Spielberg's '1917'

[o j kirby]

Hello,

We went to see the film last night. I really thought that most of it was excellent. The trench scenes put the viewer right into the thick of it and the no-mans-land set was the best I have ever seen in a film. The uniform and kit looked right and I could not find fault in any of it. However, I do have a couple of observations that are negative:

I had hoped to see a bit more in the way of shellfire. Surely, despite the withdrawal of the Germans, there would have been more shellfire. I would have thought that there would be a few probing and defensive bombardments and stray shells. I also would have anticipated more evidence of smoke and noise from the demolitions conducted by the Germans as they pulled back. The other sequence that I had a problem with was the river scene where the main character ended up in a raging torrent. The geography was more Scottish Trossachs than French chalk downland.

The audience was silent through the entire film, and the mobile phones had been hidden away.

Other than the two negatives, I highly reccommend it.

Owain.

[healdav]

1 hour ago, o j kirby said:

Hello,

We went to see the film last night. I really thought that most of it was excellent. The trench scenes put the viewer right into the thick of it and the no-mans-land set was the best I have ever seen in a film. The uniform and kit looked right and I could not find fault in any of it. However, I do have a couple of observations that are negative:

I had hoped to see a bit more in the way of shellfire. Surely, despite the withdrawal of the Germans, there would have been more shellfire. I would have thought that there would be a few probing and defensive bombardments and stray shells. I also would have anticipated more evidence of smoke and noise from the demolitions conducted by the Germans as they pulled back. The other sequence that I had a problem with was the river scene where the main character ended up in a raging torrent. The geography was more Scottish Trossachs than French chalk downland.

The audience was silent through the entire film, and the mobile phones had been hidden away.

Other than the two negatives, I highly reccommend it.

Owain.

I saw it last night as well.

The things that struck me were, as you say, the river scene, and also that THE letter, was produced at the end complete and dry, despite having been soaked in the river, soaked in blood, and been though mud and who knows what else.

To be pedantic. The barbed wire didn't look German.

[Steven Broomfield]

In today's Tottygraph, Simon Heffer discusses the movie. I attach a link HERE (it will behind a paywall but I believe some limited access is allowed, so good luck). He rehearses most of the issues already addressed (though interestingly, he appears to be the only person other than yours truly to object to Lance Corporal someone saluting uncovered).

[David Filsell]

In view of criticisms, I'm looking forward to missing it when it reaches telivision more than ever.😎

[trajan]

4 hours ago, David Filsell said:

In view of criticisms, I'm looking forward to missing it when it reaches telivision more than ever.😎

[Moonraker]

15 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

In today's Tottygraph, Simon Heffer discusses the movie. I attach a link HERE (it will behind a paywall but I believe some limited access is allowed, so good luck). He rehearses most of the issues already addressed (though interestingly, he appears to be the only person other than yours truly to object to Lance Corporal someone saluting uncovered).

Heffer asks: "Would a whole division [sic] of the British Army - the Devonshire Regiment - have been stranded behind German lines ... Would an army with a couple of million men at its disposal have sent just two on such a precarious mission?"

 

He also notes "an over-caricatured officer" telling NCOs, anachronistically [??] to "f... off", and suggests the writers misunderstood army life in 1917 or ignored their historical advisers.

 

Two details, Heffer avers, took the film into the realms of silliness - the waterfall and (as Steven has said above)  a soldier saluting an officer while not wearing a hat.

 

Moonraker

[ss002d6252]

Very disappointed with the film, I found it not very watchable or believable.

 

Craig

[H M Hulme]

23 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

In today's Tottygraph, Simon Heffer discusses the movie. I attach a link HERE (it will behind a paywall but I believe some limited access is allowed, so good luck). He rehearses most of the issues already addressed (though interestingly, he appears to be the only person other than yours truly to object to Lance Corporal someone saluting uncovered).

 

Please could someone explain this 'saluting when uncovered' Thing? Was (is?) this an absolute in all circumstances? All ranks? What counts as headwear? What is the rationale behind this convention? 

Asking for a novelist friend 

TIA

[seaJane]

Saluting is not saluting the person but saluting the monarch as represented by the full uniform, which must, therefore, be full, i.e. includes caps on.

 

Protocol is that junior salutes senior and senior acknowledges, within the three services and across services. Right hand: palm out for the Army, RAF and Marines, palm down for the RN and RNAS.

 

Exceptions include having your hands full (tray of food etc) in which case a sharp nod of the head suffices, if I recall correctly.

[chaz]

not read all the posts here but came across mention of props being sold off. east Bristol auctions have a couple of grenade props

https://bid.eastbristol.co.uk/lots?term=1917&items=Grenade

[Steven Broomfield]

I see it picked up the 'Best Cinematography' gong last night (which it deserved) but not 'Best Picture' or 'Best Director' (which it didn't)

[Toby Brayley]

On 09/02/2020 at 11:48, ss002d6252 said:

 I found it not very watchable or believable.

 

 

 

Yes, this,

 

I found it just utter nonsense.

 

It Irks me somewhat that of all the thousands superb true exploits from the Great War that could be made into a perfectly watchable, passable and interesting hollywood film, that 1917 is what we end up with!  

 

Even more annoying is the fact we are now told this is the new "benchmark" for war films, I honestly hope not. 

 

Or maybe I am just old and grumpy... I shall resign my self to watching (the original) All Quiet on the Western Front or Paths of Glory in my favourite slippers!  

