Spielberg's '1917'

[Gunboat]

They had to restart my film

part way through because it was meant to be subtitled and they had put a non subtitled version on at first. I had already noticed that the dialogue was strangely unnatural to me. The two main characters enunciate their words perfectly even in moments of great stress which comes across as stilted. There  is a lot of exposition. When the subtitles came on they just emphasised to me that the dialogue was very unnatural. I paraphrase somewhat 

“there is the gap in the wire over there - we must go through if we are to complete our mission” 

It had already been set up that they have to get through a gap in the wire - the actually scene in no man land was stunning you felt you were there following them and if we were just allowed to that and so if we just followed them without the need for exposition dialogue it would have been much more effective and compelling.

There was some cameos from quite big stars, in comparison to the two main leads, which is usually a signpost that the scene was meant to be important or laden with meaning - which it just didn’t deliver. One scene which I found particular unconvincing was made all the more unconvincing because it was being delivered by someone who is currently being lauded for recent performances and it just emphasised how implausible the scene was to me. To me that scene was the sort you would see in a Vietnam War film rather than that period. 

 

The one take effect filming was stunning the detail was stunning - had Sam Mendes stuck to it being a story that was told through its cinematography rather than it being punctuated with what was to me poor dialogue, aside from one totally unnecessary and unrealistic scene, I would be lauding it as a visual masterpiece.

 

I was also struck about how quiet it was outside if the immediate action - there appeared to be no rumbling artillery to be heard in the background which seemed a bit odd. It may be entirely accurate at that period at that time at that location but it was just striking how quiet it seemed. 

[PhilB]

I haven’t seen it yet. What often spoils such films or TV for me is that the actors just don’t act like soldiers. They’re like actors playing soldiers. As (possibly - edit!) none of these actors would be ex-military (except maybe an extra or two) did they manage it?

Edited 14 January , 2020 by PhilB

[Steven Broomfield]

I spent much of the film, incidentally, trying to recall where I'd seen the actor playing Private Schofield (George McKay) before. I have just checked my Extensive Library and I see he was in the movie version of Sunshine on Leith, which I very much enjoyed. It also indicates that at least one actor had previous military experience.

[stevem49]

My family purchased tickets and apparently I am going this afternoon.   They have made sure I will be sitting well away from them as they are used to the sighs, moans and comments from me when viewing anything WW1. 

 

[Rob Comber]

22 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said:

I spent much of the film, incidentally, trying to recall where I'd seen the actor playing Private Schofield (George McKay) before. I have just checked my Extensive Library and I see he was in the movie version of Sunshine on Leith, which I very much enjoyed. It also indicates that at least one actor had previous military experience.

He was also the main character in Private Peaceful, another WW1 film

[phil andrade]

Note that date : 6th April 1917.

 

US declaration of war.

 

The film has been well received in North America.

 

I wonder if Mendes wanted to make Americans aware that, while Congress was making its decision, the British were already years into the conflict.

 

Phil

[Myrtle]

10 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

Note that date : 6th April 1917.

 

US declaration of war.

 

The film has been well received in North America.

 

I wonder if Mendes wanted to make Americans aware that, while Congress was making its decision, the British were already years into the conflict.

 

Phil

Good point Phil

[DavidOwen]

Just a gentle reminder that many of us are yet to see the film in question so please no more spoilers!

[spof]

9 minutes ago, DavidOwen said:

Just a gentle reminder that many of us are yet to see the film in question so please no more spoilers!

 

Spoiler

If you really do need to include a spoiler, highlight the text and use the new "eye" icon on the toolbar for PCs to hide it so people won't automatically see it.

 

[Moonraker]

A friend of mine (with very little knowledge of the war) who went to school with the cinematographer Roger Deakins saw the film the other day. She made a point of sitting in the centre of the front row, which she reckoned helped her to become immersed in the film. She thought that when Benedict Cumberbatch and Colin Firth made their cameo appearances they dominated the scenes, but then they were playing senior officers. She didn't quite get the bags-rat scene.

 

She's a retired teacher and judged the film to be a good way of informing young people about the war. (And the video-game style would appeal to them.)

 

As I write this, David Owen has just added to the observations about spoilers, and I was going to conclude by suggesting that no-one seeks to explain the bags-rat scene. I don't think I've given anything anyway, as any film featuring trench warfare is bound to feature bags of one sort of another and rats.

