event. Lesley Walker edits the film with real skill; some of the cuts are  brief shot, often of MacLaine, and then returning to the prior setting. This is assisted by the music, by Jeff Dana, with an Irish lilt for shots presenting Belfast.

The cast performances are pretty uneven, to a degree limited by the writing. MacLaine is convincing but overall it seems a little one-note. Plummer has the best of the writing and is a strong performance. Neve Campbell seems just angry and frustrated and little else. In the past neither Mischa Barton or Steve Arnell convince; their performances are all on the surface without much inner passion. Gregory Smith as young Jack is the strongest of this quartet. The Irish characters are better. Both Postlethwaite and Brenda Fricker are interesting whilst Martin McCann does well as Jimmy but the character as written does not really seem up to the various actions in which he is involved. There are a number or minor characters; two older women, neighbours of Eleanor and Jimmy, seem just caricatures.

Martin Martin McCann and Peter Postlethwaite on Black Mountain

One problem in the narrative is that we have this group of older characters, all with blighted lives. And it all seems rather unnecessary. The promise extracted by Teddy which imprisons Ethel Ann is not really convincing. And equally Teddy’s dying plea to the young Quinlan does not carry conviction either. And there is a gender problem here as well. We have five leading male characters and three leading female characters. Yet all of the latter are objects of the male characters. Eleanor is the freest of these but even her role is as mother to Jimmy. Even at the end Ethel Ann is still tied in the friendship circle set up in 1941.

There is also a problem with the sub-plot involving the IRA and the British security services. Some reviews commented on it as unnecessary. Certainly the only point in the plot where these activities matter is at the climax when Ethel Ann cradles the dead British soldier, killed by an IRA bomb. But what is supposed to be the relationship between him and Ethel Ann’s lost Teddy? It feels like a convenient add-on in order to make a point about the war in occupied Ireland, euphemistically known as ‘The Troubles’. It is not clear from the credits if anyone involved in the production had a particular stance to follow. As usual when British film-makers essay on this war there is little understanding of what is actually involved. The portrait of Cathal is typically that of a terrorist, and whilst the Special Branch characters are also violent and unpleasant there is no attempt to give them real context or motivation. There is no obvious production member with an interest in the war in occupied Ireland. However, Richard Attenborough frequently voiced his preference for non-violent resistance; he may have wanted to critically present armed resistance in Ireland.

The film is also interesting for another facet of the Attenborough thematic concerns. The bulk of his film output is historical and biopic; and there is a some of this in this film and in the preceding three titles. But all four films also privilege romances that in some way are cut short or unfulfilled. Shadowlands seems to me the best with the love between  C. S. Lewis and Joy Gresham. It struck me as the most effective of the four, partly because the settings reinforce the emotions in the relationship. In Love and War has the young Hemingway failing and then spurning a the love of Agnes. In this film the relationship does not quite add up to the historical characters. Grey Owl has the couple of Archie and Pony leaving for the wilderness where he dies; though in fact he had already started a new relationship with another woman. And in Closing the Ring Ethel Ann and Jack only start their relationship in their declining years, blighted by the actions of fifty years earlier. What stand out about Shadowlands is that it relies on a Britain that Attenborough knew well and appreciated. The following three are all, to some degree, set in foreign territories, and this seems to weaken the romantic and dramatic thrust of the later films.

Technicolor in 1.85:1, running time 118 minutes

 

A Bridge Too Far, USA / Britain 1977

Attenborough and crew at the river crossing

Attenborough had serious initial reservations;

“I thought it was unscriptable. I could not fathom how something so complex could be given dramatic shape. If you are dealing with fiction you are free to do what you want. But when you are dealing with docu-drama there are certain hnour-bound criteria from which you simply cannot depart.” (Dossier page 54).

But discussions over the script persuaded him.

This film was produced independently by Joseph Levine; he later produced Magic with Attenborough and also had some involvement in the long preparation of Gandhi. The script was by William Goldman, a novelist and very successful screenwriter for Hollywood companies. This was his first major war story. He adapted the book by Cornelius Ryan which provided the title for the film. Ryan’s book was a critical study of operation Market Garden in 1943, following the D-Day Landings by the Allied forces. It was devised by General Montgomery [later Field Marshall] and aimed to shorten the war. It involved a massive airdrop of troops between the Allied front line and the border between the Netherlands and Germany. The object was to seize a series of bridges and hold then whilst British tank regiments, with supporting infantry, used the road and bridges to advance some seventy miles through German held territory. It failed with large losses in both casualties and prisoners. The various Generals and commanders involved tender to blame some other military or factor. The film opens with black and white found footage, [possibly newsreel], with an added voice over setting the scene. This suggests one factor in Montgomery’s plan was rivalry with the equivalent US general and tank commander Paton. Comments on Montgomery and the well-known feature film on Paton suggest that both were arrogant and unlikely to listen to other commanders. Paton did better in the European campaign but Montgomery had made a reputation in the African campaign.

The film open in Arnhem where locals report the apparent collapse of the German forces. Two Dutch characters, a Dutch underground leader (Siem Vroom) and his son (Erik van ‘t Wout) gather and report intelligence to the British. At the German HQ Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt (Wolfgang Preiss) arrives to put some backbone into the German defence. In a seemingly minor order Panzer tanks are moved to Arnhem.

