Professor David Peimer
WWI Films: All Quiet on the Western Front and Other Films

Professor David Peimer - WWI Films: All Quiet on the Western Front and Others

- Hi to everybody. So today we’re going to dive into looking at a number of clips from quite a few films made about the First World War. And chosen for obvious reasons. And I guess the overall question I wanted to ask myself was, “Can films ready resist either sensationalising or being over-sentimental about the way they represent war?” And in particular, the First World War, in this case. And in addition, just some approaches to how films, going way back to the ‘20s, and very, very contemporary recent versions of films about the First World War, how they have, I think, influenced and changed our perception of that war. And obviously, films are going to change over time. So it’s whether they continue to sensationalise or not. Or able to resist it, rather, and resist being sentimental. Because there’s obviously a potential for both. And the second main question for me, which fascinates me, is that relationship between historical accuracy and fiction. Because all of these are, except for one, which I’m going to show, the Peter Jackson documentary film. All the rest are fictionalised versions of events that either happened or events, stories coming out of the First World War. So that fascinating overlap between historical accuracy and fictionalising in art; in this case, film. So, which art has always done over the centuries. Thousands of years, as everybody knows. And film being such a powerful media, and, you know, what has been the approach of what, for me, are very interesting and provocative filmmakers about this. And I’m going to, basically, what I’ve hoped to have chosen is the films that I feel do resist, to a large degree, either sensationalising or being over-sentimental about the horror of war.

And in the way that the first World War poets, you know, the Wilfred Owens and some of the German poets I looked at, and some of the lesser known poets last week. In the way that they, for the first time, really, are writing literature, which is a savage attack and satire on the grotesque horror of war. The sheer slaughter, in the old phrase of, “The soldiers were lions who were led by donkeys.” How it was such a seemingly nonsensical slaughterhouse of a war. Of course, we can analyse it historically and conceptually about, you know, the rise of German nationalism, as opposed to British and English nationalism, and the French and the Belgians and so on. And of course, Europe is vying for nationalistic supremacy. And Germany, being unified only in the 1870s, rising even more. And how the Kaiser, you know, takes that much further. But I think it’s partly, of course, for historical reasons, as we all know, the rise of nationalism. And the horror we see beginning to be repeated more and more in our times. But how it just suddenly flipped over into such extreme horror of a mechanised, machine-driven approach to warfare, where human life literally was with worth less than a rat. You know, as, as Isaac Rosenberg’s poem alludes to. So I wanted to choose these films, and they’re going to show very different approaches, from German to British to American to French. Chosen a whole range of directors here. And going to start with the great classic of them all, probably. And the one that I think originates the, in film, this whole attitude and this approach of this change. The book of “All Quiet on the Western Front,” and the film. the first Hollywood version of it was 1927. Remarque, the author, was 18 when he was called up for service in the war.

And, you know, he wrote about how it destroyed his generation, not only obviously physically, but psychologically. It changed everything of youth, generation, youth and adult. It changed everything in terms of demanding a future for working and perhaps middle class people who may not have had the votes and other things. It destroyed the old approach in many of the, of the European countries, of the systems of rule. And of course, we all know the change in Germany leading to Weimar for, you know, a short decade and a half. And then, of course, the rise of Hitler in '33. So, and of course the First World War, as many have have commented. The Second, really, was a continuation of that, you know, with the benefit of hindsight and looking back historically. So it’s a comment on nation and power in the way that I don’t think literature or film ever commented before on that combination. And the absolute grotesqueness of the notion of patriotism, and how patriotism can be pushed so far that it becomes just a meat grinder, literally. And patriotic fervour and what that does in relation to survival and anger. And when caught up in such patriotic fervour and then it goes to the extreme opposite of, really, total disillusionment and rage. And the psyche of the soldier, the psyche of the continent, and the world, literally, for me, going into shell shock.