 

I'm one of those who, tongue in cheek (!) perhaps, has mentioned the unrealistically-good teeth of the actors. I wonder about the language? The film is "Rated R for violence, some disturbing images, and language ", but I suspect that only a token amount of soldier-swearing is included. Repetitive cursing would be monotonous and offensive.

 

Moonraker

[Moonraker]

5 minutes ago, spof said:

 

  Hide contents

If you really do need to include a spoiler, highlight the text and use the new "eye" icon on the toolbar for PCs to hide it so people won't automatically see it.

 

Seems useful, but being my usual helpless self, I can't see such an icon  on the Forum toolbars, nor on my usual PC screen. (I suspect mine may be the first of a number of posts saying much the same thing, with members giving details of their operating systems and so on. If this does happen, it could detract from the thread and perhaps prompt a removal of the posts to "Using the Technology" or "GWF website" forums?)

 

In the meantime, I await the ever-patient Admin pointing out that the icon is there for all to see, even me.

 

Moonraker

[jonbem]

2 minutes ago, Moonraker said:

Seems useful, but being my usual helpless self, I can't see such an icon  on the Forum toolbars, nor on my usual PC screen. (I suspect mine may be the first of a number of posts saying much the same thing, with members giving details of their operating systems and so on. If this does happen, it could detract from the thread and perhaps prompt a removal of the posts to "Using the Technology" or "GWF website" forums?)

 

In the meantime, I await the ever-patient Admin pointing out that the icon is there for all to see, even me.

 

Moonraker

It appears when you start a new post/comment

 

and as for spoilers, there are bound to be some, so unfollow the thread if you don't like it. Otherwise the thread is a bit pointless if not commenting on its subject/topic.

[Moonraker]

Thanks for that. I see it now, but I'm sure that I looked very carefully at the toolbar before I lamented and didn't see it.

 

Moonraker

[Steven Broomfield]

2 hours ago, Rob Comber said:

He was also the main character in Private Peaceful, another WW1 film

 

Another Michael Morpurgo classic which passed me by

[Steven Broomfield]

2 hours ago, phil andrade said:

 

 

I wonder if Mendes wanted to make Americans aware that, while Congress was making its decision, the British were already years into the conflict.

 

Phil

 

Always assuming, of course, that any Americans watching know that the USA won participated in the Great War, or, if they do know that, have any idea when they entered the war or when the rest of the world got down to it. I suspect 6th April 1917 is slightly less-ingrained into the American psyche than 7th December 1941. 

 

Actually, I wonder how many Americans could tell you the date of Pearl Harbor.

[J Banning]

I was asked to write a review for BBC History Magazine online which they've just published. Best not read it if you're still to watch the film....

Here it is: https://www.historyextra.com/period/first-world-war/1917-film-historian-review-real-history-ww1-what-happened-how-plausible-accurate/

There was much more I could have written but had an 800-word limit (and still went 200 over that). I'd certainly recommend people go and see it though. 

Jeremy

 

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, Moonraker said:

 

 

I'm one of those who, tongue in cheek (!) perhaps, has mentioned the unrealistically-good teeth of the actors. I wonder about the language? The film is "Rated R for violence, some disturbing images, and language ", but I suspect that only a token amount of soldier-swearing is included. Repetitive cursing would be monotonous and offensive.

 

Moonraker

 

Interestingly (and I think someone else mantioned it) the use of bad language is very restricted, and seems almost exclusive to officers (including Colonel Bamberpatch) when addressing other ranks, something which srprised me.

 

The teeth are, of course, shiningly bright (I am surprised they weren't smeared with burnt cork when out at night). I was rather struck by the very good 2019=style short hair. None of your 'shave it all off except a little kiss curl at the front' nonsense.

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, Moonraker said:

Colin Firth

 

Moonraker

 

Really? Good Lord: just checked my Extensive Library again, and so he was! Well I never.

[Steven Broomfield]

6 minutes ago, J Banning said:

I was asked to write a review for BBC History Magazine online which they've just published. Best not read it if you're still to watch the film....

Here it is: https://www.historyextra.com/period/first-world-war/1917-film-historian-review-real-history-ww1-what-happened-how-plausible-accurate/

There was much more I could have written but had an 800-word limit (and still went 200 over that). I'd certainly recommend people go and see it though. 

Jeremy

 

 

Absolutely bang on.

