The Unknown Soldier (Der Unbekannte Soldat) 2006

“We see by the gathering of the NPD that not everybody has received the lessons of history.”

The documentary The Unknown Soldier from Michael Verhoeven covers the controversy stirred by the exhibition Crimes of the German Wehrmacht. The exhibition’s premise was to reveal the role of the Wehrmacht in the systematic extermination of the Jews. According to exhibition organizer Hannes Heer, and many fellow historians who share his view, it was simply not possible for 6 million Jews to be eradicated without the explicit assistance of the Wehrmacht (”The SS could not have carried out this crime without the help of the German Army”). There’s the feeling that charging the Wehrmacht (and by extension the average German soldier) with crimes of extermination somehow “broke the taboo” on the subject.

The original exhibit opened in 1995 and then was closed in 1999 in order to answer charges that some of the photographs were faked. The exhibition reopened in 2001 after an investigation revealed that some of the documentation contained inaccuracies, but that there were no forgeries and that the overall presentation was correct.

When I heard about this documentary, I didn’t immediately grasp the level of controversy involved–after all, it makes perfect sense to me that the German Army assisted the SS. The filmmaker captures the outrage of the emotional crowds outside of the exhibition. Members of the fascist NPD (National Democratic Party) gather outside of the exhibit–along with old soldiers, their surviving family members, and riot police. Many of the old soldiers spew forth fascist venom, and some of the sons and daughters of deceased Wehrmacht soldiers hug photos of their fathers stating categorically that they were heroes who do not deserve to have their reputations tarnished.

Interviews are included of various historians who argue both sides of the controversy, and in the middle of it all, Hannes Heer is accused of having a Commie agenda.

The film includes some amazing archival footage, and some of it is quite brutal–mass executions and graves. Some of the most damning evidence is found in footage from the Ukraine. Of course, detractors argue that the photos of the German soldiers in front of mass graves are just proof of guilt by circumstance, and they argue that the Soviets executed the Jews and that the Germans just found the graves. Another argument is that the bodies were from allied bombing raids and that they were dragged out of the rubble and used for propaganda. But this doesn’t explain away all the evidence (or the letters sent back home), and then there’s the fact that there were 3.4 million Soviet POWs in 1941, and by the spring of 1942, 2 million were dead. The film argues that “a strong infrastructure of collaboration” existed between the SS and the Wehrmacht, and to me–a non-German whose father did not fight for the Wehrmacht, it seems obvious. But then again I have no emotional stake in nursing an image of my father as a WWII hero.

One of the most interesting parts of the film reveals how various section commanders reacted to the order to execute Jews. The film touches on the idea that officers could refuse orders to execute Jews but that for the average soldier, this failure to follow an order meant death. The idea of soldiers who deserted rather than follow out orders is mentioned. To those of us who are non-German, it’s probably a lot easier to accept the idea that the Wehrmacht had a role in the extermination of Jews. But then again ALL soldiers have opportunities to off civilians. War isn’t pretty, and so it seems in some ways the horrified reactions to the German exhibit are a reflection of the idea that wars are heroic and clean cut. You know, the good guys against the bad guys, but common sense should tell us that war creates opportunities for mass murder. Just look at some of the abuses that are leaking from the current debacle in Iraq–Abu Ghraib, Haditha and the murders in Mahmoudiya of an entire Iraqi family.

The film could have used a few clips about the forced enlistment of men into the Wehrmacht. For example, between 1941-1944 140,000 Alsatians between the ages of 17-38 were forced to enlist and most were subsequently sent to the Russian Front. Some tried to escape (most were shot), and several officers refused to enter the SS (they were shipped off to a concentration camp). One of the most interesting aspects of the film, and one that was perhaps not emphasized quite enough is the idea of “The Unknown Soldier.” While the film goes into the history of this symbolism, it hints that the term can mean something else entirely–the horrendous brutal murders that take place by “unknown” perpetrators–soldiers whose uniforms create anonymity and whose crimes remain unsolved, but it should also refer to those few soldiers who refused to cooperate and died for their defiance.