In Britain Lieutenant-General Frederick ‘Boy’ Browning (Dirk Bogarde) explains Operation Market Garden to other senior commanders. There is Lieutenant-General Brian Horrocks (Edward Fox), responsible for the ground forces, [Garden) including the armoured columns. The airborne part, Market, includes Major General Maxwell Taylor (Paul Maxwell), responsible for the airborne US 101st division: Brigadier General James Gavin (Ryan O’Neal), responsible for the US 82nd Airborne division: Major-General Roy Urquhart (Sean Connery), responsible for the 1st British airborne division: and Major General Stanisław Sosabowski (Gene Hackman), responsible for the Polish Ist Independent Parachute brigade. The airborne troops will fly from Britain to the Netherlands and parachute or land in gliders behind enemy lines. The two US divisions are to seize bridges up to and including Nijmegen: the British airborne division is to land at Arnhem and seize the bridge there: the Polish Brigade will follow to support the British at Arnhem. The ground troops and tanks have to ‘punch through’ the enemy lines and race along a road of 70 miles to reach Arnhem in two to three days. The commanders appear enthusiastic except for Sosabowski, who all through the operation expresses doubts about its viability.

From the start there are problems. Intelligence suggests that the German forces are larger and more effective that the British suppose. Doubts about the reliability of the radios are raised; crucial for communications. And a landing zone at Arnhem is some way from the target bridge.  But Horrocks, receiving an enthusiastic reception from officers in his command, appoints the Irish Guards to lead the tank column, under Lieutenant-Colonel J.O.E. Vandeleur Vanderburgh  (Michael Caine). On the day the weather is fine on the designated day and most depart in a spirit of optimism.

Michael Caine with Richard Attenborough

Things then go wrong in the landings; some  groups are caught by Germans. At Arnhem the radios indeed do not work. And the jeeps to carry troops the 12 miles to the bridge are lost. As the Guards’ tanks get under way it is apparent that the road they have to cover is narrow and likely to suffer hold-ups.

At several German HQs news of the landings arrives fast. However, there are confused responses; some of this, for example at the HQ of Generalfeldmarschall Walter Model (Walter Kehut) is of dubious accuracy. Certainly Generalmajor der Waffen-SS Karl Ludwig (Hardy Kruger) makes haste to secure the bridge at Nijmegen. And before the 101st can seize a minor bridge at Sons it is destroyed by the Germans. Colonel Robert Stout (Elliott Gould) sets about obtaining a bailey bridge to use as a crossing. Surprisingly there is not one to hand; lack of planning? When this is completed  the forces press on but an unexpected problem arises when they reach Nijmegen the popular response of local inhabitants makes progress very slow.

At Arnhem, only part of the British Parachute forces, led by Lieutenant-Colonel John Frost (Anthony Hopkins) reach the bridge. There commences a battle with the Germans that takes days and is among the most violent sequences in the film. The German response prevent the rest of the force reaching the  bridge and start to encircle them. The commander, Urquhart, is cut off from his troops and communications are still inoperative. The Polish reinforcement are stuck in Britain due to bad weather.

Another battle develops at the bridge beyond Nijmegen, held by the Germans and mined in  readiness to be destroyed. Major Julian Cook (Robert Redford) leads a battalion of the 82nd who must cross the river and seize the other end of the bridge. There are delays due to hold-ups in the British ground advance. Finally, in broad daylight, the crossing is made in collapsible wooden boats with serious losses. Fortunately for the British tanks the German explosives on the bridge fail to explode.

By the climax the operation is coming up to nine days, three times longer than planned. The Polish Brigade arrive but are caught by troops whilst landing and then suffer severe losses trying to relieve the British airborne. The latter are being squeezed by the Germans. The loss of ground includes the dropping grounds for supplies, which fall into the hands of the Germans. Finally, gathered in a church tower, overlooking the battle field the commanders agree to withdraw the surviving troops, though many wounded have to be left behind.

We see the latter in a much battered villa and in the local villa of Kate ter Horst (Liv Ullman) where Dr. Jan Spaander (Laurence Olivier) is tending the wounded British. The survivors who make it home are in states of near collapse. Urquhart sees Browning who responds that Montgomery thought that the operation was a 9()% success and that the problem was ‘a bridge too far’. The latter phrase is likely apocryphal and the record suggests to be  a partial success. Many people thought even that was an overstatement.

The film follows Ryan’s book fairly closely, though the thesis of the book was criticised at the time of publication. In the film the most negative character is General Browning, played by Bogarde in an officious manner; and there are a couple of minor bureaucratic characters. Montgomery does not appear apart from the opening newsreel footage. I suspect aping his noted mannerism would not have induced audience sympathy. The rest of the command are shown coping bravely with adversity. The lower officers and the ordinary ranks are heroic and suffer in the latter stages with dignity. The Germans are presented in a fairly reasonable manner, unlike in films in the immediate post-war era; and there is little sign of Nazi values. The Dutch also receive positive treatment. Some of the failing, such as halting the tanks after crossing the Nijmegen bridge with orders to wait for the infantry stem from an unidentified higher command. General Paton in his more successful campaigns paid little attention to such restrictions.

