Hollywood's Problem

I had no problem with Saving Private Ryan, it was an American story,Why would it have to show British contributions? then it would have to show Canadian ,Polish, Free French, etc, and then you are back to Th Longest Day which was not the scale of the picture Spielberg was trying to make. We have all been able to pick errors out of that movie, but I still think it is the best movie about men at war yet made.
U-571 is a whole other ball of wax. Did the filmakers think that no one would go see it if they did not have fine upstanding young american boys as the heroes? I think it is insulting to the Brave men who risked their lives in this cause, and to the movie going public who are,I think not nearly so shallow as the people making some of these movies

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Billy Bones:
I had no problem with Saving Private Ryan, it was an American story,Why would it have to show British contributions? then it would have to show Canadian ,Polish, Free French, etc, and then you are back to Th Longest Day which was not the scale of the picture Spielberg was trying to make. We have all been able to pick errors out of that movie, but I still think it is the best movie about men at war yet made.
U-571 is a whole other ball of wax. Did the filmakers think that no one would go see it if they did not have fine upstanding young american boys as the heroes? I think it is insulting to the Brave men who risked their lives in this cause, and to the movie going public who are,I think not nearly so shallow as the people making some of these movies<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One of the principal characters of the movie WAS Canadaian. The interpreter/clerk was a Canadian corporal.

 

Come on, U 571 wasnt THAT bad, was it?

You will know me as Mr. U 181 or Mr. Kriegsmarine, around here. (Explanations when I am asked)

The German U-boat vets I know and are friends with, actually liked U 571 better in some sases than Das Boot. They know Das Boot was more accurate, but they were disgusted in the way that many U-boat sailors were portrayed as nothing more than a common bunch of drunks, and were insulted at that.

However, their favorite U-boat movie is the classic Richard Widmark and Kurt Jurgens vehicle: "The Enemy Below" This is because it not only had great actors, but that Kurt Jurgens (The U-Boat Commander) he played the Kapitans part which was in reality, just like or very close to the way their Kapitan on U 181 was in life.. Soon you will see a section that will be on U 181 and the surviving vets who are good friends of mine.

As one can tell, I am very proud of my association with these vets. Also to bring the subject of Veterans to your attention--just in case you dont know but, there is a published address list on this site where you can write to appx 500 German ww2 vets, who are all Knights Cross Recipients. It is of course, located in the Veterans section.

 

It would have made a decent action adventure movie,IF they had removed all mention of it being based on reality, if they wanted to make a treu movie about american sub-mariners ewhy not pick one, I'm sure that the USN had just as many heroic figures and exciting tales to tell. Why steal one from the British

 

Yes but, they DID give the British credit for capturing the Enigma, and on a few occasions. This was at the very end of the movie. It as strictly an American movie, would not have seemed right, had they had any British heroes in it.

I for one, am all for having the facts all correct and the credit given to the people who deserve it, no matter who they are or where they come from.

But in the case of a fiction movie, it should not really matter, as long as there is the proper mention about the truths in real, life, and they did do that.

For over a year, I have tried to see just why so many folks are POed by the film, when (at least in the American version) they did give credit to the British, as it should have been.

 

C I agree with what your saying for the most part, and if that had been the claim ,that it was fiction, then fine it was an entertaining movie, although not nearly as good a submarine movie as Das Boot. But the movie was widely hyped as being "based on fact" If so, Why was the crew portrayed as american when in fact they were British. My point is the producers at some point made a callous decision to throw away the facts and make it an "american" movie in the hopes that more people would go see it.Solely so they could make more money. If everyone followed that line of thinking Enemy At The Gates would of been reworked so the heros were all american. It simply wasn't necissary in my opinion. To extrapolate Cross Of Iron could have become Medal of Honor with all the main characters as americans. Do you see my point?

 

Dear Billy, I do see your point, and it was based on a real incident, meaning the British capturing of the Enigma machine. You are mosy likely correct when saying that they put only Americans in the cast to be able to make more money.

The based on fact can be taken lightly. The only real fact in that movie was the capture of the Enigma. As an argument-it has to be admitted that it was based on a fact. If it were based on fact, then they would have had a British crew, not an American.

All I can say is that the producers of the movie wanted an Action adventure and not necessarily a true moves, even though the Enigma WAS captured more times by the British, and other nation.

I did enjoy the movie for the fact that it did tell a few moments of truth in something meant to be fiction based on a true event.

You can have the VERY same argument with the movie: Bridge on the River Kwai. That movie too, was a complete work of fiction based on one fact, that there was indeed a bridge built over the River Kwai by mostly British soldiers. There WERE a few Americans there also, but nowhere near the numbers of British and Commonwealth personnel.

Case in point, the part William Holden played, was meant to represent the small amount of Americans imprisoned there, and nothing else.

The real bridge was not destroyed by A British Colonel, or an Amertican Navy serviceman, but by high-flying bombers.

Im not trying to sound rude to you, just trying to let you see why, I have such a hard time understanding why there is so much hatred for the movie U 571?

I understand your point, but the bases were covered and Americans have never claimed to be the first to capture an Enigma, nor the only ones to do so.

You and I know so well, that the British captured the Enigma well before the USN did, and that the British captured more Enigmas than the USN did. That if the undenible fact.

I admit, I saw the movie twice, and I paid more attention to it the second time around, just to check on things I had heard that people didnt like about it, or were not clear on something.

As a militaria collector, I hated the fact that one of the "Germans" was wearing a one piece uniform, with the brest adler on the left side of the uniform. At that time, I had thought that was totally wrong, as all uniforms I have see, touched and or owned, all had the adler on the right just over the breast.

Well, 'lo and behold, I have seen original KM uboat photos (many are from my friends of U 181) and I have seen more than one photo, with the adler sewn over the wrong (left)breast. It was also against regulations to do so, but, on occasion, it did happen.