Dreams of Sparrows (2005)

“Baghdad is hell.”

The documentary Dreams of Sparrows is the first film from Iraqi filmmaker Hayder Mousa Daffar. Daffar states, “I wanted to show the world what life was like in Iraq.” Those fortunate enough to stumble across this film certainly gain at least a brief, painful glimpse of daily life in Iraq.

Daffar and his associates interview a number of Iraqis and travel to several locations. Most of those interviewed are optimistic about Saddam’s removal from power–although a few interviewed Iraqis start swearing when they hear the name ‘George Bush’. But as the film wears on, months go by, and optimism changes to despair as the daily conditions worsen. Those standing in long lines for petrol are interviewed, and the mood isn’t pretty. We see glimpses of life in a private girls’ school in Baghdad, a temporary shelter for the homeless, a Sadr City insane asylum, and a Palestinian refugee camp. Palestinian refugees were welcomed by Saddam, but were turfed out of their homes after the U.S. invasion. When the film was made in 2003, these Palestinian refugees had spent 8 pitiful months in tents. One man asks, “Where is the democracy and the freedom?”

Members of the General Union of Writers in Iraq present their philosophical interpretations of the current situation, and one man explains the insurgency as an inevitable consequence, “When you provoke a people against their leader, you will start a revolution.” There are even a few shots of U.S. troops. Some are protecting a petrol station–others are seen storming a home, and still others are seen chatting with Iraqi children.

Dreams of Sparrows has its amateurish moments, but overall it’s a fascinating glimpse at a tragic situation. The film begins with a cheesy reenactment (just like those appalling history reenactments), and while it’s understood what the filmmaker is trying to say–the film would have been a lot better without the reenactment. A word of warning–there are a few graphic scenes involving humans and animals. The film takes us to the site of mass graves in Fallujah, and dead and starving animals are a common occurrence in the film. In English and Arabic.

The Gleiwitz Case (1961)

“The job we are doing is part of a master plan.”

The documentary style black and white film The Gleiwitz Case recreates a long buried incident that sparked WWII. In 1939, a staged attack was conducted against a radio station in Gleitwitz–a few miles away from Germany’s border with Poland. The Gleiwitz incident was part of Operation Himmler–an orchestrated Gestapo plan to demonstrate “Polish aggression” against Nazi Germany, and it was supposed to provide the perfect excuse Germany needed to invade Poland.

Alfred Naujocks (Hannjo Hasse) organized the incident operating under the direct orders of Heinrich Muller and Reinhard Heydrich. The plan was to attack the station using Polish-speaking German officers. These officers–dressed in Polish uniforms–grabbed the airwaves and made hostile statements against Nazi Germany using Polish and broken German. Then as further ‘evidence’ left behind, the Germans took a Pole from a concentration camp, dressed him in a Polish uniform and shot him in the front of the radio station.

The film is basically a recreation of events–there’s no examination of the psychology of the characters, but this is an excellent portrayal of the cold efficiency of the Third Reich in operation. The film’s realism and pacing is reminiscent of The Battle of Algiers–with an emphasis on close-ups and a breathtaking immediacy. The film is a chilling reminder of exactly how calculating the Gestapo were when it came to propaganda, and it’s a demonstration of a government using a range of propaganda devices to ’sell’ a war to the people–enraging a nation and whipping it into a war frenzy. In this instance, Hitler publicly preached reason and patience and in reality created a moral imperative and a fictional urgency to justify war. The Gleiwitz incident took place on August 31, 1939, and the next day, Germany invaded Poland. The film ends with the chilling caption: “43 million dead.” DVD extras include: the trailer, a photo gallery, an essay “The Case of the Gleiwitz Case”, biographies and filmographies. Directed by Gerhard Klein, the film is in German with English subtitles.