His novel resonated for readers in Europe, America. Over half a million copies were sold in Germany after he published. And over a million in America and the UK. So this novel obviously struck such a chord and had mass circulation and readership. Obviously, all before the ascension to power of the Nazis in '33. Hollywood, interestingly, a small studio chose to make it. Maxwell Anderson, the really interesting and really good playwright, was brought on to be the writer and understood the power of what he was doing and understood the power of the novel. Paul, the main character, is a simple, naive youth. He’s sincere, he’s naive. He’s caught up in the patriotic fervour. And then, of course, we see step by step how he’s crushed and destroyed. And he becomes an everyman of his era and of his time. So it’s fascinating to me that this novel, together with the poetry, and then later, some other films, capture it far more than other novels might have. As Hemingway said, it was the poetry that, for him, captured so much of this changed attitude to writing about war. And if you go way back to Homer writing about the Trojan War in “The Iliad” and “The Odyssey.” And I mean, it’s as grotesquely described and the cutting of bodies and the cutting of limbs and necks and arms and everything. But it’s imbued with a philosophical insight, questions about heroism, courage, romance, adventure. So in the ancient Greek, it’s a combination of all of these with a warning about the wisdom of war and how to conduct war. These, from “All Quiet on the Western Front” onwards, are, I think, much more just a savage take-down of war of all kind in the mechanised era. The way they just run into machine gun fire, and they know they’re going to be dead within seconds. You know, and in so many scenes like that, we see the tracking shots. It’s so innovative with the camera.

The zoom, the zoom in the vast scope of the war. Suddenly, the camera goes right back. It was a sensation, technically, when the film was released. And the sense of authenticity and inner life of character being really portrayed. And focusing on that psychological inner life of character, which is a huge change in filmmaking. And of course, how potent the sound effects were. And that the main protagonist is German, not British or American or French, one of the allies. You know, it shifts everything. And of course, I guess what is shown for me in the first time, in film, really, was the massive influence of mass propaganda and the techniques of mass propaganda. It’s an everyman story of a guy who goes from fervent patriotism to sheer insanity and is killed 15 minutes before the end of the First World War. Literally, 15 minutes before the armistice takes place. Interestingly, that a third of all money made from the film was made in Germany in the '20s, even into the early '30s. And Germany was a huge market for Hollywood. Highly sophisticated. I mean, there were all the problems, of course, but highly sophisticated audience, remarkable advent of German technology in film. So there was a very knowledgeable audience ready made in Germany. Third of the money was, that were made in Hollywood, came from Germany. The novel released also in 1927. And then, of course, you know, it all begins later. We see the hints of antisemitic theories, the glory, the valour of war.

And how he utterly destroys it in the book and in in the movie. In Germany, after the the Nazis gained power, the Nazis… Well, in fact, in 1930, a whole lot of Nazis went to a number of cinemas around Germany, and they set off stink bombs, they caused riots, they caused fights. And they tried to force the shutdown of the film in many of the film theatres around Germany. Of course, in 1933, it’s banned after Hitler gets to power. And this was one of the first novels that were burnt, obviously. The reasons are clear, you know, that we don’t have to go into. I think it’s fairly clear. The film is not exactly faithful to the novel, entirely. Quite a few changes of characters, dialogue, other things. It doesn’t matter. The main ideas that I’ve been describing are absolutely the, if you like, the material through-line in the movie. And the violence of the system, the violence of the leadership, you know, that phrase of “Lions led by donkeys.” The violence of that is portrayed to some degree in this version of the film. So I want to show, this is the, if we can go onto slide two, please, Lauren. And this is the trailer from the 1927 Hollywood version.

CLIP BEGINS

• You matter! You know how much you’re needed. Ah, I see you look at your leader. And I, too, look to you Paul Bäumer, and I wonder what you are going to do.

• I’ll go.

• I want to go!

• Me, too!

• I don’t see that. The Kaiser’s got everything he needs.

• Well, he never had a war before. Every full-grown emperor needs one war to make him famous.

• I’ll tell you how it should all be done. Whenever there’s a big war coming on, you should rope off a big field-

• And sell tickets.

• Yeah. And… And on the big day, you should take all the kings and their cabinets and their generals, put 'em in the centre dressed in their underpants and let 'em fight it out with clubs. The best country wins.

• [Narrator] Never before, and perhaps never again, will the screen capture so completely, so profoundly, the emotional crises of men whose utter loneliness ate away their hearts. Whose pathetic yearning for love drove them to distraction. Whose shear terror knew no bounds.

• [Narrator] This is the immortal screen achievement, which has become more dramatic, more vital, with every passing year. See it, see it again. See it with your heart wide open, for this is the motion picture about which it can truly be said, “No man or woman can afford to miss it.”

