New WW1 documentary (origin, how, Sarasota, FL)

[John-UK]

Originally Posted by gmagoo

I saw a bit of this on a morning news show and it looks fantastic. I hope I`m not in violation here by posting this but for a WW1 buff it looks like a must see and it`s in theaters tonight and Dec. 27.

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/10/pe...ed-1202010938/

The producers of the film had lip readers to write down what the soldiers said. They knew what part of the UK the regiments were from and then had people with those regional accents do the voice overs. A fantastic piece of work. We need more of it for all sorts of old black and white film of historic importance.

[loves2read]

We saw this film "They Shall Not Grow Old" this week in Sarasota, FL area
I agree it was a magnificent restoration of thousands of feet of silent film archive footage
I didn't find the added lip-synch dialogue to be disruptive or the coloration--which is not 100% of the film

But I was disappointed that much of what I saw I thought was limited in scope and had redundancies--multiple comments about the same aspects--
On the MOVIE forum, someone posted that Jackson and his crew decided to use the POV of the common infantryman so deliberately avoided providing information that could have offered a deeper understanding of the forces in WWI---
The images were graphic and ghastly and accurate--
But Jackson never refers to the original film crews who must have risked much to take some of those reels...
None of the voice overs are credited to the original soldiers and there is little documentation of specifics--
Both of which I thought were limitations--especially not giving any credit to the original film crews in the opening credits...

I am glad people are going to see it
And technically it is an admirable restoration...

But frankly we both (husband and I/seniors) were disappointed at the lack of "intimacy", personalization of the material...
And Jackson's choice to provide mainly positive comments re the soldiers' good spirits and almost naive acceptance of their situations I thought was deliberately avoiding critical comments from those same soldiers...

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by loves2read

We saw this film "They Shall Not Grow Old" this week in Sarasota, FL area
I agree it was a magnificent restoration of thousands of feet of silent film archive footage
I didn't find the added lip-synch dialogue to be disruptive or the coloration--which is not 100% of the film

But I was disappointed that much of what I saw I thought was limited in scope and had redundancies--multiple comments about the same aspects--
On the MOVIE forum, someone posted that Jackson and his crew decided to use the POV of the common infantryman so deliberately avoided providing information that could have offered a deeper understanding of the forces in WWI---
The images were graphic and ghastly and accurate--
But Jackson never refers to the original film crews who must have risked much to take some of those reels...
None of the voice overs are credited to the original soldiers and there is little documentation of specifics--
Both of which I thought were limitations--especially not giving any credit to the original film crews in the opening credits...

I am glad people are going to see it
And technically it is an admirable restoration...

But frankly we both (husband and I/seniors) were disappointed at the lack of "intimacy", personalization of the material...
And Jackson's choice to provide mainly positive comments re the soldiers' good spirits and almost naive acceptance of their situations I thought was deliberately avoiding critical comments from those same soldiers...

I strongly disagree. The voice-overs are credited in general, especially noted in the "making of" section of the work. Specific "I got shot" being credited to pvt John Jones is of no interest to most, and those that have interest have access to the source archives.

The intent of the film was to show what the experience was for the average British infantryman - period, full stop. The intended audience was the British public during memorial celebrations for all the Brits who died in WW I. It served that purpose admirably well.

The brilliance of Jackson was in his presenting that material, while at the same time retaining a flat affect and NOT turning it into PC message crap, like so many "documentaries." To complain about the acceptance that the British soldiers had for the conditions is to not understand the psyche of the British people. For GENERATIONS the criminals and those in the country that dared to speak out were shipped off to the U.S., Australia, Canada and other colonies. The Brits accept invasive rule from their government without question, queue up in lines that no American would tolerate, and accept lack of creature comforts.

Those were the voices, those were the prevailing attitudes (based upon my other reading), and having seen more film than 90% of the population, I place it in the top five documentaries I have ever seen.

[msgsing]

Both informative and troubling. What we see is how supposedly civilized societies break down and so easily slip into chaos and war. These servicemen were swept into a huge killing apparatus and fed into the fields of fire of machine guns and artillery.

There was total disregard for the lives of these men. And the concept of PTSD was unknown. Men who broke down were shot for cowardice. Generals still embracing Napolionic military tactics. Entangling alliances. And setting the stage for even a more horrific war for the next generation.

[loves2read]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

I strongly disagree. The voice-overs are credited in general, especially noted in the "making of" section of the work. Specific "I got shot" being credited to pvt John Jones is of no interest to most, and those that have interest have access to the source archives.

The intent of the film was to show what the experience was for the average British infantryman - period, full stop. The intended audience was the British public during memorial celebrations for all the Brits who died in WW I. It served that purpose admirably well.

