Then later, the haunting landing on the Gallipoli peninsula itself:
As I said in class today, the events Weir dramatizes here is a historical reality. If you read the Wikipedia article, you will find out that the campaign is still recognized in both New Zealand and Australia (the two countries lost almost 26,000 men killed and wounded in the campaign) as Anzac Day. In his film, Weir doesn't hide at all his feelings about what happened back in 1915, making Gallipoli his most didactic work. It also is a pretty straightforward narrative, a very traditional commercial film in many ways, a break from his prior two films.
1. So what is your response to this movie so far? Like? Dislike? Why? And what image stays with you from this first almost two hours?
2. As we embed with Frank and Archie in the hillside of Gallipoli, waiting for the attack soon to come, it's easy to forget that the first half of the film took place in Australia. So why do you think Weir gave us so much time back in Australia? What thematic purpose do you see in his doing this?
3. What do you think this film is about? I know it's hard to say without having finished it, but give it a shot. Think of all its disparate parts—Australia, the friends, the running, the debate about the war, the war itself—and try to come up with a coherent commentary on what this film is trying to do.
We'll finish this tomorrow and do some talking. Gotta love that impossibly young Mel Gibson.
I really like this movie so far--I think the characters are likeable and relatable and their story is compelling. One image that stays with me is the moment in the desert when Archie is telling Frank that he has to enlist just like Frank's friends were back home. The repetition of that scene emphasizes how much peer pressure there was to support the war and enlist, even though it had nothing to do with Australia. I think Weir gave us so much time back in Australia to establish home for these characters; their national identity is a vital component of the film. Weir uses the conflicting aspects of Australian identity to tell the story of this war: on the one hand, Australia identifies with Great Britain and wants to support them, on the other they are fiercly independent and resent the European powers, especially England. I think this film is about Australian identity, nationalism, and masculinity and it uses the battle of Gallipoli to discuss these issues.
ReplyDelete1. So far ive really enjoyed this film (including young Mel Gibson). I love that I can just sit and watch a film without worrying about a much deeper meaning. The straightforward-ness of the movie is an appealing trait after movies like the last wave; don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the Last Wave. The main reason that I've liked the film is because of the bonding between the two friends. I love to see how both of the men have changed each other after they've become friends. For that reason my favorite scene is when the two men race in Egypt and end up on the pyramid. I'm sure the two friends will remmber that moment whenever they go into war.
ReplyDelete2.As an Australian with an international movie it's almost required that he show off his country. He needs to show the beauty in his country to the rest of the world. I believe that he showed Australia not only for that reason but also because he wanted to show what the individuals were before they were sent to war. Australia was where all of the men met and where the friendships begin. Most war movies just show the men in combat but Weir's film shows the character development through Australia.
3. As I said earlier I believe the movie is about friendship and the hardships of war. War as well as friendship changed both of the boys into men and better people.
1. I really liked this movie thus far. It was more gripping and interesting than the past movies we watched and I felt that the characters were more relatable and easier to connect with than some of the other characters in the movies we’ve seen thus far. The image that has stuck with me the most from this movie is the quick shot of Archie’s feet after he races against his friend on bareback. His bleeding, cut up, blistered, roughed-up feet show how he is still a kid. He knows when his big race is and still chooses to run barefoot on such dangerous terrain. The fact that he sort of chooses to run based off of foolish pride says something about his age.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Weird is really trying to give us a good idea of where these characters come from and what his country is really like. Even in the Last Wave, which was also set in Australia, we barely see any of the country of Australia, just Sydney. I think that he shows us the countryside and the desert and the cities to show us exactly where these two boys are from.
3. I think this movie is a coming of age story for both Archie and Frank, though mostly for Archie. I think he really matures throughout what we’ve seen of the film thus far and what struck me about this story was the beginning of the movie when Archie’s farm-hand friend/older man was reading the Jungle Book, also a coming of age story. I’m interested in seeing whether or not Archie’s story plays out like Mowgli’s.
1. I like this film, and the majority of my admiration for it comes from the cinematography. Everything is visual beautiful even if the conflict here, the war, is not. The image of Frank and Archie walking across the desert where there was nothing but sand and blue sky was incredible. The Australia we saw in The Last Wave had a lot going on architecturally and visually, whereas the Australia we saw in that sequence was so barren and empty. I really got the sense that it was Frank and Archie against the world, which carries into when they end up fighting alongside one another and strengthens the idea that they share a very deep camaraderie.
