I'm being made to study this for film studies, wasting valuable time that could be spent revising, (which just goes to show how well the establishment treats it's students), and sweet Jesus, is it boring! How is one emant to watch this without falling asleep?!
"My sneakers are squeaky"
[deleted]
Well, I'll agree that it's not quite as compelling as further Lean/Coward collaborations (Breif Encounter) but It's still something worth staying awake for!
shareI expect the real problem is in you not having any enthusiasm for the history of film making.
If you try and compare this film to the modern films, this will be very dull indeed, for those who wish to study the lighting, dialogue and so on, the "technical" parts, then you could still learn things, even those things that you would not do today unless trying to create a parody such as the "40's ads" done by Harry Enfield on TV a couple of years ago.
The amazing styles worn, the attention to detail of the period is astounding, so much of this would be missed if you were not looking for it.
Yes, some of the dialogue is trite and delivered in a speed that needs slowing down, the speech by the Captains wife at the dinner table is a notable exception and if you study that, you will have learnt how to pace and connect some wonderful words.
Always remember, horses for courses, or "different strokes for different folks" will win the day.
Colin
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
2 years removed from the original post, I hope the poster hasnt been scarred by the experience. I had to watch "Jules and Jim" for French class over and over and over again and memorize passages so that to this day I can't watch that film again.
I don't have a bias against old movies. TCM showed this right after Keaton's "The General" and while I liked that, I found myself checking my watch 45 minutes into this snooze-fest wondering if Noel Coward plans to run through ALL 200 shipmates' stories.
I know it's probably heresy to knock Noel Coward but man was this tough to sit through. I wasn't moved, I wasn't entertained. Since little time was devoted to character development, I wasn't moved when something bad happened to one of them although I knew I should. It all felt distant.
Since I'm not a sailor, I also wondered why the German planes kept returning to shoot the survivors on the raft and why the captain didn't go down with the ship. TCM will show this again in June so I'll watch this in the middle of the day instead of the middle of the night but I don't expect to change my opinion. I can't belive the New York Film Critics chose this snoozefest over "Mrs. Miniver" as Best Picture that year but whatever.
Philip: Shut your foul mouth, you ten-titted bitch from Hades!
Re the elgatony comment above:
The captain DID go down with his ship - you see him clinging to a bit of it as the water engulfs him. When he surfaces it is with the aid of an air bubble.
I was able to notice this because I always remember a true story involving Coward's friend, Lord Louis Mountbatten, on whose experiences this film was based (his ship was sunk during the Battle of Crete). When Mountbatten reached the surface he was greeted by a much lower-ranked shipmate. The latter said "It's always the scum that floats to the surface isn't it, Sir?" (or words to that effect).
As for the original post:
For me this is not a dull film: it is a tearjerker! My father (aged 16) was buried alive in an air raid; my grandfather did not survive the rubble. This film is about my people, faced with invasion from a powerful enemy. 'In Which We Serve was about a beleaguered island as much as a small ship, or the naval service. It is part of a whole chain of events by which we in the UK were saved from Nazi rule. 'Dull' has a certain charm, does it not, when you consider the possible alternatives?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Carl Sagan
He played Snotty, the guy who left his post. For some reason, he used the name Chimmo Branson in the credits.
shareWrong. It was not Attenborough. See another thread about this, where it is eventually cleared up:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034891/board/nest/19513812
It absolutely was Richard Attenborough. You must be joking.
shareThe "attention to detail" such as costumes was easy at the time. After all, the action takes place as flashbacks over 2 years while the survivors float in the Med in 1941. Funny, the film was released in late 1941 and so was up for awards in 1942. Could it be that the film won the awards for an excellent dramatization of something widely experienced at the time? Boring? I don't think so. Very British before Britain became so Americanized.
shareit is very slow paced but certainly not bad
7/10
I Worship The Goddess Amber Tamblyn
Right. They should've had some really bitchin explosions, and hand-held camera jerking around, and no shot over two seconds. Maybe some bare boobs, and a few dozen F-bombs, and this movie would've been up to our standards. And of course, black-and-white is so unrealistic and depressing. Ugh!
shareliscarkat,
very well put. Bravo.
- JKHolman
If that list of cliches was "very well put" (and even deserving of a "Bravo") then I fear for the future.
Someday we'll move past the state of "Hey, you didn't like this old movie and you thought it was boring?! You're obviously just too dumb to get it! Har! You must only like things with explosions! Har!" It's been done. And done. And most of the time the only person who's made to look a fool is the person making the accusation.
"Or perhaps it's not overrated"
mov88,
it is called sarcasm. Come to think of it, your post is accusatory.
Yeah, and there shoulda been a big box-office American star, like Tom Cruise, in it instead of all those boring gay limey theatre people - and what's with the all-White cast? And they sink the ship at the end! I mean how can you have a sequel?
I think it's time for a reboot. This time we'll make it a modern American battleship with racially and gender diverse people on it and make the villains some big multinational company with a British CEO. Of course it will have to have all the requisite explosions, boobs, hand-held camera, boobs etc., and at least one scene where the hero has to outrun an explosion. We may need to watch the language. though, as wed want it PG-13. Perhaps a few graphic dismemberments instead?
