The Charge of the Light Brigade

This movie was made in 1968 but I never got the impression from watching it that it was anti war. The movie was made entirely with British actors and a British director and the Brits never had an antiwar movement (because their government gave up its militarism after Suez in 1955). The movie depicts the British army as it existed in 1850. This was a period when one gained advancement in the army by money or title. It was a largely decadent and unprofessional army and the movie I think characterizes it rather well. In fact, Nolan wrote a book complaining about the need to professionalize the army but it took the near disastrous Crimean War to affect any serious changes (it too the British Navy another generation or more to make similar changes). At the time, there was a debate about the effectiveness of cavalry with some believing that no defensive position could withstand the full force of a disciplined cavalry charge--a left over from the Napoleonic Wars--while others thought a charge into artillery was near suicidal. Nolan's roll in the battle remains controversial and whether he delivered inaccurate verbal orders to Acrdigan to charge to prove the effectiveness of cavalry even against artillery or warn the brigade away has not been established because Nolan was killed.

As for the Crimean War, it also depicts the drum beat to war accurately and the implication that most of the dying was done by commoners and much of the death was caused by disease. It was an ugly war. What isn't shown is that the condition of the Russian army was far worse. The poor Russian peasant soldiers were sent to fight with smoothbore Napeolonic Era muskets with an effective range of perhaps 100 meters while the British and the French was new rifled muskets with a range of over 300 meters. In some battles very small forces of British held off huge numbers of Russians killing hundreds.

The Battle of Balaclave is generally depicted accurately. It was a calamity of errors. Capt Nolan actually lost his head during the charge and witnesses indicate that his horse continued running with corpse in the saddle for some distance before the body collapsed. The charge was initiated by the heavy Brigade led by Lord Lucan. There was a rivalry between Lucan and Lord Cardigan (brothers in law) and both brigades initially made the charge but the Heavies did not enter the Valley of Death. The Light Brigade continued into the Valley and were decimated but not wiped out. In fact they were supported by the French cavalry the Chasseurs d'Afrique and the Russian positions were in fact overrun. I think the charge as depicted in this movie is one of the most exciting I have ever seen captured in the cinema.

The so called Valley of Death has changed considerably since the 1850s. By 1994, it was entirely planted in vineyards and the only way to gain some sense of the battle is to find the famous Tractir Bridge over the Tchernaya River and follow the lines of hills. As for the town of Balaclava...I have a photograph of the town in 1854 with the British fleet anchored in the harbor. I took a photograph of this village in 1994 from just about the same angle as the 1854 image and then compared the two. The place is completely unchanged with even the stone buildings remaining. Of course, the village today is the base of the Ukranian Black Sea fleet and there is a not so secret submarine base cared into the limestone cliffs inside the harbor.

We may think that the Crimean War is ancient history but the people of Crimea do not. They have sort of a living museum called the Panaorma. This is a museum devoted to the siege of Sevastopol. There is a circular path and the visitor is engulfed by the on going battles on both sides of the path. One may wander the hills above Sevastopol and many of the rifle pits and trenches from the war remain (they were reused by the Russians during the unsuccessful defense of the city in 1942). It is a wonderful museum and it exemplifies the Russian attitude that history is alive and they don't forget their past.

This is a historically accurate movie. It moves a little slow at times and it has some amusing cartoonish graphics (almost reminiscent of Monty Python graphics). All the major players obviously have a great deal of fun with their rolls.

Anecdotes: Tony Richardson's two children, Nastasha and Joely are in the film as well is his sister in law Vanessa Redgrave. I think I have these relationships correct. Anyway, they are all related.

First, it should be noted that Tony Richardson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) is not a remake of the Errol Flynn classic adventure film of 1936; rather it is based on the Cecil Woodham-Smith work of military history, "The Reason Why". Both book and film are a debunking of the Tennyson poem. And hard as it is to believe, Richardson's film actually tones down the absurdities of the three principle figures responsible for the debacle at Balaclava. And these three stooges thoroughly deserve the censure of history, for never were the lives of six hundred brave men thrown away more senselessly than with the charge of the Light Brigade.

Richardson depicts the insanity of the Crimean War and Victorian society's glorification of militarism with a death's head sense of humor which makes the horrors of the conflict all the more potent. And he is unsparing in his condemnation of the culture that could glorify so unmitigated a disaster as Balaclava. The film was made at the height of America's involvement in the Vietnam War and it is an implicit critique of that conflict and war in general in that all countries regardless of time and place indulge in the pastime of National Lying. The greater the calamity, the greater the need to lie or glorify, for always the dead must count for something. In that sense the film is universal as well as timeless.

Using animation in the style of the Victorian newspaper caricaturists, during the opening credits, the film quickly details the events that led up to the war. This is also one of the few films to hold the media, in this case the English newspapers of the time, accountable for their actions. Instead of calling for deliberations and a halt to the madness that must inevitably lead to war, the press is shown whipping the British nation into war frenzy. These animated sequences which appear throughout the film to forward the exposition are both wonderfully inventive and wickedly delicious.