ReplyDelete2. I thought that all the time in Australia was necessary to show what these characters are like outside of war. We met both of their families and saw what they are like as regular people rather than soldiers. Had the whole film taken place in the trenches, we wouldn’t have developed the strong connection to these characters and it would be hard to root for them if they were just random soldiers.
3. I also think the film is about friendship and alliances, and how sometimes alliances (Australia’s with England) aren’t always positive, rewarding things. It’s about how alliances can start out as rivalries, as Frank and Archie were competitors and rivals at first, but after getting over that initial tension they have become each other’s biggest allies.
The parallels of rural Australia in the early 1900s and the American West are many. Being raised on countless American Western films full of desert, cattle, horses, and saloons, I found that the first bit of Gallipoli felt oddly familiar. The film is undisputedly entertaining, being straightforward, as John said, and well crafted. Unfortunately, the film does little to satisfy the actor inside of me. Weir very intentionally made this film a story. By this I mean that, while watching, the viewer does not get the impression he or she is seeing a slice of a true reality. The feel is, instead, that this is a story being played out by actors. This is a choice by Weir, and it works quite effectively in this case, yet it pleases me less than the alternative.
ReplyDeleteThe image of mortars continually exploding within the camp of the Australians will not soon leave my mind. If that is the "safe" place, I do not look forward to seeing the battlefield.
The use of Australia has two clear intentions— a twofold comparison. Firstly, as John references, its usage creates, with clarity, the irrelevance of the war to Australians. They are fighting another man's war, no doubt about it. Secondly, I believe, it sets the viewer up for the comparison to Turkey. The two are quite similar: desert communities of people just trying to get by.
Because this here film is more of a story telling than a slice of life, it is a much simpler task to determine it's meaning; one must simply look for the moral of the story. Of course, this task on its own, bears no small amount of difficult. In Gallipoli, all the men like pleasure yes. Sex and alcohol bring them some meager satisfaction. Greater than this, friendship has great importance to them all. They live and die beside their "mates." Yet, this is not the end of the matter, either. All of them are after more— the meaning of life, perhaps; some answers; something more. Joining a war may not seem a logical path to take on this pursuit, but I must argue that there is no logic in this search for meaning. Weir asks, without his own answer, why do men need to go to war in order to find themselves?
1. I've really enjoyed the movie so far. It may be that it returns more to conventional movie standards, but I feel a lot more involved with the film and much more connected to the characters than in the previous two movies. The story feels interesting and fun to watch, more like Master and Commander. I think that this movie spends a lot of time with the characters, more so than you would expect than a war film, and I really like that. Getting to know the characters is necessary for me to care about what happens to them, and Weir did an excellent job introducing them.
ReplyDelete2. The time in Australia is meant to introduce us to Frank and Archie, as well as Frank's friends. If we had started the movie right as they enlisted and were shipped off we wouldn't have any idea what these men were like outside of the environment of wartime. Spending the first hour or so getting to know these characters while still keeping the movie interesting and involving was a really great move on Weir's part, as it helps us care whether they live or die a lot more than it would otherwise.
3. I think this story is more conventional than Picnic at Hanging Rock or the Last Wave. Its theme is less of a convoluted symbolism-ridden metaphor and more of a standard, straight forward coming-of-age hero's journey tale. The heroes are Archie and Frank as they move from relatively innocent life in rural Australia into a harrowing and risky life in wartime.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. So far, I like this movie a lot. Weir does a great job of making you like the characters and root for them in a way that is not invasive. He shows how they are connected, and really goes in depth about their relationships without letting it get boring. My favorite part of the movie so far is not so much a moment but an aspect. I love how Weir shows the development of the friendship between Archie and Frank. It seems very quick, but I love how they just get a long and are best friends.
ReplyDelete2. I think Weir spent so much time in Australia to make people have sympathy for the characters and to give a subtle hint at why he is angry at the British. He spends a lot of time showing the characters' hobbies and whatnot, making them seem like real people, and making us like them more. Without this setup, we wouldn't have any reason to root for them in the coming battle. He spends the time to get us on his side, essentially.
3. I think this film is about friendship and war. Weir pretty much spends the entire time showing Archie and Frank's relationship and how it changes, and the setting is war. While Weir may be trying to show his anger toward the British, it doesn't seem as prominent as I expected. Almost everything in the movie is friendship or war, and anything that isn't somehow connects to one of those ideas.
