The Wipers Times

Good movie!

Good movie!

Good movie!

A humorous take on a tragic war faught by ordinary people for less that extra ordinary aristocats and gentry who assumed the senior roles in the army fighting the war. The humor is good the bitter part is that those who caused the war hsve never been called to answer - how about a war criminal court (retrospective) for the royalty who were responsible/

The futility of WW1 is well documented. The fact that these men risked their lives to print a newspaper entirely by hand for purpose of doing something worth while, beyond required service.... speaks volumes. A few moments of the film seemed to "imaginary' for me, until i figured out that they need to mental escape reality to keep sane. Excellent film and narrative about humans under pressure and how good people will risk all to help others that suffer.

'The Wipers Times (2013)' is about a group of soldiers in WWI who come across a printing press while stationed in Ypres and decide to produce a satirical newspaper to give the troops the gift of laughter while they endure trench warfare. The piece is based on a relatively interesting true story and sort of seeks to explore the Great War from a new perspective. Though it looks like an episode of 'Doctor Who (2005-)' and is generally rather confined due to its budget, it's an admirable attempt at recreating the period and it has a certain rustic charm to it. It sometimes blends the horrors of war with the comping mechanism of humour rather well, peeling back the characters' surface of detached wit to reveal a much darker truth about their experience, but it leans far more into comedy than drama even though it's quite dry overall. It's never boring, but it doesn't really have a sense of escalation. It's also too long for its own good. Yet, the narrative is compelling enough for what it is and the cutaway gags, which play out like the skits from 'Horrible Histories (2009-2022)', are generally enjoyable. It's a solid effort overall.

While I did like the history of this mans story, I found the movie to be a bit dry. I'm sure in the historical period, the jokes on this may have been funny, but there is a total loss in translation. The acts and sketches were not funny at all. Wish they would have made this more of a stitch. It would have been nice to realize your audience is not in 1918. Your living in a day with movies like the hang over. The historical sense of the movie is nice, and I guess going for the idea of keeping it historical has some relevance but they movie was not filmed in such a manor. It was filmed in a way that they were hoping for a laugh. Which frankly didn't happen.

A really refreshing take on the First World War, with gallows humour aplenty. Definitely worth a watch for the perfectly judged performances by Chaplin, Palin and Rhind-Tutt. Sadly, the story doesn't really go anywhere and just fizzles out, so not quite a top rating, but so close.

Trigger alert: Contains dry British humor and (not surprisingly) Monty Python-esque skits. World War I: key word: WAR. Of course this movie isn't a laugh a minute. But wait... it kind of IS a laugh a minute. Dry, sardonic laughs in communion with trench Tommies pulling themselves out of the mud with humor, eye-rollers to bad limericks, satisfied guffaws to the desk brass being given a good ribbing. The cast is brilliant (I love when actors I know best from another role make me completely forget they're anyone but Capt. Roberts, or Lt. Pearson, or Dodds, or...Michael Palin). The production completely brings alive outdated jokes and stories from a war over for a century already. The ending is completely satisfactory. If you're not a student of history, keep Google at hand to look up some quick references. If you are a history buff, prepare to laugh, and tear up (a little). THE WIPERS TIMES is funny, sad, poignant, and funny. And splendid.

The subject matter itself is deeply interesting : it's a riveting tragicomic story of wit, bravery and resilience under the very worst of circumstances. I'm not sure, however, that the movie rises completely to the challenge. It lacks something - some spark of life, fire, madness. Still, there are many things to like, such as fine jokes and puns. The hard-bitten war correspondent writing from the inside of a bottle - pardon, battle - is an accurate piece of satire. It is a sad testimony to our modern times, that this kind of "reporting" has turned into an epidemic : thanks to advances in technology, every dishonest couch potato between the ages of 8 and 88 can (and will) write/twitter/blog/whatever about events taking place in a remote village in Sudan, with an air of great authenticity and authority. There is also a well-considered sepia palette, which permits a seamless blending with actual historic images. The sight of thousands upon thousands of men navigating the ruins of once delightful cities or moldering away in fetid mud is enough to wring tears from a stone. The movie shows the power, but also the limits of satire. The "Wipers" gazette tries to puncture the pride, indifference and incompetence of high-ranking officials and officers. But does it succeed in effecting real change ? One gets the impression that the brass simply continues on its merry way : no general changes his habits, is kicked out of the army or shoots himself. Worse : the more clever officers graciously allow the gazette to exist, realizing that the men need to vent their anger now and then. Thus the satire is co-opted by the very system it tries to correct and chastise. It's an age-old mechanism, known even to the old Romans : every now and then there was a festival where women could lord it over men and slaves could lord it over masters. There was freedom in the air and dancing in the streets. The next day it was back to business - and it were the slaves, not the masters, who had to clean up the vomit. Or think of the Catholic Church, which, in medieval times, allowed set occasions of misrule, complete with anti-bishops, lunatic processions and fake masses. The movie would have been better and braver if it had dared to examine this question outright, rather than suggest it obliquely.