CLIP ENDS

• Thanks, Lauren. So this is, for me, it’s the sound effects of gunfire, of shells exploding. And you know, in the other parts of the film, the singing, the earlier sections of patriotic fervour. And also the marching boots. And it’s the sound effects, together with the visuals, of seeing just these, you know, these images we now know so well. But this is where it began. This is where it originated, in all those images. You know, the barbed wire, the hands, the faces, et cetera. So for me, it’s always so important to look at, you know, where did these images begin? In terms of showing it to a huge audience so close up, the absolute horror of war. And for me, nothing sensationalist and nothing really sentimental about it either, you know. And if I imagine, if we imagine being in 1927 watching this and the shock we might have all felt. Although we might’ve all known people coming back from the war, or people killed, maimed, injured, it would’ve brought home in such a visceral and oral way, I think so powerfully. You know, and I compare it often to how we are shown Ukraine at the moment and other wars, where, you know, it’s much more choreographed. It’s more staged. And, you know, we get a few individual stories here and there, but we don’t get into the battlefield, itself. We don’t get into those moments of life or death, you know, in, literally, in the whistle of a bullet. Okay, if we can, the next one. This is now the Netflix very recent version of “All Quiet on the Western Front.”

CLIP BEGINS AND ENDS

• What I found profoundly moving about this Netflix very recent version of the novel is obviously how they’ve used sound effects to effect so powerfully the visuals. And the juxtaposition, to use, you know, the great Eisenstein’s theory of montage, the juxtaposition of images. We go from, literally, terrified, waiting for a shell. We’re actually waiting that extra second or two for the shell to explode. We’re with the soldiers. And then, we can jump to the politicians, whether to make peace or not, or the leadership, and so on. So it’s bringing in, in a much more visceral way, the political and military leaders compared to what the ordinary soldiers are experiencing, you know, with all the graphic horror. And how to make that graphic horror not sensationalist and certainly not sentimental. But how to try and find innovative ways so it’s not just the same old images, you know, which are thrown out again and again. Because the other danger with this is that it can become stale. And we can become, let’s be honest, bored. Tired of actually seeing, well, we know all these images, the trenches, the mud, the barbed wire, the machine gun fire. You know, seen it, done it, you know, got the t-shirt. Show us something. How to find a way in? And I think they’ve chosen to take their patriotism, take the military political leadership to a much further degree than in the actual novel.

Take the journey of Paul, in particular, and give him much more of an inner psychology. Not necessarily that he needs to speak so much, but captured in the acting, in the face and in the body of the main character. And, you know, which is a very contemporary approach. And of course, the remarkable advantage of contemporary cinematography. And, you know, all the effects that we are capable of today. But we see again, the huge influence of nearly a hundred years ago, 80, 90 years ago, of the first Hollywood version. And everything still refers back to that version, for me. So I mean, if anybody wants Bob Dylan in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. He spoke about the three great novels or books that influenced him so much, is this fantastic, I love that speech. And he talks about “Moby Dick.” He talks about Homer’s “The Odyssey,” and “All Quiet on the Western Front.” He isolates those as the three main literary pieces, and he talks about them quite a lot, that had such an influence on him at a very young age. And if you think about a young Dylan, or anybody in the world, you know, that was his introduction to poetic and literary education. Okay, I want to move on from “All Quiet.” We’re going to watch the next one, which is a recent film, a couple of years ago, of the fantastic British director, Sam Mendes. I’m sure many people remember, you know, some of his films and the plays and opera he’s directed. I think he’s a wonderful director. And this is, basically, the story. It’s called “1917.” The film, basically, a story about how one brother is sent to another camp, where his other brother is part of a separate platoon to warn a battalion, to warn them not to attack because they’ll be walking into a slaughterhouse.

