rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Waterloo (1815) film 1970.
leightarrant


Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 131
Location: East Sussex
Reply with quote
Can anyone verify the sequence in which Wellington (as played by Christopher Plummer) says to his lady in waiting (Virginia McKenna) that he thinks his soldiers are nothing more than scum, beggers and scoundrals and has little respect for them, during the Waterloo Waltz sequence. She then says, 'you expect them to die for you?' to which he flippently adds 'emhem.' Would this be true or purely part of the screenplay adaption? Did Wellington really feel this towards his troops who are ready and willing to go to war. A perplexing thought, in which I'd never noticed before until a recent viewing. Was much of this 1970 epic based on fact or was it perhaps the director adding a little inhuman spirit here and there I wonder?
View user's profileSend private message
Waterloo
whiteheadalfie


Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 41
Location: corsham, wilts
Reply with quote
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. However, I do know that my great-great-granfather was killed at Waterloo. He was running for the Basingstoke train and tripped over a parcels trolley!

Paul
View user's profileSend private message
diagralex


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 208
Location: Broomfield, Essex
Reply with quote
Wellington certainly used the term "scum of the earth" about his soldiers.

" It is quite impossible for me or any other man to command a British army under the existing system. We have in the service the scum of the earth as common soldiers "

General Sir William Erskine once wrote about Wellington that :-

I have but one fault to find with it - You are not warm enough in praise of your officers...... I think that you are particulary cold in praising the Artillery.

If Wellington was chastised for his treatment of officers, then I can believe that his contempt for the other ranks was probably true.

Incidently, Virginia McKenna was not his lady in waiting in the film, she played the role of the Duchess of Richmond, a slightly different social position !

Graham
View user's profileSend private message
mike snook 2


Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 920
Reply with quote
Leigh

It's often misquoted. The full quote is 'They are the scum of the earth; it is remarkable we have made them into the fine fellows they are.'

So the real life quote has quite a different meaning doesn't it.

W could be a terrible snob - so extreme so that you can't help giggling at it. After the Great Reform Act had been passed - extending the franchise a little bit closer to universal (male) suffrage - and the first reformed Commons sat, he remarked that he had 'never seen so many damned bad hats'. Very Happy

But he had great admiration for his soldiers - provided they were kept on the straight and narrow and away from the drink. He never fought shy of enforcing his rules - if he said something was punishable by death, (rape or looting for example) he jolly well meant it. Rarely a year's campaigning went by without him hanging one or two of them to set the tone. He was well named the Iron Duke. Rules was rules in his army!

But he knew how to get the best out of the blokes - and they respected and admired him. They knew a military genius when they saw one.

Regards

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
You know Wellington was supposed to have said that Waterloo was "won on the playing fields of Eton. But I think he would really say that it was his infantry troops that saved that "close run thing" that day in 1815. Perhaps that "scum of the earth that he was referring to were those of the "criminal element" that did indeed inhabit some battalions at the time? Anyway, Wellington I think has to be up there as one of the greatest generals in history in spite of what Napoleon said about him"..."Because you have been beaten by Wellington you consider him a great general. And I will tell you now that he is a bad general, that the English are bad troops and that this affair is nothing more serious than eating one's breakfast"....(Napoleon on the field of Waterloo after Marshall Soult had warned him of the dangers of attacking British infantry head on). Well Napoleon got Wellington and his fellows all wrong that day!
diagralex


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 208
Location: Broomfield, Essex
Reply with quote
I think that the timely arrival of the Prussians also went a long way towards winning the battle. Without their arrival even Wellington considered that defeat was possibly on the cards.

Graham
View user's profileSend private message
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
Right Graham but don't you think Wellington's fellows did the business against the Guard? They held them off..the French were, at the end, just biting on stone,eh?
diagralex


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 208
Location: Broomfield, Essex
Reply with quote
Rich

You are certainly correct - It was a case of Guards versus Guards, with the Imperial Guard being driven back by massed volleys being fired into them.
However, their advance was a last gasp measure taken by Napoleon, in a desperate attempt to snatch victory.
The Prussians were, at this time, arriving on the battlefield in considerable numbers, and Napoleon knew that if he did not take a gamble then all was lost. It was unfortunate for him that he tackled the Guards and not a regiment whose morale was considerably lower.

