Based on a true story, this manages to balance the surreal, dry humor of the paper itself, with the story of the paper itself - how it was produced and how it attracted opprobium from the top brass - and also the WWI experience of an officer in the trenches, dealing with the men, the war, and the conditions. The humor for me was more clever than laugh out loud, but is excellently observed. The characters are well sketched and excellently acted. And the extracts from the paper itself are illuminating, in terms of what they reveal about the soldiers (or at least the officers) and their view of the war.
17 Reviews
Screenwipe.
morrison-dylan-fan20 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
With the recent season of the BBC's satirical news show Have I Got News For You having ended,I decided to find out if lead star (and editor of the excellent investigating journalist/satirical mag Private Eye) Ian Hislop was working on any other projects.Originally expecting to just find a documentary series,I was shocked to find out that Hislop had co- written a WWI Drama about a satirical mag,whose airing I had sadly missed.Catching me completely by surprise,my dad revealed to me that he had actually picked up a DVD of the title recently,which led picking up my first issue of The Wipers Times.
The plot:
WWI:Ypres-
Taking a look around a number of bombed out buildings in a city called Ypres,a group of British soldier's discover a printer in perfect condition.Planning to destroy the printer,the gang are stopped in their tracks by leading officer Roberts,who tells the group that the printer could be used for the publication of a satirical magazine.Initially feeling uneasy over Roberts plan,the gang soon find themselves getting in a grove over the writing of their satirical mag (named The Wipers Times) as they find themselves not only fighting against the German's,but generals who are determined to close the underground mag down.
View on the film:
For the screenplay of the film,writers Ian Hislop and Nickman strike a perfect balance of showing the heroic efforts that Robert's troop was involved in,whilst making sure that the movie never becomes over- sentimental,thanks to cutting away to the satirical bite of the mag.Giving the title a blissful flight of fantasy mood,the writers bring a number of the mags most famous sketches alive in dream style sequences,which brilliantly show the sharp created mind that each of the soldier's had,even as they were being shot at.
Superbly filmed on location in Ireland,director Andy De Emmony mixes a raw,gritty appearance for the trenches with an unexpected surreal touch,as De Emmony uses B&W and a floating camera feel to bring The Wipers Times sketches vividly to life.Leading the gang in their underground publication,Ben Chaplin gives a wonderful performance as Roberts,with Chaplin showing Roberts eye for satire to be something which helps him to survive the chaos taking place around him,and makes this issue of The Wipers Times one that is really worth picking up.
The plot:
WWI:Ypres-
Taking a look around a number of bombed out buildings in a city called Ypres,a group of British soldier's discover a printer in perfect condition.Planning to destroy the printer,the gang are stopped in their tracks by leading officer Roberts,who tells the group that the printer could be used for the publication of a satirical magazine.Initially feeling uneasy over Roberts plan,the gang soon find themselves getting in a grove over the writing of their satirical mag (named The Wipers Times) as they find themselves not only fighting against the German's,but generals who are determined to close the underground mag down.
View on the film:
For the screenplay of the film,writers Ian Hislop and Nickman strike a perfect balance of showing the heroic efforts that Robert's troop was involved in,whilst making sure that the movie never becomes over- sentimental,thanks to cutting away to the satirical bite of the mag.Giving the title a blissful flight of fantasy mood,the writers bring a number of the mags most famous sketches alive in dream style sequences,which brilliantly show the sharp created mind that each of the soldier's had,even as they were being shot at.
Superbly filmed on location in Ireland,director Andy De Emmony mixes a raw,gritty appearance for the trenches with an unexpected surreal touch,as De Emmony uses B&W and a floating camera feel to bring The Wipers Times sketches vividly to life.Leading the gang in their underground publication,Ben Chaplin gives a wonderful performance as Roberts,with Chaplin showing Roberts eye for satire to be something which helps him to survive the chaos taking place around him,and makes this issue of The Wipers Times one that is really worth picking up.
The funny side of war
Prismark109 July 2016
The Wipers Times is written by Ian Hislop and Nick Newman and based on a true story when in 1916 Captain Roberts, Lieutenant Pearson and their men find and commandeer an old printing press and publish issues of a satirical magazine while under fire in the trenches from Harry Hun. The name of the rag is derived from Ypres which some of the troops could not pronounce.
