Spielberg's '1917'

[derekb]

I don’t know if this question has been asked and answered - near the beginning of 1917, there is a sergeant with two upturned hook like devices, one on either side of the rim of his Brodie helmet, what are they for?

regards,

D

[Hedley Malloch]

On 16/01/2020 at 12:06, Steven Broomfield said:

 

One of the comments made - repeatedly - in this thread seems to be along the lines that even a poor GW film 'might bring young people to the Great War'

 ... (snip) ...

 

I would hazard a guess that this is as likely to bring people to the GW as a T20 match is to inculcate a love of Test Cricket.

 

But then, I'm a cynic.

Yes, but on the other hand Mel Gibson and Peter Weir’s ‘Gallipoli’ did sell that part of the war to a young generation of Anzacs, as witnessed by the rise in visitor numbers to Gallipoli.

[Hedley Malloch]

I thought it was great. I left the cinema emotionally drained and with a tear in my eye. There were so many nice touches. The diversity of the British army was celebrated not just by ethnicity, but also in speech with regional accents. A dialogue coach appeared in the credits and he/she had done a job. The crowd scenes were well handled with an air of resigned stroppiness, a reminder that this was 1917, when many of them would have been conscripts who did not want to be there at all.

Particularly noteworthy was the scene of the centre of the burning town where the fountain was silhouetted against the inferno behind. A fountain, yes, but it looked like a crucifix, a symbol that something much more important than the Mairie was going up in flames.

‘1917’ Nerd Corner: Item #3689: The Crossing the Canal scene. Was this section of the Canal du Nord flooded? My understanding was that bits of it had been dug, but not flooded for use. 

[JeffMcN]

12 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said:

Yes, but on the other hand Mel Gibson and Peter Weir’s ‘Gallipoli’ did sell that part of the war to a young generation of Anzacs, as witnessed by the rise in visitor numbers to Gallipoli.

True, but it also fed and amplified particular tropes, reinforcing preferred stereotypes "all officers are idiots", "lions led by donkeys", whereas the reality is a bit more nuanced, don't you think? (in real life the commander responsible for the mess at the doomed attacked in 'Gallipoli' was no idiot, but he was fairly callous.) This was brought home to me in 1917 when at the start of the film an officer makes a fairly blunt comment and the man sitting next to me muttered "Officers" in a very damning tone.

[JeffMcN]

12 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said:

Yes, but on the other hand Mel Gibson and Peter Weir’s ‘Gallipoli’ did sell that part of the war to a young generation of Anzacs, as witnessed by the rise in visitor numbers to Gallipoli.

[not picking on Hedley Malloch - similar comments made before by others!]
The other thing is that Gallipoli also reinforced Australian, and to a lesser extent Dominion, exceptionalism. Again, the reality was much more nuanced than the stereotyping would have us believe.  The Dominion troops were overall very good once they got over their initial learning mistakes, but were still quite capable of pulling off disaster, and, using German reckoning, among quite a few British divisions who they rated as well as, and in some cases definitely better.

It is obviously a challenge for film-makers to get the balance between spring-boarding off existing public perceptions without succumbing to them. Peter Weir played to the Australians in the gallery. Mendes? He certainly plays to the stereotype of Germans as uniformly treacherous. But is our Schofield, Everyman?

[Hedley Malloch]

6 hours ago, JeffMcN said:

True, but it also fed and amplified particular tropes, reinforcing preferred stereotypes "all officers are idiots", "lions led by donkeys", whereas the reality is a bit more nuanced, don't you think? (in real life the commander responsible for the mess at the doomed attacked in 'Gallipoli' was no idiot, but he was fairly callous.) This was brought home to me in 1917 when at the start of the film an officer makes a fairly blunt comment and the man sitting next to me muttered "Officers" in a very damning tone.

 

The question was whether movies led to an increase in interest in WW1 today, not if they supported particular views of how the war was conducted then. 'Gallipoli' clearly ignited an interest in Australian and New Zealand's involvement as witnessed by the number of Antipodean-themed bars in the area, the sharp spike in Vegimite sales in Western Turkey, and listening to the accents of visitors to the cemeteries.

[Andrew Upton]

21 hours ago, derekb said:

I don’t know if this question has been asked and answered - near the beginning of 1917, there is a sergeant with two upturned hook like devices, one on either side of the rim of his Brodie helmet, what are they for?

 

Having not seen the film yet but having seen reference to the chain mail helmet visor referenced above, I would guess that's what you saw:

 

 

[MartH]

We saw it on Friday in a packed Franborough Vue, then had a curry in the local Gurkha Palace curry house. I was on best behavior, the technical aspect of the film was brilliant, but the story line was plausible,  and by 1917 I couldn't believe they would attack with artillery support. It might spawn some more GW films, imagine CGI Cambrai.

[derekb]

1 hour ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

Having not seen the film yet but having seen reference to the chain mail helmet visor referenced above, I would guess that's what you saw:

 

 

 

Thanks Andrew, that's the hooks, would a infantry man have worn a helmet with them on.

