Journey's End

In 1918 after four tears of unimaginable attritional warfare and with more and more reinforcements arriving from America Germany was on the brink of collapse . People were starving on the streets and another winter would have probably seen Germany descend in to revolution as seen in Russia the previous year . Mindful of this German military leaders launched a Spring of offensive with the aim of knocking out the British , capturing Paris and ending the war before American reinforcements became a major factor . After initial tactical success the Germans failed to capture the major communication centre at Amiens . The allies rallied their forces and counterattacked in the one hundred days offensive that saw the Germans unconditionally sign an armistice . The cost of victory wasn't cheap with the British army in 1918 suffering more dead than it did during the entire second world war

History is a very strange thing . We tend to look back on things with a mind set that only exists in the present time . Revisionists tend to paint a picture that the First World War was bad and the Second World War was good but in reality there's little difference between Imperial Germany invading Belgium in 1914 and Nazi Germany invading Poland in 1939 . Certainly there wouldn't be much difference in a British Tommy's way of thinking in the fields of France in 1918 to that of 1944 . The anti-warsentiment given to the First World War , of bungling butchers such as General Haig sending thousands of young men to their death wasn't untrue but certainly wasn't a uniquely British trait and in the one hundred days offensive the British army killed , wounded and captured more Germans than the French , American and Belgian armies combined

A former veteran of the First World War director James Whale brings the 1928 stageplay by RC Sheriff to the big screen and does it very well . Certainly it can't be described as " pro-war " but neither does it descend in to revisionist anti-war cliché . Public school boy officers actually had a lower life expectancy than working class men and if you don't believe me take a look at your local war memorial where the ranks of the fallen are given that confirm that the carnage brought upon a generation of men was an egalitarian horror wrought upon all classes . There's an honesty to JOURNEY'S END that is rarely seen in media that has 1914-18 as its theme

At this point it's needed to point out the homosexual subtext of the film - there is none . Yes Whale was homosexual and because of this critics will scrutinise every single line and scene . The closeness of the characters and the paternalism of the Uncle figure mirrors the real life camaraderie of soldiers in combat and is not to be read as any type of comment on the love that dare not speak its name . The characters will also surprise a 21st Century anti-war audience as they get hung up on seemingly frivolous subjects but as a great many contemporary accounts from the conflict agree the worst thing about the war wasn't dealt out by shells , bullets and bayonet from the enemy but the food from their own side

From a technical point of view the film is sometimes limited and for long segments it is rather obvious that its genesis was in theatre but Whale does manage to make the battle scenes appear cinematic . It's also impossible to not mention that this the movie that caused the director to move to America use the superior sound facilities of Hollywood and decided to stay in the country where he made FRANKENSTEIN , THE OLD DARK HOUSE and THE INVISIBLE MAN all classic genre films fondly remembered today and all of which are down to James Whale working on this film . It's such a pity JOURNEY'S END remains such an obscure film which has only had seven comments so far and is never shown on network television . It should be essential viewing in history classes dealing with the Great War

James Whale had served in World War 1, and this powerful anti-war film has a strong feeling of authenticity as a result. Whale obviously understood the feeling of being in the trenches of World War 1, and manages to convey this feeling strongly to his audience. In a way the terrible technical restrictions of early sound recording help to convey the claustrophobia of trench warfare - the lack of camera and actor movement make the audience feel like they too are stuck in the trenches. Of course it would have been great if the rare action sequences were less confusing and better filmed, but in the end the film is still quite overwhelmingly emotional. This is due in no small part to the excellent performances. Colin Clive and David Manners are particularly memorable.

Whale does not have the opportunity, in this early talkie, to display the great visual flare that he would later become renowned for, but it is, nonetheless, an auspicious start to a great career. 8/10.

Understandably many people have called Journey's End an Anti-War film and it seems so because it reflects the terrible plight in the trenches. However R.C.Sheriff did not write this as an indictment of the Great War. It was of the brotherly love felt between two people in a time of stress. Sheriff, who served in the trenches before being wounded at Ypres never felt the great anger that appeared in All Quiet on the Western Front, Goodbye to all that etc. In fact a majority of serving personnel felt anger towards the pacifist nature of Sassoon and fellow anti-war writers.(read A subaltern's War by Charles Edmonds or some of the Ira Jones Books) One must remember that many had spent four years of hell in the trenches and to be all told that it was wasted time was pure anathema. In today's world, where we have been educated on the 'Oh, what a lovely war", Barkers trilogy and BirdSong it is more clear, in hindsight, as to the failure of Generals and the pointlessness of it all. By the way, one of the first actors to read for the London production was an unknown young actor called Lawrence Olivier

As all of the other reviewers have stated, this is an excellent film. It really captures the fear, claustrophobia, camaraderie, and occasional boredom of life in the trenches of World War I. As everyone knows, both R.C. Sheriff and James Whale had served in the trenches, and they brought their experiences to the play, and then the film. It is a product of its time, 1929-1930, so there are technical and other limitations, but it is still a great film. Full of pathos and a sense of desperation.

