Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Great War => Topic started by: armchairgeneral on October 04, 2019, 12:53:15 PM
-
Just seen this trailer. Looking good :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNYrYUiMfg
-
That does look interesting. Looks to have more depth and understanding than the usual 'posh officers = stupid and uncaring, poor infantry = brave and exploited' fare about WW1.
-
Interesting.
-
Seen that, good movie. Thingie is good as the company commander.
-
One of my sons has picked up on the trailer, and says he is looking forward to seeing it.
Somewhere on the internet, he showed me a good documentary on how they made it, with the camera being hand carried behind the main character, to add that “personal” feel to the film. It also pointed out that it was filmed in real time, and that they had to keep waiting round for good weather, none of this piecing it together with a bit from here and a bit from there.
Looks good.
-
I thought the trailer was rather spoilt by the scene with the officer running along the front of the trench line, and each section of troops waiting until he had passed to "go over the top" whereas in reality they would all have been "up and over" in one sequence at the same time. All war films, but especially WW1 films, seem to have to sacrifice realistic/historically accurate tactics to whatever "looks good" to the director.
-
From the bit of the trailer I saw, the plot seemed to be a WW1 variation on the Saving Private Ryan theme but I could be wrong....
Doug
-
Realistic landscape and must have a lot of suspense!
-
From the bit of the trailer I saw, the plot seemed to be a WW1 variation on the Saving Private Ryan theme but I could be wrong....
Doug
Synopsis from IMDB: "Two young British privates during the First World War are given an impossible mission: deliver a message deep in enemy territory that will stop 1,600 men, and one of the soldier's brothers, from walking straight into a deadly trap."
It sounds on the face of it a somewhat contrived premise, which needn't prevent it being a decent film. Not unlike Saving Private Ryan, in fact. We shall see.
-
Saw it this afternoon.
Fantastic! Tremendously satisfying movie.
I am convinced there were some minis gamers working on this production.
-
Reviews so far are good, although the question is begged as to why you would send two men rather than a patrol. The real time thing is a bit of Oscar bait as is the one take schtick. The events apparently take place over nine hours and the film has been carefully edited to look like a single take. Logistically improbable if not impossible to actually do so.
-
Realistic landscape and must have a lot of suspense!
Portions were filmed at the Graving docks in Govan Glasgow.......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Quay and I thought it was fantastic cinema.
-
Just saw it. Loved it.
It’s full of implausible things - you could argue that the whole central premise is basically flawed. Given that the nature of the Western Front was that the front lines were essentially continuous and unbroken, without gaps the enemy could exploit (which was the whole reason for almost 5 years of stalemate slaughter) why would you have to send two runners FORWARD across No Man’s Land and through the abandoned German lines in order to reach another British Division? Because they’re not going to be on their own, ten miles out in front of the rest of your lines. Why wouldn’t you just go along the line? Makes no sense at all.
And then there are several other lesser points at which you go ‘well that doesn’t make any sense’ and a few nerdy military history buff moments where you go ‘well that’s not right’.
But none of that really matters, because it doesn’t really detract too much from the movie once you let your suspension of disbelief kick in.
Despite some hyper realistic depictions of the horrors of No Man’s Land and the trenches, it’s not really a realistic film. Rather like Apocalypse Now, it’s got that kind of nightmarish, unreal flavour. It’s a kind of visual fugue on the theme of the horrors of the Great War, rather than a realistic depiction.
It’s gripping, moving, well acted, and full of stunning, jaw-dropping cinematography and incredible visuals. I’d highly recommend watching it.
TBH the whole ‘it’s all shot in one take’ thing, wasn’t all that noticeable to me, or that significant. Although I guess it does give it that immediacy and the immersive, up close and personal feel.
-
On the 'to see' list.
Movies only work with our "willing suspension of disbelief". We want to believe. For those who don't, especially for the 'rivet counters' going to see a 'historical' movie is a waste of life force. A movie is not - and is never actually intended to be - 'realistic'; it is the telling of a story. If you enjoyed the movie, I'd guess you enjoyed the story.
First historian on the movie Titanic got fired, second historian (local lad) got hired because when asked the critical question by Cameron, he gave the right answer:
Cameraon: In a battle between art or history, which wins.
Historian: Art.
Paycheck!
-
TBH the whole ‘it’s all shot in one take’ thing, wasn’t all that noticeable to me, or that significant. Although I guess it does give it that immediacy and the immersive, up close and personal feel.
That's what makes it work so well as a film - it doesn't feel like a gimmick, it just points you 'in' the action.
I thought it was superb.
-
It sounds similar to 'Dunkirk' - very immersive, but don't go pointing out historical nit-picks and plot holes as that is not the point. The point is to make you feel like you are there, which it sounds like it does well (as did Dunkirk).
-
It sounds similar to 'Dunkirk' - very immersive, but don't go pointing out historical nit-picks and plot holes as that is not the point. The point is to make you feel like you are there, which it sounds like it does well (as did Dunkirk).
