peterhogg Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 Yup. But it is still a great film. The fact we are debating this point is evidence of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trav Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 Did that article writer actually watch the film, or pay attention to it? The last Mendes / Bond film I found a little thin on story, and heavy on special effects, and I can see that in 1917 too, but to write "we learn nothing of his relationship with this brother. Do they even like each other?" is just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 2 minutes ago, Trav said: Did that article writer actually watch the film, or pay attention to it? The last Mendes / Bond film I found a little thin on story, and heavy on special effects, and I can see that in 1917 too, but to write "we learn nothing of his relationship with this brother. Do they even like each other?" is just ridiculous. In answer to your first questions: yes and yes. The opinions mirror mine and, it seems, those of others who have responded above. In answer to the third question, I'm unconvinced we find out a lot. The author of this piece might be egging the pudding a bit, but we really found out very little about either of the central characters. In that respect, the lack of empathy for the characters very much echoed Nolan's Dunkirk. Regarding the Bond franchise, I have only seen one. It was well over 50 years ago; I seem to recall it was set in the Far East and involved an autogiro. I thought even then it relied a lot on technology and rather little on plot or characterisation. That's why I've never seen another since. (Although I did like the Bond spoof at the 2012 Olympics) 45 minutes ago, peterhogg said: Yup. But it is still a great film. The fact we are debating this point is evidence of that. I'm discussing it because it is very far from a great film but is being hyped by the publicity to make us think it's the greatest movie since the last greatest movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Prestidge Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 I thoroughly enjoyed the film - as entertainment. Well acted, beautifully shot, and with enough nods to authenticity (except the alpine gorge) to make it credible. My point about the random Sikh soldier has a broader relevance, at least to me. Diversity is, we are told, a wonderful thing, and many parts of Britain are, like it or not, multi-cultural. But look at TV adverts, or spreads in the newspapers. When did you last see one which did not have a BAME person in it? That, to me, smacks of tokenism. Whichever way you look at it, the stats suggest that Britain is still largely a white Anglo-Saxon country, so why the insistence that every pretend family shown enjoying their cornflakes, sitting in the latest top of the range people carrier, or cavorting at Centre Parcs is mixed race? Back to 1917, and there were at least half a dozen black soldiers manning the trenches. Once again, tokenism. Yes, I know there were some black soldiers who served in British regiments, and some with great distinction, e.g. Walter Tull, but it is depressing that everything - films, adverts, TV shows - has to bow down at the diversity altar. I don't know if any members of this forum are licensed holders of the Race Card, but if you have one, prepare to wave it now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trav Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said: In answer to the third question, I'm unconvinced we find out a lot. The author of this piece might be egging the pudding a bit, but we really found out very little about either of the central characters. I don't think I can elaborate too much, or take on some of the other questions in that article, without giving too much of the plot away I.e. spoilers. But in respect of the 'brother relationship' I'd suggest that was pretty much the basis for the film's plot, with clarity provided at the beginning, towards the middle and end, if it were needed. Edited 26 January , 2020 by Trav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, David Prestidge said: I thoroughly enjoyed the film - as entertainment. Well acted, beautifully shot, and with enough nods to authenticity (except the alpine gorge) to make it credible. My point about the random Sikh soldier has a broader relevance, at least to me. Diversity is, we are told, a wonderful thing, and many parts of Britain are, like it or not, multi-cultural. But look at TV adverts, or spreads in the newspapers. When did you last see one which did not have a BAME person in it? That, to me, smacks of tokenism. Whichever way you look at it, the stats suggest that Britain is still largely a white Anglo-Saxon country, so why the insistence that every pretend family shown enjoying their cornflakes, sitting in the latest top of the range people carrier, or cavorting at Centre Parcs is mixed race? Back to 1917, and there were at least half a dozen black soldiers manning the trenches. Once again, tokenism. Yes, I know there were some black soldiers who served in British regiments, and some with great distinction, e.g. Walter Tull, but it is depressing that everything - films, adverts, TV shows - has to bow down at the diversity altar. I don't know if any members of this forum are licensed holders of the Race Card, but if you have one, prepare to wave it now! How right you are ! Why don’t we stop referring to the Great War, and call it the Woke War ? Phil Edited 26 January , 2020 by phil andrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Comber Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 On 25/01/2020 at 15:34, Myrtle said: 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...
