• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Films you've watched recently.

While I'd agree that Gallipoli was an excellent ant-war film I'm not at all sure that the plot of 1917 is in any way similar.
As I said I haven’t seen 1917- but from the trailers I thought the main characters were trying to get through to a troop formation to stop an attack that is going to end in a massacre? You also have the ‘save the brother/ best mate’ similarity
 
As I said I haven’t seen 1917- but from the trailers I thought the main characters were trying to get through to a troop formation to stop an attack that is going to end in a massacre? You also have the ‘save the brother/ best mate’ similarity

TBH, I can't really remember the plot of Peter Weir's Gallipoli that well,though I thought Mel Gibson was excellent in it- not as good though as in his first film,also directed by PW The Year of Living Dangerously,which I still remember very fondly.However, as you say, the plot lines of the two WW1 films do sound similar,
 
Last edited:
Another vote for 1917 .Hope Sam Mendes's excellent anti-war film gets some of the Oscar/Bafta recognition it deserves.

Have there been many pro war films recently then?

Agree with you. Great film, even with the trenches looking at bit to clean physically and politically.

And yes it is a very similar story to Gallipoli minus the anti British stance.
 
While I'd agree that Gallipoli was an excellent ant-war film I'm not at all sure that the plot of 1917 is in any way similar.
Is this film just called Gallipoli? I've not heard of it.

My wife is the joint custodian of a VC awarded to her great great grandfather in WWI for his actions at Gallipoli (as a Private, which is unusual for people awarded a VC).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kenealy
 
Last edited:
Have there been many pro war films recently then?

Agree with you. Great film, even with the trenches looking at bit to clean physically and politically.

And yes it is a very similar story to Gallipoli minus the anti British stance.

Loads of war films are pro-war. It depends what side you're on.

 
Is this film just called Gallipoli? I've not heard of it.

My wife is the joint custodian of a VC awarded to her great great grandfather in WWI for his actions at Gallipoli (as a Private, which is usual for people awarded a VC).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kenealy
Wow, that’s some story/achievement
yes the films full name is Gallipoli. Well worth watching, especially with your family connections
 
Is this film just called Gallipoli? I've not heard of it.

My wife is the joint custodian of a VC awarded to her great great grandfather in WWI for his actions at Gallipoli (as a Private, which is usual for people awarded a VC).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kenealy

Well done to William Kenealy.

The VC is awarded to all ranks and can even be awarded to a civilian under military command.

Under directions Queen Victoria It was the first meddle that did not recognise birth or class. Until then a private went unrecognised and it was only from the bore war that it could be awarded posthumously.
 
Loads of war films are pro-war. It depends what side you're on.



Star Wars and nonsense with women and swords, then maybe....But not for a real war from WW1 onwards.

As for who's side i'm on, Its Britain..... Always has been and its a long family tradition.
 
Well done to William Kenealy.

The VC is awarded to all ranks and can even be awarded to a civilian under military command.

Under directions Queen Victoria It was the first meddle that did not recognise birth or class. Until then a private went unrecognised and it was only from the bore war that it could be awarded posthumously.
Sorry I corrected my typo, our understanding is that it's relatively unusual for a Private to be awarded the VC. Typically recognition for these achievements tends to (but not always) go to higher ranks who have greater overall responsibility (as often happens in life).

It's nice when we take the kids to the local Children's library to pick up some books

CE4P3aFWMAAtmBG.jpg
 
Star Wars and nonsense with women and swords, then maybe....But not for a real war from WW1 onwards.

As for who's side i'm on, Its Britain..... Always has been and its a long family tradition.

From another point of view..

Speaking to Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune in 1973, Francois Truffaut made an observation that’s cast a shadow over war movies ever since, even those seemingly opposed to war. Asked why there’s little killing in his films, Truffaut replied, “I find that violence is very ambiguous in movies. For example, some films claim to be antiwar, but I don’t think I’ve really seen an antiwar film. Every film about war ends up being pro-war.” The evidence often bears him out. In Anthony Swofford’s Gulf War memoir Jarhead, Swofford recalls joining fellow recruits in getting pumped up while watching Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, two of the most famous films about the horrors of war. (On the occasion of the death of R. Lee Ermey, the real-life drill instructor who played the same in Full Metal Jacket, Swofford offered a remembrance in the New York Times with the headline “Full Metal Jacket Seduced My Generation and Sent Us to War.”)

Is it true that movies glamorize whatever they touch, no matter how horrific? And if a war movie isn’t to sound a warning against war, what purpose does it serve? Even if Truffaut’s wrong — and it’s hard to see his observation applying to at least some of the movies on this list — it might be best to remove the burden of making the world a better place from war movies. It’s a lot to ask, especially since war seems to be baked into human existence.
So, like other inescapable elements of the human experience, we tell stories about war, stories that reflect our attitudes toward it, and how they shift over time. War movies reflect the artistic impulses of their creators, but they also reflect the attitudes of the times and places in which they were created. A World War II film made in the midst of the war, for instance, might serve a propagandist purpose than one made after the war ends, when there’s more room for nuance and complexity, but it also might not.
Maybe the ultimate purpose of a war movie is to let others hear the force of these stories. Another director, Sam Fuller, once offered a quote that doesn’t necessarily contradict Truffaut’s observation but better explains the impulse to make war movies: “A war film’s objective, no matter how personal or emotional, is to make a viewer feel war.”
 