Though the “there” wasn’t Dunkirk in 1940... The 1958 version was much, much better in that regard.
-
Now what did I say about no nit-picks? ;)
-
Just saw it. Loved it.
It’s full of implausible things - you could argue that the whole central premise is basically flawed. Given that the nature of the Western Front was that the front lines were essentially continuous and unbroken, without gaps the enemy could exploit (which was the whole reason for almost 5 years of stalemate slaughter) why would you have to send two runners FORWARD across No Man’s Land and through the abandoned German lines in order to reach another British Division? Because they’re not going to be on their own, ten miles out in front of the rest of your lines. Why wouldn’t you just go along the line? Makes no sense at all.
And then there are several other lesser points at which you go ‘well that doesn’t make any sense’ and a few nerdy military history buff moments where you go ‘well that’s not right’...
By this point, both sides were moving beyond linear defences on the Western Front to adopt defence in depth. This system established an outpost line backed by a mainline of resistance and strongpoints that served as rallypoints. It accepted a degree of penetration was necessary to absorb an enemy attack and meant the frontlines were, to a degree, more fluid. This meant to old front lines were largely abandoned due to the greater dispersal of troops.
The film is set during the German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line (whose design is a classic example of this defence methodology), during which 2nd Devons are shown being drawn into a trap as they follow-up.
Cor bugger Janner! ;)
-
Hmmm.
Fair point. But do you think the situation portrayed in the movie, with one British division evidently isolated nine miles forward of the main British line, and critically, way out on the other side of no man’s land, is plausible? It doesn’t seem so to me.
There were salients of course. But completely isolated large formations, entrenched and facing forward far beyond the enemy’s opposing frontline and with no communications / resupply corridor to the rear and the main British frontline? Colour me sceptical ;)
Not that it spoiled the movie. I thought it was excellent. It just feels like a set-up to suit the filmmaker’s dramatic purposes, rather than reflecting reality.
-
Then there's the small point of why they wouldn't fly an aircraft over and drop a message - standard operating procedure by mid-1917.
With regard to "nit-picking", the blurb in support of the film has said that it wants to tell cinema-goers what WW1 was really like, and whilst it's good that it seems to have departed from the "Oh, what a lovely war!"/"Slackbladder comes last" version of history, if they are serious about educating the public then they owe it to both their audience, and those who lived through the real thing, to do it properly.
-
Then there's the small point of why they wouldn't fly an aircraft over and drop a message - standard operating procedure by mid-1917.
I'll confess straightaway I haven't seen the film, but my initial thought when reading of the scenario was that it did appear somewhat implausible, and indeed contrived, as I said earlier. In addition to the point mentioned above, you have to wonder - unless it's explained in the script - why the formation in question lacked a radio set, and, even given a sound reason for this, why a humble pigeon might not have been employed.(The Blackadderesque explanation would probably be that pigeons are a valuable resource.)
Without wishing to appear too cynical, my feelings about the film took a slight downturn on reading an interview with the script writer, whose original inspiration to go into film was the outstanding 2000 release Charlie's Angels. I'll post the link if I can find it. Some of the other content I can remember would probably not be readily believed without evidence.
-
Before posting the link, I have to admit to a slight error in my previous post, which will be readily apparent to anyone who reads the paragraph in question. The real bombshell, so to speak, comes a little later in the interview which appears at the approximate mid-point of the article. (Just below the picture of Colin Firth).
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/03/the-stupidest-thing-humanity-ever-did-to-itself-sam-mendes-and-colin-firth-on-1917
-
Saw it this morning. I liked it. Yes, it doesn't have the same tension as, say, Dunkirk, but a good effort.
-
In addition to the point mentioned above, you have to wonder - unless it's explained in the script - why the formation in question lacked a radio set, and, even given a sound reason for this, why a humble pigeon might not have been employed.
Runners were still widely used in WW1 because they were the most reliable way of getting a message from A to B, unless they were static locations where telephone cables had been laid. Battlefield radio was still in its infancy, short ranged and notoriously unreliable and aircraft navigation and spotting were crude at best, so a plane would be as likely to circle randomly round the wrong location getting shot at. A runner could ask/answer questions, make decisions and find a unit whose location was difficult to pin down.
-
Yes, of course. Furthermore, a pigeon could only fly to a location with which it was already familiar, rather than one only recently occupied. On reflection, then, not such an implausible scenario as I first thought.
-
It's terrifying how limited battlefield radios still are. It's been estimated that in the event of a NATO vs Russia conflict, NATO battlefield radios could be taken out in minutes with a single EMP strike by Russia, because of their limited capacity and centrally-controlled set-up. Let's hear it for diplomatic solutions to the world's problems!
-
Alas,I haven’t seen the film yet,although such a situation is mentioned in the Lousier War,a memoir of a chap in a MG platoon,however there was no rescue and the main protagonist was captured...
