top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Britannia Adrift

After years of Conservative infighting, Brexit-induced turmoil and the brief farce of Liz Truss’s premiership, Labour’s landslide victory under Keir Starmer appeared to herald a return to calm government in Britain. Now, less than two years later, Starmer has resigned, becoming the sixth British prime minister in a decade to leave office before completing a full term. The immediate trigger is the return of Andy Burnham to Westminster. His emphatic victory in the Makerfield by-election...

Britannia Adrift

After years of Conservative infighting, Brexit-induced turmoil and the brief farce of Liz Truss’s premiership, Labour’s landslide victory under Keir Starmer appeared to herald a return to calm government in Britain. Now, less than two years later, Starmer has resigned, becoming the sixth British prime minister in a decade to leave office before completing a full term. The immediate trigger is the return of Andy Burnham to Westminster. His emphatic victory in the Makerfield by-election electrified sections of the Labour Party, many of whom view the former Greater Manchester mayor as a more compelling and politically resilient figure than Starmer. Labour’s disappointing performance in local elections had only sharpened those doubts. But Britain faces a larger question. Why has the office of prime minister become so precarious? Starmer’s departure is further evidence that Britain has entered an age of political restlessness in which governments struggle to survive long enough to solve the problems they inherit. For much of the post-war era Britain was governed by two broad churches. While Labour and the Conservatives alternated in power, both accepted the legitimacy of the political system and possessed enough internal discipline to absorb dissent. Governments rose and fell at elections, not through a perpetual leadership crisis. That consensus has steadily frayed. The financial crisis of 2008 shattered faith in economic management. Brexit fractured both major parties and exposed profound divisions within British society. The years since have produced a succession of leaders who promised national renewal but found themselves overwhelmed by structural realities. David Cameron gambled on a referendum and lost. Theresa May tried to reconcile irreconcilable factions and failed. Boris Johnson mastered electoral politics but struggled with government. Liz Truss discovered that markets could be more ruthless than party rivals. Rishi Sunak inherited a depleted administration. Now Starmer joins the procession. The striking feature is that Britain’s instability has survived changes of both party and ideology. The Conservatives were punished for appearing incompetent. Labour is now being punished for appearing ineffective. Part of the problem lies in a political culture increasingly addicted to instant gratification. Governments are expected to deliver quick solutions to problems decades in the making. Starmer won office promising pragmatism and competence. Yet once in government, Labour often appeared less interested in confronting difficult truths than in managing headlines. Faced with pressure from different constituencies, it oscillated between technocratic caution and populist gestures. The result satisfied nobody. Voters seeking change found incrementalism. Voters seeking stability encountered drift. Meanwhile, Britain’s political landscape has fragmented. The Greens have chipped away at Labour’s progressive flank. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has transformed itself into a potent force among disillusioned voters. The old two-party duopoly looks increasingly fragile. Electoral volatility has become the norm rather than the exception. The real challenge now is not who governs Britain. It is whether anyone can govern it effectively anymore.

A Grand Folly Worth Fighting For: Sergei Bondarchuk’s ‘Waterloo’



There was a time when war films aspired to something greater than the blood-spattered grit of today or tightly choreographed mayhem. They sought to understand history, to frame battles not merely as set pieces but as sweeping spectacles of human ambition, folly and fate. ‘Waterloo’ (1970), filmmaker Sergei Bondarchuk’s titanic recreation of Napoleon’s last gamble, belongs to that rare breed of historically rigorous epics that delight the fastidious military history aficionado but are disdained by mainstream critics. Films of this kind - lavish, detail-obsessed, almost impossibly ambitious - are an extinct species today.


Take Roger Ebert, the oracle of popular film criticism. He awarded ‘Tora! Tora! Tora!’ (1970) a single miserable star out of four while ‘Waterloo’ and ‘A Bridge Too Far’ (1977) fared only slightly better, earning two apiece. Such films, devoted to painstaking historical accuracy, often meet with this fate: accused of being too dry, too technical, too obsessed with reenactment over character drama. Yet for those who recognize the artistry in war’s terrifying symmetry, ‘Waterloo’ is nothing short of a masterpiece.


Having conquered Tolstoy with War and Peace (1966-68), Bondarchuk was given the reins of Waterloo, armed with a production budget and logistical scale that seems almost inconceivable now. The battle sequences alone elevate ‘Waterloo’ beyond most war films.


His camera moves through the carnage in long, sweeping takes, as if an omniscient observer, gliding over ranks of men locking bayonets, zooming into cannon blasts, tilting up to capture the roiling smoke and the desperation in an officer’s eyes. The sheer visual poetry of cavalry charges, of a lone drummer boy amidst the chaos, of the Prussians’ arrival at the eleventh hour, is jaw-dropping.


This was an age before CGI, before digital armies could be conjured with a few keystrokes. To recreate the legendary battlefield on which Europe’s fate hinged in 1815, two mountain ranges in the Ukraine were reportedly levelled. It is said Bondarchuk commanded the seventh-largest army in the world at the time with some 17,000 Soviet troops drilled relentlessly to move as Napoleonic infantry, learning to march in column, form square and fire in synchronized volleys. This is spectacle on a scale modern filmmakers, bound by budgets and digital effects, can only dream of.


And what a spectacle it is. The battle sequences remain among the greatest ever committed to film - choreographed chaos captured with Bondarchuk’s signature bravura camerawork. His lens sweeps across vast columns of infantry, then plunges into the inferno of hand-to-hand combat. The use of helicopter shots, zoom lenses and tracking shots lends a sense of feverish momentum, a dizzying immersion into the storm of battle.


If the sheer scale of Waterloo remains unmatched, its performances are no less remarkable. Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer, as Napoleon and Wellington respectively, are splendidly well-matched. Steiger plays the French Emperor as an operatic titan, rolling his eyes, roaring in defiance, then melting into a tearful farewell as he boards the ship to Elba. It is a performance that flirts with excess but never quite succumbs. If Napoleon was, as he declared, an actor on history’s grandest stage, then Steiger channels him perfectly - an exhausted genius, trapped by the myth of his own invincibility.


Plummer is his antithesis, as Wellington must be. His Duke is cool, wry, almost disdainful of the Frenchman’s theatricality. If Steiger’s Napoleon is fire and fury, Plummer’s Wellington is all ice and precision. The contrast is exquisite. Their duel is not merely fought with cannon and cavalry but with personality, the implacable logic of one clashing against the desperate audacity of the other.


For all its splendour, Waterloo was a commercial failure. Producer Dino De Laurentiis blamed it on the lack of a true marquee name. Beyond the cannon fire, ‘Waterloo’ is, at times, a strangely melancholic film, courtesy Nino Rota’s score. His music for the famous waltz scene, for instance, is pure cinematic poetry: the camera glides over elegantly dressed nobles, twirling in carefree oblivion, even as history gathers like storm clouds on the horizon.


Could such a film be made today? No. Those yearning for the sheer physicality of real soldiers on a real battlefield, ‘Waterloo’ remains a marvel. It is the kind of film that will never be made again - because no one dares to make them like this anymore.


Comments

bottom of page