Obviously the main character was achievement hunting. He had to make sure to complete the side quest of giving milk to the baby. Also complete the game without ever using grenades.
You're joking but I also think you're right. This film is obviously borrowing from the "first-person shooter" aesthetic, with lots of allusions to gaming throughout. The milk is valid.
Similar to how the Germans are portrayed in Dunkirk. It's also fitting, because in WW1, the number one and two killers were artillery and disease. Infantry were rarely the ones doing the killing.
Generic Person every war since ww1 is massive bombing then picking through the rubble next morning. Infantry is like clean up crew .least it felt like it in Iraq. We would bomb for 6 hrs straight midnight to six and it would look like we stepped onto the surface of the moon in the morning.There were craters so massive u thought it was a mountain until u climb it and look in it and scene what a bunker buster can do.
The505Guys you’re right just mean overall air strikes MLRS etc is the name of the game. It’s a race to knockout each other’s airports railways plants. Whoever strikes the other airports first will have the tactical advantage. Air superiority is key now. Control the sky control the battles.
The reason the Germans crashed into the barn was because he didn't want to inconvenience the farm to much and wanted to have a makeshift repair depot! German efficiency and all
On a more serious note, yes, shelter and possibilities to hide may very well be an IRL reason to not crash land on an open field far from any cover and shelter.
I like the subtle detail of the British lines being dirty and rugged and the German lines being slightly pristine with the concrete and nicely stacked sandbags
This is because the Germans were in it for the long run, and the allies were trying to get the war over faster. As such, allied trenches were designed to make the men want to get out of it as fast as possible.
Also the Germans withdrew tactically to defend the heights, and dug in defensively, turning their attention to the Russian front. All the while the Brits were bogged down in the wetlands below, sadly,..
@@11Survivor Or you could say that the British trenches were just very unfinished because most men didn't have the literal time to construct a more solid trenchline, as per regulations would have had them. They would be much neater than they actually were, which were usually improvised dirt trenches which were very wet and poor. However generally speaking the Central Powers were backwards compared to the Allies, just as in World War 2, unlike the common myth. This includes training and equipment. Just for reference, the British had the best tank and the most of that tank, and the best equipment from 1916-1918, right as the Germans had tried to one-up them. Again, this is all probably Nazi propaganda both of WW1 and WW2 and it's quite agitating: the Germans were technically inferior and less competent in all ways than their allied counterparts, and if they weren't that way, the Allies did catch up to them very quickly and overtake them in this way, so it's irrelevant. I'm sorry, this is so infuriating.
@@Sheridan2LT I fear you are doing a bit of oversimplification about this aspect. What you said isn't wrong per se, but it skips a couple of key details and some elements that contradicts the point in its generality. Two things the Entente had over the Central Powers were time and resources in general. The naval blockade of Germany meant that it was, to quote the movie itself, a last man standing scenario. They knew it was winnable from this point of view, for their enemies were, sooner or later, going to run out of essentials such as petroleum, ores and, most important, food. You can't fight if you are starving. And if you are starving, you have to devote efforts towards acquiring food. And, since the western front is locked, where would you go? Eastern front, where you had enormous masses of arable land at the cost of requiring an immense efforts in deployment, logistics and sustaining several army corps. Thus, you have time on your side as long as Russia has energy. Then, the resources available to the Entente were easier to move, in many cases already in places and part of a functioning logistical chain. In sum, the Entente had the time to assess a situation, develop a project to break the stalemate, TRY IT on the field, consider where it went wrong and operate to fix the problems. 1916 was a year of tries, while 1917 was when the failures of the previous year were assessed and gradually, with a share of errors and tries, fixed in time for the offensives of 1918. On the contrary, the German Empire had not the luxury of spending large sum of resources in tries and attempts. Tanks were something that didn't convince the German High Command, especially since their first encounter showed many of their initial weaknesses, and requiring many resources it didn't seem such a good idea. Tactically, they weren't worth the expenditure in their pov. Strategically, on the other hand, underestimating this new factor was a mistake. And that's one important point in this; strategically speaking, the germans were frequently out of their depth. In their places, with drying resources and fewer chances of hitting the jackpot, would you have invested what you had into an unproven, maybe useless experiment? Or save them for what you think, with some degrees of reason, will work?
@@Dany94256 This is a great point that is often forgotten due to hindsight. Contrary to what pop history would make us believe, there were constant experiments in WW1, both in weaponry and tactics, and many of them simply didn't work out so hot. Looking back from our position, it's easy to see not banking heavily on tanks as a big strategic mistake, but at the time and given Germany's limited resources it wasn't so clear-cut.
The historical inaccuracies TOTALLY ruined this movie for me. Everyone knows: 1) All German pilots were Prussian aristocrats and Prussian aristocrats never stab people until after they've received a written invitation. As to the notion that people sometimes behave irrationally when they're on fire, I will not dignify that with a response. 2) You must NEVER give cow milk to a baby. It's much better for it to die of starvation and/or dehydration. The soldiers in 1917 would have known that, it's all over the internet. 3) Black people weren't invented until 1968. 4) Germans don't drink. Anything. 5) There was no point in using foot messengers when they could have just flown General Erinmore's order to Mordor on the back of a giant eagle.
That's the risk you take. But I love Brandon's videos and so getting a like from him made it worth it. The comments that got me the most were the ones about the milk, actually. So I sent my mom a text and asked her if she ever gave me cow milk as a baby. She said: of course I did. We didn't know you weren't supposed to do that. (And that was the 1970s). We also played with mercury in school, women drank when they were pregnant, and kids played in the back seat without seatbelts. You shouldn't do any of those things, but people were much less concerned about child health and safety back in the day.
@@BrandonF Only did on the 2nd viewing myself, was so caught up in the death scene. Great review, btw. Always interested to hear historical opinions on media.
@@holdenmuganda97 Yeah, I had just assumed that there were simultaneous orders for the line to advance up to the new german line and they caught up Schofield at the barn.
The sobbing captain on the front line was very interesting. British officers who went over the top were almost always certain to die. They had to lead by example, i.e. go the farthest, stand tall, and yes, die in their thousands. he knew his number was up.
I personally chalked it up to shellshock, as many people (military and civilian, as well as both side) suffered from shellshock (known now as PTSD)as a result of the war.
The film has a dreamlike quality. When you think of it not as a record of real events but more as an impressionistic journey, the more unlikely parts don't feel out of place. Just like in a dream, things just happen with no explanation but still somehow make sense.
And many people forget that in real life things just happen. We dont know why or how, They just happen. Ive had plenty of cases where I say "Well that was convenient" to moments that seem like out of a movie.
Now, my story begins in 1917. We had no milk cause that Kaiser had out-lawed our milk. So I chased that rascal to get it back, but gave up after dickety-six miles…
I think the milk scene was to show how recent the Germans had been there. Just like the ashes when they jump into the German trench the first time. I kept expecting some German to jump out and start shooting. (perhaps the cow wasnt shot because the German who took care of this cow felt bad it?)
On the plane scene: I thought that it *did* land on the field, but then skipped off the grass and had too much speed, which is why it went barreling over the hill
milcoll73 they do have quite significant amounts of lift however, and a lot of power even when the engine is idling, so he probably came down quite a bit faster than he was intending
Regarding the German pilot, this is a second hand story because it was told to me my father, who was told it by his uncle, who served on the western front in WWI. My great uncle was sat in a dugout in a communication trench cleaning his revolver. As an NCO he hadn't been issued with a revolver, but he'd acquired one, very useful in trench fighting. A number of German prisoners were being marched down the trench he was in, so out of the fight. The last one in the line pulled a grenade out of his clothing so my great uncle shot him, killing him. When they checked his body they found his documents, he was 17 years old. According to my Dad this was my great uncles worst memory his time in the trenches, and this was a man who survived the battle of the Somme. Gives me chills when I think about it. The lad was out of the war and then for whatever reason made a really daft decision.
Probably exactly because he was young he might have wanted to die in glory rather than be a prisoner, as said in Hamilton "dying is easy young man, living is harder".
@@skatetrooper5285 Ok, I'm guessing your problem is with general literacy. I explicitly stated in my my original post that that this was told to me by my father, who had been told this by my great uncle, who was the soldier in question. It's called oral history, you may wish to look the concept up. Am I guaranteeing this happened? No, I'm just passing on the family history that I learnt. Edited to be less rude to @Skate Trooper. That said, I suspect he's an idiot.
@@skatetrooper5285 This is hardly an unbelievable story. One of the Russians at hill 776 was willing to kill himself because he thought he was too cowardly to die fighting. One of his comrades stopped him, of course, but like nearly every man who landed on that hill, the kid didn't survive. Young soldiers get scared easily. When they're scared, they do really stupid things. If they're lucky, someone more measured and rational stops them, but in most cases, that doesn't happen
Really? Out of everything him feeling bad for killing a German who was trying to kill him was his worst memory, I don’t get that why would he feel bad? If he didn’t kill him then the German would’ve tried to kill them, odd thing honestly
An interesting detail I noticed was that the young German soldier who is strangled is called “Bäumer” - the same surname as the protagonist of “All quiet on the Western Front”.
About the hospital being so close to the front line, I guess the decision to film it as if it were only two continuous takes forced them to really compress the geography. This is also very apparent when they go through the German line early in the movie. Can't say this was a bad decision from an artistic point of view but it's certainly a trade-off.
hrotha I mean do we want a film of these two literally walking like 20 miles? They have to cut down on that a bit. But it works for me considering it feels very dreamlike.
that wasnt a hospital, it was an aid station and they were close to the front lines as their main purpose was to stabilize casualties for evacuation. yes, they really compressed the german front lines.
Dear those cleaiing station where never in. The open. They were in the trenches. By examen tyne cot. Was a clearing station. The bunkers are s s still on cementary under the cross off sacrifice. You can find most clearing stations or Field hospitals. They are cementary nowaday.
I thought he was calling him cabbage patch cause he didn't like him lol Then it sunk in maybe he didn't realize he did that? Hilariously I knew exactly who he meant by the name anyhow.
Watching the film the second time around I noticed that when Schofield gets out of the river it's raining cherry blossom from the trees across the river and he catches some in his hand. Remember the long conversation he'd had with Blake about Blake's mother's orchard? I felt like maybe the cherry blossom was Blake beyond the grave telling his friend not to give up you're nearly there. Just a thought.
@@thurin84 Exactly, Schofield looked like he wanted to give up after swimming through all those dead bodies then he saw the blossom and was reminded of what he had to do.
In real life, you have to be cut off from oxygen for at least 10 minutes in order to die. So unless Scofield severely damaged the soldier's windpipe while strangling him, it's unlikely he would have died in that scene.
xxFalconArasxx thats true. But there are receptors in your neck arteries. My english is bad so forgive me. (A. carotis communis in latin) These are to save your brain from blood pressure damage. If the blood pressure goes up those receptors recognize it and send information so your heart beats less active in order to get the pressure down and prevent brain issues. So thats the reason why strangling is in fact very effective and not corresponding with o2 and holding the breath. The pressure around the neck from strangling sends information: alert high pressure, so the heart reacts by being less active (in strength and in pace) and therefore there‘s no blood anymore arriving the brain. Due to lower pressure and the blood vessels getting pressed together. Some people use this effect in so called carotis massages. Again please kindly forgive my bad grammar skills.
Time is compressed in the film, though. Even accounting for the two or three hours Schofield was unconscious, we're still talking about cramming 5 or more hours of travel time into two hours of screen time. Everything's markedly shortened, like the ride in the truck, the space between locales, the chases. So I think even though he chokes the kid for only a minute or so, we're meant to understand that he's dead.
To be fair the main character hearing a cow lowing from a short distance away isn’t unbelievable, I own cattle and I can hear them lowing all the way across my many acres wide field even when I’m in my house.