This is also true with cufftitles and Panzervernichtabziechen (Tank Destruction Badges) I have 2-3 photos of Knights Cross Recipients wearing that badge on the left arm, and one of them shows the TDBs just above their cufftitle.

Sorry for my lecture, I ramble on at times

 

OK C, point conceded. In fact I thought it was a decent movie. I have stated my objections to the premise. Or the motives behind the premise to be exact. That is in fact my only objection. Like I said, not a bad movie.

 

Dear Billy, no problem, and my EgO is still intact.

 

I can deal with minor historical inacuracies such as cufftitles, T-34 'Tigers', and bad launguage choices (EG- English voices on Russians!, ), but what really gets me mad is the constant showing of German sloppiness such as the final scene of SPR. It showed elite SS Grenadiers and tankers use woeful tactics attacking a village, and have three troops surrender to Upham! Upham for crying out loud!!!

That, and films such as Enemy at the Gates which only talked about German brutalities and never once mentioned the horrendous acts of barbarism displayed by Russian forces, which occured a heck of a lot more then on the German side!

 

Gibson, I agree with you, but you know that to Hollywood and the Simon Weisenthal folks, we are all evil, because we have an interest in ww2. THEY want to censor us all, and we NEED to make sure that does not happen. Tis against our Constitution.

Recently, the Corpus Christi Communists Patrol (A.K.A. The Public Library), LOST a battle to me about censoring and blocking not only this site, but the Wehrmacht-Awards and Decorations forum, Epier, A British militaria site! two Imperial German sites and at lease three other historical sites including one on the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

Well, after I threatened much mayhem these sites were restored on the public libraries computers. I WAS going to threated a Civil Lawsuit on the library system and the great City (nicht) of Corpus Chrisit, because of this direct violation of what the Constitution was all about. I even had some blood-sucking Leeches--er-I mean some lawyers who were going to take this case. Needless to say, we had a clear cut case and would have won in court.

Score of 1 for the Patriots, and o, for the CCCP.

 

Canadian corporal?!! Cpl.Upham was a Canadian corporal?! I didn't know that, now I'm trying to find a pic in the next few minutes to see if he has any Canadian or Commonwealth badges. Of course, I assume he was American since it was Omaha Beach and assign to them.
The only one you hate and have pity for at the same time after the killing scene of Private Mellish. I know it was a representation of the Western world's inital inaction/ignorace toward the Holocaust, but its still sucks to know that the only non-American in the group had to watch Mellish die and did nothing. Still a very interesting scene.

 

Hey Guys....Well carl I got you this time !.....It was Robert Michum that played the Destroyer skipper in "the enemy below", not Richard Windmark.....Just teasing. You know how much I respect your knowledge, and your contrabutions to this forum......another topic, I have always boycotted the movie "bridge on the river Kwie"(by the way it was not on that river)...the main reason is because this was one of the blackest pages in the war as far as the way the Japanese treated the Allied prisoners. If memory serves me, nearly 90,000 Burmese and some other Asians were not to survive the Camps along the route. They were simply worked and starved to death.....90,000....this movie shows none of the true brutality of the Japanese prisnor of war system. Many of the gards in these camps were Korean, not Japs. I guess they were considered to be infeior by the Japs, and they in turn treated the prisnors worse than dogs. And the Japs let them....Sir Alec Gunnise (?)is a surperb actor, but I was sorry to see him play this sorry roll.
.....An interesting footnote. When Pappy Boyington was shot down and captured, he mentioned how the frount line Japanese troops treated him very well, but the futher to the rear he was taken, the worse the treatment got(He ended up working in a mine in Japan, where an old womon smuggled him food. He belives he would have died otherwise.)..I think this is true in most cases I have heard of.Meaning for the most part, combat troops treat each other with a certain amount of respect, but the soldiers that have not seen action seem to be the sadistic ones.( always exceptions of course)
...I got off the subject dident I....I can tolarate some things in a movie not being just wright, but the bridge thing, went way to far in makeing a "feelgood" movie instead of telling the dirty truth......Well if you aint gonna tell it right, just sell cars for a liveing instead of directing movies.

 

whats this about Corpral whats his face being a Canadian?...He wears the 29th Division patch.

 

Actually Walt Bridge On The River Kwai was a pretty dark movie.It did show the troops being treated very inhumanly, up untill the point when they began to co-operate in the building of the bridge. The moral imbeguity from that point on in the movie is quite interesting. Up to the point that Alec Guiness's character even attempts to initially stop the commando's destruction of the bridge. All in all it was a pretty good war movie, an anti war movie really.

 

Your right Walt, I just looked on my copy. Maybe he was confused. The guy who played the sniper Barry Pepper is in fact a Canadian.(The buggers are everywhere)

 

I was gunna say because no-one, but no-one is nothing but American, German, Frainch or Czech in that classical movie!!!

 

Wait a sec.. what about the scene in Enemy at the Gates when the russian machine-gun crew mows down all their own soldiers?
Or coming across the Volga, when it shows russian commisars shooting their own soldiers?

And what german brutalities were shown in that movie?

Wow... there's a statement that needs backing up if I ever saw one!

 

I think - and hope - that we pay specially attention to the little details of WW2 movies.

In the details Hollywood makes a lot of mistakes.

A very good example is:
* Enemy at the gates: when the Russians (or Germans) are looking at the map of Europe Switzerland is coloured as German territory.

 

Hollywoods main problems are two:

-They tend to forget that many other nations fought and won WWII.
-And they tend to portrait Germans and Japanesse as incompetent bastards who cannot shoot an American in open field three metres away!

Albert: I knew about that, but I don't think that a map with a blank spot in the middle would look very good...