One wonders why no one has made any of Derek Robinson WW1 novels into a film,would have thought they would be right up P. Jackson’s alley for instance,Goshawk Squadron for example (actually shortlisted for the Booker prize)?
-
The book 'True World War I Stories' (ISBN 1 84119 095 0) details the account of B Neyland in a chapter entitled 'A Wireless Operator'. He was a sapper in the Royal Engineers Wireless Section. His unit of 3 men, including himself, had to carry a wireless set forward in the attack at Rolincourt, Arras. Even in 1917, it took another 4 men (7 all told) to carry ' the set, accumulators, dry cells, coils of wire, earth mats, ropes and other details'. The first British efforts at using 'mobile' forward radio operators to support artillery co-ordination with infantry attacks took place during the Battle of the Somme.
The Fuller phone was more typically carried forward during an attack to facilitate real-time battlefield comms. Wire-based technologies were still used as well, though vulnerable to being cut as we all know. None of the above technologies were suitable for an infantry division cut off many miles from the front line (which is a completely unrealistic scenario in any case on the Western Front in 1917 but hey ho).
Typically, radio sets were provided to high level commands early in the war. These commands would be relatively stationary, so had time to set up the radios and transmit. During the Germans advance into France, army HQs would report back to the German High Command on a daily basis via radio. Infamously, during the British advance up the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia, General Maude required his cavalry to report in by radio every hour! Given that it took 20 minutes to set up a wireless station, then 15 mins to take it down, there was not a lot of time for actually advancing. The Marquess of Anglesey in his history of the British Cavalry has a picture of a wireless set in operation. He also includes the following footnote:
'The success which attended wireless communications during the first half of the campaign "was almost unique throughout the British theatres". For the first two years (after 1915), it was unhampered by security restrictions...'
Wireless sets were carried in some British tanks specifically earmarked to support battlefield comms but not in 1917.
Robert
-
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/03/the-stupidest-thing-humanity-ever-did-to-itself-sam-mendes-and-colin-firth-on-1917
Hi, I watched 1917 for a second time yesterday evening and thoroughly enjoyed it despite knowing how it ends.
I read the Guardian article, mentioned by Andrew, and thought some of the comments (as reported) by the screenwriter were silly to say the least however these comments did not detract from the experience of the movie, and it is, lets not forget, a movie and therefore artifice -a vehicle for telling a story.
The way narrative, and the physical landscape unfolds, through the eyes and experiences of the two soldiers, is in my opinion, absolutely brilliant-transcending the mundane and through scaling the millions of protagonists down to two people it effectively amplifies the incalculable horror, danger and randomness of war. The technical use of the continuous scene, the music and sound
I don’t know enough about WWI to comment of accuracy, tactics or pigeon’s but I do, well I like to think I do, know good cinema when I see it and this was most certainly an excellent movie.
Plus parts were filmed in one of my favourite places in Glasgow the Graving Docks at Govan.
Stephen
-
I watched it today. Better than I expected. Well-liked war films always get me worried that it's going to be all gooey.
As it was, without wishing to get too anal about history stuff (Sopwith Camels in April 1917?!?) or spoil things too much, I thought the first and third parts of the film were very strong. The middle third almost killed it, but they managed to bring it back in the end. The moment when everyone goes over the top I found actually quite moving. The feeling of being part of a vast war was very strong. I actually think it's better than Dunkirk - though it shan't unseat Paths of Glory or All Quiet on the Western Front.
The weakest part overall, which I found to be a tremendous disappointment, is the portrayal of the Germans. I can't say more due to plot points but let's just say that war films need to realise that in a war like that both sides are actually trying to survive. All Quiet on the Western Front (thinking of the book here because I'm finally reading it) does that brilliantly in a certain scene involving a Frenchman and shellhole.
Recommended from me. :)
-
I watched it on Saturday night with my wife. We both enjoyed it.
The film is not a conventional war film - it is in many ways more an adventurous journey through a horrific landscape. The detail in the landscapes and set dressing is incredible.
Definitely a film worth seeing on the big screen.
-
We saw it some days back; it is a great movie (imho). I liked it better then eg Dunkirk. Even my wife loved it.
-
I agree 1917 good as it is not a patch (aesthetically or otherwise) on Paths of Glory, which is a sublime piece of cinema nor does it have the sheer power of All Quiet on the Western Front but then these examples are both vehemently anti war (Paths of Glory was banned in France for a ridiculous amount of time and the USA banned its screening in any military establishment) which leads me to wonder how to we define a “war movie” is it simply a movie which either set in or depicts warfare or are there other considerations? Just a musing before preparing dinner for the minions
-
I too loved the film. One forgets the improbabilities and just gets immersed in the story.