I want to mention that its possible the free shooter in the building across the bridge didn't want to kill Schofield, just scare him off, it's hard for anyone to kill their fellow man, it's reasonable a young man just wants the guy who might want to kill him to just go away.
Personally I don't think this is very likely. Drawing attention to himself and revealing his position is not the best way to avoid a lethal confrontation.
I'd think he was trying to kill him, but the movie was abstracting the encounter. The real life encounter was probably.... Like you know Idk 500 meters or more away from the house, I suppose the set and direction was constructed and paced such a way that a long and realistic sniper scene would have inconvenienced the film's requirements.
John Saunders It isn’t like the farm was on the front lines. It was far enough back to be largely untouched by the war, not shelled or anything until the plane hit the barn.
John Saunders I only hate Quebec (and only because they insist on having their own bloody tax rules). I meant civilians acting in a perfectly rational manner.
I assumed one of the German soldiers had waited on killing the last cow or two and was trying to sneak some milk for himself when his commanding officer barked at him to get moving on the retreat. In war zones, people have to move in an instant and food is abandoned all the time. It happened to my grandfather in Ireland when his family got word that they were all about to be assassinated. They fled to the pier and got on a boat and never went back. Dinner was still on the kitchen table when they went out the door.
21:20 what I also really like about that scene, is that the drunk German is walking towards him as he’s suffocating this young soldier, and he’s calling out his name but he doesn’t respond, and he gets closer and then Schofield pushes past him, and we hear the drunken soldier call out his friend’s name in shock and horror. Showing that soldier had a connection to this young soldier.
With regards to the shitty aim, at least, there is a perfectly good historical explanation: The British Army, at one point during the war after grenades had reached common issue, had one unit ordered to do emergency musketry retraining due to lack of practice and falling out of practice - I’m afraid I don’t remember the exact units or dates in question anymore, it’s been a while. Simply put, the War was not being conducted in such a way as to polish off marksmanship; see Erich Kramer alias Remarque’s “All Quiet on the Western Front,” where attack’s are conducted without rifles but with trench clubs and spades. Poor aim is understandable in a context where accurate shooting was simply not a particularly useful skill.
I'd like to believe that the young german that got strangled simply was choked to unconsciousness, but not to death. He just passed out, and I believe in time, he will recover and tell the story to his drunk friend.
On the one hand yes, there was a lot of convenience in this movie. On the other, History is full of conveniences. Like the story of Taffy 3, or as its known in Naval Circles: "That one time the perfect combination of mismanagement, glory hunting, and poor communication somehow allowed an entire fleet of Japanese ships within spitting distance of the American Landing force only for the Japanese to themselves suffer the perfect combination of misidentification, convoluted orders, and poor weather to force them to withdraw after a fight with tin cans and slow-moving combustible boxes."
The Japanese withdrew because the Destroyers were fighting so fiercely that they thought it was a trap. The thinking was that the American Fleet was just over the horizon and Taffy 3 was simply BAIT to keep them focused on the landing forces while the American snuck up behind them.
another example is the sparing of kokura from the atomic bomb, by the simple fact that it was cloudy there. An inconvenience for the pilots but definitely a convenience for the people below.
Reading these comments shows that people think WW1 was a lot more chivalrous than it actually was. Yes, there are stories of enemies letting each other live and not being completely terrible to each other, but it was still a war, and 20 million people died. Soldiers were trained to kill the enemy, and instances of soldiers killing each other in close quarters far outnumbered incidents of them sparing each other. War crimes were still a thing on all sides of the conflict. No matter what war we're talking about, soldiers panic and do irrational things that many of them come to regret later. I don't think the Germans were portrayed as evil in this film. They were portrayed as scared.
You are forgetting the huge amount of soldiers that were executed by firing squads for desertion in all the sides of the conflict, the soldiers killed as much as each other than the enemy, because their superiors were dicks, I didnt even know about the executions by firing squad until I see the French miniseries documentary Apocalypse WWI.
EXACTLY THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS ITS ANNOYING WHEN PEOPLE WHINE ABOUT THE PROTRAL OF THE GERMANS THEY WERE JUST AS TERRIED AS THEIR BRITISH COUNTERPARTS
@@marinuswillett6147 Tell that to the hundreds that die by firing squad. That is not tactic for people not continuing the war, that was pure cruelty, hell, even created resentment against their superior officers, that why when WWII began, no one wanted to really fight it at the beginning.
As the film went on the plot became more and more unlikely and far-fetched, to the point that I began perceiving it more symbolically than as a realistic war story. The more the story progressed, the more it felt like a spiritual exploration of an underworld-like landscape with WW1 motifs. I really don't see the film as a typical period-piece that is trying to be plausible and realistic.
EvanEnterprises I felt the same way, the basic plot was already so simple it was pulled out of a video game, but the whole thing felt so surreal I was almost convinced it was all going to be a dream of the main character. A lot of the director’s films have that feel, though. The whole ‘one shot’ gimmick made this surreal feeling even more pronounced, and made the story seem more and more implausible as it went.
@@tacklengrapple6891 Interestingly, the 'one shot' thing gave it a very video gamey aesthetic in my opinion (talking about narrative-heavy games here). The scene in the burning town in particular, with German soldiers mere silhouettes and shadows against a firey background, reminded me of Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, which has the same surreal-but-horrific feel.
@@princepsregem4006 I like that interpretation. The point he'd likely have died, if we were to go with your theory, is when he had the firefight with the German sniper and was hit in the helmet, fell down the stairs and blacked out.
The film actually reminded me a lot of the Revenant. One of the major themes seemed to be the repeated dying and rising of William Scofield. Edit: Thank you for pointing out the possible allusion to the river Styx. Thinking about it more reminded me of how it was in that river that he passed out and sunk below the water. When he reemerged, it was something like a Baptism; a rebirth. The cherry blossoms fell, reminding us of the conversation Scofield had had with Blake. That conversation had ended with Blake reassuring Scofield that the chopped down cherry trees would return stronger than ever before, again drawing us to the theme of death and rebirth.
EvanEnterprises, I couldn't agree more. Everything about the film is dream-like, or perhaps it's better to say, nightmarish. It's a hellscape, pure and simple, like a Bosch painting. It's not trying for documentary-style realism. And I agree with the comments here about references to death and resurrection. It can definitely be taken as an allegorical film, if we like.
A great film, helped immensely by the fact they didn't pander to stereotypes about WWI officers _too much_ . The throwaway comment about General Erinmore "never seeing/not knowing No Man's Land" was bit daft, based on assumptions that generals never went near the front, & considering he was in a frontline dugout it would be hard for him *not* to have seen No Man's Land. Bu otherwise it was 👌
I suppose it was also portraying the British opinion of Germans as they likely wouldn’t have known much about the competency of the other side and would have also consumed much propaganda (same the other way around as well).
To be fair, that was said by a common soldier in the army. So I'm assuming the film is just showing the attitude toward command by the soldiers themselves.
as with any stereotype there is some truth to the lions led by donkeys (though i believe the line refers to lower rank officers led by the higher ranks. its no accident that the brits 1st casualty of ww1 was a general having a heart attack.
@@thurin84 The phrase "Lions Led by Donkeys" didn't even refer to the Great War. It was a line supposedly from the Crimean War that was falsely (& deliberately) applied to WWI by the author Alan Clark, in his much castigated book 'The Donkeys'. Plus why does James Grierson dying of a heart problem mean anything? The two British Corps commanders of 1914 (including his replacement) did very well.
I think that the plot being convenient adds to the experience. It shows just how random war is and that your fate is dependent on that luck. For example, some war movies have scenes where an artillery shell lands next to a soldier but by pure chance they don't die because it's a dud.
I used to talk to someone who had that happen to him. I can't remember whether it was friendly fire or an enemy attack but he was a US Soldier in afghanistan and a mortar round landed right next to him. Dud, didn't go off. Right fucked him up though.
Honestly it never occurred to me that the one German soldier we saw vomiting was drunk. I assumed he was just sick. Considering how common disease was in the trenches, illness was as good of an explanation for him as any.
It the german barracks there was also a picture of someone's family, which was showing how the germans were human beings that had loved ones just like the British
A note about the timing in the film, i think that this movie is the perfect example of a true screenplay in the sense that it is written, and often acted like a stage play. I know it seems very convenient for the column to just stumble into the farm as the other runner dies but i think that we should take that with a grain of salt. I always interpreted it as an implied time jump like in a stage play with him sitting in the same position starring in shock at his dead friend for potentially hours until they eventually reached him and brought him back to his senses.
I presume it must have been protected in some kind of treated parchment or maybe the tin he was carrying? I expect runners would have been expected to keep orders like that safe from the elements in some way, though I cant find any details on how.
He actually put the letter in the tin box(?) when he was in the truck with other soldier, and later on you can notice he put the letter out when he arrived at the other side of the trench after going over the top
Well it doesn’t help that the German pilot was on fire when the plane crashed. I imagine it’s quite hard to control a plane when your legs are on fire.
That’s a great review, thank you! The episode of the pilot is obviously “convenient” to the plot, but not completely illogical or unhistorical. Manfred von Richthofen (yes, the Red Baron), in his biography, explains of an episode in which he was trying to capture and take prisoner an enemy pilot. He had him land in a field but the guy was not giving up easily, he took off the machine-gun from his plane and shot Manfred’s plane riddling it with holes. The baron considered this as quite dishonest and decided that was the moment to stop being chivalrous and just neutralize the enemies as fast and efficiently as possible. This also tells us that there were pilots not willing to easily give up and surrender. Just my 2 cents :)
As for why German troops couldn’t hit anything, their Mauser 98 rifles were zeroed at a minimum of 400 yards, which meant that at 100-200 yards or so, you would have to aim at a man’s boots to hit him in the chest. So in my mind, I think it’s consistent that most troops would have a hard time hitting a target, especially in the heat of the moment.
@@thurin84 It would be 300 m (~330 yds), WWI Mauser rifles used lange viser (long sight). You can recognize most period rifles by the "roller-coaster" shaped sights.
@milcoll73 If you're claiming "100," then clearly you're not referring to a WWI Mauser. But a post-war model that uses 100 m increments. Either way, it's not what the OP is referring to.
I liked that the film showed that even a half-successful mission saves lives; it's not win or lose. I thought Blake's death was very important because it showed something a lot of war films don't; a lot of deaths were completely undignified and unfair. My issue with the pilot attacking them was that he couldn't exactly crawl back to base afterwards, but that point your friend made makes sense; he'd take that risk if he thought his life depended on it.
you have such an interesting way of talking, with inflections in your voice, and explaining things that is very engaging. Often it's just you talking to a camera at a desk and I'm focused to listen the entire time.
Medically, William only chocked him until he passed out. That means he will most likely survive, as you have to chocke someone for at least a few minites after they pass out.
I personally loved the movie, in fact it's instantly become one of my favorite war movies I've ever watched. Regarding the convenience and historical accuracy I think this movie should not be viewed as an accurate historical movie but more like a thematic movie, kinda like for example Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket. Where Apocalypse Now and FMJ was about the madness of the Vietnam war, 1917 to me is representing the trials, hardships and loss that the soldiers in world war 1 went through.
Comparing this movie to Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket is a insult to both of them, this movie says nothing more WWI, how brutal it was, how war was hell, this is not a anti-war movie, it a very sanitise milk toast version of what Mendez think is anti-war movie.
What peed me off the most about it was the mad bayonet charge at the end. They always do this in WWI movies. It's a meme but I'm not sure it's true. I thought by 1917 they went over in sections or platoons and they were a team with rifle grenades, a Lewis gun section. And they had creeping barrages and smoke screens - you know covering fire. It wasn't a horde of Zulus in skirmish order.
