Gallipoli

There were thousands of British troops at Gallipoli as well as a smaller French contingent - under the command of Sir Ian Hamilton, a man acknowledged for his excellent bravery, but lacking the decisive qualities needed for the leadership of such an expedition.

In fact - despite the well-known WW1 poem about the Australian buried at Suvla Bay, there were mainly British forces put ashore there, (the famous 'Lost Battalion' of 1/5th Norfolk Reg. being one of them.) Most of the ANZAC forces landed further south at Anzac Cove.

Australia and New Zealand both entered the war behind Britain on an upsurge of patriotism - not surprising given that the then population of Australia who were of European descent was 96% British. ANZAC recruiting remained entirely voluntary throughout the whole of the war and the response from both the Australian and NZ populus was magnificent. Some 332,000 troops served overseas, of whom 212,000 were wounded and 60,000 were killed, a casualty rate of more than 82%.

There is no doubt the ANZAC's suffered terrifically during the Dardanelles campaign. The whole campaign was badly timed and hugely underestimated the Turks and their reorganisation by the German general Otto Liman Van Sanders. However, the British suffered too - a fact that is often forgotten.

As regards the film itself - it's a lesson in why war is futile, a study of loss of innocence, a moving demonstration of comradeship and love between men under the most execrable of conditions. Harrowing and intensely compelling. Peter Weir evokes atmosphere unlike any other.

If you're English - try to forget Mel's pathological hatred of us for a couple of hours and remember why our own fathers/grandfathers who fought in that terrible war had such tremendous respect for the ANZAC troops they encountered. And of course . . . we can always think of the Rugby!


A good cinematic experience   December 18, 1999
tom strait (Ann Arbor, MI, USA)
13 out of 13 found this review helpful

There's been a few things said about this movie, several reviewers mentioned that it was slow-moving, and another pointed out with exasperating pedantry the historical inaccuracies, but I'd like to say that I think 'Gallipoli' is a good movie. It was well shot and well acted, the characters were real and believeable, the score was magnificient, the story was inspiring, and although the script had less action than, say, 'Saving Private Ryan' it also wasn't wasteful - one wouldn't have cared about the people if one didn't know them.

Which is also the point. If `Gallipoli' wasn't historically accurate, and it's tough to represent a yearlong epic in an hour and a half, one does get the point. Which, of course, is that wars, especially this one, and especially this battle, are stupid, self-serving and pointlessly destructive endeavors.

I'm dumbfounded by the reviewer who chose to lambaste the portrayal of the British officers in the campaign. I'm surprised an Aussie would say that, but then again there're plenty of Yanks who'll second guess Harry S Truman from now till the end of time, so who am I to judge. While I'm the first to admit that those words were probably not said, I have to believe that the blue blood of the capital officers taught them not to give a damn about the sweat and blood of some poor sons-of-criminals from a lost colony. I'm not alone, and I quote from John Merriman's History of Modern Europe, p1059, "Other [historians] agree with most contemporaries who believed that [Gallipoli] was a needless diversion dictated by British colonial interests in the Middle East and for which Australian and New Zealander troops paid a disproportionate price."

The aristocratic attitude of the officers in the Great War was the single thing that caused the casualty rates The well-bred officers didn't care that they were sending men with bolt-action rifles against entrenched machine guns because they were just peasants (or Australians) anyway. That is the historical truth, and I for one like how it came out in the training sequence as well as the battle sequences of this movie. It belongs in the collection of anybody who doesn't want to go to war.


Wonderful movie - a very touching story & lovely soundtrack   January 9, 2000
Alberto Perez Gomez (Alcala de Henares, Spain)
11 out of 12 found this review helpful

One of my ten all-time favourites. I've seen it many times, and I always find it wonderful - how it shows some young, idealistic persons, their thoughts, their relationships... and then the fim confront these people with the cruelty of war -

This film conveys very deep feelings, and the music of Jean Michel Jarre and the Adagio of Albinoni both help a lot to make the film so moving (after watching the film for the first time, I hurried up to find those pieces of music, also among my all-time favourites).

I've read some reviews in Amazon in which Australian and British reviewers argue about the role of the aussies in the WWI, or about the historical correctness of the film. I guess that if my country -Spain- was portrayed in a film in a way that I found unfair, I would also complain; but for me, those discussions are meaningless in this case: for me, this film is refering to wars in general - that's why my mother (a history teacher) shows this film to her students every year.

This film is a must; once you see it, you'll wonder why it is not as well known as it deserves.