Now, for rivet-counting of another sort, one thing that struck me as odd was the song choice during the powerful "hymn scene." The song is called "The Wayfaring Stranger," and gorgeous, haunting it is too, but it's a song from the American South, not Britain. It actually had me thinking they belonged to an American regiment until they started speaking. Not a huge deal - and again, it's a fantastic song - but it felt a little like having a regiment of Yanks sing "God Save the King;" especially when there are so many superb British pieces that would have been equally apropos.
A very minor point, I admit. ::)
-
But a good point ;)
I assumed it was Irish, which also seemed an unlikely choice for a soldier in the Devons.
But it was rather a beautiful moment nonetheless :)
Mind you, Swing Low Sweet Chariot is also from the deep south, and yet, and yet... ;)
-
Comparing Wayfaring Stranger to God save the King is a wee bit out there. One is a Sacred Harp hymn sung at Church and the other a National Anthem. But yeah unusual maybe, but certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.
-
I watched it today. Better than I expected. Well-liked war films always get me worried that it's going to be all gooey.
As it was, without wishing to get too anal about history stuff (Sopwith Camels in April 1917?!?) or spoil things too much, I thought the first and third parts of the film were very strong. The middle third almost killed it, but they managed to bring it back in the end. The moment when everyone goes over the top I found actually quite moving. The feeling of being part of a vast war was very strong. I actually think it's better than Dunkirk - though it shan't unseat Paths of Glory or All Quiet on the Western Front.
The weakest part overall, which I found to be a tremendous disappointment, is the portrayal of the Germans. I can't say more due to plot points but let's just say that war films need to realise that in a war like that both sides are actually trying to survive. All Quiet on the Western Front (thinking of the book here because I'm finally reading it) does that brilliantly in a certain scene involving a Frenchman and shellhole.
Recommended from me. :)
Although the point was to be immersed into the first person view of the 2 messengers, so the portrayal of the "Huns" makes sense from that point of view. A film that does portray the view from both sides well may be "Joyuex Noel".
I too would recommend the movie. The one shot technique works well too immerse the viewer into the actions of the main characters.
-
Comparing Wayfaring Stranger to God save the King is a wee bit out there.
Oh, I agree. Was just being a little silly there... :)
-
Although the point was to be immersed into the first person view of the 2 messengers, so the portrayal of the "Huns" makes sense from that point of view. A film that does portray the view from both sides well may be "Joyuex Noel".
I too would recommend the movie. The one shot technique works well too immerse the viewer into the actions of the main characters.
I'd disagree, each and every one of the beastly Huns ( :P ) did everything in his power to hurt the protagonists - even when badly injured.
For me that sadly goes beyond that bounds of "willing suspension of disbelief" in my book.
-
I'd disagree, each and every one of the beastly Huns ( :P ) did everything in his power to hurt the protagonists - even when badly injured.
For me that sadly goes beyond that bounds of "willing suspension of disbelief" in my book.
Exactly what they were trained to do. Although I agree about the scene you refer to - injuries would have been a bit more disabling I should think. Plot point certainly.
Keep in mind though that Mendes got his stories from his grandfather who fought and would have been subject to the propaganda of the time as well. In the end though very hard for this movie to portray both sides in an evenhanded way given the limited scope of the movie, ie; first person, one shot etc.
-
Saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it, good story, well told.
-
It has been a while since I set and viewed a movie that had me tense the whole way through. Loved the film even with its historical flaws (small IMHO) will try to see again and plan on adding it to my Blue Ray collection the moment it comes out.
-
i just saw it...quite boring..a lot of action without catghing the very feeling of the period ..nothing to do with other few excellent moovies on WW1 like the beautiful "Gallipoli" from Peter Weir of 1981..sequences similar to a modern action moovie..characters with a too much modern appearance even their hair cuts are unrealistic...ridicoulous from an historical point of view ..the Germans are depicted in a caricatural way and treated as the "bad boys" like a mediocre propaganda comics of that time...despite the truth, as we all know, that the Central Empires were agressed by the Allies all over the world...
-
Saw the film the other day , I liked it , beautifully filmed and found it tense at times .
-
Just saw it. Loved it.
It’s full of implausible things - you could argue that the whole central premise is basically flawed. Given that the nature of the Western Front was that the front lines were essentially continuous and unbroken, without gaps the enemy could exploit (which was the whole reason for almost 5 years of stalemate slaughter) why would you have to send two runners FORWARD across No Man’s Land and through the abandoned German lines in order to reach another British Division? Because they’re not going to be on their own, ten miles out in front of the rest of your lines. Why wouldn’t you just go along the line? Makes no sense at all.
And then there are several other lesser points at which you go ‘well that doesn’t make any sense’ and a few nerdy military history buff moments where you go ‘well that’s not right’.
But none of that really matters, because it doesn’t really detract too much from the movie once you let your suspension of disbelief kick in.
Despite some hyper realistic depictions of the horrors of No Man’s Land and the trenches, it’s not really a realistic film. Rather like Apocalypse Now, it’s got that kind of nightmarish, unreal flavour. It’s a kind of visual fugue on the theme of the horrors of the Great War, rather than a realistic depiction.