 

[ss002d6252]

1 minute ago, Toby Brayley said:

 

Yes, this,

 

I found it just utter nonsense.

 

It Irks me somewhat that of all the thousands superb true exploits from the Great War that could be made into a perfectly watchable, passable and interesting hollywood film, that 1917 is what we end up with!  

 

Even more annoying is the fact we are now told this is the new "benchmark" for war films, I honestly hope not. 

 

Or maybe I am just old and grumpy... I shall resign my self to watching (the original) All Quiet on the Western Front or Paths of Glory in my favourite slippers!  

 

I was hoping it was going to be a 'Saving Private Ryan' of WW1 but it's far from it.

Craig

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

3 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

I see it picked up the 'Best Cinematography' gong last night (which it deserved) but not 'Best Picture' or 'Best Director' (which it didn't)

Didn't even register in 'Best Foreign Film'.

Well it was supposed to be in France.

[Alan24]

4 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Didn't even register in 'Best Foreign Film'.

Well it was supposed to be in France.

And it had subtitles! (Woman with baby).

[jonbem]

10 minutes ago, Alan24 said:

subtitles

Did they have them in "Run silent, run deep"?

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, Toby Brayley said:

 

my favourite slippers!  

 

 

I've just suffered a mid-life crisis. My slippers had eventually given up the ghost so I steeled myself, stiffened the sinew, summoned up the nerve, etc, and went into Clarke's in Eastleigh. £29.00. Smashing. My new favourite slippers.

 

The old ones were ceremoniously retired.

 

Well, chucked in the bin, if you must know.

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

I did a cost/benefit analysis a few years ago  when trying to decide whether to go expensive (£30 at Clark's - Note correct spelling..) or 'budget' (£7.99 at Shoezone).

So I bought a budget pair, woolly lined.

They've just about giving up after 3 years. Annual running cost  £2.67

The woolliness is still there, but the soles have cracked badly.

So, to achieve the same slipper economy, the Clark's model needs to survive over 11 years.

Hmmm.

I'm going 'budget' again.

 

[jonbem]

4 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

I did a cost/benefit analysis a few years ago  when trying to decide whether to go expensive (£30 at Clark's - Note correct spelling..) or 'budget' (£7.99 at Shoezone).

So I bought a budget pair, woolly lined.

They've just about giving up after 3 years. Annual running cost  £2.67

The woolliness is still there, but the soles have cracked badly.

So, to achieve the same slipper economy, the Clark's model needs to survive over 11 years.

Hmmm.

I'm going 'budget' again.

 

Does their usable life depend if you wear them shopping?

https://metro.co.uk/2017/01/05/sorry-pyjamas-are-not-acceptable-outfits-for-shopping-6362381/

[DavidOwen]

I just love my suede moccasins from Amazon. A tad more expensive but great quality and comfort.

[nigelcave]

On 09/02/2020 at 20:50, seaJane said:

Saluting is not saluting the person but saluting the monarch as represented by the full uniform, which must, therefore, be full, i.e. includes caps on.

 

 Right hand: palm out for the Army, RAF and Marines, palm down for the RN and RNAS.

 

Exceptions include having your hands full (tray of food etc) in which case a sharp nod of the head suffices, if I recall correctly.

Interestingly enough, you could also salute with your left hand. General Jack notes in his diary that there was an ACI, saying that the practice should cease, in the early summer of 1918, IIRC. He notes wryly, given the crisis on the WF at the time, that the Germans would have no choice but to give up if the British could trouble themselves with such relative trivia in the face of such a dire situation.

 

Yep, even rules about saluting whilst on a bicycle. (Was it not RSM Brittain (?Sp?) who had a man charged for 'idling whilst cycling'? I think the culprit was free wheeling at the time.)

[stripeyman]

1 hour ago, nigelcave said:

Interestingly enough, you could also salute with your left hand. General Jack notes in his diary that there was an ACI, saying that the practice should cease, in the early summer of 1918, IIRC. He notes wryly, given the crisis on the WF at the time, that the Germans would have no choice but to give up if the British could trouble themselves with such relative trivia in the face of such a dire situation.

 

Yep, even rules about saluting whilst on a bicycle. (Was it not RSM Brittain (?Sp?) who had a man charged for 'idling whilst cycling'? I think the culprit was free wheeling at the time.)

It was the actor Edward Underdown in 'They were not divided' 1951. But why did they allow such a disgraceful display to appear in 1917 ? No headdress ! Its the modern world of poor standards those responsible should be flogged.....

[Steven Broomfield]

52 minutes ago, stripeyman said:

 'They were not divided' 1951. 

 

A truly excellent film. It was on TPTV a week or two back; I hadn't seen it for 40 years. What a great movie. Almost a documentary. Certainly shows 1917 for what it is. Or possibly for what it isn't.

[squirrel]

Saluting without a cap... and is at all possible for actors and re-enactors to wear their caps properly when they do wear them? They all put them on the back of their head and pull them down by the peak which looks downright scruffy and altogether too casuaI. I was instructed to put the cap on from the front by the crown or sides - by a Scots Guards Drill Sergeant.

[stripeyman]

9 hours ago, squirrel said:

Saluting without a cap... and is at all possible for actors and re-enactors to wear their caps properly when they do wear them? They all put them on the back of their head and pull them down by the peak which looks downright scruffy and altogether too casuaI. I was instructed to put the cap on from the front by the crown or sides - by a Scots Guards Drill Sergeant.

A good beret could be put on with one hand....