The star performers dominate the narrative, and they do provide identification figures as the film cuts between numerous locales and participants. There are many scenes where leading commanders have scenes that attempt to explain the complicated operation and timetable. Some of these are fairly brief. This constant cutting and changing does tend to make the narrative episodic. There are occasional sequences where an ordinary trooper is the focus for drama or pathos: thus the British soldier who dies attempting to rescue a supply canister, ironically containing caps: and a little later a soldier playing a flute as the wounded await their German captors.

The military to a great extent are played by actors of the same nationality, including the Germans. The exceptions are noticeable. So the Polish Commander is played by Gene Hackman: I wondered if his scenes were a result of a star playing the character or a star played the character because of the number of scenes. And finally, at the end, a last shot shows Horst and Spaader, with children, pushing a cart alone along a raised road in a low angle long shot. Presumably this explained why two Dutch characters were played by an English knight and a Swedish award winner.

The performances in general are good and they are convincing; they are occasionally overplayed as with Gould’s Hungarian born Yank. The battle sequences are very well done and pretty brutal; but they have to cope in the numerous tween sequences on command activity and its explanations. The cinematography by Geoffrey Unsworth is excellent as is the Production Design by Terence Marsh, a winner and nominee respectively as the British Academy Film Awards. The editing by Antony Gibbs seems fine but just too much is demanded in the cutting between so many differing spaces and times. John Addison’s music s fine but is really noticeable because it tends to come in or rise on the soundtrack when the film wants to evoke anticipation, achievements or pathos.

Attenborough’s direction is fine and his work with actors is notable. The episodic nature tends to come from the screenplay but is a common trope in this films. Two craft people, Stuart Craig as Art Director and David Tomblin as First Assistant were important regular collaborators with Attenborough. And there is the  usual attention to historical detail; that is, with the exception of the expensive Robert Redford who, at the time, suffered complaints about his lack of an appropriate haircut.,

David Robinson, in his portrait of Attenborough, suggested that,

“No doubt its possibilities for an anti-war statement appealed to him …..”

This, of course is a complete misnomer. What the film, its script and its source, all share is a criticisms of poor military planning and poor military leadership. The suffering and privations of the ordinary soldiery spring from command incompetence. It seems likely that the overall representation of the battle is both confusing and less than accurate. One notable confusion is that in the dialogue we are told several times that the targets involve three bridges; it seems that in fact there were nine, both over canals and over rivers. So the first problem, at the Sins Bridge, is somewhat of a surprise.

There was an earlier film, Theirs is the Glory (1946), which dealt specifically with the battles at Arnhem and nearby Oosterbeck. This used both film footage and recreations shot on the locations: it is generally reckoned to be more accurate about this part of the overall conflict: partly because it was able to use British army members and local people who had experienced the events.

In Technicolor and Panavision 2.35;1, running time 175 minutes; also released in 70mm blow-up

Oh! What a Lovely War,

“I never had a thought of directing, and I certainly never had any thoughts of breaking up my immensely happy partnership with Bryan Forbes. I loved acting and I loved producing. I think the contribution of the creative producer is often underrated. It is true I had for a long time wanted to direct Ghandi, but that was really by virtue of the material. I was totally blinkered in my determination to make that movie.

So that when Oh! What a Lovely War arrived my reaction  was not at all ‘Ah, here at last is the opportunity to direct a movie’, but total amazement that anyone should think of my doing it – and why this particular subject.” (Richard Attenborough Dossier page 42)

This film was produced by Len Deighton and Brian Duffy, the tram that also produced the earlier Only When I Larf, which featured Richard Attenborough. The film was funded and distributed by Paramount Pictures. Len Deighton developed the script from a stage musical of the same title produced by Joan Littlewood’s Theatre Workshop (1963); itself adapted from a radio play by Charles Chilton, The Long, Long Trail (1961). All three share the setting of the Western Front in World War I and the use of soldier versions of popular songs and melodies. But there are also significant differences.

The Littlewood production introduced a strong satirical tone targeting both the High Command amongst the allies and the capitalist profiteers like the munitions industry. The production eschewed uniforms and battle recreations with a troupe playing multiple parts in Pierrot costumes; amplified by a scorecard above the set recording the deaths at various famous/infamous battles. The drama is mainly concerned with the ordinary ‘Tommy’. The play also used the visual motif of the poppy; at one point in the production at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, showers of poppies fell all over the set beneath.

The film uses a beach and pier setting (Brighton) for the opening and many of the scenes in the movie. However, to this is added the use of military uniforms and recreated sequences on the front, in the trenches and across no-man’s land. The film uses the trope of the poppy on multiple occasions. It drops the criticisms of the munitions manufacturers but retains the sarcasm of the military command. It also spends more time on the officer class. And there are recreations of the home front scenes as well.

The essential changes from the stage version should be attributed to Deighton. He researched and wrote the original screenplay; and he secured the rights from the Theatre Workshop. However, after that there are different recalls by both Deighton and Attenborough, who is credited as a co-producer and director. In an article [link on Wikipedia) Deighton writes that he sold the project to Paramount: recruited many of the star names who appear: and insisted that the screenplay was adhered to. However Attleborough recalls being contacted by John Mills on behalf of Deighton to direct: of selling the idea to Paramount: and recruiting the star names who play mainly cameos in the film. And he recalls developing the script, especially in the way scenes and sequences are visualised. At this distance the differences are difficult to reconcile.  John Mills’ recollection does not really add to this; except that he believes that the original idea was his. That the overall conception is Deighton’s would seem correct. However, if one looks at the earlier Only When I Larf  it would seem that Attenborough bought some distinctive techniques and tropes to the film. Deighton also recalls that Attleborough was not involved in the editing; an aspect that Attleborough does not seem to mention.