Because the Germans have had advanced warning that they’re going to attack. And basically, the camera, the long shots follow… It follows as if we are following the main character running to find his brothers. You know, carrying the message, because of course, in those days, there was much more, you know, the message carried by hand. It’s stunningly filmed. And it feels like a continuous travelling shot, which is a massive innovation that Sam Mendes is doing. We also get in this film how the, for me, the main idea that that Mendes is trying to get across is how everybody is lulled into a false sense of security by what might have been a German retreat. But actually, and so the imminent big push from the allied forces to clinch victory. But it’s not. And there’s a last ditch hope that he can save his brother and his brother’s fellow soldiers in the platoon or the battalion. So we have the personal linking with the much bigger picture of “The big push” and all those phrases, you know, similar to “Saving Private Ryan,” it’s a story of brothers. And in so close that we’re following the one to the other. To me, there are echoes, and I’m going to show “The Paths of Glory” of Kubrick, in the late '50s. “Apocalypse Now.” You know, all of these things have influenced, I think, Mendes in it. But it’s a bold, thrilling approach. And the ability to be thrilling, in terms of the story, without being sensationalist and falling into the trap of romantic adventure of war story. Like a single shot technique. Okay, if we can show it, please, Lauren.

CLIP BEGINS

• Bloke, pick a man, bring your kit.

• I hoped today might be a good day. Hope is a dangerous thing.

• You have a brother in the second battalion.

• Yes, sir.

• [Officer] They’re walking into a trap. Your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow morning’s attack. If you fail, it will be a massacre.

• Let’s talk about this for a minute.

• Why? We’ve got orders to cross here.

• That is the German front line.

• Fall back!

• If we’re not clever about this, no one will get to your brother.

• I will.

• [Officer] There is only one way this ends. Last man standing. ♪ I’m going there ♪ ♪ To see my father ♪ We need to keep moving! Come on! ♪ I’m going there no more to mom ♪

• We can’t possibly make it that way, man. You bloody insane?

• If you don’t get there in time, we will lose 1600 men, your brother among them. Good luck. ♪ I’m only going over home ♪

CLIP ENDS

• So for me, here, you know, as I was mentioning, I think what he achieves so fantastically is the idea of romantic adventure. Boys going off to war. I mean, 18 years old, 19, 20. The romantic adventure, the heroism, the patriotism is utterly demolished. But it is put inside a brother-brother story. And again, the donkey-type leadership of these generals, colonels who have organised all these things. You know, their 1600 boys will be slaughtered if one soldier doesn’t get one handwritten message to another battalion, you know, maybe a couple of miles away. You know, it is as simple and mad, if you like, as that, in a way. And these things, to me, take it out of the trap of possible sensationalism, and certainly nothing sentimental. Okay, we’re going to go on to the next film, which is Spielberg’s “War Horse,” based on, you know, the really quite remarkable and intriguing play. Obviously, we all know a staged “War Horse.” And with the puppets, et cetera, a South African group, Handspring, doing those fantastic puppets. Okay, if we can show this “War Horse.” And just as a reminder, sorry, just before we show it, is, in case some haven’t seen it, it’s basically the story of the war told through the eyes of a horse and a young boy who joins the army in the First World War because his horse has been pulled up, if you like. Because, of course, there were millions of horses used in the First World War. So it’s a fascinating approach to telling the story through, almost telling it through the horse. But the young boy, 16, 17 years old who joins. And it’s his love of his animal. Spielberg’s trying his best to find another way to tell this war story.

CLIP BEGINS

• [Soldier] What is it?

• It’s a horse they found wandering about in no man’s land.

• [Soldier] What kind of an horse?

• [Old Man] A miraculous kind of an horse’d be my guess.

• [Barker] England is at war! We are at war!

• I promise you that I’ll look after him. And if I can, I’ll return him to your care.

• He’s my horse, sir.

• Can you imagine flying over a war? And you know you can never look down.

• You have to look forward, or you’ll never get home.

• [Officer] It is an honour to ride beside you! Let every man make himself and his country proud. Be brave. Be brave. Be brave!

CLIP ENDS

• I think there’s something fascinating, obviously, about the novel, and then what Steven Spielberg’s trying to do, which is to come in with a totally different approach. It’s really interesting to tell the story of the First World War, it’s almost through the eyes of the horse. You know, all those shots of the horse in the eyes, it’s neck, the body, you know, which are so vulnerable and so beautiful, you know. The magical sense of the horse. And the young boy who’s 16 and lies about his age because that’s his horse and he loves him. He lies about his age to try and, you know, join up and look after his horse. Horse is one of millions who are going to be slaughtered and killed. But I think Spielberg’s really trying to sensitise us to war, and the First World War, in this very different way, through the horse. Does it risk being sentimental? Does it risk not giving us the bigger picture of the political military leaders? Does it risk some of the gruesome horror of so many soldiers just dying for absolutely nothing? And youth and all the other ideas? There is always that risk. But I do think what he achieves is that image of that horse cannot ever be forgotten. You know, and when we see images of war today, of cyber and drones and other things, and perhaps there’s an image not necessarily of an animal, but of a human, of a child, of a teenager, of a soldier, of an elderly person, whoever.

