37 Days

The main reason behind this mini-series was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of WW1, so this programme certainly had an educational purpose behind it. Unfortunately, the only saving grace of this rather clumsy attempt to tell the story was the brilliant performance of Ian McDiarmid, who despite being far too old to play Sir Edward Grey, was astonishingly convincing in the role. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the continental characters were very poorly played, with some over the top hysterics from Kaiser Wilhelm and Von Moltke in particular -shouting and gesticulations taking the place of cogent discussion. The actors playing the Kaiser and the Tsar, in particular, looked nothing like the genuine individuals, and tried to make up for it with poor acting. There was also very little from the Austro-Hungarians, other than their ambassador coming up with poor excuses whilst being reprimanded like a naughty schoolboy by Sir Edward. The other continental characters conformed very much to national stereotypes. Finally, three hours did seem rather too much to explain the events - a single, edited two hour programme would have been much better. The first two episodes contained some periods of rather unnecessary tedium, only redeemed by the third one.

Talk about a fly on the wall! I was absolutely spellbound, and to just think that I was privy to the inner meetings that led up to this great disaster. The acting was superb, and although, I couldn't say whether the parts were played with accuracy, they were certainly played with an intelligence and real life perfection that would have put German high command to shame.

And this is why I was transformed into a fly. The script, the accessible truth of this fascinating situation, the acting – cor blimey. I'll be watching it again tomorrow.

The writers of this lousy propaganda have never read any history book, so all series is full of dunno what. Wilhelm wears Iron Cross before the war - it is awarded only in wartime. Similarly, Nicholas wears St George. He was awarded 4th grade only 1915. He has stripes on trousers - in Russian army it is only for generals, and Nicholas was just a Colonel. German uniforms are not correct. Edward Grey acts and speaks as football hooligan. As the rest of British statesmen. Clerks in foreign offices are half-dressed - nobody would allow to show up wearing only a vest. Etc. Generally - watch with shock and awe. Then go to dark corner and weep about decline of education and civilization.

Having read some of the other reviews on "37 Days" I am not sure whether it is a great series about historical facts or a great series about historical events as seen from the ultimate winners' point of view. Suffice to say, it is a great entertainment if you like that sort of genre.

Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed it (but then it is my sort of movie) as I enjoyed "Elizabeth, The Golden Age" and "The Other Boleyn Girl" although I honestly have very little idea as to the historical accuracy of any of them. Having so said, one has to presume that SOME historical accuracy had to be present otherwise the whole thing would have been nothing more than a fantasy movie about a fictional war (or, to be more correct, the events leading up to one) and that, it clearly wasn't.

I suppose the reason that I like this type of movie is because it has (at least, some) bearing on how the world got to be where it is today and, to that end, I'm sure that "37 Days" has sufficient accuracy to preclude it from being a parody. Other reviewers have commented, for example, on the inaccuracy of the portrayal of Czar Nicholas and, whilst I have no doubt that they write from a much better knowledge of the facts than I possess, it doesn't make the story as presented any less entertaining. Which raises the question, "Is this a film loosely based on historical events or is it a documentary?" and the answer to that makes all the difference in the world on how you view it.

I have rated the "37 Days" trilogy much the same as I rated Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy which is on entertainment value and, in turn, makes me wonder how much relevance historical accuracy and artists' license have on rating entertainment value. To put that another way, when portraying events that actually happened, should historical accuracy be an essential facet? Because "37 Days" occurred much more recently in a time when journalistic reporting was far better developed and records much more prolific than a few hundred years earlier writers and directors have many, many more "facts" that they can draw upon than they had, for example, when making "Braveheart" or "Troy" so that history buffs (who also have those records) are able to vilify them for every little inaccuracy. That is sad because, in the end, unless they ARE documentaries, movies are made for entertainment and caricaturisation of characters simply adds to that entertainment. If they are caricatured to the point of absurdity, then the movie is a comedy or even a farce (a genre that I sadly note IMDb still doesn't have) and the entertainment value takes on a somewhat different complexion - but it's still entertainment!

Perhaps, by way of illustrating the point, another much-loved BBC TV series, "Heartbeat" - which is all fiction based around a historically factual police force set in Yorkshire in the early 1960s - often shows scenes that include railway trains. Those scenes are filmed at the North Yorkshire Moors Railway which is an enthusiast-run heritage steam railway where locomotives that never ran anywhere near Yorkshire are preserved in working order. So, because I happen to be a railway enthusiast, I COULD bemoan the absolutely prototypical inaccuracy of a Southern Railway S15 class steam engine pulling into Aidensfield station but what would be the point? Rather, I joyfully thank the enthusiasts who made the shooting of such scenes possible at all!

So, whilst I thank all those other reviewers who have educated me, fortunately, that education hasn't spoiled my enjoyment of "37 Days" one bit! I hope it will be available on DVD soon> I'll buy it.

On the story line, the only puzzling aspect for me was why on earth Britain felt any compunction to support France - a nation that had been a traditional enemy of theirs for centuries. I seemed to me that, had Britain simply acted as an observer, Germany wouldn't have had any reason to attack them as the disagreements were all continental. Also, it was really great that the story ended before America got involved and we were subjected to all the "swagger" that would have been associated with that!

I admit some of the Geman characters were a bit one dimensional but I wouldn't be so hard on this series as others. I really enjoyed it and missed it when it ended. It was educational, informative and entertaining. I am a fan of history so I might be a bit biased I admit but it was right up my street.

It isn't meant to be a high-budget American blockbuster, but a serious look at a side of the First World War that usually gets little coverage. OK the odd bit of dialogue was less than authentic - but a darn sight more authentic than all the massive bloopers in Downton Abbey! We all know about the battles and the casualties, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the Treaty of Versailles, but it is politicians who make wars. Politicians and human frailties. This series focuses on the politicians involved and shows how we come to war by degree and mis-interpretation and not by some big event.

As stated, the performances by the actors playing the English characters were great - understated and probably accurate.

I learnt a lot. Perhaps an abridged version would be useful in schools so those studying GCSE History can see that there was more to it than 'a bloke getting shot in the Balkans'.