Culloden

For some ridiculous reason the battle of Culloden is often thought of as a battle between Scotland and England . As a young Scottish schoolboy I always thought of it as a battle between the Catholic Jacobite Highlanders wanting to put a Catholic Prince on the British throne with the Hanoverian British wanting to keep a Protestant King . As the years went by I found this wasn't the case since the majority of Highlanders were Episicopalian and the majority of the British forces at the battle were Anglicans , two vaguely Protestant religions that possibly owe a lot more to Catholic tradition than they'd be willing to admit . Certainly the established Church Of Scotland which is Presbyterian would describe both religions as " Anglo-Catholic " while some more extreme Presbyterians would describe them as " heretics " . Regardless of this what Peter Watkins legendary ground breaking docu-drama does is show the massive complexity and sometimes inherent contradictions that involved the conflict between the forces of the Jacobites and Hanoverian and does this brilliantly . This is the one of the few things that can be described as brilliantly done

Seconds in to the film were shown an advance guard of red coats described as " An advance battalion of an English government army of nine thousand men " Hmmm . Is it not a " British " army ? . As I said it does later point out that the Hanoverians are indeed British but it does mix British and English in a euphemistic manner . For example a Jacobite rebel " is found guilty in an English court " when perhaps the correct phrasing might have been " A court in England " which has an entirely different meaning . . That said this is an absolute eye opener who thinks the Jacobite rebellion was Scotland against England . The Jacobites are a coalition of Highland clans , Irish mercenaries and the occasional deserter whose motive is to put a Catholic on the British throne . This Catholic Prince being even less British than the Germanic Hanoverian King

" Hey Theo why would anyone want to do that ? It sounds like Hitler versus Stalin . Surely democratic secular government is the only cause worth fighting for ? "

I totally agree and this is the major failing of CULLODEN - it tends to view the mid 18th Century through 20th Century eyes . There's an obvious agenda of viewing the actions by the British on the Highlanders at the battle and afterwards as being war crimes and atrocities on a par with the holocaust . Looking on this in 21st Century zeitgeist it might be but to be totally amoral and therefore truthful it was no different from what was going on in the rest of the world . There was no such thing as democracy , the Geneva Convention or human rights therefore life in general was short , bloody and brutal and wars reflected this . Being directed by Peter Watkins we're getting an absolute sledge hammer approach to everything so much so the solemn and dead pan tone becomes unintentionally funny .. It's almost like the armies of both sides are Baldrick clones led by the Blackadders . I also instinctively feel that some of the background of the characters be taken with a large pinch of salt:

" Patrick Coleman . Three days a go a sergeant , two days ago 800 lashes for looting today a private "

What he got 800 lashes two days ago and he's still able to march in to battle ? What he get lashed with ? A feather ? I'm calling BS on that one . We also have a private called William Roache " Two years pay wouldn't buy the wig and hat of the officer marching in front of him " so it shows you how expensive wigs and hats were back then , especially when you spent your money on a defence lawyer . We also have a female character called " Annie Walker " so I kept expecting someone to say " Pass the ammunition and a packet of crisps please Mrs Walker "

Watkins also has an irritating directorial technique of constantly shooting scenes in extreme close up . It might work during the pseudo interview scenes but not during the battle scenes which gives the impression that there's a grand total of six extras taking part in the battle which we're constantly told in composed of 5,000 Jacobites and 9,000 Hanoverians but I guess that's possibly down to the lack of budget so I shouldn't be too critical and does deserve some credit since we get a good performance out of William Roach . I doubt if there's a connection between the Duke Of Cumberland being a brutal tyrant and getting 15 grand a year as this film insinuates

This is one of the films (even though shown on TV, it absolutely qualifies as cinema) that shaped my childhood, my politics, and my love of film-making and its true potential. I remember being simply blown away, not merely by the intensity of the violence and aggression (I had never seen war filmed like this), but by the passion and the pain of the "ordinary people" - the Scots, especially the Scottish women - as they witnessed the English brutality around them. Totally extraordinary to me also, was the fact that the camera team felt so moved as to intercede in the violence - not merely breaking the boundaries of media "objectivity" in a way that had rarely, if ever, been done before in 1964, but also breaking the boundaries of time - remember, we are in a war here that is taking place in 1746, and yet it seems perfectly natural and believable to have a camera team pushing into frame, protesting the behavior of the English troops.

Peter Watkins went on to make many groundbreaking movies, but little can touch Culloden - the closest is Punishment Park, which uses much the same techniques to follow a group of students and protesters in a slightly fictionalized and rather fascist USA, where (as I recall - I haven't seen the movie in years), they are given a "choice" between internment or a (loaded) chance to "run", with the risk/likelihood of being shot and killed by their paramilitary pursuers.

A minor personal note: I saw Culloden on TV while I was very young and at school in Britain. It is a hard film to find - at least until the recent DVD - but I came across it again at the Sydney Public Library, of all places, during a trip to Australia in the 1990s, and sat watching it on 16mm, on a Moviola in the library - as stunned and moved as I had been the first time I saw it. It was reassuring to know that its power had not diminished.

This is one of the earliest examples of a "docu-drama" and one of the best. It's realism causes the viewer to feel true empathy for the participants---especially for the Scottish Jacobites.

While it's certainly true that the English and their Scottish allies were better equipped and had a more disciplined, unified command structure, the circumstances of the Highlanders weren't quite as dire as indicated. Many were indeed poor and malnourished, but generally not to the degree depicted in the film, where almost all are dressed in rags and covered in filth. It is also claimed that most didn't have firearms, yet the majority were armed with pistols or muskets of local or French manufacture. Their lack of discipline and cohesive command caused them to rely on the shock tactics that served them so well at the Battle of Prestonpens, and many dropped their muskets and charged after firing a volley. Interestingly, the English tally of captured weapons after the battle contained many more guns than swords. Swords; especially claymores; were expensive, and most of the poorer men without guns carried axes or pikes.

The contingent of French trained Scots and Irish, equipped and drilled in the same manner as the Redcoats, was larger than shown in the film. And the English forces contained significant numbers of both lowland and highland Scots. Although the English were well provided with artillery, most of their cannons were small three pounders used in urban street fighting or in the American woodlands where they were known as "grasshoppers". The standard light field gun was the six pounder. Despite these qualifications, the battle scenes are graphic and realistic.

Watkins makes it seem as if the Scots were true revolutionaries asserting their ethnic identity, when, in actual fact, Prince Charlie was simply a wannabe monarch seeking to restore the Stuarts, and probably as disdainful of the Highlanders as the Hanoverians were. The modern parallels he tries to draw simply aren't there.

Despite the above, this is a great movie that should be on every history buff and cinema enthusiast's list.

Peter Watkins's much underestimated Docu-Drama that, frankly, has to be watched by the individual to have the maximum impact. This is, without doubt, the fairest and most realistic depiction of war in cinema history. Here we have no poetic licence and no particular bias, despite some claiming a strong swing in favour of the Jacobites. Men are men, war is war and blood is blood.

There are few ways in which to describe this masterpiece in a simple review. If you desire a stark wake up call to the brutality and pain that war and Civil War creates, get hold of a copy of this film.

If you are not moved, then you have no heart.

The framing in this movie is incredible. The tightness makes only 3 people look like a whole Scottish army. The acting also proves that big name stars don't just deliver academy award winning performances. This film is a must see for any low budget film makers.