You know, I think he does try to sensitise us through this very different approach to what’s, essentially, mass killing. And of course, there are heart-stopping moments. And you know, he’s been accused of sentimentality. But I think that it remains something poignant. We look back a couple of years later, after seeing the film perhaps, that image of that horse doesn’t go away. And it shifts in quite a unique way the approach to the age-old question, “How do we represent war without just being a naive, romantic adventure and a fantastical, heroic adventure story of young kids?” Okay, if we can go onto the next one, please. And this is fascinating. This is Peter Jackson. We all know the, for me, quite brilliant New Zealand director. And this is his documentary on how… And he’s taken, literally, documentary clips of ordinary soldiers and taken them out of black-and-white, put them in colour, as of course they would’ve been.

And what he does with digital technique, and what he’s doing with colour and sound based on actual footage from the First World War, he locates it all in the ordinary soldiers and their ordinary daily experiences. And it’s that very banal ordinariness that, for me, captures the extreme horror that is to come. And he’s used 21st century technology to put the humanity back into old black-and-white movie stock. It’s a fascinatingly innovative approach to filmmaking for me. The documentary is called “They Shall Not Grow Old,” which, of course, is from the famous poem we all know. And it’s a snapshot of soldiers lives. British soldiers or the colonial soldiers, as well, who went to fight in Europe. Lied about the ages to get in. And the other part of the documentary is that they aren’t, and forgive my colleagues and friends, and everybody, there aren’t narrators, there aren’t historians, there aren’t academics, there aren’t political commentators. We just hear the voices of them as they are, and sometimes the voices of the veterans. If we can show it, please, Lauren.

CLIP BEGINS

• [Veteran 1] I was 16 years old, and my father allowed me to go.

• [Veteran 2] I was just turned 17 at the time.

• [Veteran 3] I was 16.

• [Veteran 4] And I was 15 years.

• [Soldier] When they came to us, they were frightened children, and had to be made into soldiers.

• All right, boys. Here he comes. We’re in the pictures!

• [Veteran 4] I gave every part of my youth to do a job.

• Stay in this part of the trench, over there.

• [Veteran 3] There was a job to be done, and you just got on and did it.

CLIP ENDS

• I think what Peter Jackson has achieved, for me, is taking documentary a whole big step forward by, first of all, putting colour into it, which is obviously how it would’ve been experienced. Take out the black-and-white. which can have a dating effect, I think, on an audience. Secondly, ordinary soldiers. There aren’t any interviews with, or images, rather, of leadership, political or military. Thirdly, it’s veterans talking. It’s only their voices. Or it’s actual voices of the soldiers, themselves. And of course, the sounds, you know, that he’s digitally mastered, if you like. But I think the biggest achievement that he has is the connection between history, documentary film, nonfiction and fiction. And throws out a challenge to everyone. How do we take history again and again, with all those remarkable stories of history, in this case, the war, and how do we use nonfiction and fiction techniques? How do we use contemporary film and digital techniques to educate, to entertain, to capture, to rivet a contemporary audience? I think film, in this sense, as an educational tool, becomes a time machine. By going back into the past, again, colour not black-and-white, he ironically makes it contemporary. And makes memory come so alive in a refreshing way for us. Bringing history into the present by using these techniques I’ve mentioned. Okay, the next one we’re going to go onto is Kubrick. One of Kubrick’s very early, “Paths of Glory,” 1957 film. And, sorry, I should just say this at the beginning. If you can just hold it please, Lauren. Thanks. It’s important, the story is, it’s inspired by a real incident.

And this is really “Lions led by donkeys,” where the general is an officer, who in 1916, ordered a suicidally pointless attack on a German stronghold. And after the utter fiasco, he ordered three men to be chosen by a lot, a chance, to be shot for cowardice. And we see that that is the essence of the story. And then, in addition, how they calculate the percentages of acceptable loss. That is something that happens. And the resulting execution scene much later of these three. And Kubrick is looking at the leadership, so callous, so cold, so uncaring, and so ruthlessly, simply, calculating, as if they’re selling, you know, how many apples to sell or not. It’s a sickening sense of the petty tyranny of the donkeys in the leadership behind the lines. And Kubrick is really trying to take that on for me more than what we’ve seen so far, the soldiers, the mud, the trenches, and the ordinary guy. And trying to imbue us with a sense of, well, what’s the role of the leader? Okay, if we can show it, please.

