Ok Brits, lets debate this here...

Ok, I know you guys are pissed about the repeated "REDICULOUS, INFURIATING and frankly OFFENSIVE desicration of history" (Quoted Stefan) in HollyWood made warmovies. From what I gather, some of the more prominent films of the past few years in which you take offense are:

-Pearl Harbor
-Saving Private Ryan
-Band of Brothers
-U-571
-The Patriot

I shall comment on each.

Pearl Harbor

Ok, first off on a scale of 5 i would give the movie a 3. It seems the main issue you guys take with this movie lies in the scenes in which Ben Affleck is fighting for the RAF over the channel in what im asssuming (the films a bit fuzzy on that) the Summer of 1941, that would be the time when the British and Germans where one-upping eachother with the new Spitfire and Messershmidt/ Folke Wulf models and the Brits were still using Blenheims to break through German fighters on daylight raids on Luftwaffe airfields.

ANYWAYS, you guys gotta realize, the film IS NOT dissing Brits, do you guys NOT remember the newsreel clips shown in the movie? The ones PRAISING the British Pilots of the RAF? Sure Affleck downs an HE-111 and a couple of ME-109's
but remember, HE GETS SHOT DOWN! How many Brits were shown shot down on that mission?
NONE!

Again, im just saying its not as anti-Brit as you think it is.


Saving Private Ryan
Dude, its a movie ABOUT AMERICAN SOLDIERS ON THE SQUAD/ Platoon Level!!! They dont need to give special attention to the Brits and Canadians at Gold, Sword, and Juno. The movie isnt called, 'Saving Private Wadsworth'


Band of Brothers
Again, another movie focused on American troops on the TACTICAL level. Sure, theres that one scene in episode 4 where the British Tank commander gets pegged by the tigers because "He has orders not to destroy property" (Which btw, Could very well HAVE happened) But other than that one issue of doubt they do not make the Brits look bad. Hell, even when Easy company is sent to rescue some of the Red Devils, which by the way, REALLY HAPPENED, they make note that, "The Brits fought like Hell in Arnhem." Hmm, doesnt sounds demeaning to me...


U-571

Oooook, first off, this movie SUCKS. No arguement there, but you MIGHT want to remember, they Fricken said at the end of the movie "HEY THE BRITS WERE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY CAPTURED ENIGMA"
Let it go, it was a cheesy H-Wood piece of BS.


The Patriot

Ok, this one i was most surprised to hear to you guys cry foul on. The main gripe being with the Character of Colonel Tavington, and his ruthless plunder of the South Carolinian Countryside.

DID THAT NOT HAPPEN? Guess what boys, that character is based of British Dragoon officers THAT EMPLOYED THOSE TACTICS. Sure its not portraying you guys in the best light, BUT ITS REALISTIC!


All right, thats what i have for now, i might add more movies later, have at it!


Btw, i saw Zulu the other day, Great movie, whether its accurate or not, its a great show of that British Courage *which us Americas tought you at Cowpens and Yorktown*

The *'s indicate sarcasm and joking

CvM

[ 21. February 2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Carl G. E. von Mannerheim ]

 

Tho I aint British but, somewhere in the family we do have a few drops of British blood running through the veins. I would have to side with the feelings of our British Gentlemen on their feelings on all but one of the movies mentioned above.

 

Great films all of em Would have been even better with 'The Duke' in the lead roles.

What the hell has historical fact got to do with anything. (How the heck your directors/script writers have the face to claim your troops captured Enigma is beyond belief)

They are after all just for entertainment aren't they?

Don't worry if you see a couple of low budget Brit film claiming WE were the first to land on the moon and it was the Brits at the Alamo, Oh, and we Brits built the shuttle despite only having four trash cans and a mess of string for construction. (Facts!!!!! Bah Humbug)
Nuff said.


Regards Graham

 

Anyone who paid a tad of attention in history at school should appreciate Hollywood does not equal historical fact. The war went on for 6 years and there were many incredible, heroic and compassionate deeds done on all sides.

If Hollywood wants to fabricate events, which inevitably must contain a fragment of fact somewhere, then they have no right to do this at the expense of real life people who made the achievement and probably died in the process. Better to invent some totally fictitious action and have GI Joe biting the tracks off a King Tiger with his teeth!

It appears far easier for the overpaid nurds to sit around having ‘creative ideas’, (which all their lackeys are obliged to praise to high heaven), than actually do meaningful research. There really are American war heroes that don’t need Hollywood BS, but, some fuzz-faced lovie looks at the script and say; “How about if we give him a dozen more MG’s to wipe out and a few tanks and a troop train, 14 dive bombers and maybe an aircraft carrier?”, and all the nunces go “Gee, that’s great – how do you do it boss!”

Unfortunately this demeans the real men and the real things they did.

Something like the farcical Enigma film is far worse because in the second capture on , 24th October 1942 off Port Said with U-599, Lt. Anthony Fasson and AB Colin Grazier died in trying to remove more documents, (Canteen Assistant Tommy Brown the only survivor).

