Voor een verloren soldaat

The many favorable reviews hailing this film as a cinematic delight are well taken. The delicate subject matter of a brief romantic relationship between an allied WWII soldier and a young boy in the occupied Nehterlands received a beautiful treatment. Without becoming lurid or vulgar, it is implied that the innocent "child" and the young soldier engaged in a sex act.

Many layers of sub-plots surround the story. The people in the village setting appear deeply religious, constantly learning how to be proper followers of Scriptural guidance. Sermons given to the locals, amidst the visiting soldiers are both thankful for the liberators' arrival, yet warning the "young women" not to be tempting these men to be lead astray. It was a subtle switch from preaching in Englsih, to the native Dutch that showed who the audience for that particular part of the sermon was.

There are many references to sexual tensions. The teenage boys suddenly notice the physical beauty in teenage girls. Without doubt, there was plenty of "fraternizing" between soldiers and local women. The scene where the young main character is out "exploring" with a slightly older boy is charged with sexual innuendo. The boy's "step father" is quite observant about the "goings on", yet offers no direct objections, only indirect and vague advice.

The question of whether a mere child can give consent to sexual activity with an adult remains. The picture of the soldiers who came to liberate the town is one of men who felt entitlement. They felt they had every right to "have fun" after saving the people from their evil oppressors. Although the young girls, and even our 12 year old main character, were willing participants in any "affairs", the sense that the soldiers felt entitled to receive whatever they desired in exchange for their desperately needed Military help, and the many hand-outs of Life-Savers, Gum, Cigarettes etc. changes nothing about their feeling of power over the situation.

For a grown man, a love affair of a few days can hardly be considered "love", but for a child whose innocence is forever lost, this is an affair they will never forget. Love is something not to be trifled with. A child's innocence should be regarded with no less respect. Whatever the "feelings" of the heart may have been, a 12 year old does well to give it a bit more time before seeking that first love.

It's unlikely that a movie like "For a Lost Soldier" would be made today. Some might say we live in more 'protective' times; others might say we live in more puritanical times. I have no intention of getting into arguments over the Me2 Movement or indeed about how cinema and the world at large has become more censorial on what we can see or say or do. "For a Lost Soldier" is by no means an explicit film but its theme is clear. It's about a 12 year old boy in war-time Holland who not only develops a friendship with an older Canadian soldier but also falls in love with him as well and, we are lead to believe, probably experiences something sexual with him, too. The boy grows up gay, (he is played in adult life by Jeroen Krabbe), though I would suggest he was always gay and was simply acting on his nature.

Since the film was made in 1992 the age of consent has gone down and the world in general is thankfully much more accepting of gay relationships in all forms though children are still protected in law from exploitation and rightly so, though someone seeing "For a Lost Soldier" might argue no exploitation takes place while others will argue that Walt, the soldier's relationship with the child is predatory since it is he who initiates the sexual element and may argue that the abuse is at least emotional. Some, on the other hand, will see him as innocent as the boy.

Of course, what the film basically is is a love story; a tale of first love, the difference being that both protagonists are male and one of them is a child. It was controversial when it was made and it's just as controversial now. It discusses issues that most people still find repugnant and it will always be a film that will have difficulty finding its audience. It isn't that well-made; director Roeland Kerbosch isn't the most proficient of film-makers and the acting is adequate at best but it remains a brave and challenging film and ultimately a very touching one. Unfortunately, times being what they are, it's now almost impossible to see.

I will be the first to admit that the subject matter is a bit risqué for the typical American movie goer. However, keep in mind that this is told exclusively from the viewpoint of the child. It is also done in a realistic and yet romantic way. The child is obviously longing for comfort and security, having been removed from the security of his family during WWII. In addition to being placed into a foster home, a pubescent Jeroen finds himself realizing his budding sexuality is that of one who is attracted to the same sex, which also adds to the feelings of loneliness and isolation. This film deals with a difficult topic, but does it in a way that simply tells a story with enormous feeling and sophistication.

It reminds me of being a young man and wondering what it would be like to feel safe and comforted in the arms of someone older with whom I had complete trust and with whom I was enamored.

Not everyone will see it this way - only the pure of heart.

I have watched this film many times and I recently viewed it again. The only really interesting part of the movie is the relationship between the young boy and the soldier. Everything else that happens in the film is really just to establish why this young man would be drawn to someone kind and caring. What I wish would have been delved into more was how the soldier came to feel the way he does about the kid. He talks a little about his past with his father and mother but never really explains himself personally. He does not look like he would have ever had a problem getting a girl, so his "prediliction" becomes even more a mystery.

I really applaud the fact that the film maker was able to tell this story so sensitively without it being lurid. It is a shame I think that a film like this could never have been made in America, "the land of the free".

Loosely based on the autobiography of Rudi van Danzi, FOR A LOST SOLIDER tells the story of a Dutch boy's emotional and sexual relationship with a young adult American solider during World War II. The film presents the relationship as a loving and often magical one--and asks the viewer to consider if such relationships are intrinsically abusive or if they might, in extraordinary instances, have validity and even integrity.

It should be very obvious that the subject and issues raised are likely to provoke a knee-jerk reaction in most people--but even so, FOR A LOST SOLDIER has remarkable delicacy. The film is not explotational in any way, it is beautifully acted and filmed, and the difficult material is handled by the director, writer, and cinematographer with considerable grace.

All of this said, however, the film is so careful to avoid the obvious pitfalls that in some respects it fails to make any significant statement. What ultimately emerges is a memory--the film is presented as an extended flashback--but exactly how that memory reverberates in present time is vaguely expressed at best. And while the film does not consider this particular relationship to be deliberately abusive, it begs but never answers the question of intrinsic abusive, leaving the viewer to do battle with that knotty issue entirely on their own.

Those who watch FOR A LOST SOLIDER thoughtfully and with an open mind will find it forces them to define their own ideas about what is and is not abusive. This may actually be point of the film, to motivate an examination of personal values--but if so it is a point made by a very, at times almost impossibly indirect implication. Recommended for sophisticated viewers, but even they are more likely to find it more problematic than substantial.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer