Opiniones de usuarios

This is one of the earliest examples of a "docu-drama" and one of the best. It's realism causes the viewer to feel true empathy for the participants---especially for the Scottish Jacobites.

While it's certainly true that the English and their Scottish allies were better equipped and had a more disciplined, unified command structure, the circumstances of the Highlanders weren't quite as dire as indicated. Many were indeed poor and malnourished, but generally not to the degree depicted in the film, where almost all are dressed in rags and covered in filth. It is also claimed that most didn't have firearms, yet the majority were armed with pistols or muskets of local or French manufacture. Their lack of discipline and cohesive command caused them to rely on the shock tactics that served them so well at the Battle of Prestonpens, and many dropped their muskets and charged after firing a volley. Interestingly, the English tally of captured weapons after the battle contained many more guns than swords. Swords; especially claymores; were expensive, and most of the poorer men without guns carried axes or pikes.

The contingent of French trained Scots and Irish, equipped and drilled in the same manner as the Redcoats, was larger than shown in the film. And the English forces contained significant numbers of both lowland and highland Scots. Although the English were well provided with artillery, most of their cannons were small three pounders used in urban street fighting or in the American woodlands where they were known as "grasshoppers". The standard light field gun was the six pounder. Despite these qualifications, the battle scenes are graphic and realistic.

Watkins makes it seem as if the Scots were true revolutionaries asserting their ethnic identity, when, in actual fact, Prince Charlie was simply a wannabe monarch seeking to restore the Stuarts, and probably as disdainful of the Highlanders as the Hanoverians were. The modern parallels he tries to draw simply aren't there.

Despite the above, this is a great movie that should be on every history buff and cinema enthusiast's list.

Enjoying a revival on the art-house circuit, this reconstruction of the famous last battle fought on British soil uses modern documentary-style reporting to convey immediacy. An effective and bloodthirsty film, it covers a landmark period of Scots-Anglo history, showing not only the senseless waste of human life, the total incompetence of the Bonnie Prince Charles as a military leader, but the barbaric excesses of both Scots and English, and the iniquity and the Scottish ‘clan' system. The period opened the way for the ‘clearances' where indigenous people were shipped off and the land used for (more profitable and less troublesome) sheep farming.

It really doesn't have anything very good to say about anyone, English or Scots, but this won't stop many English feeling it is racist and one-sided (just as the English critics as a whole were the only ones in the world to lambaste the magnificently spectacular but historically inaccurate, Braveheart). Watkins may well have had a political agenda – the film was likened to a social commentary on the American involvement in Vietnam (as the gutting of the Gaelic Highlands by the Noble Army was said to parallel the ‘pacification' of the Vietnamese by the U.S. Army). Culloden, however, is not only a key historical massacre but almost part of Scottish folklore. Arguing the details of the battle is still a not uncommon pub conversation, especially to the north and west of the country. My favourite version is by an elderly lady who lives near Culloden (just outside of Inverness) who ‘tells it like she was there'. The movie, although originally made for television, is also a landmark, and riveting stuff, but whether it can justifiably be used to further a pro-Scottish Independence agenda is much shakier, given that it happened a long time ago.

For some ridiculous reason the battle of Culloden is often thought of as a battle between Scotland and England . As a young Scottish schoolboy I always thought of it as a battle between the Catholic Jacobite Highlanders wanting to put a Catholic Prince on the British throne with the Hanoverian British wanting to keep a Protestant King . As the years went by I found this wasn't the case since the majority of Highlanders were Episicopalian and the majority of the British forces at the battle were Anglicans , two vaguely Protestant religions that possibly owe a lot more to Catholic tradition than they'd be willing to admit . Certainly the established Church Of Scotland which is Presbyterian would describe both religions as " Anglo-Catholic " while some more extreme Presbyterians would describe them as " heretics " . Regardless of this what Peter Watkins legendary ground breaking docu-drama does is show the massive complexity and sometimes inherent contradictions that involved the conflict between the forces of the Jacobites and Hanoverian and does this brilliantly . This is the one of the few things that can be described as brilliantly done

