War Horse

[unclearthur]

I’ve seen Steven Spielberg’s ‘War Horse’ and it’s very, very good.

I must admit I was a little unsure how Michael Morpurgo’s novel, originally aimed at children and young adults, would work on film. The theatre show has drawn rave reviews, but a movie? And based on such emotionally-charged subject matter?

As it turns out the opening minutes will please the horse-oriented more than those with only a passing equine interest. Morpurgo originally wrote the novel from the horse’s point of view but Spielberg has avoided this Black Beauty-type storytelling method by concentrating more on the human characters who affect the horse’s life. The film is no worse for the change which helps increase the pace as the movie progresses.

I won’t spoil it for anyone who’s not read the book by giving away the plot. Suffice to say that the story centres on a horse, Joey, brought up in rural Devon, who is sold to the army and sent to the Western Front, at the beginning of World War I, as an officer’s charger.

And though the horrors and sufferings caused by the war are essential elements, as befits a family film blood is kept to a minimum and there is absolutely no gratuitous gore. Strangely this seems not to compromise the gritty realism of the battlefield scenes, a couple of which, later on in the action, may be upsetting for very young children.

So, does the film have any faults?

Well, there’s far too much whinnying, a pet hate of mine which plagues films involving horses. Cavalry aficionados may poke fun at a practice charge and the non-use of sword knots. And continuity geeks will no doubt spot the magic rope halter near the start – now you see it…

But these are mere nit-picking. The preview screening I watched in front of a full house had no-one, child through pensioner, moving from his or her seat throughout the 140-odd minute running time. That tells me most were captivated. I reckon if the soundtrack had suddenly failed you could have heard a pin drop.

There are few recent films which have made one feel better leaving the cinema than when one arrived – spiritually uplifted, in fact.

War Horse is such a film, and I urge you to see it.

But…you will cry.



War Horse opens in cinemas in the US on Christmas Day and in the UK on January 13th

http://cavalrytales/wordpress.com

[Pat Holscher]

How were you able to see it so early?

[Jim Bewley]

Pat, you have to stop changing your avatar. I can't keep up.

Jim

[Pat Holscher]

Pat, you have to stop changing your avatar. I can't keep up.

Jim

"Powder River. . .Let her buck!"

[unclearthur]

How were you able to see it so early?

Pat, my wife won tickets to a preview screening so it was a lucky fluke, really. The film doesn't open over here until mid-January.

Merry Christmas,
Jonathan

[Pat Holscher]

I saw the film last night, and was quite impressed. Frankly, for reasons that I can't really explain, I was somewhat prepared to dislike it, and found that I was surprised and did like it.

The film probably has the most even handed portrayal of German and British soldiers, in the context of the average soldier of WWI that I've ever seen. The combat scenes were remarkable, including the cavalry charge early in the film. The depiction of the Somme in 1918 was horrific.

Ralph Lovett's artillery, I note, added a touch of realism that really added tot he film. Thumbs up for Ralph!

I'm afraid that I didn't shed a tear, which perhaps speaks ill of me, but a lady who was sitting down the same row of seats from me was balling (a wee bit too much, but then she "ahhh"ed for every cute horse seen too). Anyhow, for those figuring that they'll pick up a DVD and fast forward through the heart string parts, you won't be able to, due to the nature of the plot, so you should go see it at the the theater.

[Camp Little]

I saw it this afternoon and was very impressed. Very well made and grimy but not gratuitously gory. No doubt our UP aficionados will enjoy checking out the authenticity of the gear.

Check it out

[Pat Holscher]

On current depictions of World War One in film, I’ll add, as a footnote, I thought this film a whole lot better than Passchendaele, which I just saw a week ago or so on television. I thought it an awful film.

[Pat Holscher]

Interesting, as I find Canadian TV shows very good. Flash Point is well done and the main actor in this movie was in Due South, which I also liked. Yes, it was silly, but I liked it.