CLIP BEGINS

• Would you like me to suggest what you can do with that promotion?

• Colonel Dax, you will apologise at once, or else you’ll be placed under arrest!

• I apologise for not being entirely honest with you. I apologise for not revealing my true feelings. I apologise, sir, for not telling you sooner that you’re a degenerate, sadistic old man. And you can go to hell before I apologise to you now or ever again!

• [Narrator] Since the publication of the book 25 years ago, no one dared to make this movie. It was too shocking, too frank.

• What sort of casualties do you anticipate, sir?

• Mmm, say 5% killed by our own barrage. That’s a very generous allowance. 10% more in going through no man’s land. And 20% more going through the wire. That leaves 65% with the worst part of the job over. Let’s say another 25% in actually taking the anthill. We’re still left for the force more than adequate to hold it.

• General, you’re saying that more than half my men will be killed.

• Aside from the inescapable fact that a good many of your men never left the trenches, there’s the question of the troops’ morale, don’t forget that.

• The troops’ morale?

• Certainly. These executions would be a perfect tonic for the entire division. There are few things more fundamentally encouraging and stimulating than seeing someone else die.

• Where in heaven’s name are they?

• They’re on the left, sir.

• Why on the left?! Zero plus one and they’re still the trenches. They’re not advancing. Those miserable cowards. They’re not advancing. The barrage is getting away from them. They’re still in the trenches!

• Yes, sir.

• Captain Nichols.

• Yes, sir?

• Order 75s to commence firing at our own positions.

CLIP ENDS

• So for me, one of my all-time favourite directors, Stanley Kubrick. I’m sure many people, as well. And this is, obviously, you know, the film he made in 1957. And echoes of the influence of the original “All Quiet on the Western Front.” You know, in so many of the images, the close up, the long shot. But what he also brings in at such an early stage is that combination of the ruthlessness of the leadership and the callousness of it, in relation to, you know, the ordinary soldier. Or the captain is caught between the two, trying to protect his troops, but at the same time, he’s got to carry out the order. There’s something, there is no sentimentality, no sensationalism in any of this. And I’m reminded of some aspect of “Full Metal Jacket,” which of course Kubrick made much, much later in his life. Even “Apocalypse Now.” But you know, where they try to take out any hint of romantic sensationalism by giving it that broader political context, if you like. And I think that’s what helps it so much. It has to take out any sense of heroic romantic adventure. Okay, the next one is a very different kind of film. And one of the films that we all, I mean, I’m sure have seen and, you know, is eternally fascinating, “Lawrence of Arabia.” And what’s interesting here to me is it’s a focus on the… Peter O'Toole was, of course, was quite a newcomer at the time. And not only his blue eyes. But it’s one man, individual. Was he working as a British agent? Was he naive, wasn’t he? To get the Arabs up against, you know, the Arab-Turkish conflict in order to help the British army?

I’m not going to get into all those debates about Lawrence’s actual role as a British agent or not. And, or… But it’s an interesting thing for me of a British soldier brought up in that very traditional way, and yet trying to keep two feet, one foot in each camp of each culture. Of the Arabic culture, and of course, his inherited British semi-aristocratic culture. There are long shots. There is a sense of the adventure and romantic and exotic, which Lawrence is caught up in completely. It’s enticing, it’s exciting, it’s heroic. And yet, there is still something about gripping, about an individual life lived so fully, so completely. There is the grand spectacles: the long shots, the dunes, the sand, the desert. There’s heroic drama. It’s all of those things I mentioned earlier. But we have to see the nuance. We have to see the nuance in, we get caught up together with Lawrence, and then we go through some of the disillusionment, the excitement. We get so inside the character that it’s much more complex and complicated. Very different approach to war. If we can show the clip, please.

CLIP BEGINS

• [Narrator] I deem him one of the greatest beings alive in our time. We shall never see his like again. His name will live in history. It will live in the annals of war. It will live in the legends of Arabia.

• [Lawrence] Who is he?