Throughout the film which is satiric and misanthropic in tone, the lower classes are shown to be stupid, ugly, and easily led, while the upper classes are shown to be stupid, beautiful, and utterly incapable of leading. Indeed the only decent individuals portrayed are either destroyed or trampled under foot by events and/or the arrogant stupidity of their superiors. Yet Richardson is never judgmental; rather he takes a Kubrickian detached point of view, allowing the viewers to observe the era and its foibles/morals and judge for themselves. And England of the mid-nineteenth century is beautifully recreated here. Hairstyles and uniforms and sets are rendered in exquisite detail. It takes its rightful place along side "Barry Lyndon" and "The Duelists" as among the most successful period recreations.

The film also uses a lot of period colloquialisms such as, "My cherry-bums!" and "All this swish-n-tits has made me randified!" and "You tell that stew-stick of a brother-in-law, that Brudenell to fetch off!" Wonderful, though some first time viewers may have difficulty understanding exactly what has just been expressed. And what a cast! Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews and especially John Gielgud give career topping performances. Gielgud as Lord Raglan, the slightly befuddled commander-in-chief, steals every scene he is in. Aging, tired in mind and body, missing one arm, continuously mistaking the French, ("Our allies, My Lord...") for the enemy, never quite grasping the situation whether in his office or on the field of battle, ("England is pretty, babies are pretty, some table linen is very pretty!") Its a delightful comic turn. And who wouldn't feel sorry for anyone unfortunate enough to be caught between Trevor Howard as the choleric Lord Cardigan, ("The melancholy truth was that his golden head had nothing in it.") and Harry Andrews as the equally bilious Lord Lucan? From the moment we see his saturnine countenance striding up the marble steps of the War Office we know this is a humorless, flint-hearted martinet. Both Lords had a long running personal feud which they quickly placed on an official level as well with unfortunate consequences for the Light Brigade.

David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave are the young romantic leads. Hemmings is Captain Lewis Nolan, a forward thinking career officer with very definite ideas how war should be conducted. He has returned to England after service in India to join Cardigan's regiment, and quickly runs afoul of the Lord in the affair of the "Black Bottle". In reality it involved another officer, who Cardigan placed under arrest for serving porter, (it was actually Moselle) when he had given strict orders that only champagne be served at the mess. Nolan the professional is unstinting in his criticisms or the three amateur Lords conduct of the war, and yet he too will play an unwitting part in the final destruction of the Brigade. A man of honor, whose honor however does not prelude having an affair with his best friends wife. Redgrave as the wife is as always, luminescent. The supporting cast sparkles as well. Mark Dignam as General Airey, Raglan's Chief of Staff, ("Speak up Nolan, he's a bit hard of hearing, and that statue doesn't help!") Howard Marion-Crawford as Lt. General Sir George Brown, Peter Bowles as Captain Henry Duberly, Norman Rossington as Sergeant Major Corbett, ("Right foot, straw foot!") and especially Jill Bennett as a lascivious Fanny Duberly all are very effective. This was also one of the last appearances of the great English classical actor, Sir Donald Wolfit, who would die later that year.

Finally enough cannot be said of Charles Wood's wonderful screenplay. With its exquisite use of the period vernacular it does a superb job of combining characters while paring history down to the essential to reconstruct the chain of events that led up to the destruction of the Light Brigade.

I first saw THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE in the late 1970s when it was broadcast on the Sunday night " Film Of The Week " slot . I liked it as a young child , then saw it several years later and wasn't quite taken with it mainly down to the fact that the first half is very slow and the second half is grim and depressing

After just seeing it again about ten minutes ago I still hold my second opinion . I will congratulate ( With reservations ) the production team for making a very British type of historical epic , this is far more accurate than say ZULU which was ironically directed and co-written by a Hollywood film maker for a Hollywood studio and in that film Cy Endfield showed that perhaps you have to rewrite history ever so slightly to make a classic epic movie based upon actual events . Unfortunately by being as accurate as possible as a history lesson THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE resembles the critically panned ZULU DAWN rather than ZULU which is in many film critics top ten movies including mine

We learn that many British officers in the Victorian British army bought themselves their rank causing serious friction with officers who were totally professional soldiers who achieved their rank through talent . We learn how calvarymen train , we learn what goes on in the officers mess , we learn that the Crimean war was the first conflict to get major press coverage but all this does tend to hold the story up . It may run for just over two hours but the movie feels much longer .

