I wonder, if Ted's colorization had been as lovingly meticulous, it might have received better. It was comparatively quite crude. But I buy the idea of the different artistic techniques of B&W film.
In any case, those guys sitting around mugging at the camera aren't "Casablanca." Jackson's work is restoration and OK, some amplification of historical artifact. And it's magic.
The cinematographers working in that milieu understood how the naturally colored world would be recorded in the black and white technology available, and took great care with lighting, staging, and film processing to produce the most beautiful product possible. If I had my druthers, the malevolent ghost of Gregg Toland would have risen from the grave and smacked Ted Turner in the face with a 30-lb flounder. The men filming the real life WWI weren't Gregg Toland. They were workmen using the technology available to make a documentary record. Using technology to transform the artifacts they left behind into a more realistic product is honoring them, not disrespecting them.
Your essay and the comments cause me to look for the chance to see the film. Bringing this bit of history more alive is critical to those in their teens and 20s, and similarities with the current standoff in Ukraine should be pondered.
I’ll have to add this to my “must see” list. I avoid war films but this sounds like it would be worth the discomfort.
On a related note, not too long ago I had a conversation with a person in her early thirties. She told me that for many of her contemporaries, WWII, and especially the Holocaust, held no emotional meaning and was only something they’d read about in history class. In fact, many of them doubted the veracity of the magnitude of the savagery and inhumanity of that time. I suppose this is a repeated phenomenon. I guess it could also be a part of the reason for the antipathy many young people feel toward Israel and Jews in general.
In a previous posting, I noted that Princess Elizabeth gave a pep talk to the British people in 1940, upon the occasion of Germany’s aerial bombardment. In 2020, Queen Elizabeth II gave a pep talk to the British people upon the arrival of COVID. To comprehend the expanse of her life, I wrote, one would have to imagine a U.S. leader addressing the American people after the firing on Fort Sumter and again after the the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
You and Ted Gioia are my absolute favorite Substackers. Within a couple of days you post this about film technology of the late 1910s and Ted posts about how the change in recording technology from the 1920s to the 1930 is the reason 1920s jazz aged so fast. I absolutely adored Jackson's film -- I went to see it in a theater and then bought a DVD. And I absolutely adore 1920s jazz -- pops, clicks, and all. But I wish someone could contrive to do for Bix Beiderbecke and King Oliver what Jackson did.
I'm honored! You may not have seen my Substack Note from a few days back, but what made me think about Jackson's film was an exchange I had on 20s jazz: https://substack.com/@godofthedesert/note/c-36897171. I wrote, "20s jazz seemed old quickly. My mother, born 1922, loved jazz, Gershwin to Brubeck and beyond, but 20s stuff always irritated her. I understood perfectly why Baz Luhrmann used hip-hop for his 'The Great Gatsby.' He wanted the music to be edgy, frenetic, and irritating to adults. That’s what Bix and friends were, but they quickly became 'music that grandma likes.' It takes work to get past that." Then, I wrote: "I’ll bet the shift had to do with the huge improvement in recording fidelity. By the mid-30s, record players offered much richer tones." A friend of mine was a SERIOUS technology collector. He had two phonographs, both RCA, I believe, identical-looking, but made six months apart. Electric turntables, but the sound was not electronic--just a needle and a big horn. But the later one had an advanced horn design. The older one sounded tinny and antiquated. The second one sounded almost as good as a modern stereo. Amazing to hear the same record played on both machines.
Mr Bastiat: If you're interested in documenting eugenics, be sure to look at the publication "Abstracts of the First International Eugenics Congress", which was held at the University of London in 1912. It's available on gutenberg.org (publication #44948). I'm sure all of the people participating in the congress were humane and well-intentioned; but in these papers one can see the road to Auschwitz being paved.
Thanks! Indeed, I have looked through the proceedings of that meeting and have written quite a bit on it. And you are spot-on correct. They meant well but produced terrifying documents. A few years before that congress, D. H. Lawrence wrote: "If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly; then I’d go out in the back streets and main streets and bring them in, all the sick, the halt, and the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile me a weary thanks; and the band would softly bubble out the ‘Hallelujah Chorus.’" Google my last name (Graboyes) and eugenics, and up will come lots more such cases.
Contra Santayana, history may not really repeat itself... but it damn sure gives you some serious pop quizzes! And thanks for the refresh on "They Shall Not Grow Old" - a compelling, evocative piece of work. My grandfather's war.