The satire is punched home by some sepia tinged sketches bringing a music hall feel. Just as in the film Good Morning Vietnam the superiors are not impressed by the anarchic humour especially against the officers who are sitting far, far behind the soldiers in the trenches.
The only exception being the offbeat and shrewd General played by Michael Palin who recognises that behind the irreverent tone is courage, bravery and soldiers just making the best of the mayhem.
This is a low budget made for television film starring Ben Chaplin and Julian Rhind-Tutt who act like they are free wheeling it in order to keep in with the satirical tone.
It makes a change from the slew of films we have recently had about The Great War which has the theme of war is hell and so many young men died.
The satire is punched home by some sepia tinged sketches bringing a music hall feel. Just as in the film Good Morning Vietnam the superiors are not impressed by the anarchic humour especially against the officers who are sitting far, far behind the soldiers in the trenches.
The only exception being the offbeat and shrewd General played by Michael Palin who recognises that behind the irreverent tone is courage, bravery and soldiers just making the best of the mayhem.
This is a low budget made for television film starring Ben Chaplin and Julian Rhind-Tutt who act like they are free wheeling it in order to keep in with the satirical tone.
It makes a change from the slew of films we have recently had about The Great War which has the theme of war is hell and so many young men died.
do you suffer from optimism?
recrea3312 September 2013
written by the co-editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop and Nick Newman and it shows. their love of the characters biting satirical humour in the face of the mud bath trenches of Flanders is plain to see and it works wonderfully. some critics have said that the device of punctuating the drama with faithful sketches taken from articles from the wipers times, got in the way of the story. but surely that is the point, humour in the face of a horrible drama. Chaplin as the sinister ringmaster/MC, complete with ghostly, flaking, pancake make up is brilliant, as is his co-star Rhind-Tutt. and there is a nice little cameo from Michael Palin as a sympathetic general. the 'Kermode six laugh test' was surpassed early on. oh, and i choked up a couple of times...
all in an excellent comedy/drama about the futility of war. wholly recommended.
all in an excellent comedy/drama about the futility of war. wholly recommended.
Gallows humour aplenty
Phil_Chester4 March 2020
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.
decent, but too reticent to be fully engaging
myriamlenys11 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Bittersweet
welshwench15 September 2013
I can only think that the reviewer who thought that this should have been more like The Hangover has little to no knowledge of the First World War, let alone of conditions in the trenches. Maybe diffusing unbearable situations with humour (and much of the humour that emanated from those trenches was actually blacker - and bluer - than that portrayed here) is one of those Very British Things. That was certainly brought up in this film, when the contrast was drawn between the Germans' "Hate Song" and the British soldier's humour and irreverence.
Personally, I really enjoyed the way that the sketches were shown: much about them was true to the time period and yet they were presented with a touch of the surreal to remind the viewer that what you saw on the screen was only a stylised representation of the written word.
I thought the actors were very good; the subject matter bittersweet, and overall it was an excellent representation of a fascinating story. There were one or two moments when I felt that the smooth, sarcastic, off the cuff exchanges between the major characters was a touch too smooth, but overall it fitted the period, the story and the way the screenwriters and directors chose to present it.
If you don't already know anything about The Wipers Times or about the Trench Warfare of the First World War then you may, indeed, not enjoy this as much as someone who does have a little bit of prior knowledge.
Personally, I really enjoyed the way that the sketches were shown: much about them was true to the time period and yet they were presented with a touch of the surreal to remind the viewer that what you saw on the screen was only a stylised representation of the written word.
I thought the actors were very good; the subject matter bittersweet, and overall it was an excellent representation of a fascinating story. There were one or two moments when I felt that the smooth, sarcastic, off the cuff exchanges between the major characters was a touch too smooth, but overall it fitted the period, the story and the way the screenwriters and directors chose to present it.
If you don't already know anything about The Wipers Times or about the Trench Warfare of the First World War then you may, indeed, not enjoy this as much as someone who does have a little bit of prior knowledge.
this was suppose to be funny?
ericnottelling14 September 2013
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 heart-breaking tragi-comic treatment of the First World War
tyttyvylys14 September 2013
In a world wherein we are all too often confronted with the tragic waste that is warfare, this heart-rending and thought-provoking treatment of our world's first war stands tall amidst a cohort of war films that glorify war while trivializing the loss it represents. An entire generation of Englishman were lain down in the mud of the European theater, and while many poets, writers and historians have made much of the tragedy of this affair, few have the courage to satirize it. As only the men who witnessed its absurdity could tell us, this is the relation of Ian Hislop and Nick Newman, two men among many who were forced to endure a what was at times a senseless conflict. Their only hope for sanity in an insane situation was to cling to that which humanizes us all; our sense of humor.