I’ve really really liked this movie so far, and I think that by the end I’m going to love it (even though I’ve heard that the ending is really sad, spoiler alert sorry). All of the scenery of Australia in this movie is really incredible and unlike the other Weir films we’ve watched, I’ve come to really admire/love/have an understanding of the characters. An image that sticks with me is when Frank’s fear for the war becomes evident through the death of his friend Barney in the scene of Archy and Frank talking on the edge of that rock, waiting for the attack to come. In the beginning of the movie I got the impression (could be wrong) that Frank is a really tough, stubborn guy, so this scene of vulnerability made him more real and human.
ReplyDeleteI think that Weir focuses the beginning half of the movie in Australia to provide the audience with a contrast between that world of peace and warfare. In Australia, we saw that Archy really is only a boy in the sprinting scene with his father and when he tries to enlist at an early age. In terms of Weir’s reoccurring theme of tradition, I think that Australia could symbolize for tradition because it’s where Frank and Archy are originally from and it’s their culture. The war at Gallipoli provides a contrast to this with the images of warfare and life threatening situations instead of peace.
Like others have said, I think that this movie is a coming of age story while also being about friendships and alliances. Archy and Frank go from being somewhat innocent boys in Australia to the violent environment of war in Gallipoli as they overcome their rivalry to become best friends. I also agree with Jenny in saying that the alliances can go bad, too, as seen with Britain and Australia.
1. I am enjoying this movie so far. The characters are very likeable (other than Snowy who is quite annoying). The plot is a lot easier to follow than the movies we just watched. This film is less intriguing, though. I feel like I already know who will die and I think I know where the plot is going. I find Frank and Archie's relationship interesting because they are very good friends but there is also a level of competition. Frank feels inferior to Archie because not only is he a slower runner but he also can't ride a horse. The scene that stuck with me was when the cowboy who lost the horse vs. man race rats Archie out as underage. Archie is kind of unnatural to me. The way he always has a smile on his face while bombs whiz by and the way nothing seems to faze him sticks out. He's very innocent, partly because he has a baby face and is underage and also because he acts so playfully all the time. Life is a game for him. For example, he doesn't think ahead to the race he has to run when he destroys his feet.
ReplyDelete2. In Australia the audience gets a chance to see what our heroes are leaving behind. It allows us to get to know the characters and to like them. We see a wife sending her husband off with some champagne so that he won't forget her and it's all very sweet.
3. Similar to the other films, pride plays a role. Archie exhibits his pride in the race against the cowboy. Frank hurts his pride repeatedly as he is beaten in a footrace and made a fool of when he auditions for the Light Horses. It's also about comfort zones. Right now, the men are embracing this place beyond their home but I predict that soon, they will be thrust out of their comfort zones by the destruction of war.
I like this movie a lot more than Picnic at Hanging Rock. It's defiantly a lot more straight forward compared to some of the other movies we saw, and that's really nice because I can keep up with it easily. This movie is also very humorous at some parts and is also very serious which is a good match up that I personally like. An image that really stuck to me during this film was when Archie was walking alone and then Frank joined and they walked together even if Frank didn't agree with the decision. I liked that a lot because they weren't just going to leave each other behind, they are a team.
ReplyDeleteI think Weir showed a lot of the film in Australia because he wanted to show how it first started, in Australia. They didn't have very much, and they were just making it up as they go. They had a main goal of what they wanted to do, but they didn't know anything at all of what would happen in between. I ink they were just going on an adventure and that's what Australia represented.
I think this film is about the war and friendship and how Archie and Frank are a team throughout the film. Also I thought it was quite interesting how frank said that Australia isn't your "home", British is. That was also something that was interesting because that's how the whole adventure started with them leaving and trying to go to Britain and fight with them, as British being there "home".
1. I really enjoyed this film. I actually finished it today, and I’m not sure where you stopped in class so I’ll avoid talking about the end. I knew going it that it was supposed to be about war, which made the first half surprising. It turned out to be a more general adventure movie. It was interesting to see the events leading up to their experiences in the war. Their entire walk across the desert sticks out to me. It shows the differences in character between Frank and Archie. Frank is more cautious and sensible while Archie is more adventurous and innovative. Or maybe sensible when it comes to self-preservation.