Regards,

Derek.

[Gunboat]

On 19/01/2020 at 14:57, Hedley Malloch said:

...also in speech with regional accents. A dialogue coach appeared in the credits and he/she had done a job.

With the exception of the two leads both of whom spoke

(to my ear at least)  with no discernible regional accent and indeed seemed to emphasise and elucidate words in what was to me an unnatural way. If the work of the  dialogue coach was to eradicate any trace of existing regional accents of two main characters then I agree s/he did a job

 

Edited 20 January , 2020 by Gunboat

[Bart150]

One of the two leads said 'barnet' (slang for hair, rhyming with Barnet Fair) in the story about the rat eating the ear. But I didn't notice much else of that sort.

This leads me to speculate: Did 'barnet' slip into the script or survive from any early draft by mistake?

It is not intelligible to an international audience, but if you are going to use it even so, then why not include a few more such items: plates of meat, would you Adam and Eve it? etc

[JeffMcN]

9 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said:

 

The question was whether movies led to an increase in interest in WW1 today, not if they supported particular views of how the war was conducted then. 'Gallipoli' clearly ignited an interest in Australian and New Zealand's involvement as witnessed by the number of Antipodean-themed bars in the area, the sharp spike in Vegimite sales in Western Turkey, and listening to the accents of visitors to the cemeteries.

I take your point. However, is an increased awareness/interest desirable if the audience comes away and holds onto a particular (biased for 'good' or 'bad') interpretation of the events as 'the facts' (visual images are very compelling) with no critical assessment of what it has just seen? That starts to get close to misinformation.

And while Antipodean visits to Gallipoli have certainly skyrocketed in recent years, how much that translates from the film is debatable: both Australia and NZ governments invested heavily in further memorialising Gallipoli as part of the WW100 commemoration packages, which NZ public awareness surveys at least indicate creating significantly more awareness than prior to 2014, particularly of Gallipoli.

 

In a nutshell - do we want quality or quantity if we can't have both?

[Marilyne]

8 hours ago, derekb said:

 

Thanks Andrew, that's the hooks, would a infantry man have worn a helmet with them on.

Regards,

Derek.

 I thought their appearance in the movie a bit strange too as I've always thought they were only used by tank crews ... 

 

M.

[Tomb1302]

Went to see it just yesterday and I enjoyed it very much. Frankly, I believe that if you go into a big budget Hollywood-esque movie hoping for the same standards of reality and accuracy as a Paths of Glory style movie then you'll always leave disappointed. I do agree with the notion that the characters could have been fleshed out and elaborated more upon, but, the overall visual effects and "one-shot" concept worked wonderfully well and had me gripped throughout. The movie also brings to light a number of important themes from WWI (admittedly in an exaggeratedly-entertaining way) and will surely generate interest towards the war in general in younger audiences in my opinion.

 

Just my two cents.

Edited 20 January , 2020 by Tomb1302

[Borden Battery]

The recent Great War movie entitled “1917”, especially the first twenty to twenty-five minutes, is exceptional – the viewer could likely watch the opening scene numerous times and not get bored. It had the same impact as the opening scene for “Saving Private Ryan”.

Great War history buffs should enjoy the movie, and especially, the detailed historical and technical detail of battlefield and the scattered and broken articles of war. The computer-generated imagery (CGI) is very detailed and fits seamlessly with the actual film product. It is difficult to determine where the actual film breaks with the CGI.

Unfortunately, when a director/executive director is personally and emotionally involved in their movie, one experiences sections in a film which tend towards the pedantic and/or melodramatic. Where “less is more” and a good axiom to follow; this film drifts off at times. The same situation came forward in both Paul Gross’ film “Passchendaele” and the more recent Elton John movie “Rocket Man”. In the former movie, the extended scene involving “Golgotha” is an unnecessary distraction. Similarly, Elton John’s movie was perhaps 15 minutes too long as he struggled to dot all the “I’s and cross the “T’s” in his biographical epitome.

Does the movie warrant the title of Best Picture, probably not?

However, from a technical, historical, set-decoration and cinematic perspective – it is a masterpiece. Military historians for the period will enjoy the film and the CGI work establishes a new and subtle high benchmark in its realism.  I suspect there will be minor errors in units and insignia - but this can be found if one dissects any film in minutia.

I would recommend the film – it is worth your time and money.  Not perfect; but a decent attempt

Borden Battery

[Gunner Bailey]

9 hours ago, Borden Battery said:

 It had the same impact as the opening scene for “Saving Private Ryan”.

 

 

IMHO only the Band of Brothers 'Day of Days' episode matches the opening scene of  'Saving Private Ryan'. 1917 was very good but not up to the standard of these two.

 

Personal choice of course.

[Gunner Bailey]

12 hours ago, Marilyne said:

 I thought their appearance in the movie a bit strange too as I've always thought they were only used by tank crews ... 