Well Dickie Attenborough did an epic creeping barrage in A Bridge too far so it's not beyond film makers art if they are interested. It must have been vital to the success of an attack to give the infantry all the support possible. Monty was a WWI staff officer and he famously used that experience in WW2.
To be fair. Those were hastily made trenches, with no support whatsoever. Probably dug overnight by the same people that were to go over the top the next day. But even then, how the offensive went isnt critical for the plot to go on. Yes they could've done it to how it was actually done in WW1. But they dont need to, and it could the from distract the plot itself.
Well, then, go see 1917, because the Germans aren't portrayed this way at all. They're soldiers doing their jobs and that's it. The English hero of the film at one point has to kill a teenager. Nobody's better or worse than anyone else in the movie.
@Robert McCauley nothing youve written actually happend besides the Zimmermann Telegramm. -Austria Hungary Started the war when Serbia didnt fulfill the Ultimatum after the Archduke was Shot in Sarajevo. Russia declared war on Austria, Germany declared war on Russia, France and Britian declared war on Germany. Germans didnt start anything and werent at fault. If anyone was at fault it was Serbia for ignoring Austria and provoking a War. -the Rape of Belgium was an overblown Propaganda effort by Britian. Germany did shot civilian Partisans and burnt Buildings, yes, but Not in the scale and Brutality people Tell you. -soldiers who were shooting or destroying Churches or Cathedrals were court martialed on both Sides. also doesnt make sense that Christian Germans destroy Christian Churches and Cathedrals, Id Like a source to this Bullshit youre spewing.
The German submarine campaign definitely didn't help their image. Yet it was their best weapon on taking on the British empire navy and crippling supply line for their own was nothing compare to British, so Gemany keep their fleet in harbor. Some complaint that submarine should give the ship a chance to evacuate but that defeat the whole submarine advantage. And add the surprise trap ship that look like a regular cargo ship and trying to act honorable could be a death sentence to the crew. Of course there is one bright spot for Germany submarine. Germany build a large cargo submarine that sail across the Atlantic to still nertual USA and was greeted like heroes, load their cargo with food to bring back to the fatherland.
@@bloodysimile4893 the british blockade killed thousands, Just Like the German subs did. my biggest Point is the treaty of Versailles tho. by blaming the germans alone you already make the next war inevitable
Almost certainly not. Way too many contacts with seriously contaminated surfaces (or in the case of the rat-bitten corpse, an interior). Penicillin wouldn't be invented for another ten years, and not widely available for 15 years after that. Schofield's hand is almost guaranteed be infected and will have to be amputated - if he's lucky and doesn't just die of fever first. Good thing it wasn't his dominant hand.
I feel like the Pilot's thought process as he was going down was to aim for the house, because if he survived the crash he can just get supplies there and move on
the part that broke me in the movie is when the first wave is charging because the feeling of powerlessness is one that is all too familiar to me, how he wants to tell them to stop but he knows that they wouldn't listen anyway
It's a realisation that all these people... Everyone on the screen? They're already dead. They can't be saved, you can't recall that attack, they're already dead.
I think it was the History Buffs channel that talks about forgiving some inaccuracies for the sake of authenticity. I saw this as more the story of the war and what the soldiers went through rather than a made up character doing something extraordinary. So I can forgive some convenient situations to convey what the war was like as a whole. (also the brother was Robb Stark, not John Snow)
This is by far one of my favorite reviews so far! Love the historical analysis and the flow of the entire video! Also love the bits about Bentmydick Comingback, because who doesn't love a little humor?
I believe the conception of the notion that the German soldiers were portrayed as villains in the film simply came from the fact that every encounter the main character(s) had with the Germans had resulted in the latter trying to kill them with, often times, little hesitation. However, as you meticulously explained in the video, there was more reasoning and justification, besides simply plot convenience- or perhaps inconvenience for one of the characters- for their actions, such as, you know, being at war with the English and other Entente Powers. I can perhaps compromise that it seemed a bit silly, to a reasonable extent, that these scattered German lines and soldiers were a bit gun-ho, lacking the quality of assessment, giving chase while firing a bolt-action rifle from the hip. I speculate many people, especially WWI and WWII enthusiasts, could be used to the fact that many other films, at times, tend to portray the common German soldiery as bloodthirsty savages, with some films on the point of complete propaganda. Thus, the initial conflict, involving an emotional and chaotic struggle between two enemies, could be misinterpreted as another attempt at demonizing the German soldier. I agree with you, though, that there is more obvious reason and depth behind the actions of the soldiers, both English and German, respectively. Nonetheless, I absolutely loved the film, despite silly and unfinished plot conveniences, I was certainly happy to see another portrayal of such a brutal conflict known as the Great War, and a very excellent portrayal at that.
The plot "conveniences" only seem silly if we demand absolute realism from this film. But if we're willing to roll with allegory, symbolism, surrealism, allusions to first-person shooter games, and all the other non-realist elements that were obviously intended in this film, it becomes much more enjoyable.
It was all very abstracted. I think the chases and all the sniper sequences were quite typical of like.. A 1930s 1920s world war 1 epic, but heavily modernized. It does help build the tension to have these crazy people chase you with a Gewehr 98 firing from the hip, though! It's just an entertaining film!
The Gun-ho actions of the Germans in the night scenes, and even the free shooter at the start can be explained though. They allude to the germans in the area (behind enemy lines) either finding or given alcohol. So they're all drunk or at least intoxicated at some degree.
14:00 my reading of the actions of the pilot is simply the actions of somebody in shock and severe pain. Its not unheard of for somebody in pain to try to fight off doctors or friends etc trying to help them because the pain prevents them from thinking rationally. So i did not see that as the Pilot deciding to kill in cold blood but rather somebody who was scared and in terrible pain and shock who acted irrationally.
I actually laughed in disbelief when the German pilot stabbed him after they saved his life. As a long time WW1 history buff, with a particular interest in the air war, I have NEVER read of anything like that. The writer basically threw in a Japanese kamikaze pilot from WW2, a person with an actual death wish. It was ludicrous and was one of many things that took me out of the movie constantly. Also, the German ‘sniper’ misses a standing man from what looks to be from less than 80yds, after having already passed on shooting a officer standing by that character seconds before... It was almost comical, and reminded me a bit of Saving Private Ryan.
I think the stabbing was part of that particular pilots "fight or flight" response of being in shock. People do some crazy stuff while in shock. I've got 30 years of experience as a career firefighter, so that's what I'm basing my comment on. As far as the German missing those shots....yeah...he needs to go back to the range.
FMCH6444 I respect your opinion, but I think it was based more on plot convenience, and conventional German bad guy movie tropes than anything else. Any pilot narrative from both sides during WW1 about being shot down, either behind enemy lines and captured or within their own, almost always has the pilot feeling almost euphoric about having survived and behaving extremely passive and thankful to whoever helped them out of the wreck. This felt more like, “Well, character A needs to die in this moment sooo... knife attack?” “Sounds great, let’s run with it!”
@@tacklengrapple6891 that too. It's been a while since I did any WW1 reading, but after you mentioned it, I vaguely remember that bit about pilots just being happy they survived their crash landing.
Neal Gavin, I agree 100%. The pilot of the crashed Albatross D.3 killing a British soldier who helped him REALLY bothered me. That was just not the character of pilots from either side. I still liked the movie overall, despite some plot contrivances, but that scene was too much. Like you said, it felt like a typical "German bad guy" trope. They would have been better served having the fatal injury being caused by flying debris from the crash.
What you say about the portrayal of German soldiers is true if you have more insights, but I think for the normal audience it's just yet another case of perfidious Germans vs. heroic Allies.
@Brandon F. Something I would like to point out that I am not sure if it has much bearing or not is that the choked German is not dead. I have been in martial arts for many years and, in that context, have both choked people to the edge of consciousness and been choked to the edge of consciousness. When you choke a person until they cease to move they are not dead. They will be back up, with a headache, in just a few minutes.
The officers class were pretty much people used in civilian life to commanding servants or workers. Many may well have looked down on those they commanded with some superiority.
Many did, but most officers were middle class, with a few upper class and a few lower class (most of whom had been field-commissioned for courage or valor), to become an officer, you needed a university education (although most field-commissions didn't take that into account), most Subalterns and field officers had a shared experience with their men. Officers weren't supposed to mingle with their men, that's why they had their own quarters and mess, they were supposed to superior to their men in a sense, the men were supposed to respect their officers, and many good officers held their men's genuine respect, and many officers respected their men.
I think I saw the reason that the German soldier kept missing during the river crossing us because, like Schofield, he wasn't really lining up his shots or taking time to aim. He was just trying to shoot in the general direction that Schofield was in between taking cover. The same way that Schofield did when it turned into a shootout between them. Most of their shots miss because they are trying to shoot as quickly as possible and not expose themselves, Schofield doesn't even realise that he had managed to hit the German until a bit later, which is quite realistic from what I've been able to tell from reading about soldiers experiences
I sat through your dialogue thinking I haven't seen this film. But really got into it even though I'm tired and I want to go to bed. You tell it so well. I look forward to seeing it one day.
i would have loved for my greatgrandad who was a sgt at the somme in 1917 to see this and see what he made of it,,i used to talk to him as a 12 yr old ,i told me bits of his battles and the smells of soil blood and damp plus rot he died back in 1982 ,i could smell the trenches from the film was crazy , and the scene of blake dieing was very real well filmed
What is your take on the movie Red Baron? The only glaring inaccuracies I could find were Lanoe Hawker flying a S.E.V.a, a plane that entered service after his death, and Manfred being more of a pacifist. He actually wrote often about killing the pilot.
Speaking of movies portraying aircraft in a very dark, menacing and serious way, another scene comes to mind. I think the Stuka attack scene at Anzio beach from the movie “ Pink Floyd the Wall “ is absolutely great and almost scary. You get nothing but a soldier’s eye view of the Stuka with these big black crosses under the wings. For a movie that isn’t even a war movie, they did an amazing job hammering home the terror and anxiety of a battle.
Succeeding on a difficult mission, even saving thousands of men, and then being told to fuck off. That alone gets this film on top of all the other military movies in terms of realism.
My favourite scene in the movie was the one where the main guy (no clue what his name was unfortunately) came upon the burning French town. From the distance at night and with the way it’s filmed, the fire seems almost ethereal and alien. It took me a few minutes to even realise what I was seeing. It seemed like an explosion drawn out for an eternity, like seeing the surface of the sun. When he enters it’s just such a breathtaking and horrifying sight. It barely conveyed to me heat, not like how you think of fire. It was something other, just an indescribable and otherworldly power of destruction. It’s late so maybe this is incomprehensible gibberish but I appreciated how this movie could give something as universally understood by humans as fire a certain element of almost Lovecraftian horror and awe.
There was an interesting change in the plot once the main character is hit on the head and black out. After he wakes up his exploits become much more far fetched and symbolic (such as the mother Mary scene). On a separate note the whole story reminds me of the odyssey and oh brother where art thou
Alternate interpretation: He wasn't knocked out, he was killed. Notice how surreal everything got after that? He was a ghost, and so was anyone else he interacted with (the Germans, the Belgian woman and the baby, the Colonel and most of his staff, Blake's brother... all killed in the battle). That's why he can't be shot to death or drowned. He's already dead. Blake didn't become a ghost because Schofield was honest with him and told him he was dying. Blake accepted death and moved on. The German sniper didn't become a ghost because he died accomplishing what he set out to do. It explains why Blake suddenly has tons of rations even though he complained earlier about having no food. Schofield became a ghost because he died without fulfilling Blake's dying wish. The attack wasn't called off because of the order, but because the first wave was slaughtered without taking any objectives, and the Devons had lost most of their officers. So, if you didn't think the movie was depressing enough, both brothers die and Schofield fails to deliver the message.
