The first installment in a two-part biopic, “De Gaulle: Résistance” (previously titled “De Gaulle: Tilting Iron”) is an inspiring film that demonstrates how the power of a single person’s resistance can rally a nation. However, its lack of originality raises an unfortunate question: Did this film really need to be made?

Set in 1940, the film traces the rise of the Free France movement, born out of France’s surrender to German occupation. While the French government accepted defeat without dissent, Brigadier General Charles De Gaulle (Simon Abkarian) refused. Fuelled by fierce national pride, he fought alongside Winston Churchill (Simon Russell Beale) to preserve France’s liberty.

“De Gaulle” runs a parallel story of Fernand (Florian Lesieur), a young Frenchman desperate to save his country but powerless to act. Throughout the film, he organizes several rallies simply by distributing pamphlets. Together, these two narratives make a clear argument: Resistance begins with one person, whether a general or an ordinary citizen.

The visuals are highly engaging, overlaying war footage onto shots of characters at a distance, suggesting that no one escapes the reach of conflict. Woven throughout are archival clips of news broadcasts relaying the German attacks, a device that grounds the film in history without resorting to the usual facts written in the closing credits. The old footage integrates seamlessly, lending the film a grainy, authentic wartime texture.

The sound design is equally strong. The film makes deliberate use of both noise and silence, and the score — a blend of synthesizers and strings familiar from other war films — maintains a persistent atmosphere of dread.

Structurally, “De Gaulle” cuts between several storylines, building tension and sustaining suspense. But this choice also works against itself, leaving it fragmented and difficult to follow. The pacing only compounds this problem. The opening stretches too long before De Gaulle’s plans take shape, and the film is similarly slow to find its ending after the final battle.

Where the film truly comes alive is in its action sequences — particularly during that final battle, where stakes are so firmly established that viewers are left on the edge of their seats. More action and less discussion would have served the film far better.

The bigger problem, however, lies in its lack of originality. De Gaulle’s biography offers a tremendous blueprint for a film: a classic underdog who faced several setbacks before ultimately prevailing and returning freedom to France. For that reason, several similar films have already been produced tracing De Gaulle’s stroy

Consequently, “De Gaulle” offers no new perspective on World War II, the French Resistance, or De Gaulle himself. In an already oversaturated genre, a war film benefits from finding an angle, a voice, or a story that has not been told before. In France especially, De Gaulle and the German occupation are familiar ground. As a result, the film feels less like a fresh piece of cinema and more like an object of national pride.

“De Gaulle” is, in many respects, a well-crafted film — visually accomplished, emotionally engaging, and free of any glaring technical weaknesses. But without contributing something new to say, it falls short of being truly memorable.

—Staff writer Anat Goldstein can be reached at [email protected].