There are so many non-fictional and fictional Great War movies available today, that sometimes it is difficult to determine the difference in the two. The two movies I chose to view and consider in terms of their reflection of the reality and impacts of the war both physically and psychologically, were Jean Renoir’s “The Grand Illusion” and Peter Weir’s “Gallipoli”.
The two movies had fairly different focuses-whereas “The Grand Illusion” concentrated on the interaction of a group of officers who were captured after their plane was shot down, while “Gallipoli” had a plot hich also dealt with the human interaction of the soldiers, however, the movie was geared toward the anticipation of the great battle at Gallipoli. In each of the two movies there are different aspects which must be examined in order to make an educated guess as to the film’s validity concerning the reality of the war and its impacts.
It is hard for anyone living today, who did not experience the Great War first hand, to be able to label a movie, or any other account as either true or false in terms of reality, however, based on those first hand accounts that we do have access to today, an educated guess can be made as o a movie’s authenticity. The biggest issue one faces when determining the validity of a war movie is how realistic the physical fighting is.
This is at least partially subjective, as what one views on screen may seem excessive and gory, another may see as not truthful enough and they may even think it is with-holding the truth of the situation from the public. Another problem one faces when determining a movie’s authenticity is not only the believability of the scenes depicting the real war and combat, but also the portions relating to human interaction, morale, and mentality- or, more simply put, its psychological aspect .
One can watch a scene from “Gallipoli”, for example and say, “this is factually correct because the Australians are shown interacting in the same setting and type of battle that personal accounts conclude, and also the outcome of the battle is unsuccessful”, but the issue may not be whether that particular war scene is accurate, but rather, if the way that the soldiers interacted with one another was. Did they really all want to enlist, and did they really all sit around and drink and laugh while waiting for the bombardments to commence?
Determining the truthfulness of the way in which a person’s entality is portrayed is even more subjective than the way in which a war scene is portrayed, which is yet another reason that being able to declare with all certainty that a film is accurate is a challenging job. “The Grand Illusion” was made in the 1930’s, but takes place in 1916 and is a foreign film depicting the experience of several French officers who are captured by the Germans after their plane was shot down.
Although I feel that some of the true emotion of a scene is lost when watching foreign films, this movie still was able to get across the more emotional aspects that each of the characters was feeling. The first part of this ilm which I found interesting and maybe questionable in believability was when the Frenchmen were invited to dinner by the enemy, following their being shot down. According to my understanding of the feelings between Germany and practically any other European country at this time, it seems unlikely that the two groups would dine together, save the fact that Germany was making the rules in this situation.
There did seem to be a great deal of reverence for each side though, shown during this meal. Each side seemed gracious and polite for the situation, demonstrating the sort of lost gentility which was brought about as an effect of the war. Because all the men present were of officer status or higher, they had a common respect for each other, no matter their personal sides. This sense of courtesy began to fade away faster and faster after the war ended, as a result of the atrocities imparted on each side.
This also, more broadly reflects the change in leadership over the period of the war, as prior to the war, a more gentleman-like class of leaders presided over Europe, whereas afterward, a new generation of leaders was introduced. These were men who had the ability to speak and appeal to the masses, also having the ability to rally support from the middle and lower classes. Secondly, I found the Frenchmen’s interaction with both each other and the German’s rather bizarre at times.
For the fact that they were basically prisoners of war, they all still had many privileges, including reading, getting regular meals, and even finding leisure time to put together a theatrical production for those at the camp. This is one area in which I find it hard to recognize which point of view is probably more truthful- the idea of the lifestyle as portrayed by the movies, or the notion that prisoners are treated like scum every hour of every day that they are in captivity.
Most people do not get the idea that war is fun at ll, as “The Grand Illusion” narrowly points out. Several of the French do seem to break down and say that they want to hear the French language spoken again and want to see the light of the sun. These wishes seem to fit more with what one would think war imprisonment would be like, rather than the days of endless rough housing and joking around that portions of the film seem to show.
