User Reviews

A great World War I film, arguably better than Kubrick's "Paths of Glory" and far superior to Mendes's "1917." More significantly, it is one of the best anti-war films as well for viewers who can dispassionately perceive it as such in the league of Malick's "The Thin Red Line." What surprises me no end is why critics rarely discuss this work with fine direction, scriptwriting and performances. To get a heroic soldier to aid a comrade who is a pacifist and not inclined to kill the enemy is described by this line in the script "Ask a dog to adapt to salad." The film applauds the heroics of the soldiers who win a war and at the same time chastises the bad deeds of the heroes. It also discusses the plight of soldiers who do not like to actively participate in the war and the decisions of top generals who are out of touch with ground reality. The following actors were a treat to watch: Samuel Le Bihan as Lt Norbet, Philippe Torreton as Captain Conan, and Catherine Rich as a well-bred lady with social connections, whose son is a soldier awarded capital punishment for being scared and for running away from battle lines. The fascinating tale is based on a novel by Roger Vercel. Tavernier was a director who could direct varied types of tales and make them well. What a talent!

One of the assistant directors to Tavernier was the Romanian director Cristian Mungiu who later won major awards at Cannes for his films: "4 Months, 3 weeks and 2 days," "Beyond the Hills" and "Graduation."

Historically speaking, this is a very interesting film, as very few films have dealt with what occurred between the Armistace in November 1918 and when the troops were ultimately brought home--some as late as 1920 or 1921. During this period, an undeclared and practically forgotten war raged off and on between soldiers from several nations and the Red Army along the Russian borders. Apparently, France, the United States, Germany and several other nations were worried that the Russian Revolution might spill into other nations and so troops were sent to eastern Europe. Not a whole lot was gained from this, though it did help to keep some of the problems from spreading somewhat. The problem is that while I am familiar about this period, I wonder just how many non-history teachers know about this. While the film does give us some information about this, it's a shame it wasn't more clear and exactly why the troops were sent into Bulgaria and Romania and who they were fighting wasn't really discussed. Perhaps the writers and director wanted this confusion in the film in order to mirror the confusion of the troops, as they seemed to have no idea why they were there either--but still, more information would have been nice.

Despite the setting for the film being this undeclared war, the theme running through the film was the extreme difficulty some soldiers had adjusting to peace. Captain Conan and his group of irregulars were savage guerrilla fighters and could not adapt to a post-WWI world. This all came to a head when some of Conan's men were accused of committing crimes against the Romanians as well as when Conan was drug into resulting trials for these accused soldiers as well as a deserter. This is where the film became more interesting and I started to enjoy the film after a very slow start. Once again, the film was important because rarely is this transition to "normalcy" addressed in war films.

So do I recommend the film? Well, it really depends on your tolerance for a slow film (in the beginning) as well as your ability to follow the script--after all, if you don't have at least a basic knowledge of this period, you might feel a bit lost.

This is in many ways a very good war film but not in the typical way. The film opens in the closing days of WW1 on the Eastern Front where Capitaine Conan (Philippe Torreton in a Cesar winning performance) leads a band of ruthless hand to hand fighters, equivalent to a modern special forces unit. They prove themselves far more effective than the regular army in the final defeat and are envied by many including a friend of Conan, Lt Norbet (Samuel Le Bihan, IIRC was nominated for a Cesar in this). But when the armistice is signed Conan and his men find themselves in limbo while Norbert, working for the Court Martials finds himself accusing the very men he admired for robbery and murder. This film does take a while to get going but it is worth it, giving time for the characters to develop and also establishing the monotony the soldiers find, going from combat to walking the streets of Bucharest. The film also deals with the beginnings of the Russian Civil War and the problem of soldiers fighting with no motivation. Tavernier's direction is superb and visually the film equals a number of classic war films while the performances help to give it an edge as it goes into territory that Hollywood war film's in particular have tended not to go into.

