The colouristation was pretty spectacular, but thought the sharpening of the images and, in particular, the correction of the frame rates were the things that made the biggest difference. Seeing the men moving around naturally made it all seem so much more real and recent than the originally ‘silly walks’ footage.
It was fascinating to hear the testimonies of soldiers who were there on the front, and interesting how at peace with it all that they mostly seemed to be. Probably partly down to classic British understatement, but I wonder if those voices had been recorded in the 20s rather than 60s, when the wounds were still raw, if there might have been a bit more discontent. And of course, veterans more mentally affected by it may either have declined to be interviewed or even no longer be around.
Nonetheless as a film it is a technical masterpiece and it would be fantastic if the techniques, used and improved to make this, could be applied to other old video footage. So much social history out there ripe for bringing back to life.
Were the voices the actual soldiers who were involved? I assumed they were more recent veterans reading the words written by WW1 soldiers.
I thought the narration was from the soldiers who fought and spoke about it afterwards in the 60s and 70s
The laughter and talking etc. from the actual soldiers in the clips were from modern day people as Peter Jackson had hired lip readers from the police to work out what was being said
The colouristation was pretty spectacular, but thought the sharpening of the images and, in particular, the correction of the frame rates were the things that made the biggest difference. Seeing the men moving around naturally made it all seem so much more real and recent than the originally ‘silly walks’ footage.
It was fascinating to hear the testimonies of soldiers who were there on the front, and interesting how at peace with it all that they mostly seemed to be. Probably partly down to classic British understatement, but I wonder if those voices had been recorded in the 20s rather than 60s, when the wounds were still raw, if there might have been a bit more discontent. And of course, veterans more mentally affected by it may either have declined to be interviewed or even no longer be around.
Nonetheless as a film it is a technical masterpiece and it would be fantastic if the techniques, used and improved to make this, could be applied to other old video footage. So much social history out there ripe for bringing back to life.
Were the voices the actual soldiers who were involved? I assumed they were more recent veterans reading the words written by WW1 soldiers.
Seems the United States got it right with their GI Bill after the Second World War with how to deal with ex-Servicemen
there was the creation of the welfare state here in britain after ww2. So we did learn from our mistakes.
I've heard it argued that the NHS first tranche of patients were WW1 survivors whose various wounds were by then, 20 years starting to have a major impact on their health.
Actually it would have been 30 years minimum and those injured in 1914 for example would have been 34 years.......not 20. War ended 1918.....NHS started 1948.
Seems the United States got it right with their GI Bill after the Second World War with how to deal with ex-Servicemen
there was the creation of the welfare state here in britain after ww2. So we did learn from our mistakes.
I've heard it argued that the NHS first tranche of patients were WW1 survivors whose various wounds were by then, 20 years starting to have a major impact on their health.
Well thats how Queen Mary's in Sidcup came about wasnt it to help those disfigured by bullets and shrapnel?
Henry made a very valid comment....just that he made a small easily made error with the NHS 20 years calculation....not that important really as everyone knew what he was driving at.
I didn't realise that it was going to be shown on the BBC until I accidentally switched over last night. I watched about 1/2 hour. Technically brilliant but far too harrowing for me.
Apart from it being so harrowing. It got me interested in the numbers involved. I didn't realise that most of the men that went actually returned! I was shocked as I always thought that the majority didn't make it. Apparently around 6 million British soldiers were mobilised and around 700,000 died (horrendous numbers) - but that means that around 88% actually returned. Proves that in a way stats are fairly meaningless as 88% looks good - but 700,000 died!!
possibly because most of the time was spent bored in the trenches, very very rarely did a soldier go over the top in an assault.
Artillery was the biggest killer in WW1 rather than the rifle so just being in a trench wasn't the only reason.
Also not all 6m of the imperial forces were on the western front or in front line roles.
