"Waterloo (1970): A Critical Review" Topic

"Since the invention of the cinema, the Napoleonic period has never ceased to fascinate. There have, for example, been several biopics of Napoleon and other historical characters (most notably Nelson), a wide range of costume dramas, and various attempts to produce film versions of historical novels, including at least two shots at Tolstoy's War and Peace; indeed, Napoleon is commonly supposed to be the character in human history who has been most often represented in film after Jesus Christ. Only rarely, however, have individual battles been taken as a subject by directors. There is the notorious Nazi propaganda film Kolberg, the violently anti-British Austerlitz and, including the one reviewed here, two films on Waterloo, the first by the German director, Karl Grune, released in 1929. Somewhat surprising though it is – we are, after all, speaking of some of the most famous commanders and most famous battles in history, not to mention a genre politically inviting – the reasons for this paucity are clear enough. In brief, until comparatively recently –one thinks here of the technology utilized in Lord of the Rings— to stage convincingly battles required immense resources, whilst except in certain circumstances –for example, the defence of embattled outposts à la Battle of Rorke's Drift during the Zulu Wars-– it is often difficult to convey complex historical contexts to a public guaranteed to have almost no knowledge of the actions concerned…."

More here
link

Armand

A good review and I am glad to read praise for Steiger as Napoleon. OK, it was "method acting" at its most extreme, but I think he looked right anyway.

There was much discussion of a recent book on the making of the film, on Napoleonic Media.

TMP link

its a film, a great film, Rod Steiger is Napoleon. The reviewer also didn't know about the battle so not a good review at all

Rod Steiger is almost more Napoleon than the real chap was, to me.

I gather that his mausoleum now has a horse skeleton hanging over that sarcophagus, which is the ultimate insult (we all surely know that Marengo was more legend than equine)

The film was greatish. The Director will however be forgiven in Dante's lowest regions of Hell. Otherwise,,, he will languish with Putin, for what he hath wrought in 1970.

Come on. With the facilities provided, he could have done so much better. War and Peace battle scenes by him are awful, yet folk rave over them. Quiet Flows the Don was just…well it flowed glacially. His WWII Soviet Army films are great for insomniacs.

All the times we hear people here justify "Its just entertainment" when it comes to so-called historical movies. Yet when it comes to Waterloo, a movie that generally tried to be faithful to history, people here dump on it. Sure it could have been better. Its still better than many.

YouTube link

>>The film was greatish. The Director …

Well I'm entertainment agnostic to a degree; 98% of movies I can watch time and again as they make no memorable impression on my brain.

Apart from exploding ball, lack of gun recoil and the slightly comic horse-riding close ups (they used dummies on wheels i think?) I'm pretty sure it is one of the better movies that, at least as a teen with an interest, was excited to see in my end of school years.

Steiger and masses of familiar Brit actors facing up to that effort; goes with The Longest Day, A Bridge too Far, Desert Fox and others for good enough history for me!
cheers d

SHat1984.
Completely agree. People on here and elsewhere bitch about it but it's the best cinema representation of the period (The Duellists…..) ever.

Thanks!

Armand

Steiger was superb. The best bit of his performance for me was when he's pacing with his hands behind his back. When he turns, you see he does not as you'd expect have one hand clasped in the other; he has his hands next to each other, pointing a finger at the ground. Terrific way to express the stress he was under.

AIUI Rod Steiger has the lowest Kevin Bacon number of any actor, presumably because he was a versatile and prolific character actor in a wide range of styles and genres.

Steiger was amazing as the Emperor, my favorite role by him. I will often jokingly roar at my friends " Don't you dare! Don't you DARE criticize me!" They just roll their eyes 🙂.

@ 4th Cuirassier

Currently Rod Steiger has a Kevin Bacon number of 2. However, If you put Rod Steiger at the center of the movie universe, the average Rod Steiger number would have been 2.679 in 2004. The average Kevin Bacon number was 2.955 in that same year.

My son William first saw Waterloo on video when he was about four. After that, he would accept no other screen or television portrayal of Napoleon, only Steiger's – "That's not Napoleon!"

Some years later, I happened to mention that I had seen Rod Steiger had died at dinner. William asked, "Who was Rod Steiger?" When I told him it was the actor who played Napoleon, he burst into tears and had to be consoled by reassuring him we could still see him on video. That's probably as good a tribute as any actor could wish.

(But my favourite performance as Napoleon is Ian Holm in The Emperor's New Clothes.)

Like everything else, it is a matter of opinion on what people think about the film. In my opinion it is one of the best war films, along with The Alamo (John Wayne), Zulu and others. All with faults, of course, but still great to watch. And despite what some people say, such films are not made for us. They are made to entertain a mass audience, not to educate them.