When the group of Frenchmen are transferred to the officer’s camp after being caught trying to escape numerous times, the three men still seem to be lighthearted and joking, although, it appears that their ituation is much more serious, even than earlier in their time of imprisonment. The single part of the film which I found most likely to be close to the reality of the war, was the part about the captain of the camp, Von Rauffenstein. When he discussed his job with Capt.
Boueldie, he told him of his disgust for his position, and how all he really wanted to do was fight, however it was the war that had caused him so many injuries and had placed him in a position of governing, rather that fighting for his country. To me, this statement moves the enemy onto a more human level, a level of understanding and sympathy. In war, I would imagine there are not very many people who go in hoping to be dictatorial and ruin the lives of other innocent soldiers, who have just been obeying their orders and doing their jobs, but this section of the movie brings that idea closer to life.
Von Rauffenstein also brings up another point, similar to what was discussed in class about the war being the end of elegant officers like him. This nobility of sorts, proved to grow weaker and weaker throughout the years of the war. The second film, “Gallipoli” was a movie which took place initially in Western Australia in 1915, however, this movie was an American film made n the 1980’s. Whereas “The Grand Illusion” focused on enemy captives during the war, this movie focused more on the effects of the war on the Australian home front from enlistment time through the battle at Gallipoli.
I felt that this movie was more realistic than the first movie for several reasons, including the fact that this one gave more background on the characters. This helps create a more realistic appearance because one can easily see the changes that take place in a person pre, during and post war. By showing the character, Archie, before he enlisted, one could see hat he led the normal life of a teenager, as he was in fact underage when he enlisted to fight.
He was excited and eager to become a soldier and help fight valiantly for his country and the world. This sort of over- eagerness felt by Archie symbolized the naivety of so many young people during the war, as they thought that they would be heroes instantly and that they would in fact be able to come back home to their adoring friends and family. The notion of the valor that came with fighting for one’s country outweighed any fears that a person may have, which was the emotion that struck the other character of Frank.
He was initially nervous and very hesitant to enlist with Archie, even though he was Archie’s elder. Their relationship was one which was greatly strengthened by the war, both the act of getting to the point of physical war, as well as being stationed in the midst of the fighting. I think that Archie’s patriotism was common to many young men during the war, as it was not only an opportunity to make something of ones self, but also to see the world.
Once the new soldiers arrive in Gallipoli, the mood of the film changes, and becomes more somber, as they all see shells flying and xploding and realize that it is no longer a heroic fairy tale type land they are entering, but rather a land of sheer terror where it is every man for himself. As they are in the trenches, it seems that those men who had already been there are almost immune to their surroundings and what is going on around them, as the newcomers seem frightened and suddenly young and timid again.
This seems a true picture which is painted, simply because, just as now when we look back on the events, when one is so far away from the fighting and warfare, it is hard to imagine the horror of it all and it seems less scary than it actually is. As was discussed in class, the order “Over the top” was given and the front line of soldiers had no choice but to go head first into shots from the enemy. After the first boy is killed going over the top, everyone in the trenches becomes solemn, and with each passing death, the seriousness and futility of the situation becomes more and more evident to all the soldiers, not just the young, new ones.
As the orders kept coming for “over the top” the tragedy of the battle at Gallipoli was revealed; each line of men went out into “No man’s land” and each line simultaneously fell, quickly removing practically the entire unit. We know from books and ccounts that the battle at Gallipoli was a particularly horrible one, a general slaughter, and this film showed that, however, even with its gory depiction, one can still not be sure that it was as horrible as the actual event.
For the fact that a movie is for entertainment, it would be fairly safe to assume that the events pictured in the film are not as graphic as the real battle was; however, the psychological effects of the film on the viewer and on the characters seem to be more realistic. It is difficult to say whether a film is valid in its portrayal of battle and emotions of those people affected by war, when you were not ctually physically there to observe it yourself.
Hollywood has a way of putting their own spin on even true stories, whether to exaggerate them or dull them to “numb” the viewers from the wickedness of the events. Whether either movie gave a truly realistic portrayal of the occurrences of World War I, I can not say, however, based on readings, I think it would be appropriate to assume that the fighting shown in the movies was not equivalent to that which occurred in 1914. The fighting over the years of the Great War was gruesome and the things that occurred would probably not be allowed to be shown on the big screen.