If you have ever considered the pointless nature of large-scale conflict, the tragedy of war itself, or the despair of the man as he returns home from the front to a people who do not grasp the enormity of what he has faced, then you must see this film.
If you have ever considered the pointless nature of large-scale conflict, the tragedy of war itself, or the despair of the man as he returns home from the front to a people who do not grasp the enormity of what he has faced, then you must see this film.
Ill-conceived
trimmerb12349 July 2016
Ian Hislop is best known as editor of the long running "Private Eye" magazine - satirical; in its earlier days at least, fairly irreverent and often in (expensive) conflict with the rich and powerful. The team were witty, well-educated fellows often from good schools and families having a great deal of fun tweaking noses in a quite tolerant society during an extraordinarily long period of peace and prosperity when satire quickly became the mainstream.
Ian Hislop's central and dreadful misconception/misportrayal/conceit is that The Wipers Times was an early version of Private Eye - run by two witty satirical officers for their own and the troop's amusement, raising morale by satirising Army superiors but jeopardising their prospects of promotion by their impish irreverent nose-tweaking and mockery - ie how Hislop would see himself. But neither the times of Wipers Times nor the context could possibly have been more different to those of Private Eye. Nor the conditions under which each worked. The Wipers Times was produced for WW1 troops in their stinking trenches, in constant fear of death but also under martial law where cowardice - widely interpreted - was punishable by death. As was mutiny or insubordination. It was a life or death struggle, with a rigid hierarchy of command where all was sacrificed to victory, where a horse was more valuable than soldier (they cost more in transport and upkeep).
Troop morale however was vital so that they would continue to be willing to fight and die. How to achieve improved morale was the question In these harshest of conditions with the narrowest of focus - victory whatever it cost - it is inconceivable that, as portrayed in the film, two officers would be allowed to distribute an under the counter satirical publication lampooning senior officers etc without it being first intensely scrutinised, discussed then officially sanctioned. What was unusual was that there was a senior officer able to understand its contribution to morale and willing and able to convince his superiors of what was a very risky enterprise. In the film all the Stephen Fry character is required to possess is a robust sense of humour.
I believe the two officers combined this with their normal duties. If, as in this film, they appeared to have chosen a soft option, or pushed themselves forward, troops who had no such choices would have strongly resented it. Contrary to the film, The Wipers Times did not make celebrities of the two officers, instead it promoted modest but authentic contributions from ordinary soldiers and thus appeared to be the voice of the ordinary soldier - which in reality it was not. Any hint of condescension or aloofness by these two officers - as appears in the film where one casually mocks the social ignorance of a lower rank - might have been, possibly literally, fatal for them. Contrary to the film and verifying its central misconception, the two officers were neither punished nor discriminated against after the war (both had MCs). They had done their duty and more. The troops had fought and died and none had mutinied. The Wipers Times had fulfilled its officially sanctioned purpose - but it had brought happiness, laughter and an easing of the burden along the way.
Ian Hislop is a good popular historian of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It seems he was seduced by the enobling heroic notion that his comfortable late 20th Century satire had its ancestry in the horrors of the WW1 trenches and those two self-effacing officers. The film turned these two men into Private Eye in khaki, worse still, the characters were portrayed as attractive and professional entertainers. Such an idea worked in Oh What a Lovely War. It doesn't work here which cries out for a realistic treatment of a true and important story, giving some idea of the actual characters of these two officers. For all its production values, it is awful.
Ian Hislop's central and dreadful misconception/misportrayal/conceit is that The Wipers Times was an early version of Private Eye - run by two witty satirical officers for their own and the troop's amusement, raising morale by satirising Army superiors but jeopardising their prospects of promotion by their impish irreverent nose-tweaking and mockery - ie how Hislop would see himself. But neither the times of Wipers Times nor the context could possibly have been more different to those of Private Eye. Nor the conditions under which each worked. The Wipers Times was produced for WW1 troops in their stinking trenches, in constant fear of death but also under martial law where cowardice - widely interpreted - was punishable by death. As was mutiny or insubordination. It was a life or death struggle, with a rigid hierarchy of command where all was sacrificed to victory, where a horse was more valuable than soldier (they cost more in transport and upkeep).