It’s gripping, moving, well acted, and full of stunning, jaw-dropping cinematography and incredible visuals. I’d highly recommend watching it.
TBH the whole ‘it’s all shot in one take’ thing, wasn’t all that noticeable to me, or that significant. Although I guess it does give it that immediacy and the immersive, up close and personal feel.
Seen it. Liked it. A lot. I view it more as an art film than a action or traditional war film.
-
Well described. 👍
-
My wife & I saw it last night. We both liked it, nuf said.
-
Watched the film today.
The first half i enjoyed. From the town onwards I felt it went downhill. I felt the ending was silly...
As for the singing, I agree The choice of song was wrong, plus what officer would allow that many of his soldiers to bunch up that much, that close to the front???
The hero was a millennial, However his sidekick seemed a lot more "of his time". I ended up hoping the hero would get killed....
I can understand why they added a lot (relatively speaking) of coloured soldiers, but it did grate on me a bit...it's the historical nerd in me.
-
Watched the film today.
The first half i enjoyed. From the town onwards I felt it went downhill. I felt the ending was silly...
As for the singing, I agree The choice of song was wrong, plus what officer would allow that many of his soldiers to bunch up that much, that close to the front???
The hero was a millennial, However his sidekick seemed a lot more "of his time". I ended up hoping the hero would get killed....
I can understand why they added a lot (relatively speaking) of coloured soldiers, but it did grate on me a bit...it's the historical nerd in me.
You should have no worries for your inner "historical nerd" after seeing this movie I learned about the contributions of Sikh soldiers in the British army in WWI. Over 100,000 served in France with several earning the VC. As I recall there were only two scenes involving coloured soldiers, in the truck and at the end. I do not recall more than 2 shown which I would think would be well within the historical ratios.
The hero as millennial, that is a good one, I can totally see that comparison.
-
it would be intersting to ask to a sample of young people in the streets or at University or even a sample among the mass of ineducated people (90%) ..what happened in 1917?..or even when WW1 began or ended?..or maybe who were the main antagonists?...from their silence, their guttural answers and from their boiled fish look you will understand why this moovie could'nt have been done in a realistic or sophisticated way. :'(..and above all why the "supposed to be hero" is represented as "millenial" and not as sober, responsible, i would say also elegant true soldier of 1917 similar to the picts of my grandfather in Isonzo Front and the totality of your ancestors in various fronts
-
it would be intersting to ask to a sample of young people in the streets or at University or even a sample among the mass of ineducated people (90%) ..what happened in 1917?..or even when WW1 began or ended?..or maybe who were the main antagonists?...from their silence, their guttural answers and from their boiled fish look you will understand why this moovie could'nt have been done in a realistic or sophisticated way. :'(..and above all why the "supposed to be hero" is represented as "millenial" and not as sober, responsible, i would say also elegant true soldier of 1917 similar to the picts of my grandfather in Isonzo Front and the totality of your ancestors in various fronts
Maybe things are different in Italy, but the UK has just been through four years of intensive WWI commemorations. It my experience there is better knowledge of the Great War now than there has been at any other time in my life.
As for haircuts, as far as I saw, those depicted match period photos of British soldiers. Do you have a specific example in mind?
-
Having wargamed WW1 for the last ten years, I have an extensive collection of Osprey books on the period, some of which I have actually read, as well as even (not wishing to brag) the odd book without any pictures. So this obviously makes me a leading authority on the period. Therefore, when I the see the film tonight I shall naturally find it hard not to make known any historical inaccuracies encountered loudly and pompously for the enlightenment of my fellow cinema goers. Should I make it through the whole film without foaming at the mouth and exploding in a fit of apoplexy at any departures from historical truth, you will all have the benefit of my opinion shortly afterwards lol lol lol
-
Having wargamed WW1 for the last ten years, I have an extensive collection of Osprey books on the period, some of which I have actually read, as well as even (not wishing to brag) the odd book without any pictures. So this obviously makes me a leading authority on the period. Therefore, when I the see the film tonight I shall naturally find it hard not to make known any historical inaccuracies encountered loudly and pompously for the enlightenment of my fellow cinema goers. Should I make it through the whole film without foaming at the mouth and exploding in a fit of apoplexy at any departures from historical truth, you will all have the benefit of my opinion shortly afterwards lol lol lol
The fabled Book Without Pictures?! I shall prostrate myself duly before your wisdom. ;)
-
Someone broke into my personal library & stole all 3 books!
I am fuming, I hadn't finished colouring in the 3rd one!