With regards to the first part... I read somewhere that for some soldiers, they'd be killed not by shrapnel or a bullet yet because of the shock from the sound on the guns being so loud - They even mentioned in the documentary that shrapnel would burst above the trenches and then rain down bullets on to the men below... Hell we were the first to come up with that idea as we used shrapnel in the Peninsular War against the French
I dont know who recommended it but there is a YouTube series called the Great War, basically there has been an episode a week since 2014 which has covered what happens each time - One special episode debunked the myth that most of the fighting happened on the Western Front as there were about ten other different fronts scattered around Europe | Asia | Africa
*Note... With the WW1 ending in 2018 / 1918, the same series has begun doing the same with the Second World War
I don’t think sound, in itself, killed people ( although I might stand to be corrected on this ).They were more likely killed by the shock wave of the explosion. On occasions this could fatally damage internal organs whilst leaving the visible body seemingly unhurt.
The colouristation was pretty spectacular, but thought the sharpening of the images and, in particular, the correction of the frame rates were the things that made the biggest difference. Seeing the men moving around naturally made it all seem so much more real and recent than the originally ‘silly walks’ footage.
It was fascinating to hear the testimonies of soldiers who were there on the front, and interesting how at peace with it all that they mostly seemed to be. Probably partly down to classic British understatement, but I wonder if those voices had been recorded in the 20s rather than 60s, when the wounds were still raw, if there might have been a bit more discontent. And of course, veterans more mentally affected by it may either have declined to be interviewed or even no longer be around.
Nonetheless as a film it is a technical masterpiece and it would be fantastic if the techniques, used and improved to make this, could be applied to other old video footage. So much social history out there ripe for bringing back to life.
Were the voices the actual soldiers who were involved? I assumed they were more recent veterans reading the words written by WW1 soldiers.
I thought the narration was from the soldiers who fought and spoke about it afterwards in the 60s and 70s
The laughter and talking etc. from the actual soldiers in the clips were from modern day people as Peter Jackson had hired lip readers from the police to work out what was being said
I didn't realise that it was going to be shown on the BBC until I accidentally switched over last night. I watched about 1/2 hour. Technically brilliant but far too harrowing for me.
Apart from it being so harrowing. It got me interested in the numbers involved. I didn't realise that most of the men that went actually returned! I was shocked as I always thought that the majority didn't make it. Apparently around 6 million British soldiers were mobilised and around 700,000 died (horrendous numbers) - but that means that around 88% actually returned. Proves that in a way stats are fairly meaningless as 88% looks good - but 700,000 died!!
possibly because most of the time was spent bored in the trenches, very very rarely did a soldier go over the top in an assault.
Artillery was the biggest killer in WW1 rather than the rifle so just being in a trench wasn't the only reason.
Also not all 6m of the imperial forces were on the western front or in front line roles.
With regards to the first part... I read somewhere that for some soldiers, they'd be killed not by shrapnel or a bullet yet because of the shock from the sound on the guns being so loud - They even mentioned in the documentary that shrapnel would burst above the trenches and then rain down bullets on to the men below... Hell we were the first to come up with that idea as we used shrapnel in the Peninsular War against the French
I dont know who recommended it but there is a YouTube series called the Great War, basically there has been an episode a week since 2014 which has covered what happens each time - One special episode debunked the myth that most of the fighting happened on the Western Front as there were about ten other different fronts scattered around Europe | Asia | Africa
*Note... With the WW1 ending in 2018 / 1918, the same series has begun doing the same with the Second World War
I don’t think sound, in itself, killed people ( although I might stand to be corrected on this ).They were more likely killed by the shock wave of the explosion. On occasions this could fatally damage internal organs whilst leaving the visible body seemingly unhurt.
There was one part where they were firing a big gun near a farmhouse and the tiles on the roof were all falling off.
There was one part where they were firing a big gun near a farmhouse and the tiles on the roof were all falling off.
That would have been the shockwave from the propellant.