1917 should be up for at least 3 Oscars imo I thought the landscape and music was spot on,with the storey being set around the 2th and 8th Batt of the Devons on the 6th April it could have been The battle of Arras were mrs Swiss great uncle was killed 23/4/17 and yes he was in the Devons 1st Batt,wonderfu[ film about love,courage and friendship.
 
The Andromeda Strain (1971)
Sci-fi thriller based on a Michael Crichton novel about a US satellite returning to earth with a deadly organism attached which wipes out a New Mexico town. A team of crack scientists are assembled and whisked off to a top-secret underground germ warfare research centre to try and work out wha' gwa'an. Incredible production design, even by the standards of the time when great looking big budget thrillers were 10 a penny. Great use of split-screen too. It's a bit geeky but I loved it. 8/10
 
From another point of view..

Speaking to Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune in 1973, Francois Truffaut made an observation that’s cast a shadow over war movies ever since, even those seemingly opposed to war. Asked why there’s little killing in his films, Truffaut replied, “I find that violence is very ambiguous in movies. For example, some films claim to be antiwar, but I don’t think I’ve really seen an antiwar film. Every film about war ends up being pro-war.” The evidence often bears him out. In Anthony Swofford’s Gulf War memoir Jarhead, Swofford recalls joining fellow recruits in getting pumped up while watching Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, two of the most famous films about the horrors of war. (On the occasion of the death of R. Lee Ermey, the real-life drill instructor who played the same in Full Metal Jacket, Swofford offered a remembrance in the New York Times with the headline “Full Metal Jacket Seduced My Generation and Sent Us to War.”)

Is it true that movies glamorize whatever they touch, no matter how horrific? And if a war movie isn’t to sound a warning against war, what purpose does it serve? Even if Truffaut’s wrong — and it’s hard to see his observation applying to at least some of the movies on this list — it might be best to remove the burden of making the world a better place from war go to far offmovies. It’s a lot to ask, especially since war seems to be baked into human existence.
So, like other inescapable elements of the human experience, we tell stories about war, stories that reflect our attitudes toward it, and how they shift over time. War movies reflect the artistic impulses of their creators, but they also reflect the attitudes of the times and places in which they were created. A World War II film made in the midst of the war, for instance, might serve a propagandist purpose than one made after the war ends, when there’s more room for nuance and complexity, but it also might not.
Maybe the ultimate purpose of a war movie is to let others hear the force of these stories. Another director, Sam Fuller, once offered a quote that doesn’t necessarily contradict Truffaut’s observation but better explains the impulse to make war movies: “A war film’s objective, no matter how personal or emotional, is to make a viewer feel war.”

Well we had better not go to far off topic because it may be deemed political.

I don't think 1917 is particularly anti war in the same way war films other than wartime propaganda are never pro war.

As for wild claims that a generation were inspired to go to war because of one film......Surely a PM lying about weapons of mass destruction in order to line his own pockets kills more people than any film director.
 
1917 should be up for at least 3 Oscars imo I thought the landscape and music was spot on,with the storey being set around the 2th and 8th Batt of the Devons on the 6th April it could have been The battle of Arras were mrs Swiss great uncle was killed 23/4/17 and yes he was in the Devons 1st Batt,wonderfu[ film about love,courage and friendship.

My great uncle was killed 29/11/1917. His name is on the monument at Cambrai along with 7000 other soldiers with no known grave from a relatively short battle.

From what I can work out his position was overrun by a German counter attack with Phosgene gas and flame throwers. The thought of that is horrific and certainly Sam Mendes didn't go anywhere near those levels reality.

To tie in with what Pubey said. Officers were awarded meddles posthumously for their actions that day including the VC. The reason was they were the only ones recognisable as the were observed defending their positions to the last......The Tommies next to them were never identified.....If they did finally surrender the Germans were not in the mood to take prisoners as none of them were taken.
 
Is this film just called Gallipoli? I've not heard of it.

My wife is the joint custodian of a VC awarded to her great great grandfather in WWI for his actions at Gallipoli (as a Private, which is unusual for people awarded a VC).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kenealy

Yeah.Sure it's still available on DVD .Quite a good watch.
 
Have there been many pro war films recently then?

Agree with you. Great film, even with the trenches looking at bit to clean physically and politically.

And yes it is a very similar story to Gallipoli minus the anti British stance.

Certainly one of the recent Churchill films was (Gathering Storm?).Also arguably,Dunkirk.

Agree about the trenches looking rather clean in 1917.Ironic when SamMendes's grandfather was contiually washing his hands during SM's childhood becaiuse he could never get them clean in the trenches,apparently.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top