ReplyDelete2. As I said in the previous answer I think that this film is a broad adventure and not just about war. Weir spends so much time in Australia to get us familiar with the lives of our characters and their backgrounds. The story told about them is specifically Australian. The war is not meant to be impersonal like in Master and Commander. The reasons for the soldiers enlistment is more clear. Many are fighting just because it would be dishonorable not to. Frank has a tough history with the English and seems to have gone only because he ended up meeting Archie. Archie has a sense of duty and seems to understand that the Germans could come to Australia.
3. This film seems to be about the specific journeys and developments of Archie and Frank. We get to see how their friendship becomes important.
Awwwwyesss. I like this movie. Okay, I'll be honest, I like young Mel Gibson. The movie itself IS nice! It has been funny, serious, suspenseful, a bit melancholy and at one point, downright sad. One image that I kept replaying was when Archy looked at the poster of the great runner right before he left for the race. Another moment that stood out to me was when the two young men were combing their hair and getting spiffy whilst staying in the house in Australia. They were doing it for the girl, of course, but I just thought it was a good representation of the two men in their playful side. It's small scenes like that which keep the movie light and make the viewer forget about the war for a moment.
ReplyDeleteWow. I feel like a dingus. I didn't really think about the fact that they had left Australia until I read the second question. I mean, of course they aren't in Australia anymore!! I just forgot they were in Egypt for a moment. It (Egypt) is a very large contrast to Australia in many ways, but they are both dusty. Maybe it's just me, but for the duration of the film (so far) I kept thinking, "There is so much dust and sand floating around! How are they just standing there? I would be able to go outside for thirty seconds and then I would have to go back inside and shower! I think Weir makes the reader forget about Australia on purpose. If you asked me where this took place, a homeland or a foreign land, I would probably go with foreign land.
What is this about. Hmm. I swear, this is such a hard question. I think this film could be about loyalty for one thing. Is Archy loyal to his running career or is he loyal to his job herding cattle like a "real man" should? There is the question of loyalty to the country during the war. Then there is the question of loyalty to which country. Frank joins the fight, but he is only fighting for a certain group because the in the larger picture, the people for whom his is fighting for killed his grandfather. Loyalty is shown again when Frank tells the doctor/army inspector that if Snowy doesn't pass, none of the four of them will go. Frank breaks his loyalty when he joined the Light Horses. So much loyalty.
P.S. I just read on Mel Gibson for 20-ish minutes. He was married for 31 years and has six sons and two daughters. His father's name was Hutton and had 11 children! That's like my family! My mom has 10 siblings! Coincidence or fate? Here is where the Peter Weir mystery comes in.
I like the movie so far, and life most war movies, there is the issues of whether people should fight or not. But in the first half of the movie, I was surprised at how funny the pre-war story was. The characters are really silly in my opinion, and are just going about their life and trying to enjoy themselves, especially when Frank and Archie race to the pyramids. Overall, I thought that my favorite image was when Frank and Archie arrive on the shore of Gallipoli, and the shoreline appeared beautiful but when they got closer, the sound came back and the new soldiers were able to see what was really going on. I think that this image goes along with the attitude that people have towards war. I believe that the movie questions what war does to a community. Obviously, we see the separation of families what the boat leaves the Perth, with the captain leaving his wife and son. On a different note, I thought it was interesting how strong the friendship between Frank and Archie given the fact that Frank lost to Archie in the race. If I had to say what the movie is about right now, I would say that the film explores the clash cultures and the way that war affects the people stuck in the middle. In addition to seeing the effect or war, the movie also shows remarkable examples of loyalty between people, but also how fragile those relationships are.
ReplyDelete1. I've liked the film so far. I definitely feel a bit of Master and Commander in that it didn't feel like much of a war film until right near the end today, when one of Mel Gibson's friends died. I'm a little worried though because I also feel like the movie is about two seconds away from tearing my heart out of my chest. The image that stayed with me was when Mel Gibson and his friends destroyed that man's shop and it turned out they weren't even at the right shop.
ReplyDelete2. Weir seems to like setting the stage, showing both Archy and Frank, in their lives before the war and the ways in which they're different and similar and how they change by ending up together. Plus I think he just really likes Australia.