The opening credits are superimposed on graphics, including union jack, memorabilia and the red poppy. The narrative opens with a pan to a pier; within the Pavilion the pre-war diplomacy is presented with predominately star names in costume. Photographer (Joe Melia) replaces the Pierrot MC in the original and he appears in several guises during the film. He organised the assembled royalty and diplomats; a shot fells the Archduke. War is declared and the MC invites people to attend ‘the ever popular war games’.

Among those who enter the pier via the ticket entry gate are the Smith family; various members of the family enrol in the British army and are seen in action. Aspects of the war combine pier funfair attractions with the actual recreations. So we get a merry-go-round with French soldiers / marionettes. Later we see a shooting gallery: a funfair model railway: peep shows of the various battles. Home front sequences include a sign-up for the army in a music hall rendering ‘We Don’t Want to Lose You’ and a plush restaurant for the officer class. The main military commander is General (later Field Marshal) Sir Douglas Haig (John Mills), often seen in a circular slide tower acting as an observation post; and also in the Pavilion where an electronic scoreboard displays the increasing casualties. The famous informal armistice on Christmas Day 1914 is presented with the Germans singing  ‘Heilige Nacht’ / ‘Silent Night’: soon bought to a halt by shells ordered by the British command. There is a sequence in no-man’s land where newly arrived recruits, [from occupied Ireland] are shelled by British Guns. Later on the is a satirical scene with General French and aides as Australian [Aussies] sarcastically sing ‘They Were Only Playing Leapfrog’. There is an open-air Church service with a lone soldier singing ‘When this Lousy War is over’. There follows an open-air hospital near the front, overcome with injured and the dying. The electronic display in the Pavilion shows casualty numbers for the important battles; including Mons and the Somme. And the recreations show aspects of these battles with men in trenches: under fire: and caught on no-man’s land.

There are two interesting sequences. The first show Sylvia Pankhurst, [only identified in the credits] giving an anti-war speech, though minus the politics that led Lenin to praise her. The listening crowd are hostile. Then we see a bar packed with British and Dominion soldiers listening to a French singer. One of her songs refers to the mutiny of French troops in 1917, though this is not noted and the song is not translated.

The closing sequences show the last member of the Smith family as the final British casualty of the war. He follows a red tape through mist and a subterranean passage: through the Pavilion where diplomats argue over the peace: and on into the sunlight [of the Sussex Downs] to join other dead comrades. They morph into white crosses as a crane shot track backwards and upwards to reveal a vast array of white crosses, [apparently 15,000, all hand-planted] whilst ‘And When They Ask Us’ is sung on the soundtrack.

The film won a number of awards at the British Academy Film Awards and other award lists. The reviews were mixed, some comparing the film unfavourably with the stage version but the majority seem to have been positive. The differences from the stage version annoyed Joan Littlewood. Gone were the references to war profiteering: the focus on the ordinary Tommy: the deliberate omission of military insignia and equipment. The film is rather episodic and that parallels the stage production which presented a series of interconnected tableaus. Philip French, in a review in Sight and Sound, adds an intriguing comment;

“What we sense in the film – more clearly than in the radio version or the calculatedly didactic left-wing version – is a national mediation, almost in a religious sense, upon the experience of the Great War.” (Quoted in the Richard Attenborough Dossier, page 47)

One can imagine Attenborough approving of this; I note that when British critics use the word ‘didactic’ is usually means that they have not engaged with the production.

Both the stage and the film versions are anti-war but fail in the sense that Andrew Britton has argued; that they do not address the politics of the actual war in question. The Theatre Workshop version did address the war as a capitalist enterprise but it lacked a sense of the underlying imperialism that Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg identified. The film fails on both counts. My impression of Chilcot’s original is that it was an exercise in nostalgia rather than actually ant-war.

In terms of Attenborough’s career he had already established himself as a producer with Beaver Films. Now, he demonstrated his abilities in film direction. He was assisted by the careful selection of craft people for the production. He recorded his debt to three crew members in particular: Claude Watson as first assistant: Don Ashton the production designer: both people who died early in the careers: and continuity by Ann Skinner, who went on to become a producer. And his cinematographer was Gerry Turpin, with whom he had worked on Séance on a Wet Afternoon and his camera operator Ronnie Taylor, who became a cinematographer including for Gandhi. This film also bought him fresh contacts with the Hollywood Companies, important for later productions.

In Technicolor and Panavision, 2.35:1; running time 144 minutes

 

All Quiet on the Western Front Germany / USA / Britain 2022

The new movie of this title is available in Britain in both digital and film versions. I saw a 35mm print at The Parkway in Barnsley. This is a German adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque’s famous anti-war novel. There had already been two earlier versions: in 1930 what is a classic Hollywood film which was distributed in both sound and silent versions: and a 1989 USA/British Television version which in Europe is a shorter, missing some scenes.

