Mjeteconer
Just perfect...
CrawlerChunky
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
Kaelan Mccaffrey
Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.
Emil Bakkum
Land and Freedom is a film of Ken Loach about the Spanish Civil war. It is certainly a war film, with lots of battle scenes, but nevertheless quite distinct from the stereotype battlefield spectacle. This is partly due to the director Loach, who has neither the urge nor the financial means to produce a large-scale report on battle-fields. However the main reason is the civil war itself, since the republic (the good guys) was defended by a peoples army, and not a professional one. In fact we witness the experiences of a militia, consisting of normal grown-up citizens, not the juvenile cannon fodder, that is crowding the average WW2 or Vietnam movie. When in Land and Freedom the militia attacks the trenches of the fascist troops, it is not a furious storm but a wearisome advancement, evidently by people whose physical conditions could have been better. The firing with their rifles seems unaimed and chaotic. At first I thought this was a display of bad acting, but in fact it is just the opposite. For the militia was composed of volunteers with little or no military training or background. Loach says in an interview, that the film is a critique on the stance of the republicans during the war. The resistance started as a collaboration between anarchist, Bolshevist and social-democrat groups, but soon the ideological differences started to cause growing frictions. Not surprisingly the Bolshevists were once again hoping to replicate the October revolution and seize power during the conflict. On the other hand the anarchists and syndicalists rejected any form of organization, and fully relied on the innate peoples will. Loach made this debate into the essential thread of the film. The story is like this: it is 1936. The British Communist Party recruits volunteers for international reserves of the republican army. David, who is a member of the BCP and out of work, travels to Spain and joins a militia of the POUM (apparently a Trotzkyist-anarchist fraction in the Spanish government). The militia consists of Spaniards (including two women), Frenchmen, Britons, an American, a German etc. They stay together for more than a year, and are remarkably spared the grief of casualties. At that time, and even during WWII, warfare did not yet have the professional intensity of the battlefields in Irak or Afghanistan. They are just killing time in their trenches. Even when a village is stormed, that is occupied by fascist troops, the enemy is already on the run. The number of fallen comrades in this action equals just one, and there is plenty of time for grief and a decent burial. Subsequently the militia joins the villagers in a debate about socialization of the agricultural land! Really, that are the syndicalists for you, they seem almost like Taliban. In the mean time, the government in Madrid realizes that this kind of defense will not win the war. (it could have ended in a long-lasting partisan guerrilla, but apparently in his later years Franco was able to mobilize sufficient social support). They try to put anarchist fractions like the POUM on a sidetrack, and eventually the anarchist militia are disarmed. Of course during this operation the Bolshevists resort to the well-known Stalinist methods of terror, including tortures. David has developed a (physical) liking for the anarchist Blanca, and tears apart his booklet of membership of the BCP (with stamps indicating your monthly payments, those good old days). Typical of the spirit in the militia is one of the final scenes, where they once more storm a fascist trench. Here the fighting gets tough, and the militia leader calls his superior by phone in order to complain about the uncomfortable conditions. Several militia members want a debate in order to consider a withdrawal. Later, when a superior officer actually orders the militia leader to withdraw, the leader wants to start a debate (in the middle of a fight, over the phone!) about the inconsistency of the orders! I find this scene particularly brilliant, reflecting the films subtlety and sarcasm. By the way, although modern warfare delegates much more responsibilities to the troops in the fields, obedience still remains a paramount requirement. Eventually Blanca is shot dead, and David returns home as a disillusioned man. What a mess! Nevertheless, the film confirms that the fascist troops are still the Hoesseins, and the republicans are still the Blairs. People interested in the Spanish Civil war should also see the documentary "The Spanish Earth" of director Joris Ivens and the excellent war film (if you fancy them) "Fünf Patronenhülsen" of director Frank Beyer (which includes the heart-rending Busch song "Die Jarama Front"!).