Gallipoli-False History.   November 4, 1999
11 out of 31 found this review helpful

The Australian movie Gallipoli has a false and slanderous ending.No British officer ever ordered Australian troops to commit a suicidal dash against the Turks.This is false history.The movie's statement that quote-"the British troops are relaxing on the beach"unquote while Australian troops were dying is particularly slanderous when you consider that Britain lost more than twice as many troops at Gallipoli as Australia and New Zealand combined.Gallipoli continued the chip-on-the-shoulder mentality of Australian filmakers against Britain.I am Australian born to Australian parents so my opinion is impartial.


"ITS NOT OUR BLOODY WAR"   April 17, 2000
sarah (TEMUKA, NEW ZEALAND)
10 out of 14 found this review helpful

On a beach on the opposite side of the world, hot and muggy weather conditions, no doubt meaning the odour around extremely unpleasant Dusty and noisy - an unorganised hell. This was how I was the taste left in my mouth after watching the movie Gallipoli, starring Mark Lee as Archie and Mel Gibson as Frank. Gallipoli is not one of those war movies showing all action and "blood and guts", with absolutely no point beyond entertainment. We all witnessed the tremendous loss war is. We met our characters before they met each other and watched them grow together as talented runners and two completely different young men with two completely different opinions on the war. The road to Gallipoli was long and took up at least two thirds of the movie. This wasn't an accidental over write of the beginning, but an attempt to get us emotionally involved with both characters as we might have been during the war if our relatives or friends departed. In this way the structure of the settings is regularly criticised, "Why call it Gallipoli when they were only there 10 minutes," "There should be a follow up scene of how the family reacted and what happened to Frank." This reinforces the waste and ill regard for human life war really is. As we grew to know these boys we were shown in a tactful way the youth and innocence of Archie and Frank. Two complete strangers with not much in common other the destination of Perth due to Archie wanting to sign up for the war even though he was under age and Frank thinking war was a waste and quoted in saying "its not our bloody war". But one had been, and the other was about to be fooled and show their gullibility by believing the myths surrounding war. Nevertheless on their journey we see the sparks between them fly and their friendship begin to unfold. This is well acted and leaves you wondering if Gibson and Lee are actually friends in real life, not just acting excited. This according to Peter Weir, the director was due to the "vital chemistry" that went on between Lee and Gibson on camera and off. As soon as the characters are reunited in Egypt during a training battle we are reminded of their friendship. They are supposed to be practising shooting each other and we witness them hugging and jumping. They are rejoicing, yelling and are tremendously excited taking none of what they are doing seriously. This to me showed the innocence and juvenility of these boys, along with Archies easy going, layed back approach, in contradiction to Franks denial of his fear and ignorance of the reservations he is feeling about what they are about to embark on. The characters emphasized the films theme. The main theme I personally picked up on was that of the `myths of was'. Why young men were so willing to lie about their age in order to go to what I describe as hell. The main myth shown was gullible young men being convinced that war was going to be fun. Some kind of adventure and a way to experience new and foreign countries sold to them as exciting a holiday from their monotonous homes in Australia and New Zealand. They later found out it was far from what they expected and this was well depicted with the lighting, all blue and dull. The music also on the arrival of the troops on the beach was deep and moody setting the scene for the devastation that followed. The noise and sound effects were impressive and showed how stressful it would have been with guns firing non stop, twenty four hours a day. The camera work was also something to be admired, especially the scene when the two main characters decide to again block out the the reality of where they are and swim in the sea while bullets pierce through the water around them. It showed the seriousness of how close the bullets really were. The setting also was a contradiction to their home, a safe and peaceful place. The space and wide open planes, as appose to the small trenches all cramped where nothing is safe, established as men watch their friends blood is splattered on them. This is followed by the point that breaks my heart. Here are our ANZACs, young men giving up everything to help our commonwealth leaders, and we are stabbed in the back when the high and mighty British officers use us as their shields. Ignoring the fact that they weren't just numbers dying with no one caring. They were men, individuals, fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, grandfathers, and maybe in there could have been national heroes, for example brilliant runners. All had futures, all had pasts. Archie and Frank fit in a number of these categories which makes us want them to live. In conclusion, I highly recommend this movie as an educational way of opening the eyes of people who have personal connections with young men who fought in WW1. Along with anyone with a heart and is grateful to what the men of war have done for us. It is real and does not shelter the main characters from heartache like most war movies. As much as we want a happy ending it was not realistic with the true scenes from Gallipoli. It was well researched and it definitley showed. The direction, acting and all round production of this movie is a credit to all involved, especially the novice director Peter Weir.