The Disappointment Of The Movie ‘Resistance’ (2012)

Last month I was pleasantly surprised to come across a DVD of the movie ‘Resistance’ (2012) in a charity shop. Given that the movie was only a few months old it was unexpected to see it, not only on sale, but having reached the charity shop stage. Given that it only showed on one screen in London on its release, perhaps I should not have been too surprised. My interest in the movie stemmed from the fact that it is a counter-factual movie, probably the first one involving British actors since ‘Fatherland’ (1994). Like that movie it was based on a successful novel, in this case, ‘Resistance’ (2007) by Owen Sheers. The movie also features Martin Sheen, a strong character actor who has been in the ‘Underworld’ and ‘Twilight’ movie series and in ‘The Damned United’ (2009) and ‘Frost/Nixon’ (2008). He is supportive of theatre and movie making in Wales which is why I imagine he became involved in ‘Resistance’ set in a Welsh valley. It also features Kimberley Nixon best known from the comedy series ‘Fresh Meat’ (2011-12) though she has no lines in the movie.

The premise of the movie is that the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944 failed and this allowed the Germans to invade Britain. By October 1944 the Germans are in control of southern England and South Wales. Birmingham and Manchester are under siege, presumably like Leningrad and Stalingrad. Sporadic fighting continues in London even though it is in theory subdued. The action, what there is of it, runs until April 1945. My first problem is that this counter-factual is highly unfeasible. Yes, it was very possible that the Germans could have defeated the Allied invasion. In doing this they may have destroyed so much Allied shipping and aircraft to allow them control of the English Channel. However, in June 1944 the Soviets were advancing into central Poland and into Romania and were at the borders of Hungary. In such a situation they would not have sent troops to Britain, but used the respite in the West to fight against the Soviets. The scenario shown in the movie must be that the Soviets have been pushed back farther East than in our world or perhaps have even sued for peace so freeing up German forces to invade Britain.

Setting aside flaws in the counter-factual, the movie as a whole has major problems. I can understand why someone passed the DVD on to a charity shop so quickly. I am tempted to dispose of it and am only grateful that at least the charity made some money out of my purchase. I have no idea how the book is written but if it is as incoherent as the movie, I am not tempted to read it. The movie sees all the men from the Welsh village leave to join the resistance. The valley is soon invaded by a tiny German unit. All the dialogue between the Germans is in German with subtitles which gives it an authentic feel. It is clear that the captain commanding the unit wants to effectively bow out of the war and seals the valley off from outside contact both for his men and the women and children remaining there. He also has a mission to locate the Mappa Mundi which is hidden in the valley something he does easily though he does not reveal this to his superiors because he does not want the SS to enter the valley to recover it.

The geography of the valley and neighbouring areas is very confused. The Welsh women are barred from going to the nearby town and it is not clear how they subsist especially as they reject the food offered by the Germans. A boy working for the resistance visits the valley and his controller, a school teacher played by Michael Sheen, escapes from Gestapo imprisonment into the valley. Sheen is only on screen in total for a couple of minutes. He is shot by the German soldiers in the valley. The boy triggers a bizarre conclusion to the movie by accidentally shooting a horse when he intended to kill one of the women who he believed was a collaborator.

Given the isolation of the setting, there is very little exploration of the counter-factual elements. The only scene where we see much at all is when a woman and one of the German soldiers visit a local farmers’ fair where we see a German marquee and blackshirts, presumably British Fascists working with the German occupiers. The relationship between the women and the Germans is fluctuating and ambivalent. The definition of collaboration used in the movie seems to be any form of fraternisation even on a diffident basis. There was no need to set the story in a counter-factual context. The themes touched on could have been done in a historical setting for example in a remote valley in Norway or the French or Italian Alps.

The key flaw of the movie, however, is how fragmented it is. Throughout it feels more like a surreal short film. It jumps arbitrarily weeks or months and shows minor incidents sometimes of just a matter of seconds. This is further confused by flashbacks from one of the women, the captain and the boy. Overall very little happens. The behaviour of the characters is largely irrational and nothing is resolved. The captain believes that one of his men who has deserted will bring other units to the valley who will slaughter all the civilians. The ‘heroine’ simply wanders off into the fog after lying to the captain that she will flee with him. We have no idea if she commits suicide or indeed goes to find her husband who may have been shot near the beginning of the movie.

As well as desultory, dreary and depressing, this movie is incoherent and weak. It is more like a video installation at an art exhibition rather than a movie. It is such a waste given how few counter-factual movies get made and it will set back popular comprehension of such movies by decades. It was really pointless, in fact even damaging to the genre that I support, to have had this movie made. I certainly regret buying it and advise you to avoid it entirely.

