Gallipoli - The Frontline Experience (2005)

Gallipoli - The Frontline Experience is an important documentary film that was first aired in 2005. It was released on DVD in 2005 and 2012. The total running time is ca. 116 minutes. Here are a few basic facts about it:

** Written and directed by Tolga Örnek

** Narrated by Jeremy Irons and Sam Neill

** Photography by Volker Tittel

** Musical score by Demir Demirkan

Tolga Örnek is a Turkish filmmaker, who has directed several documentary films, including Mount Nemrud – Throne of the Gods (2001) and The Hittites – A Civilization that changed the World (2004).

His film about Gallipoli follows a chronological line from the beginning of the campaign in February and March 1915 to the end of the campaign in December 1915 and January 1916.

During the First World War, the allied powers – Britain, France, and Russia – were fighting against the central powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. The purpose of the Gallipoli campaign was to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war.

The first version of the plan called for Allied warships to sail through the Dardanelles and attack the Ottoman capital Istanbul. This did not go well. Two attempts to force the narrow strait were stopped by the Ottoman army in February and March 1915. But the allied high command did not abandon their plan. Instead they decided to add a military landing to the original plan.

The second version of the plan called for allied soldiers to land on the Gallipoli Peninsula and knock out the Ottoman forts which were blocking the strait. Once this was accomplished, the navy would sail to Istanbul and carry out the original plan. This did not go well, either. The military landing, which began in April 1915, was unable to capture the peninsula. A long war of attrition followed, with endless and bloody attacks and counter-attacks, month after month.

The allied soldiers came from England and Ireland, from Australia and New Zealand. The troops from Australia and New Zealand were known as Australia & New Zealand Army Corps (Anzac). In Australia and New Zealand the day of the landing - 25 April 1915 - is known as Anzac Day.

The film is based on a detailed study of primary and secondary sources. From hundreds of letters and diaries written by soldiers on both sides of the frontline, the director selected ten cases which he follows as closely as possible:

FROM ENGLAND

** Ellis Silas, 1885-1972

** Joseph “Joe” Murray, 1896-1994

** Guy Nightingale, 1890-1935

FROM NEW ZEALAND

** George Bollinger, 1890-1917

** Walter “Bill” Leadley, 1884-1970

** Percival Fenwick, 1870-1958

FROM AUSTRALIA

** Joe Cumberland, 1893-1915

** Oliver Cumberland, 1889-1915

FROM THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

** Ahmet Mucip, a Turkish soldier

** Saladin Nadir, a Turkish officer

Several experts were interviewed for this film. Their names are listed here in order of appearance:

** Nigel Steel, Imperial War Museum

** Robin Prior, University of New South Wales

** Les Carlyon, Australian author

** Christopher Pugsley, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

** Ashley Ekins, Australian War Memorial

** Peter Hart, Imperial War Museum

** Jenny Macleod, University of Edinburgh

** Gürsel Göncü, Turkish author and editor

If you google the names of the ten soldiers and the eight experts, you can find additional information about all of them (except the two Turkish soldiers).

Since the focus of this film is on the frontline experience, you can understand that there is a lot about death and destruction here. Many soldiers are wounded or killed on both sides. However, the war is not the only problem. The sanitary conditions are horrible. During the hot summer of 1915, many soldiers are struck down by diseases, such as diarrhoea. There is more. In November 1915 the peninsula was hit by a rainstorm that flooded the trenches followed by ice cold weather. Many soldiers were attacked by frostbite and some soldiers even froze to death.

By the end of 1915 the British high command finally realised that this plan was never going to work, and therefore it was decided to evacuate all the remaining troops. Evacuation began in December 1915 and was completed in January 1916.

Once the campaign was over, it was possible to take stock of the situation: almost half a million soldiers had been wounded or lost their lives (counting both sides). The allied forces had lost lives and wasted precious resources on a project that had to be abandoned. Perhaps it should never have been started.

Who was responsible for this slaughter? Two names are mentioned in the film: Herbert Kitchener (1850-1916), who was minister of war, and Winston Churchill (1874-1965), who was minister of the navy (First Lord of the Admiralty). Churchill had to take the blame when news about the Gallipoli disaster became public and he had to resign from the government. However, Kitchener was not affected by the scandal.

The Gallipoli campaign is not only a sad story, it is also an important story because it is part of the real world. Tolga Örnek has done a good job here. Using letters and diaries written by soldiers who fought in this campaign is a good idea because his film becomes personal and emotional. He can give us the frontline experience.

Some of his witnesses survived Gallipoli, but not all. The Cumberland brothers from Australia were both wounded on the day they landed: 25 April 1915. Both were evacuated to Egypt. Joe to Alexandria and Oliver to Cairo. On 5 May Joe died from his wounds. He is buried in Alexandria. Oliver recovered and returned to Gallipoli. After a battle near Lone Pine in August 1915 he was reported missing. His remains were discovered seven years later, in 1922. He is buried in Lone Pine War Cemetery. His tombstone is shown in the film. Beneath his name the following words are written:

“A brave young life 
that promised well.

At the word of God 
a hero fell.”
 

LINK ** 837 Private Joseph Hilton Cumberland

LINK ** 1087 Private Oliver James Cumberland

The film ends with a quotation. A long letter written by a Turkish soldier, Mehmet Tefik. It is a highly emotional text. He knows he may not survive this campaign. He writes to his father and mother, urging them to take care of his wife and his child as best they can. One week later he was killed.

REVIEWS

The film received positive reviews in the media. Here are three examples:

** Lisa Nesselson in Variety: 

“A thorough recounting of the carnage when Allied forces attempted to take the Dardanelles Strait and the title peninsula in Turkey during WWI, Gallipoli serves up the paradoxes and idiocy of battle as expressed in letters and journals written by the men (on both sides) who were there... Clear, informative and frequently moving narration by Jeremy Irons and Sam Neill ties together six years of research by vet documaker Tolga Örnek. Drawing heavily on surviving correspondence, and skillfully illustrated with a blend of still photos, period footage and re-enactments, [the] film keeps talking heads to a minimum. It brings to life long-dead adversaries who did their duty despite massive casualties from artillery, mines and the ravages of dysentery… Tech credits are top notch.”

** Richard Phillips on World Socialist Website: 

“Like most contemporary war documentaries, Örnek’s movie—Gallipoli: The Front Line Experience—uses archival photos and film footage, as well as aerial photography and dramatizations to provide a detailed account of the military campaign. But Örnek’s use of the letters and diaries of 10 soldiers—British, Australian, New Zealand and Turkish—selected from scores discovered by his research team gives it an extraordinary human dimension and immediacy.”

** Louise Keller on Urban Cine File: 

“A potent and magnificent documentary, Gallipoli impacts emotionally through its humanity and intensely personal stories. It has taken filmmaker Tolga Örnek six long years to research, write, produce and direct this outstanding film that documents the thoughts of soldiers who fought on all sides of this futile fiasco of a war. Although Örnek’s script concisely recounts the circumstances and events that took place in the lead up to the nine month war, in which tens of thousands of soldiers lost their lives, it is not a story about who won or lost. Everyone lost in this shocking conflict, when young men not only fought against each other, but against extreme weather conditions, severe hardships like the ravages of disease, flies and lice.”

CONCLUSION

I agree with the positive reviews. Tolga Örnek has created an important film. I am not surprised. I have seen some of his earlier works. His films about ancient history in Asia Minor – Mount Nemrud and The Hittites – are both impressive. With this film about the Gallipoli campaign he lives up to the high standard he set for himself with his earlier works.

Gallipoli – The Frontline Experience is recommended for the armchair traveler and for the real traveler who want to visit the peninsula and see the remains of this battlefield in person.

A visit to Gallipoli is recommended, if you are in Turkey.

PS # 1. For more information about this topic see Revealing Gallipoli, a documentary film released on DVD in 2005 and 2011. It is available online. Another documentary film is Gallipoli: The Untold Stories. This film by Jonathan King runs for ca. 1 hour and 13 minutes. It was released on DVD in 2005. It is available online.

PS # 2. Australian television is currently showing a new series about Gallipoli. Episode 1 aired on 9 February 2015. Episode 2 on 16 February 2015. Episode 3 on 23 February 2015. The total number of episodes is seven.

***

Gallipoli – The Frontline Experience,
Directed by Tolga Örnek,

Released on DVD 2005 and 2012,
Total running time ca. 116 minutes

***

Revealing Gallipoli - a documentary film (2005)

Revealing Gallipoli is an excellent documentary film that was first aired in 2005. It was released on DVD in 2005 and 2011. There are two episodes. Each episode runs for ca. 50 minutes. The total running time is ca. 100 minutes. Here are a few facts about it:

** Directed by Wain Fimeri

** Produced by Tony Wright

** Narrated by Hamish Hughes

Episode 1 covers the background of the Gallipoli campaign, the naval battle in the Dardanelles (February and March 1915) and the military landing on the beaches of the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. Episode 2 covers the remaining part of the campaign: the battles on land from May 1915 until the withdrawal in December 1915.

The story of Gallipoli has been told before. Why do I think Revealing Gallipoli is an excellent documentary film? My answer comes in three parts.

