Myriam Nys 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.

Bill Bell 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.

welshwench 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.

recrea33 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.