And all of these things are in the foothills
Or, Meres' triumphant return to internet connectivity.
So! I have seen Passchendaele, that much-anticipated pet project of one Mr. Paul Gross. Yesterday I took a brief jaunt down to T.O. and met up with nos4a2no9 (Who has has posted her considerably more articulate thoughts here.) [And this was the anniversary of our very first irl meeting! Nos, we should have had cake!] and scarfe.
The short version: Paul done good.
But, first, I must tell you what it probably already known to all the people who care -- Himself did actually appear to present his baby film, along with Niv Fichman, and co-leads Caroline Dhavernas and Joe Dinicol. He was a bit late, so I think we got slightly less Paul than we might have been due, though he wasn't even aware he was expected to speak (duh), but he acquitted himself well, and cracked wise a little. I think the festival bigwig who introduced him should have announced him as Paul Fucking Gross, but whatever.
I have pictures of this occurrence. Also a small video. (Apologies for the glare. My camera does not deal well with darkness.)
Done looking? Okay.
Paul aside, the venue was pretty awesome -- I gigantic old theatre, probably a former opera house, with 1500 seats and gilding and columns and awesomeness.
My non-spoilery thoughts on the film:
It is self-indulgent of Paul, as some have accused, but in a good way. Or not too much. It works, regardless. As the man says, he wasn't out to show us an essay. This is a story, not without its grittiness and historical context (though that was lacking in some ways -- more on that in the spoilery part), but the melodrama isn't misplaced or overwrought. The acting is stellar from the three leads, and solid for the rest, and it all comes together to make a satisfying film. The cinematography was excellent, the post-production stuff a little less so, but still good. The score was sufficiently sweeping, but didn't jump out at me particularly (and I have a habit of earworming movie instrumentals).
And I found Michael very likable. Just enough of a dork to be endearing, and so matter-of-fact about things. And tad cracked. There's a bit of Geoffrey in him, I think.
Can't say I quite bought him as 37, though. :P I think you've have to check with someone who doesn't know in advance what the man looked like at 37/how old he actually is at the moment. He's looking good regardless. ;)
I'd be surprised if this doesn't get wide release in Canada and do well. The critics may be leery, but I think it's just enough of everything (romantic, patriotic, brutal, Canadian) for people to be quite pleased with it, even if some more negative critics wanted it to go further in one direction or another. So maybe it doesn't stand with the giants of American war cinema, but it doesn't have to. I don't think Canada will ever really do that big heroic sort of war film.
Spoilers ahead!
Seriously, I'm spoiling most of it here, okay?
The opening of the film is in medias res, as Sergeant Michael Dunne comes-to laying in the middle of a broken village street as the remnants of his company avoid shells and take fire from a German machine gun dug into a church.
The scene ends with Michael, the last man standing, bayoneting a young German soldier through the forehead. (This is, apparently, a story Paul's grandfather told him, and reminds me of the casual horror in my great-grandfather's account of his time at the Eastern Front.)
Michael's PTSD from his first tour is a fixture in the story, since it's mostly from his perspective. He ends up back in Calgary working recruitment (having been sent home for shell-shock rather than executed for desertion) and manages to track down the nurse he fell in love with during his recovery (a spectacular case of transference, but he's fairly adorable about it so we'll forgive him.)
What follows is a snapshot of the issues at the time -- the intensifying recruitment drive (which would later become a draft), the hostility against German-Canadians, the problems faced by soldiers perceived to be malingering, and rather more nationalism than was probably present at the time. World War I was a nation-building war for Canada, and I know Paul wanted to show that coming-of-age... but really, in 1917, for that war, the Canadian Corps were fighting for their King. In fact, one of the major home front conflicts of the war was the division between loyalist English Canada and French Quebec, who perceived that they were being used as cannon fodder in an English war. Of course that was less of an immediate concern out west, but there, I think, you'd find a great deal of British nationalism. Nos discusses this in excellent detail in her post as well.
The other slightly weird note was the slight whiff of anti-"upper class" (the Calgary society), anti-British sentiment in parts of the film. Not sure what that's about.
But, like he said, not an essay. All of these problems are a backdrop to the love story between Michael and Sarah, and the misguided attempts of her younger brother, David, to overcome the shame of his father's choice to fight for the enemy. Michael, ridden by nightmares and flashbacks and a deep disaffection with the war, tries his best to steer David clear of enlistment (and is provided the happy excuse of David's asthma). Unfortunately, David becomes more determined after his and Sarah's house is vandalised, and between that and his unscrupulous prospective father-in-law, and Michael's vindictive superior officer, manages to get himself shipped out. Sarah blames Michael, who then feels compelled to follow David back to the front to keep and eye on him and get him home. Later, Michael finds Sarah herself working in a field hospital -- having lost her job and her house, she's followed them to the front as well.
