Hyacinth1326 Posted 2 January , 2020 Share Posted 2 January , 2020 (edited) I don't know how much can be relied upon in the article but whoever summarised the plot on Wikipedia does seem grounded. The makers of the film may have had the services of experts but that doesn't mean they took their advice. However the film action features Ecoust which was in the thick of the fighting in March 1917. I lifted this from Wiki which in turn took it from Cyril Falls: " Information that the Germans were burning villages behind the Hindenburg Line, led Gough to order II Corps and V Corps and the Lucknow Cavalry Brigade to advance vigorously on 19 March, with the support of the reinforced mobile columns to Ecoust St. Mein, Croisilles, Lagnicourt and Hénin sur Cojeul. Next day the brigade groups were to support the cavalry drive the Germans back to the Hindenburg Line, which led the 2nd Australian Division force to attack Noreuil on 20 March. The attack was repulsed with 331 casualties and an advance on Ecoust and Croisilles by infantry of the 18th Division with cavalry and artillery on the flanks was repulsed by fire from about fifteen machine-guns and six field guns; Gough ordered that attacks on the German outpost line were to stop until more artillery was available" Thing is, the 2nd Battalion the Devonshire Regiment attacked a place called Heudicourt during this period, rather than Ecoust. Edited 2 January , 2020 by Hyacinth1326 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard_Lewis Posted 2 January , 2020 Share Posted 2 January , 2020 It is being advertised for mid-Jan showings at Neath's cinematic emporium so Mrs Lewis and I shall hail a Phaeton and gambol down the hill to see it. Mrs L has also designated moi as her escorting eye candy for a sortie to see "Little Women..." Bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Bennitt Posted 4 January , 2020 Share Posted 4 January , 2020 Interviews with director, members of the cast and scriptwriter here https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/03/the-stupidest-thing-humanity-ever-did-to-itself-sam-mendes-and-colin-firth-on-1917 Cheers Martin B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 4 January , 2020 Share Posted 4 January , 2020 37 minutes ago, Martin Bennitt said: Interviews with director, members of the cast and scriptwriter here https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/03/the-stupidest-thing-humanity-ever-did-to-itself-sam-mendes-and-colin-firth-on-1917 Cheers Martin B The words 'tedious', 'uncritical' and 'they would say that, wouldn't they/' come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 4 January , 2020 Share Posted 4 January , 2020 (edited) On 08/12/2019 at 17:47, simond9x said: I agree. I was so disappointed in ‘Dunkirk’ but everyone else seemed to enjoy it. I didn't. I think the modern day container port cranes and warehouses were pretty poor. As there seemed to be a massive amount of CGI in the film anyway, surely it wouldn't have taken much to disguise them as trees or daleks or something? Edited 4 January , 2020 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin DavidOwen Posted 4 January , 2020 Admin Share Posted 4 January , 2020 34 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said: I didn't. I think the modern day container port cranes and warehouses were pretty poor. As there seemed to be a massive amount of CGI in the film anyway, surely it wouldn't have taken much to disguise them as trees or daleks or something? Totally agree and didn't think much to the storyline either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyH Posted 4 January , 2020 Share Posted 4 January , 2020 (edited) A four page pull-out in today's 'Times' is devoted to the film. We learn that Andy Robertshaw and Peter Barton were employed to ensure that details were 'absolutely right'. In a large colour trench photo a pair of rubber soled boots can be seen. I am still looking forward to seeing it. Mike. Edited 4 January , 2020 by MikeyH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyacinth1326 Posted 4 January , 2020 Share Posted 4 January , 2020 (edited) In its light-touch handling of the conflict’s class battle, 1917 distinguishes itself in its genre. “Once you start on all that,” says the films’ screenwriter, Krysty Wilson-Cairns, “you’ve lost most of your audience. And in Scotland, anyway, it means nothing.” Guardian Jan 3 2020 Tell it like you see it Krysty. The views vouched in the Guardian 'Opinions' section complete the doltfest. Edited 4 January , 2020 by Hyacinth1326 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 4 January , 2020 Share Posted 4 January , 2020 2 hours ago, MikeyH said: A four page pull-out in today's 'Times' is devoted to the film. We learn that Andy Robertshaw and Peter Barton were employed to ensure that details were 'absolutely right'. In a large colour trench photo a pair of rubber soled boots can be seen. I am still looking forward to seeing it. Mike. Just read it online (and added my comments to the conversation). I'm lookinh forward to seeing the movie, but not necessarily for the reasons the Director would wish. The more I read, the less I like the look of it. 2 hours ago, Hyacinth1326 said: The views vouched in the Guardian 'Opinions' section complete the doltfest. I never read those. Laughing at the afflicted is so unkind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bif Posted 4 January , 2020 Share Posted 4 January , 2020 (edited) Well, all this has been very entertaining. Part of why I stay here instead of going WFA or BMF. Lets talk. First, the bad stuff. It's Spielberg. It seems to be a WW 1 ode to Private Ryan. The trailer is abysmal re all the apparent CGI. Now the good stuff. Nowhere in the picture is an appearance by Susie Bl***y P. It occurs prior to American combat involvement, so we can't be blamed. And finally, best of all, the "yank" bashing endemic in the first several dozen posts has ceased. I, for one, will NOT be spending hard earned money on this cartoon enhanced bit of fluff revisionist gobbledygook oozing out of Hollyweird as some kind of misguided paean to the Great War. What ever happened to movies like, Best Years of Our Lives , A Walk in the Sun, In Which We Serve, Sergeant York, Immortal Battalion, All Quiet on the Western Front, Dawn Patrol, The Blue Max, Gallipoli, etc, etc ? These are movies. 