Spielberg's '1917'

[Moonraker]

41 minutes ago, derekspiers said:

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.

Soldiers fighting in the Somme area during the Great War noticed similarities with Salisbury Plain. Both have rolling chalk downland and are part of the same geographical feature of the English Channel formation. Colonel Howard Green commented on the similarity in his account of the battle of the Somme, published with John Masefield’s The Old Front Line (Heinemann 1917): "The country north of the Somme is very like Wiltshire. The Somme and its northern tributary, the Ancre, cut deep valleys through the land, which runs in high irregular spurs down to the lower ground. Woods dot the hills and valleys, and on the spurs or sheltering in the re-entrants between them are a number of small villages."

(Part of the 1927 film The Somme was made on Salisbury Plain, with re-enactments of battles in the area and of Theodore William Henry Veale winning the Victoria Cross. See this earlier thread and link to full film.)

 

Moonraker

Edited 14 January , 2020 by Moonraker

[trajan]

Both areas even have similar archaeology!

[Nick Beale]

On 10/01/2020 at 13:48, Mark Hone said:

Inayat Khan featured in the second episode of the new series of 'Doctor Who'. She seemed to be in some bizarre alternative reality Paris in which street fighting was raging in 1943.

 

Every week a new "inspiriing role model" and/or moral homily … but the supposed devastation of Paris was nonsense on stilts, wasn't it? Paris wasn't progressively bombed into rubble (clue: that's why all these beautiful buildings are still there!). Factories and airfields on the (then) fringes were attacked on 3 June 1940 and there were some Allied raids on factories and rail yards in 1944. The last attack was a hopelessly botched one by Luftwaffe on 26/27 August 1944. Now if one the better Dr. Who seasons had made use of the Paris Gun and the Gothas …

Edited 14 January , 2020 by Nick Beale

[Bart150]

@ Jeremy Banning

Thanks. The more clearly these particular points about Alberich are defined, the better one can explain to friends who are not WW1 mavens the weakness of the plot of the film. (Perhaps you guessed that was what I was after.)

[Steven Broomfield]

59 minutes ago, J Banning said:

 And, as for Wikipedia, it's wrong! 

 

Jeremy

 

No!!!!!! 

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

3 hours 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

 

Hard, but fair review Jeremy.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[mark holden]

3 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

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.

The only exception to the pearly white teeth was the Pte from 3rd Worcesters with the cruise helmet seated at the back of the lorry. I think his pals even commented on the state of his teeth. 

[J Banning]

33 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Hard, but fair review Jeremy.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Thanks. I didn't want to be critical as was despairing at some of the pre-film chat saying how awful it would be despite it not having seen it yet but just couldn't match the almost universal acclaim it has been receiving. A film should rely on its story. That's what stays with you long after the thrill of the CGI fades. And yet this story made no sense to me. But is is sumptuously made and I'd still recommend people see it. It is a true cinema experience. Just could've been that bit more special if the script was more developed. Others may disagree. C'est la vie!

JB

[Bernard_Lewis]

Good review, JB!

 

Bernard

[14276265]

1 hour ago, J Banning said:

 I didn't want to be critical as was despairing at some of the pre-film chat saying how awful it would be despite it not having seen it...

 

Surely you don't mean like some of the earlier posts on this thread?

[Rob Comber]

11 minutes ago, Bernard_Lewis said:

Good review, JB!

 

Bernard

 

1 hour ago, J Banning said:

Thanks. I didn't want to be critical as was despairing at some of the pre-film chat saying how awful it would be despite it not having seen it yet but just couldn't match the almost universal acclaim it has been receiving. A film should rely on its story. That's what stays with you long after the thrill of the CGI fades. And yet this story made no sense to me. But is is sumptuously made and I'd still recommend people see it. It is a true cinema experience. Just could've been that bit more special if the script was more developed. Others may disagree. C'est la vie!

JB

A good review and probably perfectly fair 

( I haven’t been able to see it yet )

It was probably always doomed to not be a strictly accurate history lesson as most of these films tend not to be. As long as it’s entertaining and commemorates our participation in WW1 that will satisfy me 

It is after all, just a movie 

[Bart150]

@ Jeremy Banning

 

It is difficult to find reliable-seeming information on Operation Alberich. Almost every site I have got to through Google gives slightly different dates.

