Paavo Rintala is one of the important figures in the "book wars" of Finland. Together with Hannu Salama, he managed to test the limits of the freedom of speech, and maybe also pushed the limit a bit further. When Rintala's book on the Finnish guerrilla troops in the WW2 was released, 34 retired generals protested against the publication. Also names were collected to boycott the publishing company. Attention was payed to the sexual content, but sexuality itself was of course not the reason for the rage against the book. The problem was, Rintala did not describe Finnish soldiers as highly moral, decent men, but as ordinary people losing control under the pressure. Also he described the women, working for the Lotta Svärd group (an association of volunteered women working for the army)as, good lord, sexual beings. This was very strongly against the heroic myth of military honor. And, obviously, quite realistic.
The realism might have been the reason for all the opposition faced by the movie also. Although the film praises the skills of this special force group, it also reveals the nowadays well-known fact that most, if not all, soldiers are morally corrupted by the war. The difference between the public image and the reality is very well shown in the movie.
There are two time lines in the movie. One is a post-war meeting of the survivors, being very modest in their respect for the memory of the deceased. The other time line shows us the reality of the war, with no heroes but mainly ordinary men fighting the moral battles of the war. This is a very good choice, as it emphasizes the difference between the reality and the heroic image.
This IS a war movie, though. We are shown three different operations conducted by the group. The further the movie goes, the more the brutality and degeneration of the soldiers is shown, by the means of nervous breakdown, moral corruption, excessive boozing and irresponsible behavior. The special force is also a bit of an exception exception when it comes to military discipline; as lieutenant Hakala says it "Everything is allowed for us but shooting our own." The limit between the enemy and the own, though, is not so clear sometimes.
This war movie is a quite good attempt to raise some questions of the human morale. It is also an action-filled war movie, with some limitations of resources, though. Mikko Niskanen was really a director who did dare to raise uneasy questions. This movie is important, as it questions the so-well-protected myth of Finnish soldier. But in 2005, the movie is no longer so controversial. For example, it seems obvious that many of the women working on the front had casual sex with the soldiers. So what? Everybody knew it anyway. But I think it still has to be shown, as even many of the nowadays' movies of the war can only be described as propaganda. For example, "Rukajärven tie (1999)"; in which Finnish soldiers' sexuality is described as a beautiful, romantic act between the young volunteer and her fiancée, and the sexuality of the enemy as rape. Of course one can tell a story like that, but it has no real value in the most important message a war movie can provide: In the war there is nothing to honor or celebrate.
The realism might have been the reason for all the opposition faced by the movie also. Although the film praises the skills of this special force group, it also reveals the nowadays well-known fact that most, if not all, soldiers are morally corrupted by the war. The difference between the public image and the reality is very well shown in the movie.
There are two time lines in the movie. One is a post-war meeting of the survivors, being very modest in their respect for the memory of the deceased. The other time line shows us the reality of the war, with no heroes but mainly ordinary men fighting the moral battles of the war. This is a very good choice, as it emphasizes the difference between the reality and the heroic image.
This IS a war movie, though. We are shown three different operations conducted by the group. The further the movie goes, the more the brutality and degeneration of the soldiers is shown, by the means of nervous breakdown, moral corruption, excessive boozing and irresponsible behavior. The special force is also a bit of an exception exception when it comes to military discipline; as lieutenant Hakala says it "Everything is allowed for us but shooting our own." The limit between the enemy and the own, though, is not so clear sometimes.
This war movie is a quite good attempt to raise some questions of the human morale. It is also an action-filled war movie, with some limitations of resources, though. Mikko Niskanen was really a director who did dare to raise uneasy questions. This movie is important, as it questions the so-well-protected myth of Finnish soldier. But in 2005, the movie is no longer so controversial. For example, it seems obvious that many of the women working on the front had casual sex with the soldiers. So what? Everybody knew it anyway. But I think it still has to be shown, as even many of the nowadays' movies of the war can only be described as propaganda. For example, "Rukajärven tie (1999)"; in which Finnish soldiers' sexuality is described as a beautiful, romantic act between the young volunteer and her fiancée, and the sexuality of the enemy as rape. Of course one can tell a story like that, but it has no real value in the most important message a war movie can provide: In the war there is nothing to honor or celebrate.