Professor David Peimer
WWI Film

Professor David Peimer - WWI Film

- So Lauren, thanks again so much and hi to everybody ,everywhere and hope everyone as well. I know this topic is not necessarily everybody’s varietal cup of tea but I’m fascinated by how stories are told. Not only why we, as a human species, need stories and need to write them or tell them, but why- and cultures- the why to tell stories and the how, how the story’s told. How on earth do you capture something as almost unthinkably enormous as The First World War, nevermind the second World War and the Holocaust. How do we capture these on film? And that’s that strange and yet fascinating combination of fact and fiction. How do you portray it through a story in 90 minutes or however long the film is? How do you capture something that gives an impression of something that happened, you know, many, many years ago? For contemporary audiences, how does that change over the decades with different audiences? I’m not going to dwell today on the need to tell stories ‘cause that’s my belief. It is such a fundamental human need in human society and in all of us humans, whether it’s around a Friday night dinner or friends and a cup of coffee, at work a gossip, whatever. How we, you know, a family, how we need to tell stories, to me is fairly obvious and as ancient as the hills. But the how, and especially in contemporary times when we have the internet of course, film, TV, and so on, the overlap of fiction and fact, what used to be called faction.

But that blurring between the two is fascinating for me. So I want to focus on that partly today, is this combination of fact and fiction. And secondly, I’ve chosen some films where I want to just briefly allude to the angle that they come in and look at the first World War. And I think the one thing that is common is what I was saying last week about the poets- Wilfred Owen, Isaac Rosenberg and the others, the German poets- is how they, almost for the first time, are written from the ordinary soldier’s point of view. We go back to two and a half thousand years, Homer’s Odyssey, “The Iliad and The Odyssey”, the Trojan War. But it’s written from the poet’s point of view, hundreds of years after, assuming it actually happened. How, you know, they, we think of Lord Baron, sorry, Tennyson with the “Charge Of The Light Brigade.” And you know, that’s a poet writing about a cavalry charge. In other words, it’s poets or it’s not the actual soldiers or not told from their point of view. So that’s second, in terms of what I think so many of contemporary post first World War filmmakers try to do. And that’s a huge shift in storytelling. I go back to begin with the phrase from Hamlet right at the end, when he is dying and he says to Horatio “Stay in this harsh world long enough to tell my story.” You know, as he’s dying, “Horatio, please just tell my- in this harsh world, tell my story.” And I think it’s such a powerful resonant phrase from Hamlet that echoes through the centuries, and obviously something as incredibly huge as the First World War, to tell the story. So from whatever’s happening in the Ukraine right now, going back all the way to Homer two-and-a-half thousand years ago, the poems of Wilfred Owen, and the others, I think that these stories and war, they capture all the human emotions. For me the triangle of the three great human emotions.

Love and betrayal- which are to me two sides of the same coin- love and betrayal and envy. And I think those three emotions are so powerful in all war stories. And of course there’s compassion, and love and hate, care, forgiveness, and so on. But also it’s the human need to see the world in a binary way, superior, inferior. You cannot fight a war, I don’t believe, unless you feel you’re superior up against the odds. Superior, inferior, a binary construction of worldview to make it easier to grasp right and wrong. Fighting for freedom. And then of course there’s the romance which I’m going to show in one or two of these clips. Then there’s the ordinary soldier and the cynical leader. So there’s the romance and yet then there’s cynicism in the real meaning of the word cynicism. Friend of mine is writing a book at the moment called, “Cynical Theory.” And I find that a fascinating title for our times. The glory and the agony, the addiction to fighting as a human quality. Need to feel alive. You know, one feels much more alive, for obvious reasons, in war. Broek, war is business by other means. Von Clausewitz, war is continuation of politics by other means. Sun Tzu, From five centuries before the birth of Christ, all war is deception. Deception is the key to human nature. That’s Sun Tzu. And interesting Sun Tzu’s first rule in “The Art Of War” is you know before you go to fight the battle if you will win or lose. Anyway, these are fascinating ideas. There are many, many more obviously, it’s such a topic that it could take up years just on its own. In our time I think to me, it’s much more about nationalism and often religion. I think it’s less a question - and I’m going to possibly sound provocative saying this, but why not? It’s not, I think it’s an addiction not only to the horrors of war that’s obvious in a way and a terrifying dismay.

But not only can the human race survive endless warfare, but a question which came out in a conversation with a couple of friends a short while ago, can the human race survive without war? And I remember that provocative question and how stunned we were and talking for many hours about it afterwards. Now I’m going to show some of the trailers because the trailers show, as opposed to clips from actual films, because the trailers show how they’re being packaged not only to sell, which is obvious, but how they’re being packaged to capture a worldview. How to tell the story is packaged in a couple of seconds in the trailer. So we know the angle chosen, we know the human drama, the emotion, the core conflict, et cetera. How the setup of the story and what emotion it’s going to try and push. And in that sense we get through the artist’s eyes, the filmmakers, we can glean a perception of are they achieving or they to touch something of the zeitgeist, something of our attitude to war in recent times. Okay, so I want to start with “1917”, which is Sam Mendes’ film. I’m sure everybody knows he’s directed two of the James Bond “Skyfall”, but he also directed “American Beauty.” He’s won awards, his films have won awards, Oscar’s, Golden Globes, et cetera. And what’s interesting about “1917,” which is one of the great films of Sam Mendes, his fantastic theatre and film director, is that it takes, I think, an influence from Hitchcock’s “Rope” where it’s almost as if it could have been filmed on a smartphone. It appears one seamless long take. You know, as opposed to all different shots and angles. But it appears almost if you’re following the two soldiers all the time. And in the jargon of contemporary film and theatre theory it’s called the immersive drama.