What eventually follows is some of the most brutal trench battle scenes I have ever seen. What they lacked in expensive CGI armies they made up for with things like a) rats crawling out corpses, b) a variety of schrapnel injuries, and c) David accidentally put his hand through a guy's blown-apart head. /o\ I think the warfare was really well-done. Newsflash: trench warfare was quite possibly the worst thing ever.
Also, Nos and I agree: the Colonel commanding the battle so should have been played by Callum. It would have been a perfect small part for him. He's have brought the slight sarcasm perfectly.
While we knew the battle was part of the bigger push toward Passchendaele, the smaller scale of the film made you feel the immediacy and isolation of a small group of soldiers trying to hold a line. It was the big climactic battle scene, and yet our heroes appear to accomplish precisely nothing in an unrecogniseable mud-pit of a field while they wait for relief.
I'm ambivalent about the climax of the scene. David gets tired of cowering, and in some kind of fit of boldness or anger towards his dead father charges up and into the German trench, where he is captured. Michael takes a head count and realizes he's missing... and when the smoke clears they see that David has been strung up with razor wire and crucified over the enemy trench. Determined to do what he promised himself, Michael charges the enemy line as well, and makes it over alive if not unscathed, and drags David back across no-man's land under a brief truce. It's the cross-bearing symbolism I'm not sure about. I mean, on the one hand yeah, hi, ANVIL, but on the other it made some sense in context. I don't know. I think it would have been just as effective if he'd cut David off the cross and carried him back on his back.
And so, in keeping his promise to himself, Michael breaks Sarah's rule and dies in the field hospital behind the front.
I don't know if it's telling in some way that I didn't cry. I'm a crier by nature, really, but I didn't even get a mist out of this one. And it was good! A seriously solid film, and affecting but... it was just enough of everything, I think. I can't put my lack of deep investment up to the acting-- the acting was fantastic, so... writing? Don't know. Certainly I haven't recounted the entire film here, so many it's in those parts I'm missing.
So, there's that. In conclusion Paul/Canada = OTP.
P.S. The Late Night Movie on CBC yesterday? Buried on Sunday. Wee!Paul! :D
The only reason I didn't post this sooner was I didn't end up staying at Nos' as tentatively planned... the cable guy was coming early today, and I didn't want to miss my chance at internet (I'd have had to wait probably another week if I'd missed them. Boo!) So.
Hi!
Now I go to catch up on 1245 posts and comments. This is only a sort-of return to my former obsessive glory... I'm leaving this afternoon for the wifiless cornfield of my father's home village to meet the rest of my cousin's bridal party and help plan the October bachelorette part and Stag & Doe. I'll be back Sunday. Sigh.
ETA: Please beware spoilers in the comments!
So! I have seen Passchendaele, that much-anticipated pet project of one Mr. Paul Gross. Yesterday I took a brief jaunt down to T.O. and met up with nos4a2no9 (Who has has posted her considerably more articulate thoughts here.) [And this was the anniversary of our very first irl meeting! Nos, we should have had cake!] and scarfe.
The short version: Paul done good.
But, first, I must tell you what it probably already known to all the people who care -- Himself did actually appear to present his baby film, along with Niv Fichman, and co-leads Caroline Dhavernas and Joe Dinicol. He was a bit late, so I think we got slightly less Paul than we might have been due, though he wasn't even aware he was expected to speak (duh), but he acquitted himself well, and cracked wise a little. I think the festival bigwig who introduced him should have announced him as Paul Fucking Gross, but whatever.
I have pictures of this occurrence. Also a small video. (Apologies for the glare. My camera does not deal well with darkness.)
Done looking? Okay.
Paul aside, the venue was pretty awesome -- I gigantic old theatre, probably a former opera house, with 1500 seats and gilding and columns and awesomeness.
My non-spoilery thoughts on the film:
It is self-indulgent of Paul, as some have accused, but in a good way. Or not too much. It works, regardless. As the man says, he wasn't out to show us an essay. This is a story, not without its grittiness and historical context (though that was lacking in some ways -- more on that in the spoilery part), but the melodrama isn't misplaced or overwrought. The acting is stellar from the three leads, and solid for the rest, and it all comes together to make a satisfying film. The cinematography was excellent, the post-production stuff a little less so, but still good. The score was sufficiently sweeping, but didn't jump out at me particularly (and I have a habit of earworming movie instrumentals).
And I found Michael very likable. Just enough of a dork to be endearing, and so matter-of-fact about things. And tad cracked. There's a bit of Geoffrey in him, I think.
Can't say I quite bought him as 37, though. :P I think you've have to check with someone who doesn't know in advance what the man looked like at 37/how old he actually is at the moment. He's looking good regardless. ;)
I'd be surprised if this doesn't get wide release in Canada and do well. The critics may be leery, but I think it's just enough of everything (romantic, patriotic, brutal, Canadian) for people to be quite pleased with it, even if some more negative critics wanted it to go further in one direction or another. So maybe it doesn't stand with the giants of American war cinema, but it doesn't have to. I don't think Canada will ever really do that big heroic sort of war film.
Spoilers ahead!
Seriously, I'm spoiling most of it here, okay?
The opening of the film is in medias res, as Sergeant Michael Dunne comes-to laying in the middle of a broken village street as the remnants of his company avoid shells and take fire from a German machine gun dug into a church.
The scene ends with Michael, the last man standing, bayoneting a young German soldier through the forehead. (This is, apparently, a story Paul's grandfather told him, and reminds me of the casual horror in my great-grandfather's account of his time at the Eastern Front.)
Michael's PTSD from his first tour is a fixture in the story, since it's mostly from his perspective. He ends up back in Calgary working recruitment (having been sent home for shell-shock rather than executed for desertion) and manages to track down the nurse he fell in love with during his recovery (a spectacular case of transference, but he's fairly adorable about it so we'll forgive him.)
What follows is a snapshot of the issues at the time -- the intensifying recruitment drive (which would later become a draft), the hostility against German-Canadians, the problems faced by soldiers perceived to be malingering, and rather more nationalism than was probably present at the time. World War I was a nation-building war for Canada, and I know Paul wanted to show that coming-of-age... but really, in 1917, for that war, the Canadian Corps were fighting for their King. In fact, one of the major home front conflicts of the war was the division between loyalist English Canada and French Quebec, who perceived that they were being used as cannon fodder in an English war. Of course that was less of an immediate concern out west, but there, I think, you'd find a great deal of British nationalism. Nos discusses this in excellent detail in her post as well.
The other slightly weird note was the slight whiff of anti-"upper class" (the Calgary society), anti-British sentiment in parts of the film. Not sure what that's about.
But, like he said, not an essay. All of these problems are a backdrop to the love story between Michael and Sarah, and the misguided attempts of her younger brother, David, to overcome the shame of his father's choice to fight for the enemy. Michael, ridden by nightmares and flashbacks and a deep disaffection with the war, tries his best to steer David clear of enlistment (and is provided the happy excuse of David's asthma). Unfortunately, David becomes more determined after his and Sarah's house is vandalised, and between that and his unscrupulous prospective father-in-law, and Michael's vindictive superior officer, manages to get himself shipped out. Sarah blames Michael, who then feels compelled to follow David back to the front to keep and eye on him and get him home. Later, Michael finds Sarah herself working in a field hospital -- having lost her job and her house, she's followed them to the front as well.
What eventually follows is some of the most brutal trench battle scenes I have ever seen. What they lacked in expensive CGI armies they made up for with things like a) rats crawling out corpses, b) a variety of schrapnel injuries, and c) David accidentally put his hand through a guy's blown-apart head. /o\ I think the warfare was really well-done. Newsflash: trench warfare was quite possibly the worst thing ever.
Also, Nos and I agree: the Colonel commanding the battle so should have been played by Callum. It would have been a perfect small part for him. He's have brought the slight sarcasm perfectly.
While we knew the battle was part of the bigger push toward Passchendaele, the smaller scale of the film made you feel the immediacy and isolation of a small group of soldiers trying to hold a line. It was the big climactic battle scene, and yet our heroes appear to accomplish precisely nothing in an unrecogniseable mud-pit of a field while they wait for relief.
I'm ambivalent about the climax of the scene. David gets tired of cowering, and in some kind of fit of boldness or anger towards his dead father charges up and into the German trench, where he is captured. Michael takes a head count and realizes he's missing... and when the smoke clears they see that David has been strung up with razor wire and crucified over the enemy trench. Determined to do what he promised himself, Michael charges the enemy line as well, and makes it over alive if not unscathed, and drags David back across no-man's land under a brief truce. It's the cross-bearing symbolism I'm not sure about. I mean, on the one hand yeah, hi, ANVIL, but on the other it made some sense in context. I don't know. I think it would have been just as effective if he'd cut David off the cross and carried him back on his back.
And so, in keeping his promise to himself, Michael breaks Sarah's rule and dies in the field hospital behind the front.
I don't know if it's telling in some way that I didn't cry. I'm a crier by nature, really, but I didn't even get a mist out of this one. And it was good! A seriously solid film, and affecting but... it was just enough of everything, I think. I can't put my lack of deep investment up to the acting-- the acting was fantastic, so... writing? Don't know. Certainly I haven't recounted the entire film here, so many it's in those parts I'm missing.
So, there's that. In conclusion Paul/Canada = OTP.
P.S. The Late Night Movie on CBC yesterday? Buried on Sunday. Wee!Paul! :D
The only reason I didn't post this sooner was I didn't end up staying at Nos' as tentatively planned... the cable guy was coming early today, and I didn't want to miss my chance at internet (I'd have had to wait probably another week if I'd missed them. Boo!) So.
Hi!
Now I go to catch up on 1245 posts and comments. This is only a sort-of return to my former obsessive glory... I'm leaving this afternoon for the wifiless cornfield of my father's home village to meet the rest of my cousin's bridal party and help plan the October bachelorette part and Stag & Doe. I'll be back Sunday. Sigh.
ETA: Please beware spoilers in the comments!