The brilliance of Jackson was in his presenting that material, while at the same time retaining a flat affect and NOT turning it into PC message crap, like so many "documentaries." To complain about the acceptance that the British soldiers had for the conditions is to not understand the psyche of the British people. For GENERATIONS the criminals and those in the country that dared to speak out were shipped off to the U.S., Australia, Canada and other colonies. The Brits accept invasive rule from their government without question, queue up in lines that no American would tolerate, and accept lack of creature comforts.

Those were the voices, those were the prevailing attitudes (based upon my other reading), and having seen more film than 90% of the population, I place it in the top five documentaries I have ever seen.

Our film stated 45 min late because the theatre couldn'''t manage to run video and audio together
We likely would have stayed for what Jackson advertised at the beginning of the film.
I don't see why it took a 30 min explanation to supply some specific info that could have run as a close caption beneath the film's images for attribution...
And the idea that someone can go to archive sources and track down 20 seconds of commentary that JACKSON chose to add at a certain point in his preselected sections of film is off the mark...
Unless you are looking at the script Jackson used there is NO way to know who he choose to augment certain sections of the film--the comments were not made to the original film crew and they didn't include them w/the B/w footage Jackson had access to--
It was a totally separate and selective process on Jackson's part

Now the comments added via reading lips of soldiers in the original film--is not what I am referring to
I did have difficult time hearing/discerning some of what was "said" because of the fleeting nature and volume of the comment...

Re your comment that Jackson kept away from making "PC message crap" with a flat affect---
Jackson DID make personal choices in what he added to the original archival film though choice of voice over commentaries...his staff chose THOSE out of what likely were many more NOT chosen...
That choice in itself exhibits a decision making process of valuation--one is better/more fitting than another--
There is not way to make a documentary without some degree of insertion of the filmakers' attitudes into the subject matter itself...because documentaries are not made to a fixed receipe--
Jackson showed that by adding color and voice overs of lip-read on screen comments
The timing of any scenes--the juxtaposition of one type of scene in preference of Another in its sequence, length, color/not-color---those all speak to decisions Jackson made...

And I didn't find this documentary had a "flat affect--it was raw, disturbing, definitely anti-war...

Running it w/o any editing would have been the real "flat affect"--it is what it is--simply by restoring and not "reimagining" it--let it run for 100 hours in a museum and allow people to come and go freely...
Run it online w/o any edits-just cleaned up and spliced together in one continuous reel...

Jackson did put his POV into this project because HE certainly was not a WWI soldier--
So everything he did was based on his assessment of what was the best way to encorporate a "soldier's perspective"...

You can defend his choices--your opinion--I can disagree--my right as someone who saw the film
I have viewed many films--fiction and documentary--
And have read fiction, non-fiction, poetry about the WWI experience

And have you considered that justifying some of his choices by citing his explanation film is a weakness in itself
A film should speak for itself and its creators' vision/intent...

Jackson is from NZ--technically not a British filmmaker
He himself said he was surprised to be offered the opportunity
I know he did what is reportedly a very worthwhile historical exhibition of the NZ side of WWI which was/is on display earlier in NZ--maybe still is--and while he didn't dedicate his version to any of the original film crew, he did reference 3 men who fought--one his grandfather I believe in a NZ regiment--

I wonder why the British authorities felt it necessary to go out of country to get a film (not documentary) director to commemorate the British experience--

[loves2read]

Originally Posted by msgsing

Both informative and troubling. What we see is how supposedly civilized societies break down and so easily slip into chaos and war. These servicemen were swept into a huge killing apparatus and fed into the fields of fire of machine guns and artillery.

There was total disregard for the lives of these men. And the concept of PTSD was unknown. Men who broke down were shot for cowardice. Generals still embracing Napolionic military tactics. Entangling alliances. And setting the stage for even a more horrific war for the next generation.

Yes--my husband couldn't believe they followed the trench warfare method-
He was like that is so stupid--Why was no one flanking those entrenched positions...

Has anyone read the novels by the Todd mother/son duo--where main character is Scotland Yard detective who served as officer in line regiment and years afterwards is still troubled by PTSD?
The Ian Rutledge series...not all great mysteries but interesting...