No Surprise that Another Town Wants to Leave England

After commenting yesterday about the difficulties of having pride in England and last month on the town of Berwick-on-Tweed which announced that it wanted to become part of Scotland (which it lies very close to) rather than England it was interesting to note that a referendum in Audlem in Cheshire in North-West England the people voted to move the town into Wales. Cheshire does border Wales, but Audlem lies East of the A41, 10 miles (16Km) from the Welsh border and there is the city of Chester and towns like Oswestry which is pretty large, Malpas, Coddington and Tattenhall which lie nearer to Wales. An alternative suggestion was that the town become part of Shropshire and that that whole county move into Wales, though obviously that would need a far greater level of support. Most of the commentary seems to feel that Audlem's decision is just another example of English village eccentricity. However, as with Berwick, you may start asking why do these places want to leave England.

Just under 3 million people live in the whole of Wales, and 66% of these in South Wales, whereas Cheshire borders with northern Wales. Wales covers 20,700 Km2 compared to 77,925 Km2 for Scotland and 130,200 Km2 for England. Thus you could imagine that the people of Audlem would like to be a small fish in a much smaller pool. Whereas England does not have its own parliament, Wales has an Assembly which has powers in particular in the areas of social services and education, and as with Scotland its laws on such things are increasingly diverging from those of England. A third of the population of England lives in the South-East (about 18 million people if you include London) in an area almost the same size as Wales so you can see why people in the rest of England may feel overlooked. The key issue for Audlam is that services in Wales are better and cheaper. There are not prescription charges whereas in England they have just risen; you do not have to pay to park at a hospital in Wales whereas you have to pay a great deal to park at English hospitals. So as with Berwick it seems to be the costs that particularly affect the elderly that impinge greatest on which state people want to live in. There are other benefits of being in Wales university students do not have to pay the fees (set at £3000 at present but set to rise sharply) that they have to pay in England (Scotland has also scrapped them); the same goes for the SAT exams for 7-year old children which have also been abolished in Wales.

Wales has a rich culture. The number of people speaking Welsh has risen. In 1981 only 18.1% of the population (around 400,000 people) spoke Welsh, now with it being a compulsory part of the National Curriculum and with more programmes in Welsh it has risen to 21% (about 611,000 people). Wales has a rich musical and literary culture that many English would be happy to become a part of. The country was independent until 1282 when it was conquered by English King Edward I and in 1532 it was absorbed into England. Consequently the development of its laws has not differed as sharply from English law as those in Scotland have always done, so it is far easier for a teacher or a solicitor being transported from living in England to living in Wales to continue in their job without the need for retraining which would be the case if they moved into Scotland.

The point that seems to be being missed by the bulk of England, and by those of us who cannot leave this state for another (the nearest one to me would be France, we could return to the control of Normandy!) is why people want to get out of England. The stated reasons are all around social welfare policies. In England we have no way to protest about these through regional on English elections and we seem saddled with policies which are unpopular and hit the people who need help (the elderly and pupils/students) more than anyone else. I think this is partly due to the fact that the bulk of the super-rich of the UK actually live in England and are unfussed if Wales or Scotland adopt a more balanced educational or welfare policy but are loath to tolerate it in England. We already have campaigns for an independent Cornwall, which was absorbed by England in the 10th century and are you suprised. Wales and Cornwall would never be rich countries but they would have, no doubt more popular policies than England. When doing the posting on proportional representation I came across the Wessex Regionalist Party formed in 1974 which still stands in elections and pressed for an independent Wessex. Wessex is assumed to include the south-western English counties of Berkshire, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset, Devon and Somerset though historically in the 9th century it was expanded North and East. The WRP also include the Isle of Wight which at times has been part of Hampshire and recently included Gloucestershire to the North West and Oxfordshire to the North East into Wessex so fitting the 9th century picture.

Ironically attempts to get regional parliaments in England, an idea favoured by New Labour when it came to power in 1997 have constantly failed. Interestingly if the government continues to pursue policies that upset people in the average town or village especially those who do not border with Wales of Scotland may start reviving these old earldoms and kingdoms of England to give them a chance to adopt more amenable policies. As I suggested, there are enough patron saints of regions to adhere around culturally, for starters.

What would be a better approach, though, I believe is for the UK government to actually listen to the ordinary people in England rather than the super-rich and adopt policies which satisfy normal people. It is unfair that we should suffer bad policies which the Welsh and Scots have managed to escape from and it is likely that we as a consequence, despairing of any movement from the government towns across England are going to look for border changes to help them out.