Troop morale however was vital so that they would continue to be willing to fight and die. How to achieve improved morale was the question In these harshest of conditions with the narrowest of focus - victory whatever it cost - it is inconceivable that, as portrayed in the film, two officers would be allowed to distribute an under the counter satirical publication lampooning senior officers etc without it being first intensely scrutinised, discussed then officially sanctioned. What was unusual was that there was a senior officer able to understand its contribution to morale and willing and able to convince his superiors of what was a very risky enterprise. In the film all the Stephen Fry character is required to possess is a robust sense of humour.
I believe the two officers combined this with their normal duties. If, as in this film, they appeared to have chosen a soft option, or pushed themselves forward, troops who had no such choices would have strongly resented it. Contrary to the film, The Wipers Times did not make celebrities of the two officers, instead it promoted modest but authentic contributions from ordinary soldiers and thus appeared to be the voice of the ordinary soldier - which in reality it was not. Any hint of condescension or aloofness by these two officers - as appears in the film where one casually mocks the social ignorance of a lower rank - might have been, possibly literally, fatal for them. Contrary to the film and verifying its central misconception, the two officers were neither punished nor discriminated against after the war (both had MCs). They had done their duty and more. The troops had fought and died and none had mutinied. The Wipers Times had fulfilled its officially sanctioned purpose - but it had brought happiness, laughter and an easing of the burden along the way.
Ian Hislop is a good popular historian of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It seems he was seduced by the enobling heroic notion that his comfortable late 20th Century satire had its ancestry in the horrors of the WW1 trenches and those two self-effacing officers. The film turned these two men into Private Eye in khaki, worse still, the characters were portrayed as attractive and professional entertainers. Such an idea worked in Oh What a Lovely War. It doesn't work here which cries out for a realistic treatment of a true and important story, giving some idea of the actual characters of these two officers. For all its production values, it is awful.
Nice Story but Bad History
bookcentreuk7 April 2017
This was an enjoyable watch but history it ain't.
The content, as well as the promotional material for this film, are seriously misleading. The idea that the hierarchy was upset with The Wipers lacks evidence. Scholars who have written about trench journals have long established that they were an important part of the official strategy for the maintenance of troop morale, and actively encouraged.
Wipers was not subversive of authority. Herbert Jenkins (publisher of the first 1918 edition) was an informant to the Official Press Bureau (the government's censorship body) from the beginning of the War. When he applied for a license to publish he assured the OPB that it had been cleared by the censors in France before its original appearance. So acceptable was it to High Command that it was agreed that General Haig would write the foreword. SOURCE: Archive of the Official Press Bureau.
It is suggested in the marketing publicity for the film that The Wipers Times has, until now been lost to obscurity. There were hundreds of such publications in WW1 but Wipers has always been BY FAR the most celebrated. It was published in London for the home market in 1918, since which time it has been reissued in no fewer than 7 editions. Rarely, in histories of WW1 culture, is it NOT mentioned.
All in all, it seems that many of the original intentions and much of the irony of the paper's first contributors and editors have been lost on the writers of this play/film. Even more troubling is the fact that the authors have faked 'extracts' from the journal and included in the script elements that are simply not there in the original.
In other words, a great deal of liberty is taken with content as well as context throughout. One strange moment in the film is when the young Churchill appears in a cameo and commends the paper's editors for being a pain in the side of the leadership, telling them to keep up the good work. This was not Churchill's style. When he was Commander-in-Chief in WW2 he in fact reprimanded Field Marshal Montgomery for encouraging such publications which Monty felt were nevertheless a useful 'escape-valve' for the Eighth Army. It was something over which he fell out with Churchill.
One final observation: In his introduction to a recent edition, Ian Hislop has tried to claim The Wipers as a predecessor of Private Eye. It was NOT. The Eye is a gadfly publication that gets itself into genuine scrapes with authority. The Wipers, on the other hand, was (like many other trench journals)sanctioned by the authorities, edited and composed by officers, and seen as part of the official campaign to keep up morale on the Front. Its own predecessor was the Tatler and both had running sport with each other in their pages throughout the war.
All in all the play and the film tell a nice story, but offer a limited understanding to anyone who wants to know about the real history of this remarkable newspaper.