In the Year of the Pig (1968)

“The arrogance of power.”

In the Year of the Pig is best described as a collection of images and anecdotes about the Vietnam War rather than a comprehensive documentary of the conflict. So in that sense, it’s best to come to the film with a little background. You won’t come away from the film with a detailed idea of which American president sent in how many troops in any given year–although salient points covering the escalation of the war and America’s increased involvement are covered. Also the collapse of the Vietnam War, and the sensational evacuation of American troops are not covered–it’s still the 60s when the film ends (before the Tet Offensive), and the final scene is of wounded American soldiers limping off the battlefield. Nonetheless, In the Year of the Pig is a substantial, shocking documentary and its images accurately mirror a time of insanity.

The film explains the French involvement in Vietnam and covers America’s initial and escalating involvement. There’s coverage here of various American politicians expressing the idea that communism must be halted in North Vietnam or civilization as we know it will end. It’s somewhat archaic to see these politicians with their ideas long since proved wrong ranting and raving about the communist threat in S.E. Asia, but the insanity is captured here on film–along with the American sense of urgency and imminent threat.

Some of the footage is extremely graphic–the self-immolation of a Buddhist priest, for example, an execution, an elderly Vietnamese woman crawling through burning rubble, and a suspected Viet Cong prisoner being kicked repeatedly in the stomach while the voice over assures the American public that all prisoners are being treated humanely. There’s also footage of American troops torching rice paddies, as well as several American politicians lying about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There are also clips of MacNamara, a young Green Beret who deserted, various journalists, State Department officials, LBJ, and even Nixon (who used to hold the title of America’s most despicable president).

The footage here of the planes dropping massive numbers of bombs of Vietnam is sickening. Call me crazy, but there’s something fundamentally wrong with middle-aged affluent males sending rosy-cheeked boys off to slaughter the impoverished residents of a largely agricultural 3rd world nation. In one scene, soldiers are “pumped up” with a morale speech prior to a battle, and they’re told that this is the battle they’ve all been waiting for. One interview is with a soldier who rousts villagers from their homes. When asked by a reporter how these villagers will survive now that their homes and their crops are destroyed, the officer replies with an irony that escapes him: “you’d be surprised how they can take care of themselves with a minimum of resources.”

The film’s collection of diverse images and interviews serves the viewer with a bitter, tragic taste of an ugly, unnecessary war. DVD extras include: audio commentary with director Emile de Antonio, an interview with de Antonio, and liner notes by scholar, Douglas Kellner. After watching the film and understanding the war’s tragic consequences, one cannot help but ask the question–is this the best we can do after thousands of years of civilization?

Weapons of Mass Deception (2004)

“Propaganda smoothly infiltrated into the news.”

Filmmaker Danny Schechter brings some impressive credentials to his documentary film Weapons of Mass Deception. Schechter, a former producer for both CNN and ABC, argues that the American media has a sycophantic relationship with the Bush administration to push a pro-war agenda on the American public. According to Schechter, in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the news media was doing little more than “cheerleading.” Schechter argues that there was “one storyline in the media”–the ever elusive WMD, and that the Pentagon made “media management a priority.” This argument is backed up with facts and figures as news analysts dissect and examine the stories leading up to the war and reveal that only 3% of the analyzed mainstream news sources were anti-war. Now, more than 2 years into a war that was ill advised and reckless, with body counts mounting, and no end in sight in Iraq, some news sources are sheepishly admitting that their coverage of the facts before the war was less than perfect.

The film also analyzes the stance of the media both before and during the war, and there are several news clips of television journalists crowing about the great weapons being used and asking if a particular bomb can be dropped. Schechter’s argument that the Iraq invasion and occupation is “war as entertainment” (complete with countdown and kick-off) is a powerful one. For one thing, it allows an audience to minimize the moral consequences of their viewing, and it also allows the audience to participate in a vicarious, non-lethal (to them, anyway) spectator sport.

