History Book Review on Film and Literature in Gallipoli war

Film and Literature in Gallipoli war

Produced by Peter Weir in 1981, the movie Gallipoli starred Mark Lee and Mel Gibson in Australia. This film revolves round some youthful men from Australian western rural that enlisted in the army of Australia at the time of First World War. These young men are later posted in Peninsula Gallipoli, within the empire of Ottoman to indulge in the campaigns of Gallipoli. In the succession of the movie, the youthful men steadily elude their innocence pertaining to the function of war. The climax of the film takes place in Anzac battlefield at film’s Gallipoli and delineates the inefficacious pounce in at Nek battle in 1915. However, from this film, it can be observed that insufficient intelligence, lack of knowledge on the terrain and resistance of the fierce Turkey hampered the invasion success. This paper reviews language, scenes, similarities and differences, of this film and the real history.

The language endorsed in this film is that of war, whereby Gallipoli mostly showcases much of events and conditions that soldiers endured under the theatre of war. This war was so intense that the athlete character, Archy Hamilton was inspired by a single line from the Official History of Australian in the War of 1914-1981, which described the 10th light house during Nek attack. Nek battle is the frequently contemplated divergence of the film’s reality, and the center of pillory (Leonard, 1). The central theme in the film is the coming of age of Australian soldiers and their country, and the vanity of innocence.

Documentaries on past wars are crucial since we get the opportunity to learn from the past mistakes. Having commenced since time in memorial, fights and wars between individuals and nations have progressed over the centuries (Leonard, 2). However, with scientific discoveries, weapons are more sophisticated, and more people involved in battlefields. Prior to two armies assembling on a battlefield to slog things out between themselves, there are advanced weapons that can destroy nations with just a single button push.

In one of the earliest scenes from the film, we view Uncle Jack reading The Jungle Book on how Mowgli has grown into a man and must depart from his wolves that raised him. Mel Gibson is one of the actors who remarked Gallipoli as the birth of a nation. It was a period of dream shattering in Australia, in which they banded to fight against the Hun; a war trench that claimed thousands of Australian lives (Leonard, 3). This film offers a faithful portrayal of life of Australia in 1910s and captures the characters and ideals of Australians who enrolled in the battle and the conditions they had to endure on the battlefield. It modifies events for dramatic purposes and has several significant historical inaccuracies. 

Relating this film to a similar historic event, Gallipoli battle is a great source of nationalism in Turkey. Firstly, the primary commemorations held for Turkey in WW1 as a war that indirectly determines the fate of the county is the war of Gallipoli held to commemorate the day of Canakkale martyrs. Secondly, the massive and eminent memorial is situated in Gelibolu. Currently, Gelibolu serves as the biggest memorial. Additionally, Canakkale is a frequent terminology used by most Turks to denote a national terminology (Leonard, 4). This also applies to the popular quotations of Ataturks in Chunuk Bair battle. Ataturk as the founding state of Gallipoli is a state that is regarded as the substantial prestige of its founder. Such occasions are normally commemorated for their militaristic and nationalistic aspects.

One of the contrasts that can be drawn from this film is that Gallipoli for Turkey was not the central feature of a world war, but a turning point in a decade of nearly constant violence that commences with Balkan wars and ends with independence war(s). Gallipoli may be among the few relevant victories of this duration, but it was best designed as a stalemate and still appears drenched from a pool of nearby defeats. Compared to the simultaneous wars of the Greeks, some European expeditionary forces and Armenians resulted in unambiguous and stunning Turkish victories and observe why Gallipoli and the first world war are second fiddle to independence war era (Leonard, 5). Gallipoli actually recalled as an introduction to sovereignty era in numerous ways. 

Another contrast is grounded on the knowledge that military historians from British would definitely opt to forget the fact that Gallipoli campaign ever occurred. They dismiss the campaign’s failure as to have resulted from unproficient generalship. However, their assumption of the war as an Allied defeat does not acknowledge the joint reality that Ottoman success was equally involved.

Allied commanders made some grave mistakes, but this does not resonate to the logic that had they made such mistakes, the allies would have automatically won. The success of the Turkish generally boosted Ottoman army, but none of their chief leaders who led the Turks in their liberty battle in 1919-1922 had served at any point in Gallipoli (Leonard, 6). Therefore, as much as Allied commanders had their share of mistakes, it does not necessarily imply that their mistakes led to their failure. For New Zealand, Turkey and Australia, Gallipoli has a big psychological relevance, which indicates the coming of age of individuals about to test themselves against the currents of the 21st century.

Work Cited

Leonard, Richard. The Mystical Gaze of the Cinema. Melbourne University Press. Pp. 179-180.