Seconds in to the film were shown an advance guard of red coats described as " An advance battalion of an English government army of nine thousand men " Hmmm . Is it not a " British " army ? . As I said it does later point out that the Hanoverians are indeed British but it does mix British and English in a euphemistic manner . For example a Jacobite rebel " is found guilty in an English court " when perhaps the correct phrasing might have been " A court in England " which has an entirely different meaning . . That said this is an absolute eye opener who thinks the Jacobite rebellion was Scotland against England . The Jacobites are a coalition of Highland clans , Irish mercenaries and the occasional deserter whose motive is to put a Catholic on the British throne . This Catholic Prince being even less British than the Germanic Hanoverian King

" Hey Theo why would anyone want to do that ? It sounds like Hitler versus Stalin . Surely democratic secular government is the only cause worth fighting for ? "

I totally agree and this is the major failing of CULLODEN - it tends to view the mid 18th Century through 20th Century eyes . There's an obvious agenda of viewing the actions by the British on the Highlanders at the battle and afterwards as being war crimes and atrocities on a par with the holocaust . Looking on this in 21st Century zeitgeist it might be but to be totally amoral and therefore truthful it was no different from what was going on in the rest of the world . There was no such thing as democracy , the Geneva Convention or human rights therefore life in general was short , bloody and brutal and wars reflected this . Being directed by Peter Watkins we're getting an absolute sledge hammer approach to everything so much so the solemn and dead pan tone becomes unintentionally funny .. It's almost like the armies of both sides are Baldrick clones led by the Blackadders . I also instinctively feel that some of the background of the characters be taken with a large pinch of salt:

" Patrick Coleman . Three days a go a sergeant , two days ago 800 lashes for looting today a private "

What he got 800 lashes two days ago and he's still able to march in to battle ? What he get lashed with ? A feather ? I'm calling BS on that one . We also have a private called William Roache " Two years pay wouldn't buy the wig and hat of the officer marching in front of him " so it shows you how expensive wigs and hats were back then , especially when you spent your money on a defence lawyer . We also have a female character called " Annie Walker " so I kept expecting someone to say " Pass the ammunition and a packet of crisps please Mrs Walker "

Watkins also has an irritating directorial technique of constantly shooting scenes in extreme close up . It might work during the pseudo interview scenes but not during the battle scenes which gives the impression that there's a grand total of six extras taking part in the battle which we're constantly told in composed of 5,000 Jacobites and 9,000 Hanoverians but I guess that's possibly down to the lack of budget so I shouldn't be too critical and does deserve some credit since we get a good performance out of William Roach . I doubt if there's a connection between the Duke Of Cumberland being a brutal tyrant and getting 15 grand a year as this film insinuates

This is one of the films (even though shown on TV, it absolutely qualifies as cinema) that shaped my childhood, my politics, and my love of film-making and its true potential. I remember being simply blown away, not merely by the intensity of the violence and aggression (I had never seen war filmed like this), but by the passion and the pain of the "ordinary people" - the Scots, especially the Scottish women - as they witnessed the English brutality around them. Totally extraordinary to me also, was the fact that the camera team felt so moved as to intercede in the violence - not merely breaking the boundaries of media "objectivity" in a way that had rarely, if ever, been done before in 1964, but also breaking the boundaries of time - remember, we are in a war here that is taking place in 1746, and yet it seems perfectly natural and believable to have a camera team pushing into frame, protesting the behavior of the English troops.

Peter Watkins went on to make many groundbreaking movies, but little can touch Culloden - the closest is Punishment Park, which uses much the same techniques to follow a group of students and protesters in a slightly fictionalized and rather fascist USA, where (as I recall - I haven't seen the movie in years), they are given a "choice" between internment or a (loaded) chance to "run", with the risk/likelihood of being shot and killed by their paramilitary pursuers.

A minor personal note: I saw Culloden on TV while I was very young and at school in Britain. It is a hard film to find - at least until the recent DVD - but I came across it again at the Sydney Public Library, of all places, during a trip to Australia in the 1990s, and sat watching it on 16mm, on a Moviola in the library - as stunned and moved as I had been the first time I saw it. It was reassuring to know that its power had not diminished.

