Bart150 Posted 24 January , 2020 Share Posted 24 January , 2020 This film has stimulated me to think analytically about odd things on the impossible-implausible-inaccurate etc continuum. I have got as far as defining these categories of odd things with examples. 1 Impossible Huge river in the Operation Alberich area Fine spring weather in that area in early April 1917. (Other hypothetical examples not in this film might be: soldiers using mobile phones; Germans with helicopter gunships) 2 Possible but so unlikely that it can be called implausible (ie <5% probable) Soldiers in frontline trench not knowing that the Germans opposite had withdrawn two weeks before Two-bn infantry attack begun without any knowledge of the enemy position or any artillery bombardment or any forces in support or any communications with rear CCS only a few yards from front line 3 Possible, not implausible, but still unlikely (ie <50% probable) Germans leaving some milk behind without poisoning it German killing British soldier who has just saved his life A second dimension for analysis is how serious the items are. Within category-1 my first example is IMO not very serious. I found that a boring bit of the film with no implications for anything else. I found the conterfactual weather even less serious. Of the three examples I have given of category-2 items the first two are extremely serious because they invalidate the basic plot of the film; the other one does not. Within my category-3 examples the one about the milk has no wider implications but the other one does seriously affect the plot. So the extent to which such odd things detract from one’s respect for this or any other film depends on both their category and their seriousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 24 January , 2020 Share Posted 24 January , 2020 1 hour ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said: As high as that? On reflection, I may have missed out a nought or two. Probably as well I'm not on the voting panel for the Eurovision Song Contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonbem Posted 24 January , 2020 Share Posted 24 January , 2020 9 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said: the voting panel for the Eurovision Song Contest Rule one: Vote for whoever you share a border with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Prestidge Posted 24 January , 2020 Share Posted 24 January , 2020 A fair old film, in my opinion - I thought George MacKay was excellent. As expected, much bickering over period details. The only glaring anomaly for me was the alpine ravine and waterfall, and Ecoust St Mien looked more like Arras in its size. I see that Lawrence Fox has now apologised to Sikhs for allegedly querying their involvement in the war. Isn’t it the point that Sikhs would have served in their own units, and not randomly popped up in a truck full of British soldiers? For me, the greatest WW1 movie is still Paths of Glory. I know the www wasn’t around then, but I wonder if armchair experts quibbled about inaccuracies of uniform and settings when that came out? Another ‘forgotten’ WW1 movie is For King and Country - worth a watch if it ever comes on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 24 January , 2020 Share Posted 24 January , 2020 15 minutes ago, David Prestidge said: Isn’t it the point that Sikhs would have served in their own units, and not randomly popped up in a truck full of British soldiers? I (and Others, I think) suggested he might be a stray cavalryman; he was wearing cavalry kit and there were Indian cavalry units in the area at the time. It is a severe stretch of the imagination that he spoke perfect English and seemed to know the banter amongst the rest of the blokes. But then the whole film was a severe stretch of the imagination. 17 minutes ago, David Prestidge said: For me, the greatest WW1 movie is still Paths of Glory. La Grande Illusion all day long for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 24 January , 2020 Share Posted 24 January , 2020 47 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said: I (and Others, I think) suggested he might be a stray cavalryman; he was wearing cavalry kit and there were Indian cavalry units in the area at the time. It is a severe stretch of the imagination that he spoke perfect English and seemed to know the banter amongst the rest of the blokes. What is the film director supposed to do? He wants to show some communication between the soldiers and the Sikh cavalryman. If the Sikh soldier speaks in his native language, then the director has a problem. How then does he communicate the message to the audience? With sub-titles. Sub-titles add to cost. And they create other problems - they have to be changed in every foreign language version of '2017'. More cost. But there's another problem - the Sikh is speaking to the soldiers in the back of the lorry, not to the audience. There is, as you say, banter to be managed. Who translates for them? 