“You can only get so close to it…”
(Director Paul Gross on historical content in the movie Passchendaele)
(Director Paul Gross on historical content in the movie Passchendaele)
Passchendaele's official movie trailer, released in 2008.
In 2008
renowned Canadian actor and director Paul Gross released Passchendaele, illustrating the Battle of Passchendaele, or the 3rd Battle of Ypres, the
1917 engagement on the Western Front where Canada suffered extreme causalities
but distinguished itself as a formidable foe against the German army. Released to
the general public on October 17, 2008, it was the most expensive movie ever
made in Canada to date ($20 million, versus the typical $7-8 million spent on
making a movie in Canada), but it also became the highest grossing Canadian
film that year. As the 100th anniversary of the First World War approaches,
war history will gain more attention and many Canadians will look to various
sources such as Passchendaele to both
entertain and educate. I have always believed that historical films have a role
to play in educating society, and that any genre that promotes history and encourages
people to learn more about their own past should be encouraged. Others, however, fear that a
fictional work touting itself as “historical” can potentially mislead the
public, blurring the many critical facts painstakingly unearthed by
professional historians. Given my limited knowledge of war history, Passchendaele was an interesting “case
study” on which to test my assumptions, giving me an opportunity to answer some crucial questions about the
utility of historical fiction such as films. First, is Passchendaele historically accurate, and if inaccuracies do occur,
are they significant enough to mislead the public? Moreover, can historical
films like Passchendaele play the educational role that I believe they can? If not, then how can this
genre, one that has the potential to reach so many people, be improved?
The “Story” of
Passchendaele
Passchendaele was not the first Canadian
movie to depict the Great War (others had been attempting documentary-style
adaptations since Carry on Sergeant in 1928), but it has certainly been
the most successful. Gross based the film on protagonist Sergeant Michael Dunne, a
character loosely based on his grandfather who had served in four different Canadian
Expeditionary Force (CEF) battalions during the war. In the opening scene, the
viewer meets fictitious Dunne (played by Gross) in a skirmish following Vimy in
1917, where he brutally murders a young German soldier after a tragic
battle scene in which only Dunne survives. Afflicted with shell shock, he is then shipped back home to Calgary where falls in love with nurse Sarah Mann. We also
meet Sarah`s younger brother, David, who has been denied admission to the army
because of his asthma. While in Calgary, both siblings endure enormous
amounts of prejudice because of their German heritage. David eventually manages
to enlist, and Michael follows him back to the Front as a promise to Sarah.
There, Michael is killed while trying to save David, who is wounded and
returns home. As I watched the story
unfold, three important historical themes emerged. First, the aggressive and
arguably brutal tactics used by Canadian soldiers was contrasted with the more compassionate
German tactics on the battlefield. Second, the anti-German sentiment prevalent
in Canada at the time was illustrated through the lives of Sarah Mann and her brother David.
Finally, the film dealt with the stigmatization of men who were unable to
enlist in the Canadian military.
As I
expected, the battle scenes in Passchendaele
bore a striking resemblance to the renowned American war movie Saving Private Ryan, a watershed work with regard to its portrayal of violence in war films. In Passchendaele, viewers are immediately inundated with brutal war scenes, bloodshed and atrocities.
Particularly striking is an early scene in which a young German soldier pleads
with Dunne to spare his life, murmuring the words “Kamerad.” Dunne kills the boy
anyway, later confessing that he was neither scared nor in danger, and that he
still cannot understand his actions. Later, when occupying a trench with young
David Mann, Dunne confesses that for Canadian soldiers, often referred to as relentless
“storm troopers," “[killing is] something we do all the time
because we’re good at it and we’re good at it because we’re used to it and
we’re used to it because we do it all the time.” Conversely, the Germans are shown
as arguably more compassionate. Near the end of the movie Dunne rescues David who has
been literally “crucified” to rubble on the German line. Remarkably, the
Germans are shown initiating a ceasefire while Dunne, in scenes that conjure
images of Christ carrying the cross,
drags David on his back to safety. The battle scenes and the Christian imagery
piqued my curiosity. I wondered about Gross’ decision to
depict Canadian soldiers as brutal while Germans were portrayed with more
compassion. Moreover, the Christ-like visual at the end of the movie was
confusing, and the ceasefire seemed both contrived and implausible. As the movie
concluded, I wondered if there were any truths in these details.
One of many brutal war scenes from Passchendaele. Mud, a defining feature of the actual battle, was well illustrated in the movie (source: passchendaelethemovie.com) |
A second
theme from the movie was the unrelenting jingoism present in Canadian society
during the First World War, played out in several scenes in Calgary. Sarah and
David are the grown children of a German immigrant who, upon learning of the
war, chose to return to Europe to fight for the German side, only to be killed
at Vimy. The two siblings face immense persecution and prejudice from Calgarians.
