1917: Inspired by His Grandfather’s War Stories (1 Viewer)

Gotta to see this one. Loved "They Shall Not Grow Old" last year.
 
jazzeum said:
Sam Mendes, the director, on making “1917.” It was an impossible mission and here is how be accomplished it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/movies/1917-sam-mendes.html
Click to expand...

Very interesting link Brad to Sam Mendes and his ‘1917’ film.

At one point Mendes says that his grandfather and all his mates were fighting for ‘a free and unified Europe’...I think that may be wishful thinking on Sam’s part...

British ‘Tommies’ of that generation who fought in the mud and trenches of Flanders may well have fought for freedom but they were also a very patriotic generation of young British men who fought for ‘King & Empire’...the good old ‘Union Jack’...and, of course, their mates in the same regiment.

A ‘Unified Europe’ would certainly NOT have been one of their principal priorities or even a concept any one of them would have recognised or wanted!

Having said all of that I am eagerly looking forward to seeing the ‘flick’ this weekend’’’
All the best from a proud Brexiteer and Britisher!
Andy.
 
Saw it this afternoon. Great film and highly recommended. A lot was filmed about 3 miles from my house on Salisbury Plain where I walk the dog so extra interest for me.

No CGI, no special effects just a story that gripped from start to finish and the photography/cinematography outstanding.
 
Andy, maybe not free and unified as you and I understand the term but based on my readings of the period, many felt that a war was something that couldn’t happen again although as we know now the various power rivalries inevitably led to a conflict. In addition, the unions in the various countries said they would stick together across country lines and not raise arms against one another although when “push came to shove” they, in fact, did that.
 
Saw it today and it is stunning. As has been said, it's filmed in real time with the main characters pretty much always in the frame. It really helps to build suspense and engagement. Apart from this achievement the sets are stunning! There is so much to see of trenches and aspects of battle (some pretty gruesome). Some scenes just left my jaw dropped. It's great to see a modern, really well done film on WW1. Very highly recommended!
 
Saw it last night. Truely an epic cinematic achievement, just a brilliant film. The filming technique was first rate, really added a visually stunning quality to it.

SPOILER ALERT********

I thought it was a bit odd that calling off that suicide attack depended on two "runners" delivering a message, one of whom died thanks to that pilot and the other in theory should have if any of those Germans were able to hit the broad side of a barn.

I would have thought sending two or three two man teams would have been better, or a squad like in SPR.

In either of those two scenarios, the filming technique would have been out the window.

SPR grabbed me with the way Spielberg filmed it; same with the way Mendez filmed this one.

Several things stuck out to me; how young the soldiers were and how disengaged the higher up officers were, but who can blame them as the war had been dragging on for three years at that point and how many suicide charges across no mans land can you stand?

My only real gripe is I wish he had been able to work in one true battle scene, maybe at the beginning with a charge across no mans land into the German trenches to really show the movie goer how brutal and horrific that war was.

A minor nitpick; to me the true definition of a movie is if it sticks with me. SPR stuck with me for days afterward, this one is having that effect on me as well less than one day out from seeing it.

I ended up seeing SPR five times in the theatre, I am definitely going to see this one at least one more time.

This is one of those movies that truly has to be seen on the big screen to have the proper impact on the viewer, similar to SPR.

It's oscar worthy to me, which means some artsy fartsy movie that I never saw is a shoe in now to win best picture........................................
​
 
Ok, one of the people in the group we were with that went to see this movie last night at dinner afterward asked me a question.............."Instead of sending two guys across no mans land to deliver a message to call off an attack where 1,600 men were going to die, why didn't they just fly a plane low to the ground near where those men were positioned and drop a canister with the message in it?"..........

I really had no answer; WWI is not really in my wheelhouse, so does anyone have an answer as to why that would not be a good idea................send the two man team if the plane gets shot down and the message does not get delivered.....................
 
Because then the movie would be 15 minutes long! 😉
I have no answer, just playing around!
 
