davidleequinn1950 During the time this documentary was made, Hollywood was rife with Communists. For some reason there were scores of Hollywood types who thought that Socialism was the way to go despite all evidence to the contrary. The production company that made this documentary was made up of a whos-who of Communist sympathizers, Jos Dos Passos, Lillian Hellman, etc. As a result this documentary is completely slanted to one side, the side of the Republicans, which were supplied and supported by the Soviet Union. There is absolutely no attempt to be even handed in the presentation, Republicans=Good, Nationalists-Bad. If you decide to view this documentary go into it with the forewarning that none of what you are seeing is in any way even handed.

dougdoepke The movie makes no conventional attempt to situate viewers at the outset. Instead we're plunged immediately into a series of images loosely organized around the theme of hard Spanish earth. However, the pastoral scenes soon give way to images of fighting men. But in the absence of explanation, viewers can't be sure if the soldiers are Republican or Falange (fascist). It's only after about 15-minutes, we find out these are people supporting the republic. Maybe Ivens or Hemingway is making a subtle point by withholding information, but the absence could be confusing to contemporary viewers.The movie itself has some compelling images; however, I doubt that most go beyond generic war imagery of that time. One does, nonetheless, get a sense of the impact on the civilian population in the areas surrounding Madrid. In no sense is the film a survey of that bloody civil war as a whole. Instead, it's a narrow slice from the loyalist republican pov. But neither is the movie simply Stalinist agitprop, (the Soviets supported the elected government; Hitler and Mussolini the Falangist rebels; while the US and England remained neutral). Rather, a strong subtextual theme appears to liken support for the republic to bringing water to the dry Spanish earth, a not unreasonable pov. It's also worth noting the anti-fascist side quickly became a cause-célèbre among artists and intellectuals disgusted by the US and England's refusal to aid a fellow democratic government. Thus the movie has a number of illustrious names attached to it. It's likely because of these names that I expected more than the overall result delivers. Nonetheless, the brief documentary remains a snapshot worth watching, even for those unfamiliar with the historical period.

Emil Bakkum I find this documentary film about the Spanish Civil War deeply moving. There are several causes. One is the narrative, which is done by Ernest Hemingway, a personality who for some reason has always appealed strongly to my imagination. And then there is the war itself, which is legendary especially among people with progressive inclinations. It was there and then, that a democratically elected government and a peoples army tried to resist the fascist troops of Franco. The civil war soon obtained international dimensions, when the Italian and German fascists started to support Franco. The peoples army, on the other hand, was reinforced by tens of thousands of international volunteers, united in international brigades. Ernest Hemingway was among these, as well as Joris Ivens. The film narrates of illustrious battle scenes, such as the defense of Madrid, in particular the heroic fight for the Argand bridge over the Jarama river. Just the name awakens in memory the sound of the pertinent Ernst Busch songs, another veteran of the Civil War, giving shivers along the spine. In addition, the time was politically interesting, since for the first time anarchist cooperation methods seemed to work out in a fruitful way. The film succeeds brilliantly in catching the contemporary spirit of hope and heroism. A large part is devoted to realistic (albeit probably partially enacted) battle scenes, where the republican army digs in against the fascist attacks. There is however also plenty of room for rural scenes, of village life at and just behind the front. It was vital to maintain the food supply to the beleaguered city of Madrid. And life in Madrid itself is shown, with the bombardments by the air force of Franco. We also witness the speeches and debates in the Spanish parliament. Of course the film is not neutral or an objective account. The story is clearly romanticized and sometimes dramatized, for instance when we see the farmers son writing letters home, or returning on leave to his family. And although I am not an expert, the democratically elected government actually seems to have been far from ideal. There were many abuses, and the intervention of the communist brigades does not help in increasing its good reputation. Nevertheless, it is still obvious who are the good guys, and who are the crooks. The film contains plenty of movement and action, and it ably addresses our feelings of sympathy. It are films such as Misere au Borinage and this one, which imho makes Joris Ivens a greater film maker than Eisenstein. If you fancy war films or the Spanish Civil War, this film is definitely a must-have.

eschwartzkopf The Spanish Civil War remains as one of the longest and bloodiest conflicts involving a major country, and it's impossible to sum up its many nuances. You'll get one view of the conflict here with incredible footage of war and glimpses of rural Spanish life.This, however, isn't a documentary as much as it is straight Soviet-style propaganda. The style of the film, from the poor farmers bettering themselves with a homemade concrete irrigation system to the election of soldiers to hear impassioned political pep talks from movement leaders, s straight from the Stalnist manual of Lifestyles of the Glorious Peoples. This isn't meant to Red-bait any of the participants -- they truly believed in a "free" Spain, and fascist-backed Francisco Franco's regime wasn't the answer, either -- but the reality was far different and is only now coming to light after 70 years.The Spanish Civil War was also very much a fascist/Soviet proxy war, and the Soviet Union had a not-so-hidden hand in its direction. Look carefully at the fighting sequences, and you'll see very atypical people in different-style uniforms guiding artillery and directing troops.As a historical insight -- despite what now appears to be a ham-fisted approach in propaganda -- the film is priceless. And many thanks for TCM and its ever-expanding programming efforts in broadcasting the film in July 2007; hopefully, we'll always have somebody unwilling to slice, dice and crop something and still call it a classic, ala AMC.