Movie The Charge of the Light Brigade - Coursework Example

The Charge of the Light Brigade Table of Contents Introduction 3 Plot Characters and Settings of the Films 4 Film Analysis 7 Conclusion 10 References11 Bibliography 12 Introduction The movie ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ was made twice in Hollywood for its capacity to enchant a large number of audience due to the enigmatic topic that it deals with .The Charge of the Light Brigade was first made by Warner Bros in 1936 and later it was Tony Richardson who made it again in 1968, almost after three decades of the screening of the first one. The Charge of the Light Brigade is an enchanting poem by Lord Alfred Tennyson. The poem is so captivating that a story line was framed out of the poem by Michael Jacoby and Michael Curtiz directed a brilliant historical movie out of the screenplay by Michael Jacoby and Rowland Leigh under the banner of Warner Bros. The film was produced by Samuel Bischoff with the association of Hal. B. Wallis as the executive producer. This film did quiet well in the terms of revenue but could only manage to grab the Academy Awards for Best Assistant Director though was also nominated for the Academy Awards for sound and Best Background Score. The Charge of the Light Brigade screened in 1968 is basically a British War Film directed by Tony Richardson under the banner of Wood Fall Film and was produced by Neil Hartley. It was distributed by United Artists and the screenplay was written by Charles Wood and. The film was nominated for six BAFTA film awards but failed to win any of them. One of the unique features of the film was the use of animations by Richard Williams based on the contemporary graphic style of Punch Magazine. The animations were used to portray the political events surrounding the battle. Plot Characters and Settings of the Films The Charge of the Light Brigade produced in 1936 casted Errol Flynn as Major Geoffrey Vicker, Olivia de Havilland as Elsa Campbell, Patrick Knowles as Captain Perry Vickers, C. Henry Gordon as Surat Khan, David Niven as Captain James Randall. Nigel Bruce and Spring Byington played the role of Sir Benjamin Warrenton and Lady Warrenton, respectively. The other important casts were Donald Crisp as Colonel Campbell, Henry Stephenson as Sir Charles Masefield, G.P. Huntley as Major Jowett, E.E. Clive as Sir Humphrey Harcourt, Robert Barrat as Count Volonoff and J.Carrol Naish as Singh. The plot of the 1936 film, The Charge of the Light Brigade opens up at the fictional city of Chukoti in India. This is the place where the two officers of the army under the British Raj are stationed with the 27th Lancers of the British Army. It was in the year of 1854; the two Majors stationed at the city named Geoffrey Vicker and his brother Captain Perry Vicker are in love with the same woman, Elsa played by Olivia de Havilland. During a local tributary official survey Geoffrey saves the life of the king or the “rajah” of the province Surat Khan. Later in the movie, Surat Khan massacres the inhabitants of Chukoti and joins the Russian front with whom the Britishers are fighting in the film but spares Geoffrey and Elsa, who flees to save their life. The love triangle and the chivalric display of the war build the backbone of the film. The problems with in the love triangle and the quest for vengeance, both are resolved at the Battle of Balaklava. Aware of the fact that Surat Khan is positioned in the Russian front, Vicker secretly replaces the order written to Charles Macfield to the commander of the Light Brigade i.e. Sir Warrenton. Vicker next orders for the famous suicidal attack and instruct his brother to deliver it. The plan succeeds and at the war front Vicker finds Surat Khan and kills him at the cost of his own life. At the end of the movie we find that Macfield burns Vicker’s note to protect his goodwill and he takes the responsibility of the charge. The setting of the film depicts a part of India under British raj. The set of the movies seems to be quite creative and rich but doesn’t look to be real. The fort shown in the movie instead of being on the hilltop were equipped with loopholes, bastion and barbican and probably bound by a moat largely seemed more like American West. Characters of the film were quite typical. Errol Flynn doesn’t get much scope in the film apart from brandishing the lens, aiming a gun and shouting out some orders. He looks annoyed heroic and doomed but yet manages it with panache. Olivia looked graceful and carried her role very smoothly with all her elegance and brightness. The Indians in the film were pathetically portrayed though the display was quite typical. There are certain inaccuracies too as an Indian Subedar kissing his wife in the crowd before leaving for the battle field doesn’t fit into the social milieu of the 19th century India (Lavlina, “THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE (1936) Review”). The remake of the film occurred almost after the three decades of the first one .This time it was directed by Tony Richardson and is quite different from the first film in its agenda, setting plot and characters representation. The film starred Trevor Howard as Lord Cardigan , Vanessa Redgrave as Clarissa, Harry Andrews as Lord Lucan , Jill Bennett as Mrs. Fanny Daubery and David Hemming as Capt. Nolan. This film claims to be brutally authentic and is based on the true fact. It portrays one of the greatest foolishness of British Army during the Crimean War. The officers at the Brigade are depicted as incompetents who were more eager to show off than being busy with substance. They were away from training their men and leading them which was supposed to be their real work and simply declare themselves as ‘aristocratic’. The scenes of the barracks were filmed at Aldershot in Hampshire comprising the first half of the film and the scenes of the Crimean War and that of the famous charge itself that embrace of the later half of the movie, was shot in Turkey (Curve, “ Youve Lost the Light Brigade”). Film Analysis The close introspection of both the films would render one obvious fact that ‘The charge of the Light Brigade’ in 1936 is more a film about love, passion and adventure and the one directed by Richardson in 1968 is a true retelling of the famous charge at the battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War. This film