-
The fabled Book Without Pictures?! I shall prostrate myself duly before your wisdom. ;)
I can't pretend it was easy. However with tenacity and discipline I managed to read a whole page at each sitting, resisting the urge to colour in some of the letters, and got to the end. Quite a feat of scholarship I think you'll agree lol
-
Should I make it through the whole film without foaming at the mouth and exploding in a fit of apoplexy at any departures from historical truth, you will all have the benefit of my opinion shortly afterwards lol lol lol
Well played, sir!
lol lol lol
-
I think that the only ones that foam at their mouth are those so many ones that do not and cannot belong to a cultural elite
-
Really enjoyed the film. It seemed quite accurate to me. Just thought it was a shame it hadn’t come out during the 2014 - 2018 commemorations as a timely fitting tribute.
-
I think that the only ones that foam at their mouth are those so many ones that do not and cannot belong to a cultural elite
Thank you for your candour - self-awareness is a rare quality...
lol lol lol
-
You’re welcome ...but pleas don’t be jealous or despair your stance is very common lol lol
-
Must say this is a fun conversation, lads. I almost choked on my tea several times whilst reading the books comments. It's refreshing to see the love of history worn lightly.
-
Which brand of tea?
-
Brand? Trader Joes. Kind? Irish Breakfast. :)
-
You re luckier than me..I was in the office and my only tea bags left were “black peppermint tea” ..disgusting even if I’m not British and my tastes are rough
-
Please Stick to the topic!
Thank you.
-
Please Stick to the topic!
Thank you.
Perhaps we should be asking whether the tea in the movie was historically accurate?
All in good fun Mr. Moderator sir! ;)
-
Saw it today. Quite an enjoyable adventure yarn; explosions, unlikely escapes from deadly situations, briefly suffering from serious injury then galloping of like a racehorse - all that king of stuff. I didn’t go with the hope that it’d be a history lesson so no disappointment there. I thought the scene setting, atmosphere, background music were all good and I liked the much vaunted "single shot" technique. The town bit seemed largely irrelevant. Some nice cameos from the usual group of British character actors.
All-in-all, not a bad way to spend a couple of hours on a dark, wet January afternoon and worth the five quid entrance money.
It’s a film. Entertainment. Ephemera. That’s it.
Doug
-
My wife and I saw it last night and both enjoyed it. The single shots (essentially 3 shots for the whole film, 1 up to the blackout, 1 to the river, and 1 for everything after that) were amazing. The amount of coordination and planning for that is incredible. Oddly enough it made me think of Lawerence of Arabia. It lacks that films sweeping scale panning around the desert, but the unbroken nature of the shots gave me a similar sense of scale.
It is of course implausible in places, it is a movie, but overall it tells a good story and captures the horror of the first war (such as one of the stumbles in No Man's land). Having driven through many small English villages, and seeing all of the memorials for the two wars, it is shocking the scale of the wars. I think the film captured that pretty well.
-
I can understand why they added a lot (relatively speaking) of coloured soldiers, but it did grate on me a bit...it's the historical nerd in me.
I can't understand it either, I counted at least 12 black soldiers in the film. It grated on me too, you'd be hard put to find one period photograph, showing a black man in a British infantry Battalion.*
:?
*Memo to the saddo who posts one...
you've just proved my argument.
:P
-
In my humble opinion, an stupid story in a boring movie. In the same line as "Dunkirk", I think.
-
I can't understand it either, I counted at least 12 black soldiers in the film. It grated on me too, you'd be hard put to find one period photograph, showing a black man in a British infantry Battalion.*
:?
*Memo to the saddo who posts one...
you've just proved my argument.
:P
https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/article/section/bhm-heroes/how-black-soldiers-helped-britain-in-first-world-war/
-
Now that this is clear with TWD ´s link ( thanks ) we focus on the movie discussion itself. Thank you.
-
Gents, PLEASE let's keep this off race. Despite Driscoles' request earlier, there's been more - which I've removed.
It's a fact that hundreds of thousands of troops of different nationalities from across Britain's dominions and colonies fought in Flanders in the First World War, including many divisions and battalions of black and Asian troops. Whilst it would probably be unusual to find individual black or Indian soldiers serving in the ranks of UK county battalions, it's perfectly likely that this did happen from time to time. And in any case, it's a completely fictional movie set in a distinctly stylised depiction of a long distant conflict. Movies are an art-form, and many directors these days favour so-called colour-blind casting. You may or may not agree with it, but that's not a discussion for this wargames forum. See the forum rules.
Now, as Driscoles says, please let's focus on discussion of the movie.
-
The other war film it reminded me of most was Apocalypse Now, with a dash of Thin Red Line. An almost dreamlike trudge through various WW1 in the west tropes to capture a flavour of the war. The story makes no logical sense but it doesn't really need to. It attempts to capture a sense of the war over its span. So we get the horrors of trench warfare, the destroyed rural and urban landscapes. Surreal bits like the singing in the forest. Horrific bits like the bloated corpses in the river. And then it starts and ends with the guy sat under a tree (at the end probably likely to die of sepsis) surrounded by the beauty of nature.
As for issues of diversity, I'm not getting into that other than to say I was really pleased to see a Sikh soldier on screen in a film of this setting. Long overdue.
