OH! WHAT A LOVELY WAR

UK, 1969, 144 minutes, Colour.
Laurence Olivier, Michael Redgrave, John Mills, Ralph Richardson, Vanessa Redgrave, Dirk Bogarde, Meriel Forbes, Susannah York, Maggie Smith, Ian Holm, John Gielgud, Kenneth More,, John Clements, Jack Hawkins, Corin Redgrave.
Directed by Richard Attenborough.

Oh! What a Lovely War is an impressive kind of film but will not appeal to everyone. It is a mixture of satire, musical anti-war spectacle. On stage, with the audience's imagination supplying the realism, it must have been a rapid, relentless, battering effect. Directed by Richard Attenborough, with an all-star British cast, and filmed in Panavision and colour, it moves at less than a rapid pace. It ranges from stylised setting on Brighton's pier, The World War I Show, to realistic trench settings. Sometimes it mingles the realism with the artificial, sometimes unsatisfactorily. How much war questioning impact it has will probably depend on the viewer. There are some excellent lines and routines and the absurdity of war attitudes is culled with the heroism of the actual fighting. If you get on its wavelength you will enjoy its irreverent satire.

1. The title was ironic. How ironic was the whole film? The credits and the illustrations? The songs? Was it a legitimate anti-war film? Or was it too cynical in its attack? Why?

2. The film derived from the stage. was this obvious? Did it matter? How well did the film use stage and musical revue styles? What was the impact on audiences of this music hall style? Did the audience understand it? Were on the wavelength? Did this detract from the message of the film?

3. How successful was the device of using Brighton pier as the World War I show? Of making World War I a musical entertainment? Of the constant use of World War I songs? Of the changing of music hall delight into sombre drama? Did the film succeed in using these conventions well for its message? Which sequences and styles illustrated this best?

4. What chiefly was the message of the film? About the nobility and futility of war? of heroism and achievement? Of the manipulation of history by the warmongers? The significance of having Haigh selling the tickets at the pier?

5. Comment on the visual presentation of the personages. How effective was this to have war games on the pier with the personages in person? (Did it detract from the film that so many English stars took these parts? Why?) Did this device illustrate quickly the historical implications of World War I? What cynical comment did it make on politicians - especially those of Austria? What did it say about national vanities and alliances and intrigue?

6. How successful was the device of the camera man and looking and winking at the audience? How did it invite the audience to watch and participate ironically in the World War I show? This common man took many parts. Was this an effective stage and film device?

7. The Smiths - their common name. How typical a family were they meant to be? How typically British? Their response to the challenges that it offered? Was there a sense of realism in the presentation of the Smiths? Which sequences illustrated the ordinariness best?

8. How did the Smiths contrast with the presentation of the military types? The generals like Sir John French? what comment was made on their pomposity? On the way that they ran the war? On the implications of a war run by men such as these?

9. How important was the sequences of the French side-show for establishing the mood of the film? Was it satisfying as it moved out into the realism of the hillside? The unreality of the merry-go-round on the hillside? The songs and dance and jubilation of the French changed into disillusionment? Was this an effective way of showing the French involvement in World War I? Why?

10. How successful was the music hall style of the singer and chorus for the recruiting? Why did the men respond to the singer? At close-up she looked like a whore. What judgement was being made of recruiting methods and tricking men into war? French scenes immediately followed. How were they a comment on this recruiting device?

11. The recruits went off so cheerfully. They accepted the shouting of sergeant majors etc. How was this ironically played in the 'Good-bye' sequence? Of the train on the pier going round in circles. Yet the men going off to war and to die. The mood of the song.

12. How vividly realistic were the trench sequences? The attitude of the officers as they visited the trenches? Odours and limbs? The immediate contrast of the generals at the party and Sir John Ffrench dancing? The talk about ambitions etc.? And the poverty of the men in the trenches?

13. How effective was the presentation of Christmas? The socialites discussing what they had to give up and the types of charity they sent to the men in the trenches? The immediate contrast of Christmas in the trenches? Is this visualisation of ironic contrast more effective than words and sermons? Why?

14. The comment on the basic humanity of Germans and British in the singing of Christmas carols? The sharing of schnapps? The shared conversations and experiences? In the scurrying back to fight one another?

15. The sombreness of Haigh and the war room and the numbers of deaths? The comments on Paschendale, the number of wounded and the ground gained etc.? How seriously moving was this?

16. How effective was the final sequence of the death of the last of the Smiths, following the red-tape and ultimately going through the Armistice Room? The contrast of the historical personages signing the peace treaty and their behaviour at the start? What comment on the futility of the whole war?

17. Comment on the visual richness of the final sequence. The use of white, the picnic, the Smiths at play, and then the contrast of the dead Smiths. The final walking through the enormous cemetery of crosses. The visual and emotional impact of this?

18. How can a film like this be made by the British about themselves? With so many prominent actors? Is this a sign that the British are able to face reality? How offensive was the film? How well did it treat the themes of war and humanity and history? Is it the masterpiece that many consider it to be? Why?