I haven't seen the movie yet but apparently it's 'loosely' based on his Grandfathers wartime experiences and a number of the characters are fictitious. Appears based on the First Battle of Passhendaele that commenced 12 October 1917. Maybe more knowledgeable forum members of Western front WWI could provide further information on specifics.
 
saw it this week ,,I thought the effects ,,grusomnenss of it etc were spot on,,the story seemed a great deal of drama but the theme of saving a few thousand troops by the brits when many times that were thrown away in a few hours during the war seemed out of place,,Either way to my surprise at first it was Liked by the "critics",,but then finding out they considered it an "anti war " film rather then any historical ,,military type which they usually despise,
 
Saw it last night...brutal, grime and courageous. Fantastic film. The one shot scenes were incredible.

John from Texas
 
Very well done and realistic! The fluid ness of the situation the tension of the night scenes all of it really brought it to life. As many others have said it’s really well done and worth seeing!

Dave
 
I saw the movie tonight and I thought it was ok, not great. I thought it would be better than it was. The cinematography is wonderful and it’s beautifully filmed but I’m not a fan of the one, long continuous scene that Mendes employed. I don’t think the movie is of the same class as other great WWI movies like Paths of Glory, the original All Quiet on the Western Front, Grand Illusion or Westfront 1918.
 
The story is weak, the dialogues non existants. But very realistic atmosphere, many details and you feel like you are in the field of battle. And a great unique long scene non stop( apart from when the main carachter loses consciousness), a new techinque.I agree it was ok, not great,but definitely something new.
 
The following is from the New York Times’ At War blog and was written by a Marine officer.

***

Dear reader,

After watching the new movie “1917” this month, I was reminded of a poem written by Siegfried Sassoon in the summer of 1918, or just over a year after Sam Mendes’s critically acclaimed World War I film takes place. It is titled “The Dug-out.”

Why do you lie with your legs ungainly huddled,

And one arm bent across your sullen, cold,

Exhausted face? It hurts my heart to watch you,

Deep-shadowed from the candle’s guttering gold;

And you wonder why I shake you by the shoulder;

Drowsy, you mumble and sigh and turn your head…

You are too young to fall asleep for ever;

And when you sleep you remind me of the dead.

“1917,” a two-hour movie about two young British soldiers trying to stop one battalion’s morning attack on the Western Front, is undoubtedly an incredibly shot war film. But tucked into its cinematics is a portrayal of an innocence that was so readily destroyed in those four years. World War I quickly introduced the horrors of modern artillery barrages, unwavering machine gun fire and wholesale slaughter to a generation that never truly recovered.

Mendes starts his film with both characters asleep in a grassy field, only to be woken up by their sergeant to go report in to their division commander. In strange ways, the scene foreshadows the fate of both characters, Lance Corporal Blake and Lance Corporal Schofield, respectively played by Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay. From that moment forward, the viewer follows the two soldiers on their journey into the war in what is intended to feel like a single camera shot.


Where “The Dug-out” and “1917” unquestionably intersect is on their subjects’ youth. Blake and Schofield are barely in their 20s. And their actions throughout the film portray them in many ways more as children than as soldiers. With such little dialogue, their ages are what ultimately adds to the movie’s heft. It’s through their perspectives that the audience experiences the war. Sasson’s poem accomplishes much the same thing.

And so I guess I couldn’t help thinking of Sassoon’s poem as I watched the movie and of my own memories — of how young we all were in my own war and of my friends who were spread out, quietly sleeping in an Afghan compound or on the outskirts of some poppy field. Separated from the violence of war until one kick or shake soon followed, waking them and reminding them of where they were and what lay ahead.

— T.M.

Thomas Gibbons-Neff is a reporter in the New York Times Washington bureau and a former Marine infantryman. He can be reached at thomas.gibbons-neff@nytimes.com.

 
Saw this with one of my sons yesterday. Had not read the comments before seeing the movie and mentioned the same thing George suggested, using an airplane to drop a msg in a can. I know this method was used in WWII and probably WWI. Or why not send motor cars or motorcycles behind the lines as there appeared to be quite a bit of time prior to the planned assault? Maybe some of this was explained in the first part of the movie, we missed 5-10 mins.

Like Brad, thought this was a good but not great movie, but outstanding photography, trench scenes, etc. Must have been a weak field to be a leading contender for Best Movie Oscar. BTW, the description of the winner, Parasites, seems totally weird to me. Anyone seen this one?

Read a summary of the movie and one critic pointed out the movie gives a false impression of the "concern for humanity" displayed by the high command. The possibility of 1,600 casualties would hardly have made an impression on the general officer corps by this date.

Give it 4 out of 5 stars. Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top