I found the news media’s unequivocal position prior to the invasion of Iraq absolutely appalling, and the media’s role in this war is a subject that interests me. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, many people wondered where the anti-war movement was, and thanks to Schechter’s film, it’s clear. Anti war activists tried to buy airtime on the major network news channels and were turned down for the most part. Massive demonstrations were given little or no coverage. Journalists who debunked the 9/11-Iraq connection were fired. News stories that questioned the theory that Iraq had nuclear weapons were squashed. And so a nation marches to war…

The film also covers some of the news stories that were created as the war continued. The fabrication of the story of Jessica Lynch, for example, and Bush’s photo op on the U.S.S Lincoln in May 2003 when he announced the end of major hostilities in Iraq. The film also traces the involvement of journalists in war and notes that correspondents were “pivotal” to exposing war crimes in Vietnam. Then Schechter moves on to the coverage of the war itself, and the reporters who are embedded with troops in Iraq.

Watching and reading the news coverage of the war continues to be a rather sickening experience for me, and watching the film Weapons of Mass Deception made me angry. I’ve watched a number of documentaries on the subject of the war in Iraq, and Weapons of Mass Deception rates very well. It’s fact filled, thought provoking, and its message resonates long after the final credits roll. DVD extras include: the trailer, an interview with the director, poster art, filmography and a section on “getting involved” with several web references.

Why We Fight (2005)

“They want to spread democracy around the world on the point of our bayonets.”

Using footage from Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation, director Eugene Jarecki’s documentary film Why We Fight includes the departing president’s warning: “we have been compelled to create a permanent armament industry of vast proportions. We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.” Eisenhower, according to interviews with family members, struggled with the growing Military-Industrial Complex, and as an old soldier, he was alarmed by its explosive expansion following WWII. The film examines the roles of all the players in the war food chain–from those who make the bombs, those who design the bombs, those who drop the bombs, those politicians who make the decisions to drop the bombs, and those contractors who profit so well from carnage. On the other side of the coin, the film also includes footage of the results of so-called “precision guided missiles” (and as it turns out, they can be wildly inaccurate), and this includes some fairly gruesome photos of the morgue in Baghdad.

On another level, the film examines the background stories of two people touched in different ways by the war in Iraq. There’s a very sincere New Yorker, Wilton Setzer, a retired policeman who lost his son in 9/11. At first, he sought revenge for his son’s death, and like many Americans, he somehow connected the war in Iraq to the bombing of the Twin Towers. Setzer was flabbergasted when he heard Bush admit on television that there was “no connection” and his sense of clear outrage is shattering as he realizes that both his grief and patriotism have been exploited. Another thread follows the story of William Solomon, a young man who decides to enlist in the army following the death of his mother. One of the most interesting observations the film makes about enlisting is that “self-interest” is used to gain recruits, while paradoxically they are then expected to pay the ultimate “self-sacrifice.”

The most powerful statement the film makes, however, is the complete, startling emotional and moral disconnect of those involved with the war-machine of the Military-Industrial Complex. The film interviews humble assembly line bomb makers, and one woman who charmingly says she’s rather be “making toys” for Santa Claus, agrees she’d rather not think about the ultimate goal of the bombs she helps make. Similarly, pilots interviewed gently smile as they recall how proud they felt to be involved in the first air strike in the war on Iraq. Even a weapons designer–a woman forced to flee the debacle in Vietnam, is now ironically employed to design and create weapons that are crafted for maximum destruction. The film follows the war food chain through the huge corporations that benefit from war, the lobbyists, congress and the politicians who need to feed the voters at home with jobs from the Military-Industrial complex.

