Important questions raised with one dimensional characters

Rating: Null/10 (6 April 2000)

Possible Spoilers
There were some masterful moments in this film and the film asks us to entertain certain pertinent questions about the morality and conduct of war.
Still, I thought that the characters were too one dimensional, especially the "evil" generals. This film went overboard in reinforcing the stereotype of the uncaring officer whose out of touch with the dog-faced soldier he is ordering into battle. Rather than depict a true moral dilemma the screenwriters flinched and made evil people the scapegoat for the "necessities of war". If the practices of directing futile orders and of making examples out of innocent soldiers is allowed by the French people and politicians, then they cannot blame the generals for carrying out those practices. We should not blame the generals for acting in accordance with the established procedures.
Also, the battle scenes were unconvincing to me. Directors like Speilberg and Malick know that it's more effective to shoot battle footage from more than one point of view. The viewer needs to see not only what the attackers are seeing, but what the defenders are seeing as they mow down those coming at them. The fact that the camera followed our hero's profile across the battlefield with those around him slumping over now and again did little to portray the violence of a frontal attack.
The film did make some daring choices. For instance, it does not sugar coat the execution scenes or the fact that innocents sometimes die, but I hoped for a film that more adequately reflected the moral confusion in war, as opposed the the absolute injustice in it.