I felt the story lacked something because of the unfocused and aslightly contrived nature of the plot but as a piece of technical film making its frequently magnificent. The bit when they go 'over the top' and the camera lurches up with them was fantastic. If you are to go and see it definitely one to make a trip to the cinema for, for the spectacle (just like Dunkirk was)
-
In my humble opinion, an stupid story in a boring movie. In the same line as "Dunkirk", I think.
Well said Juan! But sorry If I partially disagree with you. Dunkirk is the most stupid and boring war film ever made ..maybe even the most stupid film produced since the brother lumières first production 😄😄.maybe we all should be expected, nowadays , to label those 2 films as “art”🙏😂..but while Dunkirk seemed to be directed by a child in his parent’s bathroom or kitchen with a smartphone this one ,1917, seen to have been filmed by an enraged stupid child with a more sophisticated smartphone
-
maybe we all should be expected, nowadays , to label those 2 films as “art''
Well they quite clearly are art.
Neither film is a documentary.
They're made up stories created by directors, cinematographers and actors. Art
Whether you consider them to be good or bad art is, of course subjective.
-
As for issues of diversity, I'm not getting into that other than to say I was really pleased to see a Sikh soldier on screen in a film of this setting. Long overdue
What is now “overdue” is to comply with the moderator suggestion to not to try to derail or enflame the discussion with political opinions
-
Well they quite clearly are art.
Neither film is a documentary.
They're made up stories created by directors, cinematographers and actors. Art
Whether you consider them to be good or bad art is, of course subjective.
I understand your opinion but nobody pretend a film to be identical to a documentary ...indeed the documentaries are, in many cases, even very boring..but a war movie transformed in something only simbolist or abstract is quite weird in my opinion..and personally I associate “art” to something beautiful that entertain our eyes and ears ..which , in my very isolated opinion, that film doesn’t
-
What is now “overdue” is to comply with the moderator suggestion to not to try to derail or enflame the discussion with political opinions
Im not sure that was what i was doing.
Apologies to the mod team if that was the case.
Thanks for your high handed response though.
-
I see 1917 has just won the BAFTA for best film :)
Seeing it again next week :)
-
I was thinking of locking this Topic but I would appreciate not to give in to early.
Thanks
Björn
-
I was simply thrilled by the film. The atmosphere was well reproduced. The landscape in its diversity, the constantly exhausted and completely tired faces of all the actors.
The only point of criticism, the behaviour of the German pilot was very disturbing. He is rescued from the wrecked plane by "two" British soldiers. He is terribly afraid to die and the only thing he can think of is stabbing one of the two helpers. Only to be shot by the second rescuer.
That bothered me a lot.
-
I was simply thrilled by the film. The atmosphere was well reproduced. The landscape in its diversity, the constantly exhausted and completely tired faces of all the actors.
The only point of criticism, the behaviour of the German pilot was very disturbing. He is rescued from the wrecked plane by "two" British soldiers. He is terribly afraid to die and the only thing he can think of is stabbing one of the two helpers. Only to be shot by the second rescuer.
That bothered me a lot.
That was the only weakness in the plot for me. I thought mentioning it though might be a spoiler for some.
-
Aii, I didn't think of that. Big apology.
Just read all the time who has already seen the film and I didn't think that there is still someone who wants to see it.
Sorry for that.
-
I must still see the film, but I was quite interested by a short making-of I saw last week.
Because in it they show how they planned the scenes in a destroyed village at night, with flares going up and descending again, painting everything in an eerie, constantly moving light. In order to plan their one continuous shot, they had to carefully orchestrate the flares and their trajectories, to coincide with the camera's position and facing.
And they used a miniature model of the entire (visible) village for this, all built to scale on a table, with lamps on rails describing the required flare paths.
It was quite interesting to see, and I would certainly have liked some more close-ups and a look at the details, as that could be very educational for us as miniature terrain builders... :)
-
I was simply thrilled by the film. The atmosphere was well reproduced. The landscape in its diversity, the constantly exhausted and completely tired faces of all the actors.
The only point of criticism, the behaviour of the German pilot was very disturbing. He is rescued from the wrecked plane by "two" British soldiers. He is terribly afraid to die and the only thing he can think of is stabbing one of the two helpers. Only to be shot by the second rescuer.
That bothered me a lot.
I'm one of the (apparently) few who have not seen the film, so I can't be sure what point the scene you describe is attempting to convey. However, your description reminds me of a scene in The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) where, in the aftermath of the Alma, a British soldier offers a wounded Russian some water: rather than accepting this, the Russian shoots him with a pistol, and is immediately shot (or bayonetted) by another British soldier. The onlooking Nolan turns his head away in disgust. It's a very long time since I've seen the film, but that's the scene which has stayed with me above all others. I think you're meant to be bothered, as Nolan was.
-
The film's done well at the BAFTAs with seven awards, I'm glad it did, it's a great cinematic experience.
