cast :
crew :
release date :
‘The Unknown Soldier’ was released in 1955; 37 years after the Civil War and only 15 years after the Moscow peace treaty ended the war between Finland and the Soviet Republic. This historical background gives the film a unique context in which it portrays the society, its politics, and tensions of the time. The film’s technical merits are few and the narrative is non-existent, but its power and long spanning popularity is not in the film, but in its characters.
‘The Unknown Soldier’ portrays the common soldiers through the machinegun company headed by lieutenant Koskela (Kosti Klemelä). The film has not only one or two central protagonists, but it follows the entire group of soldiers. ‘The Unknown Soldier’ does not focus on the experiences and growth of a few central protagonists but treats the individual and rather shallow characters as pieces that form the more important unit of the machinegun company. The soldiers are caricatures, whose actions or feelings are not explained or explored. What makes the soldiers significant beside the exaggerated uniqueness of their personalities, is their involvement and contribution to the unit.
‘The Unknown Soldier’ has a very familiar structure of character relations and qualities. There is a broad spectrum of social backgrounds and personalities in the machinegun company. Lahtinen (Veikko Sinisalo) openly expresses his atheism, communism, and resentment towards the ‘capitalists’. Rokka (Reino Tolvanen) is an exceptional and witty soldier who is fighting to protect his farmland that lies close to the Soviet-Finnish border. Lehto (Åke Lindman) portrays the heroic and self-sacrificing Finnish combatant, who is not only brave but also stubborn and rebellious to the point of stupidity. Riitaoja (Olavi Ahonen) on the contrary is a cowardly and useless soldier who abandons his fellows at the sight of danger. These are only a few of the most overstated representations of Finnish soldiers.
The film creates background and uniqueness to the many characters by the unusually varied use of dialects. The soldiers have strong dialects that are specific to regions of Finland and make frequent references to the areas they come from. This creates an impression of a unified, yet diverse country brought together by the war. James and Lesley Milroy (1985) describe the differences between working-class dialects and standard language in their book ‘Authority in Language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation’:
“…it has already been emphasised that there is no obvious linguistic reason for this stigma: working-class dialects operate within working-class communities as efficiently as any other linguistic system, …sometimes including useful distinctions which are not present in the standard forms of the language.” (p. 98)
The use of dialects in ‘The Unknown Soldier’ distinguishes not only the origins, but also the social status of the soldiers. The regional dialects range from Hietanen’s West coast to Rokka’s Karelia, but all of them hold a social mark. Through the dialogue, ‘The Unknown Soldier’ portrays the Finnish army as a culturally varied nation of workers fighting a common enemy.
The officers in contrast with the soldiers, speak in an exaggeratedly official manner that is usually restricted to written language. This way of speaking removes all links to their past or place of origin. Whereas the soldiers’ identity is built on the colourful ways they express themselves verbally; the officers are stripped of their individuality by communicating in an unnatural and restricted way. As James and Lesley Milroy (1985) claim:
“a standard language is additionally maintained in an official and institutional way. It is the official language, used by government; it is codified in dictionaries and grammar-books; it is appealed to as the norm in the educational system. These facts give if a legitimacy that other varieties do not usually have” (p. 59)
Therefore, the language of the officers is not neutral or impartial but represents the institutions and social structure as much as the working-class dialects of the soldiers.
There is a strong division between the soldiers and officers that is crossed only by Lieutenant Koskela. Koskela leads the machinegun company with an altruistic and equal attitude, which strongly differs from the other lieutenants. The other officers are shown as rigid and small-minded. Lammio (Jussi Jurkka) epitomizes this self-righteous and hated authority. He and his strict reign are more hated than the enemy they are at war with. When the colourful and individual soldiers are contrasted with the strict and impersonal authority it is clear which side the viewer identifies with. To underline Lammio’s role as an empty figurehead he is not once seen in battle alongside the groups he is supposed lead. Officer Lammio, despite being logical and only acting within his jurisdiction is depicted as a small-minded tyrant. By all logic, a high-ranking clean-shaven army officer should be admired as he leads the troupes in to battle with the enemy. Lammio’s speech is accent free, clothes always clean and behaviour flawless. Within these strengths lies the character’s weakness.
While Lammio fits the description of the official hero, the soldiers are the outlaw heroes. They are the ones who resent the war and the government that has sent them to fight it. The soldiers disobey their orders, steal, and avoid work. They make their own beer in a stolen kettle and leave the company without permission. Yet when they talk their way into additional food portions, they give the bread away to the children of the country they have come to occupy. This ideal of solidarity and sharing is not far from the politics of the Finnish socialists of the time.
