New WWI documentary "They Shall Not Grow Old", anyone seen it yet?

[NurgleHH]

Will probably not run in my hometown cinema here in Germany.
But will watch it somehow.
Thanks Fram

In the moment there is no date for Germany, but it seems to come. Good think about the movie is, that the BBC was involved, so German Tele will show it someday.

[TacticalPainter]

As someone who finds things like Oh What A Lovely War or The Wipers Times a rather more accurate depiction than the standard histories (whatever tune is being whistled in the trailer, I can only recognize it as "If The Sergeant Steals Your Rum"), I'm definitely interested in seeing how this film does.

Really? Oh What a Lovely War is a more accurate depiction? It’s a work of fiction written in the 1960s and says far more about anti-establishment and anti-war sentiments of that time than it does about 1914-18. I suggest you look up the opinion of a veteran like Charles Carrington on that play, you might find he had a very different opinion.

[ecwcaptain]

Very limited showings near me (in Maryland, USA), with the two scheduled sold-out before I could get tickets. Hopefully that means more showings will be scheduled.

[Gribb]

Was in awe when I first saw the trailer.
I'll wait for the digital download to become available by Warner Bros internationally to see this masterpiece.
Would love to see this in the cinema so wished they would have made it more available for this than its limited showings. Its one of those movie that are best watched in such a format to get the full experience.

[FramFramson]

Really? Oh What a Lovely War is a more accurate depiction? It’s a work of fiction written in the 1960s and says far more about anti-establishment and anti-war sentiments of that time than it does about 1914-18. I suggest you look up the opinion of a veteran like Charles Carrington on that play, you might find he had a very different opinion.

I'm fairly certain that it had not escaped my notice that Oh What a Lovely War! is a work of fiction. You are of course aware that it takes its title and the title song from an actual wartime ditty, which is true of all the songs used throughout the movie/play. Having a peculiar interest in rather... elderly music, I was familiar with most of the catalogue before I'd ever heard of that use of them and they had already led me to have opinions.

As for Carrington, I seem to recall that his opinion boils down to "Well, I certainly didn't see any of that stuff." He is of course free to share his experience as a veteran, as are many others who had... rather different experiences, from Carrington's.

I might add that I am not a fan of latter-day attempts to rehabilitate Haig's reputation (something Carrington did not engage in personally, but was certainly in favour of).

[TacticalPainter]

Songs, like poetry, are of course just that, not history. It's interesting that Wilfred Owen was a minor and somewhat unsuccessful poet for his time. His first edition of poetry after the war was a small print run of 1,200 or so and took several years before it ran to a second edition. On the other hand Rupert Brooke was massively popular, selling around 200,000 books in a much shorter period. Now neither are history, but they will tell you much about the sentiment of the times.

Brooke is now desperately unfashionable, his work considered mawkishly patriotic and naive, the sentiment very out of step with our times. On the other hand Wilfred Owen shot to prominence in the 1960s when anti war sentiment was at a high. He is now of course studied on the school syllabus, while Brooke is not. I believe that tells you more about the 1960s and the current day than it does about the experiences of 1914-18.

Oh What a Lovely War was a 1960s play, it drew on selected songs and poems to advance its perspective, one very much of the 'lions led by donkeys' school. A view made fashionable by historians of the 1960s like AJP Taylor. In fact I'd argue Haig's reputation needs rehabilitating from the 1960s generation not from the 1914-18 generation, who held him in high esteem. After all for many year's the Remembrance Day poppy said 'Haig' in the middle and if the very high turnout when he was lying in state and for his funeral was indicative of the respect with which he was held I'd say we certainly need to consider how a new reputation was crafted by a new generation in the 1960s.

I believe much of the popular perception of that war has been created in recent years and that WWI has been appropriated by others to advance their own agendas. What better way to poke fun at the establishment or social hierarchy than WWI 'chateau' generals? Blackadder has much to answer for.

I'm not sure Haig's reputation needs rehabilitating so much as the reputation created by him by others from the 1960s needs to be questioned. After all, exactly what "Haig" are we talking about?

[FramFramson]

"Blackadder has much to answer for."

Good lord, are you serious. Is this a troll job? I can't say I ever imagined I'd hear someone say THAT with a straight face. Though I suppose I could imagine it in crabbed handwriting out of a Very Serious letter sent to the BBC. 

Never mind the claim that songs have nothing to do with history. Good gravy...
 
At any rate it's clear to me that this is not an honest discussion in good faith. Cherrypicking a single pair of debatable examples rather than acknowledge any inconvenient points of mine makes it clear that this ought to be the last post I make on the matter, before I say something to attract the attention of a moderator.

You never had a thing to say about the Wipers Times - clearly it was the work of a few malcontents and not a widely-touted representative of the zeitgeist at all. Let alone major war-time events - like the French Mutiny of 1917. Or the permanent collapse of no fewer than three Empires (more if you use a longer time-frame).