Where the audience feels immersed as if we are right inside the situation. And we are in the camera itself following the soldiers in this case. Kieslowski does it brilliantly for me in “Three Colours Blue” and some of his other films that he does, where you feel you are in the camera. It’s that immersive quality. The other thing I think that Mendes brings out is the boyish face. Such young boyish innocent faces. And the plight of a young generation who grow so old so quickly and are lost so quickly. And it’s a kind of ravaged innocence, which becomes a world wary exhaustion at the age of 18, 19. The play out of fatalism and hope. “Hope is a dangerous thing.” says the Benedict Cumberbatch character, the Colonel Mackenzie as they enter the purgatory and the hell of this war. Hope is a dangerous thing, you say to a 19 year old, an 18 year old, and how many of these guys you know, which I’ll be showing later, the patriotism that the war began with, and yet it’s smashed within a couple of days, weeks, months. Okay, so this is a clip from Mendes “1917.” The premise of the story you’ll get in the clip.

CLIP BEGINS

• [Soldier] Blake, pick a man, bring your kit.

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

• You have a brother in the second battalion.

• Yes sir.

• [Erinmore] 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.

• [Schofield] Let’s talk about this for a minute.

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

• That is the German front line.

• Fall back!

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

• [Blake] I will.

• [Mackenzie] There is only one way this ends last man standing. ♪ I’m going back ♪ ♪ To see my father ♪

• We need to keep moving! Come on! ♪ I’m going back ♪ ♪ No more to run ♪

• [Schofield] You can’t possibly make it that way, man. Are you bloody insane?

• If you don’t get there in time we will lose 1,600 men. Your brother among them. Good luck. ♪ Keep blow- ♪

CLIP ENDS

• What interests me so much is, I mean, the premises is that two ordinary corporals have got to get to another field and to warn the battalion not to go over the top, not to make the charge, because they’ll be walking into a trap. It’ll be a massacre of the 1,600. And basically that’s the story. And it’s the one brother’s got to find his other brother in the other battalion in order to save the brother. It’s a similar premise as with “Saving Private Ryan.” You know, the brother story is often told in war movies. But what’s interesting here is that phosphorous yellow-gold light, which I think he gets from Kubrick. We look at Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket,” stunning scenes at the end, which are surreal in the yellow, gold, red in the way of using light to portray the scene. And it moves into an almost surreal strange world that when it goes slow motion, when not, and I think all these techniques of light and camera, which are so effective in today’s filmmaking to tell the story and of course using colour, you see the green grass, which of course it would’ve been and why not? So to shift it from the black and white, which has kind of become to have a connotation of well that’s ancient history. It’s black and white, the grainy images and so on. Or that’s more factual. Of course it isn’t. It’s just the colour in a camera.

The reel, you know, in a camera, that’s all. And yet I think the colour helps to make it far more contemporary. You know, the green grass and the colour of the flesh of the characters and the costumes, uniforms. I think also this idea of telling it from the point of view of the ordinary soldier is what’s so deeply embedded in Sam Mendes approach of “1917.” But that use has become more and more of the surreal lighting which is completely, you know, it’s probably filmed inside a studio or very often anyway. So I think that’s, it’s trying to find visually ways of telling a story for a contemporary audience, which is obviously from the ordinary soldier’s point of view. And this question of point of view is so important because how do we combine historical fact with fiction in an artwork? It can only be done through the point of view. If you think of Claude Lanzmann’s “Shoah” compared to Schindler or many of the other films, what is the point of view of the filmmaker? Because that is crucial in how the story will be told. I’m not judging better or worse, I’m just posing it as a fascinating question that every filmmaker or every artist has to ask. Okay, I’m going to go on to another one, which is very different. And this is Peter Jackson, the New Zealand filmmaker, you all know doing the Tolkien books. And he made a documentary called “They Shall Not Grow Old.” And Peter Jackson has taken documentary footage from the war, he’s restored it digitally into colour with voice overs of ordinary soldiers and some leaders, music and sound. And there’s an irony in the retelling of the telling. ‘Cause he’s retelling the documentary. So that documentary is already trying to capture historical fact, but then he’s using artistic techniques of fiction to retell those documentaries. It’s a double artistic process in the making. “They Shall Not Grow Old.”

CLIP BEGINS

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

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

• [Soldier] I was 16.

• [Soldier] I was 15 years.

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

• Boys. Here he comes, we’re in the pictures.

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

• [Soldier] Extend this part of the trench over there.

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

CLIP ENDS

• So what I find fascinating is, as I said, this is all taken from documentary footage and Peter Jackson, number one he’s digitally turned it into colour and these are the actual soldiers, there’s no actors. So it’s a documentary of a documentary in a way, of the real event. So it’s twice removed, but in capturing them around the table or smiling, holding a baby. And the colour I think makes it so contemporary and the fact that we know these are not actors and it’s not a written story as a way of using contemporary techniques of fiction in documentary of documentary, I think it makes something ironically so contemporary because we have an ironic detachment and yet we feel so emotionally because we know these are real soldiers. These are the real pure people. The voiceovers of the ordinary soldiers at a much older age coming in at 15, 16, often lying about their age in order to fight because of romantic patriotism and other ideals and other reasons. And there’s no history lesson in the documentary. There’s no expert telling us how Europe sleep walked into a nightmare, into a catastrophe. We hear the voices of the soldiers foregrounded. You see the footage of young recruits preparing for war, how naive, so young they are. At the end of it, when armistice comes, you see in the film, one of the characters says, “Well, when the war ended, it was one of the flattest moments of my life.” Because when he went back, got home, was given a civilian suit, and then in his words forgotten about pretty quickly. So no one wanted to understand, no one wanted to hear. And if we think about it, the Spanish flu pandemic hit pretty soon.