Remarque’s novel, ‘Im Westen nichts Neues’, ’Nothing New in the West’, was published in 1929. The novel describes the experiences of German enlisted men on the western front between the early days of the World War I and its final resolution in 1918. Remarque wrote in the published book;

“This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped (its) shells, were destroyed by the war.”

The novel is narrated by Paul Bauer, a young enlisted man in the German army. He describes the experiences of himself and a group of comrades on the western front in World War I. Details are scarce in the book but it seems likely that they arrived at the front in 1916 and were there on and off until late 1918. Paul describes their experiences in the trenches, on the battlefield, in times away from the front, and periods spent at home or in hospital. Paul starts the narration in the first person but soon also uses the first person plural, describing experiences as that of a group. Some of the narration is in the past tense; much is in the present. The war he describes is brutal and violent as are the scenes of death and destruction. Some times spent behind the lines are lighter in tone and stress the importance of food, but the hospitals are as deadly and people on the home front do not comprehend the savagery of the war. Besides his army comrades Paul describes, NCOs, officers and at one point medal giving by the Kaiser. There are relatively brief sequences with civilians, men and women; and one short idyll with young women. The last paragraph in the book, in October 1918, is written in the third person;

“there was nothing new to report on the western front.”

There are only passing references to the military High Command and even sparser references to other theatres, notably the Russian Front. The enemy includes British artillery, English soldiers and later soldiers from the USA. The latter arrive as new weapons, tanks and flamethrowers, also arrive. The only soldiers Paul confronts in person are the French.

The 1930 and 1979 film versions have pretty similar plot lines. The 1930 film was produced at Universal Studios: the original release ran two and half hours: the soundtrack was mainly in English with some occasional German and French phrases. Rather than narration by Paul the film opts for a more detached viewpoint but limited to Paul’s experience. The film’s plot commences early in the war with the young male students being harangued by their teacher on the glories of dying for the Fatherland. Once recruited and sent to the front they are quickly disillusioned. The experience of trench warfare and of battles is violently presented. And there are remarkable tracking shots in the trenches and across no-man land between the two fronts. It includes even such a harrowing sequence as Paul having to lie in a shell hole with a dying French soldier. Visits to home demonstrate the incomprehension of civilians regarding the war experience. Breaks from the front line, including the scavenging of food and the idyll with young French women are included. The film ends late in 1918 in a different manner from the novel.

The 1979 film was a production for Television produced jointly by US and British Companies: Norman Rosemont Productions and ITC Entertainment: transmitted in the USA by CBS. It is in colour and either academy or 16:9 ratio. The soundtrack is in English with some French phrases; it partially recreates the narrative style of the novel with a voice over narration by Paul, but this regularly stops and the narration becomes more omniscient.. It originally it ran two and half hours, but there are several shorter versions. The plot line is fairly similar to the earlier film. The trench and battle field combat are well done but less effective than the earlier film with less mobile camerawork. This version includes a brief sequence where the Kaiser awards medals. The ending, different from the book, is a variation of that in the earlier film.

The latest version is fairly different from the two earlier ones; a multi-territory production, Berlin-based Amusement Park Films DE: Gunpowder Films, a British subsidiary of the US Netflix: and the US-based Sliding Down Rainbows: distribution by Netflix. It was filmed digitally in full anamorphic, 2.39:1 and the soundtrack is in German with occasional French dialogue. The German dialogue is subtitled in English; the French dialogue is subtitled into both English and German. There is a noticeable music score which often self-consciously points up the drama and violence. It open in 1917 and continues right up to the armistice on November 11^th 1918.

The film opens with a shot of a fox set in a woods close to the front line. There are several later scenes with the soldiers in this setting. After this we see both the recruitment and active service of a small group of young German men. The actual fighting and battle scenes are exceptionally violent. It is a powerful indictment of the brutality which was marked this new form of warfare and which neither the Generals, politicians or general public on either side really understood. There is only one sequence showing us the home front and civilians; though families and especially mothers are in the men’s dialogue. There are in addition, to the other films and to the book, scenes of the High Command in their more privileged situations; and approaching the armistice we also social democratic politicians, clearly ineffective in controlling the military. Women are almost entirely absent. We do not see women at home or the French girls who appeared in the earlier films. The film opens with a fox set in woodland and there we see both a vixen and her cubs; the woodland is close the army lines and is a place of relative quiet compared to the trenches and the intervening no-man land. Later we see a poster of a man and woman; and the picture of the woman is torn off and seen hanging on the parapet of a trench.

The film’s ending is different from the novel and from the earlier films which themselves have different endings from the book. There are scenes of the armistice negotiations. And the ending takes us right up to the cease-fire at 1100 hours. Here we see a German attack, not in the book or in the other films; in fact some sporadic fighting continued after the armistice; whether this is a historical episode or not I have yet to discover.

What is also found only in the new version is any reference to the harbinger of an alternative to imperialist war; the Revolution in Russia in 1917. This is a reference by a social democratic politician of the danger of ‘the Bolsheviks’. In all the various stories the plot is restricted to the western front; echoing the obsession of political elites of the time. The wider war on the Eastern front, in Arabia and in Africa are absent: as are the inspired struggles like the German Revolution and the Easter Rising in Ireland: we do see a refusal of orders by ordinary soldiers. Such a viewpoint follows on from the concentration on the soldier experience; a civilian in the two early version claims that they have a restricted view rather than an overall perception of the war.