Rob Comber Posted 26 January , 2020 Share Posted 26 January , 2020 I finally saw 1917 this afternoon with my wife on an IMAX screen at a cool £18 per ticket. My boy cried off so that was £17 wasted which didn’t go down at all well 😡 I have long anticipated this film as I did Dunkirk before it largely due to the fact that there have been so few British War films out in the recent past. We are bombarded with American heroics and it has always been the cause of deep frustration to me that we don’t have the British equivalent of Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Thin Red Line or the Pacific. Britain’s contribution was just as significant in these conflicts as we know but our nation’s apparent embarrassment and or shame at our colonial past seems to have precluded our film industry from focusing on the accomplishments of Britain’s armed services in WW1 and WW2 That at least is my interpretation of the general reluctance to produce British War movies, until recently that is 1917 was an excellent film with many flaws if you care to look for them All these flaws have been discussed ad nausium on this thread already Diversity issues, implausible plot lines Incorrect dialects, lack of action compared to the US epics I agree with all of that but I still really enjoyed and was deeply moved by this film Surely we can celebrate the fact that it (and Dunkirk before it) got made at all rather than waste energy sneering at its shortcomings? People have previous mentioned Zulu What a great film that was. Hang on though, shouldn’t we criticise the incorrect colour of the facings or the false characterisations of Private Hook or Colour Sergeant Bourne? No of course not because as we know it was a great film 1917 was a fictional story not a documentary Yes it could've been better Yes it was a very very good film May there be many more of its ilk 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 7 hours ago, Rob Comber said: Yes it could've been better Yes it was a very very good film May there be many more of its ilk 👍 Agreed A very good example of the film-maker's art No thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knotty Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 9 hours ago, Rob Comber said: May there be many more of its ilk Already discussing such an idea in a pm with other Forum member it goes as follows. My take on it is that once Spielberg gets an idea that works he will run with it, below I have worked out the draft scripts in typical “Hollywood” running order. 1914 Starts in countryside with plenty of farming shots,shire horses,and girl/boy relationships. WAR declared, patriotic scenes in pubs, all off to recruiting centres. Some scenes of training then off to weepy scenes at dockside as the boys depart for FRANCE. CGI Battle scene of Mons, long khaki line firing like mad at hoards of “Jerries”. Red hot guns cast aside. Typical comments we must hold them lads from officers. Retreat back, then one final shoot out before with French help they dig trenches. What’s going to happen next year....roll credits 1918 Same cast, older dirtier, battle hardened , set in the trenches with improved visuals of the filth. Man talking about the loved ones back home and those that had bought a Blighty wound, those that just disappeared. Overhead the Red German plane is single handedly shooting everything out the sky. Suddenly hundreds and thousands of CGI Germans appear, tommies are falling everywhere. Then as the Tommies all line up against a brick wall, in his last film appearance, Michael Caine as Haig shouts Front Rank Fire, this stops them in their tracks. Suddenly the cavalry in the shape of the AEF comes into view and turn the Germans around all the way back to the Rhine, Armistice declared and......roll credits 1916 Slight confusion with the cast as most are due to be killed off but are already in the previous film. Easily remedied, using CGI we just make more battle scenes to confuse. Men in trenches, saying it should have been over by Christmas. What are we going to do. Orders come through we must make a big push to be in Berlin. Many scenes of battle preparation, with young men. The allotted day arrives, big explosion, looking like Hawthorn, cue 45 minutes of explosions and destruction, many lead actors loose life & limb. Across no mans land, scenes of Germans feeding machine gun belts, They turn and all end up back where they started. News then comes in of a big sea battle where we lost our bloody ships. Final scene Parliament with mps asking is it worth it...yes...rule Britannia.....roll credits. 1915 Nothing really happened this year as far as I can tell so will defer until a suitable script can be written Bit tongue in cheek but it real does my head in, it’s not real and that’s what annoys me, it’s escapism in the form of a make believe film, how long will we keep commenting on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick63 Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, MrSwan said: I've just found Rfn Alfred Hubert Mendes' service records on ancestry. Apparently he was a signaller. And only 5' 4 1/2". Worth popping some scans up on here ? I think we`ll all have to agree to disagree on this film, it would be an odd world if we all liked the same stuff. Personally I think Mr Mendes missed an opportunity to tell the true story of his grandfathers war experiences. Edited 27 January , 2020 by slick63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverforget Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 1 hour ago, Knotty said: Already discussing such an idea in a pm with other Forum member it goes as follows. My take on it is that once Spielberg gets an idea that works he will run with it, below I have worked out the draft scripts in typical “Hollywood” running order. 1914 Starts in countryside with plenty of farming shots,shire horses,and girl/boy relationships. WAR declared, patriotic scenes in pubs, all off to recruiting centres. Some scenes of training then off to weepy scenes at dockside as the boys depart for FRANCE. CGI Battle scene of Mons, long khaki line firing like mad at hoards of “Jerries”. Red hot guns cast aside. Typical comments we must hold them lads from officers. Retreat back, then one final shoot out before with French help they dig trenches. What’s going to happen next year....roll credits 1918 Same cast, older dirtier, battle hardened , set in the trenches with improved visuals of the filth. Man talking about the loved ones back home and those that had bought a Blighty wound, those that just disappeared. Overhead the Red German plane is single handedly shooting everything out the sky. Suddenly hundreds and thousands of CGI Germans appear, tommies are falling everywhere. Then as