Graham
View user's profileSend private message
Dave Colbourne


Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 48
Location: Barnsley, South Yorks
Reply with quote
Diagralex, it wasn't just the Guards that repulsed the Imperial Guard, was it. We shouldn't forget the 52nd who wheeled out of the British line to fire into the flank of the Guard. I doubt if any army could have resisted that.
View user's profileSend private messageMSN Messenger
diagralex


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 208
Location: Broomfield, Essex
Reply with quote
Dave,

You are absolutely correct.
It was just ironic that out of all of the Waterloo battlefield, Napoleon chose to throw his Imperial guard against an area defended by predominantly the British Guardsmen. He could have made an attack at many other less well defended positions and have broken through the defending line,with who knows what result.

Regards Graham
View user's profileSend private message
Where is the complete film?
yankee


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 17
Reply with quote
I have heard that there was much more to the European version of "Waterloo" than was released in the US version, including the battles of Ligny, Quatre Bras, Placenoit, etc. that added up to a 5-hour movie filmed by Bondarchuk in 1970. Has anyone ever seen it? Is it true?

Also, I have a color article from the Washington Post showing Russian soldiers sitting on either side of the valley seen in the film in their redcoats listening to a rock concert set up in the middle of the valley. The article mentioned that the Russians bulldozed out a huge valley, planted it with wheat and rye, went away for a year to let it grow and look authentic, than filmed the movie! Talk about planning!
View user's profileSend private message
Re: Where is the complete film?
Dave Colbourne


Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 48
Location: Barnsley, South Yorks
Reply with quote
yankee wrote:
I have heard that there was much more to the European version of "Waterloo" than was released in the US version, including the battles of Ligny, Quatre Bras, Placenoit, etc. that added up to a 5-hour movie filmed by Bondarchuk in 1970. Has anyone ever seen it? Is it true?

Also, I have a color article from the Washington Post showing Russian soldiers sitting on either side of the valley seen in the film in their redcoats listening to a rock concert set up in the middle of the valley. The article mentioned that the Russians bulldozed out a huge valley, planted it with wheat and rye, went away for a year to let it grow and look authentic, than filmed the movie! Talk about planning!


The original "Waterloo" probably was around 5 hours long, Bondarchuk did have a reputation for going to town with his films, I think his version of "War and Peace" was around 3 days long! If the original footage still existed a 5 hour "Waterloo" would make a hell of a special edition DVD.
View user's profileSend private messageMSN Messenger
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
Reading about the cast, I was surprised to know that Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole were originally considered for Napoleon and Wellington rather than Messrs Steiger and Plummer. Would have been interesting to know how they would've played the characters. And really was Wellington as portrayed by Plummer that "cool" on the Waterloo battlefield? I do have to hand it to him though he hung around pretty well giving orders where the fire was hot and while his staff was getting mauled. On the other hand, it appeared that Napoleon was kind of away from the canister shot and all that. But maybe I'm wrong.
Dave Colbourne


Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 48
Location: Barnsley, South Yorks
Reply with quote
Rich wrote:
Reading about the cast, I was surprised to know that Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole were originally considered for Napoleon and Wellington rather than Messrs Steiger and Plummer. Would have been interesting to know how they would've played the characters. And really was Wellington as portrayed by Plummer that "cool" on the Waterloo battlefield? I do have to hand it to him though he hung around pretty well giving orders where the fire was hot and while his staff was getting mauled. On the other hand, it appeared that Napoleon was kind of away from the canister shot and all that. But maybe I'm wrong.


Well, Napoleon's piles probably prevented him from taking a really active part in the battle. Imagine, though, if it had been the other way round and Wellington had had the piles. Would history have been somewhat different?
View user's profileSend private messageMSN Messenger
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
Re. the reputed longer version of WATERLOO, the following appears in the "alternative versions" section of the IMDB entry for the film:

"According to an article written by the film's editor and associate producer Richard C. Meyer, the longest version is the 132 minute version. This has been confirmed by Vladimir Dorsal, the film's First Assistant and later the head of Mosfilm in Moscow. He says that they only have the 132m version in their vaults and no longer 4 hours version ever existed. The myth may derive from an earlier part of Meyer's article when he states that the rough cut was 4 hours long - not unusual for a film of this scope and scale. But after much discussion the present length was agreed on. He also says he stupidly didn't make a dupe of this rough cut, a usual process in post production. So this 'cut' will never see the light of day. It is clear from the cast list that many characters were cut. The film was planned as a Road Show release but by 1970 the practice had lost favour with the studios."

For the record, the film was given a roadshow release in Britain and Europe in 70mm; this was the 132-minute cut. According to Leonard Maltin's TV Guide, the US version runs 123 mins (this book also mentions the apparently mythical four-hour Russian version).
View user's profileSend private message
Waterloo (1815) film 1970.
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Reply to topic