crafted more in a Kipling mold depicting a flavor of unknown and unexplored east and highlighting the enigma and enchantment of oriental’s by portraying British Raj in India .The plot of the 1936 film is not at all based on chronological facts. The film shows Siege of Cawnpore during the Sepoy rebellion where as the Sepoy Rebellion took place three years after the War of Balaklava. Hastily in the film the name of Cawnpore was changed to Chukoti and the rebellion was turned into fictional Surat Khan , the king of a fictional country called Suristan. Now this Suristan is actually the name of ancient Persian name of Syria, vaguely a Turkish country. The reason for the charge as shown in the movie is significantly different from the chronicle. The reason for the Charge of the light Brigade shown in the movie is due to the change in the direction of the 27th Lancers so as to attack Russian Camp and kill Surat Khan but originally the Charge was executed due to a dispute between Lord Cardigan and Lord Raglan. Battle of Balaklava did not at all resulted in the fall of Sebastopol as shown enormously in the movie. Moreover, the 27th Lancers are completely fictional to the chronological backdrop of the film as they were not even the part of British Army until 1941. The actual battle was fought by 17th Lancers, 8th and 11th Hussars and 4th and the 13th Light Dragoons. The film made by Tony Richardson in 1968 is more close to the history but again it is a strong anti-war film that highlights the fake sophistry and pomp of the British officers at the cost of real cavalry. The 1936 version of the film is not an accurate description of the time. Erroll Flynn in the role of major Vicker shouting at the top of his voice “jaldi karo” which is a Hindi version of “hurry up” doesn’t give the film a right kind of appeal. The settings and the costumes and the characters are not at all realistic. The 1968 version of the film by Richardson comes close to the history but if we talk about the setting and the character portrayal then it sinks deep into Turkish backdrop more than any thing else found in the movie. The two films come up with different agenda. The 1936 version of the movie was a complete deviation from the history and deliberately casted in an adventurous mould. The India and Indians are presented in more oriental flavor and the fictional iconic villain in the movie is a devil because he was against British Raj. This shows that the characters are portrayed from a colonial perspective where someone serving the British is good and loyal and someone against it is villainous. In the 1968 version the film depicts sophisticated and foolish officers of the British Army but is true in the anti War flavor. The costumes are excellent and seem that they are washed and worn in a pre-detergent era. Both the films targeted the disillusioned people in the post world war eras where films based on war used to appeal the audience a lot. Whether a film maker is glorifying or disillusioning war, it used to appeal the mass a lot and they themselves used to form their regime or anti-regime of the war respectively. In both the cases this chemistry worked quite well. The effects of both the films were great and far-reaching in their respective era and both had a particular message to convey. The 1968 Richardson’s version seems to carry stronger anti war message than the prior one of 1936 which was basically an entertaining movie with packed-up adventure and romance. The 1936 version completely changes the history where as the 1968 version of the movie brutally claims to be accurate documentation of the real event. But then it has to be mentioned that only very few audience watch a movie from historical perspective or visit a theatre to know the real events and the filmmakers in order to cater the needs of a larger audience are sometime bound to deviate from the reality for the sake of entertainment. Crimean War is so important historical event that apart from these film makers there are also other people who have discussed the events and its consequence in their different works which widens our perspective. Robert Edgerton in his epic creation ‘Death or Glory: The Legacy of The Crimean war’ deals war from an anthropological view. He basically explores the cultural differences among the combatants (Editorial Reviews, “Death Or Glory: The Legacy Of The Crimean War”). Woodham Smith in his ‘The Reason Why’ presents the events of the Charge of the Light Brigade in a way not done earlier in the British history and he shows truly that how the obstinacy and mismanagement of the Army can lead to fatal consequence. He truly disillusioned war in the cynical era where the glory of the war is in its true sense an extravaganza. These doctrines of Woodham Smith largely inspired Richardson to reel the facts and reach a greater mass through the language of cinema which is really commendable (Jolley, “Still the best account of the Charge of the Light Brigade”). Conclusion Some subject matter are so interesting that it compels the movie makers to make films on the same topic and that too at a difference of decades .The movies are still different in their setting, casting and presentation though the background remains the same. Each film bares the mark of contemporary aesthetics in its presentation which makes them unique every time and The Charge of the Light Brigade is not an exception in this regard .These films are also different from each other in their setting character portrayal , plot and screenplay. Apart from all these factors yet both the films are unique in their own right and are successful in their own way to reach more audience since ages. References Curve, Zapruder. “ Youve Lost the Light Brigade” 19 November, 2009. Amazon. 26 September, 2007 Editorial Reviews, “Death Or Glory: The Legacy Of The Crimean War”. 18 November, 2009. Amazon.Com Review. 1999. < http://www.amazon.com/Death-Glory-Legacy-Crimean-War/dp/0813335701> Jolley, Daniel, “Still the best account of the Charge of the Light Brigade”. 18 November, 2009. Amazon. 26 February, 2002. Lavlina, “THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE (1936) Review”. 18 November, 2009. Lady Lavlina’s Journal. 14 January, 2008. Bibliography Edgerton, Robert. Death Or Glory: The Legacy Of The Crimean War. Basic Books. 1999. Woodham-Smith. The Reason Why. Konecky & Konecky Military Books. 1998. Read More