THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE

UK, 1968, 141 Minutes, Colour.
Trevor Howard, David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud, Harry Andrews, Jill Bennett, Peter Bowles, Mark Burns.
Directed by Tony Richardson.

The Charge of The Light Brigade is a caustic film. We laugh often enough at the witty cartoons which illustrate the struggles for power in the mid-nineteenth century and the supremacy of Mother Britannia and Mother Victoria. We also laugh at the spectacle of those responsible for Britain's role in the Crimean War displaying their pettiness and ignorance. Admittedly, this could not be the whole picture of the Charge, but it brings home to us that 'someone had blundered' is not a pleasant line in Tennyson's elevated poem, but blundering stupidity and massacre. The spectacle of Lord Cardigan pompously strutting through the wrong valley and finally turning to assess the charge is appalling.

As a picture of England in the 1850's, this film is worth seeing. The ease of society living contrasts with the scenes of training the brigades and blend in the excellent scene at the theatre. Mid- Victorians struck poses - heroic as Capt. Nolan (David Hemmings as a rather unconvincing goody), benevolent and tired as Lord Raglan (John Gielgud in restrained satire) or the bluff, man's commander as Cardigan (Trevor Howard turning it on). Director Tony Richardson can capture an age (Tom Jones) or can bite mercilessly (The Loved One).

1. Why was this film made? was it successful as a spectacle and entertainment? The satirical tone? The criticism of English myths of last century? The contrast with Tennyson's noble view of The Charge? Was the film an overall success?

2. What audience response was it after? Did it want to entertain audiences? Satisfy them? Exasperate them? Why?

3. What are the changes of tone in response to England's myths and history from last century to this century? What is the film implying about differing attitudes towards England and history and the Military? Do you agree with the modern point of view or the nobility of last century's views?

4. What did the film imply about the nature of history? As seen by contemporaries, their presuppositions? As seen by later generations, their presuppositions? The necessity of interpretation for history? The impossibility for people at the time to interpret correctly? Can history ever get to the realities? What is reality?

5. Comment on the structure of the film: half in England and half in Crimea? The use of animation for credits, and for political and social comment during the film? The contrast between the two classes in England and in Crimea? The use of Panavision and colour and musical commentary? How strongly were these necessary for this film?


6. How was the actual Charge seen as a symbol of England in the mid-nineteenth century and as a summary of its mistakes and weaknesses? Was this just? Did the film justify its own stance and view of the Charge?

7. How did the film imply that English society was to blame for the disaster? The role of class distinctions transferred from England to the Crimea? Moral inadequacies and poor characters at home and in the Army situation? Is this the truth of all such events?

8. How was Cardigan the central character of the film? As a symbol himself of the Charge? How would his attitudes towards his military career, himself, his men, his peers, the enemy etc. be summed up? How villainous a person was he? How pompous and arrogant? His pride in his men, yet his arrogance, his dislike of men trained in India, his behaviour towards Nolan, towards Raglan and Lucan, his behaviour in the Crimea and petty squabbling, his leading of the Charge and arrogance? His ability to escape blame at the end? What was your final response to Lord Cardigan? Why?

9. How did he contrast with Raglan? Raglan as old, absent-minded, kind? His reaction to the statue of the Duke of Wellington and his memories of enmity with the French? Was there parody in the presentation of Raglan? was he a genuine general? His work in connection with Colonel Airey? Taking advice and disregarding advice? Not interrogating the spy in an ungentlemanly way? His courtesy during the Charge? His sense of urgency and yet his dismay at the error? His trying to avoid the blame at the end? what was your final response to Lord Raglan?

10. Was Lord Lucan presented as a real person or as a caricature? Selfish arrogance? His encounter with Raglan as regards command? His scoffing at Cardigan? Petty bickering in Crimea? His waiting, not doing anything at Balaclava? Your final response to Lord Lucan?

11. How attractive a figure was Captain Nolan? A nineteenth century hero? His military ability, his riding, his text-book? Indian background and clashes with Cardigan, the black bottle incident, the Court Martial discussion? His happiness at going to the Crimea, his urging for action, his interceding with Lucan and Cardigan for Raglan? His position in the Charge and the manner of his death? What was being said about heroic Englishmen of last century? Nolan in his relationships with Morris and dear friend? His relationship to Clarissa and their love affair? The hypocrisy - outward show and inward values? What was your ultimate response to Captain Nolan? Why?

12. How was Morris meant to sum up the ordinary military nun of the mid-century? The aristocrat at war? His nineteenth century style, dear friend, the fact that he survived and his disillusionment?

13. What did the film have to say about the other soldiers? The sergeant-major and his recruiting, his efficiency and long career, his refusal to spy, his drunkenness and Cardigan's dismissal, his wanting to regain his rank in the Crimea? what did he sum up of the attitudes of the lower-class soldier?

14. How important was the character of Clarissa in the film? The noble woman back home in England? The support, yet confusion of emotions? Marriage and love affair and motherhood? How attractively was she presented? Did you like her? Entirely?

15. How did she contrast with the Duberlys? Mrs Duberly on the make, in high society, at dances, attracted to Cardigan, camp following, the seduction with Cardigan - its humour and irony, her watching of the battle? The complete ineffectiveness of Duberly? Satire and social content?

16. Discuss the role of the Times reporter? His asking of sensible questions, the way he was treated by the Military, his observations, the fact that the papers could get the wrong news about victory in Crimea? What comment was being made here - in its juxtaposition with the cartoons?

17. Comment on the picture of the English upper-class in the first part of the film. Their gentility, the wedding, the dances, the theatre, meals etc. What was your response to the English upper class? What did the screenwriter and director think of our response?

18. Comment on the presentation of the poorer classes - the recruits, their ignorance, their being drilled and pushed around, the poverty and the travel, the illness and dying of the men in Crimea etc.? Yet their willingness to charge again? How successful was the editing of sequences of poor and rich and the implied social comment?

19. What impression of war and the Military did the film give - the arrogant soldiers, the ignorant officers making fools of others, Cardigan's attitudes towards them all, the black bottle etc.? Shining uniforms, efficient and inefficient men? Poor leaders and men willing to follow and die? The social comment here?

20. The patriotism and the love for England - England's prestige in the nineteenth century, its struggles and fighting for other nations, Queen Victoria etc.? What attitude towards patriotism did the film have? As in the cartoons especially?

21. How successful a war film and an anti-war film was this? Why?

22. Comment on the ending, the petering out of the event, the satire in the squabbling and shifting of responsibilities? How was this a most ironic ending for an ironic film?