A cast member ( I can't remember which one ) was interviewed several years ago and she mentioned the production team's eye for detail so much that many of the cast honestly thought they'd been transported back to the mid 19th century . She also mentioned packed crowds watching the film in cinemas on opening night but the crowds had totally disappeared within a couple of days . You can't help but feel the attention to historical detail had everything to do with the poor box office . I guess the audience were expecting something in the vein of ZULU

As I said I will congratulate the production team for their accuracy in fine detail but bewarned it is top heavy with social comment and if you have little interest in history you might want to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster instead

We have to wait nearly two hours for the eponymous event which climaxes this film. Prior to this we see a series of apparently unconnected episodes which give the viewer an insight into the workings of Victorian society, including anti-intellectuallism and idleness among the 'upper' classes, and brutality and theft among the 'scum' recruited in the slums.

While almost plot less this section of the film does follow a core of characters whose lives are connected by army service. The main character is Captain Louis Nolan, an idealistic professional in an army of amateurs. "England is looking well" he says in the first scene of the film. The irony is that the country that looks so good is a cruel and mismanaged place. Unlike his fellow officers, who have bought their posts, he has worked his way up the ranks of the Indian Army by merit. He despises them and they feel he isn't a 'gentleman'.

Nolan has very definite views on how war should be fought. Faced with the reality of battle and the inadequacies of the commanders (the senile Raglan and the childish Lucan and Cardigan) his impatience and temper have tragic consequences as he impetuously points the Light Brigade ("There, my Lord, is your enemy, there are your guns!") towards the bloody fiasco of which he is the first victim. The man who seems to know best makes the biggest blunder of all. Eye-witnesses said the hideous scream Nolan gave when he was hit stayed with them all their lives and the film re-creates it in a truly chilling way.

Although the film does reflect 1960's attitudes to war and politics (and I actually prefer these to the attitudes of the 21st Century) its setting is so perfectly realized that it hasn't dated as a '60s film'. In fact it seems better with the passage of time. If you can free yourself from the idea of a narrative history and give yourself up to a series of impressions which add new layers of understanding 'Charge of the Light Brigade' makes a fine historical film.

Russia has invaded Turkey, much to the chagrin of the British, who sees this as a threat to their dominance of the globe through their Empire. As the politicians debate a course of action, the military prepare for war, recruiting men from the working classes and officers from the ruling classes. One such officer is Captain Louis Nolan, who comes under the charge of Lord Cardigan – one of the old guard and a cantankerous, arrogant leader to boot. This form of leadership feeds through his officers and brings conflict with the straight approach of Nolan. This conflict reaches The Times and enrages Nolan, who continues his arrogance even as the Light Brigade join the forces heading through Turkey.

With stories of all manner of goings-on during the three year production of this film it is little wonder that in some regards this film is all over the place. I am unsure of the historical value of the writing but it doesn't manage to do much in regards characters or consistent tone (either in the film or the individuals). Nolan is a fine example of this as he never manages to be an engaging character and, along with the rest of them, just comes off as larger than life characters seemingly without any significant basing in reality. This makes it hard to get into as it seem to jump around in narrative without any real drive. This is all the more frustrating because on the edges it does do some things pretty well. From the very start there is a clear judgment on the English mentality – the world policeman, the mighty lion, the posh officer mindset of war as a sort of game and so on. This is backed up pretty much by the rest of the film, which spends more time on this than on the characters, and it is interesting although maybe not enough to base a whole film on – the animations alone are sharp enough to suffice if contrasted well with a reality.

The film may also be of interest recently because the most obvious parallel is now with the US's position in the world – not quite an Empire but certainly with all the influence and invincibility that GB once believed it had. It is also relevant because it highlights the horrors of war and, even without characters we care about, the final charge is a mess of death that lacks any of the honour or beauty that the hillside generals talk of minutes before. Sadly all this is wasted in a messy film that cannot seem to get an even tone – is Cardigan a worthless leader or a comedy character? Are we meant to enjoy the battles or be horrified by them? And what's to be made of Nolan's constant preachy dialogue alongside scenes of comic value? These major problems take away so very much from the film that it is hard to really stick with it and see what little good there is. The cast is made up of every British actor from the period who was between the age of 30 and 60. OK, maybe that is an exaggeration but at times it would have been easy for me to believe that. Hemming plays his character far too solemn and serious – a problem when it makes his already poor dialogue sound like the ramblings of a pretentious fool. Howard has fun in his role but his is an one note performance that gets too close to a send up and confuses the tone of the film somewhat. Gielgud is good because he shows the same faults as Howard's character but does it without the overblown blustering. The support cast is made up of many British actors from the period but, without the material, many of them come and go without anything of value to add.

Overall this should have been a much more interesting and engaging film but it blows it with a messy structure, poor plot and uneven and confused tone. The harsh send up of 'the good IL' Empire' and the officer class is well done but is not enough to base the whole film on – it should have been a subtext not the whole ballgame. Like another reviewer has said, it is funny that, given the years put into this and the sheer scale of the production that the most memorable and successful parts are the little animations that poke fun at the view this country once held of itself – in themselves they are a warning to other would-be empires of our time.