I haven't seen the film but might out of sheer curiosity. From comments here, it appears to lack credibility, for example: 1. Using Runners in 1917 wasn't required because of phone lines etc etc 2. The clip where they are running across the line of an attack without being challenged or, indeed, shot, is naive to the point of being ridiculous in the extreme.
But it is just a film. People with an interest in military history tend to read too much in to what the film is about or what happens in it rather than just switching off their brains for 2 hours and enjoying the film for what it is. Do zookeepers slag off Dumbo because it isn't a historically correct depiction of a flying elephant? As someone has already said, the old B&W classic war films weren't all that accurate but that hasn't done them any harm in our love for them. A Bridge Too Far gets constant mentions because of the inaccuracies but I guarantee that every time it is on and we come across it in the listings then it gets watched.
Without exception, only praise for the film on the uniforms and equipment group that I'm on...It seems to be a ripping yarn.
Yes, I generally agree but - and it's a big but - the problem is that younger generations take it as fact. Saving Ryan's Privates is a classic example.
Is it a problem in this case, 100 years on ? When 'Zulu' was made it was portraying events only eighty-five years before. I've adored the film since I first saw it in the mid 1960s...Full of technical errors of course but I don't honestly think that my life has been hampered by a restricted and erroneous knowledge of late 19th Century skirmishing tactics.
Surely that's an improvement on knowing bugger all? If they're not interested, it's not going to matter. If they are, it's a starting point...
But Zulu, Bridge on the River Kwai, The Longest Day, etc, didn't boast and promote themselves as being technically accurate the way that Saving Private Ryan, Fury and 1917 do. They were just dramas, albeit really good dramas, with some nods towards historical events.
I'm pretty sure that those films did present themselves as accurate. I can certainly recall my Dad saying 'Bollocks' or something similar quite a lot with the latter two. 'Battle of Britain' worked. '633 Squadron' didn't. It's not always the actual accuracy. It's the bullshit factor that's the problem. That and the wrong haircuts.
Oh. Love interest in war films. That's another thing that can rapidly spoil them. How disappointed was I as a lad with 'Charge of the Light Brigade' ?
My mate & his mrs been on a date night to see it tonight. I asked for a review. He said.... Well made, great special effects, good story although complete fiction good to see in imax
Perhaps those of have actually seen it then, and trying to avoid spoiling it for anyone still wanting to, can explain what I am interpreting as the main flaw. My understanding is that two orderlies are sent from higher HQs to contact the commanders of I think two Rifle Bns, and to tell them that they must not proceed with their attacks as ordered, because Jerry knows they are coming and is prepared accordingly. To me it seems unlikely that Bde or Div HQ could be so far removed from their units that they couldn't get hold of them before an action started; during it, when HQs pick up and move and physical phone lines get cut by shelling and movement, I can appreciate, but I thought the plot was they have a few hours at least to reach the before the offensive starts. I'm am then seeing that as an artificial premise that allows the writer to tell the story they want to, and for those who are not steeped in Great War knowledge (and that includes me), may impart a sense of bewilderment that the British Army was so hopelessly incompetent it could only contact two Battalions by sending someone running after them. I can understand the argument that it is at least bringing a somewhat neglected period of history to the attention of a wider audience, however if they come away from the film assuming that what they saw was an accurate portrayal of events, rather than a writer's vision and version of what 'could have happened' then they aren't learning terribly much, other than what the writer and producer and director want to say. Equally, if it has some historical precedent, and is not too far removed from the circumstances that could be faced, I'll sit down and shut up. Gary
Just seen it. Excellent acting, scenery (mostly), uniforms/equipment, camera technique and special effects. Just be prepared to suspend belief and don’t take too seriously. In my opinion - worth seeing. John
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I like the fact it focuses on a fascinating part of WWI that is not so well known i.e. the German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line (Operation Alberich). Anything that increases peoples' understanding and knowledge of the World Wars or history in general is fine by me.
Ah... that would explain the chalky 'trench' instead of the Flanders mud that usually comes to mind when 1917 is mentioned.
With regards to communications on the Western Front, it is true that fairly sophisticated systems were in place by 1917. However, I have read a fair amount about 3rd Ypres and in that battle at least it was quite common for the system to break down. Phone lines were cut by the incessant shell fire, contact aircraft couldn't make contact and helios could not be seen due to bad visibility, pigeons would not leave their coops, etc. I will see the film this weekend and will go with an open mind.
