Gallipoli

"Gallipoli" is a great little war film that is rarely mentioned, but one that can certainly stand up to the likes of "Saving Private Ryan" and movies of the big budget blockbuster kind. It tells the story of Archy (Mark Lee), a young Australian runner, and Frank Dunne (Mel Gibson), another runner. Both of them have great potential as runners, and they meet at a race where Archy beats Frank. Archy is running off to join World War I, and when it is revealed at the enlistment office that he is underage, Frank takes him to Perth to sign up there. Frank has no intention of joining the war, because he doesn't want to die for a cause that isn't really an Australian one. (An early Mel Gibson movie that takes an anti-British stance) Eventually he decides to join, and the rest of the story follows the two men in their various encounters throughout the war.

The story is well told, focusing on the development of the two main characters rather than battle sequences. The two contrast each other. Frank is worldly, and cynical, not ready to die for a foolish cause, while Archy is naive and idealistic. It is an excellent study the way the two personalities react to the war.

"Gallipoli" will rarely be mentioned in the same breath as most of the most famous war movies, but it is certainly one of the best at revealing the humanity that exists at the front lines. It is a well made film, and an extremely moving story.

Filmed in a period of cinematographic transition, between, on the first hand, the old Hollywood productions like The Longest Day (Ken Annakin and 4 others, 1962), A Bridge Too Far (Richard Attenborough, 1977) or The Great Escape (John Sturges, 1963) sometimes completely disconnected from the reality and the atrocities perpetrated on the battlefield by both sides and, on the other hand, darker and immeasurably more realistic productions from the late 70s, such as Come and See (Elem Klimov, 1985), The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978), Das Boot (Wolfgang Petersen, 1981) and Le vieux fusil (Robert Enrico, 1975).

Indeed, if the first part of this movie is of a distressing insouciance, the two main protagonists striving to leave Australia to join the peninsula of Gallipoli, Turkey, like two children expecting their next summer camp, the second part is cold and raw, unbridled and cruel. In this respect, the film is appropriately lulled by the album Oxygène (Jean-Michel Jarre, 1976) for the sequences full of hope and carefree, camaraderie and friendship and the adagio of Albinoni (Remo Giazotto, 1945) for the poignant sequences of courage and sacrifice.

A moving film with a neat realization and an excellent cast.

I taught HS history and used very few commercial movies in teaching...the exceptions included GALLIPOLI and PATHS OF GLORY and the newer remake of ALL QUIET. I've never watched a film that builds plot, mood and theme any better than Gallipoli. While there are many light-hearted and humorous forays which add to character development, the ongoing drum-beat of the film is war, war, war--attack, attack, attack. I can't imagine any better musical score or musical editing:the juxtaposition of elegant Strauss waltzes the night before debarkation with the funereal Adagio as the troops cross the water is genius. I'm surprised that we haven't seen more of Marc Lee-the idealistic Archie. He does a wonderful job along with a VERY young Mel Gibson. When I showed the movie to my classes I was careful to watch THE STUDENTS as the final scenes arrived rather than the film. Now THAT was telling! I absolutely commend this film to all! (ADDED)BTW...Brits---try not to take the criticism of the military operation as criticism of YOU...I think the entire film was meant to be an indictment of war as an instrument of national policy. Your very own John Keegan observed that once wars begin, they have a way of creating their own momentum and justification. It's for this reason that Herodotus said that "all wars are popular in their inception". The film, as I viewed it, was about the futility of war, the fixation of military commanders to fix the "previous war" and the price we pay for stupidity. The lesson should not be lost on the US in Iraq either.

Peter Weir has long been one of my favorite directors, and he has had a career consumed by subtle, quiet, lingering films. He can make the most banal concept seem thrilling and suspenseful; a perfect example is the Harrison Ford film "Witness." It could have easily become a stupid, insulting, exploitative "thriller." The ending is, in retrospect, quite ridiculous. But Weir has a strange ability to make anything seem realistic.

"Gallipoli" is one of his older films, from 1981, and it stars a huge cast of names - most famous today, of course, Mel Gibson...whose name is now splattered across the front of the DVD case.

The story is a true one and follows a group of young Australian men who join the ANZACs in World War I. They are sent to Gallipoli, and amidst personal and emotional turmoil they must learn to band together and fight the Turkish Army.

The movie is long, as another reviewer on the site points out. But all of Weir's films are. What I didn't like about his most recent - "Master & Commander" - is that it used special effects (exteriors of ships, etc.) and action sequences (raging storms) to compensate for the slow bits... and came across (to me anyway) as quite dull and down-trodden.

"Gallipoli" is a great film - slow, subtle, low-key. It's a bit like an Australian version of "All Quiet on the Western Front." I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys slower films and can appreciate character-driven dramas. Don't go near it if your attention span was dimming during "xXx2."

A "Johnny Turk" here, as they say in the movie, just watched the movie and I am very much under the effect of it. I loved the movie, I think they portrayed the senselessness of the war very effectively without making any side the villain. As obvious to anyone watching the movie, the Australians were the victims in the truest sense of the word. They died so needlessly for a cause that was not their own. When I was a kid my mother would always tell me that they were tricked into joining the war thinking they would get to see Europe. So the sentiment in Turkey about Australians and New Zealanders has been favoring them. It was never "what were they doing here!!!! :@" but it was "what were they doing here :(((((" and we love it that Australians still care so much that they come back to visit the land every year in scores whereas I am ashamed to say I haven't been to Gallipoli yet. One thing not so obvious from the movie is that just as it was not the Australians' war to fight, it was not the Turks' war to fight either. In the movie they keep referring to the Ottoman Empire as Turkey. It may seem small but it is a crucial difference because the very reason that Turks took part in the war was because some blind ottoman officers could not face the truth, couldn't see that Ottoman Empire was living its final days and they were blinded by the prospect of the "good old days" that they had to drag the country down with their grandiosity complex.

Ataturk was in Gallipoli. After everything he said these words that have been embraced by the Turks towards our Anzac brothers: "Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore, rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours... You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."