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by loves2read

Our film stated 45 min late because the theatre couldn'''t manage to run video and audio together
We likely would have stayed for what Jackson advertised at the beginning of the film.
I don't see why it took a 30 min explanation to supply some specific info that could have run as a close caption beneath the film's images for attribution...
And the idea that someone can go to archive sources and track down 20 seconds of commentary that JACKSON chose to add at a certain point in his preselected sections of film is off the mark...
Unless you are looking at the script Jackson used there is NO way to know who he choose to augment certain sections of the film--the comments were not made to the original film crew and they didn't include them w/the B/w footage Jackson had access to--
It was a totally separate and selective process on Jackson's part

Now the comments added via reading lips of soldiers in the original film--is not what I am referring to
I did have difficult time hearing/discerning some of what was "said" because of the fleeting nature and volume of the comment...

Re your comment that Jackson kept away from making "PC message crap" with a flat affect---
Jackson DID make personal choices in what he added to the original archival film though choice of voice over commentaries...his staff chose THOSE out of what likely were many more NOT chosen...
That choice in itself exhibits a decision making process of valuation--one is better/more fitting than another--
There is not way to make a documentary without some degree of insertion of the filmakers' attitudes into the subject matter itself...because documentaries are not made to a fixed receipe--
Jackson showed that by adding color and voice overs of lip-read on screen comments
The timing of any scenes--the juxtaposition of one type of scene in preference of Another in its sequence, length, color/not-color---those all speak to decisions Jackson made...

And I didn't find this documentary had a "flat affect--it was raw, disturbing, definitely anti-war...

Running it w/o any editing would have been the real "flat affect"--it is what it is--simply by restoring and not "reimagining" it--let it run for 100 hours in a museum and allow people to come and go freely...
Run it online w/o any edits-just cleaned up and spliced together in one continuous reel...

Jackson did put his POV into this project because HE certainly was not a WWI soldier--
So everything he did was based on his assessment of what was the best way to encorporate a "soldier's perspective"...

You can defend his choices--your opinion--I can disagree--my right as someone who saw the film
I have viewed many films--fiction and documentary--
And have read fiction, non-fiction, poetry about the WWI experience

And have you considered that justifying some of his choices by citing his explanation film is a weakness in itself
A film should speak for itself and its creators' vision/intent...

Jackson is from NZ--technically not a British filmmaker
He himself said he was surprised to be offered the opportunity
I know he did what is reportedly a very worthwhile historical exhibition of the NZ side of WWI which was/is on display earlier in NZ--maybe still is--and while he didn't dedicate his version to any of the original film crew, he did reference 3 men who fought--one his grandfather I believe in a NZ regiment--

I wonder why the British authorities felt it necessary to go out of country to get a film (not documentary) director to commemorate the British experience--

Jackson as a choice was more about finding someone who would do justice to the job. He has the chops, including Lord of The Rings trilogy. A "must be Brit" argument holds about as much water as claiming the German directors who emigrated after UFA was taken over by Hitler were not suited to make films in the U.S.

Decay of raw footage is not historical, nor is it art, nor is it viewer friendly. I have some footage from a major film in the 1970s that has vinegar syndrome. That doesn't add to its authenticity or make it more "honest" than a proper digital reconstruction. That line of thought was examined long ago by film historians and art historians. The Sistine Chapel painting was not more authentic covered in years of candle soot. Decay makes the past INaccessible.

The "making of film" is almost a requirement for films released today. Those shorts often go into technical aspects that are not of concern during the viewing experience, but fill out information on the hows and whys of the project. That he did not trumpet many of the techniques used within the film itself placed the exposition of the process in proper perspective, not as a jarring intrusion into the experience.

Selection of material is an editorial choice, as you say. Anyone familiar with editing could have taken the same raw material, changed the soundtrack, and made a comedy. Someone else could have pointed it in the direction of rabid anti-war film or anti-German film or pro-war film. By flat affect, I mean that it was obvious that Jackson tried NOT to intrude with his own bias, and tried instead to select one aspect of the war - the life of the infantryman - and focus on that. There was available footage of the navies, footage of the airplanes, material that could have given insight into strategies. To attempt to include those or be random in clip selection would have been a foolish and an over-reach.

You have a perfect right to not like the film, you may not have the background to appreciate what was accomplished. You may be dismayed by the gore. However, to go beyond that and denigrate what is an important and reasonably accurate exposition of what that war was really like is an unwarranted disrespect of a team of dedicated historians, restorationists, and even the soldiers depicted and heard.

[-thomass]

I saw this yesterday. I was very impressed with the collection of audio from the veterans. The film is entirely made up of audio clips from veterans sharing their war experiences, which was very fascinating. The colorization is obviously very cool. FYI I think this is in theaters for only a week.

[slowlane3]

From what I understand, the movie will be released much more widely, in many more theaters, in the later part of 2019.

[SunGrins]

My daughter saw it and was very impressed with how it was done. I'll watch for it. The use of forensic lip readers to try to capture what was being said in the silent films is an interesting approach.