 

M.

 

That was my thought too but never underestimate the skill of the British soldier to scrounge something useful. Lots of wrecked tanks around a 1917 battlefield as well so lots of opportunity to 'find' one.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

I don't know anything about tanks or tanking, but the lovely green pastures of the no-man's land around the farm seemed to me to be ideal tank country. (Not the waterfall and rapids. Obviously...)

Were there any tanks in the film?

 

Oh. The farm reminded me.

Never give straight-from-the-cow milk to a baby under a year old.

Too much protein, too much sodium, not enough iron...)

[MikeyH]

15 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

I don't know anything about tanks or tanking, but the lovely green pastures of the no-man's land around the farm seemed to me to be ideal tank country. (Not the waterfall and rapids. Obviously...)

Were there any tanks in the film?

 

Oh. The farm reminded me.

Never give straight-from-the-cow milk to a baby under a year old.

Too much protein, too much sodium, not enough iron...)

 

Just one tank, abandoned in no mans land.  I Believe it was the replica from the Tank Museum.

Mike.

[Andrew Upton]

22 hours ago, derekb said:

 

Thanks Andrew, that's the hooks, would a infantry man have worn a helmet with them on.

 

13 hours ago, Marilyne said:

 I thought their appearance in the movie a bit strange too as I've always thought they were only used by tank crews … 

 

1 hour ago, Gunner Bailey said:

 

That was my thought too but never underestimate the skill of the British soldier to scrounge something useful. Lots of wrecked tanks around a 1917 battlefield as well so lots of opportunity to 'find' one.

 

 

My understanding was that the "Cruise visor" was supposed to be an infantry thing, not a tank thing - from the web:

 

https://monsmilitaryantiques.co.uk/product/ww1-british-brodie-cruise-visor-field-service-helmet/

 

"Capt. R.R. Cruise of the Royal Army Medical Corps was an ophthalmic surgeon that saw the need for just such protection, and as such under the auspices of the’ Eye Protection Committee’, produced the helmet prototype that was accepted by the committee and ordered for service use.
Two hundred and fifty thousand ‘modifications’ were ordered and first saw issue and service in September 1916.
The 1st Model* had a square chain mail guard the 2nd pattern more triangular in appearance.
Significantly less than the number of modifications ordered were actually fitted to helmets..."

 

As I recall there is also at least one well known photograph of an (officer?) wearing one in the front line, however their apparent rarity even then would seem to make it odd to see one. The dates fit fine though...

 

Edited 21 January , 2020 by Andrew Upton

[Black Maria]

1 hour ago, MikeyH said:

 

Just one tank, abandoned in no mans land.  I Believe it was the replica from the Tank Museum.

Mike.

Apparently ( according to my local paper ) it's a Mk 11 tank from the museum that was 'scanned for digital inclusion in the movie' , i think the replica one was a Mk 1V .

[14276265]

It is not a Cruise visor. The Cruise was a later solid visor with mesh eye covers, and a single trial contract for around 5000.

 

However, a demand for 250,000 of the chain mail curtain equipped helmet was raised in September 1916, first delivery October, and by April 1917 just over 8,000 had been supplied.

 

A nice detail to include in a film.

 

 

 

265

 

Edited 21 January , 2020 by 14276265

[Andrew Upton]

19 minutes ago, 14276265 said:

It is not a Cruise visor. The Cruise was a later solid visor with mesh eye covers, and a single trial contract for around 5000.

 

I would appreciate a reference for that please, baring in mind it contradicts everything I could find on the web, including a very detailed entry on the Imperial War Museum website, eg:

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30090924

 

"The "Cruise" Chain Vizor. For use with the British regulation Steel Helmet. Designed by Captain Richard C. Cruise, R.A.M.C. (T); Surgeon-Occulist Extraordinary to the King, and manufactured in large numbers 1916-1917, to limit the amount of preventable blindness and injuries to the eyes caused by small particles of metal, stone, rock, brick, wood or sand. Eye injuries were particularly frequent in the mountain fighting oh the Italo-Austrian Front. The vizor of closely woven links was worn taut, touching the tip of the nose, and was adjusted by attaching a chain to a movable loop on the helmet chin-strap. The vizor could also be adjusted in such a way as to leave the aiming eye free. 12371"

[14276265]

Cruise was involved with the design of the chain mail visor and full scale production included modifications suggested by him (below), but there seems to be no reference to "Cruise Visor" in trench warfare or munitions design documents concerning body and head protection. The only obvious reference seems to be the IWM collection description.

 

However, during WW2 (1940-41) the recent performance of the "Cruise vizor" was discussed, and reported in the British Medical Journal: https://www.bmj.com/content/2/4211/418.2

 

Examples of this latter piece of head protection can found by searching "Cruise visor" at WD Militaria: http://www.wdmilitaria.co.uk/shop.php

 

 

 

[Gallipoli Trench Rat]