Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

They Shall Not Grow Old - Film released 16 October

1246

Comments

  • Blucher said:

    What an excellent film. Personal testimony from the heart. Very humbling.

    Desperately sad that so many ex-servicemen were left high and dry after the War, with no real job prospects. I can also quite understand how they found it practically impossible to relate their experiences to civilians who hadn't a clue as to what had gone on out there (not that people were encouraged to talk about such things back then anyway).

    Also don't forget that a lot of the younger survivors of WW1 had to do it all again 21 years later.
  • Seems the United States got it right with their GI Bill after the Second World War with how to deal with ex-Servicemen
  • bobmunro said:

    Blucher said:

    What an excellent film. Personal testimony from the heart. Very humbling.

    Desperately sad that so many ex-servicemen were left high and dry after the War, with no real job prospects. I can also quite understand how they found it practically impossible to relate their experiences to civilians who hadn't a clue as to what had gone on out there (not that people were encouraged to talk about such things back then anyway).

    Also don't forget that a lot of the younger survivors of WW1 had to do it all again 21 years later.
    Horrifying. Shows how lucky most of us have been.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • cafc-west 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!!
  • cafc-west said:

    cafc-west 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.
  • cafc-west said:

    cafc-west 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.

  • cafc-west said:

    cafc-west 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.

    the footage of the artillery exploding in the air and seeing almost instantly the shrapnel bombarding the ground 10-15 metres below it was utterly terrifying.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited November 2018

    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?
  • 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?
    More likely for those injured in WW2 I'd have thought given the dates
  • Watched it this afternoon, literally took my breath away when it merged into colour
  • IdleHans said:

    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?
    More likely for those injured in WW2 I'd have thought given the dates
    Was founded in 1917... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Mary%27s_Hospital,_Sidcup

    The Queen's Hospital was opened in prefabricated buildings in the grounds of Frognal House in August 1917. It provided pioneering plastic surgery under the guidance of Sir Harold Gillies to soldiers who had received facial injuries in action during First World War.
  • edited November 2018
    To back up Ben's comment among academic historians it is widley accepted that the NHS came about as a result of the ticking time bomb of injuries received 1914-18 as opposed to an immediate 1939-45 decision.

    The Great War impacted and forced change on almost all walks of British life over the following century amd continue to impact on foreign affairs today.
  • The movie was only out on general release in NZ from November 11 so I haven't had a chance to see it yet. But very much inspired by all the comments.

    Sir Peter Jackson is a military aircraft enthusiast and has had a wish going back a decade to re-make The Dam Busters using full size planes (he owns a few).

    He had plans to open a museum in Wellington and was well into the planning stages with the Wellington City Council who wanted to include it into a large conference facility. However, the Council kept changing the plans allocating PJ less and less space until he finally bowed out telling them (no doubt) to get stuffed. Unbelievable really given that Sir Peter has brought so much to NZ, Wellington especially.
  • Mesmerising, emotive and utterly absorbing, the horrors they saw & witnessed must have haunted them for the rest of their days, yet to listen to their stories they told were spoken so matter of fact, “it’s what we were there to do”.
  • Incredible
  • Sponsored links:


  • Apologies for diverting off the film, but has anyone ever been to the hunterian museum at the royal college of surgeons? I think it's currently closed for a refit. Anyway, it has a section devoted to the birth and growth of plastic and reconstructive surgery stemming from the horrible injuries sustained in the great war. Bit gory, but absolutely fascinating as well
  • 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.
  • Absolute masterpiece.
  • I saw most of it, echo the thoughts of others.

    I believe it has U Certificate. That said I am wondering if some parts are a bit too harrowing for my 9 Year Old?

    I’ve always made the children observe the silence and try to get them to watch at least a couple of minutes of the service at the Cenotaph every year. Yesterday he was part of the Sidcup Remembrance Parade as a Cub, and really would like him to see it, whilst it is still on iPlayer.

  • edited November 2018

    I saw most of it, echo the thoughts of others.

    I believe it has U Certificate. That said I am wondering if some parts are a bit too harrowing for my 9 Year Old?

    I’ve always made the children observe the silence and try to get them to watch at least a couple of minutes of the service at the Cenotaph every year. Yesterday he was part of the Sidcup Remembrance Parade as a Cub, and really would like him to see it, whilst it is still on iPlayer.

    As an adult it's difficult to grasp the true horror of war and the sacrifice made. As a kid it must be impossible. This film gives context to why remembering is so important. I'd have no problem with my nine year old daughter watching the film.

    That said I thing a school environment would be best.
  • It was a 15 in the cinema, though I believe a DVD has been sent to schools, perhaps edited but I don't know for sure
  • johnny73 said:

    I saw most of it, echo the thoughts of others.

    I believe it has U Certificate. That said I am wondering if some parts are a bit too harrowing for my 9 Year Old?

    I’ve always made the children observe the silence and try to get them to watch at least a couple of minutes of the service at the Cenotaph every year. Yesterday he was part of the Sidcup Remembrance Parade as a Cub, and really would like him to see it, whilst it is still on iPlayer.

    As an adult it's difficult to grasp the true horror of war and the sacrifice made. As a kid it must be impossible. This film gives context to why remembering is so important. I'd have no problem with my nine year old daughter watching the film.

    That said I thing a school environment would be best.
    I agree - with a few scenes cut out for the younger children.
  • edited November 2018

    cafc-west said:

    cafc-west 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.

    Agree with Henry here.

    There is an incorrect perception that just about everybody who served spent their time in the frontline trenches and just about all casualties resulted from machine gun fire when troops went over the top.

    Large numbers of troops served in largely ancillary roles behind the lines and their chances of survival were fairly good. Artillery was the biggest killer in the war ( as it was for British troops in WW2 as well ) and it could be used to smash an infantry assault just as well as small arms fire. As such it was a prime target of one’s own artillery and so casualties among the artillery were high: about 50,000 of our “gunners” were killed in WW1
  • edited November 2018

    cafc-west said:

    cafc-west 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
  • 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!