Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Spielberg's '1917'


Mark Hone

Recommended Posts

Ticket booked on-line. I go over the top at 1255. As noted, Vue cinemas do a single price across the board for weekdays so £5 something (75p booking fee). Not busy: when I booked, about a dozen other seats had been reserved. Bet some eejit sits in my seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven Broomfield said:

I go over the top at 1255

Stay close to the huge barrage of publicity and send back timely messages, but take care reaching out to touch flanks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/01/2020 at 15:20, H M Hulme said:

Ahem! Excuse me - and vice versa. You chaps don't have a monopoly on WW1 interest y'know! ;) 

 

Whoosh! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said:

Depends upon the weight. I knew a couple who had an 11 lb baby and at birth it looked about three months old. Amazing.

A friend gave birth to one of they - longest baby I've ever seen, the midwife was said to have been equally impressed; he's topped out at 6'8". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GWF1967 said:

he's topped out at 6'8". 

2nd row or lock for the local XV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, LarsA said:

Two Oscar Nominations for 1917...

 

It has 10 nominations

Oscar nomination-Complete List

Edited by KernelPanic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sitting out here in Turkey I was increasingly getting the impression that many GWF pals were determined to da** the film before seeing it. And then continued to damn it afterwards. In fact I very nearly stopped sunscibing to this thread as it was becoming so negative. But I guess no GWF members are on the Oscar's nominations commitee????!!!;) It is FILM, for heaven's sake! I could rabbit on ngatively for hours about Gladiator, Spartacus version one, etc. - and I do when necessary in class! Get a perspective those of you in both the front and the back - and the middle rows! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've been to see it this morning. £6.95 for old codgers in Norfolk. I have to say I enjoyed it a lot. Relentless action and the lead actor was very good. The only bit that got my emotions was the end bit when he met up with Lieutenant Blake and conveyed the bad news. That resonated with me personally as I thought of my two great-uncles.

 

I hope it wins some Oscars, but knowing Hollywood, it will probably miss out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said:

 

I suppose it changed from Regiment to Regiment Corps to Corps. I have the personal papers and photographs of a soldier who was a driver in the ASC

 

He was originally of West Indian origin, and joined up in his 30's. I have a number of photos of him and his colleagues in cars and trucks and around 30% of the soldiers with him are either Caribbean or Indian origin. So certainly in the ASC people of colour as they are called ( I hate the term)  were well represented.


I have no idea where this came from. Nor do I know anything about it. It is simply in my collection of WW1 chaplains

 

 

 

 

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's 119 minutes I won't see again.

 

To begin: I saw nothing in terms of kit or equipment that wasn't excellent, and the trench scenes and tunnels in the German Lines were superb. Like Mr Swan, I found the first half very good, with some truly shocking moments. (And no rubber soles to be seen). The Sikh was fine: he was ain a lorry convoy, the officer i/c of which said they had collected some stragglers. As the Sikh was wearing cavalry kit (although a dismounted greatcoat), that's entirely plausible. As for the black Tommies, again, no issue. There is a modern thing for colour-blind casting (one of the innumerable trailers before the movie was for David Copperfield, a film I certainly intend to see, in which our eponymous hero is played by dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire fame), and I see no problem there. However, the scene in which a Lance Corporal saluted a Lieutenant Colonel (played by Bumbledick Thundersnatch in his best Thunderstick Bimblecatch mode) while uncovered was an utter horror show.

 

So, yes not a bad film, and probably deserving of all the Oscars it will garner. as Trajan says, it's a movie.

 

And there's my problem: I like a film to do more than just be there. This is like and action movie with pretensions. If it were X Men of Y Woment or something, I'd be fine - I'd avoid it. This pretends to be more, and it's not. It's a war movie based on Call of Duty, a shoot-em-up, but with pretensions to be Deep and Meaningful. The second half (I've not seen The Revenant) might as well be called The Unfortunate Events of Private Schofield and His Mate (I can't remember his name, I was that involved).

 

This is nowhere near a Great Movie, or a Great War Movie. To compare it with the likes of La Grande Illusion, All Quiet on the the Western Front or Paths of Glory does those films a disservice. Like the 2017 version of Dunkirk, this has a very hollow core and seems to be made to show how clever everyone involved is while persuading as many people as possible to buy as much popcorn and overpriced carbonated sugared water as they can squeeze in.

 

The message: War Is Not Really Very Nice we already knew.

 

Oh, second message: German musketry really was shocking. They jolly well deserved to lose.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, trajan said:

Sitting out here in Turkey I was increasingly getting the impression that many GWF pals were determined to da** the film before seeing it. And then continued to damn it afterwards. In fact I very nearly stopped sunscibing to this thread as it was becoming so negative. But I guess no GWF members are on the Oscar's nominations commitee????!!!;) It is FILM, for heaven's sake! I could rabbit on ngatively for hours about Gladiator, Spartacus version one, etc. - and I do when necessary in class! Get a perspective those of you in both the front and the back - and the middle rows! 

Here Here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mark holden said:

Here Here.