3. As demonstrated the by scene that I remember the most, I can see this movie showing a contrast between relationships with people we're close to and relationships with people we can't understand and identify with. The boys treat the shopkeeper man with such casual cruelty and because they don't give him and chance to explain himself, don't believe he can and automatically assume he's trying to steal from them, they're awful to him. And it's funny to them. I think this parallels war and the way it is glorified. Archy is excited to go off to war, wants to fight for his country, he buys into all the propaganda about the glory of it where as Frank sees it has nothing to do with them and yet he ends up there all the same.
I really like this film, but it is not my favorite of Weir's films. Maybe I'm not picking up on it as much, but I felt like his other movies were deeper than this one seems to be. I think there are beautiful shots, especially Archie racing the man in the horse in the beginning. A scene that really stuck with me is when the Infantry and the Light Horse have a mock-battle against each other. It shows the flaws with war, especially when Archie and Frank find each other and start talking. It shows how friends may be forced to fight and kill other people that are just like them. Also, the scene has some humor to it; the general yelling at the men that they can't all play dead. I think Weir was trying to show how war was somewhat of a joke. To me, it isn't obvious why Weir had so much of the movie take place in Australia. This was before Frank and Archie got involved in the war, before we see them as soldiers. We see who they are outside of their uniform, making it easier to relate with them. As to why it's in Australia versus another country, I'm not sure. Maybe it has something to do with Australia being so isolated from where the war is actually taking place. I think Weir disagrees with war, and in his movie, critiques war itself and why people go to war without all the gore. He uses the scene of the two divisions of the Australian Army battling each other to point out how both sides are in fact very similar. He makes the war seem almost like a joke in that scene.
ReplyDelete1. I am pretty interested in this film so far, but it’s not my favorite we’ve watched. It just seems so different from the past two movies reminds me more of Master and Commander for obvious reasons. I usually like less straight-forward narratives so I’ll have something to mull over and think about, but I feel differently about this film because it’s a nice break from the confusing plot lines we’ve seen the past couple of days. I love the scene where Frank and Archie wake up in the train car abandoned in the middle of the desert. It’s in that moment when the journey really kicks off and the two men become fast friends.
ReplyDelete2. I think Weir focused a lot of the movie in Australia for the viewer to get a personal connection with it. This is the character’s home, and they’re leaving it. If Weir had started the movie in Gallipoli right off the bat, we wouldn’t recognize that these characters have given up their lives to fight for a country they love so dearly. It would have been just another war movie based on tactics and death.
3. This film seems to be a war movie with a more personal aspect. Weir focuses in on two characters, Frank and Archie, and we get to see what their previous lives were like, why they joined the army, and if they really want to be there or not. This is a historical event that Australia is not very happy to remember, and I think that is being very clearly portrayed in this film. It’s an in-depth story of a friendship and war.
ReplyDelete1. I'm enjoying the film. I find the characters relatable and interesting, (particularly as compared to the characters in the previous two films we've watched.) I'm enjoying being able to understand the plot. I also think that throughout the movie there have been many memorable moments and intriguing images that make the film unique, even if it does follow a more traditional plot-line. The clips above are two examples. Some other examples are when Frank and Archie dress up for the woman they meet, and the somewhat comical scenes in the desert. Even the image we paused on of the pyramids with the tents in front, although only lasting a few seconds, was very interesting and unique. From the movies we have seen it's obvious that Peter Weir doesn't just present the circumstances of an event. He ties together multiple images and ideas to create a story where each clip, random as it may be, has some meaning and effect on the overall product. One image that really stuck out to me was the hand that stuck out to the soldiers from the trench. It was interesting to watch as, in the few seconds Weir devoted to this clip, some soldiers shook the hand and made light of the situation, and then Frank and Archie saw it and were shocked, but continued ahead. One of the themes Weir seems to focus on is the perception of war. We see how different the opinions are of Archie and Frank. Archie sees it as a fun, honorable adventure, while Frank is more wary of its dangers and consequences. The scene with the hand highlights the different attitudes about this war.
2. I think the part of the film set in Australia sets up the relationship between Frank and Archie. It also shows their background, and helps us see the war as they do for the first time. Oftentimes in war films viewers are dropped right into the middle of the action. They don't get a sense of the characters before the war. Personally, I find it harder to remember that those characters were once new to the experience. I sometimes feel removed from the characters because it seems that war is all they know, and I can't relate to that. By seeing Archie, Frank, and Frank's friends in Australia we get to see the adjustment they go through by entering the war. We can also compare their personalities and relationships before and after they enter, which shows us the war's effect on them.