Why don't you study Sponge Bob Square Pants then?
That seems to be more your speed!
Growing old is mandatory, Growing UP is optional
Those who wish to slate this film clearly have no ability to contextualise films to their period in history.
This is not a film for film students. It is pointless studying the 'mise-en-scene' of a film which was never intended to be judged on its artistic qualities. The film was designed to be rooted in the traditions of the Royal Navy and be an accurate representation of life in the Royal Navy - as such it was shown to all recruits joining the navy to the end of the war.
Noel Coward's acting was meant to be an accurate representation of Lord Mountbatten (tragically killed by the IRA RIP), if you look at Coward's other work he is very different from how he is in IWWS. The majoraty of the film's scenes are taken from Mountbatten's experiences while serving in the Navy.
Complain all you want, this film would mean very little to an American/anyone else in the world without any conception of British culture or understanding of our national identity.
Well said sir
Growing old is mandatory, Growing UP is optional
As an American, I've always loved this film.
Then again, I've also found British history enthralling.
"So what else is on your mind besides 100 proof women, 90 proof whiskey, and 14 karat gold?"
[deleted]
As an American, I've always loved this film.
Then again, I've also found British history enthralling.
--------------------------------------------------
So you should, much of our history is yours too.
Now, to the OP... This film was made in 1941/42, a time when Britain did not know the outcome of the war, I watched this for the first time only a couple of years back. I watched with that in mind (you should try it, if you have the ability to empathise that is. 5 of my great uncles and my grandfather went to sea in WWII, 3 in the MN 3 in the RN. My Grandfather was killed in the MN after a U-boat attack, he died on his 3rd sinking. My generation can only pretend to understand what these men went through. I was lucky enough to know (still am in the case of 2 brothers) 4 of the brothers (2 lost).
I watch films about the battle of the Atlantic religiously in a way to feel closer to my grandfather who neither my father or I managed to know. Not that this should change the OP's perception that the film was boring but I do wonder if the OP is still a teenager and needs special effects or blood gore and lots of nazis akin to x-box version of WWII.
Myself, I cried as the crew were dying and again when Coward said farewell to the remaining crew. The original audience of this film all probably knew men/boys at sea and this film would have no doubt played to a silent audience as they realised what these people were going through every day.
I did wonder how it worked as recruitment aid, for me I would have run a mile from signing up for the navy, even though I too spent many years at sea fishing. It would be nice however if some left the picture houses and refused to buy black market goods knowing the sacrifice 'our' boys were making to feed the nation. Only people like the OP would not have the brains to connect spivs and the U-boat peril.
For the record I am American and I loved this film. Yes it's a bit of war time propaganda but the fact that it was made during the war and a lot of events the film was highlighting (Evacuation at Dunkirk, the Blitz) had only happened very recently made the film very special to me.
But then I guess I also just enjoy the Noel Coward/David Lean team up because I loved Brief Encounter which they also worked on together.
I thought that, compared to other films of WWII made during the war, it was not as interesting as some I've others.
And I know they wanted to make it realistic and authentic, but when there is an entire squadron of German fighter-bombers, why would they attack one at a time instead of in a wave?
Noel Coward was good as the captain, and Celie Johnson as his wife was excellent, and John Mills stole this film as he did so many others. But in attempting to tell too many stories, in the end too much of the story was not well told.
Though my answer to you is almost 5 years later, grow up. It is a moving, accurate and throughly good look at what the RN went though in the early stages of the war and what their families endured during the blitz. I was most fortunate to be under the weather this morning and caught it on Turner Classic Movies. Much better than our American movies from that time, at least until later in the war. The British did not need flag waving heroes; they were living the war for over two years before we entered and were suffering on their home front directly, unlike Americans, who did not have to endure the hardships our British cousins did. Maybe it is for that reason movies like this, "One of Our Aircraft Is Missing" and the rest were more realistic; the British understood the war at all levels where we did not. An excellent movie and unexpectedly moving at the end.
shareMy answer to you is two and a half weeks later, nonsense. You could have cut this movie in half and lost very little from this unabashed propaganda piece. Scene after scene is padded with irrelevant, boring banter. Try as I might, I couldn't take an interest until an hour and twenty six minutes in, when I was entertained briefly by the idea of coming to imdb to see if anyone else thought this movie was incredibly boring.
shareSorry you feel it was boring. I don't believe it was, but each of us have a right to our opinion.
shareReally? I guess Transformers 3 will be more to your taste
shareand another five years later...
i find it baffling how someone can be watching a film then at some random point think "i know, i'll go on the internet and post a review".
I was struck - and interested - by how very different it felt to modern films. But, it's certainly not dull.
shareWilander must have the attention span of a goldfish, he says that he could spend his time revising;revising what?,how to loaf? The establishment (tax payer) has given him the skills to learn & study, it just goes to show what an ungrateful pillock he is. If you don't like what your asked to study get a job (if anyone will employ you),nobody is forcing you study things you have no interest in. Stop your moaning or join us working people (yes, people that get out of bed in the morning)& start grafting for your corn. Wilander, 1st class prat.
share