'Ere, Albert, you know a bit of Punjabi - what's he sayin'.' Albert has to translate and act as an intermediary. This takes time, costs money, introduces continuity complications, consumes screen time - and adds nothing to the plot. The chances of a Sikh cavalryman speaking English are a lot higher than that of a 1916/17 conscript or volunteer Tommy speaking Punjabi. Remember Jünger, 'Against the Indians'. His mortally-wounded Rajputs managed to communicate with EJ. I don't think he knew any Hindi and for sure they did not know any German. So what was the common language? English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 24 January , 2020 Share Posted 24 January , 2020 Just now, Hedley Malloch said: What is the film director supposed to do? He wants to show some communication between the soldiers and the Sikh cavalryman. If the Sikh soldier speaks in his native language, then the director has a problem. How then does he communicate the message to the audience? With sub-titles. Sub-titles add to cost. And they create other problems - they have to be changed in every foreign language version of '2017'. More cost. But there's another problem - the Sikh is speaking to the soldiers in the back of the lorry, not to the audience. There is, as you say, banter to be managed. Who translates for them? 'Ere, Albert, you know a bit of Punjabi - what's he sayin'.' Albert has to translate and act as an intermediary. This takes time, costs money, introduces continuity complications, consumes screen time - and adds nothing to the plot. The chances of a Sikh cavalryman speaking English are a lot higher than that of a 1916/17 conscript or volunteer Tommy speaking Punjabi. Remember Jünger, 'Against the Indians'. His mortally-wounded Rajputs managed to communicate with EJ. I don't think he knew any Hindi and for sure they did not know any German. So what was the common language? English. Well, in essence, stick to the truth. The Sikh cavalryman would have had absolutely no idea of the banter going on: if I remember correctly, they were discussing the pecadilloes of officers. As the Sikh was obviously not of the same unit, he would have had no idea what they were talking about. As the director felt the need to insert a stray Indian, he should have done the right think, the truthful thing, and shown the poor devil lost and alone in No Man's Land (albeit a No Man's Land miraculously navigable by a convoy of lorries) and unable to communicate in any other than basic terms with the British troops. As it was, it did smack of tokenism by the director ... stick an Indian in to show it's a World War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxi Posted 24 January , 2020 Share Posted 24 January , 2020 1 hour ago, Steven Broomfield said: La Grande Illusion all day long for me. A Very Long Engagement is my favourite to date Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelcave Posted 25 January , 2020 Share Posted 25 January , 2020 "Well, in essence, stick to the truth. The Sikh cavalryman would have had absolutely no idea of the banter going on: if I remember correctly, they were discussing the pecadilloes of officers. As the Sikh was obviously not of the same unit, he would have had no idea what they were talking about." As Mr Bloomfield points out. Added to this, he seems to have been with the unit for some time, as he was able to give such a wonderfully realistic impression (according to the others) of, I seem to recall, the CO. The scenario that Mr B suggests would be one of very few (the only one?) that would suit the circumstance that he was in the truck (it does not explain intimate knowledge of the unit). This was so ineptly handled that it could only have been tokenism. If they had thought about it they could have had a Canadian or Australian "CCS" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 25 January , 2020 Share Posted 25 January , 2020 The more I read of these reviews I think the 'alpine waterfall' bit will stop me from going to see it... That REALLY stretches credulity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Beale Posted 25 January , 2020 Share Posted 25 January , 2020 14 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said: As it was, it did smack of tokenism by the director ... stick an Indian in to show it's a World War. The Chinese Labour Corps (or other colonial labour units) could have been represented without undue "shoehorning", or would depicting such duties be considered demeaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matlock1418 Posted 25 January , 2020 Share Posted 25 January , 2020 47 minutes ago, trajan said: The more I read of these reviews I think the 'alpine waterfall' bit will stop me from going to see it And it's not just that which should! Don't go unless you have money to waste. Sadly the hype and massive advertising budget will fool many more than just me. I spent good money of my own and am now so much the poorer for it except for a bad memory of an even worse film - It was awful Plot, inaccuracies, tokenism etc. etc. - as have all been mentioned before And as for the 'flying camera' single shot - it just gave me motion sickness and made me feel ill. Rotton fruits - I'd have thrown them if I'd had them to hand. That's my review. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 25 January , 2020 Share Posted 25 January , 2020 6 hours ago, nigelcave said: "Well, in essence, stick to the truth. The Sikh cavalryman would have had absolutely no idea of the banter going on: if I remember correctly, they were discussing the pecadilloes of officers. As the Sikh was obviously not of the same unit, he would have had no idea what they were talking about." As Mr Bloomfield points out. Added to this, he seems to have been with the unit for some time, as he was able to give such a wonderfully realistic impression (according to the others) of, I seem to recall, the CO. The scenario that Mr B suggests would be one of very few (the only one?) that would suit the circumstance that he was in the truck (it does not explain intimate knowledge of the unit). This was so ineptly handled that it could only have been tokenism. If they had thought about it they could have had a Canadian or Australian "CCS" . With due respect neither you nor Stephen Broomfield know this for the truth. Junger found a dying Rajput who could speak English, so why not a Sikh cavalryman here? The problem with stereotypes (‘Sikh cavalrymen did not speak any English’) is than individuals do not necessarily resemble them. Individuals can be different to their national stereotypes. What seems to be forgotten here is that 1917 Is a dramatic representation of events as piece of popular entertainment. It is not a documentary, a drama/doc nor even a piece of cinema verite. How should the role of the Sikh cavalryman be represented? As a hapless, lone, deranged individual wandering alone through no-Man’s land whilst a convoy of tommies pass him by without stopping to offer him a lift? Would this be an appropriate representation of the Sikh cavalry and what Tommy thought of him? Because that is where one literal view of what is believed to be be the ‘truth’ will lead. I prefer Mendes’ interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Comber Posted 25 January , 2020 Share Posted 25 January , 2020 6 minutes ago, Hedley Malloch said: With due respect neither you nor Stephen Broomfield know this for the truth. Junger found a dying Rajput who could speak English, so why not a Sikh cavalryman here? The problem with stereotypes (‘Sikh cavalrymen did not speak any English’) is than individuals do not necessarily resemble them. Individuals can be different to their national stereotypes. What seems to be forgotten here is that 1917 Is a dramatic representation of events as piece of popular entertainment. It is not a documentary, a drama/doc nor even a piece of cinema verite. How should the role of the Sikh cavalryman be represented? As a hapless, lone, deranged individual wandering alone through no-Man’s land whilst a convoy of tommies pass him by without stopping to offer him a lift? Would this be an appropriate representation of the Sikh cavalry and what Tommy thought of him? Because that is where one literal view of what is believed to be be the ‘truth’ will lead. I prefer Mendes’ interpretation. I agree. Perhaps we should simply accept this interpretation and enjoy the movie rather than bog ourselves down in a frenzy of nit picking! 😁 I finally get to see it tomorrow (in IMAX for maximum impact) so will be able to judge for myself I’m sure I’ll be disappointed in some aspects and impressed by others just as I was with Dunkirk but also grateful for the subject matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrtle Posted 25 January , 2020 Share Posted 25 January , 2020 36 minutes ago, Rob Comber said: I agree. Perhaps we should simply accept this interpretation and enjoy the movie rather than bog ourselves down in a frenzy of nit picking! 😁 I finally get to see it tomorrow (in IMAX for maximum impact) so will be able to judge for myself I’m sure I’ll be disappointed in some aspects and impressed by others just as I was with Dunkirk but also grateful for the subject matter Interesting to read this discussion. I tend to agree with Hedley and Rob on this one. Having completed some reading and research on the "Indian Mutiny" or as it's known in India, "North India's First War of Independence", I lean towards the serving Indian soldiers of the First World War having at least some day to day English, seeing their history is so intertwined with the British Army. I am certain that due to the strong ties between Britain and India over the years there would have been Indian soldiers serving in WW1 who would have studied in England and/or used English for administration purposes within the British Indian Army. Nehru for example attended Harrow School and then went on to graduate from Trinity College, Cambridge, before studying law at Inner Temple. The Sikh cavalryman was not necessarily from the same background as Nehru but that is not to say he wasn't an intelligent, sharp minded, multi linguist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 25 January , 2020 Share Posted 25 January , 2020 On 24/01/2020 at 11:54, Steven Broomfield said: 1. 0.00000001 2. 0.00000002 And I suspect I'm being my usual generous self. Possibly as rare as a German fighter pilot asking Goering for a Squadron of Spitfires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelcave Posted 25 January , 2020 Share Posted 25 January , 2020 Possibly so; but very doubtful in this particular case and in the particular circumstances. As I have said several times, it is drama set in the context of the First World War, so I merely mentioned things that jarred. It is why I tend to avoid watching historical 'period' drama/films about which I know a significant amount. On the other hand, that does not spoil my enjoyment of watching (and reading) Shakespeare's history plays, for example. And, for what it is worth, I still think it is worth seeing. There is much that is very well done, not least as a product of the cinematographer's art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterhogg Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 Well film like music will always be subjective. I'm still absorbing it but i can share some thoughts. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. From an artistic point of view I think it is a tremendous achievement. No question there, but that is simply my view. There is clearly a bit of a homage to Kubrick writ large with the long shot approach. You see tremendous attention to detail but Its not a documentary---i am sure there are errors--it is an cinematic representation of an experience of war presented in a fashion where art, detail and drama are meant to mesh to create an image. What can I say, I thought it was great. I think it may be a difference between those who expect a depiction of the actual events and those who wish to see an artistic expression of the experience and drama of that moment in war, two very different things. Yeah, realistically the plot would not unfold that way, but then there would not have been a film. And I would rather there had been a film which i enjoyed then gripe about the absence of any quality Great War movies Just as I preferred in 1998 Malick's The Thin Red Line over Saving Private Ryan (Which is still a major cinematic achievement in and of itself) this will always be a subjective assessment. But this is a major production and it left me satisfied that for the first time in a long time we have a representation of the Great War experience. I think, like many of you on this forum who have been here a long time and who have been fortunate to have visited the battlefields, we have our own thoughts on how best the experience of the war should be represented. If a cinematic depiction does a disservice, as I wrote, its a subjective thing but we're disappointed. For me, I though it captured something--its not perfect, but someone has taken great care to represent a moment that i wanted to see on a big screen and I was happy to come out of the cinema feeling I just wanted to see it again. Hey Great War movie! What's not to love. Btw, Sam Mendes directed. Why does the title keep referring to Steven Spielberg? And, you know, thankfully Spielberg produced, as that ensured a Great War film depicting a British experience emerged in the fashion it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterhogg Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 Just one further thought, I think where it might be lacking is in the sense of a viewer may not necessarily feel a connection to to the characters. Like Nolan's Dunkirk, I don't know if I connected as much with the persons involved as i did with the drama of the events portrayed. Again, we're not talking about some disaster of cinema here. This is a great film. Again, art portraying real life versus real life as art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 19 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said: Possibly as rare as a German fighter pilot asking Goering for a Squadron of Spitfires. They did get one , the 'Messerspit', which they fitted with a DB engine... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7898893/How-Germans-created-ultimate-fighter-plane-WWII-captured-British-Spitfire.html also https://www.classicwarbirds.co.uk/articles/german-spitfire-the-story-of-mk-vb-en830.php But coming back to the filum, as we must. Flieger were issued with short bayonets (kS98) - and may well have carried a graben dolch or 'trench knife' as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depaor01 Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 16 minutes ago, trajan said: .. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7898893/How-Germans-created-ultimate-fighter-plane-WWII-captured-British-Spitfire.html Interesting article but looks like it was written by a 10 year old. Illusive?? Messerschmidt??? Blimey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 The story was in the Times earlier this week. Slightly better written, I might add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 Hmmmm ... Interesting ARTICLE, with which I couldn't possibly disagree (NOTE: includes spoilers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick63 Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 56 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said: Hmmmm ... Interesting ARTICLE, with which I couldn't possibly disagree (NOTE: includes spoilers) Quote This is a film about film not about people or war About sums it up.... Mr Mendes grandfathers memoirs are available on Google books (chapters 1916 and 1916-1919), they are a fascinating read, a lot more interesting and enthralling than the film.... https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jbmfCDUyXP8C&pg=PA41&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxi Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 1 hour ago, Steven Broomfield said: Hmmmm ... Interesting ARTICLE, with which I couldn't possibly disagree (NOTE: includes spoilers) Well put and pretty well sums it up for me. 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