They Shall Not Grow Old

[s.w.a.c.]

Saw this last night, and while I noticed the same things as Nick_M, I didn't let it bother me too much, considering how much some of that footage had been zoomed in on just to get a fullscreen closeup of a single face. Overall, the emotional impact of the film was fully felt by myself and every one in the jam-packed theater, and the audience burst into applause once the last notes of Mademoiselle From Armentieres faded away. It was worth staying after the credits for a making-of piece that showed how far they were able to bring some of the footage, including many significant clips (women working in factories on the home front, for example) that didn't make it into the main feature. It was also gratifying to hear Jackson say that he doesn't support using this colorization process for feature films or shorts that were shot in black & white, but for actuality footage it goes a long way to boosting the "you are there" effect he was after.

I thought it was a bit odd that Gallipoli didn't rate a mention, considering the film was made by someone from the land of ANZAC, but Jackson does say he didn't want to get into the details of a specific battle, and instead talks about the realities of trench warfare in general.

[bigshot]

I wonder if it looks different in 3D than flat. I saw it off the blu-ray on my ten foot screen and it looked great. It obviously didn't look like a modern movie, but for 100 year old footage, it was amazing. Perhaps the 3D made it easier to see the seams in the restoration.

[s.w.a.c.]

The 3D was very effective when they switch from old unrestored footage to the treated stuff (and back again), and scenes in the trenches benefit from the extra depth, but it certainly isn't necessary to enjoying the film.

Then again, I'm not the correct person to judge any theatrical film on its 3D as my tired old brain gives up on processing the effect after a few minutes, and I'm just stuck wearing those stupid image-darkening glasses. But when I've watched 3D on a TV with the electronic glasses, it works very well for an entire feature, it's just the passive version that is fairly useless for me.

[Agnes]

Hubby took me to se this on the 17th.
The colorizationn adds detail and make the pain & sacrifice of war more real.

It is an amazing tribute by the grandson of a WW1 vet. I highly recomend it.

[silentfilm]

I was going to go see this in the afternoon, but all the shows at several theaters were sold out. Even later shows were selling out as I was trying to select tickets online. I finally got tickets online to a 9:45 screening at a theater that isn't too far away.

[silentfilm]

My server at the theater said that they scheduled this late-night show because their earlier shows had sold out quite early. My screening was in 2-D.

The film follows the life of a trench soldier, from the declaration of war until the war ended and the foot soldiers returned to England and civilians could not comprehend what happened to them. While I am opposed to colorizing fictional films (as is director Peter Jackson), the colorization mostly works. It brings a realism and immediacy to the film. The stories told by the oral history, as well as the images are quite disturbing, and I had difficulty sleeping after I got home. It covers topic such as boredom, lice, poison gas, flamethrowers, food, field-hospitals, and the hated German machine-gunners. Many of the British soldiers realized that most of the German soldiers were young men just like them, and apparently treated most of the German captives humanely.

The featurette after the film was just as fascinating as the film. The life of a trench soldier was pretty horrific, and the featurette helped me compose myself after the film. I was nearly drooling when Peter Jackson showed restored B&W footage that had been originally over-exposed, under-exposed, or was an nth-generation dupe. He had a collection of many WWI uniforms from many different divisions and countries that they used for color references. He also had a wealth of footage of navy life and fighter pilots, as well as the service of women in factories on the home front that he could have used. He decided to focus on the life of a trench soldier, as told by the soldiers themselves in oral histories. Jackson also went to the actual locations where the battles were fought to get the correct colors of the grass and vegetation.

[s.w.a.c.]

From Variety: Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old sets record with $3.4 million

The film appears to have become one of the most successful "special event screening" films to date, and will get a longer run in several markets the new year. I'll probably go see it again if it comes back.

And FWIW, it got 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a handy hub for reviews of the film.

[silentfilm]

Here is a great review, by a cinematographer...

https://filmmakermagazine.com/106589-th ... CamXbgnY2y

[wich2]

Refreshing common sense, and real respect for history, there.

[s.w.a.c.]

Here is a great review, by a cinematographer...

https://filmmakermagazine.com/106589-th ... CamXbgnY2y

Interesting that one of the two negative reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes mostly berates the film for its "utter lack of soldiers of colour" when in fact there is a brief segment on soldiers from the colonies, from India, other parts of Asia and either Canada or the West Indies (Canada had the No. 2 Construction Battalion, with black soldiers assigned to road building, trench digging or the like, but were not involved in front-line combat, and there was a battalion sent from Jamaica as well). I don't know if the reviewer nodded off during that part or was out getting popcorn.

