Spielberg's '1917'

[Andrew Upton]

6 hours ago, 14276265 said:

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

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I do not understand your logic in this case. The name applied to the WW1 version is clearly of the nick-name variety as is often applied to such items of kit, in the same way the British steel helmet is commonly but unofficially referred to as a Brodie after it's designer. Thus it's not appearing in official documentation of the period does not demonstrate that the WW1 version is not a Cruise Visor. And the fact the WW2 version (essentially a simplified version of the same idea) does appear to have been referred more or less officially by the same designation merely reinforces the idea that they were already well known as such by the start of WW2 and that their older nick-name had stuck. For your argument to work you would need to show the name Cruise as used during WW2 was applied to them for a completely different reason than after Captain Cruise...

[14276265]

2 hours ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

Sorry, I do not understand your logic in this case. The name applied to the WW1 version is clearly of the nick-name variety as is often applied to such items of kit, in the same way the British steel helmet is commonly but unofficially referred to as a Brodie after it's designer. Thus it's not appearing in official documentation of the period does not demonstrate that the WW1 version is not a Cruise Visor. And the fact the WW2 version (essentially a simplified version of the same idea) does appear to have been referred more or less officially by the same designation merely reinforces the idea that they were already well known as such by the start of WW2 and that their older nick-name had stuck. For your argument to work you would need to show the name Cruise as used during WW2 was applied to them for a completely different reason than after Captain Cruise...

 

My point, poorly made, was that Captain Cruise certainly contributed in the development of a chain mail eye protector curtain, but was it his sole design? I do not know of any evidence for that, although I should be pleased to see just one primary source reference that states it was... In over 30 entries in primary source trench warfare and munitions design documents (searchable pdfs of minutes, memos, reports and requirements, that I have searched), every one refers to steel or chain mail eye protector curtain; two mention Cruise by name but only for suggesting a modification. 

(Brodie's name - through his 1916 patent, and document references to Brodie pattern - is more than simply some unofficial tag or nick-name. The Official History of the Ministry of Munitions, begun in 1917 and published just after the war, cites "the Brodie helmet".)

The only obvious reference of the simple chain mail curtain as a Cruise visor seems to be in IWM catalogue descriptions. Some might be happy to take those at face value, and some might not.

 

[Andrew Upton]

1 hour ago, 14276265 said:

...(Brodie's name - through his 1916 patent, and document references to Brodie pattern - is more than simply some unofficial tag or nick-name. The Official History of the Ministry of Munitions, begun in 1917 and published just after the war, cites "the Brodie helmet".)

 

The only obvious reference of the simple chain mail curtain as a Cruise visor seems to be in IWM catalogue descriptions. Some might be happy to take those at face value, and some might not...

 

The former point simply adds weight to my argument - Brodie was most closely linked to initial developments in the liner. Numerous other individuals made small changes to the composition of the metal to improve its ballistic qualities, modifications that improved manufacture and made it more user friendly in terms of safety and camouflage. Yet they are not the ones whose name became attached to it...

 

On the latter - the IWM London is a nationally important award-winning museum with a collection dating back to the war itself which includes originals of the item from the period and with provenances which appear to go back to the same. Though they do make mistakes sometimes I am indeed happy to give them some credit in this particular matter

[14276265]

22 minutes ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

The former point simply adds weight to my argument - Brodie was most closely linked to initial developments in the liner. Numerous other individuals made small changes to the composition of the metal to improve its ballistic qualities, modifications that improved manufacture and made it more user friendly in terms of safety and camouflage. Yet they are not the ones whose name became attached to it...

 

On the latter - the IWM London is a nationally important award-winning museum with a collection dating back to the war itself which includes originals of the item from the period and with provenances which appear to go back to the same. Though they do make mistakes sometimes I am indeed happy to give them some credit in this particular matter

 

Okay, in the absence of any actual hard evidence (simply a single primary reference) presented as to Captain Cruise's part, I am sure you are right.

[Andrew Upton]

13 minutes ago, 14276265 said:

 

Okay, in the absence of any actual hard evidence (simply a single primary reference) presented as to Captain Cruise's part, I am sure you are right.

 

I am not going to bite at the tone. I am happy with the IWM's largely proven ability to correctly provenance items that have been in their collection for many years if you are not

[Norrette]

On 17/01/2020 at 14:01, Old Forge said:

I thought it was great, and I went thoroughly expecting to be affronted. FWIW, I'd say it isn't a film about the Great War, it's a hero's journey (h/t Joseph Campbell) with the Great War as a backdrop. When the opening line came up referencing the German retreat and giving the date as 6th April, I thought 'here we go, historically illiterate...' In the end, it doesn't matter - 6th April 1917 was Good Friday, which is no accident - the story features death/rebirth and the theme of 'greater love hath no man...' The river is a pointed way of saying 'don't take this landscape literally' - even my missus commented on the canal-to-ravine-with-plunging-waterfall transition in a few hundred yards. The song that brings Schofield back to his senses on dry land is 'The Wandering Stranger' - again, a non-too-subtle hint that we're in the land of the Odyssey.