@@nehukybis I've thought of that interpretation and I agree it is definitely supported by many events in the movie; however, it seems so out there that it needs a bit more evidence imo. If that were true it would completely change the message of the movie to something which I don't think coincides with what the director was going for (from what I've seen at least).
@@epictrollface51 It's possible for a director to be ambiguous on purpose, to create more than one possible interpretation. I don't think he wanted this to be the only interpretation or even the preferred one. Making it unambiguously a ghost story would have been kind of cornball and unsatisfying. Better that it's implied. And man the movie does get surreal, between the starshells and the cherry blossoms. And rivers have been a metaphor for death since the bronze age.
The downed German pilot's actions in the film reminded me of a story told to me by my uncle who served as stretcher bearer in the First World War in France. During a truce he was actually bandaging up a Prussian officer when the Prussian officer drew a pistol and aimed it at my uncle who being a stretcher bearer was unarmed. My uncle managed to kick the gun out of the Prussian's hands and a struggle ensued. My uncle survived but the Prussian didn't. As other commenters have said these sorts of things actually happened. Of all the German states Prussia had the reputation of being the most militaristic ( a reason the state of Prussia was dissolved after World War 2 ) and so such death or glory actions would happened more often with Germans of Prussian origin.
In WW1 most snipers were actually just competition shooters or hunters who had experience with dangerous animal hunting in Africa & India. They got drafted into the army & most officers realised that these experienced sharpshooters can be used more efficiently than regular infantry in skirmish roles.
@@arkadeepkundu4729 yeah, but the term "Freischütze" (freeshooter) is still a civilian term as well a cultural reference towards the opera "Der Freischütze" (the freeshooter) in whitch a young competition shooter does make a deal with the devil for special bullets, so called "Freikugeln" (freebullets) whitch hit everything the shooter wants to. I know that most snipers where competition shooters at the time, it's just that the term freeshooter is neither the official, nore appropriate term for German ww1 snipers. As a German I never read the term freeshooter used in a ww1 context and can only assume that it was an unofficial in joke amongst the man.
In my head canon, the pilot deliberately aimed for the barn area because he recognised it and thought it was German Territory (it was only days ago), and he panics (through shock and tremendous pain) when he realised he wasn't actually being aided by Germans.
The plane crashing objection at 1:35 - It seemed to me that the pilot intended to land on that gentle slope behind the barn, but the plane flew too fast and he just did underestimate the space the plane requires for landing, thus ending in the barn.
I'm wondering if you might take the time to cover the original 1955 version of the Finnish film based on the novel from which it gets its name: "Tuntematon Sotilas." (The Unknown Soldier) It has been remade twice since '55 and while the more modern versions have their plusses the older original sticks closer to the plot of the novel.
Something I noticed is that al people but the higher ranked officers called them just corporal even though thy where lance corporals. Is there historical basis to this, that most wouldn’t differentiate?
It is permissible to abbreviate Lt Colonel as Colonel, Major General as General, 1st Lieutenant as Lieutenant, etc. in ordinary speech. Calling them "Lance Corporal" would sound overly formal in most contexts. Maybe you would do it if you were dressing the guy down, the way parents sometimes use the full name of their child when chewing them out. (So, Lance Corporal Blake, what part of "this is the down trench" did you not understand?") This is because the lieutenant in lieutenant colonel is a modifier. You can call the Lieutenant Colonel "Colonel". But never, ever call the Lieutenant Colonel "Lieutenant." (I've seen civilian journalists make that mistake). The Lance in Lance Corporal means the same thing, essentially. A Lance Corporal is one step below a Corporal, but military protocol allows you to call them Corporal in ordinary speech.
I thought the pilot stole the knife off of Tom. I guess I was wrong there. To be fair, William's attempt at administering first aid probably aided in Tom's untimely death.
I watched your video, the watched the movie when it was cheap on DVD, and this is in defence of the film, witch I found very emotional engaging.....tho a lot of your critisicm is right. To the 'small points'. The milk: Someone lived there. The Germans left one cow alive for this person. The person fled when the soldiers approached. He was the bringer of miracles in an hour of most need for the mother. He not only had rations, he even brought fresh milk. The river: he was alerted by the petals in the water. He had reached the orchard, then heard the singing. Blake told him to continue. That moment, when the 2 men shook hands....powerfull moment. Good film.
While I usually see eye to eye with you I need to disagree on some of the german comments. Yes it's too convenient about the plane but its possible he lost control of the plane? He was on fire after all hahah! The germans...everytime we see them they are drunk I'm under the impression that a lot of their ability or lack thereof was due to the fact that they were intoxicated and had lost much of their fighting spirit. The fact that they seem to chase him and not really kill him includes to the nightmare comment you made in a prior video. I think it was done to show that surrealism
one thing i LOVED........ the audio . the gunshots in that movie were the first that made me go "holy crap... that sounds like a REAL!!! gunshot" especially when he is crossing the blown up bridge over the river.....
If I recall, we actually do see the british getting drunk, I recall one man had a flask, might've actually been that officer you mentioned in that bit.
2 years later and I finally watched the move! And here's my pedantic remark: Nobody seems to have pointed it out but the use of the Sopwith Camels is inaccurate. The Camel was first introduced in June 1917 with the RNAS No. 4 Squadron. Since the movie takes place in April 1917, the Sopwith Pup would've been a better choice, if not the Nieuport 17. Luckily the Albatros D.III is accurate for the time period.
It seemed fairly obvious that the pilot was in shock and panicking, and a sudden surge of blind aggression makes sense there. I don't know where people are getting the "evil portrayal" thing from. Reich-worshipers are just hyper-sensitive I guess. Also as to the "chase" scenes, if it were dark and disorienting out, I could easily see someone having an urge to chase in addition to an urge to shoot. At that point you're trying to close the distance so you can actually see your target, and conflicted as to whether you should be demanding a surrender or just shooting the guy.
I also like that the commander at the end, even while pissed off at the main character, tells him to get his injuries seen to. He maintains a realistic level of professionalism, and a realistic level of emotion, and while his anger at the situation isn't completely separated from the messenger, he maintains composure well enough to see to his men's medical needs.
I just want to point out that COW MILK IS NOT FOR HUMAN BABIES! Do NOT give your infant cow milk! It will get very sick!! Children from 1 year upwards can drink cow milk but it's still not a good idea. And if it's older than 1 year than it can eat solids as well, which would be even better for the baby than cow milk. But the bay appears to be much younger in the film so cow milk is definitely no bueno. So I was really rolling my eyes during that scene. Source: I have a 1.5 year old at home
Very excellent in-depth review of an excellent movie. About ze germans, german pilots where mostly from the upper class and had way better education, and therefore also were taught foreign languages. And the one german that hunts William in the burning town like a madman, may have been a Prussian. They were known for being extrem hateful towards their enemies, whoever they were, be it the Danish or the french in former wars.
Sam Mendes is an anti-German Heimee. Throughout the movie the main character Scofield kills 3 germans - the pilot, the sniper, and the shouting soldier. None of these 3 showed any mercy or will to preserve life. The pilot could have been thankful for having his life saved; the sniper could have surprised Scofield and taken him prisoner; the shouter could have let him go. For the heimees of Hollywood, every German is a crazed evil killer, and will try to murder you on sight, no questions, no thinking.
The real villain isn't the Germans, it's THAT ONE BLOODY RAT.
@Stripey Arse Basterds ;)
Very good war if you were a rat. Lots of food decrease in rat catchers, Great War.
It's the same rat from Avengers Endgame, it felt bad about its actions in the Great War and wanted to make amends
Pastor Whiskey tha rad killed itself lmaooo
As my friend would say, FOOOKING RAT!!!
Obviously the main character was achievement hunting. He had to make sure to complete the side quest of giving milk to the baby. Also complete the game without ever using grenades.
The grenades were on his buddy
Or a pistol mind you
sir. Phillip Would regular grunts have access to pistols? I figured that was more of an officer or “assault troop” kind of thing.
@@Rokaize yes you are right but you would think theu would ask or be given one beacuse they are on an important mission
You're joking but I also think you're right. This film is obviously borrowing from the "first-person shooter" aesthetic, with lots of allusions to gaming throughout. The milk is valid.
The Germans almost feel like a force of nature given how few you see, but their presence is always looming
Guess the Germans thought the same about the English.
In a way both sides are a "force of nature", you know like man and his antics is part of the world and nature himself and all that commotion.
Similar to how the Germans are portrayed in Dunkirk.
It's also fitting, because in WW1, the number one and two killers were artillery and disease. Infantry were rarely the ones doing the killing.
Generic Person every war since ww1 is massive bombing then picking through the rubble next morning. Infantry is like clean up crew .least it felt like it in Iraq. We would bomb for 6 hrs straight midnight to six and it would look like we stepped onto the surface of the moon in the morning.There were craters so massive u thought it was a mountain until u climb it and look in it and scene what a bunker buster can do.
The505Guys you’re right just mean overall air strikes MLRS etc is the name of the game. It’s a race to knockout each other’s airports railways plants. Whoever strikes the other airports first will have the tactical advantage. Air superiority is key now. Control the sky control the battles.
The reason the Germans crashed into the barn was because he didn't want to inconvenience the farm to much and wanted to have a makeshift repair depot!
German efficiency and all
On a more serious note, yes, shelter and possibilities to hide may very well be an IRL reason to not crash land on an open field far from any cover and shelter.
I like the subtle detail of the British lines being dirty and rugged and the German lines being slightly pristine with the concrete and nicely stacked sandbags
This is because the Germans were in it for the long run, and the allies were trying to get the war over faster.
As such, allied trenches were designed to make the men want to get out of it as fast as possible.
Also the Germans withdrew tactically to defend the heights, and dug in defensively, turning their attention to the Russian front. All the while the Brits were bogged down in the wetlands below, sadly,..
@@11Survivor Or you could say that the British trenches were just very unfinished because most men didn't have the literal time to construct a more solid trenchline, as per regulations would have had them. They would be much neater than they actually were, which were usually improvised dirt trenches which were very wet and poor.
However generally speaking the Central Powers were backwards compared to the Allies, just as in World War 2, unlike the common myth. This includes training and equipment.
Just for reference, the British had the best tank and the most of that tank, and the best equipment from 1916-1918, right as the Germans had tried to one-up them. Again, this is all probably Nazi propaganda both of WW1 and WW2 and it's quite agitating: the Germans were technically inferior and less competent in all ways than their allied counterparts, and if they weren't that way, the Allies did catch up to them very quickly and overtake them in this way, so it's irrelevant.
I'm sorry, this is so infuriating.
@@Sheridan2LT I fear you are doing a bit of oversimplification about this aspect. What you said isn't wrong per se, but it skips a couple of key details and some elements that contradicts the point in its generality.
Two things the Entente had over the Central Powers were time and resources in general. The naval blockade of Germany meant that it was, to quote the movie itself, a last man standing scenario. They knew it was winnable from this point of view, for their enemies were, sooner or later, going to run out of essentials such as petroleum, ores and, most important, food.
You can't fight if you are starving. And if you are starving, you have to devote efforts towards acquiring food. And, since the western front is locked, where would you go?
Eastern front, where you had enormous masses of arable land at the cost of requiring an immense efforts in deployment, logistics and sustaining several army corps.
Thus, you have time on your side as long as Russia has energy.
Then, the resources available to the Entente were easier to move, in many cases already in places and part of a functioning logistical chain.
In sum, the Entente had the time to assess a situation, develop a project to break the stalemate, TRY IT on the field, consider where it went wrong and operate to fix the problems. 1916 was a year of tries, while 1917 was when the failures of the previous year were assessed and gradually, with a share of errors and tries, fixed in time for the offensives of 1918.
On the contrary, the German Empire had not the luxury of spending large sum of resources in tries and attempts. Tanks were something that didn't convince the German High Command, especially since their first encounter showed many of their initial weaknesses, and requiring many resources it didn't seem such a good idea.
