1917…

[Harry Faversham]

Saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it, good story, well told.

"Wot did you do in the war Grandad?"

"I was with Harry... At The Bridge!"

[Mike]

Will see it when it becomes available on streaming services.
Seen plenty of reviews from gamers slating it, but I am expecting a piece of entertainment rather than an historical documentary, so I am sure I will enjoy it as just that, something to enjoy, not to learn from. Much like Fury.

[MartinR]

I thought it was v. good but tbh I prefereed Dunkirk for a ‘being there and feeling it’ type of thing.

The semi-automatic SMLE annoyed me far more than I thought it would, it was such an easy thing to get right.

 

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Mike Headden]

I really liked it.

I thought the pseudo-continuous shot worked particularly well drawing the viewer into the action and conveying both a sense of urgency and, at times, of claustrophobia. I also think that it made the film easier to understand for the average cinema-goer than “Dunkirk’s” disjointed narrative, much though I enjoyed the latter.

As one who can barely tell an SMLE from an SME there were no jarring inaccuracies for me … of course, had it involved Romans, Sumerians or Samurai I might have been more critical 🙂

There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

[Harry Faversham]

Mike Headden wrote:

As one who can barely tell an SMLE from an SME there were no jarring inaccuracies for me … of course, had it involved Romans, Sumerians or Samurai I might have been more critical

“You there lad at the back, yes you Headden, stop fiddlin’ about with that Gladius, and pay attention. In shooting circles the venerable Short Muzzle Lee Enfield rifle is known as a ‘Smelly’. Write that down a hundred times before playtime!”

"Wot did you do in the war Grandad?"

"I was with Harry... At The Bridge!"

[Steve Johnson]

My gaming chum who is an ex Royal Marine major really enjoyed it and said it reflected well the tension and stress of combat missions. Like Mike, I’ll wait for it to come to Netflix et al.

[kyoteblue]

I will see it when it comes out on DVD as I need the closed captioning.

[Gone Fishing]

While I respect the plan to wait until it’s released on streaming services (trust me, I’m usually that guy), I’d highly recommend seeing this one in the cinema. So much more immersive. Great film, though I’d give Dunkirk the nod for sheer, relentless tension and creative storytelling.

[Mike]

Alas home life is such that this is not really viable for me.
No matter though.

[DM]

I saw it the day it came out. I thought it was far, far better then Dunkirk. Whats this about a semi automatic Lee Enfield then?

[deephorse]

MartinR wrote:

I thought it was v. good but tbh I prefereed Dunkirk for a ‘being there and feeling it’ type of thing. The semi-automatic SMLE annoyed me far more than I thought it would, it was such an easy thing to get right.

I’ll wait until it arrives on my TV.  I find cinema going a deeply annoying experience these days.  And as one who didn’t ‘get’ Dunkirk I hope that 1917 is far better.  Maybe I should watch Dunkirk again?

Play is what makes life bearable - Michael Rosen

[Harry Faversham]

I went to see Dunkirk for the Spitfires!

Tad daft though, stooging around at low level doing basic maths using the instrument panel as a blackboard, with yellow nosed 109s whizzing about above yer!!!

"Wot did you do in the war Grandad?"

"I was with Harry... At The Bridge!"

[MartinR]

DM wrote:

I saw it the day it came out. I thought it was far, far better then Dunkirk. Whats this about a semi automatic Lee Enfield then?

It was only a little thing, but on at least two occasions our hero fires two shots from his rifle without operating the bolt in between shots. I wasn’t particularly looking out for incongruities, but it was blindingly obvious when it happened.

I don’t want to be overly critical, I thought the worms eye view single take thing was great, and I loved the claustrophobia of the trenches. The retreat to the Hindenburg Line is an often overlooked aspect of the western front, and in some sectors the Germans rearguard put up quite a fight, giving a rare opportunity fir mobile warfare scenarios in early 1917.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Mike Headden]

Harry Faversham wrote:

“You there lad at the back, yes you Headden, stop fiddlin’ about with that Gladius, and pay attention. In shooting circles the venerable Short Muzzle Lee Enfield rifle is known as a ‘Smelly’. Write that down a hundred times before playtime!”

Well, I thought an SMLE was a Short Magazine Lee Enfield so I am even less able to make the distinction 🙂

There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

[Mike]

Mike Headden wrote:

Well, I thought an SMLE was a Short Magazine Lee Enfield so I am even less able to make the distinction

Some quick research on numerous sites suggests you are correct.

[deephorse]

This https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee–Enfield explains it all.  I too thought that it was the magazine that was short, but it’s the rifle that is short.  Earlier versions were longer.  You do learn something new every day.

Play is what makes life bearable - Michael Rosen

[Harry Faversham]

You’ll always learn something sitting at Honest Harry’s knee!

The ‘Long Lee’ came first followed by the stubby one. Many moons ago when the world was young I once put up a 98 at 100 yards with my ‘Long Lee’, a lovely rifle to shoot.

"Wot did you do in the war Grandad?"

"I was with Harry... At The Bridge!"

[Cerdic]

I’m off to see it in a couple of hours or so.