When news of their father’s affiliation breaks out Sarah is fired from her nursing
job, the family home is vandalized with red paint depicting the word “Hun,” and
David faces internal struggles as he tries to come to grips with his German
ancestry and his own anti-German sentiments. Similarly, Sarah turns to
morphine to dull the pain of what we as viewers assume is both the strain of war
and her own inner conflict over her mixed heritage. Overall, the intimate
storyline allows viewers a unique opportunity to live through the prejudices
Canadians such as the Manns endured, subsequently witnessing the more
subtle battle lines that were drawn here in Canada. If these were indeed Gross’
intentions, the movie captured them brilliantly.
Also observable in Passchendaele was the personal rejection and shame non-enlisted men felt during the First World War period. As we meet asthmatic David Mann, we learn that he had previously been rejected from service
numerous times. Viewers witness how David, fuelled by his hatred for his German
father, is torn apart by his desire to “serve Canada,” or rather to simply “kill
Germans,” and his inability to enlist. David’s personal life is further complicated by the myopic views of both his girlfriend and her father, the former influenced
by the romanticism of the fighting soldier and the latter who wishes for David
to prove his “manhood” before courting his daughter. As viewers, we are told of
the Canadian army's overarching need at this late date (1917) to fill its
recruitment and, as a result, David’s medical records are falsified and he is
enlisted. When later confronted by his sister, David echoes the sentiments of many Canadians who deem anyone appearing fit and yet not serving as cowardly,
and he insists that Dunne's own return from Europe is a result of cowardice
rather than mental illness. Later, we can understand why the military tried to prevent
unfit soldiers from entering service as we watch David’s asthma attack in the
trenches. In the end, David and Dunne’s courage at Passchendaele contradicts
the rumours and conjecture of those at home.
Sergeant Dunne comforts David Mann on the battlefield following an asthma attack (source: passchendaelethemovie.com) |
The "Real"
Passchendaele
In my
opinion, Passchendaele succeeded as a
work of fiction. I was expecting an overly-sentimental version of a wartime love story,
but I ultimately found the movie both riveting and entertaining. However, I was curious about its
value as a work of historical
fiction, and as such I endeavoured to find out as much as I could about the
movie’s plausibility and Gross’ larger objectives. Given that I had little
background on Canadian war history in general and Passchendaele in particular, other
historians' reviews gave me much-needed background and perspective. In
particular, a review by Tim Cook and Christopher Schultz and another by Nic
Clarke were crucial in helping me ascertain the movie's historical accuracy. I wondered what they would say about the movie’s factual
content regarding the three themes I garnered from the movie; Canadian brutality in war, jingoism and the
perils of un-enlisted men. Moreover, I was curious to see if they came to
similar conclusions about Gross’ intentions in making the movie.
The real Sergeant Michael Dunne, c 1918 (source: the Dunne family). |
From my additional research I discovered that the
movie contains numerous historical accuracies, and that the themes I garnered from the movie were indeed played out as Gross had intended. Gross also admits that
Dunne’s execution of the German soldier was based in fact: His grandfather recounted
the story to him decades later, and he recalls his grandfather’s final days in which he pleaded (in his sleep) for forgiveness,
likely from the young soldier. In “New Theatres of War: An Analysis of Paul
Gross’ Passchendaele,” Cook and
Schultz further extol the movie’s virtues
as a work of historical fiction. In particular, they clarify evidence of the
brutality depicted by Canadians in the movie, that Canadians were
indeed referred to as relentless “storm troopers,” and that “the horrors of war and
the brutality of person-to-person combat is precisely where the film remains
effective” (pg 52). They also mention the ceasefire as another plausible
element, which is not unlike the Christmas Truce of 1914 (pg 54). Moreover, they discuss the myth of the “crucified soldier,” which I
found to be a particularly curious detail in the movie. At the 2nd
Battle of Ypres Canadians reported seeing a Canadian soldier crucified to a Belgian
barn door. Although the German army denied the act and the Canadians' story was not
corroborated, the myth penetrated the Canadian military psyche nonetheless. Gross refers
to it early in the movie, and he uses the visual to further the notion of
suffering, selflessness and bravery in wartime when David is seen crucified
to rubble on enemy lines and it later saved by Dunne. Finally, Cook and Schultz confirm that racism and, in particular,
anti-German sentiment was rampant during the First World War era, and that the “conflicting
nationalisms” that Sarah and David face in the movie were entirely plausible
(pg 53).
Cook and Schultz still
address a variety of inconsistencies in Passchendaele’s
script, but they consider them inconsequential. Although they are curious about the impossibly quick time line of
Dunne fighting in Vimy, convalescing from shell hock at home, falling in love,
re-entering training and then being assigned to the front with Sarah’s brother,
they are unconcerned about it misleading the viewer or detracting from the
movie's intent. Moreover:
Should anyone worry that the 10th Battalion, from the Calgary
area, did not recruit in Calgary after the unit had gone overseas? Should we be
concerned that it is highly unlikely for a commissioned nurse to cavort and
have sexual relations with a non-commissioned officer? (pg 54)
Indeed, these details would have escaped unknowing viewers
like myself, but like Cook and Schultz, I believe that the smaller details are
largely irrelevant to the greater story Gross is trying to tell, and their inaccuracy does little to
detract from the broader, more significant issues addressed in Passchendaele.