PART ONE

In general I like this film, because the manuscript is well written, the film is well organized, and the camera work is well done.

PART TWO

More specifically, I like this film because of its perspective. One perspective is geographical. There are three presenters:

** Keith Jeffery from Ireland

** Peter Stanly from Australia

** Savas Karakas from Turkey

Keith Jeffery covers the view from Ireland (and England); Peter Stanly covers the view from Australia (and New Zealand), while Savas Karakas covers the view from Turkey (or, more precisely, the Ottoman Empire). Savas Karakas has a personal connection with this event: his grandfather was one of the soldiers who fought in the Ottoman army against the allied invasion. His father named him Savas, which is the Turkish word for “battle.”

Another perspective is social and economic. The film presents the top leaders on both sides of the battle: top politicians and top officials. This is no surprise. But it does not stop there. It does more than that. The film also presents some of the ordinary soldiers who fought in this battle. Some of them fought for the allies, while others fought in the Ottoman army. In this way the film becomes more personal. We can see unfolding events, not merely from the top but also from the bottom of the social and economic pyramid.

PART THREE

The presenters take the viewers to all the relevant locations. As we sail through the Dardanelles, we can see how narrow it is. And we can understand why the army of the Ottoman Empire was able to block the strait and prevent the allied ships from passing through it. As we stand on the beaches of Gallipoli, we can see how steep the cliffs are. And we can understand how difficult it was to make a landing here.

The presenters also take us to some of the hills of Gallipoli Peninsula. The allied soldiers wanted to capture them, but in most cases they were unable to do so, because the Turkish forces got there first. In short: the film shows us the importance of the local geography.

INTENTIONS AND REALITY

The allies planned to sail through the Dardanelles, attack Istanbul, and knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war. Perhaps it was a good plan, in theory. But the plan had one important flaw: it could not be implemented. When we look at the Gallipoli campaign from the side of the allies, we have to say that almost everything went wrong. In fact, the only thing that went well was the evacuation that took place in December 1915. Everything else was a huge disaster.

How could this happen? How could the allies embark on a plan that was so flawed? As the film explains, many factors were involved here:

** The allies overestimated their own talents and resources

** The allies underestimated the talents and the resources of the enemy

** The navy and the army did not cooperate well. The navy did not trust the army and vice versa

** The navy and the army worked with maps that were outdated and inaccurate. That is why they did not understand the importance of the local geography

** The allied plan was no secret: the Ottoman army was ready the first time when the allied ships tried to force the strait in February and March 1915 and the second time when the allied troops landed on the beaches of the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. The allied campaign was doomed to failure from the very start

The allies should have abandoned their plan as soon as their naval operation turned into disaster in March 1915. They did not do this. Instead they added a military invasion to the original plan. They should have abandoned the new and revised plan as soon as the military invasion turned into disaster in April 1915. They did not do this. Instead they decided to hang on and to carry on, even though there was never any realistic hope that the plan could be implemented.  

The Ottoman Empire was weak in the beginning of the 20th century, but it was not yet broken. It was still able to defend itself. It did not fall apart when it was attacked by the allies. The Turkish soldiers fought back, defending their homeland with a ferocity and tenacity, which was totally unexpected among the allied leaders. Both sides refused to give up.

Thus the campaign went on for month after month, even though the line between the two sides hardly moved. Towards the end of the year the allied leaders finally admitted that the situation was hopeless, and in December 1915 the remaining forces were withdrawn (quickly and quietly).

War is always a tragic event: soldiers are wounded or killed. In modern wars, civilians often suffer as well. The soldiers who took part in the Gallipoli campaign paid a heavy price. On both sides. Almost half a million were wounded or killed. Sometimes a war may be necessary. Sometimes a war may be justified. When soldiers are is wounded or killed in action, we must hope that their mission served a good purpose and that it achieved a good result. Unfortunately, this was not the case here: the allied soldiers who fought in the Gallipoli campaign were wounded or killed for nothing.

Revealing Gallipoli is a sad story about a tragic event. But it is also an important story about a significant episode, an important part of the First World War. If it shows us anything, if there is anything to learn from this horrible event, it is the futility of war.

MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATÜRK

The film ends with a quotation: the famous words written by Mustafa Kemal in 1934. He was the Turkish officer in charge of the Ottoman army on the Gallipoli Peninsula, and he became a national hero because he was able to stop the invasion and force the enemy to withdraw. In 1923, a few years after the end of World War One, he proclaimed the Republic of Turkey and he served as the first president of the new republic for more than ten years (from the foundation until his death in 1938). Because of this he is known as Atatürk, the father of the Turks.