 

Thanks - but whoa, look at those spelling mistakes in my post! Written in haste while baked beans and a Danish bacon slice cooking away as I dispose of substantially out-of-date rations before traipsing to the UK in 2 days for 2 weeks of R&R! Oh, yes, the beans and the slice(s) were excellent! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mark holden said:

Here Here.

Nail on the head. Some people don’t want to like it.

i haven’t even seen it yet but I’m just grateful it got made at all 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of observations here about aspects of the film where Mendez was in error. There’s a great thread on Twitter written by an academic on those parts of his representation of the war which were correct. Here it is. Welcome to the ‘tommification’ of the trenches, amongst other things.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MrSwan said:

We saw the film last night and I very nearly walked out. It clearly isn't filmed in one take, with a particularly obvious major break in the middle.

 

I think you must have misread the publicity. It may be made to look like one long take, but in reality it took 5 months to film it. I think 'one take' is mission impossible unless you are doing a 10 minute film on your phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Pals.

After taking a fair chunk of the Family over for a Battlefield tour last summer to see where G/dad did his duty, it is now they that want to take me to the Flic's to see this film. Keeping the Great War in the minds of the next generation as it were. 

Just to say, On the Battlefields there were long periods of silence, and some wandering off. I thought that I had not really got there interest, but was proved wrong. As the events melted in the emotion followed, stunned by the sacrifice they were taken back by it all. 

We will see this film on Saturday next. 

Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

German musketry really was shocking. They jolly well deserved to lose.

Spoiler

 

Did anyone notice that after the General had given Schofield and his friend their instructions, they both loaded their rifles with one charger, five rounds. 
Schofield used two rounds to dispatch the German airman who killed his friend.

At the blown up bridge, he used five rounds before using one more to finish off the sniper - without reloading. 
Also, while he took photographs, rings and identity disc from his friend's body, he left his identity bracelet and wristwatch.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it this afternoon with probably no more than 40 other people - perfect. It's a remarkable piece of film-making. I read in an early posting of such errors as combat soled boots being worn. No idea where that scene appears as I couldn't fault the film for attention to detail - I think this side of things has been executed superbly. I was led to believe it pulled no punches and was quite gorey, but again, I didn't particularly feel it fell into that category. Well worth a viewing.


David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back fron seeing the film. I thought it was a splendid tale ie ignoring all the anomalies previously reported.

 

 I would add the river scene to the list of anomalies. It was more like a Scotish river than one near Arras.

 

Bob

 

PS an expensive £10.15 Seniors ticket at my local Cineworld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GRANVILLE said:

I saw it this afternoon with probably no more than 40 other people - perfect. It's a remarkable piece of film-making. I read in an early posting of such errors as combat soled boots being worn. No idea where that scene appears as I couldn't fault the film for attention to detail - I think this side of things has been executed superbly. I was led to believe it pulled no punches and was quite gorey, but again, I didn't particularly feel it fell into that category. Well worth a viewing.


David

It's a split second in the film that has no impact, but it was one of the main publicity shots prior to release used in a number of national newspapers and websites.

 

@trajan

I am happy to suspend disbelief and enjoy a story which is set in a historical context without the events themselves being historical - no problem with that at all -in fact many of my favourites do this.  My objections to it were more or less only based on the fact that whilst visually and technically impressive piece of film making -- and I too found nothing obvious to object to in terms of uniform/technical accuracy which looked just about spot on to me, and yet...... I just found it lacking ("emotionally hollow" was the Times reviewers take - emotionally lacking would be my slightly attenuated version of the criticism), a visually impressive yet ultimately lacking whatever it is that, for me, makes a film "great".

 

I have thought a fair bit about it since seeing it and I think I have come to the conclusion that in addition to failing (for me) to create much empathy with the lead characters the film also lacked any sense of ambiguity, everything was just a little too "simple" and, as I indicated in my first comments, rather cliched or perhaps derivative (characters/incidents). I have avoided going through the list because of potential spoilers. Outside of the visuals (which again *were* stunning) I didn't really see anything original or particularly different in the story being told or, more importantly the way it was approached. Perhaps I was expecting too much?

 

I am sure others have other and perhaps better informed views - but my reservations are absolutely NOT based on "historical inaccuracy" or the soles of boots (towards the end there is clear view of the lead's boots as he climbs out of the river and up the bank showing perfectly accurate hobnails and heel caps!) but that the film (as a film, a piece of entertainment) just didn't do it for me in the way I hoped it would. Clearly for others it did, for which I am very glad.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, squirrel said:

Did anyone notice that after the General had given Schofield and his friend their instructions, they both loaded their rifles with one charger, five rounds. 
Schofield used two rounds to dispatch the German airman who killed his friend.

At the blown up bridge, he used five rounds before using one more to finish off the sniper - without reloading. 

 

The box holds 10 if I recall correctly... So five already in before the re-charge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trajan said:

 

The box holds 10 if I recall correctly... So five already in before the re-charge?

 

Wouldn't runners be required to have no ammo in their rifle to avoid shooting and alerting the enemy? Or to prevent them for taking up a fire fight with the enemy when they should be on the move?

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree totally with Post 506 (which, I hope, was the gist of my comments). Absolutely spot-on with the historical accuracy, but hollow to the core. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...