3. I think the point of the film is to contrast the views of war as a traumatic experience and a game. In Australia, we mostly see our main characters playing. They joke, race, and gamble. When they talk about joining the war effort, it seems to be a game to them, and they talk about how a uniform will attract girls. The recruiter calls war "the greatest game of all." They sneak into the officers' dance. Even as they train for battle, they turn the process into a joke, pretending to be wounded when the uninjured are given work. Finally, only when the soldiers arrive at Gallipoli, we see the darker side of the war. I think the tone will continue to shift as the movie progresses. (You did say it's a really sad movie…) By doing this Weir shows the glorification of war, and it's reality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo far, Gallipoli is my favorite Weir film we've watched. The movie is about track and war, it's a typical guy movie. Gallipoli shows war in a very different way than Master and Commander did. Master and Commander showed us what everyday life was like on a warship, where as in Gallipoli it feels like the relationship between friends is driving the story, as opposed to the war driving the story like it does in Master and Commander. The image that stuck with me in this movie so far was the line that the bully, Les McCann said to Archy. Les said something like "running is for girls, boxing is what men do", that is the most ignorant and hypocritical line in the movie. It's obviously ignorant because running simply isn't a girls sport, and it's hypocritical because he says that while he is riding a horse, an activity that is associated with mainly women today.
ReplyDeleteI think Weir started the film in Australia to make us better understand Archy and Frank. We know all the Archy has sacrificed coming to the war, and the motives behind Frank joining the war. It sets the audience up to be even more sad when one of them dies.
I think this film is about relationships and war an how friendships can still take place during traumatic events like war because they are so strong. Archy and Frank and Frank and his other friends are often seen having a great time, even during war.
1. I would say that I definitely like the movie. I have seen it before, and I still like the movie a lot. I like it a lot more than The Last Wave and Picnic at Hanging Rock, and I may like it more than master and commander (but probably not). I liked it more than the first two movies I listed because it is much easier to understand, and I relate to the characters much more easily because they are mostly likeable. So far in the movie the most memorable and significant part for me is the part where it is nighttime and Archy and Frank are sitting in the trench and Archy makes some joke about something and Frank does not really find it funny. I think this is the moment when the war becomes real for both Archy and the viewer.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the time in Australia was basically to establish that the characters were people rather than soldiers. It was done so the viewer could form an emotional attachment to the characters and realize that they are people. This moves into my next answer.
3. I have seen this movie, and it has another theme that I will not give away, but the one that has been presented so far (as I said in my last answer) is the importance of people and human life and, on a related note, the horror of war. This movie is set up in a really great way. It shows you people, and then it shows you people dying. This makes the movie very emotional and interesting.
1. I liked it, more than The Last Wave but not as much as Picnic at Hanging Rock. Although I said this about Master and Commander, I think it applies to this movie too; I don't like films about war and bangs and crashes, but this war movie was enjoyable because it focused much of the attention on relationships between characters. I strongly agree with Jenny; the cinematography in this film was amazing. The scene that stayed with me the most was when the army unit landed on Gallipoli. What the men were looking at as they stared at the peninsula was war, which is supposed to so hectic, but it was so eerily calm and beautiful with the bright colors coming off from the canons, diffused by the wafts of mist.
ReplyDelete2.I think the purpose of the first half of the movie was twofold. First, we got to see Frank and Archie as full characters, which made their death all that more excruciating. They really were only boys after all, running in foot races etc. Secondly it showed how people who have never seen war can so blindly romanticize it and totally disregard its atrocities. The women they stay with on their journey to the boot camp are totally enamored by the fact they are going to war, and applaud them for doing a great thing. Archie blindly accepts war as his duty, and leaves the his great life behind him without even knowing what the war is about. When somebody asks him, he says “I don’t know but I know it was the Germans’ fault.” Another example of his blindness.
Unlike everyone else, I have the benefit of having watched the whole film, so I feel like I’m cheating. But anyway, I feel like this movie was about the commonly false romanticization of war.The false romanticization I explained in my last answer, but I have more to say on that front. It seems like the higher you were on the social totem pole, the more likely you were to be enamored with war. This is shown in how Archie, a middle class boy with the bourgeois values of honor and personal pride has been almost brainwashed by his society to enjoy war. Frank, who is farther away from society, has not been brainwashed to love war and seems aptly afraid of it.