Today his words are written in English on a large monolith that is erected near Anzac Cove where the soldiers from Australia and New Zealand (Anzac) landed on 25 April 1915. Savas Karakas reads Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s words of reconciliation. I quote them as they are written on the large monolith:

“Those heroes that shed their blood

and lost their lives...

You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.

Therefore rest in peace.

There is no difference between the Johnnies
and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side
here in this country of ours...

You, the mothers, who sent [your] sons from faraway countries,
wipe away your tears.

Your sons are now lying in our bosom
and are in peace.

After having lost their lives on this land they have
become our sons as well.”

 [The “Johnnies” is a reference to the allied soldiers, while the “Mehmets” is a reference to the Ottoman soldiers. The dots do not mark an omission. They are part of the original text. They mark a moment of hesitation and reflection or a pause.]

Revealing Gallipoli is an excellent documentary film. It is recommended for the armchair traveller as well for the real traveller who wants to visit the peninsula and see the remains of this battlefield in person.

A visit to Gallipoli is recommended, if you are in Turkey.

PS # 1. For background information about this film, see the article “Gallipoli revealed” by Wendy Tuohy in the Australian newspaper The Age, 21 April 2005 (available online).

PS # 2. For more information, see Gallipoli - The Frontline Experience, a documentary film directed by the Turkish filmmaker Tolga Őrnek (released on DVD in 2005 and 2012).

PS # 3. For more information about Anzac, see Anzac Girls by Peter Rees (2014). The first version of this book (published in 2008) inspired the Australian television series Anzac Girls first aired in 2014 and released on DVD in 2015.

PS # 4. Australian television is currently showing a new television series about Gallipoli. Episode 1 aired on 9 February 2015. Episode 2 on 16 February 2015. Episode 3 on 23 February 2015. The total number of episodes is seven.

* * *

Revealing Gallipoli,

Directed by Wain Fimeri,

Released on DVD in 2005 and 2011

Total running time: ca. 100 minutes

* * *

Below: another cover of the DVD

* * *

 For more information about this topic, see my blog:

A Visit to Gallipoli

* * *

  

Lost at Sea: The Search for Longitude (1998)

Lost at Sea: The Search for Longitude is a documentary that was first shown on PBS in 1998. Ten years later (2008) it was released on DVD. It is also available online. The total running time is ca. 54 minutes. Here are a few basic facts about it:

** Directed by Peter Jones

** Written by David R. Axelrod

** Narrated by Richard Dreyfuss

Lost at Sea is based on Dava Sobel’s popular book Longitude which was published in 1996 (paperback 2005). The book and the film tell the story about the long and difficult search to find the longitude when you are at sea and there is no land in sight.

The most important characters in this story are John Harrison (1693-1776) and his son William Harrison (1728-1815). The most important institution is the Board of Longitude, which was established in 1714. The board had the authority to offer a prize of 20,000 British pounds – a huge fortune at the time – to anyone who could offer a practical and accurate solution to the problem.

Harrison senior was a carpenter by trade, but he also made clocks and watches. At first it was merely a hobby, but later it became his main occupation. Working alone at first and later with his son, this self-taught clockmaker constructed several marine chronometers, which made it possible to determine the longitude at sea with a high degree of accuracy. Today these instruments are known as H-1, H-2, H-3, and H-4.

Several experts appear as witnesses in this film. Here are their names, in the order of appearance:

*** Dava Sobel, author of  Longitude (1996)

*** Andrew King, historian

*** William J. H. Andrewes, curator, Harvard University, Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments; editor of The Quest for Longitude (1996)

*** Suzanne Debarbat, astronomer, Observatory of Paris

*** Jonathan Betts, curator of horology, Old Royal Observatory; author of Harrison (2007)

*** Derek Howse (1919-1998), historian of navigation and astronomy; author of Greenwich Time and the Discovery of the Longitude (1980); a revised edition entitled Greenwich Time and the Longitude appeared in 1998

Lost at Sea is, in many ways, a good film. The problem of the longitude is presented in the beginning. After this we learn how the solution was discovered. Step by step. We also hear how the Board of Longitude repeatedly refused to offer Harrison the coveted prize, even though it was clear that he had fulfilled the conditions demanded by the act of 1714.

Why did the board refuse? Most members were not merely academic scholars, but also arrogant snobs, who could not accept that a self-taught clockmaker from a small town had discovered the solution to a difficult scientific problem.

At the time, many scholars believed the solution would be found by studying the moon and the stars. One proponent of this view was Nevil Maskelyne (1732-1811) who is also presented in the film. According to Derek Howse, Maskelyne was a “pompous” person. Dava Sobel adds to the description: while admitting that Maskelyne did important work in the field of astronomy, she calls him “an unpleasant” character.

