War Movies of the 18th and 19th Century

I'm dragging this out, but it's fun and it's my blog. There is not a lot to pick from here and not all of these are good movies, but they do show something about warfare back in those days. As always, it's an idiosyncratic list.

The Duelists, 1977. Stars Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel, based on a Joseph Conrad story about the Napoleonic wars. Gorgeous, fascinating and fun. Not so much about the big battles but about an idiotic duel fought for the notion of honour carried to the point of insanity. Guess which actor gets to play the crazy guy?

War and Peace, 1968, Sergei Bondarchuk's version. The definitive film adaptation of the novel with absolutely stunning battle reenactments. Apparently Bondarchuck got a few divisions from the Red Army to film this, along with an unlimited budget. The American version (with bad dubbing alas) was 6 hours long. The original Russian version at least 9 hrs. Much more than a war movie. I'd like to see it again in the original Russian with subtitles - or not.

Waterloo, also by Bondarchuk, 1971. Not nearly as good as War and Peace it still has remarkable reenactments of the battle with a cast of zillions. Worth seeing for that alone. Good movie score by Nina Rota. I did not like Rod Stieger as Napoleon - too hammy, even for the great Corsican. Still, if you want to know what a Napoleonic battle was like, and how "they came at us the same old way, and we beat them the same old way" this is the movie. Unfortunately it is marred by hammy acting and the use of studio shots of actors pretending to ride horses.

Gettysburg, whenever. Based on The Killer Angels, I could basically repeat the 'Waterloo' description, changing 'Napoleonic' for 'Civil War.' It does accurately show what the fighting was like, although like most American attempts at filming the Civil War it runs into one problem. There were no fat, or even well fed, Confederate troopers in that army! Ted Turner was behind this one. It's filmed on the actual battlefield. It shows Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock getting shot off his horse, which has a certain humor here in the Clemens household. My brother the Confederate nut likes it, even though he says the wrong general won. And Lee's accent is wrong. This is the movie that should have been directed by Sam Peckinpah. That would have been an American classic.

But he was dead.

Red Badge of Courage, a film recreation of the Stephen Crane novel. Good battle scenes for its time, now dated. Still, it is a classic story of American lit.


ooops. Time to go eat, Carmen says. I'll finish this later this evening.

Okay - that was fun. It's now very late and I have had some sangria so let's finish this up.

Two movies about the Zulu Wars that the British fought. The first one you should see is Zulu Dawn. Stars Burt Lancaster, Bob Hoskins, Peter O'Toole and basically the entire Zulu nation refighting their great victory at Isandlwana over the British. This is one of the few big budget war movies that is better as history than as a movie. Production values are high quality and it was filmed on location. Gives you a nice feel for what it was like to be facing 20,000 Zulu warriors when your ammo ran out.

The day after the massacre units of the Zulu army swept down on a small British detachment at Rorke's Drift. Against all odds, the detachment held out, winning a bucket load of Victoria Crosses. The British made much of this, since it distracted from the fact that a White Army armed with the latest equipment had just been slaughtered in detail by a 'native' army. Hence the movie of that action, called simply Zulu, 1964. It stars Michael Caine in the role that made him a star with American audiences. It tells a great story well - although it makes up most of the details. The battle scenes are even better staged and filmed than in 'Zulu Dawn'. If you only have it in you to set through one movie of the Zulu Wars, make it this one. Even Carmen liked it. Good score by John Barry too. BTW, this is the movie spoofed by Monty Python in 'The Secret of Life.'

And for a very personal review by a woman who first saw it when she was eleven and spent waay too much time thinking about it, one character in particular, click here.

There are lots of other movies that are now coming back to me, but I think I will end with Revolution, 1985, with Al Pacino. It tries too hard to show the real revolution but only succeeds in showing how a late 20th century liberal thinks the revolution ought to have been. Still, it's mildly entertaining and the battle scenes actually try to show how an 18th century British regiment went about earning its pay. For a negative, no, make that vitriolic, reaction to this movie, try here. The real reason I like this film is because the 15 minute battlefield scene is perfect for showing my warfare class how gunpowder changed warfare - and I don't have to write, or deliver, a lecture.

That's it for tonight. Next time: war movies of even earlier fiascos!

.