And then the so-called Roaring Twenties. So what happened to these human beings in this situation from the ordinary soldier point of view again. And I think that hits us so powerfully through using his techniques of art and fiction in ironically using documentary of documentary footage. Okay, I’m going to go on to the 1957 film, for me of one of the great filmmakers of all time, one of my favourites, Stanley Kubrick . I think he’s absolutely brilliant. Each one of his films is a totally individual masterpiece. This is “Paths of Glory” by Kubrick. And this is really about the men in charge of war. You know, the old phrase, the soldiers were lions led by donkeys, the generals, and how cynical and callous. But perhaps cynical is the better word for these generals. You know, the battle of the song, on the first day of the battle of the Somme there were over 50,000 casualties on the British side, in one day. And there were nearly 20,000 deaths. And the calculations of the number of percentage and the figures where who would die and who wouldn’t before tea, by lunch and after tea by the generals back in London. When one researches it you see cynicism couched in the most elegant way, quite extraordinary in the most educated, sophisticated language. So “Path of Glory” I think tries to capture some of this. And the story is when the French troops refused to go over the top of the trench and enter no man’s land. So then what happened was they were arrested and their fellow soldiers, their buddies, were then ordered to shoot them for having so-called deserted or refused an order. So you have a double refusal to follow order into slaughter. And what happens, you see the corrupt trial and the need to make an example of the soldiers who refused to obey. So it’s a story as old as ancient Greece and ancient Egypt and way before. But how it is told by Kubrick is remarkable. But the other thing you’ll see in this 1957 clip, is how it’s turned, in the trailer, into an adventure. A romantic, an exciting, remarkable story about slaughter and horror.

CLIP BEGINS

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

• Colonel Dax! you’ll apologise at once or I shall 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?

• Say 5% killed by a own barrage. That’s a very generous allowance. 10% more in gaining no man’s land and 20% walk into 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 with a force more than adequate to hold it.

• 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 it’s the question of the troops morale, don’t forget that.

• The troops morale?

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

• Where in heaven’s name are they?

• They’re on the left.

• Where on the left? 0 past 1 and they’re still in 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 on our own positions.

CLIP ENDS

• I think that performance by Kirk Douglas, I really think it is one of his best. And that moment of that speech, I mean, it is so believable. His rage because half his men are going to be killed in one single battle, which may last a couple of hours. That’s half his men. I mean and for the general we get the portrayal of the cynicism, but couched in the most elegant, sophisticated way. And Kubrick obsessed, and I think brilliantly, with all the superior inferior, not only in terms of the two armies battling each other, the Germans and the French here in this case, but within one’s own army. Of course, the commander and then the captain underneath, or the colonel and then the ordinary soldier down below. So you constantly get this power dynamic and shift within and betrayal within the actual battalion and the leadership structure itself. That, I think, what is so powerful and yet how it’s spun in the trailer is fascinating for me is that it’s such a daring risk to tell the story. How to tell the story, again. You tell the story of rebellion against an order, of rebellion against the leadership, the generals who order this insanely senseless slaughter. So that is turned into a great triumph and a great victory for film and it’s sensationalised in its own way. So it’s fascinating to me how trailers themselves construct the perception.

But when we look at the Kurt Douglas’s character and what he captures in the acting, that absolute ambiguity, the rage and yet the duty. And how that eternal conflict in all human beings is so well caught in that character and in his acting. Okay. Actually, interestingly enough in “Full Metal Jacket”, towards the end of “Full Metal Jacket” of Kubrick’s, which is partly an allegory of the Vietnam War where he returns the subject of war, as everyone knows in training, there’s the phrase at the end where the ordinary soldier says, “What it said jungian thing?” that jungian duality thing. And the, I forget the exact phrase, but there is that phrase in the character and it’s the shadow of course, and the individual that Kubrick is referring to in “Full Metal Jacket. ” Okay. And then for me, one of the all time greats, the first time I watched this, and not only Bob Dylan when I showed Bob Dylan last week talking about in his Nobel Prize speech of “All Quiet on the Western Front” and how the novel shook him to the bone together with “Moby Dick” and Homer’s “Odyssey,” the three works of literature that had the biggest influence on Dylan. But when you read the book is one thing. Watching the movie, I’ve watched this so many times, it never loses its power. Of not only the raw gritty realism and the sheer brutality, but how it captures the ordinary soldier. And it goes back, it’s one of the earliest films that is doing the Wilfred Owen approach, capturing the ordinary soldier caught not only in the mud and the hell of the trenches and so on, but caught in this day-to-day. Which quickly goes from patriotic fervour, it quickly goes from that to a quagmire of insanity and lacking comprehension.

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 Baumer. I wonder what you are going to do.

• I’ll go.

• I want to go.

• [Speaker] 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 crisis of men whose utter loneliness ate away their hearts, Whose pathetic yearning for love drove them to distraction. Who’s shared 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

• This was, as I was saying, one of the first movies to take that ordinary soldier point of view. The writer, and the poet as well, Wilfred Owen, Isaac Rosenberg, what they were trying to achieve. And I this is a huge shift in the writing and obviously in filmmaking. Because it’s, again, whose point of view do I tell this extraordinary story from history? It’s the point of view that is so, so important. And by in putting that into the ordinary soldier coming from wherever, had a few years maybe of school, maybe a year or two of high school or more, who knows? And then throwing them together into this craziness. And starting out, I’ll never forget the first time I saw this movie and the school scene struck me so powerfully of that patriotic fervour. yes sir, yes sir, I want to come, I want to come. How easily and quickly you can take not only young, but anybody and give them a story of nationalism, put it in or religious fanaticism, or whatever kind and off they’ll go. So I think it captures that. And then it never, in Raymond Carver’s wonderful phrase, one of the writers I really love, Raymond Carver, he has this phrase, every story must have a relentless motion. And for me, “All Quiet in the Western Front” has a relentless motion. You’re dragged in from the moment of these naive wide-eyed 16-year-old school kids, and full of all the stories and the songs and happiness. And then of course what happens. But it’s a relentless motion. It’s almost impossible to stop once you put on that harness of necessity. It can’t be stopped. The journey they go on, the emotional, intellectual, the growth that’ll happen before they were 17, 18, 19 years old.