the Tommies all line up against a brick wall, in his last film appearance, Michael Caine as Haig shouts Front Rank Fire, this stops them in their tracks. Suddenly the cavalry in the shape of the AEF comes into view and turn the Germans around all the way back to the Rhine, Armistice declared and......roll credits 1916 Slight confusion with the cast as most are due to be killed off but are already in the previous film. Easily remedied, using CGI we just make more battle scenes to confuse. Men in trenches, saying it should have been over by Christmas. What are we going to do. Orders come through we must make a big push to be in Berlin. Many scenes of battle preparation, with young men. The allotted day arrives, big explosion, looking like Hawthorn, cue 45 minutes of explosions and destruction, many lead actors loose life & limb. Across no mans land, scenes of Germans feeding machine gun belts, They turn and all end up back where they started. News then comes in of a big sea battle where we lost our bloody ships. Final scene Parliament with mps asking is it worth it...yes...rule Britannia.....roll credits. 1915 Nothing really happened this year as far as I can tell so will defer until a suitable script can be written Bit tongue in cheek but it real does my head in, it’s not real and that’s what annoys me, it’s escapism in the form of a make believe film, how long will we keep commenting on it? Excellent contribution Knotty, and as far as I can tell, 100% historically accurate. Perfect for a 5 part series of blockbuster Hollywood movies. 👍 Perhaps some thought could be given to a follow up series about WW2 (If it really happened)🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunboat Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 I did want to chip on the issue of black and Asian soldiers in the film and some of the comments on the perceived over representation in the wider media. Early last year I went to see Mary Queen of Scots - it was a passably good film. There were a plethora of black, asian and Chinese actors is key roles. This jarred with me at first. I later read that the director had a theatre background and theatre as opposed to film has often challenged the norms on casting - with some success. I asked myself whether if I had gone to the theatre and seen such a diverse cast would I bat an eyelid and the answer was no. So why should an equally fictional account of Mary Queen of Scots on the cinema screen be any different? I realised it wasn’t. I applied the same principle to 1917. It is not meant to be representing true events it’s a piece of fiction. In the same way that re-watching Rio Bravo the western last night could it be said to be an historical account of life in the west and nor would anyone then or now walk away from it fooled into thinking it was. We are therefore entitled to be asked to and if we can suspend our disbelief for a pierce of fiction - for storytelling I still think the dialogue was poor and the plot thin - but the issue of BAME representation does not bother me one jot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knotty Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, neverforget said: Perhaps some thought could be given to a follow up series about WW2 (If it really happened)🙄 I do believe Mr Spielberg has already started this with a film called “1941” with the Japanese attack on Los Angeles Edited 27 January , 2020 by Knotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverforget Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 1 minute ago, Knotty said: I do believe Mr Spielberg has already started this with a film called “1941” with the Japanese attack on Loz Angeles Damn, it would appear that ship has already sailed then. I bet the film opens with a glorious banzai charge as per historical accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knotty Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, neverforget said: Damn, it would appear that ship has already sailed then. I bet the film opens with a glorious banzai charge as per historical accuracy. Yet to see the film so I cannot comment, however should I view said Spielberg masterpiece I will endeavour to report back. As far as I can make out it’s not a ship but a submarine😑 Edited 27 January , 2020 by Knotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 Why would Spielberg make films set in 1914, 1915 or 1916? The war didn't start until 1917. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knotty Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 Money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 (edited) On 22/01/2020 at 01:49, 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 On 22/01/2020 at 15:09, Gunner Bailey said: Andrew, your trust in modern curators is greater than mine! But apparently not misplaced I have corresponded several times over various military uniform matters with the IWM and always found them most helpful, detailed and courteous. My only complaint is the inevitable slowness of reply, which I very much accept on the grounds of the number of requests they must have to deal with. Despite this they have already found the time to look deeper into the history of the visors that I emailed them about, and their assistant curator sent me the following email: "When our curator catalogued the visors that you mentioned, he probably made use of a number of useful reference books that we have on uniforms and equipment. I have looked the visor up in four books that I have to hand (by Howard Williamson, John Bodsworth, Stephen Bull and Anthony Saunders). In three of the four books, the visor is referred to specifically as “the Cruise visor”. As this term appears to be widely used to describe this type of visor, our use of it makes these objects more accessible to people who are searching our collection. Our curator probably did not have time to consider if this term was in use during the First World War. I suspect this would be a difficult to establish. I have looked up three of our visors in our original acquisition registers. Those acquired in 1919 and 1922 are referred to as “chain mail visors”. The one acquired in 1933 however is described as a “Cruise (second pattern) visor”. I can confirm therefore that