When Sam Mendes’ 1917 hit theaters in late 2019, audiences were immediately swept into the mud, terror, and chaos of World War I. Told in what appears to be one continuous, unbroken shot, the film follows two young British soldiers—Lance Corporals Blake and Schofield—tasked with carrying a vital message across no man’s land to prevent 1,600 men from charging into a German trap.
The movie earned critical acclaim, sweeping the Oscars for cinematography, sound, and visual effects. But while audiences left theaters in awe of the technical brilliance, historians and military enthusiasts couldn’t help but ask: how accurate was it really?
The short answer? 1917 captures much of the look, feel, and horror of the Great War with remarkable authenticity. Yet, like any Hollywood production, it also bends facts and exaggerates events for drama.
Let’s dig in: here are five things the movie nailed—and five places where it strayed from history.
The Things 1917 Got Right
1. The Landscape of the Western Front
One of the most striking achievements of 1917 is its landscape. From endless trenches stretching across the earth like open scars, to the barren, crater-pocked wastelands of no man’s land, the movie’s set design was painstakingly accurate.
Historians praised the depiction of desolation—fields stripped bare by artillery, corpses half-buried in mud, and shattered trees jutting out like skeletal remains. Mendes and his crew studied historical photographs from the Imperial War Museum, ensuring the geography reflected the devastation of northern France in 1917.
It’s no accident the terrain feels suffocating and alien—because for the men who fought there, it truly was.
2. The Use of Messengers
The premise of 1917—two men sent to deliver a critical message across enemy lines—may sound like a dramatic contrivance, but it was entirely realistic. During World War I, communication was one of the army’s greatest struggles. Radios were unreliable, often bulky, and vulnerable to interception. Telephone wires could be cut by shellfire in an instant.
As a result, runners—ordinary soldiers carrying written orders—were often the most reliable way to get urgent messages through. Thousands of young men risked their lives sprinting across trenches and shellfields to keep the chain of command intact.
In fact, Mendes’ inspiration came from a story his grandfather told him, about serving as a messenger in the war.
3. The Dirt, the Rats, the Misery
Life in the trenches was filthy, grim, and relentless. Soldiers battled lice infestations, trench foot, contaminated water, and swarms of rats fattened on corpses. Mendes doesn’t sanitize any of this—viewers see rats skittering across bodies, swollen cows rotting in fields, and soldiers scraping mud from their rifles.
This authenticity makes the movie visceral. Audiences don’t just watch the story—they feel it. The sense of exhaustion, cold, and claustrophobia are true to the lived experiences of millions of men who endured those conditions.
4. The German Retreat to the Hindenburg Line
The backdrop of 1917 is based on a real event: the German army’s tactical withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line in spring 1917.
Rather than being a chaotic retreat, this was a carefully planned maneuver by German generals to shorten their defensive line and consolidate their forces. As the Germans pulled back, they destroyed bridges, poisoned wells, and laid traps to slow Allied pursuit.
The movie reflects this well—the abandoned German trenches, booby-trapped bunkers, and scorched-earth fields match what British soldiers actually encountered during the advance.
5. The Horror of No Man’s Land
Perhaps no part of 1917 is more haunting than the scenes where Blake and Schofield cross no man’s land. The eerie quiet, broken only by the crunch of boots in mud, creates unbearable tension.
Historians agree this atmosphere was spot-on. No man’s land was not simply a battlefield; it was a graveyard. Corpses lay unburied for months, mud sucked men down like quicksand, and barbed wire snarled across craters. Soldiers who survived crossing it often described it as the closest thing to hell on earth.
Mendes’ decision to linger in these moments pays off—it forces the audience to grapple with the terrifying vulnerability of being utterly exposed between two armies.
The Things 1917 Got Wrong
1. The “One Continuous Shot” Illusion
While breathtaking as a cinematic device, the single-shot presentation has one major drawback: it compresses time. In reality, Schofield’s journey would have taken much longer than the film suggests. Covering miles of terrain, sneaking through enemy lines, and enduring multiple near-death experiences—all in one day—strains credibility.
Soldiers often spent days moving messages through dangerous areas, with frequent stops, delays, and changes of route. The ticking-clock tension works brilliantly for storytelling, but it’s not historically realistic.
2. The Heroic Lone Wolf Trope
Schofield’s solo run at the end—charging across open ground while shells fall around him—is visually stunning, but also misleading. World War I was defined by massed action, not lone heroics.
Individual feats of bravery certainly happened, but the war’s scale and machinery often swallowed such moments. More often, orders were relayed and carried out by entire units, not one exhausted private sprinting alone through a battlefield.
In truth, a runner might have handed the message to successive messengers, each covering part of the distance, rather than completing it in one go.
3. The Unrealistic Encounters
From a dogfight crashing conveniently near Schofield, to a burning town crawling with Germans, the string of events often feels contrived. Historians point out that while these incidents could have happened individually, the odds of one man experiencing them all in 24 hours is vanishingly small.
In other words, 1917 condenses a wide range of wartime experiences into one man’s journey for dramatic effect. This is effective cinema, but not true to the randomness of the battlefield.
4. Clean Uniforms and Perfect Teeth
Yes, the movie shows mud and grime—but eagle-eyed historians noticed the soldiers’ uniforms were sometimes cleaner than they should have been. The actors’ teeth also appear suspiciously white for men who had lived on canned beef and cigarettes for months.
While this might seem nitpicky, small details matter in immersion. In reality, trench soldiers were rarely well-groomed, and hygiene was minimal.
5. The Speed of the Message Delivery
The central premise—that two men could prevent a doomed assault by racing a message across no man’s land—feels thrilling, but overly simplified. Military orders were rarely based on a single messenger’s survival. Commanders often sent multiple runners, or used pigeons, telephones, and even signal flares to increase the odds of delivery.
By hinging the fate of 1,600 men on one message, the film exaggerates the fragility of communication. The truth is that the British army, despite its flaws, was more redundant in its methods than the movie portrays.
Why the Balance Works
Despite these inaccuracies, 1917 succeeds because it captures the spirit of the Great War. Its immersive visuals, relentless pace, and raw attention to detail transport viewers into the mud and blood of 1917 France.
The inaccuracies? They serve the drama. The filmmakers weren’t aiming to create a documentary, but to evoke the emotions of fear, chaos, and sacrifice. And on that front, the movie succeeds brilliantly.
As military historian Alex von Tunzelmann put it:
“1917 is not a literal account of events, but it is true to the experience of soldiers at the time. It feels real, and that is its greatest achievement.”
Conclusion: A Film That Honors the Past
1917 is a movie about memory, legacy, and sacrifice. Mendes based it on his grandfather’s recollections—not to tell a precise story of one event, but to pay tribute to the countless nameless men who risked everything in the mud of France.
It may not be perfect history, but it’s powerful storytelling. And in many ways, that’s exactly what keeps the memory of the Great War alive more than a century later.
Sources
- Imperial War Museum Archives – “The Western Front, 1917”
- Hastings, Max. Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War. Vintage, 2014.
- Sheffield, Gary. Forgotten Victory: The First World War—Myths and Realities. Headline, 2001.
- Gilbert, Martin. The First World War: A Complete History. Holt, 1994.
- Tunzelmann, Alex von. “1917 Review – Great War Film Stuns with Realism.” The Guardian, 2019.
History in 5 Minutes or less 
Leave a comment