Tavernier is probably the greatest film artist working in the world today. With Capitaine Conan, he accomplished what all the New-Wave directors dreamed about but never quite got the chance to do (except maybe for Bertolucci on The Last Emperor, if you want to consider him part of the original new-wave): to make a high-budget film with thousands of extras and elaborate, detailed sets which completely conforms to their vision and stays uncompromised, an auteurist epic. Well, how's this for uncompromised: Most of the shots in this film are made using only available light or the light that would be available given the circumstances of the scene! As a result, the film looks uniquely dark and authentic, as if it was shot in 1918 when the events took place. This takes some getting used to, and of course, people conditioned to being spoon fed every scene lit up like a christmas tree will be disoriented, but the shadowy effects achieved far outweigh the negatives. Some of the shots are kept in total darkness (as they would be in real life) with barely a face showing to indicate who's talking to who! Then the people gradually come out of the darkness into different shades of light, each more nuanced than the other. The cinematography and art direction are breathtaking; there isn't a single shot in the entire film that couldn't be called a masterpiece of its own, perfectly framed, perfectly composed and perfectly moved. Tavernier rarely uses a shot-reverse-shot preferring complex camera movement or long uninterrupted takes capturing the scenes from different angles without a cut. The scenes themselves, however, don't drag on forever, they are compact and to the point, making a Tavernier film usually one where a lot of things happen very fast and in order to pick up all the details and nuances, many viewings are essential. The acting from the awesome leads of Thoreton (a richly deserved Cesar award for best actor), Le Bihan, and Le Coque, down to the smallest bit player is uniformly brilliant. No American film I've ever seen has acting on this high a naturalistic level.

The film is mainly about the thin and precariously balanced area called 'amorality' that some people have a knack for staying within, racking up only enough whites (good deeds) and blacks (bad deeds)to stay mostly in the perfectly shaded middle gray. In a war-time situation the people who have this knack tend to do very well for themselves. Conan, a tough special forces officer whose group makes sneak attacks on the enemy and kills at knife-point, is that perfect 'amoral' character or for lack of a better term people have come to call an 'anti-hero', i.e., that guy who sometimes does 'bad' or 'evil' things, but integrates this within a higher integrity that's essentialy 'good' and admirable. His friend, Lt. Norbert is the more traditionally 'moral' man who comes to admire the guts it takes for Conan to operate rather openly in that precarious zone against all the hypocrisies of his superiors (which keep them protected). When Conan comes to defend a few of his men who have clearly gone over the line and committed atrocities which must be punished, Norbert, given the job of prosecuting the men, makes his position clear and breaks with him. All through the film he tries to become more like Conan and yet stays wary of the line that Conan could easily cross into madness and fanaticism. What draws Conan and Norbert together is their common integrity against the hypocrisies of society, as opposed to Lt. DeSceve, the other main character, who's an honorable soldier and strong man, but who kisses-up to the top brass and has a fascist attitude.

This film never got the distribution it should have in the U.S. simply because it was a subtitled foreign film and Americans have practically stopped watching foreign films! What a damn shame! They missed the greatest film of the '90s! I would conjecture that not 1 out of a 100 people who've seen Spielberg's melodramatic "Saving Private Ryan" have even heard of "Capitaine Conan." Catch it on the Sundance channel on cable or rent it on video and experience a true masterpiece. Then watch it again and again and experience deja-vu.

This film is about how the military experience can transform a person, and no, it's not about the army making men out of boys.

Conan leads a group of trench cleaners, who, in reality, were thugs and pathological killers who enjoyed butchering their enemies after infiltrating their lines at night.

Problems emerge when the war is over, but some of these men cannot deal with their wartime homicidal pathologies and keep doing what they were trained for and mount a heist which results in killings.

Conan then has to choose between his camaraderie for his men and his responsibilities as an army officer.

This film has many originalities, especially in its war scenes and, I must admit, the whole thing is entertaining.

It's lengthy at times, but Torreton gives a great performance and really deserved the Cesar for best leading role that he got that year.

It is, in my knowledge, the only film which treats of that very particular post-World War I episode, when the "Reds" tried to invade Bulgaria and the French came to stop the expansion of what was not yet know as the Soviet block.

Conan and his men call their own shots on the battlefield and create fear within the enemy with their surprise attacks. By 1918, the mother of all wars comes to an end on the Bulgarian border. By this stage the men have had the taste of blood and cannot seem to settle down. When they are transferred to Romania for a bit of rest and recreation, a new battle commences with each other. The rules of combat have altered for the sake of peace and hypocrisy runs rampart to the disgust of Conan. At times, the style falls into dark humour territory, producing bizarre moments on the battlefield and words of wisdom on the human condition at war.

