Spielberg's '1917'

[Moonraker]

On IMBD more alleged "goofs" are noted that have yet to be mentioned here ...

 

And so far there are 1,537 reviews, one of the highest numbers I've seen for a new film. (And how many will be read?)

 

BTW, the title of this thread refers to Steven Spielberg, whose name certainly featured pre-production. But he seems to have dropped out, and there's no reference to him on the IMBD credits. (This may have been mentioned earlier in this thread, but perhaps I may be forgiven for not ploughing back through 785 posts.)

 

Moonraker

[stevem49]

Was not really listening properly to the news this morning. Did 1917 win the super bowl? 

[suesalter1]

7 BAFTA's. Can't be that bad, can it? Well, I enjoyed it anyway and now waiting for the DVD to come out.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

2 hours ago, suesalter1 said:

7 BAFTA's. Can't be that bad, can it? Well, I enjoyed it anyway and now waiting for the DVD to come out

Only 7?

I would have expected at least 29.

[slick63]

8 hours ago, Alan24 said:

7 BAFTAs. 

Does that stand for Bulls hit Adventure Featuring Tommy Atkins"  

Edited 3 February , 2020 by slick63

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

1 minute ago, slick63 said:

Does that stand for Bulls hit Adventure Featuring Tommy Atkins"  

Ooh, I say!...

[Terry_Reeves]

I do wish sometimes that this forum would accept films  for what they are - 1917 was not produced to be an authentic reproduction of WW1,  but as a drama.  If really authentic was  the case the production team would have had difficulty getting extras because they would have been asked if they would mind very much if they were killed!

 

TR

Edited 3 February , 2020 by Terry_Reeves

[593jones]

42 minutes ago, Terry_Reeves said:

I do wish sometimes that this forum would accept films  for what they are - 1917 was not produced to be an authentic reproduction of WW1,  but as a drama.  If really authentic was  the case the production team would have had difficulty getting extras because they would have been asked if they would mind very much if they were killed!

 

TR

 

Reminds me of the old joke about the actor who went to an audition for the part of Long John Silver in a new version of Treasure Island.  Told he had got the part and would be filming in three months, he asked why the delay?  Well, he was told, you have to go into hospital to have your leg off.

[Terry_Reeves]

1 minute ago, 593jones said:

 

Reminds me of the old joke about the actor who went to an audition for the part of Long John Silver in a new version of Treasure Island.  Told he had got the part and would be filming in three months, he asked why the delay?  Well, he was told, you have to go into hospital to have your leg off.

BIG grin.

 

TR

[jonbem]

24 minutes ago, 593jones said:

 

Reminds me of the old joke about the actor who went to an audition for the part of Long John Silver in a new version of Treasure Island.  Told he had got the part and would be filming in three months, he asked why the delay?  Well, he was told, you have to go into hospital to have your leg off.

 

[Steven Broomfield]

10 hours ago, suesalter1 said:

7 BAFTA's. Can't be that bad, can it? 

 

Well, Mrs Brown's Boys recently won Best TV Sitcom for the 47th year running; that might be an guide to the awarding of gongs.

[Gunboat]

Two of my friends who have no interest in the Great War went to see it yesterday both thoroughly enjoyed it. 

It made me think that if you think of it as a drama set in the Great War and not  a film about the Great War then it may be easier to suspend your disbelief. 

[Keith_history_buff]

Spoiler alert

 

Spoiler

I went on BBC iPlayer for the first time in a while, and saw that Max Hastings's Great War Interviews were ever present.

The milk story seems to have been taken from the following account by Chief Petty Officer Richard Henry Tobin (04 May 1894 - 1979)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01tdbzp/the-great-war-interviews-11-richard-henry-tobin

 

[Wardog]

Enjoyed the film, only uniform irritations were the boot toeplates used and Schofield having his bayonet frog/entrenching tool holder too far to the front of his body to be comfortable. Regards, Paul.

Edited 7 February , 2020 by Wardog

[H M Hulme]

On 18/01/2020 at 12:09, trajan said:

On the use of the f*** word. I seem to recall an earlier post suggesting the f*** word was over used in the film and perhaps reflected an introduced Americanism.

 

But a 1999 Guardian report on "Lest we forget: the 306 'cowards' we executed in the first world war" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/nov/14/firstworldwar.uk) quotes a sergeant-major as saying : 'If you don't go up to the ******* front, I'm going to ******* blow your brains out.' 