'nuff said, bif Edited 4 January , 2020 by bif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 4 January , 2020 Share Posted 4 January , 2020 5 hours ago, MikeyH said: In a large colour trench photo a pair of rubber soled boots can be seen. Mike. Isn’t that quite possible? “Production of the Wellington boot was dramatically boosted with the advent of World War I and a requirement for footwear suitable for the conditions in Europe's flooded and muddy trenches. The North British Rubber Company (now Hunter Boot Ltd) was asked by the War Office to construct a boot suitable for such conditions. The mills ran day and night to produce immense quantities of these trench boots. In total, 1,185,036 pairs were made to meet the British Army's demands.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGM Posted 5 January , 2020 Share Posted 5 January , 2020 Just to add for those following news on 1917 : Sam Mendes is on Marr today, and 1917 made Tom Brook's top ten on Talking Movies : end of year special 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 5 January , 2020 Share Posted 5 January , 2020 The film (and its associated publicity) probably cost more (in financial terms) than the bloody war itself. 13 hours ago, bif said: Now the good stuff. Nowhere in the picture is an appearance by Susie Bl***y P. Are you absolutely sure? She might have a walk-on part as a VAD or some plucky little paysanne. All things are possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyacinth1326 Posted 5 January , 2020 Share Posted 5 January , 2020 I bet there is a plucky little paysanne in it. There was one in War Horse after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 5 January , 2020 Share Posted 5 January , 2020 Seriously, I see there have been comments about the whiteness of the teeth on show. I wonder, a propos nothing at all really, what the haircuts will be like? Will they recreate the close-cropped style most Tommies seem to have sported (with the bit left at the front to show under the cap)? Also, will everyone smoke incessantly? Given that smoking is a Bad Thing, will Hollywood allow it to be shown or will it be airbrushed from history? Oooh ... I am looking forward to seeing this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
593jones Posted 5 January , 2020 Share Posted 5 January , 2020 Dan Snow appears to have enjoyed it. The first two minutes of this podcast, (message from the sponsor). https://play.acast.com/s/dansnowshistoryhit/32dbfa9b-43e9-47b6-86f3-91b8e7fc4205 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 5 January , 2020 Share Posted 5 January , 2020 1 hour ago, 593jones said: Dan Snow appears to have enjoyed it. ... (message from the sponsor). No connection presumably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulgranger Posted 6 January , 2020 Share Posted 6 January , 2020 The film has won Best Picture at the Golden Globes, so it is regarded as Great Cinema by those in the movie industry. The trailers and interviews with those involved do not lead me to believe it will be Good History. I still don't know if I will go to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulgranger Posted 6 January , 2020 Share Posted 6 January , 2020 Correction. Sam Mendes won Best Director, not Best Film. Comments still stand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 6 January , 2020 Share Posted 6 January , 2020 44 minutes ago, paulgranger said: The film has won Best Picture at the Golden Globes, so it is regarded as Great Cinema by those in the movie industry. The trailers and interviews with those involved do not lead me to believe it will be Good History. I still don't know if I will go to see it. Indeed, though I shall go and see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardenerbill Posted 6 January , 2020 Share Posted 6 January , 2020 43 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said: Indeed, though I shall go and see it. A challenge for you Mr B, see if you can find something positive to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 6 January , 2020 Share Posted 6 January , 2020 4 hours ago, Gardenerbill said: A challenge for you Mr B, see if you can find something positive to say about it. Interestingly, today's Times has yet another piece, this time by Ben Mcintyre, questioning how truthfl the film is. His conclusion seems to be 'not very', but that it's still worth seeing to get an idea of what the GW was actually like. As Mrs Broomfield will accompany me to the cinema, I fear my tongue will be carefully bitten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulgranger Posted 6 January , 2020 Share Posted 6 January , 2020 I was about to mention the Times piece. Other than the obligatory 'pointless' reference to the Great War, I thought it quite a good article. It might persuade me to go and see it the fillum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veklee Posted 6 January , 2020 Share Posted 6 January , 2020 saw it last week didn't think that much of tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 6 January , 2020 Share Posted 6 January , 2020 (edited) Yeh, I saw the Mona Lisa in the Louvre in 1969, and can explain why I didn't think much of it... So.. You "didn't think that much of [it] tho"? Edited 6 January , 2020 by trajan 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