Passchendaele

[Jim Bewley]

Pat did a mini review of this film on the War Horse thread, which got me looking for it. I actually found it on You Tube and watched it. Movie started out good, got a bit shaky mid way, got back on track when hero went back to combat and they fell completely apart after they moved to the front and were counter attacked. Seemed like they tried to cram too much WWI symbolism into the last few minutes. Comments Pat?

Jim

[Pat Holscher]

Pat did a mini review of this film on the War Horse thread, which got me looking for it. I actually found it on You Tube and watched it. Movie started out good, got a bit shaky mid way, got back on track when hero went back to combat and they fell completely apart after they moved to the front and were counter attacked. Seemed like they tried to cram too much WWI symbolism into the last few minutes. Comments Pat?

Jim

Passchendaele the battle was a horror, but an epic event in Canadian nationhood.

Passchendaele the film is a major league turkey.

This film came up on the WWI list for the same reason, with some noting that they liked its depiction of trench warfare. That's a counter opinion to mine, but I'll note it, and go from there, first noting that it is usually noted that the film is supposed to be a love story, with supposedly good trench scenes, and therefore shouldn't be judged too harshly. But Dr. Zhivago is a love story, and it doesn't otherwise stink up the theater in its military scenes, so that's not a sufficient excuse, in my view, to endure Passchendaele.

To add to that, I actually thought the depiction of trench warfare in Passchendale mediocre, faring poorly in comparison with even much earlier films, such as Paths of Glory. That isn’t to say it was a totally bad depiction of trench warfare, but it wasn’t great, and not up to the standards of the era in which it was filmed. It's a 2008 film, and its depiction of trench warfare certainly doesn't measure up to War Horse. But it also falls far short of the depiction of trench war fare in the 1957 film Path's of Glory.

Too add to that, the filmmakers were poor in their depiction of some details in regards to trench conditions. The Canadian troops are depicted as existing in a torrential continuing downpour for a period of days (or months), but for some reason most of them never wear more than their service uniforms. Common sense would have them at least put on their overcoats, but they never do. The field hospital is depicted as being so close to the front lines that the hospital staff can look out (in apparent safety) on a certain dramatic scene in which the Canadian troops and German troops are probably only separated by 50 yards and a Canadian solider being rescued. This scene strongly recalls the melodramatic depicts of warfare from the early silent film era, even in the looks of angst in the hospital staff’s faces as they (apparently) gaze out on a scene that occurs some considerably distance away, much in the same way in which actors in early silent films would look out in horror on battlefield scenes that logic would dictate were thousands of yards, if not miles, from where they were standing at the time. They symbolism of that particular scene is also rather overdone, with an artillery round falling into a German trench, where a German-Canadian youth is pleading for his life, only to be blown into debris which props him up in a fashion which is obviously supposed to recall the Crucifixion. It's a bit much. The mud is depicted, accurately, as horrific, but the callousness of the conditions is such that a man is even instructed to be left to drown, behind the lines, when there would be no reason for that, which is a rather extreme exaggeration. I'm fairly certain that it was not the policy of the Canadian army to allow men to drown, in mud, behind the lines when there is no fighting going on. For that matter, no good reason is given for why the soldiers and mules are walking through the flooded shell holes, rather than around them, in the rear, which would seem to be the rather obvious choice.

In military details the film is also lacking. The plot depends upon a sergeant in Canada openly deserting from his post in Alberta and enlisting as a private with his CO’s knowledge, and it then this being revealed when that CO catches up with him months later (which together with the nurse love interests appearance in the same area, suggests a rather tiny Canadian army). I realize that’s a plot device, but it’s rather difficult to imagine an officer caring so little that he lets a sergeant desert, reenlist as a private, and then bother to catch up with him in Europe and insist he be court martialed at that time. If he wanted to arrest him, he could probably just go tot he telegraph office and wire the next stop on the Canadian Pacific, particularly if the deserting NCO announces the very unit he is joining which is shipping out.

Even the love story is strained. Not since early silent days has a heroine been so perpetually distressed. But she doesn't come across so much as Lillian Gish as somebody who really needs to calm down a bit.

Given the choice, I’d skip it entirely, go to War Horse, or rent Paths of Glory or All Quiet On The Western Front.

