Category Archives: Trenches

by

Is Passchendaele (2008) the new Pearl Harbor (2001)?

“The British couldn´t do it, the French couldn´t do it. It´s  only us, the Canadian corps” (quote from the movie).

I was  tempted to write: “Once we had Pearl Harbor now we have Passchendaele” and leave it at that. But that won´t do. I´m afraid I must say, that this would have been an easy escape in terms of criticism for Passchendaele. And extremely unfair to Pearl Harbor. This coming from someone who thinks that Pearl Harbor does not even deserve the label “war movie”.

The story in a few words: As the war went on Canadians were getting more and more involved. Being only a little nation at the time, the participation of 600000 was enormous. 1 out of 10 did not come back. At Passchendaele alone 4 000 Canadians died and 12 000 were wounded. This unspeakable tragedy is meant to be shown. To illustrate this we see the exemplary story of one Sgt. who comes back after having fought at Ypern, on Vimy ridge etc. He’s a decorated war hero but shell-shocked. He has done something unspeakable and cannot forgive himself (apparently this bit is taken from Paul Gross´grandfather´s story of his participation in WWI). He is really bad off and won´t have to return. But, as some sort of love sacrifice (not going into details here I leave all the enjoyment of watching this movie and discover a piece of subtle sophisticated filmmaking to you. YES… I´m being sarcastic.), he goes back and ends up fighting at Passchendaele. This is one of the biggest and most notorious battles off WWI. Initially a success for the Canadians and their allies, in the end a failure due to the fact that a few months later Passchendaele was lost again to the Germans.

Watching Passchendaele I was feeling extremely stupid. Why did it escape my attention that this was again a hero + nurse + absurd conflict romance disguised as war movie? Unfortunately the romance part is nowhere near as good as the one from Pearl Harbor (Yes, I think Pearl Harbor is a very entertaining romance, well done). And the war parts? They are odd to say the least. We do see quite a bit of fighting. Between town ruins and in moors and muddy trenches. The odd bits reminded me of  Windtalkers (so watch out all you who liked Windtalkers). Many explosions, one unconvincing “in the trench of the enemy scene” plus, this was quite original, people keep on flying like puppets. Oh and… I almost forgot this…the way the Canadians are depicted is priceless. What a jolly crowd. Jolly, jolly, jolly. They never stop laughing not even when they are torn apart or their comrades come flying over their heads. Why? What in the name of everything does this mean? One last word: the conversations are among the worst ever heard. In the trench Sgt Dunne actually says to his lover´s young brother, explaining the war : “Forests burn cos they have to, oceans go up and down cos they have to…and I don´t think we are that different…(…) this is something we do cos we are good at it…” Forests burn cos they have to, eh? The inherent nature of the forest is to burn? Very deep. Abysmal.

You know what? Even though many Canadians appreciated this movie (probably purely because at last their heroic participation was brought to our awareness. NO. I´m not being sarcastic now.). … I think they would have deserved better. To be really blunt: I think this movie is shit.

Be it as it may, there is one good bit related to the death of the nurse´s father – no I won´t tell what it is – and I am sure: this movie has and will have its fans.

If I had watched the trailer before buying the DVD I would at least have known about the romance bit. Can´t judge a film by its cover, can we ? (Liked this one too much for my own good).

by

Trenches, Tanks and the odd Sub

Each individual war has generated numerous movies. And every war has its aficionados and this for very good reasons, because every war has its own topics and themes that are very specific for this special war and for this one only. Some of these topics are directly linked to historical facts (there will always only be one D-Day. Gallipoli stands for WWI and there was  no more Gettysburg since the Civil War etc.).  So if you are interested in one or the other of  these events, then, obviously,  you will be more into one or the other movie portraying that war. But there are of course themes beyond the historical details, facts, dates and battles….

The trenches, although still know in WWII, are essentially a theme of WWI. Hence the name “war of the trenches”, of course.  Submarines are linked to WWII. Jungle combat mostly took place during the Vietnam war (and to a lesser extent during WWII in the Pacific). Road blocks and suicide bombings  are typical for the Iraq war. Close range firing is a trait of the Civil War and other pre-technological wars.

I was always fascinated and horrified by the WWI trenches. To imagine that all the soldiers saw for days was just the heaven above them… The naming and characteristics of all those different trenches. Apparently English trenches were rather muddy whereas the French saw to their kitchen areas and the Germans managed to have theirs  equipped like comfortable houses (Paul Fussels book “The Great War and Modern Memory” gives some astounding accounts).

One of my very favourite movies, Merry Christmas (Joyeux Noel) is a fine example of a WWI movie located to a large extent in the trenches. Sure, this movie goes far beyond the depiction of the life in the trenches. I will write about this at a later date.

But what was especially horrifying was the way those young soldiers had to get out of the trenches and run towards extinction on the field in front of them. They ran and fell and died, row after, row after row. Nowhere was this more drastically shown as in Gallipoli.