I saw “1917” on Monday and loved it. I have always been fascinated with how movies are made and edited. This is especially true of “1917” which is phenomenal in terms of production, elaborate outdoor sets and the stamina of the actors in a physically demanding production:
3 comments:
For John Nolan: what do you think of this film? Is it accurate? Is it like you remember it? 😉
I haven't seen it yet, but I understand the cinematography is superb. Unfortunately the plot is weak, implausible and cliché-ridden. 6 April 1917 was three days before the start of the Battle of Arras. Although this was essentially a diversionary attack to support Nivelle's offensive 50 miles to the south, it had been months in the planning and a lot had been learned since the disasters of 1 July 1916.
By the beginning of April 1917 the Germans had completed their withdrawal to the Siegfriedstellung (known to the British as the Hindenburg Line) and the Wotanstellung (the Drocourt-Quéant switch line). The former no-man's-land was no longer occupied by the enemy (had it been, it would not be no-man's-land) and although the phased German withdrawal had led to a certain fluidity, it is inconceivable that two battalions would be so far forward as to be out of telephone contact with flanking units and rear echelons, or unaware that an 'unmanned' enemy position was actually manned.
By 6 April known enemy positions (including artillery locations) had been under constant bombardment (some 2.8 million shells) and this continued until Zero hour on 9 April. The Germans had used artillery to cover their withdrawal, and so the green fields shown in the film would not have existed.
The British are shown attacking in lines - these tactics were obsolete by 1917. However, it conforms to most people's preconceived notions about the Great War which owe more to myth than to reality (British people, that is - I don't think that particular cataclysmic conflict registers much with Americans. They actually declared war on 6 April 1917 but it was another year before they could field a single division).
Further to the above, I am aware that '1917' is a work of fiction. However, it is set at a specific time and in a specific place, and the actual conditions of that time and place need to be as accurate as possible.
One of the worst films I have ever seen was James Cameron's 'Titanic'. God knows, the events of that night were dramatic enough, without overlaying them with an implausible, contrived and ultimately tedious love story. Even the collision with the iceberg was not enough to put the script writer out of his misery. Spectacular 'effects' and an obsessive attention to the minutest detail are nullified when set against a ridiculous plot.
Post a Comment