Steven Broomfield Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 One problem with filming Manning's book: Matt Damon would have to play the central character, Bourne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 I went to see it last night. What did I think of it? I don't know. After the first 15 minutes I managed to sleep through the noise. Could I be bothered reading about it beforehand? No Have I read this thread? No, just jumped in at the end and posted. Did I waste two hours of my life that I will never get back? Probably. Next thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 I am going to see it next week probably. A command attendance rather than a performance. Meanwhile, films I'd like to see. Old Soldiers never die followed by the prequel, Soldier Sahib. Manning would be good and how about George Coppard and his machine gun? Haig's Despatches might be a bit on the dry side but I'd give it a whirl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 .. and how about George Coppard and his machine gun? ... Only if Mr T is in it, too - "I ain't gettin' in no tank, fool!" I'll get my coat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 You wont need to see it - this link has a balanced, considered and informative account of the film. http://lisahanawalt.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Shropshires Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 ne of the reviews I posted on Friday (either The Grauniad or the Grey 'un) suggested a film of The Middle Parts of Fortune would be a worthwhile project, and I have to agree. Little action in the span of the book, but a better "war story" has probably never been written. I am up for making this film, I think the forum should get together and make it. Now how many experts do we need, we would look very foolish if we got the incorrect bottons on some chaps uniform. Right we'll need at least three experts on uniforms, one for British, one for German and one for the French but then again thinking on it we'll need more than that because we'll experts in badges after all we do not want the 7th K.S.L.I. ending in 11th Division do we. Now we'll need god knows how meny weapon experts, then there's medicial experts and experts on trench structure and well so on and so on. I think about a 1000 experts would do it, we would not want some film forum slagging our film off because we have the wrong sort of rat eating a corps, and talking about corps we'll need someone who's about decaying bodies because everything as to look real. Joking apart Steve The Middle Parts of Fortune would be great film. Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithfazzani Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 It would have to be a very large rat to eat a corps, a corpse however, that would be another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 You wont need to see it - this link has a balanced, considered and informative account of the film. http://lisahanawalt.com/ Oh dear - I just got some very old-fashioned looks while laughing at this (maybe I should have saved it till I got home) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 You wont need to see it - this link has a balanced, considered and informative account of the film. http://lisahanawalt.com/ Great review. I will buy extra tickets to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geraint Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Great review - she forgot the crazy French jam manufacturer grandpapa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhifle Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Hi, Saw the movie last night and thought the best Acting/Scene's were during the first Cavalry charge with Benedict Cumberbatch as Major Jamie Stewart, Irfan Hussein as Sergeant Major Singh and Thomas Arnold as the 'Shouting German Officer' when Major Stewart was captured. Regards Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithfazzani Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Great review - she forgot the crazy French jam manufacturer grandpapa! But she is the first I have seen to raise the matter of anthropomorphism which is an essential requirement of such yarns, and is of course nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 But she is the first I have seen to raise the matter of anthropomorphism which is an essential requirement of such yarns, and is of course nonsense. Cosmo Landesman raised that issue in the 'Sunday Times' yesterday, Keith: "[......] it's a great, unmissable epic of a film - but only if you're an animal-lover or a horse person. It assumes that you will be automatically captivated by this beast, but, while he's strong, fast and faithful, Joey is no ET, no Cheeta or Rin Tin Tin. Hell, Flipper has more personality. For the movie to work its magic, you have to love Joey like everyone on screen loves him. The film has little to say about war or horses, though it inadvertantly says something about how we humans have lost faith in ourselves. Film-makers have long given up on the idea that there's something noble about war that brings out the heroic in mankind. Braveery, self-sacrifice, duty are suspect words, associated with the glorification of war. So, instead of the heroic soldier, we get....the heroic horse. Joey, embodies the values and spirit of the ordinary Joe: a simple, innocent creature who doesn't want to kill, who just wants to go home and have a quiet life with those he loves. But if Joey is symbollically Everyman, does that make Everyman a horse? To complain that War Horse is too anthropomorphic might seem absurd, a bit like complaining that Bugs Bunny can talk. But this isn't a cartopon, or, like the stage version of Michael Morpurgo's book, an allegory. For all its cinematic stylisation, it's rooted in realism and has to obey its rules. Yet Spielberg's Joey is so incredibly human, it's amazing he doesn't pen a series of antiwar poems and become the Siegfried Sassoon of the equestrian set. There's something suspect in this celebration of the nobility and courage of Joey. Here is one of the greatest episodes of futile [sic] human slaughter in the history of warfare, and this film says: never mind the bloody people, pity the poor horsey! It seems war is hell, but only if you're a horse. For all its claims to be a noble and uplifting film, War Horse contains a depressing and deeply cynical strand: it suggests that we can best discover our humanity from a horse, not from the brave sacrifices of our fellow human beings. Never mind. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we shall remember them - and not only the horses." And Landesman's fellow 'Sunday Times' columnist, Benji Wilson, also touches upon the anthropomorphic element in his feature on the film: "A warning: there is a scene in Steven Spielberg's War Horse that is so close to parody, you will struggle to stop yourself eating your hat. Joey, a horse, sees his equine pal Topthorn being forced by the nasty Germans to pull a big gun up a hill. Joey knows Topthorn is lame; his long face wells with compassion. He offers himself, using only internationally recognised horse gestures, as Topthorn's replacement. The Kaiser's boys relent. Horse saves horse. Needless to say, four seconds after resisting the hat-eating urge, I was blubbing profusely. This tells you that Spielberg remains unparalleled as a tugger of heart strings. But it should also remind you that War Horse, a story set in the first world war, with guns, trenches and man's limitless cruelty to man, is first and foremost a fairy tale. Yet that is not how the film is being sold. Spielberg has said that he hopes the film will help educate Americans about the war: "The first world war isn't a subject that is often spoken about through story, television or motion picture in our country." That final point is noteworthy in the context of the discussion on this thread about how history is taught by some these days. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimSmithson Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 George You have finally (for this thread I mean, not you personally) hit the nail on its proverbial head with the notion of how the film is portrayed. If it had been thrown at us as a fantasy with a Great War background, as say, Harry Potter is fantasy set in some UK type background then fine; entertain those who want such matter and don't worry about anything else. The moment the background is mentioned as anything else than simply that, a canvas and no more, then it has to be quality and factual. With his comments Spielberg opened himself to all of the mud slung at him in the comments above. Thanks for posting those George, it settled my mind on the topic. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithfazzani Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 I do not read the Sunday Times if I had I would certainly have agreed with much of what both say. I have never had any objection to Warhorse as a Fairy Tale any more than I have any objection to Black Adder Goes Forth as comedy, albeit black comedy. It is when people take either seriously and treat them as historical and think they will inspire the young to further explore the Great War further. As someone who has been surrounded by horses for over thirty years I also find their use in this way as demeaning to them, they are fine creatures, but they are horses not humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJanman Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Cosmo Landesman raised that issue in the 'Sunday Times' yesterday, Keith: ... But this isn't a cartopon, or, like the stage version of Michael Morpurgo's book, an allegory. For all its cinematic stylisation, it's rooted in realism and has to obey its rules. Yet Spielberg's Joey is so incredibly human, it's amazing he doesn't pen a series of antiwar poems and become the Siegfried Sassoon of the equestrian set. There's something suspect in this celebration of the nobility and courage of Joey. Here is one of the greatest episodes of futile [sic] human slaughter in the history of warfare, and this film says: never mind the bloody people, pity the poor horsey! It seems war is hell, but only if you're a horse. For all its claims to be a noble and uplifting film, War Horse contains a depressing and deeply cynical strand: it suggests that we can best discover our humanity from a horse, not from the brave sacrifices of our fellow human beings. Well when I read the above I thought it’s a pity the writer didn’t read the reviews from the film ‘Courage of Lassie’ here to gain a better understanding of it all before writing the above codswollop Courage of Lassie - a story about a dog set in WW2 War Horse - a story about a horse set in WW1 Nothing but ridiculous media hype as far as I’m concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nthornton1979 Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Looks like this film has captured peoples hearts! and/or imagination. A WW1 horses hoof, £100 and climbing - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/290656605222?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1426.l2649 Fairplay to the seller. He's listed it at the ideal time. Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Fairplay to the seller. He's listed it at the ideal time. Neil Which would surely immediately raise suspicion of the authenticity of the item? Or am I just being cynical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exuser1 Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Kent Sales back in the 1970s ,chargers Waterloo ,Light Brigade ,more than you could shake a stick at ,great little earner ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 GAC "Spielberg has said that he hopes the film will help educate Americans about the war: "The first world war isn't a subject that is often spoken about through story, television or motion picture in our country." If you have ever seen the original film of the Charge of the Light brigade with Errol Flynn then you know what American film makers will make of any war subject. Nothing new in Warhorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Armstrong Custer Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Clearly what's different with Spielberg, War Horse and the Great War, Squirrel, is that Michael Curtiz, the director of the 1936 'Charge of the Light Brigade,' never claimed it would educate anyone about the Crimean War. And neither were there history teachers in 1936 gormless