• [Tafas] Bedu.

• Tafas!

• What is your name?

• My name is for my friends. And none of my friends is a murderer. Come on, men!

• [Narrator] For over a quarter of a century, controversy has raged around the name of T.E. Lawrence. No man of our time has drawn upon himself so much praise and so much criticism. Lawrence of Arabia, the man torn between two civilizations. Lawrence of Arabia, filmed against a canvas of awesome magnificence.

• Lieutenant Lawrence, sir, is not your military advisor.

• But I would like to hear his opinion.

• Dammit, Lawrence! Who do you take her orders from?

• From Lord Faisal, in Faisal’s tent.

• [Narrator] Hailing the birth of a new star, Peter O'Toole as Lawrence of Arabia. What was he really like, this controversial figure who became a legend in his own lifetime?

• [Officer] He was the most extraordinary man I ever knew.

• [Man] He was a very great man.

• [Reporter] He was a poet, a scholar, and a mighty warrior. He was also the most shameless exhibitionist since Barnum and Bailey. What, in your opinion, do these people hope to gain from this war?

• They hope to gain their freedom.

• There’s one born every minute.

• They’re going to get it, Mr. Bentley. I’m going to give it to them.

• [Narrator] Lawrence and Lawrie, together, they made history. Now a gathering of international stars unfolds the story. Alec Guinness as Prince Faisal.

• The English have a great hunger for desolate places. I fear they hunger for Arabia.

• [Narrator] Anthony Quinn, as Auda Abu Tayi.

• I carry 23 great wounds, all got in battle. 75 men have I killed with my own hands, in battle. I scatter, I burn my enemy’s tents. I take away their flocks and herds. The Turks pay me a golden treasure, yet I am poor because I am a river to my people.

• [Narrator] Jack Hawkins as General Allenby.

• I believe your name will be a household word, when you would have to go to the war museum to find who Allenby was. You’re the most extraordinary man I ever met.

• Leave me alone.

• Huh?

• Leave me alone.

• [Narrator] José Ferrer as the Turkish Bey.

• Your skin is very fair.

• [Narrator] Also starring Anthony Quayle, Claude Rains, Arthur Kennedy. With Omar Sharif as Ali, and Peter O'Toole as Lawrence.

CLIP ENDS

• So I mean, the screenplay by Robert Bolt, one of the really, really top playwrights, for me, British playwrights, in fact, global. You know, with the script, it’s such a nuanced, complex script. It has the grand spectacle. It has the heroic drama. It has the romantic adventurer, heroic figure. Of course, Peter O'Toole, you know, with his eyes and that handsome face, that look. And he’s a visionary, he’s a seducer. Is he a sinner or a saint? Is he both? I think it’s all the complexities in it, because he’s also a poet and he’s a writer, a philosopher, a thinker. By giving him all those other attributes, that’s what, for me, takes the film out of just being condemned as sensationalist, or just romanticising war or the romantic hero-adventurer who can, you know, turn armies and change people. Because he has all those other qualities which make it intriguing and fascinating. And his own loyalties are divided. He falls between the two cultures, you know. And we see the imagined acidic marshal heroism and romance of the Arab culture that he identifies with. But he’s also so English and so British. You know, he’s part of that. We see the adventure of war, but we also see the horror. So through this very complex personality, and ultimately, there’s a great line much later in the film, which Lawrence admits to the general what really terrified him was that he discovered he loved killing.

You know, it’s echoed in the Michael Cain film, “Zulu.” Similar sort of line. And it changes everything so much when we see this and witness what, for me, is a very complex script, ultimately, by Robert Bolt. Okay, the next one to show is the great Peter Weir film, “Gallipoli,” with a very young Mel Gibson. The idealism of the young Australian youth. We see them in sports, and running and sports. And then, of course, being called up to the utter disaster that was the Gallipoli campaign in the First World War. If we can show it, please. Thanks, Lauren, yup. Okay, thank you. So, I mean, here, it’s all the idealism, it’s the romance, it’s the adventure of their, you know, they’re sports guys, they’re young, and they’re going to join up, and they’re going to go. And what I really like about it, it’s from a very different, much more physical culture. You know, the Australian boys going into the wards. And the music is so deceptive. You know, all that light music. But every now and then, it’s got gunshots playing inside it. So it looks like it could begin as the archetypal sports movie. And the last 20 minutes ends with, of course, the horrifying reality that we know. Young athletes being shipped off to war, basically. As the army recruiting sergeant says after one of the races of the boys, “Come and find out how to get into the greatest game of all.” The greatest “game” of all. Which would go way back to the ancient Romans, the ancient Greeks. This is the greatest game, the greatest adventure. You know, “Join the army, and you’ll see the world,” et cetera. All those phrases we know so well.