They’ll have become such, such old wise people if they survive. So “All Quiet On The Western Front.” And then of course for me, now this is one of the films, the next one I’m going to show, which for me is fascinating all these years later from 1962. When David Lean made “Lawrence of Arabia,” I’m not going to go into the story, I’m sure everybody knows it. It remains fascinating because it captures the contradictions of how to tell something from history. 'Cause yes, obviously T.E. Lawrence lived. So he’s an historically accurate person. What he did mostly is fairly factually accurate, is is captured in the film. But the way David Lean shows the film, which is regarded one of the great war movies of all time. With the long shots, the closeups, the betrayal within the betrayal. Of how Lawrence is shown to have betrayed- He’s acting as an intelligence officer for the British army getting all the Arab armies on their side to take, the British side in the war, et cetera. And then how the Arabs themselves are betrayed partly at the end by the British. And then Lawrence again as well. So, you know, we have a real character from history. How is he shown in a piece of fiction? And how is the story told as a piece of fiction? And this is the trailer from the movie.

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.

• Who is he?

• Tell us!

• What is your name?

• My name is for my friends. Non 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 lamb torn between two civilizations. Lawrence of Arabia, filmed against a canvas of awesome magnificence.

• Lieutenant Lawrence is not your military advisor.

• But I would like to hear his opinion.

• Damn it Lawrence! Who do you take her orders from?

• From Lord Pfizer, in Pfizer’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.

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

• [Speaker] He was a very great man.

• [Speaker] 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 Arabia, together they made history. Now a gathering of international stars on unfolds the story. Alec Guinness as Prince Feisal.

• 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’ll have to go to the War Museum to find who Allenby was.

• [Allenby] You’re the most extraordinary man I ever met.

• Leave me alone.

• What?

• Leave me alone.

• [Narrator] Jose 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 stop it here. The sense of romantic adventure is obvious and so, so strong. But just before coming back to that, towards the end of the movie, Lawrence says, you know, he’s talked about what has changed him, what has happened, what has disturbed him, or why is he so upset? And he comes up with this thing of actually he loves killing and blood. Which has shocked him and surprised him. How easy it is and how much he loves it. And it’s a sense of the journey of the inner life of the character, all the way to a point like that. Not only this David and Goliath figure who’s uniting the Arab tribes on behalf of the British and then promises them freedom. But then it’s taken away by the empire. Not only this superior inferior, the play of two civilizations. I mean, you could hardly get a more of a set of romantic archetypes in this adventure story. 'Cause it is, look at this image now. It’s such a romantic adventure story. It’s impossible almost to not feel addicted, to not watch because it’s got everything. It’s got envy, it’s got love, it’s got betrayal, it’s got two civilizations. The fact that Lawrence is always so often pictured with Arab costume. And I use the word costume because it’s a film. I’m not talking about an ethnic group. And the horses and the desert and those long wide shots, of course that David Lean was so famous for. Of course it’s romantic adventure story, a bit of boy’s own stuff. And then you see Lawrence briefly on a motorbike, back in England and in writing all his books and so on. So an extraordinary character in his own life. The question is how do you in two hours or however long, tell an entire story of a character, but also of moments in this massive event of the First World War.

Is it through Lawrence’s eyes, the filmmaker, through the empire’s eyes, through the soldiers, through the Arab, the ordinary person? You know, there are hints of all of that, but of course primarily it’s through the eyes of the great heroic figure. So we are back to the heroic and we are away from the anti-hero of Kubrick and many of the other pieces that I’ve shown. But the heroic. Even- and yet what is fascinating, and I think this is one of the reasons it’s endured so much, is the inner life of characters is so complex. It’s not only heroic, obviously, and full of adventure, it’s full of contradictions, compromises, and all sorts of choices which we all know about in ordinary everyday life. And it’s that quality of inner life of character, which is from fiction put into an interpretation of a real historical person’s life, Lawrence. And it’s that artistic device of inner life of character. When I worked for NYU and I lived in Prague for quite a number of years and directed a lot of theatre there. And I understood finally the difference between a lot of Central European theatre and English language theatre, obviously from England, America, Canada, South Africa, Australia, wherever. And the key difference is character as type and character within a life. And the reason why not so many plays from Europe are performed in the English speaking world is because they lack a kind of ambiguity or multi-dimensional sense of inner life of character. Whereas in Europe, the tradition more in theatre was the character as type, sometimes stereotype, the village, the prince, the prostitute, the king, the queen, the princess, the lord, the maid, et cetera.