The content, as well as the promotional material for this film, are seriously misleading. The idea that the hierarchy was upset with The Wipers lacks evidence. Scholars who have written about trench journals have long established that they were an important part of the official strategy for the maintenance of troop morale, and actively encouraged.
Wipers was not subversive of authority. Herbert Jenkins (publisher of the first 1918 edition) was an informant to the Official Press Bureau (the government's censorship body) from the beginning of the War. When he applied for a license to publish he assured the OPB that it had been cleared by the censors in France before its original appearance. So acceptable was it to High Command that it was agreed that General Haig would write the foreword. SOURCE: Archive of the Official Press Bureau.
It is suggested in the marketing publicity for the film that The Wipers Times has, until now been lost to obscurity. There were hundreds of such publications in WW1 but Wipers has always been BY FAR the most celebrated. It was published in London for the home market in 1918, since which time it has been reissued in no fewer than 7 editions. Rarely, in histories of WW1 culture, is it NOT mentioned.
All in all, it seems that many of the original intentions and much of the irony of the paper's first contributors and editors have been lost on the writers of this play/film. Even more troubling is the fact that the authors have faked 'extracts' from the journal and included in the script elements that are simply not there in the original.
In other words, a great deal of liberty is taken with content as well as context throughout. One strange moment in the film is when the young Churchill appears in a cameo and commends the paper's editors for being a pain in the side of the leadership, telling them to keep up the good work. This was not Churchill's style. When he was Commander-in-Chief in WW2 he in fact reprimanded Field Marshal Montgomery for encouraging such publications which Monty felt were nevertheless a useful 'escape-valve' for the Eighth Army. It was something over which he fell out with Churchill.
One final observation: In his introduction to a recent edition, Ian Hislop has tried to claim The Wipers as a predecessor of Private Eye. It was NOT. The Eye is a gadfly publication that gets itself into genuine scrapes with authority. The Wipers, on the other hand, was (like many other trench journals)sanctioned by the authorities, edited and composed by officers, and seen as part of the official campaign to keep up morale on the Front. Its own predecessor was the Tatler and both had running sport with each other in their pages throughout the war.
All in all the play and the film tell a nice story, but offer a limited understanding to anyone who wants to know about the real history of this remarkable newspaper.
Creative, funny and extremely moving true World War I story.
t-dooley-69-38691628 May 2015
Co written by Ian Hislop and Nick Newman this tells the story of Fred Roberts and his lieutenant and friend Jack Pearson. While based in Ypres, Belgium they discover a near working printing press. Their Sergeant used to work in newspapers and with his help they set up a satirical magazine and name it 'The Wipers Times' – in honour of the way 'Tommie's pronounce Ypres.
They go for the ludicrous – where ever possible - and often take a swipe at those in command, but the paper is a hit and soon they are getting noticed. This is set during the destruction and slaughter of World War I and that is included in the film, as well as mustard gas, food shortages and the filth of the trenches. The film recreates some of the sketches from the papers as black and white pieces using the same characters and this adds to the surreal nature of the paper and how it was a break from reality for those that read it.
Starring Ben Chaplin as Roberts and Julian Rhind-Tutt as Pearson who are both perfect castings for their respective roles, this was produced by the BBC to mark the anniversary of 'The Great War', along with other memorable films and series. This I felt was one of the best and dealt with an aspect of war that is often missed out, at one time it is said that 'war is nothing more than wallowing in a dirty ditch'; well this proved that humour could take men out of that ditch if even for a short time. Absolutely recommended and a credit to all involved in its production.
They go for the ludicrous – where ever possible - and often take a swipe at those in command, but the paper is a hit and soon they are getting noticed. This is set during the destruction and slaughter of World War I and that is included in the film, as well as mustard gas, food shortages and the filth of the trenches. The film recreates some of the sketches from the papers as black and white pieces using the same characters and this adds to the surreal nature of the paper and how it was a break from reality for those that read it.
Starring Ben Chaplin as Roberts and Julian Rhind-Tutt as Pearson who are both perfect castings for their respective roles, this was produced by the BBC to mark the anniversary of 'The Great War', along with other memorable films and series. This I felt was one of the best and dealt with an aspect of war that is often missed out, at one time it is said that 'war is nothing more than wallowing in a dirty ditch'; well this proved that humour could take men out of that ditch if even for a short time. Absolutely recommended and a credit to all involved in its production.
Papers, please.