Peter Watkins's much underestimated Docu-Drama that, frankly, has to be watched by the individual to have the maximum impact. This is, without doubt, the fairest and most realistic depiction of war in cinema history. Here we have no poetic licence and no particular bias, despite some claiming a strong swing in favour of the Jacobites. Men are men, war is war and blood is blood.

There are few ways in which to describe this masterpiece in a simple review. If you desire a stark wake up call to the brutality and pain that war and Civil War creates, get hold of a copy of this film.

If you are not moved, then you have no heart.

I first saw this at school in the 1970s... and it haunted me ever since. "Making history come to life" is a huge cliché - but this really does. It is horrific and captivating and utterly memorable. Lines like "this is grapeshot - and this is what it can do" stick with you, but also the misery of so many caught up in events beyond their knowing or understanding. You remember their faces. It is really like being there.

It is also a model - a first - whose influence you see time and time again. It is amazing to look at it and realise it can before Vietnam, for example, whose news filming style it so resembles in places

It is in black and white, needless to say, which will probably put off anyone under the age of 30 - but it works so well, and far better that the more contemporary remake (also by the BBC) some 30 years later.

A must see for anyone with a taste for history. Or drama. Or film.

Brilliant. Uncompromising. Brutal. Seminal docudrama. Docudrama makes it sound pedestrian. It isn't.

I remember watching Culloden years ago on BBC2. The remorseless cannon fire, the savage battle and the immediacy of the action struck a cord. I picked up a copy of John Prebble's Culloden a couple of years after, in a second hand bookshop. Obtaining the book wasn't an automatic response to having watched the BBC film. I brought it without having the film in mind. That is what good film making is. Not a quick fix. More an experience.

A highly recommended watch.

The 1746 Battle of Culloden, the last land battle fought in the British Isles and the battle that ensured that Scotland was controlled by England. Not only do we see the battle unfold but also the lead-up, the key people involved and the aftermath.

An interesting and original depiction of a battle that has a massive significance in British history. Original in that it is told like a live-action TV broadcast, complete with "interviews" with participants. Much more a docudrama than a pure documentary.

The key moments and tactics of the battle are shown well, giving a good feel for the ebb and flow of the battle. Decent, gritty action scenes too.

The film covers well the key individuals involved in the battle and how their personalities and agendas influenced it. We also get to see the Scots' motivations for being there, and they're often not borne out of hatred of the English or loyalty.

On the negative side, the acting is pretty poor. This does reduce the historic immersion quite considerably. In addition, there is a pro-Scots/anti-English bias to the telling of this, lessening the credibility of the film. There's no problem telling the story largely from a Scottish perspective but the bias gets piled on thick towards the end through a series of subjective, flowery editorialising and speeches.

When Peter Watkins made "Culloden" in 1964, most historical films tended to melodramatic costume dramas - this is as far from that as possible.

This is one of the early uses of "docudrama" technique, using voice-over, rapid editing, hand-held camera and interviews with the 1746 characters. Based on the John Prebble book of the same title, the film is full of terrible facts. The Highland clan system was brutal - as was the English system. None seem attractive by today's standards. The audience is introduced to the effects of cannonade, grapeshot, bayonet & claymore. The non-actors who play the Highland peasants, speak in Gaelic, emphasising the cultural divide between the Highlands and Westminster. Nearly all the dialogue is quotes from the time. Irony piles on irony - the Catholic Highlanders are fighting for Bonnie Prince Charlie, a man more familiar with Polish, Italian & French than English or Gaelic. The Protestant Scots & British are fighting for a German - George II. The shaky black & white footage of the British massacre of Scots wounded, is horribly reminiscent of World War II Nazi footage (as it is meant to be). Watkins revulsion at British brutalities and sympathy for the Highlanders, caused a storm of controversy when the BBC televised it. The reaction was so strong, the BBC did not reshow it for years. Edited versions exist, with less violence. I first saw this in the 1960's and it is as strong an argument for Scottish independence as the more colourful "Braveheart". Recommended for all history & military buffs.

In many ways, this TV program is a neat way to present history. You recreate a famous event (in this case the Battle of Culloden) and have people in period costumes act it out and talk to the camera as well as through the use of a narrator.