Like deephorse, I had become less keen on going out to the cinema. But they have recently built a new one just a fifteen-minute walk away. Much nicer, with big reclining seats and proper leg room. Now all they need to do is get rid of the smell of popcorn…

http://28mmreview.blogspot.co.uk

[Darkest Star Games]

Saw it this weekend with my girls (wife and 2 daughters) who all enjoyed it.  I sort of expected some political jabs or more of an opinion piece and was glad that it was not such a flick.  Afterwards we had our post-movie discussion and while I was marveling at how some foreshadowing wasn’t actually foreshadowing and how well done the trenches and no-mans-land were my 15yo said “I’m still worried about the lady and that baby, I hate that they didn’t tell us how they turned out. THey should have switched focus there” and i truly realized that men are from Mars.

"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

[zippyfusenet]

I saw 1917 when it opened. It didn’t occur to me to compare 1917 with Dunkirk, though they did both have a certain claustrophobic aspect of, er, hanging on in quiet desperation. But they’re two very different movies, one very much The Legend Of Dunkirk, and 1917 a tale of a heroic quest through Hell, based on stories Sam Mendes heard from his Grandfather.

I was struck by the moderated gruesomeness of 1917. On the one hand, no man’s land was full of rotting corpses and rats, and men hunting and killing men right, left and center without pause or mercy. On the other hand, there wasn’t much splatter or screaming or thrashing around. Men got hit and went down, a shell hit and men went down.

On the other hand. It occurred to me that the front must have reeked. I guess it’s a good thing that you couldn’t smell the movie in the theater. It would have killed the popcorn sales.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!

[Darkest Star Games]

zippyfusenet wrote:

On the other hand. It occurred to me that the front must have reeked. I guess it’s a good thing that you couldn’t smell the movie in the theater. It would have killed the popcorn sales.

  My wife actually said “I am so glad we couldn’t smell that movie”!

"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

Saw it yesterday. I am not a WWI expert, but I think I’m  more discerning when it comes to military history than the average viewer. I couldn’t see anything too strange. It’s pretty much an anti-“Saving Private Ryan”: not patriotic, a couple of guys try to save the lives of hundreds, war is utterly meaningless, they can’t and probably never will go home, any of them, etc.

The cinematography is stunning and much is told just by things being shown (or not shown) on screen. Take, for example, the stretchers in the last bit: so many empty, even while dozens are passing by full of wounded. And this was supposed to be a walkover offensive, remember. That’s what the Colonel was planning for.

Only two things broke the illusion for me. The sniping seems to come from the right of the screen in the one scene, then the left; after Sco whacks his head, someone seems to have cleaned him up nicely and gave him a bit of a trim, complete with styling mousse. Other than that, nothing. Oh, and I thought the plane crash scene was a bit gratuitous. But Hollywood, neh? Whatchya gonna do?

My favorite scene: the singing in the woods. This is another great example of the visual story telling I was on about above. You see the company from the back. They are rough, grimy, packs and guns, in stained battle dress; the very picture of hardened combat veterans. The camera pans around, slowly, to the front of the company and we see that they are a bunch of  very young men, many scared, many tired; all silently enthralled by a moment of grace before what they fear is the end.

Just beautiful.

The button counters are really missing the point on this one, as are the people enthusing over its technical and cinematographic virtuosity. The camerawork IS the story. The scenery IS the story. Will and Sco are just props. That’s what is so tragic.

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

By the way, I think the film is very deeply, firmly, and quietly political. Reflect that it starts on April 16th, 1917 (the day the U.S. declared war) beginning and ending in almost exactly the same way and following just 24 hours in the lives of two British soldiers, almost an entire year before the Kaiserschlacht.

Think about the messages implied in that.

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

And it is dantesque. So many levels of hell implied or briefly glimpsed, but not described. That’s the “why” of the relative lack of gore Zippy is talking about, to my mind.

And the guy I really felt sorry for, at the end? The Colonel. It took me 24 hours, but I think I finally got what was being said there. Sco and Will have the lives of 1600 men in their hands for 24 hours. That’s the Colonel’s life every day. Every. Single. Day. It’s foreshadowed in the Captain in the British trench and bookended by the old Major at the end.

God, what a hell! And what a turn around from the stereotype of the uncaring British officer cheerfully leading his men into abject slaughter. I mean, can you imagine? How many men he must have ordered to be killed and, as a Colonel, never to be killed himself. And to have to do it again, and again, and again… what, for three, four, five years…?

My god.

”Doesn’t do to dwell on it”, indeed. This one sneaks up on you.

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Guy Farrish]

Harry Faversham wrote:

You’ll always learn something sitting at Honest Harry’s knee! The ‘Long Lee’ came first followed by the stubby one. Many moons ago when the world was young I once put up a 98 at 100 yards with my ‘Long Lee’, a lovely rifle to shoot.

My grandad (South Lancashire Regiment – even though he was from Cheshire) concurred – swore he could hit anything with one, grumbled when they gave him a short.

It IS a short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, but it is short because they shortened the rifle not the magazine. The official title of the ‘long’ was the MLE (they didn’t know it was long when they made it ‘cos it was the only one they’d made then).

[Author]

Posts