My father served on an LCI in the Second World War. He recalled that his rather small ship was alongside an American battleship during a landing in the Med. I think, though I’m not sure, this was the invasion of Southern France. The battleship let fly with it’s 16 inch guns and the “blast” rocked his craft so badly that people were thrown across the deck. Fortunately no-one was thrown off the boat or badly hurt.
But what is interesting, and it isn't the job of the film, is that so many don't understand how the war started. And I don't mean the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in itself, but the politics and allegencies around that and the nationalism behind it all. I think there is much to learn there also and the film should inspire some to find out more.
Early on there was one bit where a bloke said he went to lunch with his mate and they went and signed up. Told the boss they wouldn't be in the next day and the boss wasn't too happy about it.
So matter of fact and just doing their duty.
Also guys signing up and saying they were 16, then told to go away and have a birthday or two and sign on about 10 minutes later.
But what is interesting, and it isn't the job of the film, is that so many don't understand how the war started. And I don't mean the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in itself, but the politics and allegencies around that and the nationalism behind it all. I think there is much to learn there also and the film should inspire some to find out more.
It was another interesting piece of the film yet to some of those interviewed they didnt seem to understand either - The section about taking German Prisoners was insightful because there seemed zero animosity between the two parities, i.e. could have been purely for propoganda yet the British and Germans would swap helmets etc.
One old boy certainly said he held no ill feeling towards the Germans, it was just a kill or be killed war
This has got to be one of the most powerful photographs I have ever seen. The top pic is a battalion of the Cameron Highlanders in 1914, prior to being despatched to the front line; below is the same battalion upon their return in 1918 after the armistice. Lest we forget.
This has got to be one of the most powerful photographs I have ever seen. The top pic is a battalion of the Cameron Highlanders in 1914, prior to being despatched to the front line; below is the same battalion upon their return in 1918 after the armistice. Lest we forget.
Pretty sure that's a fake photograph - shadows from the officer and not from the men, as well as the officer being in exactly the same position for both photographs.
The Regiment raised 13 Battalions and gained 57 Battle Honours and 3 Victoria Crosses, losing 5,930 men during the course of the war.
Two world wars and one world cup right? I always assumed from this that the World Wars were some how related to sport so there must have been a trophy.
But what is interesting, and it isn't the job of the film, is that so many don't understand how the war started. And I don't mean the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in itself, but the politics and allegencies around that and the nationalism behind it all. I think there is much to learn there also and the film should inspire some to find out more.
Highly recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History – Blueprint for Armageddon podcast which is a 6 part series of over 20 hours detailing the whole thing.
I watched it a couple of nights ago at the cinema, and have spent a few days processing it all, and a few things have really stuck with me.
1) The Russian revolution in 1917 overthrew a monarchy, yet not once did any of the British soldiers interviewed talk about rebellion or thinking about disobeying orders. This is quite incredible, and really tells you something about the British psyche in that they were effectively being sent to almost certain death, and yet they never complained or thought about rebelling against the establishment.
2) The lack of ego and demonstartiveness from the soldiers on their return seems incredible to us now. We live in a world where people want to tell you what they had for lunch, and how many laps of the pool they can do, and yet these guys went through the most incredible experience, and yet all they wanted to do was get back to normality with no fuss.
3) This point has been mentioned above, concerning the cold shouldering of the soldiers upon their return. Thinking about this again, it would have been impossible for anyone in the general public to understand the scale and the venom in the great war - the death and destruction on that scale had never been witnessed, and possibly many people just couldn't comprehend what they were hearing from the returning soldiers.
4) The levels of bravery from these guys was astonishing, yet they never saw it that way - how many times in the film did you hear the phrase "We just had to get on with it"? - such an stoic English thing to say, no fussing, no moaning, no whining just get your head down, look after your mates either side of you and get the job done.