This is a film which is worth viewing several times, for - like in a good novel - interesting details appear at each new viewing. By the way, the eponymous novel by Roger Vercel is excellent! This is my fourth viewing and this time I have been fascinated by the story of Jean Erlane (played by Pierre Val), the son of a good family with a Naval officer father and an Aviation pilot brother who both died fighting for France. Jean, who himself volunteered to join the Army, proved in action to be an irrepressible coward - to the point of being condemned to death by a Court Martial for desertion and transmittal of secrets to the enemy. The delicate matter of cowardice as a medical condition is approached, but obliquely. The reconstitution of the fateful night when Jean Erlane went to the Bulgarian lines, made on-site by the three men implicated in his trial - Samuel Le Bihan (as Lt Norbert, his prosecutor), Claude Brosset (as Father Dubreuil, his defensor), and Philippe Torreton (as Capt. Conan, the combat expert and witness of the night's events) -, is a magnificent moment of cinema. The whole movie is an excellent depiction of Army life during a war, with its glorious moments, its awful massacres, its long periods of tedium in far away places, its comical episodes and its instances where troops become unruly, at times up to the point of utter banditry. The main actors are all very good in their roles as officers, belonging to a generation where all male Frenchmen were familiar with things military, having undergone compulsory service (and for some of them the war in Algeria); but maybe Claude Rich (as Gen. Pitard de Lauzier), somewhat overplays his part of an inept and exasperating General! The filming of Bertrand Tavernier is very realistic and one gets gripped by the story, so that the two hours pass like a breeze. ___ .

I saw this film for two reasons - one is Bertrand Tavernier, the other is the fact that much of the action of the film takes place in my country of birth Romania. I was disappointed.

The historical background of the story takes place in the last couple of months of the first world war and in the year that followed. The heroes are two French officers, one of them is the commander of a special unit which turns the fate of battles on the war fields with brutality and efficiency, but cannot find its place when the war ends. The soldiers are part of an unfortunate minority of the French army which remained conscripted in the area, which was undergoing political changes - empires fell down, new nations where raising and forming their national states, borders where moving and still fought, and revolutions were threatening the order sought by the victorious powers.

Unfortunately nothing of the changes around are reflected in any way by the film, which focuses on the fate of the French soldiers and officers and not only misses completely the events around but also presents the local people in an folklorist and non flattering manner. Neither does the film say anything new that was not already said in the great films about the absurdity of war in general or the cruelty of WWI in particular. The story is composed of several sequences not too well related, acting is good but cannot save the day, and seeing this film is overall an experience to forget for these who saw it and to avoid for these who did not see it.

This movie left me severely impressed. Most war films, particularly those intended to be viewed as a deep form of art tend to be much more shallow (Perhaps it has something to do with a lack of first hand military experience among film makers in the US.) Often the writers and directors are simply trying to support an anti war thesis by illustrating suffering, injustice and cruelty. But anyone can illustrate suffering, injustice and cruelty in a generic way and then squeeze it into an ill fitting war context. What impressed me about Bertrand's work is that he didn't do this. There were no shallow caricatures and he did not spoon feed the audience with anti war propaganda. Bertrand instead, tried to paint an accurate picture of some very complicated events and circumstances, and the equally complicated people who are trying to deal with them. The suffering, injustice and cruelty are there, but the audience must find these elements for themselves.

Capitaine Conan by B.Tavernier:

Captaine Conan by B.Tavernier is certainly a great moie. The story takes place during the WW1 in the French's army. French's army go into European West and notably Romania, the Balkans, up to Russia. One of the officer , Captan Conan led a special force composed of murderes,criminals. This special force group commites sneak attacks and kills the foes by hand. In Budapest they are bored and commite criminal action.. When I saw this movie, I was fascineted by the way war scenes are filmed. Tavernier films "craggy" landscape in the Balkans to give the impression of a busy war. The special's effect as canon shoot, bombs add to this fabulous spectacle. On top of that, the director dwells on this dark period with dim scene. It participates in the tragic atmosphere and certainly in the total realism of this movie. It obviously an emergency in the French army and its hypocrisies. Its silly organisation critisized throught commandant Bouvier, a stupid man. Actors are exellent for instance P.Torreton as Captain Conan with his witty eloquence. This is a magnificient movie in spite of the lack of communication about the context which losts spectactors.

Briefly by this movie Tavernier fullfills a successful career. This movie as La princesse de Montpensier occurs in the margins of history. It is why he declared " I want to film histor at man size"