So all of these are- you even see it in Milos Foran’s brilliant film Amadeus, a lot of the characters are character as social type, not so much with inner life. And that’s a huge difference between Central European and if we said the England way of writing. Where inner life of character, I would suggest since the time of Shakespeare, it started to take over precedence. And there are many historical- there are many arguments as to why and how it happened. And the rise of capitalist individualism and so on, and more human rights, democracy happening in those countries, et cetera, et cetera. But, you know, those debates belong for another time. But it’s this quality and this distinction between the two. And Lawrence captures both. Captures character as a social type, the ultimate hero. David and Goliath crossing civilizations, you know, out in the desert riding horses, putting on Arab costume. And yet he’s an English guy trained in his military intelligence and so on and so on. Great leader, intellect, And yet it is infused with inner life of character. So it’s a combination of both. And I think in that lies part of the extraordinary power of this film together with, of course, the visuals and the long shots and the romantic adventure. Okay, I want to move on to another one, which is going to take us back a little bit to a very contemporary way, although this is 1981. This is the Australian filmmaker Peter Weir and his a film of “Gallipoli”, which I’m sure many people have seen and everyone knows the story of the disastrous mistake of Gallipoli. This is the trailer.

So I want you to just show this back again here. These images of, it’s a coming of age story, it’s an adventure story, part war epic, all of these things as well. Obviously from innocence to experience of these young Australian guys going off to the battle. And yet, you know, what they have to learn in the film, how shifts from this light and this music, which is setting up this sort of light, romantic coming of age adventure, playful stuff almost. It starts out on a playground as if they’re going to go to another playground of sport. And the reality of what really happens. So it’s that contrast again. From the ordinary soldiers point of view retold by a filmmaker in the 80s. Trying to capture something of, it was all just seen as sport at a playground until the reality really hits these 19 year-old, these 18 year-old boys. Okay? Without going into the lessons of Gallipoli, the big story, obviously the disastrous decision, the amount of casualties, et cetera. Again, I’m just looking at how is fictional techniques used to tell the story? Then this one will be quite surprising I think, that I’ve chosen it. But it is romantic adventure at its height, at its best with Bogart and Katharine Hepburn. We cannot ignore it. And you’ll see what I mean. “African Queen.”

CLIP BEGINS

• [Narrator] Two legendary stars.

• Don’t be worried Mr. Allnut.

• [Narrator] One extraordinary adventure.

• Makes your blood race, your face numb, and your spirits soar.

• [Narrator] “The African Queen.” Starring Academy Award winner Humphrey Bogart.

• [Rose] Mr. Allnut.

• [Charlie] I’m still right here Miss.

• [Narrator] Academy Award winner Katherine Hepburn.

• [Charlie] You all right?

• [Rose] Simply wonderful

• [Narrator] and directed by the legendary John Huston. One of AFI’s top 100 films. “The African Queen” has been meticulously restored and beautifully remastered.

• Expect it’s just about the prettiest place I’ve ever been to. I’d like to come back here someday.

CLIP ENDS

• So obviously the romance of the elephants, the river, the boat and it’s pitched right at the beginning. The pitch is fantastic of Bogart and Hepburn, two legendary stars. So we know immediately that’s the angle, that’s the pitch. It’s because of the stars and their romantic love story that we are hooked in. And the war can take a bit of a side- the war can be sort of towards the back row in in terms of the film. But I’m not judging, For me it’s a fascinating movie of its time and a fascinating sense of how to come in to the war story. Because such, as they say, as the pitch is, two extraordinary characters, two extraordinary actors. And it’s their love story in a totally different way. You know, the love story of the triangle in Casablanca, where’s only a couple of actual gunshots, which would mean one of the ultimate war movies ever made, and yet how it’s totally changed by the time of the Second World War compared to this love story. So it’s such a romantic adventure. It’s the heights of it.

But it’s so important because it’s part of capturing all the different, if you like, kaleidoscopic perceptions of the same event, the war. The last clip I’m going to show is from Renoir. For me one of the great films of all time. Orson Wells called it one of the greatest movies ever. And for me it’s one of the great films ever made. And Jean Renoir’s, forgive me, I’m going to use the English translation, “The Grand Illusion,” 1937. So this is two years before the Second World War starts. He knows what’s coming probably. And what is his artistic impulse in making a film about the First World War? Franklin Roosevelt in 1938 said that every democratic person must see this film. It was banned in Belgium in 1938 and Italy, and obviously it was banned in Berlin. But Belgium is interesting. It’s a group of French soldiers, including the Patricia captain, working class lieutenant who are grappling with their class differences. And they’re captured and they’re being held in a German prisoner of war camp. And then they are transferred to high security German camp. And the story is about the story of their escape and how they need to escape the POW camp. This is from the trailer.

• You understand? And if you do not okay my order now, I’ll have to shoot.

• It’s a brilliant, remarkable film and I’m just going to cut it a bit short because of time. This is the last scene in the film. Basically they have to escape and two of the soldiers do, one of them is Jewish Rosenthal, from the German prisoner of war camp. And as they reach the Swiss border, which will obviously mean freedom of neutral Switzerland, we get the theme of boundaries, which for me is the theme of the entire movie, which brilliantly holds it together. It’s beyond whose point of view. Because he shows the boundary between everyone, between the Jewish character and the Gentile character in the French army, between the French and the German, between the lieutenant and the captain, between the aristocrat, a Patricia leader of the French Army and between the working class lieutenant. Everywhere are boundaries. Everywhere is the superior inferior binary that I spoke about earlier on. It’s the who’s superior, who’s inferior, who’s right, who’s wrong, who’s a goodie, who’s a badie? Everywhere the boundary of the binary is what informs Renoir’s vision in this remarkably brilliant film. And “The Grand Illusion” for me is the illusion that we can ever think that we cannot escape boundaries in life and the need to set up boundaries, or binaries, superior, inferior, and so on.

