Currently Listening: Everclear, "So much for the afterglow"
Currently Drinking: Blueberry tea
Last night I went to see Passchendaele. I was excited to see it. There are very few war movies that deal with the First World War and fewer that focus on a Canadian battle from a Canadian perspective. I was worried though. You could tell from the trailer that there was going to be a love story component. I'm not completely against using the elements of a love story, but it shouldn't become the focus of the film. However, CanWest was promoting the hell out of the movie with trailers and a weekly series, The Road to Passchendaele. Each episode talked about a different aspect of the production: one week, the historical consultants were interviewed about their role in the movie, another week, the Canadian Forces personnel who played extras in the movie were interviewed to talk about their experience making the movie. There was no discussion of the love story, so I thought that perhaps the love story was not going to be a major part of the film.
Boy, was I wrong. The love story is the central element of the movie. The war is only a backdrop. And barely at that. The majority of the movie takes place in Calgary, where Sgt. Michael Dunne, played by Paul Gross, returns after being diagnosed with shell shock. Here, Dunne works as a recruitment officer for the local 10th Battalion and meets his love-interest, Sarah Mann, played by Caroline Dhavernas. During this time in Calgary, the movie does a good job of showing how the war affected the home front, especially in terms of recruitment during the later years of the war. Before the Canadian Government enacted conscription in 1917, the number of enlistments were drying up. The old recruiting slogans of "For King and Country" and "Join the Canadian Expeditionary Force and see the world" no longer held their strong sway as they did earlier in the war. But I thought this was a movie about Passchendaele, not Calgary during the First World War.
Even when the movie finally gets to Passchendaele, again the focus is the love story. Michael goes back to the front to protect Sarah's brother, David, and Sarah goes back to the front to follow Michael. There are a few battle scenes and the movie ends with the doctor at the aid station announcing: "We took Passchendaele." And that, according to Paul Gross, was the Battle of Passchendaele.
The other problem I felt from which the movie suffered was the use of cheesy war movie imagery - especially near the end of the movie where Michael runs across the battlefield to rescue David who is injured and tied to structure that looks like a cross. Luckily, according to the movie, the Germans went through the same basic training program that the Empire's Stormtroopers went through, so they couldn't hit the side of a barn with their rifles. The supreme cheese came when Michael loses his strength from carrying David several yards. However, Michael's strength is renewed when the rain stops and the sun comes out. He is then able to carry David above his head and back to the aid station.
The movie also suffered from a bad script. Lines like "in love, there is only one rule...don't die" and Michael's "poem" (oh yes, those quotation marks are intentional) certainly do not help. Oh yeah, we know that there was a lot of rain at Passchendaele, but every single scene until the end? Even when you can see the sun and shadows in the background? The producers certainly got their money out of the rain machine.
I do feel like a douche lambasting a Canadian movie about an important point in Canada's military history. I did very much enjoy the end credits where the movie shows archival footage from the First World War (certainly one of the few truly historically accurate moments of the film). I applaud Paul Gross for the effort; unfortunately, his effort falls flat. However, I think he bit off way more than he could chew, as he was the movie's star, writer, and director.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch a good war movie so I can push the bad memory of Passchendaele out of my head.
4 comments:
So the focus on Historimical Consultationing made you warm & gooey inside, but then the movie made you sad (and not in the way P. Gross intended).
When will Hollywood (North) learn to listen to the public historians?
Sheesh!
Seriously though, that movie sounds brutal. And I used to think P. Gross was dreamy.
I don't know how much a historitician could have helped revive the movie. The movie suffered from that terminal writing disease, craptaculitis.
I certainly have lost respect for Mr. Gross after this movie.
A peep calls this genre "histploitation."
Another peep notes that "Hollywood has run out of ideas, so they lift stories from The History. But they can't even make decent movies out of interesting events."
I love the term "histploitation". Although, I don't think Pam Grier driving in a white Lincoln could have saved this movie :).
Post a Comment