Olli Vehviläinen (2002) explains in his book ‘Finland in the Second World War: Between Germany and Russia’, how Finland after declaring its independence in December 1917 was constantly between nations. Vehviläinen (2002) affirms that the rise to power of the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Soviet government’s agreement to separate national minorities set Finland’s pursuit of independence in motion. This was the setting that lead Finland to its civil war, which started only one month after its declaration of independence, as Vehviläinen later confirms. Vehviläinen (2002) explains the causes of the division of the nation by ‘the Bolshevik revolution had increased social agitation and when the old order collapsed the workers began to form units called “Red Guards”, while the non-socialists created their own “Civil Guards”’(p.4). This meant that the newly independent country was crudely divided into left-wing Reds and right-wing Whites. Vehviläinen (2002) describes how ‘the presence in the country of Russian revolutionary military units encouraged the workers, who increasingly began to take matters into their own hands’(p.4), which lead to ‘the desire of the non-socialists to sever the country altogether from revolutionary Russia’ (p.4).
Vehviläinen (2002) argues, that ‘the Red forces were composed almost entirely of the urban proletariat and the poor of the countryside’ (p.6), who ‘obtained all their arms from Bolshevik Russia, and a few Russians fought alongside them in the war’ (p.6). ‘The Whites, for their part, had the support of Germany, which supplied them with weapons.’ (p.6) Vehviläinen (2002) states and notes, that ‘Germany also allowed the Jägers, who had been fighting there as volunteers to return home to join the government forces. (p. 6). These Finnish Jägers had been in military training in Germany since 1915 and ‘the majority clearly had a so-called “bourgeois” background’ (p.92), according to Lauri Adolf Puntila (1975). Anatole Gregory Mazour (1956) confirms that ‘most of the Civil Guards came from the upper and middle classes’ (p.47) of Finland between the East and West. This shows that the Civil War was not only between political parties, but also between social classes.
It is in this context that ‘The Unknown Soldier’s’ characters have been created. The scenes in which the soldiers and officers celebrate the 75th birthday of their Commander-in-Chief Mannerheim emphasizes this in an extremely direct way. The company is outside their tent drinking their homemade beer and listening to the Russian song Kalinka. After a few drinks officer Koskela, who is portrayed as an equal and sincere leader of his company, goes to confront the other equally drunken officers. In contrast to the Kalinka, the officers are singing German marches in the headquarters. Koskela greets the officers in Russian as he walks in and continues to speak in Russian even mentioning the United Soviet Republic. He then goes on to sing Finnish children’s songs and bellow about Finnish folk heroes. An officer finishes his German song and warns Koskela, ‘Yes, I know Finnish too, and it might be best that you keep to it as well’.
The symbolism of the scene is not restricted to dialogue. Koskela is the tallest of the officers and is the most traditionally Finnish-looking with his blond hair. His shabby, but sturdy appearance is set against the physically weaker buttoned up officer wearing glasses. The scene shows the Red working-class hero that speaks Russian stand up against the White well-groomed upper class speaking German. It is not without meaning that after the Red hero punches the White officer he is tied up and taken away.
‘The Unknown Soldier’ plays with the old political division and scars of the Civil War that, as Olli Vehviläinen (2002) writes ‘has taken much time to heal’ (p.6). Even though the film differentiates the working-class soldiers from the upper-class officers it shows through lieutenant Koskela, that there can be a way to have best of both sides. Koskela shows ‘a different style of command that appeals to the men and suits the Finnish backwoods warriors better.’ (p.62) as Timo Hirvonen (2002) describes. Koskela is a figure that represents the Reds but is of the same status as the Whites. His character embodies the countries need to unite in the face of a common threat. As in the beginning of the film the priest asks the soldier to pray ‘to bless our nation and make it unanimous’.
Country: Finland
Budget: £
Length: 181mins
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Hirvonen, Timo (Ed.) (2004). ’The Nation’s Unknown [Koko Kansan Tuntematon]’. Helsinki: Alfamer Kustannus Oy.
Mazour, Anatole Gregory (1956). ‘Finland between East and West’. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (1985). ‘Authority in Language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation’. London: Routledge.
Puntila, Lauri Adolf (1975). ‘The Political History of Finland 1806-1966’. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
Ray, Robert. ‘A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema’ (1985). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Vehviläinen, Olli (2002). ‘Finland in the Second World War: Between Germany and Russia’. New York: Palgrave.
Pub/2008
More like this:
The Hudsucker Proxy, 1994, directed by Joel Coen
Il Conformista (The Conformist), 1970, directed by Bernardo Bertolucci
Burnt by the Sun, 1994, directed by Nikita Mikhalkov