Undoubtedly, the film is so good because director Jarecki calls upon such a range of participants. Those interviewed include Richard Perle from the so-called New American Century Project, McCain, Gore Vidal, and various military advisors and historians. Lt. Gen Kwiatkowski who resigned from the Pentagon when she could not stomach the disinformation campaign that raged prior to the invasion of Iraq sums it up beautifully: “Why we fight? Because not enough people are standing up and saying I’m not doing this anymore.”

Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers (2006)

“Why do they have Cadillac Escalades in Iraq?”

While American and Iraqi families continue to bury their dead and comfort their wounded, the HUGE companies who continue to profit from the extended fiasco in Iraq are laughing all the way to the bank. Yes, those bank deposits in the billions keep rolling in, and shares in companies such as Halliburton and KBR keep skyrocketing. It’s odd, isn’t it, that one slice of the American population (i.e. those in the military) are told to continue to sacrifice, while the CEOs take home fat multi million dollars salaries. Robert Greenwald’s documentary, Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers makes it clear exactly who is cashing in on the slaughter, maiming, and destruction, and it isn’t pretty.

A large portion of the film takes a look at the relatively lowly civilian contractors employed by various companies in Iraq, and then interviews the families of those killed over there. The survivors of those killed–and injured–in Iraq–are understandably bitter as they argue that their loved ones were knowingly placed in dangerous situations by Halliburton, for example. Too large a portion of the film focuses on this aspect of things, and that was unfortunate.

Another section of the film focuses on the civilian contractors employed to interrogate–which is a euphemism for torture–prisoners at Abu Ghraib. While several low-ranking soldiers have been court-martialed for the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, the film reveals that there’s NO accountability for contractors who “interrogate” and kill in the process. They simply walk away from the situation. Various interrogators are interviewed–as well a translator who argues that the translators employed are often not proficient in the language, but that there’s no evaluation of language skills.

The very best–and strongest part of the film focuses on the nitty-gritty details of some of the financial abuse taking place in Iraq. One civilian who was employed by Halliburton breaks down when he explains that contaminated water (tested for malaria, typhus, and giardia) is knowingly given to the troops. Another soldier explains how Halliburton charges $99 for washing a bag full of dirty clothes. And details are given of the burning and destruction of $80,000 vehicles that lack a spare tyre or an oil filter, for example. No oil filter–no problem–just destroy the old vehicle and bill the taxpayers for a new one! Apparently, the system of “cost plus” encourages these companies to run amok with expenses. And that’s underscored by the luxuries the executives of these companies reward themselves with every chance they get.

The documentary also traces the crony system that thrives between the politicians and the companies who are reaping billions off the blood of others. Dollar amounts running into the billions flash on the screen as company after company rake in the profits. This is beyond scandalous–it’s downright criminal. When is someone going to pull the plug on this thievery? And I’ll add my own experience of bills from the war–a friend’s unit stationed in Iraq was given a satellite phone and guess who is going to get the 4 million dollar phone bill?

Noam Chomsky: Imperial Grand Strategy

“Only a stable, prolonged U.S troop presence and a weak Iraqi army will allow us to nurture democracy.” (Wolfowitz)

Noam Chomsky is back, and he’s in fine form in all three sections of this DVD. In Part I, Chomsky delivers a lecture at the University of Manchester on 22 May 2004. The approximately 140 minute lecture Imperial Grand Strategy focuses on the war in Iraq, and argues that the U.S occupation there is part of an overall strategy and doctrine. Chomsky stresses that the current Bush administration is not the originator of the idea of the right to use pre-emptive force to “ensure access to markets and resources,” and he traces the doctrine back to 1941. Chomsky examines Clinton’s interpretation of the doctrine, as well as Kissinger’s acknowledgment that while the doctrine was theoretically fine, it certainly shouldn’t be “universalized”–in other words, dominance through military power should not extended as a ‘right’ to all countries.