In his
article “Passchendaele Highlights Uncounted Causalities,”
historian Nic Clarke discusses the rejection and stereotyping that non-enlisted men faced
on the home front, as illustrated by the character of David Mann. David is
rejected by his girlfriend’s father as not being “man enough” to date and potentially
marry his daughter, though his asthmatic conditions deems him unfit to serve.
In reality, men such as David were condemned by people who believed that the un-enlisted
were shirking their duties to their country. Branded as cowards, many men cut
themselves off from society and some ultimately committed suicide (pg 77).
Others, like the fictional character David, were enlisted later on, their medical ailments overlooked in an attempt to keep the CEF ranks fulls. Indeed, many of the men rejected in
1914 would have been enlisted as "late-goers" to fight at battles like Passschendaele in
1917. One such man from Canada's military history was Will R. Bird who, rejected early on because of bad
teeth, was able to enlist in April 1916 and fought at Passchendaele the
following year. Bird remained bitter about his conscription ordeal throughout
his life, claiming that ``it was a rank injustice” (pg 77).
Passchendaele Today:
The Power of Historical Drama
Historical films have the potential
to bring history to life. Passchendaele in
particular exposes the complexities of war pertaining to love, loss and the horrors
of trench fighting. Although the movie received mixed reviews in 2008, it
garnered six Genie awards the
following year. One reviewer in particular commented that the movie contains
"too much passion and not enough Passchendaele." Granted, much of the movie is
set in Calgary and revolves around the life, love and trials of its protagonists
rather than the battle it is named for. Yet, I enjoyed the movie and, more importantly,
the experience gave me insight into the role that historical film can play in both
educating and entertaining the public. Other historical films may not be of the same calibre as Gross' movie, and therefore I believe that the onus is on movie producers
to be as true to historic fact as possible so as not to mislead the public, as Gross has done. Non-fiction cannot possibly hope to achieve the level of emotional connection with
the viewer that historical film achieves. So should we as viewers be concerned
about the minor details that producers sometimes sacrifice in order to tell the
larger story? I don't believe so. The goal of a movie like Passchendaele is to emotionally engage the audience with the larger
narrative while educating and inspiring them to perhaps further their own
historical study. Gross surmises that
we "can only get so close" to the wartime experience in contemporary society.
As a result, he has created Passchendaele
to take us on a journey through the First World War experience that, nearly 100 years later, contributes
to our knowledge and understanding of a significant event in Canada's history.
Sources:
Cook, Tim, and Schutlz, Christopher. "New Theatres of War: An Analysis of Paul
Gross' Passchendaele," Canadian Military History 19 (3), 2010: 51-55.
Gross' Passchendaele," Canadian Military History 19 (3), 2010: 51-55.
Clarke, Nic. "Passchendaele Highlights Unaccounted Casualties," Canadian Military
History 18 (4), 2009: 75-78.
History 18 (4), 2009: 75-78.
A very thorough and thoughtful review! While Paul Gross paid close attention to the details of the Battle of Passchendaele--and got them right, he has said that the movie is a love story with the war as a background, not a war story with a love story embedded in it. The primary interest of the movie's text is the characters and their relationships and how the war affected them. Given that perspective, the historical accuracy of the movie is incredible. One thing of crucial importance to historical fiction that is generally overlooked is how well it imparts the general feeling of life in the past. The understanding that comes with empathizing gives historical fiction a place in our literary and film genres.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good analysis of the movie because you provide the opinions of the director and others, not just providing your own. The comparision between the movie and the actual story is also something good and important. Sometimes the truth is just as interesting as the fictionalized, movie version.
ReplyDelete@Lulu Belle, I agree. I believe that the goal of historical fiction is to entertain first and educate second, as Gross has done in "Passchendaele," and I also love the way it helps a viewer like myself to "feel" the past. However, not all viewers have the same approach. In our HIST 460 class our professor discussed an experience he had in an archives where a patron wanted information on the "real" Jack Dawson, and as we know there wasn't one. Such an encounter is proof that the public may interpret historical fiction as historical fact, and I believe that those producing historical fiction must be mindful of this, but we as viewers need to be aware as well and realize that entertainment is typically a producer’s primary concern.
ReplyDelete@Kaitlynn, thanks! I found their interpretations helped me in my own evaluations of this movie as I had no other way of determining what was true and what wasn't. I was also pleased to read that academics in the field shared the same views as I do! (It's ok for a producer to sacrifice a few of the incidentals in order to bring a much broader and more important story to life).
You mentioned that you saw them film put Canadian soldiers in a negative light at times while also portraying the Germans more sympathetically. For the film do you see this as partly an effort to change peoples perceptions about soldiers in the war or was it more to serve the plot of the film?
ReplyDelete