The solders experience demonstrates the military high command’s incomprehension of how modern warfare would work. This despite the lessons demonstrated some decades earlier in the Civil War in the USA. And, especially in Germany, there is the inadequacy of tactics, resources and material support. So by 1918 the German infantry are far worse served than their enemy combatants. This is despite the almost hysterical nationalism that fuelled a war fever in Germany, in Britain, in France and in Russia.

The book and all three film versions are presented as ‘anti-war texts’. However, they all fail, falling up the criticism made by Andrew Britten in Movie;

“The ‘anti-war’ film tends to protest against war as such from an abstractly moral point of view… war is extrapolated from its socio-economic causes and functions and we are confronted with its ‘horrors’ – “

This applies exactly to the original novel and to all of the film adaptations. The 1922 version does attempt to broaden to the critique by including the military High Command – the villains – and the social democrats – ineffective. The attitude of the French delegation at the armistice talks parallels these. But whilst this is a class conflict, junkers versus workers – it remains at an individualist level rather than addressing the social and economic factors. In all four versions the blind patriotic enthusiasm of the civilians is likewise lacking the social and economic factors. I should add that the ‘horrors’ depicted graphically in the original novel are never completely translated to the screens, even in the brutal depictions of the German film. To give one example: in the novel there are a number of graphic descriptions by Paul of bodies and body parts hanging from trees: including naked corpses stripped by the blast of explosions. None of the film-makers had the temerity to depict this on screen.

The 1922 the black and white film offered a sound track meaning an aspect ratio of 1.20:1; the silent version was in 1.33:1. The 1979 film was in colour and academy ratio for television. Now, in 2022 the film presented is in full anamorphic ratio of 2.39:1 and in colour. The movie was actually shot on digital Arriflex cameras together with special effects cameras and lenses. The 35mm print version is on Kodak film.

Before the screening at The Parkway we had an introduction for the manager/ projectionist Bob Younger. He explained the 35mm prints came from the USA; processed at the Fotokem Laboratory. It seems that the 35mm reels used in the USA are different from those used in Europe. So, there is a knack in transferring the film onto house reels or, as in this case, onto a platter. In fact, this worked fine. It was a good print visually and orally. I have not seen a digital version but the special effects fitted well in the image; not always the case with digital files.

The quotations from the novel are the translated edition by Brian Murdoch from 1994.

Movie issue 27/28 is Winter 1980 / Spring 1981; Andrew Britten’s article addresses ‘Hollywood in Vietnam’ as part of ‘American [i.e. USA] Cinema in the ‘70s’.

2017, a spate of religion on film.

This year offers the centenary of The Great October Revolution. That seismic event was not only a strike against autocracy and international capital, but against religion: [Karl Marx’s quotation above is taken from  ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’). Sovkino produced a film from the Left Front of Arts in 1929, Opium, directed by Vitaly Zhemchuzhny and scripted by Osip Brik. Unfortunately the early omens for this year are poor as we have already had three films with a fairly strong religious component. Not surprisingly the films also centre around strong violence and at least two of them are rather poor in the representation of women.

The first that I saw was Martin Scorsese’s film adaptation of a novel by Shûsaku Endô, Silence (USA, Taiwan, Mexico 2016). This follows two C17th  Jesuit missionaries as they travel secretly to Japan where the Christian religion is forbidden. The film does recognise the colonial aspects of western religious and trading expeditions to Japan. And the rationale of the Japanese is expressed by their characters, who I founds more interesting than the westerners. However, the film also represents Japanese society as excessively violent and autocratic under the surface formality. But there is a only a brief mention [by a Japanese character] of the violent dispossession that was already the central focus of European ventures into Africa, Asia and the Americas.

The narrative is presented through the letters of one of the missionaries and at the film’s end through the diaries of a Portuguese trader. Whilst one missionary dies, the other two [after torture][ recant their faith. However the resolution privileges an omniscient moment for the audience: a close-up of a religious object suggests that the recantations were only on the surface. A friend pointed out that this was a ‘Citizen Kane’ moment.

The torture used by the Japanese is extremely violent and there are some very strong sequences in the film. In Britain the film was given a 15 certificate and in the USA it was given an R certificate. The plot and focuses almost completely on male characters. The few women we see in the film are either members of a Christian flock or spouses, none are very developed as characters. The violence and the masculinity are the dominant themes in many of Scorsese’s films and I assume this is a reflection of the original novel. But the film at least does not offer a convincing explanation as to why C17th Japanese peasants would embrace a foreign religion at the cost of suffering and even their lives. Why the Japanese authorities would object to a foreign imposition is fairly clear. So the film concentrates on the viewpoint of the Westerners and the Japanese ruling class, with a far less adequate presentations of the viewpoint of ordinary Japanese.

The film is finely produced and executed. The cinematography, design, sound and editing are all excellent. And, fortunately and uncommonly, the film circulated here in a 4K DCP which did fair justice to the production values.

