"1917 - World War I Movie" Topic

Well it is about World War I and it about a messenger sent to warn off an attack.

YouTube link

Looks okay but it is going to more than likely really pushing the Anti-War agenda.

Meh.

But I'm wondering which part seemed like an anti-war message?

I must be think, I got nothing about that….

…..but it is going to more than likely really pushing the Anti-War agenda.

That's a bad thing?

It was a stupid and pointless war that happened over 100 years ago. So where is any agenda? Is it the same agenda Erich Maria Remarque pushed in 1928?

That war had been brewing for quite sometime. They all wanted it and were looking for that one spark that would set it off.

Well they got when the Archduke along with his wife were killed.

link

Yes War sucks but there are times when it is necessary. Which is why they push Anti-War since if they can get you to not fight for anything they win.

Oh and the story behind the movie. The British are going to carry out an attack but the Germans know and 1600 British soldiers will die if the attack is carried out.

So they get the brother of another British soldier to carry a message so that they can call of the attack. Then this brother and one other individual head out and it looks like they are covering half of France.

When did British high command care about losses since by 1917 they had lost over half a million by then.

Oh and as my daughter as stated it looks way to clean.

Like when he is running across a nice field of grass as other British begin an attack.

I have seen pictures of "No Man's Land" and it never look like a nice field of grass.

The war had been brewing for some time, but almost no-one, save maybe the Austrians (and they were looking for only a Serbian war) wanted it. The weeks before the war were spent by the parties frantically trying to pull the breaks on the whole thing. A war was a constant danger in the early 20th century, but was by no means inevitable and certainly not necessary. Its hard not to see WWI as a colossal mistake and waste for all concerned, and that's without buying into all the "lions lead by donkeys" cliches.

In cinema it might almost be impossible to make a film that wasn't anti-war if its about WWI. With WW2 you can take a "we had to beat the nazis" approach because Hilter was set on war. But the Kaiser was not, though he was a vainglorious bungler. The Germans of WWI certainly disgraced themselves with their conduct in occupied territories, but nearly everyone's already in the war by the time that happens, and its a fairly slight influence on US entry.
Even so WW2 though a just cause, is beset with moral compromises in the detail of how it was fought.

I kinda assumed that a study of history would render most people anti war, or at least for war only in a grit your teeth and do it if there's absolutely no choice.

All the same, the movie doesn't look very promising. Its very Dunkirk-ish and will probably be compared against that movie endlessly.

No with the way everyone jumped on to the band wagon…

They all wanted it thinking that it would be over quickly.

Thing is the Weapons of War advance far more than the Generals who would lead it.

They quickly forgot what the Boar War did and the Generals who would fight it shouldn't have been in command.

Yes War sucks but there are times when it is necessary. Which is why they push Anti-War since if they can get you to not fight for anything they win.

I agree with the first sentence. Some wars are just but, as John Dingell declared, "War is the failure of diplomacy". Therefore war is never Plan A. I don't mind saying that hoping diplomacy is successful is an anti-war sentiment.

Filmmakers tell stories. Do you think the tone of the story in a movie convinces people about their attitudes towards war? Did the American public become more sympathetic to the Vietnam war because John Wayne released The Green Berets?

How about last year's 12 Strong? I don't think it was anti-war nor a pro-war movie. I think it did a even handed job of presenting the mission of these "Horse Soldiers". However, the movie failed at being a good and gripping story, plain and simple. It had nothing to do with its perceived attitude towards war, it had to do with a bad script.

I don't think there is any "they" that is pushing any nefarious agenda beyond making money.

Did the American public become more sympathetic to the Vietnam war because John Wayne released The Green Berets?

Given some of the movies made about Vietnam I would watch The Green Berets before watch them.

Oh and there are individuals who are pushing agendas in Hollywood.

"Therefore war is never Plan A."

Depends on who you are.

"I don't think there is any "they" that is pushing any nefarious agenda beyond making money."

You haven't seen 'Bowling for Columbine', 'Sicko' or 'Fahrenheit 9/11' then.

Sorry Mithmee, contrary to the 'lion led by donkeys' meme the various High Commands were not sitting back deliberately sending men to be slaughtered for no purpose.

A lot of time and effort went into ways to minimize casualties and make that breakthrough that would end the War.