[R. Cat]

Here is a great review, by a cinematographer...

https://filmmakermagazine.com/106589-th ... CamXbgnY2y

Interesting that one of the two negative reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes mostly berates the film for its "utter lack of soldiers of colour" when in fact there is a brief segment on soldiers from the colonies, from India, other parts of Asia and either Canada or the West Indies (Canada had the No. 2 Construction Battalion, with black soldiers assigned to road building, trench digging or the like, but were not involved in front-line combat, and there was a battalion sent from Jamaica as well). I don't know if the reviewer nodded off during that part or was out getting popcorn.

Apparently the critic would've preferred Jackson colorize the documentary's historical context as well.

Creatively enhancing footage to make a film documentary more visually accessible to today's audiences can be debated on it's own merits. Conversely, criticizing filmmakers for not revising the historical data enough to be more inclusive is something altogether different.

Balance is never achieved through trying to rewrite history. The idea of revisionism to appease the expectations of a modern audience who are presumed to be unfamiliar with the times is anathema to documentary filmmaking.

Alas, ignoring the sacrifices of minorities is a sad part of our history and should never be glossed over, but blaming those involved in restoring century old documentary footage for not doing more to placate the sensitivities of a modern audience is revisionism at it's worst. Delegating minorities to menial tasks in a segregated military ...as patently offensive as that is... was commonplace reality in both World Wars.

I've watched other documentaries that focus on the segregated military and even dealt with specific incidences of systematic abuse of minorities in wartime. Indeed, there should be more attention to these atrocities, but this documentary's theme is geared toward a loving remembrance of another era's soldiers as told through letters and visuals of military life.

[George O'Brien]

Here is a great review, by a cinematographer...

https://filmmakermagazine.com/106589-th ... CamXbgnY2y

Interesting that one of the two negative reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes mostly berates the film for its "utter lack of soldiers of colour" when in fact there is a brief segment on soldiers from the colonies, from India, other parts of Asia and either Canada or the West Indies (Canada had the No. 2 Construction Battalion, with black soldiers assigned to road building, trench digging or the like, but were not involved in front-line combat, and there was a battalion sent from Jamaica as well). I don't know if the reviewer nodded off during that part or was out getting popcorn.

No need to go to great lengths to be defensive. The reviewer, as you call it , was simply voicing a 2018 mentality. This will be the standard criticism of any archival footage released from now until the end of time. The many truly fascinating pieces of raw Fox newsreel footage circa 1928-32 posted by Guy Jones on Youtube receive this criticism daily, E.G. "These people were vicious racists", "These people would have lynched me!" The well has been poisoned. For may people today these are just boring artifacts of a vicious racist society they believe are well rid of.

[Great Hierophant]

I was a little skeptical about the film at first. Colorization, 3-Dization? Right up there with other Heresies and Blasphemies like Censoring and Pan & Scan according to most serious students of film. But the early reviews were positive and showed that PJ was being respectful to the film footage rather than trying to make his mark on it. Getting tickets to a theater that was showing the film was a challenge, I had to go to one of the most expensive theaters within driving distance. I'm glad I went the extra mile and paid the extra $$ for parking, this documentary should be seen on a big screen and in 3-D, not in a shoe box.

I appreciate that PJ tried to make a documentary that was more accessible to modern audiences. He tried to draw out the color to show that life in the trenches could be a nasty, miserable and soul-sucking experience. Newsreel photographers would likely have used color stock if it were available and affordable, and they would not have had the ability to make different choices as a director would have if he had a choice between color and B&W. I think the 3-D was done to emphasize that these men were once real people with rather fragile bodies that were sacrificed in huge numbers for no gain. I have seen almost no WWI footage, so the material PJ had at hand was very refreshing. The use of the veterans to tell the story, instead of a narrator and captions, was particularly inspired. I think most people in the theater would have been moved by the sacrifices these men made for a cause which many of them may not have fully appreciated.

PJ's discussion after the film helped clarify his goals regarding the conflict. He clearly has a deep interest in WWI and believes we should not forget the sacrifices made in that conflict, unfortunately overshadowed by its sequel. He worked miracles with the footage, and I hope on Blu-ray the documentary will have an option to view it in restored B&W. His team clearly did their research into authentic colors but their colorization was a guesstimate of what these images may have looked like had they been photographed in color.

PJ acknowledges that there were many stories that could be told about WWI, the home front, women at work, the Eastern Front, the naval experience, the beginning of air power, revolutionary movements, the contributions of non-Europeans, specific battles like the Somme, Verdun or Passchendale, Versallies and the League of Nations. He decided to pick one most likely to be compelling to an ordinary moviegoer, and the grosses seem to back up his decision.