Jim

Something else I'd note here, and I guess I'll also note in the War Horse thread, is that the obvious initial success of War Horse is pretty good evidence that the often cited theory that Americans won't go to watch a film that isn't about Americans is incorrect. Hollywood itself seems to follow that maxim, which may be part of the reason that they produce such stinkers as U235.

War Horse doesn't include a single American character in it anywhere, but it looks like it will do well.

[Jim Bewley]

Compare, however, again to War Horse. In the first part of the film, the British cavalry wears peak (wheelhouse) caps. The Germans wear pickel barrel helmets. That's correct. When the Germans reacquire the horse mid movie, they're wearing M16s, which would indicate that we're at least in 1916. By the end of the film we're in 1918, and the British are wearing helmet covers for the most part, but a few British troops have unit insignias on their helmets.

Did they do that to actually show that the years were changing? That is amazing if they did.

Jim

[Pat Holscher]

Compare, however, again to War Horse. In the first part of the film, the British cavalry wears peak (wheelhouse) caps. The Germans wear pickel barrel helmets. That's correct. When the Germans reacquire the horse mid movie, they're wearing M16s, which would indicate that we're at least in 1916. By the end of the film we're in 1918, and the British are wearing helmet covers for the most part, but a few British troops have unit insignias on their helmets.

Did they do that to actually show that the years were changing? That is amazing if they did.

Jim

I think that they almost certainly did.

Okay, as a note, I'm going to try to give out any spoilers, but as I am discussing details in the film, there's always a bit of that risk. If you haven't seen it, and you are worried about spoilers, don't read this until after you've seen the film.

In looking at the story, as depicted by the movie, the young farm boy is 14 years old when the war starts in 1914. The first combat action is mentioned as being near the "Menin Road". The British did in fact have cavalry in the field near Menin in October of 1914. The Germans are depicted in the first action as wearing pickle barrel helmets with Field Gray (actually a color of green) helmet covers with their unit numbers on the covers, which they did in fact wear in that period.

The next time we encounter a different group of Germans its in association with scenes at a French (Belgian?) farm. No real details are given on passage of time but we become aware that the young girl's parents have passed away, and its suggested that they died in the war. It's perfectly possible that this is in 1914, but we aren't told that. When the Germans appear, however, they're wearing M16 helmets. M16 helmets did not appear until 1916, and it's clearly intended to show that time has passed.

Things thereafter depict, for some period of time, the situation on the German side of the fight. More than one reference is made as to how bad things have become for horses on the German side, and it is true that horse attrition on the German side was in fact crippling to the German war effort. A rarely noted aspect of the failed 1918 German offensive is that the Germans lacked cavalry by 1918, and they had no means of exploiting their 1918 breakthroughs. Anyhow, in the late scenes we now have the reappearance of the farm boy as a soldier, at the end of the war. He was 14, in 1914, when the war started, and he's 18, in 1918, at this point. British uniforms are also shown to have changed in this interval. The 1914 cavalrymen go charging into battle wearing their peak caps. Even the officers in 1918 are wearing helmets.

Spielberg's war films have taken on a reputation for hyper realism on all sorts of matters, including uniform details. Saving Private Ryan essentially set the bar for that, and with one or two prior exceptions to the rule, no film made prior to it invested so much attention to minor uniform details. After SPR, however, many films do, and Spielberg has continued to do so. I think the details depicted in this film as to uniforms and the like were intended to be accurate for the year they depict.

[Pat Holscher]

On the uniform details of the film, I have a question for our knowledgeable British participants. In the practice charge taking place in the UK in 1914, the cavalrymen turn out in a blue uniform. They were earlier shown wearing their "khaki" uniform, so we presume they're turned out in a dress or semi dress uniform. Anyhow, what was the blue uniform?

There's a reference in the 1914 cavalry action dialog to a separate action by the "Royals". I've sometimes heard of the "Blues and the Royals". Is the unit depicted the "Blues" and what does that mean?