And what comes, and that’s the first 25 minutes of the film, is seeing them in sports games and so excited in Australia. And then, only the last 20 minutes, we see the horror of the actual war. So Peter Weir’s trying to give us a different perception coming from a very Australian sense of identity and sport, and how that links in with adventure and romance for these young boys. And that music, you know, it is a restless energy, which, of course, is is part of being young and youth, to be celebrated. So the last one I’m going to show is, for me, one of the greatest films ever made. Orson Welles, Martin Scorsese, they all rave about this film. “The Grand Illusion,” by Jean Renoir, made in 1937. And it’s the callous incompetence and the ruthlessness of the leaders, and their attitude to the soldiers. It’s a war film without any depiction of battle.

It’s set in a prisoner of war camp. There’s no actual battles. And the space of soldiers of many nations, who have a common experience. And Jean Renoir portrays a war as utterly futile. Uses the First World War as a lens through which he examined Europe, and that it’s facing rise of nationalism, especially in Germany, of course. And he foresees almost the Second World War. And let’s remember, he’s making it in the late 1930s, but the war hasn’t begun at all yet. And he’s linking politics, ideology, the picture of leaders, incompetence, the nationalism, the anti-Semitism, all of it is fed in. But it is a couple of years before the war. And there’s not a single battlefield shot. It’s the dialogue and the characters and the ideas that, for me, make Renoir’s film, I think, I agree with Scorsese and Orson Welles, it’s one of the greatest. If we can show it, please. “The Grand Illusion.”

CLIP BEGINS

• Hello, monsieur.

• You understand that if you do not obey my order now, I’ll have to shoot.

CLIP ENDS

• I think the title says it all of what Renoir is trying to get at, and what he’s foreseeing to come in the Second World War. So I think, in essence, for me, all these movies have tried to resist sensationalising, resist the simplistic romantic adventure allure of war, and how it can play out, itself. And I don’t think they fall into that trap. And they tried all these different ways to take on this massive topic of how to represent history, documentaries, fiction, nonfiction in a 90-minute or 2-hour, hour-half movie. And in the end, you know, when they’re escaping from, in “The Grand Illusion,” they escape from a prison of war camp, “You sure that’s Switzerland? Absolutely sure. It’s just that German snow and Swiss snow look pretty much the same. Don’t worry, there’s genuine manmade frontier right there, even though nature doesn’t give a damn. I don’t give a damn, either. When the war’s over, I’ll come and get Elsa.” So, you know, Renoir is playing with the irony at the end of the ordinary person. Okay, let’s hold it here. And sorry to go over a couple of minutes. And we can go into some questions.

Q&A and Comments:

Okay, 9-6-9, thank you. Yeah, it’s a complicated topic because it’s not only showing the representation of war, but also that First World War. And we know that the disastrous results, you know, is so much of what leads to the Second World War in terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and reparations and Germany, and what happens with Germany and Weimar and post-Weimar, et cetera. And also what’s fascinating, which I’ve been reading a lot about, of course, I’m sure many people have, is how many Jewish soldiers fought on the side of Austrians and the Germans and on the ally, you know, all round.

Okay, Rita. As a daughter of Holocaust survivors, my late father was a partisan resistance fighter. Oh, thank you Rita. That’s really interesting and important.

I believe for “The Grand Illusion.” Yeah, you know, I needed to rush it a little bit at the end, but, you know, again, it’s a bit like “Casablanca.” “Casablanca” is just a couple of gunshots at the end. One of the greatest war films of all time, in my opinion.

And “The Grand Illusion,” by far, for me, the most powerful because it’s emotional and it’s intellectual. And it’s set in a prisoner of war camp. No battlefield scenes are made. And Renoir is making it in 1937.

Okay, I think. Is that it with questions? Yup, okay. So thank you very much, everybody. And hope you all have a great rest of the weekend. And thanks again, Lauren, for everything.