enough to think it would. BJay - you've entirely lost me, chum. I think you forgot to put the instructions in with your post, as I've no idea what your point is beyond the fact that you're equating War Horse with 'Courage of Lassie'. Are you saying that 'Courage of Lassie' is a classic war movie which War Horse has managed to equal? Or are you saying that 'Courage of Lassie' is anthropomorphic fantasy, as is War Horse? If the latter, then you're agreeing with the article you're dismissing as 'ridiculous media hype'. If the former, then oh dear...... George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJanman Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 BJay - you've entirely lost me, chum. I think you forgot to put the instructions in with your post, as I've no idea what your point is ... George Sorry about that I’m saying the latter George, that “Courage of Lassie’ is anthropomorphic fantasy, as is War Horse. The writer is saying that although War Horse is fantasy the film has a depressing and deeply cynical strand, and also there is something suspect about celebrating Joey’s nobility and courage. He justifies this by highlighting that the war was real, yet the people watching are being led to appreciate and feel sorry for the horse rather than acknowledge the brave sacrifices of our fellow human beings or feel sorry for the bloody people in a war that saw so much human slaughter. I find this strange because I don't see the film as being about the Great War, I see it as being a film about a horse, whose story happens to be set in the Great War. Brave sacrifices and human slaughter also occurred in World War Two but the reviews I provided a link to described 'Courage of Lassie' as a heartfelt story, an entertaining family film, and a popular film for all ages. Most people I know who have seen 'War Horse' have described it this way. I, therefore, dismiss the article as ridiculous media hype because I feel the writer is trying to divert attention away from the film being a heartfelt story, an entertaining family film, and a popular film for all ages to something depressing, deeply cynical and suspect. I really don’t care if you agree or disagree with me, but I do hope it all makes sense now because I don’t think I can explain myself any better than that, especially this late at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantowi Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 I find this strange because I don't see the film as being about the Great War, I see it as being a film about a horse, whose story happens to be set in the Great War. That's exactly what it is, A film about a horse Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom W. Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 "A warning: there is a scene in Steven Spielberg's War Horse that is so close to parody, you will struggle to stop yourself eating your hat. Joey, a horse, sees his equine pal Topthorn being forced by the nasty Germans to pull a big gun up a hill. Joey knows Topthorn is lame; his long face wells with compassion. He offers himself, using only internationally recognised horse gestures, as Topthorn's replacement. The Kaiser's boys relent. Horse saves horse. Needless to say, four seconds after resisting the hat-eating urge, I was blubbing profusely. This tells you that Spielberg remains unparalleled as a tugger of heart strings. But it should also remind you that War Horse, a story set in the first world war, with guns, trenches and man's limitless cruelty to man, is first and foremost a fairy tale. Yet that is not how the film is being sold. Spielberg has said that he hopes the film will help educate Americans about the war: "The first world war isn't a subject that is often spoken about through story, television or motion picture in our country." This has given me another good reason to never see War Horse. In Saving Private Ryan, there's a scene at the beginning in which two Americans mercilessly mow down two unarmed Germans trying to surrender. One Americans asks, "What were they saying?" The other laughs and says, "We washed for supper!" and then begins looting the bodies. Later in the movie, the clerk drafted by Tom Hanks because he speaks French and German persuades Hanks to let a German prisoner go rather than kill him, even though the rest of the squad say that the German will just rejoin his unit and fight them again. When this clerk later encounters the same German soldier in the final battle scene, and the German surrenders, the clerk shoots him dead and lets his comrades go. Why? He knew full well the German would continue fighting, yet he murders him as though the German had committed an atrocity. And then he lets the others go, knowing that those men will rejoin their units and keep fighting like the guy he just killed! So, in one movie, Spielberg gives us a totally muddled, contradictory, inconsistent lecture about morality, and in the other he tells us that horses can teach us to be better humans. Forget it. I agree with the reviewers who say Spielberg is deeply cynical and misanthropic. He's also totally confused about whatever didactic message he's trying to pound into our heads. (After I wrote that, I remembered two more scenes in Saving Private Ryan: In one, a wall falls down between a German squad and an American squad, and they just yell at each other, not firing, until two different Americans open fire and kill all the Germans. Then, after the epic upstairs battle between the Jewish American soldier and an SS goon, in which the SS goon slowly stabs the Jewish guy to death, hushing him tenderly as he dies, the clerk who later shoots the German prisoner is cowering on the stairs, and the SS goon who moments earlier had killed the Jewish soldier in a terrible, inhuman way simply walks past the clerk, sparing his life for no reason. All the way through the movie, the Germans behaved better than the Americans. Sounds like in War Horse, the Germans behave better than the British. Am I right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Underdown Posted 17 January , 2012 Share Posted 17 January , 2012 Not really, in Warhorse the Germans are shown executing deserters out of hand, and looting a French farm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now