The first version of the film "The Battle of De Gaulle" was shown on Wednesday among commentators. Some of them appreciated the epic work of director Antonin Baudry, who was able to bring together a mixture of contradictions that make de Gaulle's character "unforgettable," while others saw the work as incomplete because it omitted sensitive stages of his biography, and criticized what they described as the general's appearance as "a static, unchanging character." Between this and that, observers interested in French political affairs saw that de Gaulle's personality still inspires the country and its politicians, and they analyzed the reasons behind the claim of contradictory trends and personalities to belong to Gaullism.

Published on: 04/06/2026 - 17:30

On Wednesday, several French cinemas began showing the first version of the film "The Battle of De Gaulle", which was titled "The Iron Age", a long-awaited film about a French leader who is still present in the country's political and cultural scene.

The film narrates part of the biography of General Charles de Gaulle during World War II, after the occupation of France by Nazi Germany, and from there he headed to London and established the “Free France” government in exile, which later led the French Resistance in cooperation with the Allies.

This feature-length work, directed by Antonin Baudry, is an epic war and adventure film par excellence.

Similar to his previous film, “Call of the Wolf” in 2019, the director, who worked as a diplomat before turning to screenwriting and then entering the world of seventh art, plays once again on the string of suspense and rhythm to make “The Battle of De Gaulle” an exciting thriller film rich in twists and turns, according to what Robin Negre said in his article for the website pathe.fr, which specializes in cinema.

The role of General de Gaulle was played by actor Simon Abkarian, who to a large extent embodied the features of the general and gave one of his greatest performances through this film, adds Niger, who recalled the characteristics of the late French leader from that: his tall stature, charisma, and strength, but also his sensitivity and his humorous side. A combination of contradictions made de Gaulle an unforgettable figure.

“It's like a long journey, a lifetime's project.”

In addition to Abkarian, a number of actors participated in playing pivotal roles in the film, most notably: Benoit Magimel, Florian Lesieur, Simon Russell Beale, Nils Schneider, and Annamaria Vartolomei, characters who shed light on various events in the man’s history, especially the complexities of that fateful historical era in the history of France.

Regarding his film, the film’s director previously said in statements to the “Allo Cine” website during his presence at the Cannes Film Festival, where the first part of the work was shown outside the huge competition, that it is a transformative experience, “more like a long journey, a lifetime’s project.” The same source pointed out that the film's budget amounted to 74 million euros, which is one of the largest budgets in French cinema.

Perhaps the need for all this spending is due to the necessity of embodying the scenes of the World War and its epics, including costumes, decorations, and special effects, according to the same website, which indicated that the second version of the movie “The Battle of De Gaulle” was shown on July 1, under the title “Write Your Name,” which is the final part of the epic historical project, after the first version, “The Iron Age.”

The author of the article notes that director Antonin Boudry presents, through this film, an image different from the one that has remained firmly established in the minds of the famous general known as a domineering personality, by showing him in situations of weakness and even sarcasm. “He was the weakest every time he entered a room,” the director told the Allo Siné website, which specializes in cinema. He adds that de Gaulle "was alone. Even his communications with the outside world and his telegrams passed through the British Prime Minister's office. He was accepting and enduring a series of insults that are unimaginable today."

"Historians' anger and great disappointment"

As for Le Monde newspaper, which also commented on the film, it focused on de Gaulle's struggle as well as "his tense relationship with Winston Churchill, his isolation, his humiliation, his patience, his evasions, and the romantic development of the internal resistance in France," in addition to the success of the plan to mobilize the people of the colonies to liberate France, along with many people eager to join de Gaulle in that period. The newspaper considered this epic work to be very similar to "the latest adaptations of the works of Alexandre Dumas or Victor Hugo, which revived the feeling of national pride in the French consciousness."

On the other hand, the French newspaper Le Point highlighted what it described as “the anger of historians” the day after the film’s premiere, as it published an opinion article by the expert specializing in Gaullism, Arnaud Tessier, in which he considered that the film “The Battle of De Gaulle” depicts the general as a static and unchanging character. The writer cited the saying of the late French writer, academic, and diplomat Paul Morand: “We tend to belittle the greats and humanize them until we rise to their level.”

Tessier said that this film comes in the context of this trend raised by Morand. The author of the article criticized how what seemed to be a “promising film” with a “huge budget and distinguished cast” ended in “a great disappointment,” as he described it.