Tactically, they weren't worth the expenditure in their pov.
Strategically, on the other hand, underestimating this new factor was a mistake. And that's one important point in this; strategically speaking, the germans were frequently out of their depth.
In their places, with drying resources and fewer chances of hitting the jackpot, would you have invested what you had into an unproven, maybe useless experiment? Or save them for what you think, with some degrees of reason, will work?
@@Dany94256 This is a great point that is often forgotten due to hindsight. Contrary to what pop history would make us believe, there were constant experiments in WW1, both in weaponry and tactics, and many of them simply didn't work out so hot. Looking back from our position, it's easy to see not banking heavily on tanks as a big strategic mistake, but at the time and given Germany's limited resources it wasn't so clear-cut.
The historical inaccuracies TOTALLY ruined this movie for me. Everyone knows:
1) All German pilots were Prussian aristocrats and Prussian aristocrats never stab people until after they've received a written invitation. As to the notion that people sometimes behave irrationally when they're on fire, I will not dignify that with a response.
2) You must NEVER give cow milk to a baby. It's much better for it to die of starvation and/or dehydration. The soldiers in 1917 would have known that, it's all over the internet.
3) Black people weren't invented until 1968.
4) Germans don't drink. Anything.
5) There was no point in using foot messengers when they could have just flown General Erinmore's order to Mordor on the back of a giant eagle.
Aye at first i did not realise the sarcasm and was slightly angry.
That's the risk you take. But I love Brandon's videos and so getting a like from him made it worth it. The comments that got me the most were the ones about the milk, actually. So I sent my mom a text and asked her if she ever gave me cow milk as a baby. She said: of course I did. We didn't know you weren't supposed to do that. (And that was the 1970s). We also played with mercury in school, women drank when they were pregnant, and kids played in the back seat without seatbelts. You shouldn't do any of those things, but people were much less concerned about child health and safety back in the day.
@@nehukybis Not that we weren't concerned with child health and safety. There simply were different standards and knowledge base about things.
Black people were invented in 1945 idiot.
😂😂 "black people werent invented until 1968"
The British arriving at the barn at that time wasn't a convenience, they clearly say they're there due to the smoke from the crashed plane.
Aha, I didn't catch that!
@@BrandonF Only did on the 2nd viewing myself, was so caught up in the death scene. Great review, btw. Always interested to hear historical opinions on media.
Also keep in mind Schofield was still in shock over Blake's death so he wouldn't have noticed the British convoy approach
Even still things happen conveniently and coincidentally in life at times. I feel that those kind of criticisms are really nit picky.
@@holdenmuganda97 Yeah, I had just assumed that there were simultaneous orders for the line to advance up to the new german line and they caught up Schofield at the barn.
When they pull the German out of the plane we hear him say please don’t kill me (in German) so he must have been aware that they were British
I mean the uniforms give it away no?
i missed that.
@@lovablesnowman for sure the brodie helmets wouldve.
“Please don’t kill me”
*immediately kills one of his rescuers*
@@Sltarfish he must've thought that they were trying to take him as prisoner to extract information
The sobbing captain on the front line was very interesting. British officers who went over the top were almost always certain to die. They had to lead by example, i.e. go the farthest, stand tall, and yes, die in their thousands. he knew his number was up.
i think hed just seen too much war and his boys dying.
British officers don't duck!
It looked like he got blown up pretty quickly after Schofield talked to him, so yeah, he was right in assuming his time was up.
"They had to lead by example." SUre thing, bud.
I personally chalked it up to shellshock, as many people (military and civilian, as well as both side) suffered from shellshock (known now as PTSD)as a result of the war.
You can't hit the broad side of a barn
German pilot: "Hold mein bier."
Bitte ein Bit
Lol
Taking jokes ..........literally
😆😆
Halte mein Bier
hold mien stien sounds better.
Hold *das boot*
The film has a dreamlike quality. When you think of it not as a record of real events but more as an impressionistic journey, the more unlikely parts don't feel out of place. Just like in a dream, things just happen with no explanation but still somehow make sense.
YES
My thoughts exactly.
That’s a nice interpretation
And many people forget that in real life things just happen. We dont know why or how, They just happen.
Ive had plenty of cases where I say "Well that was convenient" to moments that seem like out of a movie.
@@John.McMillan Very true! Life really is stranger than fiction
Now, my story begins in 1917. We had no milk cause that Kaiser had out-lawed our milk. So I chased that rascal to get it back, but gave up after dickety-six miles…
But the most important thing was that I had an onion in my belt which was the style of the time
They did a good job cramming all of these references to the history in a movie a little short of two hours.
I think the milk scene was to show how recent the Germans had been there. Just like the ashes when they jump into the German trench the first time. I kept expecting some German to jump out and start shooting. (perhaps the cow wasnt shot because the German who took care of this cow felt bad it?)
Also I'd imagine they were in a hurry to withdraw, they may have forgot a bucket of milk or an odd cow, there is no absolute
On the plane scene: I thought that it *did* land on the field, but then skipped off the grass and had too much speed, which is why it went barreling over the hill
wood and canvas aircraft dont bounce quite that much.
Ethan, I agree.
milcoll73 they do have quite significant amounts of lift however, and a lot of power even when the engine is idling, so he probably came down quite a bit faster than he was intending
@@Ashfielder especially with the unintended gravitational assist lol.
Wood and cloth aircraft bouncing?
Riiiiiight.
No.
Regarding the German pilot, this is a second hand story because it was told to me my father, who was told it by his uncle, who served on the western front in WWI. My great uncle was sat in a dugout in a communication trench cleaning his revolver. As an NCO he hadn't been issued with a revolver, but he'd acquired one, very useful in trench fighting. A number of German prisoners were being marched down the trench he was in, so out of the fight. The last one in the line pulled a grenade out of his clothing so my great uncle shot him, killing him. When they checked his body they found his documents, he was 17 years old. According to my Dad this was my great uncles worst memory his time in the trenches, and this was a man who survived the battle of the Somme. Gives me chills when I think about it. The lad was out of the war and then for whatever reason made a really daft decision.
Probably exactly because he was young he might have wanted to die in glory rather than be a prisoner, as said in Hamilton "dying is easy young man, living is harder".
My great uncle cousin's best friend's roommate told me Germans were the bad guys in WW1 he know because he fought in it.
@@skatetrooper5285 Ok, I'm guessing your problem is with general literacy. I explicitly stated in my my original post that that this was told to me by my father, who had been told this by my great uncle, who was the soldier in question. It's called oral history, you may wish to look the concept up. Am I guaranteeing this happened? No, I'm just passing on the family history that I learnt.
Edited to be less rude to @Skate Trooper. That said, I suspect he's an idiot.
@@skatetrooper5285 This is hardly an unbelievable story. One of the Russians at hill 776 was willing to kill himself because he thought he was too cowardly to die fighting. One of his comrades stopped him, of course, but like nearly every man who landed on that hill, the kid didn't survive. Young soldiers get scared easily. When they're scared, they do really stupid things. If they're lucky, someone more measured and rational stops them, but in most cases, that doesn't happen
Really? Out of everything him feeling bad for killing a German who was trying to kill him was his worst memory, I don’t get that why would he feel bad? If he didn’t kill him then the German would’ve tried to kill them, odd thing honestly
An interesting detail I noticed was that the young German soldier who is strangled is called “Bäumer” - the same surname as the protagonist of “All quiet on the Western Front”.
Huh.
Wow- that's great attention to detail-!
About the hospital being so close to the front line, I guess the decision to film it as if it were only two continuous takes forced them to really compress the geography. This is also very apparent when they go through the German line early in the movie. Can't say this was a bad decision from an artistic point of view but it's certainly a trade-off.
hrotha I mean do we want a film of these two literally walking like 20 miles? They have to cut down on that a bit. But it works for me considering it feels very dreamlike.
that wasnt a hospital, it was an aid station and they were close to the front lines as their main purpose was to stabilize casualties for evacuation.
yes, they really compressed the german front lines.
Dear those cleaiing station where never in. The open. They were in the trenches. By examen tyne cot. Was a clearing station. The bunkers are s s still on cementary under the cross off sacrifice. You can find most clearing stations or Field hospitals. They are cementary nowaday.
Yeah, the geography is greatly compressed throughout to fit the film into two hours' worth of screen time.
It wasn't a hospital, it was a triage centre, where the medics choose those to be sent to the hospitals in priority.
The names you gave to Benedict Cumberbatch had me in stitches.
I thought he was calling him cabbage patch cause he didn't like him lol Then it sunk in maybe he didn't realize he did that? Hilariously I knew exactly who he meant by the name anyhow.
Beneficial Cucumber
I’ve been scrolling through the comments just to find the first to mention that
Benny Boy Cumbernickle
Cabbage 🥬 Patch
Eggs 🍳 Benedict
😂🤣😂
Bandersnatch Cummerbund
Banjo Kazooie
Watching the film the second time around I noticed that when Schofield gets out of the river it's raining cherry blossom from the trees across the river and he catches some in his hand. Remember the long conversation he'd had with Blake about Blake's mother's orchard? I felt like maybe the cherry blossom was Blake beyond the grave telling his friend not to give up you're nearly there. Just a thought.
Damn I felt that
My wife and I had the exact same thought when we saw it
or at least a reminder of blake, and his brother and the importance of the mission.
@@thurin84 Exactly, Schofield looked like he wanted to give up after swimming through all those dead bodies then he saw the blossom and was reminded of what he had to do.
@@theblackprince1346 exactly. the actor did a brilliant job of portraying the exact moment of resolution to go on showing in his eyes.
Scofield didn't choke that german soldier long enough to kill him so he just was unconscious.
Yeah the drunk guy interrupted him before he could finish the other guy off.
In real life, you have to be cut off from oxygen for at least 10 minutes in order to die. So unless Scofield severely damaged the soldier's windpipe while strangling him, it's unlikely he would have died in that scene.
xxFalconArasxx thats true. But there are receptors in your neck arteries. My english is bad so forgive me. (A. carotis communis in latin)
These are to save your brain from blood pressure damage.
If the blood pressure goes up those receptors recognize it and send information so your heart beats less active in order to get the pressure down and prevent brain issues.
So thats the reason why strangling is in fact very effective and not corresponding with o2 and holding the breath. The pressure around the neck from strangling sends information: alert high pressure, so the heart reacts by being less active (in strength and in pace) and therefore there‘s no blood anymore arriving the brain. Due to lower pressure and the blood vessels getting pressed together.
Some people use this effect in so called carotis massages.
Again please kindly forgive my bad grammar skills.
Time is compressed in the film, though. Even accounting for the two or three hours Schofield was unconscious, we're still talking about cramming 5 or more hours of travel time into two hours of screen time. Everything's markedly shortened, like the ride in the truck, the space between locales, the chases. So I think even though he chokes the kid for only a minute or so, we're meant to understand that he's dead.
@@J.Leistikow The more you know! Very interesting stuff!
To be fair the main character hearing a cow lowing from a short distance away isn’t unbelievable, I own cattle and I can hear them lowing all the way across my many acres wide field even when I’m in my house.
I want to mention that its possible the free shooter in the building across the bridge didn't want to kill Schofield, just scare him off, it's hard for anyone to kill their fellow man, it's reasonable a young man just wants the guy who might want to kill him to just go away.
Yeah I got that impression that he didn't shoot to kill, he missed by so much with the first shot on an otherwise still target.
I disagree!
All kruats know how to do is kill.
@@davidrossi5443 Then he would have killed Will.
Personally I don't think this is very likely. Drawing attention to himself and revealing his position is not the best way to avoid a lethal confrontation.
I'd think he was trying to kill him, but the movie was abstracting the encounter. The real life encounter was probably.... Like you know Idk 500 meters or more away from the house, I suppose the set and direction was constructed and paced such a way that a long and realistic sniper scene would have inconvenienced the film's requirements.