This is outstanding; thank you for such a thoughtful review of a fantastic film. We took our children, college aged, to see the film and they were awe-struck. I find myself part of a shrinking demographic of people who would love to tour the battlefields of WWI. But there was so much tragedy, so much loss of innocence, so much ending of eras that I can't help but be drawn to it. Looking forward to your thoughts on eugenics. Keep up the great writing sir!
Before you move on from this, I want to recommend a few books to those who want more. First is a trilogy by Norman Gladden, a veteran of the Somme, Passchendaele, and the Piave campaigns with the British Army. His accounts are fairly harrowing but less gory than they could have been, I suspect.
The other I've just started but am enjoying thoroughly. Titled "Sons of Freedom," by Geoffrey Wawro, it's a history of the American involvement in the war. The author's thesis is simply that, without us, the Germans would have won the war. Period. He's a gifted and engaging writer
Thanks for the recommendations. A New Zealander friend told me that he toured the WWI battlefields with his wife. Mind you, this fellow was an ambassador and extremely knowledgeable about world history. He said he was stunned by just how small the area of battle was. That, despite all the readings and maps and photos, the minuteness of the actual area of warfare had never quite sunk in until he toured the area. ... I've also read that about American involvement. But I recall reading an argument that the moral differences between the two sides in Europe were not great and that, had Germany won, we might have avoided the monstrosity of WWII. I'm not sure that I buy it, but it is a daunting argument. (If I recall, the writer was perfectly clear that Wilhelm was a first-class A-hole which, of course, even his British grandmother knew. At some point in his younger days, Wilhelm had seen an Annie Oakley show, and I believe she shot a cigarette out of his mouth. He laughed years later and said that perhaps if she weren't such a good shot, then perhaps Europe might have been spared the war.)
That was the last movie that I saw in a theater, and we hadn't been to any movies for 5 years before then. It was a marvelous film.
The first and only streaming movie I've bought.
I wonder, if Ted's colorization had been as lovingly meticulous, it might have received better. It was comparatively quite crude. But I buy the idea of the different artistic techniques of B&W film.
In any case, those guys sitting around mugging at the camera aren't "Casablanca." Jackson's work is restoration and OK, some amplification of historical artifact. And it's magic.
Nah. It was still an awful idea. And yes, Jackson’s work is magic.
The cinematographers working in that milieu understood how the naturally colored world would be recorded in the black and white technology available, and took great care with lighting, staging, and film processing to produce the most beautiful product possible. If I had my druthers, the malevolent ghost of Gregg Toland would have risen from the grave and smacked Ted Turner in the face with a 30-lb flounder. The men filming the real life WWI weren't Gregg Toland. They were workmen using the technology available to make a documentary record. Using technology to transform the artifacts they left behind into a more realistic product is honoring them, not disrespecting them.
Wonderful response. (as usual)
Your essay and the comments cause me to look for the chance to see the film. Bringing this bit of history more alive is critical to those in their teens and 20s, and similarities with the current standoff in Ukraine should be pondered.
By all means, see it. It’s astonishing.
It's well worth seeing. A real window into history.
I’ll have to add this to my “must see” list. I avoid war films but this sounds like it would be worth the discomfort.
On a related note, not too long ago I had a conversation with a person in her early thirties. She told me that for many of her contemporaries, WWII, and especially the Holocaust, held no emotional meaning and was only something they’d read about in history class. In fact, many of them doubted the veracity of the magnitude of the savagery and inhumanity of that time. I suppose this is a repeated phenomenon. I guess it could also be a part of the reason for the antipathy many young people feel toward Israel and Jews in general.
The invasion of Normandy was 79 years ago. The surrender at Appomattox was 79 years before that.
In a previous posting, I noted that Princess Elizabeth gave a pep talk to the British people in 1940, upon the occasion of Germany’s aerial bombardment. In 2020, Queen Elizabeth II gave a pep talk to the British people upon the arrival of COVID. To comprehend the expanse of her life, I wrote, one would have to imagine a U.S. leader addressing the American people after the firing on Fort Sumter and again after the the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
This will, indeed, be worthwhile. See it, and let me know what you think.
