Gallipoli (1981)

More powerful than ever.

As I write this after rewatching the movie, I'm listening to Liam Clancy's wonderful version of Eric Bogle's heartbreaking "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda." There is nothing I can add to those wonderful postings by others before me except to agree that this picture should be rereleased to the general public and shown in history classes. It might wake up young Americans to the disaster in Iraq -- another senseless war with little planning and forethought and disastrous consequences with tens of thousands dead, wounded, maimed and irreparably damaged.

A companion piece should be "A Bridge Too Far," Richard Attenborough's all-star film about Operation Market Garden, a scheme to put an early end to WWII which failed. Eisenhower gave in to Montgomery and the result was a disaster in which the Allies tried to take five bridges and had more casualties than the Normandy invasion. Seems nothing changes. Gallipoli made not a dent in politicans and military men's minds. Another brilliant film.

July 26, 2008

About mates, patriotic naivete and one of the most senseless battles in a war made up of senseless battles

When two coalitions of nations are at war against each other, there are two fundamentally different tactics for victory that are proposed. The first is to go all out against the strongest of the enemy coalition, the idea being that if you defeat that nation, the lesser partners will automatically surrender. This has the potential problem that you can be soundly defeated, further strengthening the resolve of the weaker nations.
The second strategy is to hold against the strong and concentrate your strength against the weaker. By defeating one of the nations in the coalition, you can raise doubts about the ultimate victory in the minds of your enemy and raise morale at home. The problem with this strategy is that the weaker nation may be a liability to the stronger one, defeating it may not weaken the stronger nation and force you to support a nation on the verge of chaos.
Winston Churchill was a strong proponent of the second strategy, in both the first and second world wars. In the Second World War, he advocated attacking the European Axis powers "soft underbelly", which he described as Italy. While Italy surrendered and switched sides shortly after being invaded, the battle for Italy was anything but soft and was probably more costly than effective.
In the First World War, Churchill was the main proponent of forcing an opening of the straights of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Controlled by Turkey, an ally of Germany, if the Allies could seize them, it would probably have knocked Turkey out of the war and allowed a free flow of men and materials between the Russian Empire and the Mediterranean Sea. It was a good idea poorly thought through and poorly executed. It was a classic case of a desk bound politician/military leader looking at a map, seeing a short distance and thinking that if their armies are only determined and brave, they will be able to win. There was also the arrogance in believing that the Turkish soldiers were a weaker class of soldiers that those of the British Empire.
This movie is an excellent demonstration of the patriotic naiveté of the masses of people in the early years of the First World War. The young Australian men depicted in this film had everything to look forward to and no real reason to risk their lives for British interests. The grandfather of the Mel Gibson character was murdered by the British, yet after some initial hesitation, he eventually volunteers to fight. Most of the movie is devoted to providing the background of the lives of these young men, how they reacted to the patriotic calls to action and how they interacted. They were comrades, both on and off the battlefield, standing together as mates.
All of this builds to the climax of what happened so many times in the First World War. The men were relatively safe in the trenches, yet were ordered to rise up and charge prepared and fortified Turkish positions on higher ground of the Gallipoli peninsula. Even after the first attack led to a slaughter, the commander, off somewhere out of sight of the killing area, ignored the statements of his field commander and ordered a second and third attack. The men knew that they were going to their deaths, yet, like good soldiers, they wrote notes to their loved ones and charged the Turks. When we were watching this action, my wife asked me, "Did this really happen?" My response was, yes, these were the standard tactics all along the Western front as well.
This is a powerful movie about war and the stupid political and military decisions that make it possible and lead to it being poorly executed. It was historically accurate, from the terrain and the action; you get a very realistic appraisal of one of the most pointless battles of the First World War. The British eventually withdrew from Gallipoli and abandoned the idea of seizing the straights, having accomplished nothing other than the senseless deaths of thousands of brave young men. Winston Churchill was forced to leave the British government, taking the blame for the entire operation.
July 13, 2008

Excellent Film About A Tragic Epsiode in History

The battle of Gallipoli is one of the more horrible episodes of the First World War. Australian and New Zealand forces were slaughtered by the Turkish troops in a bloody afair that has been celebrated in song "Waltzing Matilda" and in a National holiday in Australia.

This film follows a group of young Australian men who enlist and find themselves in this horrific scene. The majority of the film deals with the pre-battle establishment of who these guys are and allows for the viewer to begin to appreciate their characters before the final segment which is set during the battle itself.

The movie is really well done. Beautifully filmed ,well written and acted with outstanding performances including one from a very young looking Mel Gibson.

Ultimately this is a testiment to the absolute futilty of war and the sacrifice of young lives for what later turn out to be meaningless objectives. What I like is that the movie is not preachy or overtly anti-war, it just allows the images to speak for themselves. May 10, 2008

monument to incompetence

I have no idea how historically accurate this film is, but if it's close to right, then thanks go to Peter Weir for telling the story of these brave young men. Their nation wanted to do the right thing, but wasn't prepared. In their idealistic and over-zealous response to a perceived threat, they wasted many lives. Every military officer should have to watch this. In OCS I learned that "soldiers die tired and confused." May we not die due to incompetence, but only by the inherent risks of waging war. Since war will always be the final means of preserving freedom, it is our duty to stay prepared and proficient. August 18, 2007

Idealism and youth destroyed by war

Weir is a master when it comes to exploring human behavior and relationships in a confined space or rare situation, and this film is a fine example. Two young men, both runners, become friends who go off to war with the idea of defeating the Germans in WWI, but end up in the trenches fighting the Turks with virtually no way to win or even to stay alive. A horrifying yet necessary reminder of the way we keep sending young people off to die on foreign soil, for whatever cause. August 5, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...