Field Punishment No.1

It tells the story of 14 non-religious absolutist conscientious objectors who were sent by the New Zealand government to military camps and prisons in Great Britain, France, and the front to force them to become willing soldiers. It is based on the 1939 memoir by Archibald Baxter.

Archibald Baxter (Fraser Brown) and Mark Briggs (Byron Coll) are two leaders of the conscientious objectors. Both men are unmarried men in their 30s who believe killing anyone or participating in the military at any level is anti-human. At the time, New Zealand recognized only religious conscientious objectors like Quakers or Seventh Day Adventists. The 14 men taken to Great Britain refused to wear the uniform or handle any weapons.

The film begins by showing Baxter being hospitalized and uses flashbacks to recall his experience in camps, prisons, and the front. Non-commissioned officers tended to mistreat the men; fellow privates tended to be more sympathetic. Two of Archibald's brothers, John (Jason Hodzelmans) and Sandy (Damien Avery), are also part of the group. Mark Briggs was the most vocal and absolutist of the group. Baxter ultimately agreed to go to the front without a weapon; Briggs refused to walk to the front and was dragged there by other soldiers. A number of the 14 objectors ultimately became stretcher-bearers, but Baxter and Briggs did not.

This was a hard film to watch because of the physical abuse portrayed, including "field punishment no. 1," which consists of being bound to a stationary object like a post for several hours up to 28 days straight. The extent of the abuse is likely somewhat exaggerated, based on a caveat at the end of the film explaining that not all incidents actually occurred.

Nonetheless, this is a powerful film. Baxter's two sons were also pacifists in World War II.

This is the 23rd in my list of films in which pacifists are primary characters.

Worst movie ever. I hated it. So boring. But it brings light to important issues, so 1 Star. I'm being very generous.

What a harrowing time Archibald Baxter had in our glorious New Zealand army. His treatment with the other objectors, was shameful bullying. The most poignant part of this story is the way that these courageous men were called cowards by members of the army, when in fact they were by far the bravest, strongest and most admirable men imaginable. This is a matter of fact telling of the story of Archibald Baxter, well acted and paced perfectly. The movement through time which occurs throughout the film, is effective, if a little confusing at the beginning. This would be a good reference point for secondary students, to discuss and debate a range of ideas such as compulsory conscription, the cost of war in financial and human terms, and the ugliness of war.

This is one of the best anti-war films I have ever seen, and I've seen nearly all of the war films ever made, pro and con. I have always been a C.O., and was even defended once by my father, a USAF Master Sergeant, when I was being bullied by a post office employee for writing 'Conscientious Objector' on the top of my draft notice application (or whatever it's called). It was my father who had instructed me to write this since he knew my stance and honored it. This was 1981, six years after the involuntary draft had already been outlawed in the U.S. So, I say all of that to state that this film is not the first I have seen about men forced into war against their wills, but it is the best--so far, anyway. If you are reading this and are still unsure whether war is right or wrong, see this film.

This New Zealand film portrays the arrival in Europe of New Zealand conscientious objectors in 1916, men who on grounds of the principle of not wanting to promote war and a belief that pacifism could defuse world tension, refused to fight, or even put on a uniform. It is based on a book written by one of these men, Archibald Baxter, and so is perhaps not the nuanced balanced look at the subject, but a story as seen from their point of view. It starts with their arrival in Europe, having been taken from New Zealand and sent to the front against their will. They are threatened, bullied, and given that they are considered conscripted soldiers, subjected to the titular army punishment known as Field Punishment No. 1. This punishment involved being tied to an object and left there for two hours a day for 28 days. This was often accentuated by leaving the victims in stress positions, and was nicknamed crucifixion due to the practise in the early days of WW I of tying them with their arms spread. All this I hasten to add, comes from other sources than the film which leaves you to join the dots and infer what Field Punishment was. This means that as the story continues and the men are sent their different paths – either to the front line (where it was believed that exposure to warfare up close would make them pick up a gun) or to Dunkirk military prison, or to camps a short distance behind the front line, we experience what they experienced, rather than being truly informed as to what was institutionalised and what was personal grievance on behalf of the perpetrators. The experiences of Baxter himself, the trauma of which led him to end up in hospital, forms the main narrative arc of the movie, although we also see significant portions of what happened to the other 13 who were sent to France with him.. some of whom were his brothers. As shocking as the topic is and how Baxter was treated, this is a TV movie and so some of the events have a somewhat sanitised feel, although it can be graphic in places. Additionally, it is very much one sided, and shows the people he meets to either be arrogant bullying officers who are angry at his pacifism, or other foot soldiers sympathetic to him. It does not really show the bulk of the New Zealand forces who by all accounts were amongst the hardiest and fiercest of the Allies. Crucially, context is missing – we land in the middle of the story, with these gentlemen already convicted and condemned to the front line, and we leave somewhat hurriedly with just a postscript to let us know what events followed. As compelling as the trauma they suffered was, and the injustice of being treated so inhumanely regardless of whether you agree with your position – we do not truly get a feel for who these men were – we know what they believed, but not how they reached that point or why they felt it. We are also left to fill in a few too many gaps of the secondary characters relationships, and the fuzziness of the character development weakens the impact the movie could have had. Well shot and with no complaints about the acting, the movie is a fairly straight telling of Baxters story, but struggles with its cinematic identity - Is it a polemic against the injustice of the titular punishment? A defence of conscientious objectors? Trying to be both? It really isn't very clear.. I give it a pass mark as a worthy story of being told which is efficient in its depiction – It's not bad, but truthfully I think the topic deserved better, and this is not the highlight of the 100th anniversary of WW I.