317ª Seção - Batalhão de Assalto

In keeping with his experience as a war correspondent/photographer, Pierre Schoendoerffers does not waste any screen time here on preliminaries but launches us straight into the action and establishes the two principal protagonists from the outset. The dynamic between the archetypal young idealist of Jacques Perrin and the grizzled veteran played by Bruno Cremer is impressive and both actors excel.

There are no gung-ho, macho, mock heroics here but a grim depiction of human beings in extremis. By all accounts the director was demanding of his cast and the making of it on location in Cambodia must have been distinctly unpleasant although not nearly as unpleasant as the real thing!

A film such as this would have been far less effective in colour and Schoendoerffer's masterstroke here is in utilising the services of one of France's greatest lighting cameramen Raoul Coutard whose bleak, monochromatic cinematography gives the effect of newsreel footage.

At a time when nations are having to come to terms with and face the consequences of their colonial past this film is ripe for rediscovery.

Despite its controversial nature and the French public's weariness with colonial conflicts this film did surprisingly well at the box office.

Brilliant military historian Antony Beevor has declared this to be the greatest war film ever, an opinion few would share. However, judged on its raw power, immediacy and an overwhelming sense of 'being there', it must surely take high rank.

After the Dîen Bîen Phû's defeat in may 1954, which marked the end of French sovereignty in Indochina, a small group of French soldiers in an isolated stronghold try to avoid capture by crossing the enemy's lines to join their main forces. In this journey few will survive.

Former war correspondent during this conflict, Schoendoerffer filmed this movie in a so realistic way that it seems to be a document shot during the battle. But unlike many war movies, this one is not only based on the visual and sound effects. Its interest lies in the portray of the two main characters.

Torrens, the young, unexperienced and idealisic lieutenant (played by Jacques Perrin) who has volunteered to serve a lost cause and die for it. He has the intelligence of letting Willsdorf lead the troops, seems lost at first in the middle of this human wreckage but shows courage and strength when needed.

Willsdorf, the experienced "adjudant" (sargeant), a veteran worshipped by his men. Since WWII when he was enlisted in the German army ( he comes from Alsace, a german speaking part of France claimed by Germany), he has experienced many battlefields. He loves Viet Nam, her people and her culture but knows that everything is lost and that he'll have to abandon it soon. But in spite of that he has a mission to fullfill, save as many of his men (mostly vietnamese partisans) as possible and he intends to achieve it.

In just 90 minutes we learn everything about them, their weaknesses, ideals and hidden secrets which make them simples human beings trying to survive in the middle of a mad world.

Of course some will say that this movie promotes war, violence and the romantic heroes made for it (Willsdorf)while his only aim was to testify about a forgotten war and all of those who fought in it, whatever their flag.

Definitely the best movie about the Indochina war.

In 1954 Vietnam, at the time of Diên Biên Phu, a French unit on patrol under the command of an inexperienced lieutenant is gradually depleted by Vietminh until only an ex-Wehrmacht Alsatian adjutant remains. He is to die, a title informs us, in Algeria in 1960.

Semi-documentary in style, this is an effectively low-key appraisal of the difficult choices with which war confronts its soldiers. As so often in Vietnam films the enemy is only glimpsed from a distance, the camera remaining a disembodied observer among the group. Bertrand Tavernier acted as co-writer on the film.

French Indochina, May 1954. While the Battle of Dien Bien Phu rages, a nearby French platoon is ordered to abandon its isolated base and march to a more secure location. The journey is fraught with danger: they are surrounded on all sides by forces several times larger than them. Commanding the platoon is a young, inexperienced Lieutenant. His senior NCO is very experienced, a veteran of WW2, but the two don't always see eye to eye.

Watched this because famed military historian Antony Beevor regards this as the greatest war movie ever made. Turns out, it's not, but it is very good.

Written and directed by Pierre Schoendoerffer and based on his novel, The 317th Platoon is the first "Vietnam War" movie in a sense. It might not be the Americans fighting the Viet Cong or NVA but the French Indochina War was the precursor to the Vietnam War. Replace Americans with French in a Vietnam War drama and you have this movie: the setting, tactics and feel to the movie are very similar.

Quite realistic in its portrayal of war: the danger, the randomness, the impact of seemingly minor decisions, the wastefulness and futility of it all. Other than the latter aspect, not hugely profound: is more about the plot journey than the destination. In addition, does drift in spells and the ending is too abrupt, hence the less-than-perfect score.

La 317ème section is a movie about a French/anti-communist platoon that gets separated whilst up country during the Vietminh offensive against Dien Bien Phu.

The movie's two main advantages are that the director was an ex-combatant in that war, and Raoul Coutard, who was one of the great New Wave cinematographers.

The story concerns a green lieutenant, Torrens, thirsty for battle, brave and intelligent, though seemingly an adventurer from another century, and his seasoned adjutant Willsdorf, Alsatian Wehrmacht veteran. Many other films have used this formula, a classic principal-agent problem that genuinely occurs in conflicts, but used it as a metaphor for classism, and exaggerated matters.

If you look at Hollywood treatments of either the Korean War or the Vietnam War, particularly around this era, you genuinely see that there is absolutely no understanding of the naturalised inhabitants of the country. Even where there is good will, these productions remain opaque. Willsdorf however genuinely seems to have a feel for the people and how they live. He senses a more poetical way of living, which he respects, but which is clearly ripe for exploitation. There's a piece of dialogue where he mentions how the trees of the forest will soon turn red for Autumn, and that when they do the locals will drink, dance, make love and celebrate, and you sense part of him wants to join with that, wants to find a nook in a river bend where he can set up house.

What these individuals are though, as literally shown in the opening credits, are soldier ants in the forest, their lives are expendable. They are men who live in a man's world without the comforts of home, and take their pleasures where they may, they can only hope to do their duty and lay down and die, and may as well embrace what they do and who they are. It's not a "war is madness" movie, but it is terribly sad, and I was just sorry for Willsdorf that he wasn't sipping a nice Riesling back home after tucking his children into bed. It seems that by being totally apolitical the film manages to leave room for you to come to the conclusion that imperialism is deeply aberrant.