Entertaining but flawed.

Rating: 6/10 (11 February 2020)

I found the film watchable enough with some excellent acting. But while it did provide an interesting story it was seriously flawed in many respects. It is important to understand that after 3 years of total war, the frontline was NOT a narrow strip of mud and barbed wire with quiet green fields and lush woodland in abundance on either side. The front moved backwards and forwards regularly and the carnage spanned 50 miles at its narrowest point, with constant artillery barrages and sniping 24/7. Even in the quieter areas this was still to be seen and heard in the distance. With armies of millions of combatants there was a huge and constant logistical/supply network reaching many miles back behind each line. The chances of two soldiers wandering at will through the lines and into untouched farmland beyond are virtually nil because if such an unlikely situation arose they would be accompanied by thousands of their own troops keen to exploit any opportunity and capture even the narrowest strip of turf. The Germans did withdraw to stronger prepared positions on occasion but only in an orderly fashion with a strong rearguard and they were pushed and probed throughout by opposing forces. When the withdrawal stopped, the combatants promptly lined to face each other in this new position. The idea that 1600 men could pursue an enemy well beyond the battle zone on the western front with no logistical support is frankly mere fantasy. If such an unlikely situation did arise, the whole army group would be alongside them. Communications were difficult but contact with such a large group would have been maintained with a series of runners and signallers - even in the highly unlikely event of the group pushing so far ahead on their own. In 1917 this did not happen. I was a little disappointed to see the main character jumping into a raging torrent and being washed to safety down a deep limestone gorge filled with rapids and a huge waterfall - especially as I had seen this being filmed on the white water kayak course at the Tees Barrage (with the later cgi addition of rocks/gorge/waterfall). Anyone who knows the flat lands of Flanders or the slightly hilly Somme (ie the British sector of the front) will have wondered how the set suddenly moved to alpine terrain for this scene - especially given his short walk from the riverbank to the chalk lands of the final battle. Doubtless there are those who will think I am being picky but when the producers have gone to great lengths to create an authentic trench system with equally realistic no-mans-land and destroyed village, they let themselves down by failing to maintain that atmospheric authenticity throughout the film. I just wonder whether an overall historian gets employed in these productions, to shed some realism on the bigger issues rather than just costume and the finer points. I would liken it in this respect to two recent war films which started well but Lost momentum: Dunkirk which needed 300,000 extras not 300 (cgi?) and Fury which needed someone to rein in the big Tarrantino-esq unbelievable finish!
1917 is a watchable film but please dont make the mistake of thinking it captures the atmosphere of the Western Front because it actually falls a long way short. And I haven't even mentioned the similarity in the final storyline of Gallipoli, which is a far better film!!