Gallipoli (1981)

**Australia was “born” in Turkey.** This is a very interesting film that addresses Australia and New Zealand's joint participation in the First World War. Both countries had recently gained independence from the United Kingdom, there was no real sense of national identity and, despite the proximity of German colonies in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, there were many Australians who did not want to go to the war alongside the British. It was the English's war, not theirs. The same thing was felt in my country, Portugal, the United Kingdom's oldest ally, but which only entered the First World War in 1916, against the wishes of the English. Portuguese politicians saw the war as a means of giving international prestige to a young and discredited republican regime, and of securing Portuguese sovereignty in Africa and India. Despite having no relationship with each other, the journey of Australians and Portuguese in the First World War had the same end: the CEP, the Portuguese military brigade, was decimated in France, in 1918, in the greatest defeat in the multi-century history of the Portuguese Army; ANZAC almost completely lost itself in the Dardanelles, in the face of the obstinate Turkish defense commanded by Mustafa Kemal, who knew well the terrain and foresaw what the Allies were going to try. Historical considerations aside, the film does not focus on military action or what happened in the unsuccessful Battle of the Dardanelles. We are taken there by the beautiful friendship between two young Australian athletes with a lot of potential, who enlist in ANZAC (one of them even had to lie because he was too young). I don't know exactly what they expected to do, nor if they did considered the possibility of not returning home alive. I think, as often happens, they wanted to enlist because all the other boys did it so. The script doesn't explore this as it could, and perhaps one of the film's weaknesses is the lack of this emotional and mental depth in decisive moments. I also missed a greater effort at contextualization: anyone who doesn't understand history may not know exactly what that battle was about. On a technical level, the film stands out for its excellent cinematography, scenery and costumes, and a reconstruction of the period that, overall, works satisfactorily. Of course, it's not technically perfect. For example, in combat scenes there is a great lack of visual and special effects that add intensity to the action, resulting in battles that are not exactly exciting to watch on the big screen. There is also a serious lack of blood here. I'm not a fan of gore or the most visually shocking effects, but stop and think with me: it's a battle, it's war. There are dead, there are injured, there are mutilated, there are screaming people lying on the ground in agony, waiting for their own death and asking for help. The film doesn't show us the raw reality of combat, perhaps to allow for a lower parental rating, which I understand, but honestly don't approve of. Although the film has a larger cast, naturally, the truth is that the two protagonists, Mel Gibson and Mark Lee, absolutely dominate all the action. It's worth paying attention to the work of the two actors: Gibson still didn't have the stellar status he achieved in Hollywood, and his modesty suited him well. He was a young actor, but he already had the talent that characterizes him, and a friendly smile, a charisma that makes his character pleasant and worthy of empathy. Lee is more important in the script, but he doesn't have the strength and presence of his colleague. He's good, but more discreet and less charismatic. It may have been this, in fact, that didn't help him advance his acting career. The film also features positive appearances by Bill Kerr in a short but significant role.