On the bucket of milk, I just assumed there was a Frenchman on the farm who ran off when soldiers approached.
John Saunders It isn’t like the farm was on the front lines. It was far enough back to be largely untouched by the war, not shelled or anything until the plane hit the barn.
since it was behind formerly german lines more like frenchwoman. the frenchmen were more likely conscripted for labor.
John Saunders I only hate Quebec (and only because they insist on having their own bloody tax rules).
I meant civilians acting in a perfectly rational manner.
I assumed one of the German soldiers had waited on killing the last cow or two and was trying to sneak some milk for himself when his commanding officer barked at him to get moving on the retreat. In war zones, people have to move in an instant and food is abandoned all the time. It happened to my grandfather in Ireland when his family got word that they were all about to be assassinated. They fled to the pier and got on a boat and never went back. Dinner was still on the kitchen table when they went out the door.
21:20 what I also really like about that scene, is that the drunk German is walking towards him as he’s suffocating this young soldier, and he’s calling out his name but he doesn’t respond, and he gets closer and then Schofield pushes past him, and we hear the drunken soldier call out his friend’s name in shock and horror. Showing that soldier had a connection to this young soldier.
With regards to the shitty aim, at least, there is a perfectly good historical explanation:
The British Army, at one point during the war after grenades had reached common issue, had one unit ordered to do emergency musketry retraining due to lack of practice and falling out of practice - I’m afraid I don’t remember the exact units or dates in question anymore, it’s been a while. Simply put, the War was not being conducted in such a way as to polish off marksmanship; see Erich Kramer alias Remarque’s “All Quiet on the Western Front,” where attack’s are conducted without rifles but with trench clubs and spades. Poor aim is understandable in a context where accurate shooting was simply not a particularly useful skill.
Also most non-professional soldiers are known not to shoot to hit, often subconsciously..
But this is not the behavior of a sniper! They all were good shots
I'd like to believe that the young german that got strangled simply was choked to unconsciousness, but not to death. He just passed out, and I believe in time, he will recover and tell the story to his drunk friend.
He wasn't choked that long so it's probable.
Altrantis
I agree
Poor Baumer, really hope he just passed out
On the one hand yes, there was a lot of convenience in this movie. On the other, History is full of conveniences. Like the story of Taffy 3, or as its known in Naval Circles:
"That one time the perfect combination of mismanagement, glory hunting, and poor communication somehow allowed an entire fleet of Japanese ships within spitting distance of the American Landing force only for the Japanese to themselves suffer the perfect combination of misidentification, convoluted orders, and poor weather to force them to withdraw after a fight with tin cans and slow-moving combustible boxes."
That's a drachism isn't it.
The Japanese withdrew because the Destroyers were fighting so fiercely that they thought it was a trap. The thinking was that the American Fleet was just over the horizon and Taffy 3 was simply BAIT to keep them focused on the landing forces while the American snuck up behind them.
another example is the sparing of kokura from the atomic bomb, by the simple fact that it was cloudy there. An inconvenience for the pilots but definitely a convenience for the people below.
@@JGregory32 Yes, and with better communication, clearer orders, and better weather, they might have realized that wasn't the case
Reading these comments shows that people think WW1 was a lot more chivalrous than it actually was. Yes, there are stories of enemies letting each other live and not being completely terrible to each other, but it was still a war, and 20 million people died. Soldiers were trained to kill the enemy, and instances of soldiers killing each other in close quarters far outnumbered incidents of them sparing each other. War crimes were still a thing on all sides of the conflict. No matter what war we're talking about, soldiers panic and do irrational things that many of them come to regret later. I don't think the Germans were portrayed as evil in this film. They were portrayed as scared.
You are forgetting the huge amount of soldiers that were executed by firing squads for desertion in all the sides of the conflict, the soldiers killed as much as each other than the enemy, because their superiors were dicks, I didnt even know about the executions by firing squad until I see the French miniseries documentary Apocalypse WWI.
EXACTLY THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS ITS ANNOYING WHEN PEOPLE WHINE ABOUT THE PROTRAL OF THE GERMANS THEY WERE JUST AS TERRIED AS THEIR BRITISH COUNTERPARTS
@@TheKeyser94 the Officers weren't dicks. Execution for desertion is necessary to keep a conscript army functioning
@@marinuswillett6147 Tell that to the hundreds that die by firing squad. That is not tactic for people not continuing the war, that was pure cruelty, hell, even created resentment against their superior officers, that why when WWII began, no one wanted to really fight it at the beginning.
@@TheKeyser94 ok, maybe death penalty was a little excessive, but sometimes in war you have to di unpleasant things to win.
As the film went on the plot became more and more unlikely and far-fetched, to the point that I began perceiving it more symbolically than as a realistic war story. The more the story progressed, the more it felt like a spiritual exploration of an underworld-like landscape with WW1 motifs. I really don't see the film as a typical period-piece that is trying to be plausible and realistic.
EvanEnterprises I felt the same way, the basic plot was already so simple it was pulled out of a video game, but the whole thing felt so surreal I was almost convinced it was all going to be a dream of the main character. A lot of the director’s films have that feel, though. The whole ‘one shot’ gimmick made this surreal feeling even more pronounced, and made the story seem more and more implausible as it went.
@@tacklengrapple6891 Interestingly, the 'one shot' thing gave it a very video gamey aesthetic in my opinion (talking about narrative-heavy games here). The scene in the burning town in particular, with German soldiers mere silhouettes and shadows against a firey background, reminded me of Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, which has the same surreal-but-horrific feel.
@@princepsregem4006 I like that interpretation. The point he'd likely have died, if we were to go with your theory, is when he had the firefight with the German sniper and was hit in the helmet, fell down the stairs and blacked out.
The film actually reminded me a lot of the Revenant. One of the major themes seemed to be the repeated dying and rising of William Scofield.
Edit: Thank you for pointing out the possible allusion to the river Styx. Thinking about it more reminded me of how it was in that river that he passed out and sunk below the water. When he reemerged, it was something like a Baptism; a rebirth.
The cherry blossoms fell, reminding us of the conversation Scofield had had with Blake. That conversation had ended with Blake reassuring Scofield that the chopped down cherry trees would return stronger than ever before, again drawing us to the theme of death and rebirth.
EvanEnterprises, I couldn't agree more. Everything about the film is dream-like, or perhaps it's better to say, nightmarish. It's a hellscape, pure and simple, like a Bosch painting. It's not trying for documentary-style realism. And I agree with the comments here about references to death and resurrection. It can definitely be taken as an allegorical film, if we like.
A great film, helped immensely by the fact they didn't pander to stereotypes about WWI officers _too much_ . The throwaway comment about General Erinmore "never seeing/not knowing No Man's Land" was bit daft, based on assumptions that generals never went near the front, & considering he was in a frontline dugout it would be hard for him *not* to have seen No Man's Land. Bu otherwise it was 👌
I feel that the movie consciously teased those stereotypes, only to subvert them. Same with Barnabas Curmudgeon's character.
I suppose it was also portraying the British opinion of Germans as they likely wouldn’t have known much about the competency of the other side and would have also consumed much propaganda (same the other way around as well).
To be fair, that was said by a common soldier in the army. So I'm assuming the film is just showing the attitude toward command by the soldiers themselves.
as with any stereotype there is some truth to the lions led by donkeys (though i believe the line refers to lower rank officers led by the higher ranks. its no accident that the brits 1st casualty of ww1 was a general having a heart attack.
@@thurin84 The phrase "Lions Led by Donkeys" didn't even refer to the Great War. It was a line supposedly from the Crimean War that was falsely (& deliberately) applied to WWI by the author Alan Clark, in his much castigated book 'The Donkeys'. Plus why does James Grierson dying of a heart problem mean anything? The two British Corps commanders of 1914 (including his replacement) did very well.
I think that the plot being convenient adds to the experience. It shows just how random war is and that your fate is dependent on that luck. For example, some war movies have scenes where an artillery shell lands next to a soldier but by pure chance they don't die because it's a dud.
I used to talk to someone who had that happen to him.
I can't remember whether it was friendly fire or an enemy attack but he was a US Soldier in afghanistan and a mortar round landed right next to him.
Dud, didn't go off.
Right fucked him up though.
Good review, but the lieutenant at the end was played by Richard Madden who played Robb Stark not Jon Snow.
I was about to leave comment. Happy I'm not the only one who noticed that.
And his brother is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, who played Tommen (also Martyn Lannister, one of the boys killed by Lord Karstark in season 3).
@@bhenry411 Lieutenant, I have a message from your brother... "The Lannisters send their regards"
@@agp11001 Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Honestly it never occurred to me that the one German soldier we saw vomiting was drunk. I assumed he was just sick. Considering how common disease was in the trenches, illness was as good of an explanation for him as any.
It the german barracks there was also a picture of someone's family, which was showing how the germans were human beings that had loved ones just like the British
Best part of the film: William gets barbed wire in the hand; "You'll be wanking in a week"; "Wrong hand"
A note about the timing in the film, i think that this movie is the perfect example of a true screenplay in the sense that it is written, and often acted like a stage play. I know it seems very convenient for the column to just stumble into the farm as the other runner dies but i think that we should take that with a grain of salt. I always interpreted it as an implied time jump like in a stage play with him sitting in the same position starring in shock at his dead friend for potentially hours until they eventually reached him and brought him back to his senses.
The film was absolutely gripping. I've been bingeing reviews since I saw it, and your two videos have been the best I've seen!
Ahem* that was not Jon Snow, that was Richard Madden (Rob Stark) who is a much better actor.
At least you got Benjamin buttons name right.
I always wondered how on earth did the orders survive after he fell into the river
I presume it must have been protected in some kind of treated parchment or maybe the tin he was carrying? I expect runners would have been expected to keep orders like that safe from the elements in some way, though I cant find any details on how.
he put the order in the tin box and he place it in his chest pocket while he was on the truck with other men
I think he put it in a cigar box or some other tin. It looks like it was made of tin or something so It probably protected it.
me too considering how thin and flimsy the paper was then.
He actually put the letter in the tin box(?) when he was in the truck with other soldier, and later on you can notice he put the letter out when he arrived at the other side of the trench after going over the top
Well it doesn’t help that the German pilot was on fire when the plane crashed. I imagine it’s quite hard to control a plane when your legs are on fire.
You need to grow a moustache and twirl it while talking about villains
That’s a great review, thank you! The episode of the pilot is obviously “convenient” to the plot, but not completely illogical or unhistorical. Manfred von Richthofen (yes, the Red Baron), in his biography, explains of an episode in which he was trying to capture and take prisoner an enemy pilot. He had him land in a field but the guy was not giving up easily, he took off the machine-gun from his plane and shot Manfred’s plane riddling it with holes. The baron considered this as quite dishonest and decided that was the moment to stop being chivalrous and just neutralize the enemies as fast and efficiently as possible. This also tells us that there were pilots not willing to easily give up and surrender. Just my 2 cents :)
As for why German troops couldn’t hit anything, their Mauser 98 rifles were zeroed at a minimum of 400 yards, which meant that at 100-200 yards or so, you would have to aim at a man’s boots to hit him in the chest. So in my mind, I think it’s consistent that most troops would have a hard time hitting a target, especially in the heat of the moment.
wow. Well I guess it makes sense
100. i just looked at mine. but point taken with how close most of the shots took place.
@@thurin84 It would be 300 m (~330 yds), WWI Mauser rifles used lange viser (long sight). You can recognize most period rifles by the "roller-coaster" shaped sights.
@@KSmithwick1989 thank you captain obvious. any other germen kit i already know about you want to lecture me on?
@milcoll73 If you're claiming "100," then clearly you're not referring to a WWI Mauser. But a post-war model that uses 100 m increments.