:-*
-
Corrected.
Nice uniforms and trench systems.
-
Sorry I did nt say that Art is subjective ..a child drawing and a wall graffiti arenot Art..The Italian film Mediterraneo is art, the British movie about SCW “Tierra y Libertad” is art ..art postulate some traditionally well known codes and frames ..1917 is not art..it s a roughly directed comics with grotesque characters that pretend to be , according to producers agenda, “good boys”..I know that majority of people will be against me..but the very therm “subjective” when related to art, science ecc..it’s a wrong and meaningless one...nothing is subjective ...relativism If applied also to art will Kill art
-
Purely based on the cinematography, 1917 is art. Roger Deakins is one of the best in the business.
Someone should also tell Banksy or Basquiat that graffiti isn't art.
-
If that director is among the best (I believe you and I ll look for other works from him) Why in that very film, 1917, he refrained from showing us his talent? Even the way he used his camera, among all the other modern possibilities he had, is quite disturbing..The message behind is , my opinion, a speculative one ..that is downgrading the stakeholders of beauty or, in other words, downgrading the concept of art..and its not alone in doing that ..if I can make a comparison is like that , into a couple of years, there will be no differences in this forum between picts representing beautifully painted minis and other including bare metal minis..Both would be entitled to receive same appreciation
I do not downplay that the “artists” that you mention could even find some customers and probably they also find somebody who paid good money for what they did ..certainly not me! ...but if Baskiat is art..What is Caravaggio? Another world ?
-
Caravaggio is a different kind of art. You may prefer some artists to others, but that doesn't mean they are not art. As it happens my artistic tastes are probably more like yours, I prefer the work of an old master to a modern conceptual artist, for example. It's obviously a much debated point!
Roger Deakins is the cinematographer, not the director. He's worked a lot with the Coen brothers and Sam Mendes. I also agree with you about the plot of 1917, which I found a little trite, but it looked wonderful, in my opinion. The craft behind it is very very good.
https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0005683/filmotype/cinematographer?ref_=m_nmfm_1
-
Art is an original creative work of the imagination designed to provoke an emotive response. It's a very very broad definition and is not an exclusive club, which is why there are so many sub-categories. Notice that cinema is included in the 'Performing Arts' (the clue's in the title). Beyond that you can have art you like and art you don't like.
I haven't seen the film yet, but everything I'd read and heard about it, including all responses on here, makes me want to see it.
-
Someone should also tell Banksy or Basquiat that graffiti isn't art.
Telling Basquiat anything will be tricky. He's been dead more than 30 years. :D
As I noted earlier whether art is good or bad (or appeal to you or doesn't) is subjective.
That cinema is art and therefore the film in question is art is a statement of fact, not opinion.
FWIW I think 1917 is a very good film. Not a great film but good. The cinematography of Roger Deakins (no relation) is an outstanding use of the medium.
It's themes and mannerisms are inevitably reflective of early 21st century sensibilities and experiences - all art is a product of its time and holds a mirror up to contemporary values.
Captain Blood's comparison with Apocalypse Now is a good one. Both films use a war as a backdrop to a "quest" but neither is 'about' the conflict in question. In the same way Macbeth is not about Dark Age Scottish sucession, it's about 17th century ideals of rulership.
-
Art is an original creative work of the imagination designed to provoke an emotive response. It's a very very broad definition and is not an exclusive club, which is why there are so many sub-categories. Notice that cinema is included in the 'Performing Arts' (the clue's in the title). Beyond that you can have art you like and art you don't like.
I haven't seen the film yet, but everything I'd read and heard about it, including all responses on here, makes me want to see it.
not only an emotion but something very sophisticated , very difficult to achieve and to understand and only emotive for well mannered, well educated people..otherwise even football, even TV's"Celebrity Big Brother", even Rapp "music" , even drinking 10 l. of beer could be art simply because many if not the majority of people get far greater emotions with that sort of entertainments than you and me in front of real art...(by the way me too i love football but i'll never experiment the Stendhal Syndrome when SS Lazio win)..and same people would probably consider you and me looking at , for example, a René Magritte picture two sorts of nerds.....so definitvly a very exclusive club..for the élites or at least for special people and not for the masses...even wargame it's a very exclusive club for few above average people...the proof is that is very difficult to find opponents...
so about this film which, at the end, i did'nt liked and i'm only sorry for the € 8,50 which i could had saved for a box of Hat 1:72 British in Tropical Dress ..if he ll be very succesful it'll be another legal proof that's rubish lol
-
By now we all know that you do not fancy 1917 italwars. It is really enough. You repeat yourself.
-
every single line that could be read here about this film is a repetition ...sorry if my remarks are so original
-
I felt a bit like a third soldier in the film. It is quite an immersive style of filming which I really liked but I appreciate it maybe isn’t everyones cup of tea.
I couldn’t help thinking of the Jude Law elements of the ACW film Cold Mountain.