Eventually I’ve settled on The German Army on the Western Front 1917-1918 by David Bilton. Based on that – and doing my best to take account of the information in your post 533 - I’ve developed the following understanding:

 

Operation Alberich included both a, evacuating civilians, causing devastation etc and b, withdrawing forces according to a careful plan.

Looking only at b, the withdrawal of the German forces I have these dates:

22 February: Some German units abandon their front-line trenches and begin moving east – but they are only a small part of all those who are to move. They are moving earlier than planned.

14-16 March: The rest of the German units who are to move abandon their front-line trenches and begin moving east as planned.

19 March: All the German units who are to move have arrived at the Siegfriedstellung as planned. Thus apart from random stragglers, there are now no Germans units west of the Siegfriedstellung. Operation Alberich is accomplished.

Begin April: the British attack at some places on the Siegfriedstellung itself, eg Croisilles, Vendhuile. In some places they force the Germans who have just got there during Operation Alberich to withdraw further east. But that fighting and further withdrawal are not part of the planned voluntary withdrawal within Operation Alberich.

 

This is my current understanding. I’m keen to modify it if there is scope for improvement.

 

Bart

[squirrel]

5 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

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.

Unusual at that time for the "F" word to be used extensively. In Frank Richards' book "Old Soldiers Never Die", he mentions that it was rarely used by Regular Soldiers and he had served in China and Burma before WW1. He says that it was used more by the younger conscripts that came in 1917 and 1918. Would presumably well educated senior officers have used the word? I doubt it somehow.

[Alan24]

1 hour ago, Bart150 said:

19 March: All the German units who are to move have arrived at the Siegfriedstellung as planned.

 

There were several scenes in the film which really struck a chord with me and I couldn't help thinking about this entry dated 18 March from my GGF's personal diary. He was with 125 HB RGA and followed 14th Inf. Bde. (who I believe are the 'troops' he refers to) to the outskirts of St. Quentin via. the route;

Rouvroy/Mensil St.Nicase/Foreste/Germaine/Vaux/Savy/Holnon.

 

Regards

 

Alan.

[jay dubaya]

Watched it this evening.... War Horse was better

[HolymoleyRE]

8 hours ago, Alan24 said:

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?

Cheers Alan, I think the next post after mine cleared it up for me, I missed the scroll on the helmet making him East Surreys, which tied in with a shoulder title near the end....

 

Andy 

[Harrison_J]

This might be an extremely nitpicky question and you have my advanced apologies for asking such a question given I only have three posts in six years  But, the way they are carrying their SBR's throughout the film was jarring, worn on top of the small pack. I have seen some scant references in Ospreys to it being FSMO (Field Service Marching Order)1 and there is a pretty extensive post about FSMO on this board unrelated to the film. In scouring that post, I had a hard time discerning when SBR's were worn in such an inaccessible position. When was this practice appropriate? Surely so close to the front line with the ever present threat of gas it would likely be carried in the ready position, if not the alert. Even a quick scene where the two guys say "hey, so we don't choke to death on our way to do our impossible mission we should fix our ressies" would tidy it up. I only fixated on this because I ended up having a pretty long discussion with my former undergrad buddies about it and would like some clarity.

The only real photo of this practice I can think of is in Richard Holmes' "Shots from the Front" fig.160 (p.183)2 but those are soldiers leaving a troop ship, so obviously nowhere near the front lines or even rear areas. I would share these images, but I do not have a scanner and I am concerned about sharing copyrighted materials on the board. I have however, sourced them below.

Like I said, its super nitpicky. I enjoyed the movie and like anything it could have been better. I am also biased because I am now fully prejudiced against theatrically released movies, seeing as they tend to be Disney products designed to be theme park rides that do not have to make sense, so much as they are just "consumed" by the audience. Another small happy moment was the passing mention of the Newfoundlanders, it was pretty cool to hear them referenced given the enormity of the British Army and that they consisted of only one front line battalion during the wars duration. My location might also provide a hint for my enthusiasm for what was just a passing mention.