Arnaud Tessier also criticized the film's failure to focus on the biography of General de Gaulle before the outbreak of World War II, noting that the man "was far from being an isolated or unknown person." He added that Baudry's film did not shed light on de Gaulle's life in "the first half of June 1940, even though it was a very crucial period," as de Gaulle was then "a member of the Renaud government who opposed the signing of the armistice [with Germany - editor's note], and even more so the man whose positions allowed him to meet Churchill [Winston Churchill, then British Prime Minister]."

Why is de Gaulle still so admired?

In any case, General de Gaulle's personality remains an inspiration to many French people, their politicians and their intellectuals, 56 years after his passing. In this context, France Info asks: Why does General de Gaulle's personality still arouse so much admiration? Jean Garrigues, a French historian and academic specializing in political history and author of a book about de Gaulle, answers that it is very important to “keep the memory of General de Gaulle alive” because he is “the last hero of our contemporary history.”

Garrigue added that the image of de Gaulle remains in the memory of the French as embodying the character of the man who saved France twice: “The savior of June 18, 1940. Some believe that he was the savior again in May 1958. He saved us from the Fourth Republic, which was floundering in the Algerian War.” Adding, "He is, after all, the founding father of the Fifth Republic. Above all, he is a symbol of something we have lost."

Read also: General de Gaulle and Algeria... from the ambiguity of “I understand you” to the principle of realism and support for the right to self-determination

Commenting on the issue, Hisham Abu Shahla, a political science researcher and specialist in French affairs, told France 24, “The Fifth Republic represents a model case for stabilizing political institutions over the long term, in the context of continuous transformations in the party map. Since its establishment in 1958 under the leadership of General Charles de Gaulle, this regime has established a strong executive authority, and its long continuation has contributed to consolidating its rules of operation in the awareness of political actors.”

Shahla also said that Gaullism is not “a closed ideology in the classical sense, but rather a political reference made up of a set of general principles: national sovereignty, state centrality, the power of executive authority, and strategic independence, which are principles that are subject to different interpretations according to political contexts.”

Le Pen, Darmanin, De Villepin... who is closest to de Gaulle?

It seems that these interpretations that Shahla spoke about are what allow many politicians and figures in France to openly declare their affiliation with the Gaullist movement, even though their political movements are radically contradictory. The most prominent figures who claim to belong to the Gaullist movement and to draw from his political legacy can be monitored through an article by the Le Parisien website, which highlighted many political figures competing for the legacy of the late general since his death in 1970. The author of the article asked: Who is closest to General de Gaulle? Marine Le Pen, who is a self-proclaimed “Gaullist,” or Gerald Darmanin, who claims to be committed to “social Gaullism,” or Dominique de Villepin, who markets himself as one of “the last Gaullists.”

The Le Parisien article also quoted Gaullist historian Pierre Manenti as saying that answering this question is difficult, as “Gaulliism does not have only one definition, not even founding texts, not to mention that de Gaulle “did not want to define it during his lifetime,” adding: “There is not one Gaullism, but rather multiple Gaullisms.” This ambiguity is what allows many to claim belonging to it, according to the same source.

Read also: France commemorates Victory over Nazism Day, and Macron lays a wreath in front of the statue of Charles de Gaulle

Hisham Abu Shahla explains the fact that ideologically disparate political actors in France, such as Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour, and even Jean-Luc Mélenchon, do not hesitate to “invoke the Gaullist reference,” but each according to his own whim and logic that justifies it from a “different institutional perspective.”

For example, "Macron's centrist movement focuses on the functional dimension of Gaullism, including the executive authority as a regulating arbiter within the architecture of the Fifth Republic. In contrast, the right and the extreme right focus on the sovereign dimension of Gaullism, which is linked to controlling borders, the priority of national interests, and restoring the strategic decision of the state. As for some left-wing parties, they bring it as a framework for the idea of ​​the strategic state, and as a position independent of subordination in international politics."

Hisham Abu Shahla, a researcher specializing in French political affairs, concludes by saying that the Republican right and the socialist left in France have lost “the ability to monopolize the political legacy of Gaullism. Consequently, de Gaulle has become more present as a general political symbol, rather than a specific party project.”

Keywords related to the article

The content you want to browse is no longer in service or is currently unavailable.