Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo was his follow-up production to his earlier highly regarded War and Peace, which I haven't seen, but have long heard its merits being acclaimed. On the basis of my experience watching Waterloo, I think I just may make it an ambition to hunt War and Peace (Parts 1 & 2 I believe) down.
To be sure Waterloo isn't a great film. Certainly the truncated 135 minute version I saw. (Back in the day of its general release some 5 decades ago, I think it was possible to see a 4 hour version, but I gather that edit has been permanently lost.) But it is a fine film to see if you are interested in the details of the famous battle that finally put paid to any further expansionistic ideas of Napoleon Bonaparte, the self-styled Emperor of the French, during the early nineteenth century in Europe.
For a 2 hour+ historical drama it has quite a simple storyline: preambles leading up to the confrontation, first from the perspective of Napoleon, then from that of his opponent, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington and then the battle itself and a brief aftermath, which takes up roughly half the film. Wellington actually presents as the most interesting and entertaining figure, with Christopher Plummer being given, the lion's share of the most amusing lines. This in itself is quite interesting, as I've read from a number of sources, that much of the dialogue is taken from historical accounts. I'm not sure how verifiable this is, as there are clear fictional dramatisations occurring to aid in simplifying complex historical structures and ensure fluid continuity. Rod Steiger is quite watchable too, in a reasonably orthodox "maniacal dictator" role. Due to the abbreviated format, it's not particularly clear, how after he escapes exile in the Mediterranean, and returns to France, Napoleon was so easily able to overthrow the King and raise a sufficiently large French army to challenge Wellington's allied forces at Waterloo. But we do get a feeling of his incredible popularity amongst the French, though we don't really know why.
The great Roger Ebert whose opinions I greatly respect, pretty much wrote this film off for 2 main reasons, fairly early in his eminent career. He thought Bondarchuk was guilty of repeating himself from the earlier film and that he, Ebert, was greatly opposed to the aerial photography and perspectives that Bondarchuk employs (to what I feel is tremendous effect). I wonder whether Ebert may have modified his views later in life, after seeing the indisputable influence of Bondarchuk's work on later directors such as Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott. No one watching the battle play out in this film, can fail to be reminded of similarities staged in films such as Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and Scott's The Kingdom. The aerial photography allows a much more enhanced viewer comprehension of military strategies being utilised; resulting in both successes and failures. So Roger, this time I beg to disagree.
And make no mistake, Waterloo is a terrific film to look at. If nothing else, Bondarchuk was an absolute master at staging scenes of vast logistical complexity, all without the benefit of CGI, though, for the time, he did have access to a very large budget, which this movie reflects to great effect. Besides the battle itself, with its huge armies, being largely represented by loaned out Soviet troops, costumes, make-up and especially art direction are vividly recreated in glorious detail. The above-mentioned introduction to Wellington's character, comes via a sumptuous ball room scene where most of the film's female characters have their sole opportunities to appear in the movie, but do so, in the most extravagantly elaborate finery befitting members of the upper classes, who the movie does suggest, saw war as a somewhat sporting, theatric affair, played out by European elites. Nothing substantiates this better than the extended preliminaries we see to "the main event", which included amazingly (apparently), Napoleon parading himself on a white horse, between the opposing armies, whilst Wellington, ever so politely, ordered that no shots be fired at him, as that would be seen as being ungentlemanly.
Dipping back into history, Waterloo is a film that is constructed on a broad canvas and on a massive scale. Finesse is certainly not its fine point. But it succeeds in what it set out to do -- to re-create a major historical event and place it in some kind of perspective, using some incredibly skilled and influential visual techniques, readily adopted by more contemporary film-makers.
To be sure Waterloo isn't a great film. Certainly the truncated 135 minute version I saw. (Back in the day of its general release some 5 decades ago, I think it was possible to see a 4 hour version, but I gather that edit has been permanently lost.) But it is a fine film to see if you are interested in the details of the famous battle that finally put paid to any further expansionistic ideas of Napoleon Bonaparte, the self-styled Emperor of the French, during the early nineteenth century in Europe.
For a 2 hour+ historical drama it has quite a simple storyline: preambles leading up to the confrontation, first from the perspective of Napoleon, then from that of his opponent, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington and then the battle itself and a brief aftermath, which takes up roughly half the film. Wellington actually presents as the most interesting and entertaining figure, with Christopher Plummer being given, the lion's share of the most amusing lines. This in itself is quite interesting, as I've read from a number of sources, that much of the dialogue is taken from historical accounts. I'm not sure how verifiable this is, as there are clear fictional dramatisations occurring to aid in simplifying complex historical structures and ensure fluid continuity. Rod Steiger is quite watchable too, in a reasonably orthodox "maniacal dictator" role. Due to the abbreviated format, it's not particularly clear, how after he escapes exile in the Mediterranean, and returns to France, Napoleon was so easily able to overthrow the King and raise a sufficiently large French army to challenge Wellington's allied forces at Waterloo. But we do get a feeling of his incredible popularity amongst the French, though we don't really know why.
The great Roger Ebert whose opinions I greatly respect, pretty much wrote this film off for 2 main reasons, fairly early in his eminent career. He thought Bondarchuk was guilty of repeating himself from the earlier film and that he, Ebert, was greatly opposed to the aerial photography and perspectives that Bondarchuk employs (to what I feel is tremendous effect). I wonder whether Ebert may have modified his views later in life, after seeing the indisputable influence of Bondarchuk's work on later directors such as Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott. No one watching the battle play out in this film, can fail to be reminded of similarities staged in films such as Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and Scott's The Kingdom. The aerial photography allows a much more enhanced viewer comprehension of military strategies being utilised; resulting in both successes and failures. So Roger, this time I beg to disagree.
And make no mistake, Waterloo is a terrific film to look at. If nothing else, Bondarchuk was an absolute master at staging scenes of vast logistical complexity, all without the benefit of CGI, though, for the time, he did have access to a very large budget, which this movie reflects to great effect. Besides the battle itself, with its huge armies, being largely represented by loaned out Soviet troops, costumes, make-up and especially art direction are vividly recreated in glorious detail. The above-mentioned introduction to Wellington's character, comes via a sumptuous ball room scene where most of the film's female characters have their sole opportunities to appear in the movie, but do so, in the most extravagantly elaborate finery befitting members of the upper classes, who the movie does suggest, saw war as a somewhat sporting, theatric affair, played out by European elites. Nothing substantiates this better than the extended preliminaries we see to "the main event", which included amazingly (apparently), Napoleon parading himself on a white horse, between the opposing armies, whilst Wellington, ever so politely, ordered that no shots be fired at him, as that would be seen as being ungentlemanly.
Dipping back into history, Waterloo is a film that is constructed on a broad canvas and on a massive scale. Finesse is certainly not its fine point. But it succeeds in what it set out to do -- to re-create a major historical event and place it in some kind of perspective, using some incredibly skilled and influential visual techniques, readily adopted by more contemporary film-makers.