This is not a perfect method, however, as there are two main problems. First, since this was not captioned, it was tough understanding the accents. I have some British friends and they say that they, too, often have trouble with this and it is amazing how a country that sized has such amazingly diverse accents. Second, when the battle itself begins, there is a great sense of overload. So many cannons, screams and the like--it all tends to mash together in your mind and can be a bit numbing.

Still, an interesting premise and well executed---even though these armies of thousands really appeared to be just a few dozen. Worth seeing.

This is a documentary made of the battle of Culloden. It is made as if the narrator is a war correspondent at this 18th century Scottish battle. It is very watchable for those interested in history of this period.

In some ways a little amateurish, but this to an extent adds to the battlefield atmosphere, and may be more to do with a low budget. On the whole quite lucid and interesting, if at times a little corny by todays standards.

Gives much interesting background information, and attempts to tear down much of the romanticism and myths which later surrounded the battle, and Bonny Prince Charlie. It gives a straight account of the negligence of the Young Pretenders leadership, and of the later English and lowland Scots reprisals and atrocities against the defeated highland army, and the ordinary highland citizens, and their brutal clan way of life. Altogether it appears very realistic.

Peter Watkins film "Culloden" is outstanding for all the reasons other reviewers have described and strips away the romanticism about Bonnie Prince Charlie,which began with Queen Victoria and Prince Alberts enthusiasm for anything Scottish. We all know war is brutal, but up until 1964 had film and TV portrayed it as such ? "Culloden" seems to have been the first film to show brutality and atrocities taking place. War films were still about the brave and upstanding allies fighting the nasty axis powers. Other reviewers have commented on the parallels with the Vietnam war, but it must be remembered that "Culloden" was transmitted in December 1964 and the only American troops in Vietnam at the time were advisor's. The full scale American troop deployments to Vietnam did not materialise until April 1965. It is an interesting parallel, but the scenes of US troops burning Vietnamese villages on the nightly news was still months away. But in a sense Peter Watkins previewed this. Quite simply an outstanding film.

I saw this movie in a Greek theatre, the first time movies by Watkins were presented in Greece.I was impressed by it's presentation of the brutality of war and the English army. It is also notable that he does not try to idealize the clan system of the Highlands that came to an end after Culloden. I wonder how he could find such accurate information about the details of the battle. It was a heart-rending movie, I think even more impressive than he latter film Commune which tries to present the collision between authority and rebellion in a similar but more understated manner. The amount of violence in Culloden is vast but it is realistic and not invented. In the latter half the movie takes a decisive stance against the English. UK divisions are not so pertinent for a foreigner as me but I can appreciate the visual beauty of the film.

Groundbreaking in its style of documentary realism Watkins BBC film depicts the horrific events of the battle of Culloden in 1746 and its aftermath. Watkins uses the anachronism of a modern day TV crew to great effect: the interviews with the real soldiers elicits sympathy in the viewer for the lowly Jacobite Clansmen who are depicted as ill-equipped, undernourished and, ultimately, ill-fated. The voice-over commentary (by Watkins) creates a tone of irony throughout e.g the two brothers fighting on opposing sides; the incompetence of the military leaders, etc.

This is a landmark film which is years ahead of its time in terms of technique. A definite must watch.

Outstanding film. I first saw it on US television in the 1970s, PBS, I think. Reputedly the British did not show it on TV after its initial showing in the 1960s for about three decades. The subject matter was perhaps controversial. The Jacobite side is not presented in a romantic White Heather Club fashion - most of the leadership are depicted as inept and the figurehead of their aspirations speaks with a heavy French accent (I do not know if this was true of the historical Prince Charlie). They are up against a British government army defending the Hanoverian dynasty, an army brutal but efficient (its soldiers are not going hungry, unlike their Jacobite opponents). An international conflict in fact, with Scots on both sides, a French-tinted Jacobite prince, Irish troops in French service and an officer in the British Army, perhaps meant to be from Hanover, who makes a mocking comment in German that "they are throwing stones at us", as Highlanders on their right flank, unlike their left, fail to get to close quarters. And all this in a field near Inverness. Sometimes it was painfully obvious that there were very few extras, but Watkins did far better with his very limited resources than many directors with far bigger budgets and an army of extras have done.