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
With the time that has elapsed since the Spanish Civil War and the time that has also elapsed since this film came out, 1995, this film has probably completely changed in meaning and what's more it must be extremely far away from what the non-Spanish citizens who participated in the Civil War might have thought at the time and might have remembered afterwards. The film shows essentially military amateurism and political strife on the front, since there was a real front with Franco and professional armed forces on the other side, as well as in Barcelona. Three trends are shown though not always clearly identified: the communists often called Stalinists, the anarchists identified as the CNT and the POUM who is some kind of Trotskyite organization both anti-communist and anti-anarchist and at the same time for total revolution as fast as possible, with the full collectivization of land, and a high level of independence, autonomy, even the refusal of hierarchy and authority. It led to a catastrophe of course with Franco helped by Mussolini and Hitler, and the communists only helped by other communist parties with the International Brigades and by Stalin provided the Stalinist model was followed. That clearly led to defeat. But an explanation is not given in the film. It is too short to just say discord prevailed. Why did it prevail? There we cannot give one answer only. There are several and even many. At first the weight of the international situation that made Spain a stake of the near future between all the western European countries, Italy and Germany included, and thus a divided West that let Hitler and Mussolini do what they wanted without any restraint, on one side, and on the other side the Communist International and the USSR who were trying to impose a clear model: collectivization of land and nationalization of industry, along with a strong state organization with a professional military force. No sense of compromise, no desire to reach any kind of compromise. Add to that the role of the church and the deep anti-clerical feelings of some sections of this Spanish left. Don't forget the sexist bigotry of a deeply catholic country and people: the equality of women could not last very long. That led to a civil war within the civil war and the defeat was guaranteed. But do not believe this film does not speak to us today, in the time of Obama in a globalized world in the midst of a financial crisis. The left is totally unable to find a complete unity on a realistic project and they have been systematically side-tracked in the recent or not so recent years in France or Italy or Greece. Spain is an exception, but probably not for long. The question that emerges from the film is: Was the social revolution advocated by these various revolutionary factions a realistic objective? Was it the real way History was going to take? I must admit the picture that comes out of this film makes me doubt it very much, especially twenty years after the fall of the last European communist experimentation. It feels as if that project was doomed to fail because of its unrealistic final objective, as well as the short term and middle term stages of that program. But there is a strong fragrance of absurdity in the depicted situation. They try to force history, accelerate it, in a way rape it, and history goes against that violation that can only work with a strong unity of the people behind that strong line and with a strong political and military power in the hands of the unified – or purified – leadership of the transformation, and yet for how long before a serious reform or final defeat? Sad but still true: those who try to violate history and its own pace, be they on the right or on the left, are totally blind to the fact that history does not follow a strict agenda and does not move along a straight line.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID
hiast2
which has to start from and stay with the bottom, base and column of the society.thanks to Ken Loach for this evocative movie about the Spanish civil war and its militias.don't understand the limitation that comments have to be at least 10 lines long. just wanted to make a short and avid comment.OK. then i will recommend interesting literature for those who want to know more about the militias and the anarchistic-syndicalist movement before and during the Spanish civil war:"the short summer of anarchy" by Hans Magnus Enzensberger published by Suhrkamp publishing. a German (don't know if there is an English edition of it) documentary novel about Durruti and his "Solidarios" fighting in the world for their idea of a fair society.
ccthemovieman-1
Fascism versus Communism? Gosh, what a choice. How 'bout neither?A combination English/foreign film, with subtitles mixed in liberally, this is the story of the common peoples' fight against Franco's fascist regime in Spain. The "people" consider themselves Communists and that ideology is portrayed positively, of course, an antidote of sorts against Fascism. Frankly, neither system has shown itself to be a good one for the "common man," so promoting Communism, as it's done here, was not attractive to me.What was attractive was to see this on a widescreen VHS because it's nicely filmed. However, the story begins to lag halfway trough as long ideological arguments are espoused over and over. That, and a boring romance, led this to make me lose interest before it was over.