the term ”Cruise visor” was in use by museum staff by 1933." So there we go. Clear proof of the use of the term "Cruise Visor" referring to WW1 made examples pre-dating the start of WW2 by a considerable margin, and certainly well before the adoption of the revised WW2 version that clearly owes its origins to the WW1 examples. Also excellent proof as to the widespread acceptance (official or otherwise) of the term in a WW1 context by the wider collecting community (and not simply an IWM "thing"). Edited 27 January , 2020 by Andrew Upton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Brayley Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 (edited) I wasted 2 hours of my life on it yesterday. I thought the first 30-40 minutes were superb and I was really enjoying it. It just totally unraveled into Warhorse levels of sillyness and stupidity. I just was not able to find myself immersed in it. Kit was generally superb though, I do not think we will ever see the British Infantry of the Great War depicted so well in film again, lots of nice little details. Edited 27 January , 2020 by Toby Brayley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 3 hours ago, Andrew Upton said: ... "When our curator catalogued the visors that you mentioned, he probably made use of a number of useful reference books that we have on uniforms and equipment. ... Well done Andrew! The fact of the matter is that NO museum can employ individual experts on each and everyone of the items in their collections. I speak as a former museum archaeology bod. We rely on others who are experts in the materials they study to deal with the ones we can't do. And if one or more or more of these has not been studied in detail by somebody in sufficient detail to be published and so open to comment and criticism, then we are stuck with what is available in print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 6 hours ago, Andrew Upton said: I have looked up three of our visors in our original acquisition registers. Those acquired in 1919 and 1922 are referred to as “chain mail visors”. The one acquired in 1933 however is described as a “Cruise (second pattern) visor”. I can confirm therefore that the term ”Cruise visor” was in use by museum staff by 1933." So there we go. Clear proof of the use of the term "Cruise Visor" referring to WW1 made examples pre-dating the start of WW2 by a considerable margin, and certainly well before the adoption of the revised WW2 version that clearly owes its origins to the WW1 examples. Also excellent proof as to the widespread acceptance (official or otherwise) of the term in a WW1 context by the wider collecting community (and not simply an IWM "thing"). Andrew, If you want to take things back a little further, in his authoratative book "Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare", published in 1920, at pages 132 and 133 Bashford Dean wrote: "The only eye defense which the British produced in large number was the chain-mail veil as shown in Figs. 89 and 89A to C, which was devised by Captain Cruise, R.A.M.C., occulist to the King. The visor was made of closely woven links..........." In case it is of interest I enclose a photo, taken from the book, of the illustrations referred to. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 27 January , 2020 Share Posted 27 January , 2020 1 minute ago, Michael Haselgrove said: Andrew, If you want to take things back a little further, in his authoratative book "Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare", published in 1920, at pages 132 and 133 Bashford Dean wrote: "The only eye defense which the British produced in large number was the chain-mail veil as shown in Figs. 89 and 89A to C, which was devised by Captain Cruise, R.A.M.C., occulist to the King. The visor was made of closely woven links..........." In case it is of interest I enclose a photo, taken from the book, of the illustrations referred to. Regards, Michael. Excellent, thanks Michael. Yet more evidence of how closely the design was linked with the name of Captain Cruise at even that early date. I am sure somewhere out there has the missing piece of the puzzle that will take the nick-name back as far as possible and really show it is perfectly correct for WW1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Rayner Posted 29 January , 2020 Share Posted 29 January , 2020 (edited) No comment on the film...haven't seen it yet-but Cruise Visors appear here NO LIGHTS. Pearson has to tell, this month’s St. Dunstan s Review.” the Cruise visor. ” hope, he writes. that the number of cases of blinding at the front may steadily diminished the use of the Cruise visor. This is little curta.n of chain mail which is attached to 14 July 1917 - Preston Herald - Preston, Lancashire, England find my Past George Edited 29 January , 2020 by George Rayner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 29 January , 2020 Share Posted 29 January , 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, George Rayner said: No comment on the film...haven't seen it yet-but Cruise Visors appear here NO LIGHTS. Pearson has to tell, this month’s St. Dunstan s Review.” the Cruise visor. ” hope, he writes. that the number of cases of blinding at the front may steadily diminished the use of the Cruise visor. This is little curta.n of chain mail which is attached to 14 July 1917 - Preston Herald - Preston, Lancashire, England find my Past George George you are a star! Many thanks for finding that, not once but twice used in the same story. Cast iron proof of the nick-name in use during the war itself, and coincidentally almost contemporaneous with when the film is set. For those without FMP I have attached a rather edited version below so that they might also see it. Hopefully 265 will take note and amend his research accordingly : On 21/01/2020 at 11:39, 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. On 21/01/2020 at 13:18, 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. On 21/01/2020 at 23:16, 14276265 said: 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. On 22/01/2020 at 01:34, 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. Edited 29 January , 2020 by Andrew Upton 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