The actors work well together, and many of them give what I feel are their best career performances. Much has been written about the superb acting of Colin Clive, as Stanhope, and it is true. He is great. You really feel the anguish of this man, who has been at the front for three years. He has been pushed beyond his limit, and reacts as any normal person would-- exhibiting signs of battle fatigue, never-ending fear, and occasional hopelessness. What is amazing is that he continues to endure, and to do what he considers to be his duty. He finds solace in the bottle, and in the company of his mates.

Clive was a brilliant actor, and gave his all to whatever part he played. Many of them were variations on the Stanhope theme. His role as Henry Frankenstein, in the two films directed by Whale, are similar in tone to this part. It's a shame that he didn't have more movie roles with real meat in them, but perhaps there were only so many such parts in Hollywood, and not always available. He was good in all of his other films, such as "One More River," 1934, as a sadistic husband; "The Key," very good as a sympathetic British Intelligence officer in Ireland during the "Black and Tan" period; "Jane Eyre," 1934, as Rochester; "The Right to Live," 1935, as a husband paralyzed in a plane crash; "The Girl From Tenth Avenue," 1935, as a very funny drunk, etc. He acts with Bette Davis in that latter film, and they play well together. You hear a lot about his real-life demons, and alcoholism, but he seems to have been a good guy, and many people regretted his early death.

David Manners, as Raleigh, is also excellent. He plays the school boy well-- innocent, eager to please, ready to do his part, and admiring of Stanhope. He captures the essence of this character. I think it is Manners' best role. He was very good in "The Miracle Woman," 1931, as the blind man involved with Barbara Stanwyck, and in a slightly similar role in "The Last Flight," also 1931. But I think he is best here. I also like him in all the horror films like "Dracula," "The Mummy," and "The Black Cat," but he doesn't have much to do in those films, except stand around, be romantic, and be kind of ineffectual. He had a good career, though, acting with some of the biggest stars of the day. He was good with Loretta Young, Katherine Hepburn, and Kay Francis, and, reportedly, was liked by them.

Of the other supporting actors, I think Ian MacLaren is the best. He is quite moving as Osborne (also known as "Uncle"). He supports and encourages Stanhope, and offers real friendship to Raleigh. It is a warm and sensitive performance, and integral to the film. I think it is the biggest film role of his career. You see him in some other 1930s films, but usually in small, unobtrusive parts. On the evidence of this film, he was an excellent actor.

Billy Bevan, a former silent-film comedian, is very good, too. His Trotter is full of good cheer, optimism, and kindness. He would play similar types in many more films. Anthony Bushell is good as Hibbert, the coward. He is continually trying to shirk his duty, and he manages to bring out the worst in Stanhope. Charles Gerrard, as Mason the cook, is kind of amusing, and acts as a sort of comedy relief. Gerrard showed up the next year in "Dracula," as Martin, the sanitarium guard who takes away Renfield's spiders and flies. Interesting in that Manners is also in that film. Gerrard played a more serious military type in John Ford's "Men Without Women," and was hilarious as Lord Ambrose Plumtree, husband of Thelma Todd, in Laurel and Hardy's "Another Fine Mess."

It's surprising that this film hasn't been picked up by Kino or Criterion or someone, and given a full restoration. I have always wondered why it is not more widely seen or revived. The only copies available are grainy ones on eBay or somewhere. It never seems to show up on PBS, or in film retrospectives. It is so good, that it shouldn't be relegated to obscurity. I would place it in the select group of James Whale's best films, alongside "Waterloo Bridge," "Showboat," and the quartet of horror films. Let's hope that it shows up soon in a pristine, restored print, with perhaps a commentary by someone like Whale biographer James Curtis. That would be a nice treat.

Colin Clive (Stanhope) is the Captain in charge of a troop of officers in the trenches of World War One. He is given intelligence that a German attack is imminent and he has to ensure that orders in response to this are carried out. Into his charge comes fresh-faced David Manners (Raleigh) who knows him from school and who idolizes Clive. However, Clive is a changed man. He likes a drink these days and he has a temper to go with it.

Interestingly for me, I live on a street named after Colin Clive's ancestor. The acting can be slightly wooden and exaggerated - step forward David Manners and cowardly Anthony Bushell (Hibbert) but Clive is good in his role as is his trusted officer and friend Ian Maclaren (Osborne). The setting is realistic and the constant background shelling gives you a feeling of actually being on location!

I found the film much better than expected given that I knew to expect a 2 hour staged play. The scenes give depth to the characters and we watch the relationships between them grow. Pass the whisky.