 

Very interesting, it will be enjoyable spotting the references.  Adds another dimension to the story. Look forward to it.

[Gunner Bailey]

13 hours ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

I am not going to bite at the tone. I am happy with the IWM's largely proven ability to correctly provenance items that have been in their collection for many years if you are not

 

Andrew, your trust in modern curators is greater than mine!

[suesalter1]

On 21/01/2020 at 09:46, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

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...)

 

I'd like to know who milked the cow. The Germans? If so, why leave it there? I was worried it might be poisoned. Don't give it to the baby, I thought!

[Black Maria]

4 minutes ago, suesalter1 said:

 

I'd like to know who milked the cow. The Germans? If so, why leave it there? I was worried it might be poisoned. Don't give it to the baby, I thought!

Yes , it did seem a little strange that they shot the cows but left the milk behind.

[AOK4]

26 minutes ago, Black Maria said:

Yes , it did seem a little strange that they shot the cows but left the milk behind.

 

Shooting cows? Leaving milk behind? No way the Germans would do any such thing as milk was in very short supply.

[pierssc]

I saw it yesterday in a packed arthouse cinema (afternoon showing), and enjoyed it.  I'm no equipment buff, but that side of things looked pretty good to me (apart from the two Sopwith Camels - note marked lower wing dihedral - which were I think a couple of months premature.  But don't lets worry too much about that, or the absence of other aircraft.  Or the use of the term "dogfight" which doesn't seem to have emerged until after the war, in print at least.  But why was any comment needed?).

 

Many others have commented on how everything seemed rather close together - green fields to front line in about a minute, CCS just back from the front line, ditto the abandoned German batteries, etc, and here I think the continuous filming worked against it.  A cut, or a fade, to indicate the passage of time would have conveyed the passage of time, and of distance, far better.  As it was I think the desire to do it in apparently one shot (they didn't, but it was fun trying to spot the joins) seemed to win out over sense.

 

As for the diversity, I think that having taken the trouble to get so much else right, or nearly right, this was a mistake.  Perhaps we are meant to suspend our disbelief, as in the theatre.

 

The officers swearing didn't seem particularly out of place to me.  And when I got home and picked up "Old Soldiers Never Die" which I've finally bought a copy of thanks to recommendations on another thread, what is one of the first things I read? Recollections of  Officers who could out swear their men.
 

There were some silly bits though, I mean, all that German artillery in what looked like a quarry, no camouflage, wouldn't it all have been spotted by aircraft and shelled to blazes?  And why didn't Schofield say "Orders for Colonel MacKenzie " instead of "I must see Colonel MacKenzie"?  I think he would have got through the crowds a lot faster.

 

Before seeing the film I was bothered about what I had read about the episode with the German pilot, but in the event I found some sort of explanation, even if it wasn't a very convincing one.  In case anyone hasn't seen it yet, I shall hide what might otherwise be a spoiler.

 

Spoiler

Why on earth would a German pilot, pulled from the wreckage of his burning Albatros by two enemy soldiers, choose to kill one of his rescuers?  Presumably because he understood Schofield when he said "We ought to put the poor sod out of his misery".  OK, but then Schofield went to get some water - they were hardly likely to give him water and then shoot him were they?  And why on earth was he carrying a knife/dagger/bayonet in his flying suit?  A pistol I could understand (some pilots - famously Mannock - carried one to use in case he was shot down in flames) but a knife?    Sorry, it makes no sense, except that the film makers needed to kill Blake and after the episode with the rat they presumably felt they had exhausted the dramatic potential of booby traps.

 

Anyway do see it if you haven't.

Edited 23 January , 2020 by pierssc

[Anneca]

I enjoyed the film for what it is, a war drama not a documentary.  The recreation of no-man's land and trench warfare was amazing portraying in the cinema to those uninitiated in the subject what it would have been like had they been there themselves.  I have dismissed posts debating inaccuracies, which I have to say I enjoyed reading, and point out that this was not a documentary but a movie.  There must be a word that describes a bit of reality and a bit of fiction?  An excellent film indeed, costing only £4 at my local cinema.

Anne

[Waggoner]

I saw the film last evening with a friend. We were two PhD military historians...our wives wisely opted to see the revival of Little Women. Overall, I thought it had been over hyped and came away mildly disappointed. Plaudits for technical accuracy, not so much for story line. Although on a technical side, the rifle stocks looked far too good for trench weapons...straight from the collection. The uniforms were frayed though. Things were going OK until the reached the farm. Just where did that British convoy come from? I know the ASC had superb drivers but how did they cross the “no man's land” that the two soldiers had barely been able to scramble through? Final thoughts...glad I went...no rush to see it again.

 

All the best,

 

Gary

[PhilB]

1 hour ago, Anneca said:

  There must be a word that describes a bit of reality and a bit of fiction?  