Sure did put that to good use at the Somme.

link

Over a million total Casualties with 600,000+ coming from the Allies in a 4 1/2 month time period.

Add in another 302,000 during the Gallipoli campaign.

link

Yup they were looking out for the common soldier while they stay back behind the lines having crumpets and tea.

Little late for a anti WWI message. Looks like it might be watchable.

Actually for the Anti-War pushers World War I is the best.

Since there are no Evil Nazi's or Japanese that need to be beaten.

Nope it is just countries going all out for wholesale slaughter.

You haven't seen 'Bowling for Columbine', 'Sicko' or 'Fahrenheit 9/11' then.

Actually, I have.

But I can tell the difference between documentaries and fictional stories where trained actors portray characters, and speak according to a fabricated script, amongst fabricated sets. See the difference?

All filmmakers, regardless of their projects, need to make a profit to ensure that the next project is able to be made.

So you're saying that the "they" is only Michael Moore?

We're migrating a bit off topic but:

…….contrary to the 'lion led by donkeys' meme the various High Commands were not sitting back deliberately sending men to be slaughtered for no purpose.

A lot of time and effort went into ways to minimize casualties and make that breakthrough that would end the War.

Yes I've heard those comments before. How can one tell by looking at the results? As Mithmee says, maybe up to 1.2 million dead at the Somme. Imagine how many really would have died if the respective commands didn't care so much for their troops.

So either the millions died because their respective generals were incompetent or that the command tried to protect their troops and did an incompetent job at doing that. Either way they were incompetent.

For anyone interested in reading a book detailing the events leading up to WWI I would highly recommend The Sleepwalkers by Clark.

Barbara Tuchman's Guns of August also has a nice section on the miscalculations and misconceptions that lead to the onset of war. It is summarised well on Wiki:

link

It's an interesting film from the technical standpoint – but that seems to have overtaken the attention to plotting and acting.

One thing I hadn't previously been aware of is that no-one saluted anyone in the British Army by 1917 – NCOs (and lance-Corporals at that !) just barge up to Generals and strike up a conversation. Interesting insight….

'1917' is a solid war movie. I don't know how people got the idea that it's anti-war. That's a misperception because it has no political or moral agenda at all. It's a simple story about two lance corporals on a mission. Everything we see is from their limited perspective. We don't see the "big picture" of the war at all.

I compared it to SPR because we get to see the war through the soldiers' experiences but '1917' didn't resonate as much as Spielberg's movie did. Here are my comments on it:

link

I don't know how people got the idea that it's anti-war.

Jumped to the conclusion based on no evidence and an ingrained assumption set that any WWI movie will be anti-war?

Although, admittedly, the muddy trenches of the Western Front didn't look much like jolly japes, and no-one set up a footie match with the other side….

"Oh and as my daughter as stated it looks way to clean.
Like when he is running across a nice field of grass as other British begin an attack.
I have seen pictures of "No Man's Land" and it never look like a nice field of grass."

Yeah might be a good idea to actually go see the movie before you comment on how clean it looked.

Those troops had only been in that area a short time and hadn't dug deep and proper trenches, they were staged there for an attack.

I actually went and saw it last night; it was a tremendous piece of cinema. I'm no WWI rivet counter, so I'll leave wrong buttons/improper chinstraps on the helmets/wrong color laces on the boots to someone else, but it looked spot on to me, especially the trenches, no mans land and the bombed out city.

The filming technique really grabbed me, much like the technique used in SPR, I liked the story, a lot of tension as you never knew what they were going to run into.

It truly is a movie meant for the big screen, you have to see it at a theatre to truly appreciate it. It depicted the dreariness, horror and dirtiness of WWI, no mans land specifically.

Don't judge it off of a three minute trailer, go and see it and judge for yourself……….to me it's Oscar worthy, but I'm sure the loons in Hollywood will hand it to some artsy fartsy movie instead………………..

"All the same, the movie doesn't look very promising. Its very Dunkirk-ish and will probably be compared against that movie endlessly."

Yeah, it's nothing like Dunkirk.

