Gallipoli (La Bataille des Dardanelles)

If you are able to bear the oppressively grim nature of this documentary, you will get probably the best account of the stupid and wasteful Gallipoli offensive of WWI. The Mel Gibson film "Gallipoli" is also quite good but never really captures the level of wretchedness and waste you get in this Jeremy Iron-narrated documentary. But, I am warning you....if you are depressed the picture will only make it worse, as the battle was so long, wasteful and oppressive!

To make the film, they used a lot of film footage and photos from the battle--much like you'd see in many of the Ken Burns documentaries. And, like the Burns films (such as "The Civil War") you learn about the impact on the men involved by hearing their letters begin read. All in all, a great tribute to a lot of brave men...foolishly wasted in a hair-brained battle doomed to failure.

By the way, I generally use captions when I watch films. I am slightly hard of hearing but have used them for years since I have a deaf family member. I mention this because there is a problem with the captioning. First, it doesn't exactly match what's being said--it's more a summary. Second, the captions OFTEN came before the narration actually occurred. Both make it tough to watch this one if you can hear....so you might want to turn off the captions.

In my opinion, the movie is an excellent example of the realities of war and a tribute to the soldiers of all nations who fought and bled into the soil Gallipoli. The lack of violence in no way detracted from the magnitude of the tale in hand. It is honest, true and brave, just like the men that fought and died at the Hellespont. The lack of brutal depictions of violence are just and proper. Those men suffered enough for freedom, liberty and the right to self determination in a free and better world. They never wished to ever see such scene's again.That is the legacy of the event of Gallipoli. To suffer scene's of gratuitous pyro-technics and blood and gore is best not shown for the maintenance of proper respect for the combatants of this crucible of nationhood.

This film glories in the magnificence of men fighting for their lives,with honour, courage, dignity and irrepressible spirit and humour in the face of appalling adversity. This film is not interested in making a spectacle for fools to cheer over. The brutal outcomes that occoured from these personal combats of these men is not a thing that those that survived ever wished to see on a screen for entertainment. They saw enough of that at the time, and would much rather have never seen it at first, and never wished to review such scenes again on a screen in the name of "entertainment". The brutal horrors of the actualities of the vicious combat fought at Gallipoli were scenes that haunted their waking and sleeping hours for the rest of their natural days. It was the painful internal scars they, the men of all those nations who fought, carried inside to their graves. They all fought,and many died in the face of it all and somehow they, those mighty hearted men, managed to laugh in the teeth of constant dread death because they would'nt insult their mates by not being prepared to die game beside them. That's Australasian for brave, game is, but it applied to all combatants to a greater or lesser degree, but word from the boy's that fought was that Johhny Turk was as game, that is as brave, as you would ever wish for a soldier to be.

ANZAC's and Turks were fighting to establish their place on the world stage, and from 25/04/15 onwards, their respective claims for equality in Nationhood were made known and undeniable to that world. The director has made a masterpiece that truly honours the spirit and memory of those soldiers and serves as a reminder to future generations of all ages, for children can be taken without fear of frightening them for the sake of visual "horror" and it's morbid and pointless appeal. And children should attend this movie so as to learn what happened at that sacred shore before they were born. So that they can remember. For it is the nature of men, that they soon forget.

Coming as it did after three documentary films with a nationalist flavor, Tolga Örnek's fourth film GALLIPOLI exposes some of the myths behind the nationalist cause.

Told through direct narration (in English by Jeremy Irons, in Turkish by Zafer Ergin), plus extracts from the diaries of ordinary soldiers - Turkish, ANZAC, British - with first-hand experience of the battle, GALLIPOLI tells the story of a thoroughly botched campaign characterized by lack of planning and outright pig- headedness. Prompted by the desire to occupy İstanbul/ Constantinople, and thereby neutralize the threat of the Ottoman Empire to the Suez Canal, the British government organized a naval campaign on the assumption that when the Ottomans saw the sheer size of the invading fleet, they would automatically flee in terror. Instead the Ottoman defense was so stout that three major British and French ships were sunk, and they had to retreat.

The British subsequently planned a military campaign based on landings in several parts of the Gallipoli peninsula. Yet they had little or no clue of what the terrain was like - as a result, they suffered massive casualties. The campaign settled into a war of attrition, with both sides sustaining heavy losses, until Mustafa Kemal led a decisive strike that forced the British and their Allies to withdraw.

Örnek's documentary emphasizes the sheer pointlessness of the whole campaign. No one was likely to benefit much from winning; for the soldiers forced to fight, it was nothing more than a living hell. British and ANZAC troops, who had come to Gallipoli with a sense of optimism, soon became disillusioned - not only by the incompetence of their commanders, but also by the knowledge that they would probably die a bloody death.

The only slight ray of optimism throughout the whole conflict was the way in which the ANZACS and the Ottomans - especially - developed a respect for one another that transcended military concerns. Both armies were comprised of young men with little or no prospect of surviving the conflict.

Örnek's narrative is both colorful yet harrowing, combining archive film with dramatized reconstructions and comments from a range of experts. Above all it reveals the ways in which nationalism can blind its supporters to the realities of life on the ground - especially those entrusted with directing military strategy.

dramatic art about soldiers who died for the greed of their country.

died as a result of trying to conquer a country

some facts about this movie:

this is not an neutral documentary.

the story about sentimental and subjective narrations of the soldiers is great / fantastic!

but i think the whole movie cast the light on the countries which attacked a foreign country.

the audience is totally directed to have mercy with the attackers

watch the film and make your own opinion

I have to say that I know the documentaries of Mister Örnek and so I knew that I will get a very well made piece of movie documentary. I was not disappointed. As a history nerd - I did saw hundreds of documentary and liked the different approach of this work.

The Director and his 17 Consultants (historians, Veteran families) tried to access the reality of the gallipoli through the letters of solders from both sides. So, the history is followed by British, Australian and Turkish soldiers.

Narrated is this docu by Jeremy Irons and Sam Neill - both boost the intensity and emotionality of this documentary by their great voices.

I saw this film in a cinema in italy in Dolby Surround. I did buy the DVD last year and will wait again 3-7 years for the next work of this talented director and his very good documentaries.

Summary: Well made. Intense. History with emotions - wrapped in a war documentary with great narrators