Tolkien Bio-pic

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Catholicism was basically omitted entirely. I'm not entirely sure if it even pointed out that Fr Francis was RC and not Anglican. As to Tolkien's stance on 'dramatisation' - well, the film ends in 1916 but for a flash-forward epilogue ca 1930, so it's not an issue. But the film basically doesn't present Tolkien's stance on anything.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by William

The battlefield scenes were palpable nonsense (as almost always in the movies). Cavalry? Seriously? Charging across no-man's land into machine guns? That lesson was learned the hard way in August 1914 and wasn't repeated.** For that matter, if a bunch of Tommies was going over the top, then the entirety of Tolkien's journey along the trenchline would have been thunderously drowned out by the preparatory bombardment, which by 1916 doctrine would have gone on for days.*

Were they also wearing red trousers?

As for the cavalry. Heh.
Come WW2 though and the opinion on the usefulness of cavalry is completely reversed again because unlike motorized forces they don't require fuel. I still can't remember the specific incident I was referring to earlier in the thread - it was a (retrospectively) funny story of how the motorcycles that were supposed to play a critical role in a large scale operation ran out of fuel or engineers or something like that and the horses had to step in last minute, and they did way better than what the motorized unit was expected to do. I'll post it here is I come across it again. It's bugging me.


Thanks for the summary and the impressions. I will now neglect to watch it with a completely clear conscience.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Catholicism was basically omitted entirely. I'm not entirely sure if it even pointed out that Fr Francis was RC and not Anglican. As to Tolkien's stance on 'dramatisation' - well, the film ends in 1916 but for a flash-forward epilogue ca 1930, so it's not an issue. But the film basically doesn't present Tolkien's stance on anything.

Par for the course, I guess.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Come WW2 though and the opinion on the usefulness of cavalry is completely reversed again because unlike motorized forces they don't require fuel.

The US army's last cavalry charge was in the Philippines in early 1942. I don't know about the British forces or the Japanese, but the Wehrmacht used horses extensively in Russia.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The US army's last cavalry charge was in the Philippines in early 1942. I don't know about the British forces or the Japanese, but the Wehrmacht used horses extensively in Russia.

The incident I'm thinking of was on the USSR side. Tried searching for it, but it's not much help given that their cavalry participated in pretty much every battle all the way up to Berlin. To me it has the feel of 1943 onwards, but I might be mistaken. Oh well. I'll just live with not remembering. If I do come across it again I will definitely let you know.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Cavalry has remained useful in certain niche roles, right down to the war in Afghanistan. Horse was used widely in WWI on the Eastern Front and in Palestine with wide-open spaces to maneuver in. But the trenches of the Western Front was no place for them. Although the Germans did have "cavalry" regiments there, by 1916 they had turned in their horses and were infantry like everyone else.

In WWII in Russia, both sides used cavalry* because for so much of the year terrain was simply impassable for wheeled and sometimes even tracked vehicles. Cossacks in particular made something of a specialty of raiding German supply lines in the dead of winter.

As for the US in the Philippines, the 26th Cav (in fact a Filipino unit) did good service covering the retreat to Bataan; however it wasn't a "charge" but a delaying action.
_________________
*As well as horse-drawn transport. Legend aside, the "mechanized" Wehrmacht moved most of its supplies and artillery with horses; a standard infantry division had 15,000 men and 5,000 horses, and there were as many vets and farriers as there were doctors and medics.

NB: horses do too burn fuel- and they burn it whether they're working or not. For thousands of years of organized warfare, one of the biggest logistical headaches was simply providing and transporting enough fodder.

[Rhun charioteer]

Saw the movie, one recurring thought was “do all the people in the theatre understand the references this movie is making?”

Earendil is referenced, as is Beren and Luthien, same with Morgoth I believe.

In a lot of weird pseudo illusion scenes.

Regarding the catholic aspect one thing I did think was telling was that the movie didn’t show Tolkien insisting that Edith become catholic. Likely because that would not have gone over well with a modern audience.

As an aside as a Star Trek fan it was good to see Colm Meaney, Miles O Brien.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Rhun charioteer

As an aside as a Star Trek fan it was good to see Colm Meaney, Miles O Brien.

I like Colm Meany a lot too (also from the Alan Parker films)- but Fr. Francis wasn't Irish, he was born Welsh and raised in Spain.