To think 1917 is beyond unrealistic?

[GinTonicOnIt]

Spoilers alert...

I'm watching it for the first time now. How can it possibly be that to save 1600 men they would send a message by just TWO soldiers, on foot through a really deadly mission where they are certain to die?

If you can get passed that, once the two men joined up with another set of English soldiers why didn't any of those join to help?

Why couldn't radio just be used to contact these 1600 men?

No it is all left to these TWO men? In saving private Ryan (fiction I know) but about ten men were sent to save one. But here, two for 1600?!??

I just can't get past it?

Hitler was a runner for the German army, very common method back then. Pte Ryan is also a completely different war

It's a film. Witches and wizards don't exist either.

@TH22

It's a film. Witches and wizards don't exist either.

But 'Harry Potter' isn't based on a real seismic 20th century event: you can't argue the verisimilitude of a private school for teen sorcerers. Witches do exist. Wicca is a recognised faith.

@Rae36

I enjoyed it. I was properly on the edge of my seat hoping the guy would make the right decision when he finally got the letter. I wasn't convinced he would. No comments on historical accuracy from me.

Enjoyed?! You're not allowed to ENJOY it!!

I thought it weird they went on their way without a map or compass but were expected to find their way

@NoddyWithAVoddy

Obviously not, but you know, being in the forces we tend to have history thrown at us, complete with footage that would have you lot grabbing the smelling salts. You civvies make us in the forces laugh. 1917 = pile of dog toffee.

Not everyone in the forces likes to be lumped in with you and your husband.

I thought it was incredibly boring. I feel bad saying that because you know, war is awful and all that.

I know it’s supposed to be based on the true story of the directors great grandad or something but part of me had a little chuckle wondering if the grandad had just exaggerated a little ... who wouldn’t?

My son loved it though and it’s spurred his interest in the First World War so that was good.

@DesperatelySeekingSunshine

You are right. They should have starved that baby actor for a couple of weeks beforehand.

I thought it weird they went on their way without a map or compass but were expected to find their way

Yes this was another thing that made it less believable for me.

Another poster also mentioned the baby. This seemed very unrealistic to me, that baby would have been screaming its head off with hunger.

@Bagelsandbrie

It was an entirely different world one hundred years ago. In 21st century England, it is hard to believe that people genuinely went through all that but they did.

Not so much In the UK, but in other countries there are current stories of war/bravery/survival that sound like a work of fiction but they aren't.

@Fieldofyellowflowers I don't think the suggestion was that they should have starved a baby before hand. But the baby in 1917 was just so happy, well fed and content. Plenty of films before this have shown babies who weren't harmed for the filming, but seemed more realistic than this.

As I said earlier, they should have spent days starving that baby beforehand and then kept prodding it during filming to make it cry.

And then people would have criticized the film because a screaming baby would have given away their location to the Germans.

@GinTonicOnIt

I was being very sarcastic.

They have to be very careful how they use small children and babies these days. Films and tv programmes have come under a lot of fire recently because people think that hard hitting scenes are sometimes too much for very young actors.

There is nothing they can do about a chubby baby. And they'd get no end of abuse from the public if they put out an advert asking for an underweight one.

And then people would have criticized the film because a screaming baby would have given away their location to the Germans.

The scene didn't work for me for two reasons. One because the baby should have been screaming and it wasn't. Second, because I sat there thinking the baby would have given away the location, had the baby been shown more realistically.

I'm going to guess you haven't had a very young baby for a while, or you'd agree.

As I say plenty of other films before this one have shown fairly believable war babies before, without causing them harm in real life.

@DonttouchthatLarry

Mel Gibson was a runner in the film 'Gallipoli'.

Brilliant, moving film

@GinTonicOnIt

I was being very sarcastic with the starving/prodding comment.

I know they can do realistic scenes with babies without harming them, but there has been so much hysteria about it lately that the producers probably didn't want to risk it.

The purpose of the baby there was to have a sweet, human moment amidst all the destruction and to give some insight into the soldier. We never learnt much about his background and how he was with the baby showed that he had some experience with children. In the last scene, we learn that he was actually a father.

The film was a work of fiction. They can't have every tiny little detail be realistic all the time. If the baby was screaming hysterically, attracted the Germans' attention, the Germans' burst in and shot the British soldier dead, thousands of troops then died because he didn't get to them with the message then it wouldn't have been a very satisfying ending for the audience.

Plus there are real life stories of civilians who hid with babies and they all survived so babies mustn't have always given their location away.

YABVU and massively ignorant OP

[quote Fieldofyellowflowers]@Bagelsandbrie

It was an entirely different world one hundred years ago. In 21st century England, it is hard to believe that people genuinely went through all that but they did.

Not so much In the UK, but in other countries there are current stories of war/bravery/survival that sound like a work of fiction but they aren't.[/quote]
Yes of course.

Tragically, the sounds of war are probably all the baby knew as well. Like the set of five month old triplets who slept through a bombing in Lebanon a few years ago. Young children who slept through the blitz etc whereas at the beginning they would have cried. If they don't know any different, it probably doesn't bother them as much.

Bagelsandbrie find your son the Mud, Blood and Poppycock book is he hant got it already. Brilliant book on the practicalitiesof the great war

Can you not imagine the absolute chaos of that time. The lack of communication due to the destruction, the unbelievable horror that was unfolding around soldiers. The wrong decisions made by hastily promoted officers. If you can’t visualise that time then read Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. Siegfried Sassoon threw his medals into the Thames to disassociate himself from those happenings.

Runners has to memorise their area mostly, trench maps were very handy things for the enemy to get hold of.

Clearly I wasn’t expecting method acting from the baby, and for them to prepare for the role by dropping all night feeds ahead of schedule..

@DesperatelySeekingSunshine

As I have said many times now, I was being sarcastic.