You and Ted Gioia are my absolute favorite Substackers. Within a couple of days you post this about film technology of the late 1910s and Ted posts about how the change in recording technology from the 1920s to the 1930 is the reason 1920s jazz aged so fast. I absolutely adored Jackson's film -- I went to see it in a theater and then bought a DVD. And I absolutely adore 1920s jazz -- pops, clicks, and all. But I wish someone could contrive to do for Bix Beiderbecke and King Oliver what Jackson did.
I'm honored! You may not have seen my Substack Note from a few days back, but what made me think about Jackson's film was an exchange I had on 20s jazz: https://substack.com/@godofthedesert/note/c-36897171. I wrote, "20s jazz seemed old quickly. My mother, born 1922, loved jazz, Gershwin to Brubeck and beyond, but 20s stuff always irritated her. I understood perfectly why Baz Luhrmann used hip-hop for his 'The Great Gatsby.' He wanted the music to be edgy, frenetic, and irritating to adults. That’s what Bix and friends were, but they quickly became 'music that grandma likes.' It takes work to get past that." Then, I wrote: "I’ll bet the shift had to do with the huge improvement in recording fidelity. By the mid-30s, record players offered much richer tones." A friend of mine was a SERIOUS technology collector. He had two phonographs, both RCA, I believe, identical-looking, but made six months apart. Electric turntables, but the sound was not electronic--just a needle and a big horn. But the later one had an advanced horn design. The older one sounded tinny and antiquated. The second one sounded almost as good as a modern stereo. Amazing to hear the same record played on both machines.
Mr Bastiat: If you're interested in documenting eugenics, be sure to look at the publication "Abstracts of the First International Eugenics Congress", which was held at the University of London in 1912. It's available on gutenberg.org (publication #44948). I'm sure all of the people participating in the congress were humane and well-intentioned; but in these papers one can see the road to Auschwitz being paved.
Thanks! Indeed, I have looked through the proceedings of that meeting and have written quite a bit on it. And you are spot-on correct. They meant well but produced terrifying documents. A few years before that congress, D. H. Lawrence wrote: "If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly; then I’d go out in the back streets and main streets and bring them in, all the sick, the halt, and the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile me a weary thanks; and the band would softly bubble out the ‘Hallelujah Chorus.’" Google my last name (Graboyes) and eugenics, and up will come lots more such cases.
Contra Santayana, history may not really repeat itself... but it damn sure gives you some serious pop quizzes! And thanks for the refresh on "They Shall Not Grow Old" - a compelling, evocative piece of work. My grandfather's war.
Sure does give you those quizzes. :) Glad you enjoyed the piece.
This is outstanding; thank you for such a thoughtful review of a fantastic film. We took our children, college aged, to see the film and they were awe-struck. I find myself part of a shrinking demographic of people who would love to tour the battlefields of WWI. But there was so much tragedy, so much loss of innocence, so much ending of eras that I can't help but be drawn to it. Looking forward to your thoughts on eugenics. Keep up the great writing sir!
It was, indeed, history's most useless war. Especially when you consider that it also gave rise to WWII.
Before you move on from this, I want to recommend a few books to those who want more. First is a trilogy by Norman Gladden, a veteran of the Somme, Passchendaele, and the Piave campaigns with the British Army. His accounts are fairly harrowing but less gory than they could have been, I suspect.
The other I've just started but am enjoying thoroughly. Titled "Sons of Freedom," by Geoffrey Wawro, it's a history of the American involvement in the war. The author's thesis is simply that, without us, the Germans would have won the war. Period. He's a gifted and engaging writer
Thanks for the recommendations. A New Zealander friend told me that he toured the WWI battlefields with his wife. Mind you, this fellow was an ambassador and extremely knowledgeable about world history. He said he was stunned by just how small the area of battle was. That, despite all the readings and maps and photos, the minuteness of the actual area of warfare had never quite sunk in until he toured the area. ... I've also read that about American involvement. But I recall reading an argument that the moral differences between the two sides in Europe were not great and that, had Germany won, we might have avoided the monstrosity of WWII. I'm not sure that I buy it, but it is a daunting argument. (If I recall, the writer was perfectly clear that Wilhelm was a first-class A-hole which, of course, even his British grandmother knew. At some point in his younger days, Wilhelm had seen an Annie Oakley show, and I believe she shot a cigarette out of his mouth. He laughed years later and said that perhaps if she weren't such a good shot, then perhaps Europe might have been spared the war.)