[s.w.a.c.]

Interesting that one of the two negative reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes mostly berates the film for its "utter lack of soldiers of colour" when in fact there is a brief segment on soldiers from the colonies, from India, other parts of Asia and either Canada or the West Indies (Canada had the No. 2 Construction Battalion, with black soldiers assigned to road building, trench digging or the like, but were not involved in front-line combat, and there was a battalion sent from Jamaica as well). I don't know if the reviewer nodded off during that part or was out getting popcorn.

No need to go to great lengths to be defensive. The reviewer, as you call it , was simply voicing a 2018 mentality.

A 2018 mentality is one thing; the fact is he's flat-out wrong, there were images of soldiers of colour in the film, I'm just wondering what the reviewer was doing while those images were on screen.

[boblipton]

Why would a publication's reviewer need to see a movie in order to review it?

Bob

[s.w.a.c.]

Why would a publication's reviewer need to see a movie in order to review it?

Exactly! That's what YouTube trailers and Wikipedia are for.

[itslefty]

What with the use of stirring music in the trailer I do worry about the tone of the film. I might opt to watch OH WHAT A LOVELY WAR or BLACKADDER GOES FORTH instead.

I know nothing about this particular case, but I do know that trailers are often, if not usually, released before the film scoring is done; and commonly use other music. That said, it is an indication of what the director wants for music...

I saw it. The music is minimal. Jackson himself said he did not want it scored and overdone.

[blklinger45]

New showings in the U.S., via Fathom Events & Warner Brothers on, January 21st. Don't think that tickets are available for purchase yet.

[boblipton]

I saw this today with my cousin. I have nothing to add to the praises here, other than to note its magnificence and shrug my shoulders. I don't see many documentaries, but I saw three superb ones from 2018: this, "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" and Three Identical Strangers. Guess which movies are not nominated for Best Documentary Feature AAs?

Bob

[oldposterho]

I suspect TSNGO didn't qualify for an Oscar because of its BBC broadcast before it was screened in theaters here. No doubt there's some arcana that disqualified it.

[TheAvon]

I am currently showing this at my theater, and I'm very proud to see the different age groups coming for a glimpse at history that books can never replicate.
When Warners selected us as one of only two downstate Illinois showings of this, I was over the moon!
Peter Jackson is a treasure; a real film lover.
See this if you are lucky enough to be by a theater that has been approved to show it.
It ends its 2 week run with us on Thursday, and I'm sorry to see it go!

[Oppiedog]

I've not seen anyone mention the brief (1-2 seconds) footage of Griffith at the front/in the trenches. I wonder if Peter Jackson slipped this in intentionally. Considering that over 100 hours of film was reviewed, its hard to think that those 1-2 seconds made it in without someone knowing who it was.

[Zepfanman]

I've not seen anyone mention the brief (1-2 seconds) footage of Griffith at the front/in the trenches. I wonder if Peter Jackson slipped this in intentionally. Considering that over 100 hours of film was reviewed, its hard to think that those 1-2 seconds made it in without someone knowing who it was.

D.W. Griffith?

[Mike Gebert]

I didn't see Griffith, so I suspect no one's mentioned it because it's not him.

[Oppiedog]

Yes, D. W. Griffith. Looks like footage from when he was doing "Hearts of the World" filming in the trenches.

[Roscoe]

It's Griffith -- he's in a couple of shots.

[Zepfanman]

Wow, impressive that y'all spotted that! So it looked something like this? He's in the bow tie.

[Kerr Lockhart]

Just received an email that this is now available as a digital download at iTunes.

[maliejandra]

I just watched this and I thought it was an engrossing documentary and the transition from black and white to colorized footage (which went from square screen to widescreen as well) was powerful and impressive. However, the colorization distorted the motion of the films tremendously and became distracting over time.

It is worth seeing for many reasons. I've been interested in WWI for almost as long as I've been interested in classic movies and while I haven't read a lot of the military facts about it, I've read a lot of the cultural side of the war, the impact it had on civilian life and on the lives of the men who fought. I learned new things from this documentary; it doesn't just rehash the same basic stuff. It also relies on the words of the men who participated which makes it feel personal and close.

[s.w.a.c.]

For those with an interest in the topic, I highly recommend the Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series on the First World War, Blueprint for Armageddon.

Does a great job explaining all the factors that led to the war in the first place, as a Serbian kills an Austrian archduke, and a lot of Germans, French and British get to die as a result. And some Americans, eventually. And also why it went on for soooooo bloody long, even after some of the powers that were realized there was no point to any of it.