Either way, it's not what the OP is referring to.
I liked that the film showed that even a half-successful mission saves lives; it's not win or lose.
I thought Blake's death was very important because it showed something a lot of war films don't; a lot of deaths were completely undignified and unfair.
My issue with the pilot attacking them was that he couldn't exactly crawl back to base afterwards, but that point your friend made makes sense; he'd take that risk if he thought his life depended on it.
you have such an interesting way of talking, with inflections in your voice, and explaining things that is very engaging. Often it's just you talking to a camera at a desk and I'm focused to listen the entire time.
Medically, William only chocked him until he passed out. That means he will most likely survive, as you have to chocke someone for at least a few minites after they pass out.
I love all the Benedict Cumberbatch nicknames 😂
@Alba Celani Where did that come from?
I personally loved the movie, in fact it's instantly become one of my favorite war movies I've ever watched. Regarding the convenience and historical accuracy I think this movie should not be viewed as an accurate historical movie but more like a thematic movie, kinda like for example Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket. Where Apocalypse Now and FMJ was about the madness of the Vietnam war, 1917 to me is representing the trials, hardships and loss that the soldiers in world war 1 went through.
Comparing this movie to Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket is a insult to both of them, this movie says nothing more WWI, how brutal it was, how war was hell, this is not a anti-war movie, it a very sanitise milk toast version of what Mendez think is anti-war movie.
I love how consistently you upload! Especially for the content. Also, nice uniform!
The free shooter could have been a frightened straggler.
What peed me off the most about it was the mad bayonet charge at the end. They always do this in WWI movies. It's a meme but I'm not sure it's true. I thought by 1917 they went over in sections or platoons and they were a team with rifle grenades, a Lewis gun section. And they had creeping barrages and smoke screens - you know covering fire. It wasn't a horde of Zulus in skirmish order.
Well, it certainly did look epic.
They didn't have enough extras for launching the attack over the top properly, although it should have had a prep barrage, I agree.
Well Dickie Attenborough did an epic creeping barrage in A Bridge too far so it's not beyond film makers art if they are interested. It must have been vital to the success of an attack to give the infantry all the support possible. Monty was a WWI staff officer and he famously used that experience in WW2.
To be fair. Those were hastily made trenches, with no support whatsoever. Probably dug overnight by the same people that were to go over the top the next day.
But even then, how the offensive went isnt critical for the plot to go on. Yes they could've done it to how it was actually done in WW1. But they dont need to, and it could the from distract the plot itself.
im sick of germans being potrayed as absolute Evil, soulless Demons, especially in WW1 movies and Games.
Well, then, go see 1917, because the Germans aren't portrayed this way at all. They're soldiers doing their jobs and that's it. The English hero of the film at one point has to kill a teenager. Nobody's better or worse than anyone else in the movie.
@Robert McCauley
nothing youve written actually happend besides the Zimmermann Telegramm.
-Austria Hungary Started the war
when Serbia didnt fulfill the Ultimatum after the Archduke was Shot in Sarajevo. Russia declared war on Austria, Germany declared war on Russia, France and Britian declared war on Germany.
Germans didnt start anything and werent at fault.
If anyone was at fault it was Serbia for ignoring Austria and provoking a War.
-the Rape of Belgium was an overblown Propaganda effort by Britian. Germany did shot civilian Partisans and burnt Buildings, yes, but Not in the scale and Brutality people Tell you.
-soldiers who were shooting or destroying Churches or Cathedrals were court martialed on both Sides.
also doesnt make sense that Christian Germans destroy Christian Churches and Cathedrals, Id Like a source to this Bullshit youre spewing.
The German submarine campaign definitely didn't help their image. Yet it was their best weapon on taking on the British empire navy and crippling supply line for their own was nothing compare to British, so Gemany keep their fleet in harbor.
Some complaint that submarine should give the ship a chance to evacuate but that defeat the whole submarine advantage. And add the surprise trap ship that look like a regular cargo ship and trying to act honorable could be a death sentence to the crew.
Of course there is one bright spot for Germany submarine. Germany build a large cargo submarine that sail across the Atlantic to still nertual USA and was greeted like heroes, load their cargo with food to bring back to the fatherland.
@@bloodysimile4893 the british blockade killed thousands, Just Like the German subs did.
my biggest Point is the treaty of Versailles tho.
by blaming the germans alone you already make the next war inevitable
@@EyeLean5280
yeah i know, it was Just a comment about all of Hollywood
What I want to know is if he ends up keeping his hand.
yeah, that was my thought. after he stuck it in the corpse with no antibiotics and all i thought ;"that guys a goner".
Almost certainly not. Way too many contacts with seriously contaminated surfaces (or in the case of the rat-bitten corpse, an interior). Penicillin wouldn't be invented for another ten years, and not widely available for 15 years after that. Schofield's hand is almost guaranteed be infected and will have to be amputated - if he's lucky and doesn't just die of fever first. Good thing it wasn't his dominant hand.
@@EyeLean5280 "...Wrong hand"
Laughed my arse off at that line
@@moritamikamikara3879 really hope he can still do that "thing"
I feel like the Pilot's thought process as he was going down was to aim for the house, because if he survived the crash he can just get supplies there and move on
the part that broke me in the movie is when the first wave is charging because the feeling of powerlessness is one that is all too familiar to me, how he wants to tell them to stop but he knows that they wouldn't listen anyway
It's a realisation that all these people...
Everyone on the screen?
They're already dead.
They can't be saved, you can't recall that attack, they're already dead.
The german pilot was a bf1 player
You are seriously the most lovable nerd on the entire internet
I think it was the History Buffs channel that talks about forgiving some inaccuracies for the sake of authenticity. I saw this as more the story of the war and what the soldiers went through rather than a made up character doing something extraordinary. So I can forgive some convenient situations to convey what the war was like as a whole.
(also the brother was Robb Stark, not John Snow)
This is by far one of my favorite reviews so far! Love the historical analysis and the flow of the entire video! Also love the bits about Bentmydick Comingback, because who doesn't love a little humor?
I believe the conception of the notion that the German soldiers were portrayed as villains in the film simply came from the fact that every encounter the main character(s) had with the Germans had resulted in the latter trying to kill them with, often times, little hesitation. However, as you meticulously explained in the video, there was more reasoning and justification, besides simply plot convenience- or perhaps inconvenience for one of the characters- for their actions, such as, you know, being at war with the English and other Entente Powers.
I can perhaps compromise that it seemed a bit silly, to a reasonable extent, that these scattered German lines and soldiers were a bit gun-ho, lacking the quality of assessment, giving chase while firing a bolt-action rifle from the hip. I speculate many people, especially WWI and WWII enthusiasts, could be used to the fact that many other films, at times, tend to portray the common German soldiery as bloodthirsty savages, with some films on the point of complete propaganda. Thus, the initial conflict, involving an emotional and chaotic struggle between two enemies, could be misinterpreted as another attempt at demonizing the German soldier. I agree with you, though, that there is more obvious reason and depth behind the actions of the soldiers, both English and German, respectively.
Nonetheless, I absolutely loved the film, despite silly and unfinished plot conveniences, I was certainly happy to see another portrayal of such a brutal conflict known as the Great War, and a very excellent portrayal at that.
The plot "conveniences" only seem silly if we demand absolute realism from this film. But if we're willing to roll with allegory, symbolism, surrealism, allusions to first-person shooter games, and all the other non-realist elements that were obviously intended in this film, it becomes much more enjoyable.
It was all very abstracted. I think the chases and all the sniper sequences were quite typical of like.. A 1930s 1920s world war 1 epic, but heavily modernized. It does help build the tension to have these crazy people chase you with a Gewehr 98 firing from the hip, though! It's just an entertaining film!
The Gun-ho actions of the Germans in the night scenes, and even the free shooter at the start can be explained though. They allude to the germans in the area (behind enemy lines) either finding or given alcohol. So they're all drunk or at least intoxicated at some degree.
This movie was so good that Brandon regained his American accent a few times
14:00 my reading of the actions of the pilot is simply the actions of somebody in shock and severe pain.
Its not unheard of for somebody in pain to try to fight off doctors or friends etc trying to help them because the pain prevents them from thinking rationally.
So i did not see that as the Pilot deciding to kill in cold blood but rather somebody who was scared and in terrible pain and shock who acted irrationally.
I actually laughed in disbelief when the German pilot stabbed him after they saved his life. As a long time WW1 history buff, with a particular interest in the air war, I have NEVER read of anything like that. The writer basically threw in a Japanese kamikaze pilot from WW2, a person with an actual death wish. It was ludicrous and was one of many things that took me out of the movie constantly. Also, the German ‘sniper’ misses a standing man from what looks to be from less than 80yds, after having already passed on shooting a officer standing by that character seconds before... It was almost comical, and reminded me a bit of Saving Private Ryan.
I think the stabbing was part of that particular pilots "fight or flight" response of being in shock. People do some crazy stuff while in shock. I've got 30 years of experience as a career firefighter, so that's what I'm basing my comment on. As far as the German missing those shots....yeah...he needs to go back to the range.
FMCH6444 I respect your opinion, but I think it was based more on plot convenience, and conventional German bad guy movie tropes than anything else. Any pilot narrative from both sides during WW1 about being shot down, either behind enemy lines and captured or within their own, almost always has the pilot feeling almost euphoric about having survived and behaving extremely passive and thankful to whoever helped them out of the wreck. This felt more like, “Well, character A needs to die in this moment sooo... knife attack?” “Sounds great, let’s run with it!”
@@tacklengrapple6891 that too. It's been a while since I did any WW1 reading, but after you mentioned it, I vaguely remember that bit about pilots just being happy they survived their crash landing.
Neal Gavin, I agree 100%. The pilot of the crashed Albatross D.3 killing a British soldier who helped him REALLY bothered me. That was just not the character of pilots from either side. I still liked the movie overall, despite some plot contrivances, but that scene was too much. Like you said, it felt like a typical "German bad guy" trope. They would have been better served having the fatal injury being caused by flying debris from the crash.
and why would he use a knife? surely he has a sidearm to "do the deed" in case his crate catches fire or gets shot down.
What you say about the portrayal of German soldiers is true if you have more insights, but I think for the normal audience it's just yet another case of perfidious Germans vs. heroic Allies.
Agree here, its dangerous to drill this ‘good vs bad’ bullshit into people’s heads
@Brandon F. Something I would like to point out that I am not sure if it has much bearing or not is that the choked German is not dead. I have been in martial arts for many years and, in that context, have both choked people to the edge of consciousness and been choked to the edge of consciousness. When you choke a person until they cease to move they are not dead. They will be back up, with a headache, in just a few minutes.
The officers class were pretty much people used in civilian life to commanding servants or workers. Many may well have looked down on those they commanded with some superiority.
Many did, but most officers were middle class, with a few upper class and a few lower class (most of whom had been field-commissioned for courage or valor), to become an officer, you needed a university education (although most field-commissions didn't take that into account), most Subalterns and field officers had a shared experience with their men. Officers weren't supposed to mingle with their men, that's why they had their own quarters and mess, they were supposed to superior to their men in a sense, the men were supposed to respect their officers, and many good officers held their men's genuine respect, and many officers respected their men.
I think I saw the reason that the German soldier kept missing during the river crossing us because, like Schofield, he wasn't really lining up his shots or taking time to aim. He was just trying to shoot in the general direction that Schofield was in between taking cover. The same way that Schofield did when it turned into a shootout between them. Most of their shots miss because they are trying to shoot as quickly as possible and not expose themselves, Schofield doesn't even realise that he had managed to hit the German until a bit later, which is quite realistic from what I've been able to tell from reading about soldiers experiences
Damn that's awesome
he had plenty of time to line up the 1st shot.
