1917 (WWI movie)
Author
Discussion

rdjohn

6,769 posts

212 months

Saturday 8th February 2020
quotequote all
CrutyRammers said:
So now we're looking at historical maps trying to find the exact place where a made up story happened? And that's not nitpicking? Okaaaay.
It is supposed to be a depiction of something that might have happened in April 1917, as told to him by Sam Mendes’s grandfather.

Hence the title. A complete work of fiction could have been titled 1919.

CrutyRammers

13,735 posts

215 months

Saturday 8th February 2020
quotequote all
rdjohn said:
It is supposed to be a depiction of something that might have happened in April 1917, as told to him by Sam Mendes’s grandfather.

Hence the title. A complete work of fiction could have been titled 1919.
Based on. Not a true representation of.

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

125 months

Saturday 8th February 2020
quotequote all
Cobnapint said:
Gadgetmac said:
As has been explained by somebody in the forces on this thread previously shooting during a war, even at close range, is very likely to end up not being a "hit".

Entirely believable.
Oh I agree, but that many times....?

I think the biggest problem when films involving a British director like this are released is the hype that comes with it. It raises expectations to a level the film cannot hope to reach.

It's similar to when JLR release a new model.
It’s something like 10,000 bullets spent per man killed IIRC. Chasing somebody 25 yards ahead of you whilst using a rifle it’s odds-on you won’t hit your quarry with 4 or 5 shots. He’d have done better to have stopped and aimed. But then you come up against man’s reluctance to kill another man and other issues ie ambient light etc.

Ayahuasca

27,503 posts

296 months

Monday 10th February 2020
quotequote all
It is a remake of The Lord of the Rings. Frodo and Sam, the perilous journey, the Orcs, the scene in the Mines of Moria...

With a dash of the Heart of Darkness..


Apart from that ....

No artillery fire from our side? No rolling barrage?

Surviving a perilous journey across No Man’s Land to find a truck convoy of British troops on the other side? How did it get there?

Rapids and waterfalls on the Western Front?

A company of soldiers in the woods allowing a stranger to sneak up on them unchallenged?

A lone brigade miles ahead of their lines, without artillery support, without any supply lines, without supporting units on their flanks, pushing on regardless apparently having dug amazingly deep brand new trenches all on their own?

No Speckled Jim?

The good points:

The No Man’s Land scenes were powerful and moving, the tangle of barbed wire and rotting corpses was horrific.

The view of the final attack was also powerful.








schmalex

13,616 posts

223 months

Monday 10th February 2020
quotequote all
The whole thing was a bit thin in my opinion.

Smollet

13,726 posts

207 months

Monday 10th February 2020
quotequote all
schmalex said:
The whole thing was a bit thin in my opinion.
Going by all the awards heaped on it at the Oscars that may be an understatement. Haven’t seen it yet myself and will wait for it to arrive on TV however the most incongruous part that I’ve seen in the trailer is the waterfall. Why was it included? There are none in the area it’s depicted to be in. Bizarre.

Ayahuasca

27,503 posts

296 months

Monday 10th February 2020
quotequote all
Re the waterfall and other ‘errors’ - at the end it is made clear that the film is based on the memories of the director’s grandfather, and as we know, memories can play tricks. Maybe he dreamed that he went over a waterfall, either at the time or later, and we are shown that dream rather that the reality of a river on the western front.

rdjohn

6,769 posts

212 months

Monday 10th February 2020
quotequote all
Smollet said:
Going by all the awards heaped on it at the Oscars that may be an understatement. Haven’t seen it yet myself and will wait for it to arrive on TV however the most incongruous part that I’ve seen in the trailer is the waterfall. Why was it included? There are none in the area it’s depicted to be in. Bizarre.
It a bombed out lock, on the Somme, no gates means a huge weir overflow - not rapids.

Weren’t the Oscars just for the technical stuff - no best script, actor, or film awarded.

Adam B

29,073 posts

271 months

Monday 10th February 2020
quotequote all
rdjohn said:
It a bombed out lock, on the Somme, no gates means a huge weir overflow - not rapids.

Weren’t the Oscars just for the technical stuff - no best script, actor, or film awarded.
won for cinematography, won BAFTA best film (UK bias)

Fundoreen

4,180 posts

100 months

Monday 10th February 2020
quotequote all
Good film but also good it didn't win the best picture oscar.
Liked it technically but prefer black adder for my WW1 fix.
Maybe a genuine talent like Taika Waititi can do something great with both one day.