Well done to Peter Jackson and the team behind the movie, I don't think it is the sort of thing that you 'enjoy', but it certainly enriched my interest in WW1, and renewed my great respect and admiration for the soldiers involved.
Point one is very good in the respect when you compare the fact that the French mutinied in 1917 (?) themselves and the Germans started towards the end it seems
The first Battle of Ypres is one I know little about yet have read about it the last few days I didnt realise how close we were to being completely eliminated there... i.e. one German captured at the end couldnt believe that their Generals had been cautious for nothing (thinking there was a bigger British force than there actually was) and could probably have rolled over us, most likely putting us out of the war... We pretty much lost the cream of the regular army there but still the soldiers just got on with it!!
I guess though thats the cusp when you compare our 1914 army with those that did mutiny i.e. Ours was a regular army and not made up of volunteers like the others at that point
As an aside, if anyone hasn't seen it watch the film Passendaele, for me the best action film of WW1, the battle scenes are horrific. Don't watch the edited version shown on terrestrial Tv watch the DVD.. Well worth a look.
Point one is very good in the respect when you compare the fact that the French mutinied in 1917 (?) themselves and the Germans started towards the end it seems
The first Battle of Ypres is one I know little about yet have read about it the last few days I didnt realise how close we were to being completely eliminated there... i.e. one German captured at the end couldnt believe that their Generals had been cautious for nothing (thinking there was a bigger British force than there actually was) and could probably have rolled over us, most likely putting us out of the war... We pretty much lost the cream of the regular army there but still the soldiers just got on with it!!
I guess though thats the cusp when you compare our 1914 army with those that did mutiny i.e. Ours was a regular army and not made up of volunteers like the others at that point
And so did the British on a much smaller scale.
But our troops were much better treated than the French, who made reforms. Also the French troops always said they would fight the Germans if they attacked. And fight they did, incredibly well in 1918.
Russia was completely different in that people were starving and it was a totalitarian state.
There were real fears of a communist revolution after 1917 in the UK ( the red Clyde) and there were many strikes. And there was the Easter rising.
And clearly they weren't being sent to their certain deaths, as otherwise they wouldn't have been talking to us.
As an aside, if anyone hasn't seen it watch the film Passendaele, for me the best action film of WW1, the battle scenes are horrific. Don't watch the edited version shown on terrestrial Tv watch the DVD.. Well worth a look.
Yeah saw that a few years ago...
Was written by Paul Gross (always remember him from Due South) as well as him being the lead actor, apparently took him a good few years to write as wanted to get it right - Wasnt a relative of his there or something, hence why he wanted to do it?
I watched it a couple of nights ago at the cinema, and have spent a few days processing it all, and a few things have really stuck with me.
1) The Russian revolution in 1917 overthrew a monarchy, yet not once did any of the British soldiers interviewed talk about rebellion or thinking about disobeying orders. This is quite incredible, and really tells you something about the British psyche in that they were effectively being sent to almost certain death, and yet they never complained or thought about rebelling against the establishment.
2) The lack of ego and demonstartiveness from the soldiers on their return seems incredible to us now. We live in a world where people want to tell you what they had for lunch, and how many laps of the pool they can do, and yet these guys went through the most incredible experience, and yet all they wanted to do was get back to normality with no fuss.
3) This point has been mentioned above, concerning the cold shouldering of the soldiers upon their return. Thinking about this again, it would have been impossible for anyone in the general public to understand the scale and the venom in the great war - the death and destruction on that scale had never been witnessed, and possibly many people just couldn't comprehend what they were hearing from the returning soldiers.
4) The levels of bravery from these guys was astonishing, yet they never saw it that way - how many times in the film did you hear the phrase "We just had to get on with it"? - such an stoic English thing to say, no fussing, no moaning, no whining just get your head down, look after your mates either side of you and get the job done.
Well done to Peter Jackson and the team behind the movie, I don't think it is the sort of thing that you 'enjoy', but it certainly enriched my interest in WW1, and renewed my great respect and admiration for the soldiers involved.