Or nevertheless, that may be an idealistic naive hope, but we must fight for it. And I think Renoir captures the inevitability of both. That we need to set up boundaries in every level of our life. And we need to break boundaries in every moment of our life if we are going to have a society which can survive without war perhaps. This is the last scene with the last bit of dialogue in film as the two French prisoners of war. They’ve escaped the German POW camp and they’re about to reach Switzerland in the snow. The one character, “Are you sure at least that that is Switzerland over there?” Rosenthal, the Jewish character, “Absolutely sure.” “It’s just that German snow and Swiss snow are pretty much the same. Rosenthal, "Don’t worry, there’s a genuine man-made frontier right there, even though nature doesn’t give it damn.” “I don’t give it am either. And when this war’s over, I’ll come and get Elsa.” In these couple of lines, for me, the entire theme of the whole film is captured. And if you look at every frame carefully Renoir is playing with boundary and difference and superior- inferior, in every single frame almost. Or every single scene at least. And perhaps for me, that’s why it’s for the ultimate, the greatest war film of all time. If not one of the, as Orson well says, one of the great films of all time with the comment it’s making on human society. And if I may end with a clip, that of course is unavoidable.

CLIP BEGINS

• How are you feeling, darling?

• Not all that good Blackadder. Rather hoped I’d get through the whole show. Go back to work at Pratt and Sons, Keep wicked for the Croydon gentlemen, marry Doris. Made a note in my diary on the way here. Simply says “Bugger.”

• Well quite.

• Let’s move.

• [Soldier] Sticks, bayonets.

• Don’t forget your stick Lieutenant.

• Bravo, sir.

• Wouldn’t want to face a machine gun without this.

• Listen. Our guns have stopped.

• You don’t think-

• Maybe the war’s over, maybe it’s peace.

• Oh hurrah! The big knobs have gone around the table and yanked the iron out of the fire.

• Thank God we lived through it. The Great War. 1914 to 1917.

• Hip, hip.

• [All] Hooray!

• I’m afraid not. The guns have stopped because we’re about to attack. Not even our generals are mad enough to shell their own men. They think it’s far more sporting to let the Germans do it.

• So we are in fact going over? This is as they say, it?

• I’m afraid so. Unless I can think of something very quickly.

• [Soldier] Company, one pace forward!

• Oh, there’s a nasty splinter on that ladder, sir. A bloke can hurt himself on that.

• [Soldier] Stand ready!

• I have a plan, sir.

• Really Borak? A conning and subtle one?

• Yes sir.

• As cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed professor of cunning at Oxford University?

• Yes, sir.

• On the signal company will advance!

• Well I’m afraid it’ll have to wait. Whatever it was, I’m sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would’ve noticed another madman around here? Good luck everyone.

CLIP ENDS

• In the end, in the final lines of Hamlet, the rest is silence, which is a real quote from Hamlet. What more can one say after watching something like this at the end and how you cannot fail to be moved so powerfully where humour has ruled in the face of utter horror and adversity. To finally coming up with something like this, techniques of fiction, colour, cinematography, all being put into obviously another piece of fiction, which is “Blackadder”, but an historical fact or the event of the war. Okay, so thank you very much everybody. Sorry we over just a couple of minutes, but that’s it.

• [Speaker] Did you want to answer any of the questions, David? Up to you.

• Yeah, sure.

Q&A and Comments:

Jean, Oh thanks. They’ve abated. The storms have abated mostly in the UK. I think there were a bit more in the South and in the East.

Q: Okay, the next question, “You think we’re witnessing today, Russia, Ukraine makes World War I irrelevant? Your living history today.”

A: Sure, I mean we don’t know what’s going to happen. We have a probably a fairly good idea with 160,000 soldiers on the border. But that’s another whole discussion to get into.

Alice. “A BBC "World At War” Series on TV has haunted me also 'All Quiet on the Western Front’ is a classic.“ Absolutely. I mean that BBC series is absolutely brilliant. And again, an example of how to use documentary voices of leaders, voices of ordinary documentary images, et cetera, et cetera. And trying to find a through line for each episode. But I think what Peter Jackson is doing, in "They Shall Not Grow Old,” actually takes it a step further because it’s documentary within documentary using documentary which is using fiction and contemporary cinematography techniques and fiction techniques. It’s even a step further, I think what Jackson does.

Thelma, “I believe we’re beginning to witness the beginning of World War III.” It’s a terrifying thought. All I can do is answer that if it is, you know, I just keep thinking of Einstein’s thought. I don’t know what World War III will be fought with, but I know what World War IV will be fought with bows and arrows. I doubt it. I don’t think it’s going to go nuclear personally, it’s David speaking. But I personally think there will be a war. Because the human nature needs war. Human species, you know, nationalism is rearing its head. Aside from all the other geopolitical reasons, obviously, Russia, China, the West, et cetera, et cetera. The economics of it, which we all know.

Monty, “Hope you’ll include ‘Paths of Glory’, Kirk Douglas.” Yep. I put it in Monty.

Q: Porter, “Mark Twain’s, dark short story, "Mysterious Stranger” deals with a subject or comment, can we survive without war?“

A: Exactly. Which is a great difference from anything else Mark Twain wrote. Porter, thank you. And it is a fascinating question, which I’ve been obsessed with for a long time. Can the human race survive without war? And I can imagine a satire created around that, that a theatrical satire created around that very question. No we can’t survive without war.

Pauline, "One of the best films was ‘Oh What a Lovely War.’” It’s one of the, it’s Joan Littlewood. based on one of the great workshop productions, which is brilliant and futility war, as you say. And it a brilliant Broekdian type of- using musical theatre and musical comedy and review and satire, character social type, not character with inner life. An almost cabaret style to satirise “Oh, What a Lovely War” The First World War.

Q: Ron, “What are the great pieces of theatre-? I believe you said betrayal. For me the trio of the most powerful emotions are love and betrayal and envy. Those for me are the amongst the most powerful. But that’s David being from a very personal perspective, Not necessarily an educated perspective. It’s just my own personal point of view.