Again, go see it and judge for yourself……………

Okay! I have seen it and it is excellent! I'm still a little shaky on the basic premise, but the movie is so well executed I don't care. :) Visually it's stunning. The trenches, the No Man's Land, the endless barbed wire, shell holes, dead bodies and the rats eating them make for an amazing vista. The two lead actors are very appealing and convincing in their roles. Highly recommended! (And WAY better than Dunkirk IMO).

o me it's Oscar worthy, but I'm sure the loons in Hollywood

As it stands right now it is the movie to beat and more than likely will win the Oscar for Best Picture.

It has already won the Golden Globe and PGA Awards.

Still not going to see it.

@Mithmee: your loss.

But as to your comment about the charge across the lovely grassy green field, I too was bothered by that when I saw the trailers, but when you watch the movie and learn the exact situation, it actually does make sense. Basically, in this sector of the front the Germans have pulled back 8 or 10 miles to a new, previously prepared, position to shorten up their line. The British forces have followed up, but are in a hastily dug trench line which has not yet been fortified with barbed wire, etc. nor bombarded. Hence the lovely golf course to their front :)

When the British messengers have to advance across No Man's Land and through the Germans' abandoned trench system, it is as grim, filthy, and awful as you could want.

As it stands right now it is the movie to beat

I think you mean that Joker is the movie to beat.

if it doesn't win Best Movie I'll paint my lead pile!

(Although Little Women seems to have a lot of momentum behind it too – it's good, but not that good, which is basically my feeling about 1917 as well)

it actually does make sense. Basically, in this sector of the front the Germans have pulled back 8 or 10 miles to a new, previously prepared, position to shorten up their line

Maybe, but I would still think that you would really hard press to find that nice of a field of grass 8-10 miles behind what once was the German line.

Also just how far did these two Lance Corporal's need to travel and in what amount of time?

I think you mean that Joker is the movie to beat.

No it will be 1917 as Best Picture.

"1917" won best drama and director.

link

Sam Mendes' World War I drama "1917" got a boost in its bid to win the Best Picture Oscar when it took home the top prize at the 31st annual Producers Guild Awards Saturday night.

link

You're both wrong. The best picture of the year will be Tarantino's love letter to late '60's Tinseltown 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood': link

However, Mendes will win best director and Phoenix will win best actor.

I haven't seen OUaTiH, but you may be right – if Phoenix gets best actor that'd be reasonable, and 1917 is all about the cinematography – it's the very definition of a wafer thin story but works well as a pseudo-VR "In the trenches" experience.

Just saying that 1917 has already won two of the big awards.

So just don't be surprise if it wins the golden one as one.

Phoenix is going to be a lock for Best Actor and I would not be surprise if Brad Pitt wins for Best Supporting Actor.

Seems that Parasite won the Best Movie Oscar.

Making us both wrong.

How about that ?

It(1917) did win for cinematography(camera work)sound editing, and VFX,3 of 'em in all.

Seems that Parasite won the Best Movie Oscar.

Making us both wrong.

How about that ?

Yup, though South Korea puts out some great movies.

Though most do not have a happy ending.

@Oldwolfman – and deservedly, the special effects, camerawork, set dressing etc are great.

The story – sort of thin.

And Phoenix as well as Pitt got their LGS too.

'Parasite' is a great movie so I'm not surprised. The Best Picture category recently changed to accept foreign language films and the make-up of Academy voters has a more international flavor than before.

'No Man's Land' could vary in cratering, etc.
Depends on 'where' and 'when'.
Much fought over areas.. especially where lines close together… could be the horrible images so often seen.
However, I have seen several aerial photos… of SOME areas… in which the cratering was pretty much confined to the trench / wire entanglement zones… with 'No Man's Land' between the lines, relatively untouched.

If no targets in 'No Man's Land'… why shell it?
Open ground is a better kill zone from a Defender's point of view,… and Attackers Command would not want troops 'dropping into cover' and 'sticking' there. However risky a crater might be… probably safer than in the open.

As the period of use extended, sporadic shellfire at wiring parties, patrols, listening posts, etc. would gradually churn things up more. But, it was the extended, concentrated barrages before a major assault… and 'counter' fire, that really hammered the ground.

And, some should, maybe note that Those extended, concentrated barrages were INTENDED to reduce casualties by cutting wire 'entanglements'… just, it didn't work… and often made them even more impenetrable. But, they didn't have any other options available. Hence, the Tank.