British soldiers weren’t going to “almost certain death” though. This is one of the myths constantly peddled out concerning the Great War. Four out of every five British infantrymen survived the war and came home again, although considerably more were wounded to a greater or lesser extent. I’m not denying it was hellish for them and many undoubtedly suffered mental trauma as a result. But the “lions led by donkeys” myth that they were all being led to a near 100% slaughter needs to be challenged.
That said, your other point is valid - the British Army was the only one of the original combatants that didn’t crack through either mutiny, destruction of morale or surrender. In fact, the British Army of 1918 was a superbly trained and led force, with people of skill and ability leading it at all levels.
I’m sure Clive @SE7toSG3 will be able to offer far more insight than me though.
Point one is very good in the respect when you compare the fact that the French mutinied in 1917 (?) themselves and the Germans started towards the end it seems
The first Battle of Ypres is one I know little about yet have read about it the last few days I didnt realise how close we were to being completely eliminated there... i.e. one German captured at the end couldnt believe that their Generals had been cautious for nothing (thinking there was a bigger British force than there actually was) and could probably have rolled over us, most likely putting us out of the war... We pretty much lost the cream of the regular army there but still the soldiers just got on with it!!
I guess though thats the cusp when you compare our 1914 army with those that did mutiny i.e. Ours was a regular army and not made up of volunteers like the others at that point
And so did the British on a much smaller scale.
But our troops were much better treated than the French, who made reforms. Also the French troops always said they would fight the Germans if they attacked. And fight they did, incredibly well in 1918.
Russia was completely different in that people were starving and it was a totalitarian state.
There were real fears of a communist revolution after 1917 in the UK ( the red Clyde) and there were many strikes. And there was the Easter rising.
And clearly they weren't being sent to their certain deaths, as otherwise they wouldn't have been talking to us.
Agree with this.
It should be remembered that when some units of the French army mutinied in April 1917, the French had shouldered the greater burden on the Western Front and had suffered far greater casualties. The first day of the Somme, 1st July 1916, is remembered as being the worst day, in terms of casualties, in the history of the British Army with just under 20,000 dead. The French lost about about 27,000 dead in a single day as early as August 2014. There were some, relatively, small insurrections in the British Army during the war. The most famous took place in Etaples and was chronicled, inaccurately, in the “Monocled Mutineer”.
In WW2 there was a mutiny among some units of the 50th division of the British Army who felt that they had done more than their far share of the fighting up to that point. It was serious enough for some of the ringleaders to be sentenced to death, although the sentences were never carried out.
Comments
The laughter and talking etc. from the actual soldiers in the clips were from modern day people as Peter Jackson had hired lip readers from the police to work out what was being said
.
There was one part where they were firing a big gun near a farmhouse and the tiles on the roof were all falling off.
That would have been the shockwave from the propellant.
My father served on an LCI in the Second World War. He recalled that his rather small ship was alongside an American battleship during a landing in the Med. I think, though I’m not sure, this was the invasion of Southern France. The battleship let fly with it’s 16 inch guns and the “blast” rocked his craft so badly that people were thrown across the deck. Fortunately no-one was thrown off the boat or badly hurt.
The pragmatism the blokes had and how they were so keen to join up and march off to war and then how they were abandoned afterwards
The stories of the men who went over the top and survived, and the footage and how it was cleaned up was phenomenal
So matter of fact and just doing their duty.
Also guys signing up and saying they were 16, then told to go away and have a birthday or two and sign on about 10 minutes later.
One old boy certainly said he held no ill feeling towards the Germans, it was just a kill or be killed war
Liked the one where they'd captured some Bavarians and said they were really nice lads.
They were to be replaced by some Prussians who were horrible bastard that even the Bavarians despised.
The top pic is a battalion of the Cameron Highlanders in 1914, prior to being despatched to the front line; below is the same battalion upon their return in 1918 after the armistice.