[Trooper]

The Royal Dragoons - "the Royals" were, until 1969, the senior regiment of line cavalry giving the more celebrated Second Dragoons "Scots Greys", a cavalry example from the day of their formation. The Royals did everything (including capturing an eagle at Waterloo) that the Second Dragoons became celebrated for but without the eye catching grey horses and fanfare. The regiment was amalgamated with the Royal Horse Guards (the Blues) forming the Blues and Royals in 1969. The new regiment wears the Waterloo eagle as an arm badge.

"The Royal Dragoons (1st Dragoons) was a cavalry regiment of the British Army. The regiment was formed in 1661, and served until 1969, when it was amalgamated with the Royal Horse Guards to form The Blues and Royals.
The regiment was first raised as a single troop of veterans of the Parliamentary Army in 1661, shortly thereafter expanded to four troops as the Tangier Horse, taking the name from their service in Tangier. They were ranked as the 1st Dragoons, the oldest cavalry regiment of the line, in 1674; on their return to England in 1683 the three troops were joined with three newly-raised troops and titled The King's Own Royal Regiment of Dragoons, named for Charles II. In 1690 they were renamed as simply The Royal Regiment of Dragoons, and formally titled in 1751 as the 1st (Royal) Regiment of Dragoons. The title was simplified in 1877 to the 1st (Royal) Dragoons
After service in the First World War, the regiment retitled as the 1st The Royal Dragoons in 1921.
The regiment mechanised shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War and was transferred to the Royal Armoured Corps in 1940. The regiment survived the immediate post-war reduction in forces, and was retitled as The Royal Dragoons (1st Dragoons) in 1961, but this name was short-lived; it was amalgamated with the Royal Horse Guards (The Blues), to form The Blues and Royals in 1969" -Wikipedia

http://www.armynavyairforce.co.uk/royal_dragoons.htm

[Pat Holscher]

Dusan, 30 Pounds is the amount the horse is related as being sold for at the start of the film. Any idea, off hand, what 30 Pounds of 1914 money equates to, today?

[Trooper]

£2,723.10 according to this site :
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill ... -1900.html
I don't know how that compares with $ rates?

[Trooper]

http://www.military-art.com/mall/images ... hm0194.jpg

"The Captive Eagle by J P Beadle.

Corporal Styles of the 1st Royal Dragoons displays a captured French Eagle to the cheering Black Watch. Behind him can be seen Wellington."

[selewis]

£2,723.10 according to this site :
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill ... -1900.html
I don't know how that compares with $ rates?

Seems high, Dusan; but I have a horse I'd part with if you're interested.

An exchange rate (there was no official rate) based on the price of gold in both countries in 1915 was: $4.70.

[Trooper]

Hi Sandy,
I really am not well posted on horse prices in either 1914 or now - perhaps John M. can help out.
The sum I showed was a conversion of Pat's 1914 £30.00 using the referenced site comparison/inflation calculator.

Was £30.00 a large sum for a horse in 1914?
It would certainly have been a major investment for a farm labourer, whose average pay for the period Jan 1914 - Dec 1914 is quoted as £0/16/9 for a 58 hour week at this site:
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~alan/fam ... .html#1850

[selewis]

Hi Sandy,
I really am not well posted on horse prices in either 1914 or now - perhaps John M. can help out.
The sum I showed was a conversion of Pat's 1914 £30.00 using the referenced site comparison/inflation calculator.

Was £30.00 a large sum for a horse in 1914?
It would certainly have been a major investment for a farm labourer, whose average pay for the period Jan 1914 - Dec 1914 is quoted as £0/16/9 for a 58 hour week at this site:
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~alan/fam ... .html#1850

I stand corrected. My apologies. I've run the number again, in dollars, using a couple of different calculators and your figure actually comes in at the low end of the range.

[Trooper]

Hi again Sandy,
About that horse you want to sell...