A Winner Is You

25,598 posts

244 months

Wednesday 12th February 2020
quotequote all
Ayahuasca said:
It is a remake of The Lord of the Rings. Frodo and Sam, the perilous journey, the Orcs, the scene in the Mines of Moria...
Although LOTR was inspired by Tolkien's time on the Western Front, so perhaps it's come full circle.

Fundoreen

4,180 posts

100 months

Thursday 13th February 2020
quotequote all
A Winner Is You said:
Ayahuasca said:
It is a remake of The Lord of the Rings. Frodo and Sam, the perilous journey, the Orcs, the scene in the Mines of Moria...
Although LOTR was inspired by Tolkien's time on the Western Front, so perhaps it's come full circle.
Funny enough this did cross my mind a few weeks back as I thought why not just fly an aeroplane and drop the message or parachute out.
Similarly with LOTR why not just do the whole journey on a giant eagle.

A Winner Is You

25,598 posts

244 months

Thursday 13th February 2020
quotequote all
Fundoreen said:
A Winner Is You said:
Ayahuasca said:
It is a remake of The Lord of the Rings. Frodo and Sam, the perilous journey, the Orcs, the scene in the Mines of Moria...
Although LOTR was inspired by Tolkien's time on the Western Front, so perhaps it's come full circle.
Funny enough this did cross my mind a few weeks back as I thought why not just fly an aeroplane and drop the message or parachute out.
Similarly with LOTR why not just do the whole journey on a giant eagle.
Pilots at that time didn't use parachutes, so that at least has an explanation. Suppose you could argue that they'd still have to carry a message to the airfield, then hope the pilot finds the right area, then hope the right person gets and obeys the order, so it might be almost as efficient to go by foot

Penelope Stopit

11,209 posts

126 months

Thursday 13th February 2020
quotequote all
Ok then, even if it's fiction

Why are some troops so clean?

phazed

22,296 posts

221 months

Friday 14th February 2020
quotequote all
Where do you stop.

If you look at close-ups of old film, the British soldiers really are quite tatty. In close ups their teeth are in very poor condition which stands out more than anything else and they generally have that look that is hard to emulate.

Adam B

29,073 posts

271 months

Friday 14th February 2020
quotequote all
Penelope Stopit said:
Ok then, even if it's fiction

Why are some troops so clean?
didn't they rotate troops every 10 days or so off the front, coupled with the horrendous death rates, is it possible fresh troops with fresh uniforms would be present next to soldiers who had been on/of the front for months?

Penelope Stopit

11,209 posts

126 months

Friday 14th February 2020
quotequote all
Adam B said:
Penelope Stopit said:
Ok then, even if it's fiction

Why are some troops so clean?
didn't they rotate troops every 10 days or so off the front, coupled with the horrendous death rates, is it possible fresh troops with fresh uniforms would be present next to soldiers who had been on/of the front for months?
How do you think troops reached the front trench?

schmalex

13,616 posts

223 months

Friday 14th February 2020
quotequote all
I think, if I was to give Saving Private Ryan an 8/10 for portraying the camaraderie of war, as well as the brutality of battles, I would struggle to give 1917 any more than a 2 / 10.

Reflecting on it, it was a thin plot that jumped all over the place and just didn’t hang together at all. Lip service was paid to the battle in the quest for great special effects and the characters were not developed at all

Leylandeye

550 posts

72 months

Saturday 15th February 2020
quotequote all
I think some on here are missing the point that this was supposed to be a story recounted by an ageing grandfather. I don't see the inconsistencies as mistakes but actually how old people tell you stories as their mind jumps from one thing to the next.

My dad has some interesting stories but as he tells them, they are so full of holes and inconsistencies. He isn't lying or deliberately misleading, just that it happened a long time ago.

In my opinion, it was an entertaining film, not an attempt at a documentary or historical recreation.

7/10 for me, maybe an 8. In other words, well worth a cinema ticket.

Penelope Stopit

11,209 posts

126 months

Saturday 15th February 2020
quotequote all
Leylandeye said:
I think some on here are missing the point that this was supposed to be a story recounted by an ageing grandfather. I don't see the inconsistencies as mistakes but actually how old people tell you stories as their mind jumps from one thing to the next.

My dad has some interesting stories but as he tells them, they are so full of holes and inconsistencies. He isn't lying or deliberately misleading, just that it happened a long time ago.

In my opinion, it was an entertaining film, not an attempt at a documentary or historical recreation.

7/10 for me, maybe an 8. In other words, well worth a cinema ticket.
Missing the point?

What makes you think that an old person telling the story would mention "keep the troops clean"?

Life in the trenches was a living hell for many people

Why would anyone of good mind wish to show trench life as anything other than hell?

The film is an insult to all those that suffered