Or the basically-unprecedented post-war creation of the League of Nations in the first international attempt to repeat such a conflict, as well as various anti-war organizations such as as the War Resisters' International (Socialists! Horrors!), the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the No More War Movement, the Peace Pledge Union, etc. 

Or the fact that the war produced the first hazy modern conceptions in wider popular culture that soldiers could be so traumatized by warfare in general (rather than specific events) that they would be forever haunted.

Or strongly anti-war works by veterans in the immediate wake of the war, such as All Quiet On the Western Front, Death of a Hero, Cry Havoc, or War On War (don't think I'll ever forget THAT one), or the poetry of McCrea, Sassoon or others, or even Tolkien's early escapist drafts of realms of Faerie. These are all somehow retroactively creations of 60's hippies are they? Veterans of that war had something to say alright, and it doesn't seem to me that that it was "Hurrah for Jingo!"

The First World War was seized on by anti-war activists precisely because it was so emblematic of the most futile and absurd aspects of warfare. Writers were just as free to have chosen another war - Joseph Heller, another writer of the 60's, preferred his own experiences in WWII, for example - but WWI was attractive as the ultimate stage for anti-war sentiments for very good reasons. Though, I'll grant that anti-war material based on WWII was also more likely to be censored in the 60's - the excellent 'Blazing Combat' being killed by John Wayne, for example.

And Haig can rot in hell. The lessons he should have heeded were known a full half-century prior. Even the most generous interpretations of his conduct leave us with the image of a doddering dullard who had no business holding the position he did.

"Blackadder has much to answer for."... good lord.

[TacticalPainter]

Ah, I didn't realise you had a monopoly on opinions on this thread, terribly sorry to intrude. I'd mistakenly thought I could come here for some mature discussion, but then remember it's a forum for men who play with toy soldiers. Better call the moderators, eh?

[FramFramson]

Ah, I didn't realise you had a monopoly on opinions on this thread, terribly sorry to intrude. I'd mistakenly thought I could come here for some mature discussion, but then remember it's a forum for men who play with toy soldiers. Better call the moderators, eh?

Don't you worry, the whinge button is not one I tend to use. If anyone's going to call for dad, it won't be me.

In any case, a list of relevant contemporary references ain't much of an "opinion", far less a monopoly on opinions.

But a "mature" discussion would be an honest one, and that clearly ain't in the offing.

[Dr DeAth]

TacticalPainter, FramFramson,

Maybe you should continue your discussion via PM?

As to the film, I missed the limited showings locally but everyone I've spoken too only has good things to say about it.

Hopefully it will be available on general release at some point.

[huevans]

I think TP and Fram are both making excellent points and I for one enjoyed reading all of their posts - not for the personal comments and jibes - but for the content.

If you gents would take the personal edge off your posts and be a little less angry and frustrated at the other chap, I would be delighted if you would continue to debate the point. It's a good give and take and I am learning a little along the way!

[tom q vaxy]

what I've noticed in several threads: when someone says "this is my last post on the matter", it seldom is!


carry on . . .

[tom q vaxy]

The entire stock of B&W footage used ….

looks like a great movie; thanks

[monk2002uk]

Veterans of that war had something to say alright, and it doesn't seem to me that that it was "Hurrah for Jingo!"

This is true. And it is also clear that some veterans wrote passionately about the seeming futility and waste. There were some veterans who loved being involved, who wanted to continue, who missed being in action. We see this today, for example, with some veterans taking up arms against ISIS. It seems to be a very small minority but there are WW1 memoirs that are full of these sentiments. The Master of Belhaven is one such book, about a British artillery officer who didn't survive the war but whose diaries were published.

Peter Jackson's film is full of comments from veterans that echo what my Grandfather spoke about when he was alive. He never glorified war, quite the opposite. In his view, however, the war was a terrible necessity. In the 1970s, he had no truck for the idea that the generals had little or no idea how to fight a modern war. My Grandfather was very clear that the Germans were an extremely formidable and determined enemy. We can see this echoed in the fact that Germany continued fighting for more than 4 years. There was no simple or 'easy' way to overcome such a determined enemy. Like the American Civil War, the Great War was a massive struggle between two enemies that would not give way or give in.

World War 2 was the same. Indeed, the only reason that we lament the casualties in WW1 is that we did not have to do what the USSR did in the Great Patriotic War. Had the Soviets not borne the brunt of the Germans in WW2 then we would be praising the ability of the WW1 generals to sustain so few casualties by comparison.

War is a terrible thing. It exacts a terrible toll when determined foes remained locked in battles for years. We miss the point, however, if we think that generals were to 'blame' for what happened in WW1. This approach leads to a desire to praise and admire generals who seem flamboyant and daring. Remember the gasps of admiration as 'smart' bombs struck buildings so precisely in the First Iraq War? And the 'daring' left hook through the desert? But the 'war' was not won. The enemy learned and adapted, just as the Germans (and British and French) did in WW1.

We need to stop wars happening the first place...

Robert

[Driscoles]

We should stay at topic and please behave all. Or Santa comes right through your chimney.
Merry xmas