JACKIE (2016) John Hurt, Natalie Portman CR: Bruno Calvo

My second portion of religion was in Jackie (Chile, France, USA 2016). This is in part a biopic of Jacqueline Kennedy, following the contemporary conventions of homing in on one particular period and event: but it is also another film on the Kennedy legacy as the event in question is the assassination of J. F. Kennedy and the characters and actions around his funeral. The form of the film is an interview given by Jacqueline Kennedy (Wynona Ryder) sometime after the event to a journalist (Billy Crudup) and is inspired by an actual interview of the period. The film cuts between the interview and flashbacks to the assassination and subsequent actions leading up to the state funeral. There are also cuts to extracts from the famous tour of the White House given by Jacqueline Kennedy  for the CBS television channel and also to memories of Jacqueline of her times with Jack Kennedy.

I think one’s response to the film depends on how much one buys into the Kennedy legend. The film clearly does: we get songs from the Musical Camelot played on the soundtrack without any sense of irony. It struck me that the use of J.F.K. is an attempt to match the aurora of F.D.R. [Franklin D. Roosevelt] a comparison that exaggerates the significance of Kennedy.

The religion comes in the form of the Roman Catholic persuasion of Jacqueline and Jack Kennedy. It is personalised in the character of her confessor (John Hurt). There are several scenes where the grieving Jackie meets the priest in secret: just the security men accompany her. At one point there is a fairly veiled reference to Jack’s problems with the seventh and tenth commandments.

The recreation of the assassination in Dallas is very effective. And the subsequent scenes present Jackie resisting the manipulative treatment of the political elite round the White House: Lyndon B. Johnson (John Carroll Lynch) finds the appropriate sympathy a difficult task. Bobby Kennedy ((Peter Sarsgaard) is the supportive brother-in-law, a lone male confidante. However, I was sceptical about how accurate the portrayals were. In one scene, on the plane flying the coffin and the party back to Washington, we see Jackie in the toilet wiping blood from her face. Her insistence on remaining in the pink but blood-stained outfit at that time is well recorded: but the blood seemed unlikely.

The film was shot on Super 16 and circulated in Britain on a 2K DCP. This was not really sufficient for the exhibition. Some long shots lacked definition, including one of Jackie and the unnamed journalist in an exterior, where neither was clearly defined. Even given the 16mm format this seemed inadequate. The earlier Carol (USA, UK, Australia 2015 ) was filmed on the same format and the definition on the DCP version of that was superior to this. The recreation of the CBS documentary is well done and it seems that Pablo Larrain [the director] and his cinematographer,  Stéphane Fontaine, used the same video camera that was used for the earlier No (Chile, France, Mexico, USA 2012 ).

However, my most serious problem with this film as the same as the earlier one by Larrain. Both films deal with historical events but both offer partial view of these. Essentially the view of those events is that of a bourgeois perspective. In the case of No, which details the referendum on the Junta government in Chile in 1988, it is the absence of any sense of the class struggle in Chile at the time. In Jackie it is the way the film buys in uncritically to the Kennedy legend when at the time that Presidency was involved in the usual neo-colonial activities of the USA; notably against the Vietnamese and Cuban peoples. The earlier JFK (USA, France 1991) brings out the connections between that policy and the assassination.

My third encounter with cinematic religion was Hacksaw Ridge (Australia, USA 2016). This is Mel Gibson’s take on a pacifist soldier involved in the US invasion of Okinawa during the closing stages of World War II. As with earlier Gibson films [The Passion of the Christ (USA 2004) and Apocalypto ( USA 2006) the film is full of extreme violence and machismo.

The protagonist Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield) is a Seventh Day Adventist. he believes killing is wrong but insists in enrolling in the US military at the start of the war. The early part of the film treats his induction into the army where he becomes a victim because of his refusal to ‘pick up a gun’. At times this reminded me of the similar sequence in Full Metal Jacket (UK, USA 1987)..

Eventually he becomes a medical orderly and in the invasion of Okinawa he heroically rescues, under fire, 75 wounded GIs The battle scenes are pretty over the top, gun ho and relying on CGI which is sometimes quite noticeable. Hacksaw Ridge itself has quadrupled in height in the years since the war. Even given the casualty rates in the Pacific War there seem to be an awful lot of bodies on this one section of the front: and there are an equal number of body parts strewn around. Great for the prosthetics department.

This is the conventional Hollywood war movie. The platoon in which Desmond serves is multi-ethnic group representing the cross section of the USA. The US soldiers are informingly heroic if sometimes fearful. The Japanese are the violent inscrutable other: we even get a hari kari suicide by a Japanese officer at the end of the film; why? And Desmond has a sweet, pretty nurse patiently waiting back home.

You get a sense of what is to come with then opening sequence, a violent and bloody battle scene. We return to this in extended form at the close of the film. US GIs despatching Japanese horde in the ratio familiar from other war movies and the fate of Native Americans in traditional westerns. This has none of the perceptive e treatment in Clint Eastwood’s back-to-back Flags of Our Fathers (USA 2006) and Letters from Iwo Jima (USA 20016). And there is certainly none of the former film’s critical and ironic representation of the US war effort.