I took my son to Culloden a few years ago and we took in the visitors' centre and walked the battlefield. All very interesting, but it wasn't until we watched Watkins's 'Culloden' that the full story of the Jacobite uprising, the battle and atrocities afterwards came to life. My son thought it was excellent and he doesn't generally enjoy anything in black and white! We were back in Scotland this year at Glenfinnan and again ended up talking about the film 'Culloden', it's that good.

The framing in this movie is incredible. The tightness makes only 3 people look like a whole Scottish army. The acting also proves that big name stars don't just deliver academy award winning performances. This film is a must see for any low budget film makers.

Made at the beginning of the Viet Nam War the Battle of Culloden has an unmistakable resemblance between it and the conflict. Peter Watkins pacifistic message is as loud, clear and brutal as his nuclear nightmare faux documentary The War Game. Watkins employs the same coldly intimate style of devastating close-ups of combatants in the Eighteenth century battle that sent the inept Bonnie Prince Charlie packing involving both leaders and followers where vainglorious pomposity and maiming weaponry grind up humanity. The "You are There" television show technique interviews combatants of every rank as well as display the crude but efficient weaponry that devastated the ill led ranks of the Bonnie Prince who is portrayed as a moronic fop, oblivious to the suffering of his people. On the triumphant side there is the Duke of Cumberland whose cakewalk victory bleeds war crimes while elevating him to legendary war hero status. After all, the victors write the history books. In Culloden, Watkins shows us that in war winners as well as the defeated lose something. In many ways it powerfully prefigures the folly of The United States for the next ten years in South East Asia. "When will they ever learn"?

This movie, a bit over an hour long, was made like todays documentary with re-enactment style and a narrator. Although that style is very popular today, it was ground breaking back in 1964 when this black and white film was made. This style was the perfect and only way this film could of withstood these 50+ years it's been since it's creation.

I have to assume that the budget for this was bare bones, and that although there were not the actual numbers of men shown on camera that existed on the original battlefield,(13,000) there appeared, numerous characters, obviously not professional actors. Yet the poor acting almost lends to the pitiful occasion, that the Battle of Culloden turned out to be. Once the battle started, the acting was unneeded as you were drawn into the sights, sounds and magnitude of close quarter warfare.

Keeping in mind the limited resources on all levels and at a time when special affects were not available, the tone set by the director and the Camera use was absolutely BRILLIANT. Use of mostly tight frames gives us a personal interview feel. With the long shots, admittedly, it is up to the viewer to use the imagination and add the thousands of soldiers that were the reality of that day. Still....the smoke, the real cannon fire, the bag pipes, the screams of men and the chaos was realistically shown and felt.

The aftermath of this battle and how individuals were affected brings a very personal touch that is the sympathetic tone of this movie.

I highly recommend this film.

Astonishing television from over 60 years ago. Groundbreaking in concept and execution. Yet almost never repeated on BBC or anywhere else. I watched it on transmission in 1964 as a 10-year-old not altogether understanding the conceit, but viewing it today it seems powerful beyond words.

The crudity of the camera work, the 'amateurishness' of the acting and the black and white photography all adds to the sense of raw authenticity.

Somewhat one-sided in its portrayal of the conflict and it editorialises in a way that a 'contemporaneous' current affairs report or news coverage would not have done, but that's understandable in the light of history. Fierce in its indictment of the brutality of the conflict and the post-battle harrowing of the civilian population.

A neglected masterpiece.

This may be set in 1745/6 but it wonderfully depicts how people are used and to what levels they can sink too.

The men who did the actual fighting, in this last English v Scots battle, on both sides were men with the intelligence of a stone aged caveman and, were pure barbaric savages.

If you learn nothing else you will not fail to learn how the people with will brutally abuse, control and use those without. A superb piece of television (even though the camera work was rubbish...IMHO) and something that would be of great value to history classes in schools.

The irony of the English victory at Culloden is that a few hundred years later, most of the politicians in the English Parliament and in control of the affairs of England are Scots! :)

And THANK GOD FOR PETER WATKINS! This man is an INTERNATIONAL GEM & HIS WORK DESERVES TO BE SEEN IN ITS ENTIRETY!

-todd gold.