Chomsky also argues that the current war in Iraq–which ostensibly was supposed to stop or at least corral terrorism–has served to acerbate terrorism, and quotes John Schlesinger’s observation that while 9-11 created a “global wave of sympathy” for America, the invasion of Iraq created “a wave of hatred.” Indeed, Chomsky argues, recruitment for terrorism has increased, and apparently the Iraq War has served as a marvelous recruitment opportunity for al-Qaeda.

So what is this “war on terror” all about then if it doesn’t stop or squash terrorism? Well Chomksy has plenty of answers to that question–”the point is controlling the resources,” he argues, and it’s a “demonstration” of the Imperial Grand Strategy. Chomsky backs this argument up by examining America’s often erratic, illogical treatment of terrorism–the bizarre and continued focus on Cuba (4 people track the financial resources of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, yet 21 are assigned to Cuba, for goodness sake!).

This is an intense lecture packed with information, and Chomsky also covers “the chain of violence” that led from the Israeli assassination of Yassin straight to the murder of 4 contractors in Fallujah, and onto the U.S assault on Fallujah. He also covers the arrest of protesting Iraqi labor union leaders, and Bush’s Messianic Vision to bring ‘democracy’ to Iraq. Democracy is a splendid noble word, but it evidently has been hijacked to mean something else. But then again, I suppose it might be more difficult to get Americans to swallow a war that was spreading “imperialism in the Middle East.”

The second lecture The Assault of Freedom and Democracy was delivered December 3, 2003 at Merrimack College and lasts for about an hour. Chomsky examines ‘the assault’ which he argues is conducted by Bush Administration reactionaries. He stresses that policies created by this administration (Patriot Act I and II) must be kept in perspective by remembering what other societies face, and he also discusses some of the less pleasant U.S domestic policies enacted in the past–such as the nefarious COINTELPRO. Chomsky again dissects inconsistent U.S. policies on terrorism noting that self-admitted terrorist Orlando Bosch was given a presidential pardon and allowed to live in the U.S. Also America doesn’t seem to have a problem with the undemocratic, despotic ruler of Uzbekistan who boils his enemies alive–something apparently a British ambassador recently objected to and was recalled for.

The third section on the DVD Questions about Anarchism is an hour-long informal interview held between Chomsky and Barry Pateman and recorded on Feb 17, 2004. With Pateman posing questions, Chomsky offers his views on a range of issues such as primitivism, the control of attitude and opinion, class politics, violence, and modes of peaceful change. This is an extremely enlightening interview, and Chomsky’s statements are startlingly thought provoking. He remains–in spite of current, bleak global events–guardedly optimistic about the future, and as always, his lectures are delivered with his characteristic dash of dry humour.

The War Game & Culloden (1965 & 1964)

“The blast from a thermonuclear explosion has been likened to an enormous door slamming in the depths of hell.”

In the 1960s, director Peter Watkins made two films for the BBC–The War Game and Culloden. Both docudramas, The War Game was so controversial, it never made it to the screen, but was instead banned. The British government’s policy under Churchill was that any television programme on the subject of nuclear war should not be “defeatist.” Interesting attitude….I suppose the only way not to be defeatist about nuclear war is to be the country dropping the bomb with no thought of the consequences. But The War Game presents Britain under nuclear attack. It’s impossible to present people falling like flies on a scorched planet, subject to the cruelest wounds possible and still keep an upbeat attitude.

The War Game shows exactly how pathetically futile it is try to prepare for a nuclear war. Watkins is not concerned with sparing the feelings of his audience, and here he shows graphically, and matter-of-factly exactly what happens to humans caught in a nuclear blast. Various subjects are interviewed as Watkins shows how the country would react under emergency conditions. There are those who vainly and rather smugly hope a couple of sand bags will save them, and then there’s the fate of the injured and dying as the numbers of casualties overwhelm available medical staff. With its merciless, uncomfortable vision, it’s no wonder this film was banned rather than aired. After all, why alert the average British citizen to the horrors of nuclear war?

