En Francia, en los días más oscuros de la Gran Guerra, Camille recibe una alarmante carta de su novio, un soldado, y se disfraza de hombre para intentar encontrarlo.En Francia, en los días más oscuros de la Gran Guerra, Camille recibe una alarmante carta de su novio, un soldado, y se disfraza de hombre para intentar encontrarlo.En Francia, en los días más oscuros de la Gran Guerra, Camille recibe una alarmante carta de su novio, un soldado, y se disfraza de hombre para intentar encontrarlo.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 2 premios ganados y 7 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
That wanders aimlessly behind WW1 lines. Almost zero signs of WW1, No rations, No water, three sightings of Germans how did she get behind German lines? The woman faking kills a German lookout? WTF. And it gets even more cray cray after that.. Faker woman is/was going to the front to get her husband to desert. And best goof was cadet shot found floating down the river to next scene completely dry. Or the random meeting husband escaped from Belgium prisoner of war camp..
A curious little picture of fantasy that think was for the most part well done. Not super compelling or anything to rave about but completely watchable. Clearly not for everyone esp. those who need a more concrete narrative with absolute believability.
I am extremely surprised at most of the reviews submitted here. It is as if the Americans are really as our (stupid) stereotypes paint them: unimaginative, uneducated, dull, practical.
Questions spring to mind: would they enjoy "The Little Prince" by Saint-Exupery? Would they say that it's silly? Did they ever read or heard a poem of any kind? Did they ever read Remarque or Dos Passos or saw Deer Hunter or anything good? Did they literally took apart every fictional movie or book they saw by the criteria of factual consistency, realism and strict adherence to genre? I really, really don't understand people that criticize a movie about war because there were not enough explosions or bomb craters in it. I refuse to believe that they never had seen a good movie about war without action heroics (we certainly have, Soviet cinema did a lot of nice and gentle (and popular) dramas and humane comedies about war). It's like criticizing a comedy for the lack of good old-fashioned clowns in it.
And most of all it surprises me that even the social context doesn't push them in the right direction. A couple of guys here saw the film at an art-house festival. I imagine that they would be OK with the most absurd and gory things if someone put a "trash" and "experimental" and "surreal" stickers on the poster. But war films, they are about tactics and M1s, right? I think the musical numbers in the film are the most beautiful part of it: they set the tone for the lengthy and disjointed dialogue about Atlantis and whatnot. They are obviously efficient at 1) bringing out the sensitive in young soldiers without heaping macho melodrama; 2) exploring the androgyny of a soldier (an interesting theme); and 3) just evoking the "war is a silly, strange place to be for all of us, but were are here" Vonnegut kind of feeling.
I wonder if other reviewers read Vonnegut.
Questions spring to mind: would they enjoy "The Little Prince" by Saint-Exupery? Would they say that it's silly? Did they ever read or heard a poem of any kind? Did they ever read Remarque or Dos Passos or saw Deer Hunter or anything good? Did they literally took apart every fictional movie or book they saw by the criteria of factual consistency, realism and strict adherence to genre? I really, really don't understand people that criticize a movie about war because there were not enough explosions or bomb craters in it. I refuse to believe that they never had seen a good movie about war without action heroics (we certainly have, Soviet cinema did a lot of nice and gentle (and popular) dramas and humane comedies about war). It's like criticizing a comedy for the lack of good old-fashioned clowns in it.
And most of all it surprises me that even the social context doesn't push them in the right direction. A couple of guys here saw the film at an art-house festival. I imagine that they would be OK with the most absurd and gory things if someone put a "trash" and "experimental" and "surreal" stickers on the poster. But war films, they are about tactics and M1s, right? I think the musical numbers in the film are the most beautiful part of it: they set the tone for the lengthy and disjointed dialogue about Atlantis and whatnot. They are obviously efficient at 1) bringing out the sensitive in young soldiers without heaping macho melodrama; 2) exploring the androgyny of a soldier (an interesting theme); and 3) just evoking the "war is a silly, strange place to be for all of us, but were are here" Vonnegut kind of feeling.
I wonder if other reviewers read Vonnegut.
I would not have watched this film had I known it was a musical. Not my genre. There are only four songs and they are mercifully not too long. They were recorded live while shooting and the compositions have an odd unpolished quality.
It's 1917 in northern France. A company of eleven French soldiers, including a lieutenant, are moving through the countryside. A woman impersonating a man succeeds in joining the company. While the mission of the company is not immediately revealed, the woman is on a quest to find her husband, also a soldier at the front, whose whereabouts are unknown. The film is taken up by the journey of those twelve characters.
The war is near but battles don't make it to the screen. You may see some smoke, hear the sound of cannons and explosions, and see a few dead bodies. The war is context but it's depiction is not central. The stress is on the men of the company and the interloper they have adopted.
The musical numbers are surreal interludes. Out of the blue makeshift instruments appear, mostly string, a piano once and a clarinet. Obviously the soldiers are not carrying them around. It's fanciful and it rubbed me in the wrong way.
It's 1917 in northern France. A company of eleven French soldiers, including a lieutenant, are moving through the countryside. A woman impersonating a man succeeds in joining the company. While the mission of the company is not immediately revealed, the woman is on a quest to find her husband, also a soldier at the front, whose whereabouts are unknown. The film is taken up by the journey of those twelve characters.
The war is near but battles don't make it to the screen. You may see some smoke, hear the sound of cannons and explosions, and see a few dead bodies. The war is context but it's depiction is not central. The stress is on the men of the company and the interloper they have adopted.
The musical numbers are surreal interludes. Out of the blue makeshift instruments appear, mostly string, a piano once and a clarinet. Obviously the soldiers are not carrying them around. It's fanciful and it rubbed me in the wrong way.
I'd just finished reading J.D. Salinger's Nine Stories, when I watched this movie, and they seemed to make a good pair. This is one of the most unusual war movies I've ever seen. There's no war/battle action at all! Even more so, the soldiers seem to have been wandering around, aimlessly, for years and years, in a desperate attempt to deal with their experiences in The Great War. Trying to make sense of the horror, by telling each other stories of the mythical Atlantis and singing songs. It's hard forgetting the pain and horrors they endured though (and that's what made me think of Salinger's depressed post war heroes). The group of soldiers traveling through endless dark-green and misty blue woods (apparently without ever reaching a village) is joined by a woman, played by Sylvie Testud, posing as a young boy, Jean d'Arc-style. For a long time it seems her secret will never be revealed, which fits the mood of the movie. The others are too lifeless (spiritless even) to notice she's a woman, even when they are dressing her wounds. Another good example of the beautiful alienation of this movie already takes place in the first scene. We see Sylvie Testud, standing on a hill close to her home, staring in the distance, hoping to see the front line of the War probably hundreds of kilometers away. (as if such a thing was possible, like a miracle). The woman receives bad news in a letter, and starts her journey, eventually meeting the soldiers, who grumblingly let her join their group (even though the woman pays a 'handy' price). The soldiers almost immediately tell her she can never really become one of them, and never does she join the group in their musical intermezzos. Yes, there are a handful of sixties influenced psych-folk songs, played by the soldiers on self-built instruments (even a piano, God knows where that came from). And why not? Everything is possible. Every time they play a new song, the mood seems to gets even sadder and more beautiful. Fine movie.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaChosen by "Les Cahiers du cinéma" (France) as one of the 10 best pictures of 2007 (#05, tied with "Zodiac")
- ConexionesReferenced in For the Love of Movies: The Story of American Film Criticism (2009)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- EUR 1,800,000 (estimado)
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 119,188
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta