.jpg)
There's something about a British war film of this era, a decade or two after the war. There's the stuff-upper-lip mood; the straightforward, linear storytelling and the slow, steady pace. This is a typical example of the best of such films, I suppose.
It's a shame, of course, that the film has been somewhat overshadowed by the name of Guy Gibson's dog, a name that I have no intention of repeating. It isn't ok now and, with due acceptance of the different context of 1955 and, indeed, 1943, when the concept of racism was rarely thought of, it wasn't exactly ok then. But the past was what it was.
It's a pity, really; this is a bit of a barrier between us and the original context of the film, as the narrative point of the dog is to humanise Gibson, otherwise a rather flat, straightforward hero type, the kind of figure whom it's easy to admire but hard to empathise with. A shockingly young looking Richard Todd nevertheless does a good job playing a square-jawed hero, a man who, in reality, died for his country in 1944 aged 26. No wonder these men get so bladdered so often.
Michael Redgrave portrays Barnes Wallis with rather more depth, but then this is a part which allows him to do so. Wallis is humanised by his like ability, his long-suffering wife, his easy relationship with his children, and his easy categorisation as the traditional British boffin. The British boffin is an iconic figure, the lone, eccentric individual in his shed, fighting the narrow minds of bureaucrats. But that such a figure can, albeit with difficulty, find himself listened to (appropriately by an equally eccentric prime minister) shows that a muddle-through democracy is both superior to and more efficient than a totalitarian, goose-stepping tyranny.
Wallis, incidentally, lived to be 92. He seems to be the only male non-smoker in the film, something implied to be an eccentricity.
The film uses suspension and tension well, particularly in the final scenes as the squadron's sorties are juxtaposed with Wallis and co at Bomber Command, barely able to cope with the tension; the film is long, but doesn't feel so. The climax is satisfying, with some great model work and what I can only assume is stock footage of the damage done to the industry of the Ruhr. One has to raise an eyebrow here at the total indifference shown to any German civilians killed as a result, but that would not have been much of a consideration in 1955. But it's fitting that we end, not with scenes of triumph, but mourning for the fifty-six men who did not return.
Best film I've seen in 2015 so far; a film that pointedly equates the inventor in his shed (in modern parlance, the geek) with the square-jawed pilot hero. Brilliant.
In the book ‘Chastise’, Max Hastings’s outstanding book of the Dambusters raid, he offers an interesting dilemma in regards to the dog's name.
ReplyDeleteA passage from his introduction bears quoting in full, to illustrate how the dog's name is obviously racist, but at the same time how we must not let modern-day sensibilities get in the way of an honest and truthful understanding of the way things were in different times.
Hastings says, ‘Since starting this book I have been repeatedly asked whether it is an embarrassment to acknowledge the name of Gibson’s dog [the ‘N’ word],which became a wirelessed codeword for the breaching of the Mohne. A historian’s answer must be; no more than the fact that our ancestors hanged sheep-stealers, executed military deserters and imprisoned homosexuals. They did and said things differently then. It would be grotesque to omit [N word] from a factual narrative merely because the word is rightly repugnant to twenty-first century ears’.
This is a powerful and important point. I appreciate that the historian’s duty to accuracy is to present all sides of what life was like in 1942/1943, but it seems to me that if we constantly censor the present by our own delicate standards, we are being less than respectful of the past simply because tastes have changed over time. I took another view after watching this, in that we often put heroes on pedestals and it was refreshing to read about all the sides of people and although some crewmembers later said they thought the real Gibson was somewhat arrogant, they valued his leadership highly. Gibson was a complex man, and make no mistake, and he may have had nationalist views (besides the dog's name, he reportedly also held anti Semitic views, which was ironically the views of the enemy government he was fighting against) , but when it came to his leadership, he was the right man in the right place (his willingness to draw enemy fire away from his wingmates during the raid is a prime example of that).
The controvery over people killed during the raid on the dams is more complicated than that. Yes, many forced labourers died - but this was a situation with total war, and an existential battle for existence. Destroying the dams made a big blow to the means of production, at a time when London was under severe threat. My guess is that the film never delved more into the controversy of the slaves, because it was hardly known. Regardless, you do touch on a dilemma I encounter when one is checking the accuracy of war movies. Do you judge it on what we know today or what they knew at the time of the production? Do you judge it on how close it comes to the source book or on the most recent scholarship? I don't think it is fair to criticize an historical movie for the fact that historians have changed from the source material. However, it is important to point out what information the movie passes on that is not accurate as we know it today. A part of the movie may have aged more is its then-conventional account of the raid as a spectacular success. The general view today is that the raid was a failure and were never likely to do enough damage to make a difference (though this doesn’t diminish the bravery of the airmen). I don't mind a historical account that argues for a theory, so long as it is honest about the underlying facts, and I don't mind a movie that portrays that theory in action even if it proves to be incorrect - the movie, in addition to depicting a historical battle, becomes evidence of how people ten years after the war viewed that battle.
Regarding the dog's name... as you say, it's a nuanced point. It would clearly be wrong to judge people by modern standards. On the other hand, it would be equally wrong to just shrug and say the word was considered unambiguously ok back then. I forget where I read this, but apparently a 1920s dictionary, for example, described the word in question as "insolent". These matters defy easy categorisation.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, in hindsight, on the bombing. It was, as you say, total war, and an existential threat. Moral responsibility for the deaths of the forced labourers, I'd say, lies firmly with the Germans.
On bombing more broadly, we may (correctly) wring our hands at the targeting of German civilians by Bomber Command but, well... the East End, Coventry etc all happened, and people are human. However much it would have been much more efficient to focus on the Ruhr etc.