Ronnie, "David, watching these images of Russian soldiers on the Ukrainian border, trenches, overwhelming numbers, visual images remind me of World War I and II.” Yes. And Putin, I think Ronnie. Bonnie, sorry Bonnie. You’ve hit a fantastic point that you’ve said here. As Putin trying to trigger the memories of those horrific wars. Yes, The filmmakers- ‘cause all those pieces are shot by Putin’s filmmakers or Russian filmmakers, most of them. Some of them are Ukrainian or American, CNN and others, et cetera. But they’re all influenced by these films. And obviously the Second World War and the Vietnam movies and others as well. But these are the groundbreaking ones I feel coming out of the First World War. And I feel because of the trenches Yes. And the snow and all of that. And the long shot and the close up. When you see the tank, when you see the aeroplane, the soldier. Do you see the ordinary guard? Do you see the general? Do you see the technology of the missiles, the tanks? You know, again, point of view. What is being shown to present the image of Russia as a military superpower at minimum and nationalism? What is being shown on Russian TV? Which I’ve tried to watch and get a grip of. Russian TV what they’re showing is, I’m sure many know, is very different to what has been shown in the West and elsewhere. So, you know, all of these things are completely, shall we say, manipulated. And I mean that in the profound sense of the word manipulated. They’re artistically crafted maybe is a better phrase to give a particular ideological point of view without a doubt. And these filmmakers on all these clips that we see have studied all of these films and many others and know what they’re doing.

And I think you made a really good point, Bonnie, that there’s the echo and Putin is definitely for Europe and for his own contemporary consumption in Russia and elsewhere, bringing us memories. But what’s extraordinary is that the filmmakers in Russia at the moment are trying to tell it through the memory of films of these times. 'Cause these are all fictional films made years, decades after the First World War. So they’re using the memory and the documentary and fiction in the 21st century to tell something of contemporary times. They referenced is film, not necessarily historical reality only.

Monti, “'Paths of Glory’ was directed by Kubrick.” Absolutely and brilliant. I think it was his first, you know, Tolkien was the best. He wrote about World War I, his literature grew out of it. Absolutely.

Clive and Bonnie, familiar “Johnny Got His Gun.” Yes. I wanted to show it. Directed by Dalton Trumbo. I wanted to show “Johnny Got his Gun,” I wanted to show “Rifleman”, which is a remarkable film made by Latvian filmmakers. I mean what this, what those characters went through fighting for Russia, being set up as traitors, being threatened with being killed for being traitors. Of course they’re not. Then escaping and fighting with the Latvian free forces and then being threatened there. These 19 year-olds are based on fact. What they went through in this war and the sheer, I mean the word madness doesn’t even come close, but it’s brilliant.

“Johnny Got His Gun” with Timothy Bottoms and Donald Sutherland. Yes. But of course I can’t show everything. “Warhorse” which for me is a fairly romantic portrayal, but very, very- because he has the- because Spielberg knows how to use the visual and the phrase of Raymond Carver relentless motion in storytelling. We are gripped. The film, “They Shall Not Grow Old.” It’s only playing for a day in Toronto. Ah, okay. If you get a chance, really have a look.

Oh, you saw it. Yeah. Yeah. It’s phenomenal. “They Shall Not Grow Old” it’s really, it’s an exercise in contemporary documentary making of any kind, for any event, one would like to make a documentary on. “I visited Beit Halochem, the Recreation Centre for Wounded Soldiers in Israel. The reality of war, not the medals and brass bands.” Sure. And that’s of course, you know, the injured, the casualties. Absolutely.

Susan, “Fascinating book ‘The Report from Iron Mountain’ intended not to be distributed to the public. Made in secret during the Johnson administration. It details the analysis of the government panel, which concludes that war or a credible substitute of war is necessary if governments are to maintain power.” Yes. Well, I’m sure. I was very tempted to show “Wag The Dog,” Susan by David Mamet, with Dustin Hoffman and De Niro. And it’s a fantastic film, “Wag the Dog” where a fictional war is created in Albania because the president, his ratings are dropping radically and the fictional war boosts the ratings. So it’s one of the oldest techniques. Some argue The Focused War, the Thatcher and so on. Okay.

Michael, “Your presentation today is topical. Chamberlain and Zelensky.” Yes. Zelensky is Jewish actually, as far as I know. And I think his parents or grandparents were Holocaust survivors, I think. And you’re asking Western powers will stand up. I don’t know. It’s ironic they’ve gone to Munich, obviously. I don’t know. Who knows if there’ll be appeasement or not. Or what will actually happen.

Yolandi, “I recommend a French movie, ‘Au Revoir La Haut’ Forgive my translation director by Albert DuPontel in 2017 about the corruption of war.” Great. Thank you.

Ron, “I’d be interested in a follow up talk on the World War I films from non-English speaking countries.” Renoir’s Grand-“ Yeah, I showed Renoir at the end and I’ve shown one or two of the German ones as well. Of course there are many others. For me the Renoir, I mean as Orson Wells said is one of the great films. Orson Wells says if he had to take one film, out of the century, take Renoir’s ‘Grand Illusion’” I’d agree. I think it’s brilliant.

“‘Gallipoli’ by Peter Weir haunts me still.” That’s from Sandy, absolutely.

Monty or quite a western front. He was asked if he missed Germany and he said, the author, he said, “Why should I’m not Jewish.” Yeah.

Alan, “another really interesting glimpse into T. E. Lawrence is a book called ‘Lawrence in Arabia’ by Scott Anderson.” Thank you.