 

But it will sell lots of popcorn, and that's what counts. As Muriel Spark put it (in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie) 'For the people who like that sort of thing, that's just the sort of thing they'll like'.

[Gunboat]

26 minutes ago, J Banning said:

I was asked to write a review for BBC History Magazine online which they've just published. Best not read it if you're still to watch the film....

Here it is: https://www.historyextra.com/period/first-world-war/1917-film-historian-review-real-history-ww1-what-happened-how-plausible-accurate/

There was much more I could have written but had an 800-word limit (and still went 200 over that). I'd certainly recommend people go and see it though. 

Jeremy

 

Spot on indeed

 

[Alan24]

On 12/01/2020 at 19:29, HolymoleyRE said:

.... Schofield referred to himself as 8th Battalion when he met up with the 2nd Devons, also Blake had a Devonshire badge on his helmet, so guess they were supposed to be 8th Devons... Which is odd as the closing shots of one of the main protagonist show him wearing what looks like an East Surreys shoulder title..... A few others bits throughout the film that the inner pedant in me noticed. 

 

IIRC he actually said "I'm from the 8th" no mention of whether this was a battalion or division number. However, the implication in reply that he must know 'somebody' [trying not to spoil] was that he meant Battalion rather than Division.

 

When he was with D Coy in the trees, it was said of him "he's not one of ours" which is odd if he was wearing Devons as a shoulder title.

 

Of course, 2/Devons were in the 8th Division in April 1917...so was he saying "I'm from the 8th Division"? i.e. from divisional HQ?

 

Alan.

 

 

 

 

[derekspiers]

One important merit of the film is that the film makers correctly built the trenches in a chalk landscape ( Salisbury Plain I understand?) Photos of the actual trenches South East of Arras in 1917 show the white chalk spoil

against the darker surface. The same is true for large parts of the Somme campaign area. It illustates that the Great War was not all thick dark mud.

[Black Maria]

Saw it today and i enjoyed it very much , the time seemed to go very quickly . 

[Bart150]

@ Jeremy Banning

 

I’ve read your review and I liked the film even more than you, while aware all the time of the daftness of the plot, which you point out so neatly.

Your text provokes me to raise a question about what actually happened in Operation Alberich (leaving aside the way film represented it)

You write:

• British progress through March and into April 1917 remained painfully slow as village by village, ridge by ridge, the Germans withdrew under the protection of rearguard units and long-range machine gun fire.
• When the Germans withdrew, they did so in a coordinated manner, evacuating villages and retreating to pre-determined temporary positions, often on ridges behind.

This raises my main question: Which of these alternatives is correct?

• The Germans retreated in stages through a number of temporary positions until they were back at their Siegfriedstellung. They had rearguard forces at each stage which frequently engaged pursuing British troops.
• OR The Germans retreated in stages through a number of temporary positions until they were back at their Siegfriedstellung. They had rearguard forces at each stage. This was a sensible precaution, but as it turned out there were hardly any British troops in close pursuit and so there was very little action.

No doubt this is is not an entirely binary choice, but perhaps it is possible to say that the reality was mainly one option or the other.

And now the followup question:

• In Wikipedia I find that the evacuation started on 20 March and ended on 26 March. Therefore, whatever the answer to the above question, the stages and temporary positions were only relevant to the period 20-26 March. After 26 March there were no Germans in the wasteland west of the Siegfriedstellung, random stragglers excepted. Is that a correct understanding?

If you find the above interesting enough for comment I’d be glad to hear.

.

Bart

[J Banning]

Hi Bart - I'll attempt to answer in haste. There was plenty of fighting during the German retreat so your former statement is correct. In fact I was researching an officer of the 2/5th DOW only yesterday who earned the MC for leading a patrol into trenches east of Puisieux, shooting one German and capturing another. There was some stiff fighting for many of the villages across the 'scorched earth' zone. And, as for Wikipedia, it's wrong! The withdrawal started in late February, around the 22nd from memory - but may be a bit wrong on that (my officer earned his MC on 27/28 Feb) and continued into April. Croisilles was mentioned in the film - it was finally taken by the British on 2 April. And further to the east, beyond Peronne, British units were still fighting to seize key high ground overlooking the HL such as The Knoll and Gillemont Farm between Lempire and Vendhuile three weeks into April. And goodness knows when the French (who had a large scorched earth zone to cross) reached the sector of HL opposite them.

cheers

Jeremy