Lest we forget.
The Regiment raised 13 Battalions and gained 57 Battle Honours and 3 Victoria Crosses, losing 5,930 men during the course of the war.
1) The Russian revolution in 1917 overthrew a monarchy, yet not once did any of the British soldiers interviewed talk about rebellion or thinking about disobeying orders. This is quite incredible, and really tells you something about the British psyche in that they were effectively being sent to almost certain death, and yet they never complained or thought about rebelling against the establishment.
2) The lack of ego and demonstartiveness from the soldiers on their return seems incredible to us now. We live in a world where people want to tell you what they had for lunch, and how many laps of the pool they can do, and yet these guys went through the most incredible experience, and yet all they wanted to do was get back to normality with no fuss.
3) This point has been mentioned above, concerning the cold shouldering of the soldiers upon their return. Thinking about this again, it would have been impossible for anyone in the general public to understand the scale and the venom in the great war - the death and destruction on that scale had never been witnessed, and possibly many people just couldn't comprehend what they were hearing from the returning soldiers.
4) The levels of bravery from these guys was astonishing, yet they never saw it that way - how many times in the film did you hear the phrase "We just had to get on with it"? - such an stoic English thing to say, no fussing, no moaning, no whining just get your head down, look after your mates either side of you and get the job done.
Well done to Peter Jackson and the team behind the movie, I don't think it is the sort of thing that you 'enjoy', but it certainly enriched my interest in WW1, and renewed my great respect and admiration for the soldiers involved.
The first Battle of Ypres is one I know little about yet have read about it the last few days I didnt realise how close we were to being completely eliminated there... i.e. one German captured at the end couldnt believe that their Generals had been cautious for nothing (thinking there was a bigger British force than there actually was) and could probably have rolled over us, most likely putting us out of the war... We pretty much lost the cream of the regular army there but still the soldiers just got on with it!!
I guess though thats the cusp when you compare our 1914 army with those that did mutiny i.e. Ours was a regular army and not made up of volunteers like the others at that point
Well worth a look.
But our troops were much better treated than the French, who made reforms. Also the French troops always said they would fight the Germans if they attacked. And fight they did, incredibly well in 1918.
Russia was completely different in that people were starving and it was a totalitarian state.
There were real fears of a communist revolution after 1917 in the UK ( the red Clyde) and there were many strikes. And there was the Easter rising.
And clearly they weren't being sent to their certain deaths, as otherwise they wouldn't have been talking to us.
And to see that we still treat our ex forces with such poor post service help is disgusting we have learnt nothing
It’s recorded and the Keep button pressed as it will def be something that you can watch multiple times
Was written by Paul Gross (always remember him from Due South) as well as him being the lead actor, apparently took him a good few years to write as wanted to get it right - Wasnt a relative of his there or something, hence why he wanted to do it?
That said, your other point is valid - the British Army was the only one of the original combatants that didn’t crack through either mutiny, destruction of morale or surrender. In fact, the British Army of 1918 was a superbly trained and led force, with people of skill and ability leading it at all levels.
I’m sure Clive @SE7toSG3 will be able to offer far more insight than me though.
It should be remembered that when some units of the French army mutinied in April 1917, the French had shouldered the greater burden on the Western Front and had suffered far greater casualties. The first day of the Somme, 1st July 1916, is remembered as being the worst day, in terms of casualties, in the history of the British Army with just under 20,000 dead. The French lost about about 27,000 dead in a single day as early as August 2014. There were some, relatively, small insurrections in the British Army during the war. The most famous took place in Etaples and was chronicled, inaccurately, in the “Monocled Mutineer”.
In WW2 there was a mutiny among some units of the 50th division of the British Army who felt that they had done more than their far share of the fighting up to that point. It was serious enough for some of the ringleaders to be sentenced to death, although the sentences were never carried out.