Beverly, “Oxygen in ‘Gallipoli.’ Didn’t realise it’s one of my favourites of the 80s.” Yep. It’s Leslie. Oh, thanks so much. Please don’t share anything with Mel Gibson. I know, I know. But at the end you see that, you know, they have to come back for the pitch “Gallipoli” with Mel Gibson and da da da. You know it’s that African Queen two extraordinary legends. Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn, Mel Gibson. You know where the pitch is the fame of the actor. And that’s the entry or the point of view into the historical event. Fascinating.

Mizty, “A little known, terrifying, a little known fact. There was a Palestinian battalion.” Yes. “Comprised entirely of Jews that fought for the British.” Yes. “Which the British thoughtfully sent off to Gallipoli.” Mitzi, I know. I also wanted to show some of that. And also I was going to show the “Harlem Hell Raisers,” a group of African American soldiers from Harlem. It’s a fantastic piece. And how they were treated at the end of the war. And they did heroic stuff, if heroic is determined by how many people you killed. But anyway, and then got back and the Americans passed them over to the French. French gave their medals. They got back to America, got nothing. And most died in poverty. And “Harlem Hell Raisers” that firm captures it. Susan, thank you. Thanks Bobbie, thank you for your comments.

Howard, my cousin, how are you? Hope you’re well, Howard. “The opening scene from ‘Saving Private Ryan.’” Yep. But it’s the Second World War. This is on the first Howard.

Okay. Mavis, “Thank you for discussing the Horrors of War.” Well thank you for watching Mavis. Not an easy topic. Not everyone’s cup tea I know. Rita, thank you for your kind comments. Estelle, Thank you. “Oh What a Lovely War”, Joan. Okay, thanks again.

Mara, “‘They Shall not Grow Old’ one of the most powerful. That’s the Peter Jackson, the documentary of the documentary.” Exactly. Sandy, “Four Feathers.” I know it’s also one has to choose in the end. Couldn’t be too many.

Room appeared, Margaret, “Early in your presentation, you prepared, you put the two words together, Romantic patriotism. I’ve been thinking about this, but is patriotism always romantic? We expect patriotism from those defending us. Something greater than romantic.” Good point, Margaret. And maybe I have to think about that a bit. I would put patriotism pretty close to romantic because I’m looking at, remember, I’m looking at how these films tell the story. I’m not giving David’s interpretation of World War I. I’m looking at how the films represent this historical event. So it’s fiction and how do they show it. And I think it’s hard to avoid patriotism being seen as romantic. You go back to Rupert Brooke’s poem, there should always be a corner of England forever. You know, a grave of my, et cetera, et cetera. It’s patriotic and romantic. It’s precisely what I think a nationalistic, what Wilfred Owen was raging against. Everyone, thanks for your comment. Lorna, appreciate it.

You’ve also also mentioned “They Shall Not Grow Old. I know it is- everybody studying how to make contemporary documentary film must look at Peter Jackson’s "They Shall Not Grow Old.”

Q: Bobby Steger, “Could you repeat which areas or countries focus on inner life versus social type?”

A: Yeah, Bobby, it’s a fascinating debate and I realised this, as I said, in directing theatre in Prague. So I directed quite a lot of plays there. And studying European theatre, German, Austrian, Czech, Polish and others. Where it’s, the character is mostly presented as type. So maybe a cook, a Lord, a king, a prince, a princess, the heiress, the maid, the prostitute, the soldier, the Lieutenant, the General, these are all social types. So when you represent character as social type, you’re more concerned with the social type image, perhaps the uniform or costume, than inner life which is psychologically multi-dimensional, psychologically full of ambiguities, complexities of an inner life, of a character. And the tradition over many, many decades, centuries in the English speaking world has been to develop more inner life of character. And we think of the soliloquies of Shakespeare and for me that’s the beginnings of inner life of character. At least being equal to the plot and the social type. So Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark. Hamlet is due to take over to become the next king, et cetera, et cetera. But Shakespeare calls it “Hamlet,” not only Prince of Denmark. King Lear of course, because Lear is a king. It’s almost inevitable you put the two together. But Hamlet is Hamlet.

So even Shakespeare is aware of individualising some inner life of character. Through name, through soliloquies and other qualities in the writing of inner life of character. Which the tradition developed I think from around that time that late 1590s, 1600s. Not only him but other writers as well, Marlo and so on. And as opposed to in Europe the tradition was more character as social type. The first great novel “Don Quixote” it’s character as a type, absolutely. It can then lend itself to stereotype for comedy and satire obviously, or not. But where I think David Lean with “Lawrence of Arabia,” where I think the documentary “They Shall Not Grow Old,” and some of these other films, they combine both characters type and inner life of character. And that I think good is what makes them so global and universal and extraordinarily powerful films. Which last the test of time. They speak to any culture anywhere, not only English language cultures. And Renoir’s film also for me does it because it’s about boundaries and he’s using all the upper class, working class, aristocrat, working class, Jewish, Gentile, Christian, German, French and so on. He’s using all of these as boundaries and that’s his theme. And the brilliance of Renoir is coming in with that as a way of dealing with with character social type. So he’s combining both I think as well. I think Orson Wells does it, you know, in his films. I think the really great writers and filmmakers achieve it. So I hope that answers you Bobby. It’s a bit of a long, I apologise to everyone else, a bit long way around there.

Hubble’s plays character as social type. That’s why they’re not performed so much in English speaking countries ‘cause it’s hard to feel for a character social type. You feel for something else. You feel for the situation the characters are caught in. Okay, Yolandi, thank you for your comment . Henry, “There are silent movies.” They’re a lot. Okay, Gail, “Hi. Hope you well in Joburg. Perhaps European was influenced by commedia dell'arte.” Absolutely. And that’s Catholic comedy or character social type. Margaret, thank you for your comment. Monty “Patriotism, the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much everybody. Appreciate, hope you have a good rest of the weekend.