References.
1. Pelger, Martin (illustrated by Mike Chappell) British Tommy at War 1914-1918 Plate:D1 (1996, Osprey Publishing etc) - This plate describes a Seaforth as being in FSMO illustrated with the SBR worn atop the large pack.
Another reference is in Mike Chappells "Scottish Divisions in the World Wars" plate E1 Sgt. Black Watch 1918, but the plate description does not specify order of dress with the SBR worn over top of the back.
2. Holmes, Richard. Shots from the Front The British Soldier 1914-1918 (2008,  Harper Collins).

Edited 15 January , 2020 by Harrison_J

[moggs]

Just come home.  It's wet outside but the smoke from the fires very much east of us is still ever present and foreboding.  The film had much the same atmosphere for us.

 

My wife has supported my war work despite many misgivings about the content - she's not really into the gore and destruction but does appreciate the humanity.  And, this is where the movie really works.  It's about people in extraordinary circumstances (whether it really happened or not is irrelevant).  It is a story and like all tales has good and bad moments, others of belief and disbelief.  Yet, if the humanity comes through, and I think it does to a reasonable extent, then that's good enough to appreciate for what it is.

 

SPOILER ALERT      I think the cinematography was superb - the one shot effect was compelling amidst the confines of the trenches, fields and shattered buildings.  Ultimately, though, this was a story of solitude.  He was on his own with his mate despite's best intentions to be with him.  Even within the crowded trenches he was alone and, especially at the end, lying against the tree it brought the whole story round to the core issue - what would any of us had done given the same?       SPOILER ALERT

 

Jonathan

[KIRKY]

Seen it twice now and is supewrb, one question which bugs me, why didnt they drop a message to the front line from a plane as they were flying in the area? I know it was a story but just a thought.

Tony

[Heid the Ba]

2 minutes ago, KIRKY said:

Seen it twice now and is supewrb, one question which bugs me, why didnt they drop a message to the front line from a plane as they were flying in the area? I know it was a story but just a thought.

Tony

Because then the film would have been a single two minute scene.

[Steven Broomfield]

11 hours ago, jay dubaya said:

Watched it this evening.... War Horse was better

 

Oh come on ... it wasn't that bad!

 

Actually, I'm happy to admit to being less annoyed by it than I thought I would be. Never having seen a Spielberg film I liked, I assumed his involvement would be more hands-on. It wasn't, and I am happy to say that, yes, it is a good movie if all you want is a rather unbelievable war film.

[Gunboat]

1 hour ago, KIRKY said:

Seen it twice now and is supewrb, one question which bugs me, why didnt they drop a message to the front line from a plane as they were flying in the area? I know it was a story but just a thought.

Tony

This was my thought exactly -

and this question came to the fore more so because of the prominence of aircraft in the plot.

[MikeyH]

Went to see it yesterday, an early afternoon screening with around 90 present.  I did enjoy it, even my wife not a fan of 'war films' was very impressed, the cinematography was excellent.

The initial scenes in the trenches really good, also the desolation of no mans land was very effective.  The scene with the rubber soled boots was present, but focus 'pulled in' so they were out of shot.  Overall a very good film.

 

Mike.

[jonbem]

17 minutes ago, Gunboat said:

This was my thought exactly -

and this question came to the fore more so because of the prominence of aircraft in the plot.

I suppose to drop a message it would need high accuracy. If it fell in No Mans Land, in the muck and blather, who by and how would it be retrieved, without losing several men?

(Didn't they have supply drop issues in WW2 Operation Market Garden?)

 

[Rob Comber]

6 minutes ago, jonbem said:

I suppose to drop a message it would need high accuracy. If it fell in No Mans Land, in the muck and blather, who by and how would it be retrieved, without losing several men?

(Didn't they have supply drop issues in WW2 Operation Market Garden?)

 

Yes I’m sure they could’ve invented some reason why it wasn’t practical and perhaps mentioned other messengers being sent out to make the central plot device more believable