And I doubt there is a historical or period war film that can't be picked apart for faults and inaccuracy. And liking or disliking any film will obviously depend on what level of accuracy or lack of it the viewer will accept. By viewer in this case, I mean Napoleonic or military enthusiasts.

Perhaps the only time 'we' might 'all' be happy with a film, is if we all club together and fund some film makers to make a Napoleonic film that will be as near 100% accurate as possible and consist of over 70% of battle scenes. Somehow, considering the different viewpoints expressed here in the threads, I sadly can't see that ever happening. LOL

I compare Steiger to Herbert Lom and Marlon Brando. Steiger struck me as being a more earthy Napoleon, coarse and manner less as Tolstoy portrayed him. Brando a little more classy in his speech and mannerisms. Lom somewhere in between.

+11
finally agree on something_____

Thanks also…

Armand

Gazzola, if you made a film for wargamers it would be unwatchable!

It was a great, clunking mess. But it was our mess.

@ DrsRob,

Thanks, didn't know that :-)

@ arthur1815

IIRC Ian Holm was also pretty good as Napoleon in Time Bandits. I think that was the one where, at one point, he's sitting down and his generals are gathered around him and he irritably tells them to move back because "it eez like being at ze bottom of a bloody well".

I still enjoy watching it and agree with the comments on Steiger. Thought his farewell to the Guard at the beginning was excellent. What does stick in my mind was that when first released you could buy a booklet with photographs of scenes from the film. One was of the Guard advancing with bolt action weapons!

Someone mentioned Zulu, which I also enjoyed. Zulu Dawn was not so good apart from the scenes of the attacking impis appearing over a hill at Isandlwana.

Gazzola have you seen the 2004 film of the Alamo? It is one of the best war films IMO and covers San Jacinto as well.

Zulu Dawn was much truer to history than Zulu and suffered as a result. No-one likes to show a defeat. OK the Martini Henry rifles were carbines and much too short

The remake of the Alamo was superb, also equally true to history, and it is well worth comparing it with the myth of John Wayne, blowing up the magazine, and Lawrence Harvey with a repeating firing flintlock pistol, as Travis, and all fought in broad daylight.

Waterloo was at its best in the non battle scenes. Steiger was superb and O'Herlighy is still Ney to me decades on. But the slow motion scenes, the speeded up cavalry charges, the tornado near the end, the insanity of the Union Brigade charging into empty space, the complete failure to show a British line, the absolute lack of any description of what happened in LHS, the interior of Hougomont, Plancenoit etc etc.

We will all love the French advancing down to Hgmt, the French cavalry charge, the Old Guard attack, but the rest showed an incredible waste of huge resources. But just see Bondarchuk's other films and you will see the same self indulgent "artistry"

I recall an explanation of the charge of the Scots Grey. There were supposed to be channels in the infantry ( D'Erlon) for the cavalry to charge down. Unfortunately the extras didn't want to play.

Probably an urban legend but it may explain why the charge was filmed but not the impact.

"Unfortunately the extras didn't want to play."

The extras were supplied by the Soviet army, so presumably they did as ordered.

Perhaps it's more likely that the Army were more concerned about the welfare of their cavalry mounts (unlike Hollywood).

@Chad47

Copy of the programme accompanying the film:
link

Alan

Thanks.

No one seems to have commented on the performance of a very young (at the time) Canadian actor Christopher Plummer as The Duke of Wellington. I thought he did a great job, as did Rod Steiger and the rest of the cast. I love this movie – I also remember as a young boy getting my Dad to take me to this movie as soon as it came out and getting the Program Book.

BillyNM

Yes, I have watched it. Another good war film. I only mentioned John Wayne's Alamo and Zulu as good war films, albeit not accurate ones, as examples. There are others, providing you can ignore any historical inaccuracy etc. But what can be considered as a good or great war film is often based on personal taste and unfortunately some people might be unable to accept a film, or praise it, unless it fits in with their probably biased and blinkered viewpoints. LOL

4th Cuirassier

Time Bandits was a good film entertainment wise and an excellent comedy. I've watched it a few times, But it was not a war film or a serious drama and all characters were intended to be comedic rather than realistic. I'm sure anyone watching it would know that?

Last Hussar

Are you saying that a film as near authentic as possible, full of action with cannons that recoil back when fired and no fireball explosions, would not be watchable? LOL

Old Yeller, I too like Christopher Plummer's performance as Wellington. But he was hardly a 'very young' actor as he was born in 1929 and so was about 41 at the time of the film's release – admittedly a few years younger than Wellington had been at Waterloo.

Plummer also benefitted from having the best lines, many of them direct quotes from Wellington.

I believe he rewrote many of his lines to include quotations from the Duke as he was not happy with the original script.