Faction?

[MikeMeech]

24 minutes ago, PhilB said:

Faction?

Hi

 

'Faction' was the term in use during the 1980's, for this 'mix', or rather more 'fiction' than 'reality'.

 

Mike

[Steven Broomfield]

47 minutes ago, Waggoner said:

 Final thoughts...glad I went...no rush to see it again.

 

All the best,

 

Gary

 

That pretty much sums it up for me. I rather put it in the same league as The Devil's Causeway (per Dr Johnson): 'Worth seeing. Not worth going to see'.

[trajan]

8 hours ago, pierssc said:

... (apart from the two Sopwith Camels - note marked lower wing dihedral - which were I think a couple of months premature.  

... Anyway do see it if you haven't.

 

I'll certainly watch out for that lower wing dihedral, never having been aware of such things before as  bayonets are my thing Yes, I might well go and see it if only to check on the bayonet the German pilot had! If it's not the right one, it will be reported here...

[nigelcave]

Amongst the strangest things, to my eye, was the presence of an Indian cavalryman in a truck load of infantry, ostensibly heading to the front line. To make things 'worse', he spoke perfect English. Now I am not saying that a private soldier of the Indian army could not speak English, but they would be extraordinarily rare. Ibid applies to the several black soldiers who were seen in the background amongst groups of infantry doing 'useful' things (what i seem to recall was known as 'concurrent activity' on, e.g., range days). How many black soldiers served in British infantry line regiments? Of course there were some, but they were relatively rare. 

 

Of course the point would be made that by their presence they illustrated the fact that the BEF comprised men (and women) from all parts of the Empire and the Dominions and this was a 'device' to show it. Fair enough - but I found it jarring. Again it rather underlines the point about the Great War providing the film's backdrop as a drama, with as much respect for accuracy (especially uniforms etc) as could be accommodated within the dramatic intent.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

The odds for an awful lot of the scenarios depicted in the film's plot actually being possible would have been extremely low, but not impossible. 

However, multiple consecutive such scenarios, each with its own low probability of credibility makes the plot  unrealistic.

What are the odds of a Great War attack with no visible or sound evidence of artillery involvement? There were no British guns, tractors or shells seen or heard. I don't think the RA were even mentioned.

The odds of a Highland waterfall in the Arras sector?

The odds of an infantryman being killed by an enemy pilot using a pointy thing?

etc. etc.etc.

[Steven Broomfield]

Just now, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

 

The odds of a Highland waterfall in the Arras sector?

The odds of an infantryman being killed by an enemy pilot using a pointy thing?

etc. etc.etc.

 

1. 0.00000001

 

2. 0.00000002

 

And I suspect I'm being my usual generous self.

[squirrel]

17 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

The odds of an infantryman being killed by an enemy pilot using a pointy thing...

Particularly when the victim had just pulled the pilot from a crashed, burning aeroplane, had extinguished his burning clothing and was attempting to make him comfortable.

 

[slick63]

35 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

The odds for an awful lot of the scenarios depicted in the film's plot actually being possible would have been extremely low, but not impossible. 

However, multiple consecutive such scenarios, each with its own low probability of credibility makes the plot  unrealistic.

What are the odds of a Great War attack with no visible or sound evidence of artillery involvement? There were no British guns, tractors or shells seen or heard. I don't think the RA were even mentioned.

The odds of a Highland waterfall in the Arras sector?

The odds of an infantryman being killed by an enemy pilot using a pointy thing?

etc. etc.etc.

I agree. Wasn`t the film supposed to be based on stories told to Mr Mendes by his grandfather/great grandfather who had fought in the war ? If so then I think some of the tales may have been embelished by his ancestor, or misremembered by Mr Mendes....or of course he could`ve made the whole ghastly mess up.

Edited 24 January , 2020 by slick63

[Steve1871]

I am no expert, but I really liked the leather jerkin/ vest worn  on top of uniform, the one soldier, his 5 pocket sets, forgot pattern, but they looked leather, as I understand it, only Australian “ ersatz “ type made of kangaroo  hide were of leather, as leather did not hold up good in the trenches , I have both left and right sets of those kangaroo hide pouch sets but never found waist belt and suspenders 

 

Any idea guys? Still, it was simply a movie. Most movies have a lot more action and battles, as that is what most people expect in a war movie, so seemed a little “ slow”, but still enjoyed it. Really likes the trench sets, a lot of good old fashioned hard labor went into building them

[pierssc]

18 hours ago, trajan said:

 

I'll certainly watch out for that lower wing dihedral, never having been aware of such things before as  bayonets are my thing Yes, I might well go and see it if only to check on the bayonet the German pilot had! If it's not the right one, it will be reported here...

You obviously don't remember your early Biggles, Julian!

 

Bayonet report awaited though you'll need sharp eyes - one only sees it for an instant.  

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

1 hour ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

1. 0.00000001

 

2. 0.00000002

 

And I suspect I'm being my usual generous self.

As high as that?