Revisiting the War Film 'The Wild Geese': The Function of Mercenaries and the Structure of Betrayal

Introduction

The rebellion of the Wagner Group that suddenly occurred in Russia in June 2023 was an incident that exposed the essence of the modern "mercenary" in an all-too-blatant form.

Although the Wagner Group was a "contracted force" positioned outside the state, it functioned as a de facto frontline force in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. However, that relationship was based on a contract, not loyalty, and it was inevitable that the direction of their gun barrels would change if the contract fell apart.

The word "betrayed" uttered by Yevgeny Prigozhin is not surprising. Rather, it is the very definition of the existence of a mercenary.The state treats them as a "resource to be used only when necessary," and the mercenary treats the state as a "client that brings profit." Ethics do not intervene in that relationship.

This structure is exactly the same as the world depicted in the 1980s Cold War-era war film 'The Wild Geese'.
The mission succeeds. But the moment it succeeds, they are discarded.
The value of those who risked their lives on the battlefield converges to zero in the face of political and capital convenience.

That bizarre spectacle of the rebel convoy marching toward Moscow was by no means an "exceptional deviation."
It was the moment when the logic inherent in the mercenary system was finally visualized.

The Wild Geese is a highly accomplished war film that depicts the existence of the "mercenary" not as an ethical issue, but as a "professional skill."

If the often-compared 'The Dogs of War' is a work that exposes the cold structure of politics and capital, this film thoroughly sides with the "humans" consumed within that structure.

First, the directorial design of Andrew V. McLaglen should be evaluated. By carefully building up the processes of salary negotiation, selection, and training before the operation, the "50 mercenaries" rise not as mere consumables, but as an "organization" carrying their own ethics and pasts. Because of this, the betrayal and annihilation in the second half function not just as action, but as a "drama of organizational collapse."

Faulkner, played by lead actor Richard Burton, embodies the contradiction of being extremely rational as a commander while being unable to abandon the handling of emotions.
The decision to shoot a wounded soldier is not heartless, but the very responsibility of a leader who continues to choose the "optimal solution on the battlefield." On this point alone, this film is sufficient to speak of the "realism of war."

In contrast, Rafer, played by Richard Harris, is designed as a character who brings personal emotions onto the battlefield.
The relationship with his son Emile symbolizes the paradox that "the more a person can adapt to the battlefield, the less they can adapt to daily life." And his final cry of "Kill me" is not mere pathos, but the "conclusion of one who has completely internalized the logic of the battlefield."

Furthermore, Peter, played by Hardy Krüger, is worth noting.
His contradictory existence as a racist who nonetheless entrusts the future to a black leader forms the ideological core of this film. Here, rather than simple humanism, a "portrait of a white man wavering between historical harm and realistic coexistence" is depicted coldly.

On the other hand, Roger Moore's Shawn is, so to speak, the "completed form of a professional."
He does not delve deeply into politics or ethics, and is faithful to his contract and skills. Through this character placement, the film breaks down the simple schema of "mercenary = barbarian" and instead presents it as a modern professionalism.

The narrative structure is also extremely clear.
First half: Organizational formation (contract/training)
Middle: Mission success (the height of rationality)
Second half: Collapse due to betrayal (external factors)

What is important here is that the cause of the collapse lies not in "internal immaturity" but in "betrayal by the capital side." In other words, this film accuses not the "ethics of the battlefield" but the "ethical breakdown of the war business." It is a two-layered structure where mercenaries are ruthless, but the clients above them are even more ruthless.

Also, because the real-life mercenary Mike Hoare was involved as a technical advisor, there is an uncanny persuasiveness to the weapon handling and unit actions. The "lack of waste" seen in the handling of crossbows and Uzis is based not on mere direction, but on tactical realism.

In general, the essence of this film can be summarized in three points.

・Depicting mercenaries as "function, not ethics"
・Depicting battlefield friendship as "structural necessity, not sentimentality"
・Placing the responsibility for war on the "capital side, not the field"

In conclusion, The Wild Geese is not just a macho war film.
It is a work that visualized the "structure of human resource consumption in the war industry" in an extremely emotional and practical way.
That is precisely why the final "shout calling a name" is effective.
That is not proof of friendship. It is a scream at the "moment when an irreplaceable individual is consumed as an exchangeable resource."

Postscript

The Wagner Group's rebellion ended in a short period and was suppressed on the surface. However, what resonated in that process was not a song of victory, but the "creaking of the system" when the limits of control were exposed.

An armed group bound by a contract turns into an enemy the moment the contract breaks.
This is not a deviation, but a specification.

What Vladimir Putin ultimately chose were the classical methods of appeasement, division, and the elimination of the leader.
As a result, the organization headed toward dismantling and reorganization, and the rebellion was handled in a way close to "it never happened." However, that is not a solution to the problem. It was merely temporarily suppressing the "signs of being out of control."

Looking back at The Wild Geese here, its ending is extremely suggestive.
The betrayed mercenaries still fight to the end as "comrades."
Reality is different. Real mercenaries react to betrayal "as an organization."

What the film depicted was the last bit of humanity left in mercenaries.
What the reality of Russia showed is the figure after even that humanity has been exhausted within the system.

War does not move by ideals. It moves by contracts, interests, control, and betrayal.
As long as one looks directly at that structure, the "voice calling a name" flowing in that movie is no longer a beautiful story.
It is merely an "identification signal" emitted by the person being consumed to prove their existence at the very end.