Maskelyne did lunar observations on Barbados in 1764, and hoped to win the prize using this method. In the following year he was appointed as Astronomer Royal. In this capacity he became a member of the Board of Longitude. He had a conflict of interest. He wanted to win the prize. At the same time he was a member of the board which had the authority to award the prize he wanted. He should have recused himself from the board or abandoned the attempt to win the prize, but he did neither.

As a member of the board he made sure that the board issued a negative report about H-4 and set up several new conditions which Harrison had to fulfil if he wanted to remain in the race. It seems every time Harrison fulfilled one condition, the board would set up two new demands. With this board, there was no way he could win.

H-1, a huge and heavy clock, was tested at sea during a voyage to Lisbon in 1736. Harrison senior went on this voyage during which his clock performed not so well going out, but quite well going back. Much better than Harrison himself, who was seasick all the time!

H-4, a handy pocket watch, was tested at sea during a voyage to Barbados in 1764. Harrison junior went on this voyage during which the watch performed extremely well.

However, the board still refused to recognise Harrison’s achievement. Finally, in 1772, Harrison junior tried a new approach. He appealed to the king George III, who took an interest in the case. When father and son were granted an audience, the king supposedly exclaimed: “By God, Harrison, I will see you righted!”

In the end, Harrison got the prize and the honour, but only because Parliament enacted a special law. The Board never gave it to him or anyone else, for that matter. Fortunately, Harrison senior lived long enough to see the happy end, but he had to wait for many years to see it.

Lost at Sea is a good film, but not everything in it is perfect. To illustrate my point I will mention two things which bother me:

NUMBER ONE

H-4 was completed in 1759 and tested at sea during a voyage to Jamaica in 1761. Harrison junior went on this voyage during which the clock performed extremely well. But the voyage to Jamaica is not mentioned in the film. We only hear about the voyage to Lisbon in 1736 and the voyage to Barbados in 1764.

NUMBER TWO

The British actor Patrick Malahide appears as John Harrison in a couple of scenes where he talks about his plans and his inventions. But he is all alone when we see him, and his monologues are not really successful; his portrait of Harrison is not really convincing.

Having made these critical remarks, I wish to repeat that “Lost at Sea” is a good documentary.

John Harrison was a remarkable man. It seems he was not always clear when he had to express himself, but he understood his metier extremely well. His persistence with the clocks and his patience with the board is impressive.

William Harrison supported his father through it all, not only by undertaking the two long voyages at sea, but also by attending numerous meetings with the cantankerous Board of Longitude.

The story of Harrison and the longitude is interesting and dramatic. It is also important because it reveals the prejudice which many academic scholars had against a layman such as Harrison. For them it was not important to find the best solution as soon as possible. For them it was important that a solution should come from one of their peers. Harrison was rebuffed time and again in many different ways. Most men would have given up, when treated like that, but Harrison was not most men. He believed a timekeeper was a good solution and he was right. He believed he could build one that was accurate enough and he was right again.

A COMPARISON

It is obvious to compare Lost at Sea with another documentary that is based on Dava Sobel’s book from 1996. This film, which has the same title as the book – Longitude – was first broadcast on Britain’s Channel 4 in 1999. Eight years later it was released on DVD. It is also available online.

One obvious difference between the two films is the length: one is much shorter than the other. Lost at Sea runs for less than one hour (54 minutes), while Longitude runs for more than three hours (198 minutes).

Another difference is format and structure. Lost at Sea is a traditional documentary in which modern experts appear as witnesses from time to time, while Longitude is dramatized from the beginning to the end. Two storylines are intertwined here: the first one takes place in the 18th century where we follow the lives of Harrison senior and junior during their quest for perfection. The second one takes place in the 20th century where we follow the life of Rupert T. Gould (1890-1948), a former naval officer, who restored Harrison’s clocks during the years between World War One and World War Two.

When I compare these two documentaries, I have to say that Lost at Sea is good, but Longitude is great. In other words, the former deserves a rating of four stars, while the latter deserves a rating of five stars.

PS. For more information about this topic, see Time Restored: The Harrison Timekeepers and R. T. Gould by Jonathan Betts (2011); Finding Longitude by Richard Dunn & Rebekah Higgitt (2014); and Maskelyne: Astronomer Royal edited by Rebekah Higgitt (2014).

***

Lost at Sea: The Search for Longitude,

A documentary film directed by Peter Jones,

Aired on PBS 1998, released on DVD 2008

Total running time: 54 minutes

***