The second film, Culloden is basically a reenactment of the last battle on British soil, the infamous battle of Culloden in 1746 which pitted the Jacobite forces of Bonnie Prince Charlie against the Duke of Cumberland, the son of George II who defended the Hanoverian crown. Watkins defies time once again as he interviews many of the battle’s ‘participants.’ The incompetence of Bonnie Prince Charlie’s commanders (whose men had not eaten or slept for several days before the battle) is clear. Also examined is the disagreement between the various commanders regarding the selection of Culloden field as a suitable battleground. But what is particularly remarkable about the film is how Watkins captures the hierarchy among the troops. While the commanders possess various lands and wealth, they force peasants who possess at best–a cow–to participate in their war. So on one hand, there’s amazing privilege, and on the other hand, there’s devastating poverty.

The battle is reconstructed and detailed. Its brutal, and shameful aftermath is also covered, and by the film’s end, Bonnie Prince Charlie escapes unscathed to the palaces of Europe, while the peasants–who stood to gain absolutely nothing from a change of monarch, and were forced at threat of death to participate, are left to pay the price for another’s ambition and thirst for power. While Culloden is an anti-war film, it’s most certainly not a traditional format, and instead questions the nature of power, hierarchy and obedience. While these two films share a common theme of exposing crimes against humanity (the possible and the historical), they both possess remarkably unemotional delivery, and this detached tone increases the horrors of what we see. Excellent. DVD extra features include: 2 full length commentaries for The War Game, and a 12-page booklet which includes background information about the film.

The Gladiators (1969)

“Basic humanity–that’s what’s wrong with that boy.”

Set in the future, the bleak satire The Gladiators from British director Peter Watkins is a docudrama that televises “the Game,” an international competition of military exercises conducted in the interests of “world peace.” These games were devised as a substitute for war, and are supposed to channel and control man’s natural predilection for violence, so instead of the entire planet being ruined, and millions killed, the violence is confined to a small space with a few dozen participants. Well that’s the theory, at least. The Game is held in Sweden, a neutral country, and the programme, sponsored by a pasta company and complete with advertisements, is broadcast worldwide as teams aim to achieve their goal of reaching the control room. Each team is comprised of a number of soldiers–male and female–who are given numbers only.

While The Gladiators is an anti-war film, it’s not an anti-war film in the traditional sense. The Game is, arguably, a viable alternative to war, an arena in which only a handful of people die rather than millions. But at the same time, this is warfare distilled down to its essential elements: a blind acceptance of established hierarchy, the depersonalization of combatants, a willingness to die for abstract ideals, and the attaining of meaningless strategic goals. The team members are representatives of their countries, and when members of the allied team are interviewed prior to the commencement of the Game, they are unable to answer questions about why they are fighting–except to spout platitudes regarding national pride, patriotism, duty and honour (”I’m here to defend the democracy of my country” blah, blah). And as the Game commences, the fraternizing generals of the participating countries dispassionately monitor the teams’ progress, stuffing themselves with various dishes as the ‘lower’ (and subservient) echelons suffer. The soldiers play the Game to win nothing of substance, and they are manipulated at various points to boost the ratings.

A French student enters the Game in an attempt to destroy it, but as he becomes part of the Game, he’s inevitably manipulated by it. And by the introduction of this character, Watkins makes some strong statements regarding revolutionary ethics, about working within the system, and about recuperation by the system. Although the film was made during the Vietnam War, the film seems chillingly prescient given the staging and orchestration of the Iraq war, with key points covered by major news stations in theatrical entertainment fashion. The Gladiators is a deeply subversive, thought-provoking film, and there’s an entire audience out there for this incredible film if people knew about it. Watkins is hardly the darling of mainstream media, and so his films remain largely ignored. Re-released on DVD in 2006, extras include The Diary of an Unknown Soldier–a 17 minute film made by Watkins, a Watkins filmography, and a 12 page booklet which includes a self-interview with this amazing director.