@@thurin84 then our next guess is. He was doing a warning shot. Not a lot of peoe want to shoot kill. Only shoot to make them afraid and run off
Thanks for the spoiler warning.
There was study that showed that spoilers can actually enhance the movie experience as long as it's consensual.
I sat through your dialogue thinking I haven't seen this film. But really got into it even though I'm tired and I want to go to bed. You tell it so well. I look forward to seeing it one day.
i would have loved for my greatgrandad who was a sgt at the somme in 1917 to see this and see what he made of it,,i used to talk to him as a 12 yr old ,i told me bits of his battles and the smells of soil blood and damp plus rot he died back in 1982 ,i could smell the trenches from the film was crazy , and the scene of blake dieing was very real well filmed
What is your take on the movie Red Baron? The only glaring inaccuracies I could find were Lanoe Hawker flying a S.E.V.a, a plane that entered service after his death, and Manfred being more of a pacifist. He actually wrote often about killing the pilot.
I feel like the reason Germans seem to be "bad guys" is because that's what it seemed like from the perspective of the British.
Speaking of movies portraying aircraft in a very dark, menacing and serious way, another scene comes to mind. I think the Stuka attack scene at Anzio beach from the movie “ Pink Floyd the Wall “ is absolutely great and almost scary. You get nothing but a soldier’s eye view of the Stuka with these big black crosses under the wings. For a movie that isn’t even a war movie, they did an amazing job hammering home the terror and anxiety of a battle.
Succeeding on a difficult mission, even saving thousands of men, and then being told to fuck off. That alone gets this film on top of all the other military movies in terms of realism.
My favourite scene in the movie was the one where the main guy (no clue what his name was unfortunately) came upon the burning French town. From the distance at night and with the way it’s filmed, the fire seems almost ethereal and alien. It took me a few minutes to even realise what I was seeing. It seemed like an explosion drawn out for an eternity, like seeing the surface of the sun. When he enters it’s just such a breathtaking and horrifying sight. It barely conveyed to me heat, not like how you think of fire. It was something other, just an indescribable and otherworldly power of destruction. It’s late so maybe this is incomprehensible gibberish but I appreciated how this movie could give something as universally understood by humans as fire a certain element of almost Lovecraftian horror and awe.
I actually have a theory that William is killed by that sharpshooter. The hellscape he sees is the literal gates to the underworld
There was an interesting change in the plot once the main character is hit on the head and black out. After he wakes up his exploits become much more far fetched and symbolic (such as the mother Mary scene). On a separate note the whole story reminds me of the odyssey and oh brother where art thou
Alternate interpretation: He wasn't knocked out, he was killed. Notice how surreal everything got after that? He was a ghost, and so was anyone else he interacted with (the Germans, the Belgian woman and the baby, the Colonel and most of his staff, Blake's brother... all killed in the battle). That's why he can't be shot to death or drowned. He's already dead. Blake didn't become a ghost because Schofield was honest with him and told him he was dying. Blake accepted death and moved on. The German sniper didn't become a ghost because he died accomplishing what he set out to do.
It explains why Blake suddenly has tons of rations even though he complained earlier about having no food. Schofield became a ghost because he died without fulfilling Blake's dying wish. The attack wasn't called off because of the order, but because the first wave was slaughtered without taking any objectives, and the Devons had lost most of their officers. So, if you didn't think the movie was depressing enough, both brothers die and Schofield fails to deliver the message.
@@nehukybis I've thought of that interpretation and I agree it is definitely supported by many events in the movie; however, it seems so out there that it needs a bit more evidence imo. If that were true it would completely change the message of the movie to something which I don't think coincides with what the director was going for (from what I've seen at least).
@@epictrollface51 It's possible for a director to be ambiguous on purpose, to create more than one possible interpretation. I don't think he wanted this to be the only interpretation or even the preferred one. Making it unambiguously a ghost story would have been kind of cornball and unsatisfying. Better that it's implied. And man the movie does get surreal, between the starshells and the cherry blossoms. And rivers have been a metaphor for death since the bronze age.
The downed German pilot's actions in the film reminded me of a story told to me by my uncle who served as stretcher bearer in the First World War in France. During a truce he was actually bandaging up a Prussian officer when the Prussian officer drew a pistol and aimed it at my uncle who being a stretcher bearer was unarmed. My uncle managed to kick the gun out of the Prussian's hands and a struggle ensued. My uncle survived but the Prussian didn't. As other commenters have said these sorts of things actually happened. Of all the German states Prussia had the reputation of being the most militaristic ( a reason the state of Prussia was dissolved after World War 2 ) and so such death or glory actions would happened more often with Germans of Prussian origin.
Do you mean freeshooter as in the german term "Freischütze"?
That's a German term for zevilian competition shooters.
In WW1 most snipers were actually just competition shooters or hunters who had experience with dangerous animal hunting in Africa & India.
They got drafted into the army & most officers realised that these experienced sharpshooters can be used more efficiently than regular infantry in skirmish roles.
@@arkadeepkundu4729 yeah, but the term "Freischütze" (freeshooter) is still a civilian term as well a cultural reference towards the opera "Der Freischütze" (the freeshooter) in whitch a young competition shooter does make a deal with the devil for special bullets, so called "Freikugeln" (freebullets) whitch hit everything the shooter wants to.
I know that most snipers where competition shooters at the time, it's just that the term freeshooter is neither the official, nore appropriate term for German ww1 snipers. As a German I never read the term freeshooter used in a ww1 context and can only assume that it was an unofficial in joke amongst the man.
Your channel is amazing Brandon keep it up
I don’t think a real German pilot would have stabbed the soldier
In my head canon, the pilot deliberately aimed for the barn area because he recognised it and thought it was German Territory (it was only days ago), and he panics (through shock and tremendous pain) when he realised he wasn't actually being aided by Germans.
Benjamin Telford I didn’t know head canon was a widely used term. I thought only me and my friend used it
Maybe, maybe not. It's a pretty individual thing.
EyeLean5280 the military is a very collective thing that gets rund of individualalety
@@lucasl4644 Once behind enemy lines, however, behavior becomes less predictable, I think.
The plane crashing objection at 1:35 - It seemed to me that the pilot intended to land on that gentle slope behind the barn, but the plane flew too fast and he just did underestimate the space the plane requires for landing, thus ending in the barn.
"That actor, Eggs Benedict Cabbage Patch" Brandon is bad at being mean
I'm wondering if you might take the time to cover the original 1955 version of the Finnish film based on the novel from which it gets its name: "Tuntematon Sotilas." (The Unknown Soldier) It has been remade twice since '55 and while the more modern versions have their plusses the older original sticks closer to the plot of the novel.
Something I noticed is that al people but the higher ranked officers called them just corporal even though thy where lance corporals. Is there historical basis to this, that most wouldn’t differentiate?
Wicket 44 in the American civil war , Luitenant colonels were usually just called colonels . Lance is probably a formality
It's an informal setting, they just call them Corporal out of ease.
It is permissible to abbreviate Lt Colonel as Colonel, Major General as General, 1st Lieutenant as Lieutenant, etc. in ordinary speech. Calling them "Lance Corporal" would sound overly formal in most contexts. Maybe you would do it if you were dressing the guy down, the way parents sometimes use the full name of their child when chewing them out. (So, Lance Corporal Blake, what part of "this is the down trench" did you not understand?")
This is because the lieutenant in lieutenant colonel is a modifier. You can call the Lieutenant Colonel "Colonel". But never, ever call the Lieutenant Colonel "Lieutenant." (I've seen civilian journalists make that mistake). The Lance in Lance Corporal means the same thing, essentially. A Lance Corporal is one step below a Corporal, but military protocol allows you to call them Corporal in ordinary speech.
I thought the pilot stole the knife off of Tom. I guess I was wrong there. To be fair, William's attempt at administering first aid probably aided in Tom's untimely death.
13:58
I think that a little too far fetched.
My guess is that they just wanted to add some drama to the movie.
Yeah i think the delirium explanation makes more sense
I watched your video, the watched the movie when it was cheap on DVD, and this is in defence of the film, witch I found very emotional engaging.....tho a lot of your critisicm is right.
To the 'small points'.
The milk: Someone lived there. The Germans left one cow alive for this person. The person fled when the soldiers approached.
He was the bringer of miracles in an hour of most need for the mother. He not only had rations, he even brought fresh milk.
The river: he was alerted by the petals in the water. He had reached the orchard, then heard the singing. Blake told him to continue.
That moment, when the 2 men shook hands....powerfull moment.
Good film.
While I usually see eye to eye with you I need to disagree on some of the german comments. Yes it's too convenient about the plane but its possible he lost control of the plane? He was on fire after all hahah! The germans...everytime we see them they are drunk I'm under the impression that a lot of their ability or lack thereof was due to the fact that they were intoxicated and had lost much of their fighting spirit. The fact that they seem to chase him and not really kill him includes to the nightmare comment you made in a prior video. I think it was done to show that surrealism
one thing i LOVED........ the audio
.
the gunshots in that movie were the first that made me go "holy crap... that sounds like a REAL!!! gunshot"
especially when he is crossing the blown up bridge over the river.....
Great vid saw it last week
If I recall, we actually do see the british getting drunk, I recall one man had a flask, might've actually been that officer you mentioned in that bit.
yeah, remember he splashes a bit on the protagonists and gives them "absolution".
Pilots in WW1 were a lot more chivalrous and respecting. They wouldn't just go and stab a bunch of people, especially after crashing his plane.
2 years later and I finally watched the move!
And here's my pedantic remark: Nobody seems to have pointed it out but the use of the Sopwith Camels is inaccurate. The Camel was first introduced in June 1917 with the RNAS No. 4 Squadron. Since the movie takes place in April 1917, the Sopwith Pup would've been a better choice, if not the Nieuport 17. Luckily the Albatros D.III is accurate for the time period.
It seemed fairly obvious that the pilot was in shock and panicking, and a sudden surge of blind aggression makes sense there. I don't know where people are getting the "evil portrayal" thing from. Reich-worshipers are just hyper-sensitive I guess.
Also as to the "chase" scenes, if it were dark and disorienting out, I could easily see someone having an urge to chase in addition to an urge to shoot. At that point you're trying to close the distance so you can actually see your target, and conflicted as to whether you should be demanding a surrender or just shooting the guy.
I also like that the commander at the end, even while pissed off at the main character, tells him to get his injuries seen to. He maintains a realistic level of professionalism, and a realistic level of emotion, and while his anger at the situation isn't completely separated from the messenger, he maintains composure well enough to see to his men's medical needs.
I just want to point out that COW MILK IS NOT FOR HUMAN BABIES! Do NOT give your infant cow milk! It will get very sick!! Children from 1 year upwards can drink cow milk but it's still not a good idea. And if it's older than 1 year than it can eat solids as well, which would be even better for the baby than cow milk. But the bay appears to be much younger in the film so cow milk is definitely no bueno. So I was really rolling my eyes during that scene. Source: I have a 1.5 year old at home
Well... They were desperate enough. And having a baby with diarrhea might still be preferable to having a starved baby.
Very excellent in-depth review of an excellent movie.
About ze germans, german pilots where mostly from the upper class and had way better education, and therefore also were taught foreign languages.
And the one german that hunts William in the burning town like a madman, may have been a Prussian. They were known for being extrem hateful towards their enemies, whoever they were, be it the Danish or the french in former wars.
Sam Mendes is an anti-German Heimee. Throughout the movie the main character Scofield kills 3 germans - the pilot, the sniper, and the shouting soldier. None of these 3 showed any mercy or will to preserve life. The pilot could have been thankful for having his life saved; the sniper could have surprised Scofield and taken him prisoner; the shouter could have let him go. For the heimees of Hollywood, every German is a crazed evil killer, and will try to murder you on sight, no questions, no thinking.
The ways he went around saying Cumberbatch's name was amazing