Pjtaylor-96-13804423 December 2022
'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.
If you like words and sarcasm
donb-519-33507526 July 2016
A delightfully different look at The Great War. The mud, terror, futility of the Great War is well known - even among today's high school students, I trust. But it was not without its moments - the 1914 Christmas truce; collaborations on the front line (we'll send a few bombs over at the same time each day just to keep our Officers happy - make sure you take cover); and the Wipers Times.
This is the story of two enterprising British officers (Cpt. Fred Roberts and Lt. J.H. Pearson) who sought to relieve the misery of the front line with humor and sarcasm - especially pointed at the British General Staff officers - by publishing a periodical. Those who know much about the Great War know it was a exercise in futility and incompetence - especially demonstrated by those who were leading the conflict - on both sides. If you are interested in the futility of the war read "Back to the Front" by Stephen O'Shea - a scathing indictment of the British General Staff in WWI.
While The Wipers Times reflects this incompetence, it focuses on the ability of two men to make fun of the situation on the Western Front by sarcastically pointing out the inconsistencies, hypocrisies, elitism and disregard for the "Tommys" (the troops who were actually fighting the war), by those leading the war.
Throughout the drama, the total lack of "getting it" was demonstrated by Lt. Col Howfield as he expressed outrage at the jokes and barbs being made about the war and especially at the expense of the General Staff. He regularly approached his superior, General Mitford (played by Michael Palin - who surely recognizes a joke when he sees it) with outrage about the content of the front line periodical. To his credit Mitford saw the humor and benefit of the times and supported it.
One of the highlights of the film is when Howland launches a surprise inspection of Captain Fred Roberts' post - suspecting that Roberts was responsible for the Times. The dialogue between Howland and Roberts was hysterical - demonstrating that in more ways than one - the General Staff did not "get it."
The acting is good, the staging superb. Although not on the same plane as "Great War Diaries" or "Beneath Hill 60" - both superb dramas about the War, this film makes a fitting contribution to understanding the Great War. Soldiers on the front line live the absurdities of war and embrace the gallows humor that war brings. We civilians get a small glimpse of it in this drama.
If you like the Great War or clever use of words, you will enjoy this film.
You can read edition 1 of The Wipers Times at
http://www.welt.de/bin/wipers-152118514.pdf
DonB
This is the story of two enterprising British officers (Cpt. Fred Roberts and Lt. J.H. Pearson) who sought to relieve the misery of the front line with humor and sarcasm - especially pointed at the British General Staff officers - by publishing a periodical. Those who know much about the Great War know it was a exercise in futility and incompetence - especially demonstrated by those who were leading the conflict - on both sides. If you are interested in the futility of the war read "Back to the Front" by Stephen O'Shea - a scathing indictment of the British General Staff in WWI.
While The Wipers Times reflects this incompetence, it focuses on the ability of two men to make fun of the situation on the Western Front by sarcastically pointing out the inconsistencies, hypocrisies, elitism and disregard for the "Tommys" (the troops who were actually fighting the war), by those leading the war.
Throughout the drama, the total lack of "getting it" was demonstrated by Lt. Col Howfield as he expressed outrage at the jokes and barbs being made about the war and especially at the expense of the General Staff. He regularly approached his superior, General Mitford (played by Michael Palin - who surely recognizes a joke when he sees it) with outrage about the content of the front line periodical. To his credit Mitford saw the humor and benefit of the times and supported it.
One of the highlights of the film is when Howland launches a surprise inspection of Captain Fred Roberts' post - suspecting that Roberts was responsible for the Times. The dialogue between Howland and Roberts was hysterical - demonstrating that in more ways than one - the General Staff did not "get it."
The acting is good, the staging superb. Although not on the same plane as "Great War Diaries" or "Beneath Hill 60" - both superb dramas about the War, this film makes a fitting contribution to understanding the Great War. Soldiers on the front line live the absurdities of war and embrace the gallows humor that war brings. We civilians get a small glimpse of it in this drama.
If you like the Great War or clever use of words, you will enjoy this film.
You can read edition 1 of The Wipers Times at
http://www.welt.de/bin/wipers-152118514.pdf
DonB
There once was a battle in Flanders....
katbyrd-3037221 January 2021
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.
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.
Truth stranger than fiction, good story
thewhale-4913428 November 2020
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.
Bitter and funny
pilot100922 July 2022
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/
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
