Memorable, crazy movie

Excellent but underrated film

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

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.

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.pdfDonB

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.

This interesting true story deserved better handling. The script of this BBC film is inadequate and uncinematic, and the direction is poor. I did not bother to watch that much of it on the DVD and did what a Dalek would do: 'terminate!' The name 'Wipers' is the pronunciation which the British troops used during the First World War to mis-pronounce the name of the French town Ypres, which they could not pronounce correctly. And 'the Wipers Times' is the name of a newspaper printed by an enterprising officer and his team, for circulation in the trenches at Ypres, after he found a printing press in the rubble of the bombed-out town together with a supply of paper and ink. His trench newspaper was very irreverent and funny, and a forerunner in its way of today's Private Eye. One can therefore understand why Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, jointly wrote the script. There were a couple of very funny lines in the bit I saw before I turned it off, and they must have come from him. It would not be fair of me to comment on the performances, because I did not see the whole film, so I shall not discuss them. Teacher's report: 'Could try harder.'