I was reminded of an earlier Hollywood film about a pacifist, Sergeant York (1941) with Cary Cooper in the title role. Alvin York, after a religious conversion, becomes a pacifist and when the USA enters World War I a conscientious objector. However, he is persuaded that “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” The film actually has scene where York weights the bible in one and the US Constitution in the other. Desmond’s life parallels York in that, after a violent bout with his brother, he eschews violence. He is at least more consistent than York as he refuses to carry a gun at all. He does though, finally agree to serve on the Sabbath [a Saturday], against another of his principles. Equally to the point, as Peter Bradshaw pointed out in ‘The Guardian’ review:

“Doss is repeatedly and fiercely challenged by the army on his refusal to bear arms, but no one points out that, unarmed or not, he wants to use medical skills to assist the uniformed killers and make the war machine of death run more smoothly. The basis of his “conscientious cooperation” is not in fact investigated all that rigorously.”

The film version certainly has it both ways. There is the lofty moralism of Desmond who will not kill: and yet the film is able to show killing that rivals the opening of Spielberg’s Sergeant Ryan (USA 1998). The Bolshevik led revolution in 1917 was against imperialist war as well as autocracy, capitalism and the opium of religion. Hopefully we will get some anti-war films this year as well as revisiting the Soviet masterworks.

Regeneration, Britain 1997

I revisited this recently as part of the W.W.I: Through the Lens series at the Hyde Park Picture House. The film was screened in an old but visually good quality print. The soundtrack was occasionally muffled from wear and tear, but overall it was a great experience. The Hyde Park obtained the print with some assistance from Rafford Films, the original Production Company: at a time when projection and programming seems to be a dying art in cinema it is good to see an exhibitor giving this care and attention to a film. And it is a film that deserves such treatment. As you might expect in an UK period drama the acting and characterisations are excellent. Adrian Scot has provided a fine adaptation of the novel by Pat Barker: I have not read the book but I suspect that Harris has also changed the emphasis somewhat. The cinematography by Glen MacPherson is very fine, and together with Production Designer Andy Harris he has created really convincing images of the World War I frontline. The editing appears seamless, but it has certain unexpected cuts, which are sharply implemented. There is a lot of music, as you might expect, by Mychael Danna, but it works well and is in keeping with the treatment.  Director Gillies MacKinnon has done an excellent job of bringing the contributions of this team together. The film is a co-production between the UK [including Scottish agencies] and Canada: it would seem that the story has some connection with North America.

In an intelligent piece of programming the main feature was proceeded by some film footage from World War I. This was a video copy of footage shot at two hospitals treating mental disorders in troops afflicted by the trench warfare. The film was provided by the Welcome Trust Library and I would think it never received public exhibition at the time, late 1917 and 1918. The film presented a series of soldiers who suffered from some sort of neuroses bought on by the horrors of the warfare. The film concentrated on showing the success of the hospital treatments: some of the recoveries from severe physical disabilities bought on by trauma were remarkable. There was less coverage of the treatment, which seemed to consist of physiotherapy and hypnotic suggestion. The Picture House staff selected the Third Symphony of Henryk Górecki as an accompaniment: this worked very well.

This archive material fitted very well with the prime focus in Regeneration, the treatment of officers suffering mental traumas after service in the frontline. Reviews of the film on release picked up on the depiction of the relationship between two famous World War I poets, Siegfried Sassoon (James Wilby) and Wilfred Owen (Stuart Bunce), in the film. But the prime focus is Doctor William Rivers (Jonathan Pryce) and his relationship with his patients, especially Sassoon. There are two other key characters, Billy Prior (Johnny Lee Miller) and Burns (Rupert Proctor). Burns, like Owen, is not really developed as a character. Prior is an officer, but working class, which sets him apart from most of the staff and other inmates at the rehabilitation hospital.

Rivers is a sympathetic carer and listener. One sequence shows him visiting a specialist in London, a Dr Yealland, whose brutal treatment of traumatised soldiers provides a striking contrast with those of Rivers. Rivers listens to their harrowing memories, and together with the audience learns of the horrors of the experiences of war. These confessions also take their toll of Rivers himself.

Much of the film is set in the relative quiet of the hospital and its grounds. But the memories and dreams of the characters enable us to see and hear the brutal and violent warfare. These flashbacks and dreams both illustrate the traumas of the different patients, but also provide motifs relating to the well-known poetry of Sassoon, and even more so, of Owen. A recurring dream sequence is set in some sort of tunnel near the front-line – clearly referencing one of Open’s most famous poems.

The use of colour [or lack of it] provides a striking contrast to the hospital. But another contrast using colour is also drawn between Rivers’ office where the patients recount their experiences, and the laboratory of Dr Yealland. The film appears at first as a fairly typical example of British ‘realist’ cinema. But the use of colour, of counterpoint in the editing, and the relationship between the film’s present, the flashbacks and the dreams, produces a rather more ambiguous sense of reality and subjectivity.

There are also several sequences away from the hospitals and the front-line. The most important of these depicts a relationship between Prior and a ‘munitioneer’ [a worker in a munitions factory), Sarah (Tanya Allen). Their relationship includes two scenes of sexual encounters. One provides a moment of rare tenderness late in the film: the other uses a flamboyant overhead shot as a moment of contrast. However, I did feel that this emphasis on heterosexual sex offered a distraction from the unexplored homoerotic and homosexual aspects of the story. It appears that these, and a bi-sexual aspect, are much more explicit in the original novel.

The film does explore the contrasts of class through Prior and the conflicts between youth and age and between mavericks and the military establishment. The film also offers an underlying sense of irony. Whilst Rivers’ methods are contrasted with those of Yealland, in the end both fulfil the same function, sending men back to the front-line and death.