1917has often been praised for its historical accuracy, butthe final battle has been scrutinized by experts.Sam Mendes'1917is one of thebest war movies ever made, placing audiences in the trenches of World War I with remarkable intensity and authenticity. There are several realistic touches that make it even more immersive.
1917is partly based on a true story, although Mendes mostly constructs the narrative himself using stories from his grandfather, who fought in the trenches. Even if the exact story of1917never took place, Mendes and his team paid close attention to the historical accuracy of the movie, trying to recreate the conditions of trench warfare as faithfully as possible.
The Major Inaccuracy In 1917’s “Over The Top” Climax
Attacks During World War I Were Much Better Organized
Theending of1917sees Schofield sprinting across the battlefield in a desperate final attempt to deliver his message before it’s too late. It’s an emotional finale to a long journey, butthis scene isn’t the most accurate in terms of the military tactics that are on display.A real World War I assault would have been much more organized.
A 2023 analysis by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission criticized1917’s depiction of the British attack, claiming that “World War One infantry assaults were not simply picking up a gun and running at the enemy as presented in 1917’s climax.” It also remarked on the lack of artillery support, which is another glaring inaccuracy.
“Once the whistle blows, the British infantry stream over the top in a solid mass with little attempt at unit cohesion. There’s no artillery support either, indicating this attack really would have been suicidal if Schofield hadn’t completed his mission.
In reality, all along the front Officers and Non-Commission Officers would be amongst their men, keeping them together, and guiding the attack. World War One infantry assaults were not simply picking up a gun and running at the enemy as presented in 1917’s climax.” - The Commonwealth War Graves Commission
Although Schofield’s climactic run delivers a huge swell of emotion, it shouldn’t be seen as historical fact.All war movies handle the truth in different ways, because their primary objective is to tell an engaging story, not to impress experts as if they’re historical documents. For the most part,1917has things both ways, but a good story trumps logic in the climax.
Why 1917 Is Still An Authentic War Movie, Even If It Takes Liberties
Sam Mendes Collaborated Closely With Historical Advisers
The same article by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission also praised large parts of1917,proving that the “over the top” climax is the exception rather than the rule.The depiction of life in the trenches was singled out for praise, as1917shows the monotony that many soldiers faced in between bursts of conflict.
$95 million
$384 million
88%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score
Sam Mendes worked with historical advisers Andrew Robertshaw and Paul Biddiss on1917,who ensured that the movie’s depiction of the conflict and the soldiers was faithful.The article states that “Overall, 1917 veers toward historical accuracy.“There are some half-truths, exaggerations and blunders, but1917is more realistic than most war movies.