[Pat Holscher]

By the way, this film is currently showing on one of the Starz channels, for those who get those. So, if anyone should think "surely, that film can't be that bad. . . after all its a 2008 film and it must have fairly modern production values. . . I'd like to see it", you probably can for the next couple of weeks.

But, if you do, make sure you have movie fare for War Horse so you can thereafter purge it from your system. Or make sure you have a DVD of All Quiet On the Western Front or Paths of Glory.

[Jim Bewley]

Pat's description of the movie is perfect. I was amazed at the same events, but I had some time to kill, so I continued watching. It is also available on You Tube, of all places, in 11 segments. I have a large monitor, so I just opened it to full screen and watched it for free.

Jim

[Jim Bewley]

I noticed in the movie that the German helmets were larger and bulkier then the WWII version, but of the same design. I knew these first came out toward the end of WWI, but had not remembered the two stud like devices on each side. What were they for?

Jim

[Pat Holscher]

I noticed in the movie that the German helmets were larger and bulkier then the WWII version, but of the same design. I knew these first came out toward the end of WWI, but had not remembered the two stud like devices on each side. What were they for?

Jim

They were anchors for a reinforced plate that added a layer of steel in front. They are rarely seen in photographs.

That pattern of helmet was the M16 helmet, adopted in 1916. There is a M1917 and a M1918 version that differs only liner and chin strap construction. The M1918 version also had a variant that was beveled near the ears, and is associated with cavalrymen and is sometimes called the cavalry model. The original M1916 helmet never really excited service and you can find instances of it being worn throughout World War Two.

In 1935 a new version that was lighter and which lacked the studs for the plate was introduced as the M1935. M1940 and M1942 versions of that helmet were later made which vary only in minor details.

One thing, I'd note, that War Horse portrayed, but without any comment by any of the characters, was the use of body armor, which did occur in World War One. The young British officer late in the film is shown wearing a breast plate. If you watch carefully, you'll note that one of the German soldiers is also wearing a breast plate. Body armor was worn to some degree by at least the Germans and the British. I don't know about the French, but the French get credit for introducing the Adrian helmet, the first modern steel military helmet. American troops at first found the wearing of armor to be very odd and had some initial resistance to helmets, although helmet use soon became universal.

[Jim Bewley]

Thanks Pat. At least they got that part right in the movie. The shots of actual WWI film footage, shown at the very end while the credits were running, were the best part of the movie.

Jim

[Pat Holscher]

Thanks Pat. At least they got that part right in the movie. The shots of actual WWI film footage, shown at the very end while the credits were running, were the best part of the movie.

Jim

It'd be hard to botch that part, however, tin hats and M16s being universal by mid war.

Compare, however, again to War Horse. In the first part of the film, the British cavalry wears peak (wheelhouse) caps. The Germans wear pickel barrel helmets. That's correct. When the Germans reacquire the horse mid movie, they're wearing M16s, which would indicate that we're at least in 1916. By the end of the film we're in 1918, and the British are wearing helmet covers for the most part, but a few British troops have unit insignias on their helmets.

As an aside, I'll also note that Passchendaele's apologist sometimes will note that it didn't have a huge budget, which it no doubt did not, and that it's a Canadian film. That last claim is a curious one, as I don't see why that excuses its failures. There are a lot of Canadian actors and movie makers in the Hollywood system so the talent is there. And another equivalently sized film industry, in terms of demographics, the Australian film industry, has produced two really good World War One films, Gallipoli and The Light Horsemen. Indeed, The Light Horsemen actually shares many of the same plot elements with Passchendale. . . a nurse love interest. . . a young soldier who becomes disillusioned and can't fight, etc. I think it's just a bad film.

[Jim Bewley]

Interesting, as I find Canadian TV shows very good. Flash Point is well done and the main actor in this movie was in Due South, which I also liked. Yes, it was silly, but I liked it.

Jim

[Pat Holscher]

Interesting, as I find Canadian TV shows very good. Flash Point is well done and the main actor in this movie was in Due South, which I also liked. Yes, it was silly, but I liked it.

Jim

Something else I'd note here, and I guess I'll also note in the War Horse thread, is that the obvious initial success of War Horse is pretty good evidence that the often cited theory that Americans won't go to watch a film that isn't about Americans is incorrect. Hollywood itself seems to follow that maxim, which may be part of the reason that they produce such stinkers as U235.

War Horse doesn't include a single American character in it anywhere, but it looks like it will do well.