Waterloo

I watched this movie for the first time in about 10 years today and one of the things that strikes me the most is how much more real it looks that the more recent war movies.

CGI is great for many things, but often detail get overlooked. In this film, because they are actually moving extras around there are clouds of dust everywhere. When the cannon fire, the black powder persists. The film has a real sense all through it of the fog of war.

On a personal note, I served in a Highland regiment, and it is a thrill to see a film where all of the kilts are not the same. The 92nd wear Gordon, Camerons wear Cameron of Erracht, and wonder of wonders both served at Waterloo.

While the terrain shown in the film is nothing like the field, the strength of the film lies the in characterizations of Wellington and Napoleon. Both actors are at the top of their game, although some specifics are off (Wellington wasn't a aristocrat - more younger son of Anglo-Irish gentry).

One of the things that I like about the film is the way the director has cut several times to show Napoleon and Wellington react to the same information. It does a great job of contrasting the differences and similarities of the two leaders.

Visually the film was breathtaking when I first say it in 1970, and it remains so.

***Possible Spoliers***

Waterloo is a fantastic film, and is worthy of more praise than it receives. I am a big fan of this era of warfare, and Waterloo is one of the few films that actually does it justice. The action scenes are like nothing else I have seen before. The portrayal of all the characters, not just Wellington and Bonaparte, was excellent, considering the epic size of the movie.

Both Christopher Plummer as the Duke of Wellington and Rod Steiger as Napoleon Bonaparte did fantastic jobs portraying their characters. Their performances were particularly excellent in the way that Steiger and Plummer acted their characters, in such differing ways, with Napoleon crying and saying ‘Goodbye My Sons' just before his abdication, whilst Wellington remarks to the Dutches of Richmond that his men are ‘scum of the earth'.

Both characters quirky humour is shown well with Wellington promoting the Irish private from the 27th regiment, better known as the Inniskilling, to corporal for being able to ‘defend a helpless situation' after Wellington caught him with a pig. Other characters such as General Sir Thomas Picton, Sir William Ponsonby and Lord Uxbridge were fantastic, but for mine the best co-starring role was that of Dan O'Herlihy as Marshall Michel Ney, the red-headed General who lost the Emperor his cavalry, just as Uxbridge lost Wellington his. O'Herlihy had great lines and portrayed Ney as a brave and courageous man.

As I eluded to earlier the battle scenes were fantastic, particularly the two cavalry charges, the best one being the French charge, led by the afore mentioned Marshall Ney. The shots of the French cavalry riding over the ridge to be faced with the British infantry in square are some of the best of the film. The charge of Britain's ‘heavies', the Life Guards, Inniskilling Horse and Scots Greys is the second best action sequence in the whole film.

The infantry sequences are reasonable also, but not as good as the cavalry sequences, and I am sure that the last volley, fired by the British Guards would have hit their own men, but anyway. The only quibble I have with the volley sequences are that the final scenes involving the Imperial Guard are different to what is portrayed in the books. History says that there were only a thin two deep line of redcoats, at the centre of the line, where Maitland's men were positioned, not three or four rows, but apart from that the battle scenes were excellent.

The only sad thing in the film, was the dubbed voice of Sir Thomas Picton, played by Jack Hawkins who had throat cancer at the time, and also the non-violent depiction of the battle scenes which did not accurately show the carnage and blood of the Battle of Waterloo.

Overall the film was fantastic, I would dearly love to track down the 5-hour directors cut which is rumoured to be around somewhere, and I must add that I was amazed that this film flopped at the box office. I thought cinema-goers would have lapped up this sort of epic action again and again, but obviously not.

The film version of Waterloo is almost totally historically accurate to the actual events of 1815; the events of that year make for a great story to tell, and it is translated extremely well to film. Even with some dramatization and poetic license thrown in we see what these men were really like and we get to understand what motivated Napoleon to take the course of action that he did. The costumes and sets are very well done, and you almost think you stepped out of a time machine when you see them. The film is a little longer than most, and being familiar with the actual events leading up to the battle helps to understand the film, so this movie may not appeal to everyone. Still, Waterloo is a great film, and while hard to find on video you should watch it if you ever get the chance.

After Bondarchuk made his colossal reproduction of War And Peace. ( Comparing King Vidor 's version to it is like comparing a paint by numbers watercolor to The Night Watch.) he was naturally chosen by the notorious Dino DeLaurentis to make the battle film to end all battle films, Waterloo.

Waterloo! Is any battle more famous, or more proverbial? With a superb score, a remarkable eye for detail, and stunning overhead shots. ( Not to mention an entire Soviet Army division ), Bondarchuk recreates the highlights of the Napoleonic battle to end all Napoleonic battles. ( Quite literally.)As far as I can tell, the only historical flaw is that The film makes it appear that Wellington's army was exclusively composed of British redcoats, ( Incidentally, one of the best British regiments wore GREEN coats.)when they were only about a third of the "Iron Dukes" polyglot and multi national army. The Kings German Legion, The Dutch, The Danes, the Hessians and the Belgians, are conspicuous by their absence.)

However, what really makes this film stand out is the excellent acting, beginning with the protagonists. Steiger, with his " New York School " method acting, captures the many shades of Napoleon's character: the brilliance, the rages, the sudden bouts of lethargy, the volcanic Corsican eruptions of love and hate.Plummer, the Canadian product of Stratford in the fifties when Sir Tyrone Guthrie was its guiding spirit, brings a very different style to a very different figure. Plummer's Wellington is dry, ironic, skeptical, a man of extraordinary coolness under fire, whose outward stoicism is relieved by sudden flashes of humor and even compassion. He has a job to do. He does it admirably, and at the end, he has lost all stomach for war. Dan O'Herlihy is superb as Ney, a man of extraordinary courage- and absolutely no judgment. Jack Hawkins, sadly at the end, still captures the gruff doggedness of Picton. Finally, there is Welles. This is from the phase of his career when he would do five minutes as Cardinal Wolsey, then five minutes as General Dreedle, all to raise enough money to somehow, someway, finish Don Quixote. Its Tuesday, so Orson is " working for the Russian on the Waterloo thing", doing five minutes as Louis the Seventeenth- and doing it magnificently, playing the corpulent shadow of the Bourbon dynasty as more of a tragic figure than buffoon.

A tremendous effort. Somehow, poor marketing, studio interference and the poor taste, historical ignorance and general stupidity of the American cinema going public lead to box-office failure, which had even more tragic consequences. Kubrick's proposed biopic on Napoleon was not green lighted, thus depriving the world of what should have an even greater film than Gance's Napoleon.

There can be no denying that this is a great film to watch.

Pure historians may dispair at some inaccuracies, although in a previous review I notice that a reviewer has made a few mistakes of his own! Air burst shells were quite the norm in fact the RHA were firing over the heads of the British troops at Hugomont the shells exploding over the French, these balls were hollow in nature and fused, in addition to this (although not seen in the film) were the RHA's rockets, which although forbidden by Wellington, were also fired of lierally. A feature I like which is included but wrong are the cannons shown in infantry squares firing at the advancing French cavalry and the troops then closing rank again to fend of the attackers. At the time of making it was still widely believed this happened.

A fair chunk of the story derives from Victor Hugo's descriptions of the battle which in turn were wrong. Bottom line is that I was a much younger man when the movie first came out and it fostered a great interest in finding out more. I feel it is a timeless 'film of its time'. Naturally a re-make would be a wonderful thing in todays modern world but the original does convey some of the depth, noise and smoke of the day.