Or read "Her Privates We" written by ex-KSLI soldier Frederic Manning, pub. 1929, still in print, F's and all 

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, H M Hulme said:

Or read "Her Privates We" written by ex-KSLI soldier Frederic Manning, pub. 1929, still in print, F's and all 

 

A truly excellent book.

 

Interestingly, however, I don't recall the officers in the book using the F word.

[judy7007]

On 03/02/2020 at 21:29, Gunboat said:

Two of my friends who have no interest in the Great War went to see it yesterday both thoroughly enjoyed it. 

It made me think that if you think of it as a drama set in the Great War and not  a film about the Great War then it may be easier to suspend your disbelief. 

Excellent comment, thank you ....

[Neil Mackenzie]

I haven't seen 1917 yet but will do so - hopefully soon.

 

I have noticed a fair number of posts concerned about the rather PC inclusion of the Sikh soldier and other 'tokenism' in the film. I do wonder if those posters were as upset by the literally 100's of films where the character is white even though, historically, this is obviously nonsense. For example, virtually every Hollywood film based on an aspect of the Bible has been incorrect as regards the actual ethnicity of those who were in the Middle East at that time.

 

If we can live with that I am sure we can live with one Sikh soldier in a film on the Great War.

 

Neil

 

 

 

[JasonMc]

I must say I really enjoyed '1917' - And the thing is it's just a movie, not a documentary.

I work in filmmaking and it's so beautifully shot. Roger Deaken's must win an Oscar for cinematography this weekend.

The narrow cinemascope frame works well with the long trench scenery.  The one long take method, never cutting away, works so well bringing us into the story and the acting is excellent. 

Anyone hasn't seen it yet I'd highly recommend watching it to enjoy the movie and the film making. But maybe leave our own WW1 knowledge at the door!

[simond9x]

36 minutes ago, Neil Mackenzie said:

I haven't seen 1917 yet but will do so - hopefully soon.

 

I have noticed a fair number of posts concerned about the rather PC inclusion of the Sikh soldier and other 'tokenism' in the film. I do wonder if those posters were as upset by the literally 100's of films where the character is white even though, historically, this is obviously nonsense. For example, virtually every Hollywood film based on an aspect of the Bible has been incorrect as regards the actual ethnicity of those who were in the Middle East at that time.

 

If we can live with that I am sure we can live with one Sikh soldier in a film on the Great War.

 

Neil

 

 

 

Very good point. 'The Greatest Story Ever Told'...... John Wayne playing a Roman centurion at the crucificion...... "This truly was the Son of Gard"

[healdav]

11 hours ago, simond9x said:

Very good point. 'The Greatest Story Ever Told'...... John Wayne playing a Roman centurion at the crucificion...... "This truly was the Son of Gard"

Legend has it that the director told him to put more awe into it. So, next take he started , "Awww,..................."

 

Edited 7 February , 2020 by healdav

[H M Hulme]

14 hours ago, Neil Mackenzie said:

I haven't seen 1917 yet but will do so - hopefully soon.

 

I have noticed a fair number of posts concerned about the rather PC inclusion of the Sikh soldier and other 'tokenism' in the film. I do wonder if those posters were as upset by the literally 100's of films where the character is white even though, historically, this is obviously nonsense. For example, virtually every Hollywood film based on an aspect of the Bible has been incorrect as regards the actual ethnicity of those who were in the Middle East at that time.

 

If we can live with that I am sure we can live with one Sikh soldier in a film on the Great War.

 

Neil

 

 

 

Excellent point! Thanks for this.

H

15 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

 

A truly excellent book.

 

Interestingly, however, I don't recall the officers in the book using the F word.

Me, neither, TBH...

 

Suppose I'll just have to reread it 

[trajan]

On 06/02/2020 at 21:57, H M Hulme said:

...F's and all 

 

Unlike GWF where they are censored and replaced with F***'s!

[trajan]

On 07/02/2020 at 01:11, simond9x said:

Very good point. 'The Greatest Story Ever Told'...... John Wayne playing a Roman centurion at the crucificion...... "This truly was the Son of Gard"

 

Wasn't it  "Aw, gee, this truly was the Son of God!"?

[MartH]

57 minutes ago, trajan said:

Wasn't it  "Aw, gee, this truly was the Son of God!"?

The legend is that the director George Stevens said after the first take "John say it with awe this truly was the Son of God". Next take "With awe this truly is the Son of God".