Skip to main content

An Overlooked Comemoration Film


Journey’s End ought to have been released (and in other parts of the world most likely was) this past March. Because last month was the centennial of the Spring Offensive of 1918, which is depicted in this film based on 1928 play by R.C. Sherriff. Journey’s End isn’t the first adaptation of its story; it’s preceded by a 1930 film directed by James Whale, a 1931 film (retitled The Other Side) starring Conrad Veidt, and a 1976 film (retitled Aces High) starring Malcolm McDowell and Christopher Plummer. However, I’m certain this film, directed by Saul Dibb, is different enough in terms of its authentic style and grittiness to set it apart.
A despondent and traumatized Captain Stanhope (Sam Claflin) is dismayed when his girlfriend’s brother Lieutenant Raleigh (Asa Butterfield) joins up with his company just as they’re being sent to the front. Stanhope doesn’t want her to find out how the war has changed him while Raleigh is unprepared for the reality of the trenches.. As orders come in for raids and defensive measures, the men of C company attempt to cope and survive as best they can.
Journey’s End succeeds at immersing you in the sordid reality of the First World War. Most of the film is set in the trenches or officers dug-out of Saint-Quentin, northern France, and it grimly conveys the claustrophobia of being stuck there indefinitely waiting for fighting to resume. The resources are minimal, everything’s dirty and worn, and the spirits are damp. There’s one great sequence where the camera follows a pair of soldiers through the trenches fixed on their boots, and all the thick mud they have to march through -you can almost smell the putrid stench yourself. I’ve been to some of the real trenches, and as they are portrayed in this film, the fashion they’re laid out in, the sandbags, and barbed wire is all very accurate. And this is all helped by the fact that the characters we’re watching on screen react to these circumstances the way real people do.
All of the actors in this movie are great. Claflin, in his best performance yet (and playing a part originated by a young Laurence Olivier), understands the frustration his character is going through, having to command troops in a war that’s taken a grave toll on him. His PTSD and inability to comprehend it is also stunningly conveyed. He’s cynical too, thanks to experience with strategical blunders coming from higher-ups. And of course his relationship with Raleigh, his concern and annoyance with a friend being in this hell too, makes for an interesting conflict. Butterfield is also at his career-best, as a young man eager for action but not knowing the truth of what that means. In some ways he reminds me a lot of Lew Ayres’ idealistic young private in All Quiet on the Western Front. Raleigh however, doesn’t instantly turn on the war -at his rank he can’t afford to. And he remains hopeful but level-headed even after his first dose of violence. The story’s origin as a play is evident in how the audience gets to know each of the characters at least on some level, making you feel for them before their more-than-likely deaths. Paul Bettany is superb as Lieutenant Osborne, a former schoolmaster who’s Stanhope’s right-hand man and trusted counsellor. Stephen Graham is great as Lieutenant Trotter, an every-man with a sense of humour; Toby Jones works well as the mostly comic relief cook Private Mason, and Tom Sturridge is a sympathetic Lieutenant Hibbert, suffering even worse from PTSD than Stanhope. The film also features Robert Glenister as a sympathizing but safe Colonel, and a cameo from Miles Jupp.
The drama between Stanhope and Raleigh is probably the films’ weakness, largely due to the investment just not being there. The film also suffers a bit from predictability -one character is really set up to die so that there’s no surprise in it. And given the time period this story is set in and was originally written in, the script is really British -which isn’t a criticism, but is worth noting. There’s an etiquette to a lot of the dialogue and a number of characters are really posh. However the script is also dotted with subtle details. Though it’s never stated, the fact that the officer class came largely from wealthy families regardless of their capabilities is inferred heavily in the film, most notably in Raleigh being a Second Lieutenant despite being quite younger than most of the common tommies.  Another thing the movie indirectly touches on is the incompetence of the men running the war. And Dibb just makes some great choices with regards to editing and framing, particularly near the end.
Journey’s End is sort of a heavier, grittier Blackadder Goes Forth. It’s got a number of the same archetypes from that series, but depicts them in a serious light (however both endings have a similar gravity). It’s a very good war film, obviously timely, and satisfyingly accurate.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...