And, while about it, what was the point of Ted Danson in SPR coming out with the statement that ‘Monty is over-rated’? Added a lot to the film that did (apart from being green-eyed bollocks).

No.9

 

No.9, good points, I am of the personal belief however that monty was overrated

CvM

 

I do have to interject here on the Patriot note. The Brits do have good right to be somewhat peed off by this movie. First, the dashing Cavalry officer you refer to is Banastre Tarleton, who Tavington is based off. But the only thing that earned him his nickname Bloody Ban was his tendency to not take prisoners, but he did on occasion. He didn't do ANY of the atrocities he is shown doing in the movie with the exception of having the Rebel wounded kill, and in reality he did take prisoners every once in awhile. He did live through the war (even his disastrous loss at Cowpens, where he was in command), and lived out the rest of his life in England, not disgraced except for the stain of Cowpens, and was even elected to Parliament.
And to further make some brits mad over their guy being so evil, Benjamin Martin is made to be a saint, while the man he is based of off (Forgot the first name) Mariom was the furthest thing from it, he raped female slaves of his and was even more cut throat then movie-Tavington was. This turning of the tables is kind of annoying to say the least.

Other historical inaccuracies
1. The French did not finally show up during the end at Yorktown in 1781, in fact the French along with the Spanish arrived in 1778.
2. It is unclear what battle is at the end. Both Cornwallis and Nathaniel Greene are here, indicating Guilford Court House, as neither of these commanding generals was at Cowpens. But Guilford courthouse has no ruined house on the field, and was in fact quite wooded, and also, the Patriot forces fled the field, they didn't push the British off. But Cowpens was an open field, but neither Greene or Cornwallis was there, but Tarleton was (He was commanding the British), but Tarleton wasn't at Guilford courthouse, and the Rebels did defeat the British tactically at Cowpens. But in the credits an actor is labeled as "Cowpens Soldier" if so, they failed to show an accurate account of Cowpens.
3. All the soldiers are English, where are the Scottish who were present during the Carolinas campaigns, especially at the final battle they should be there. The Hessians were in the North so it is correct that they are not represented.
4. Where did Mel Gibson get the flag at the end from? Until the Civil War the colors were not carried into battle for fear of capture, they would be far in the rear.

 

I'm waiting to see if Billy Fiske/Tom Cruise can win the Battle of Britain for us. Of course, given the current political climate, the Luftwaffe may well be 'airbrushed' and appear instead as the Armee de l'Air ....

 

Did I really say that? Sounds too eloquent.

Pearl Harbour, I object to the movie because it is rubbish!

Saving Private Ryan, its good as war movies go, though it has LOADS of HUGE mistakes that are unrelated to what is being discussed here.

Band of Brothers, I object to the fact that the only British troops in it are either toffy nosed tits or cockneys. I have never really complained about it though as a series because I like it and we do get some credit.

U-571, you might want to remember that in a time when kids believe hollywood is history and leave cinemas as soon as the screen goes dark who is going to see the tiney note at the end?

The Patriot, I remember reading somewhere that the character Gibsons character was based on actually committed as many atroceties as the British are portraded committing in the show. To be frank though it doesn't bother me as a film because a) it is REALLY bad and b) what do you expect from Mel Gibson. I am waiting to see what would happen if we made a version of the movie called 'The Traitor' about a terrorist who mutinied against his nation and government, it would be funny to say the least. Just kidding guys .

As for Zulu, its ok, though having talked to people who have visited the battlefield and researched into it it seems the walls of the real mission were 10 feet high and the only way the Zulus got onto the top was through climbing over their dead comrades. The only reason so many VC's were awarded was to distract people from the horrendous defeat that preceeded it.

 

Hollywood makes films... They aint ever gonna get it right but I think we should be happy they at least try to give us something to chew over!

On the point of Zulu they won so many VC cos they bloody deserved them, and the govt of the day never attempted a cover up of Isandalawana, but Rorkes Drift was glorified to show the ability of the British soldier and take peoples minds of the fact that a thousand or so british soldiers died for reasons of an over extended line and poor quality ammunition...

 

Not saying they weren't deserved but part of the glorification was the issue of so many VC's for a single action.

 

Well, I haven't seen Pearl Harbour or U-571 so I won't comment on either.

Band of Brothers is a GREAT series. When I first saw it advertised, I thought "modern-day 'Combat' rip-off" (gives age away here.....), but it's the most realistic programme I've seen in a long time.

The Patriot was just a bloody awful Braveheart cash-in, designed for the hard of thinking. It'll probably appeal to the guy who told me (in another forum)that "the Corn Laws legally starved Ireland during the Famine". Now, considering the Corn Laws were abolished in 1834, and the Famine was 1845......

SPR's good, but many British families lost all their sons without this kind of rule being in place (as far as know). Just seems a typical Yank idea.
On a different note, in 1945 my old man was home on leave and stormed out of the cinema during Objective Burma. He still refuses to watch it as he says it shows America winning the war single-handed!

Regards,
Gordon

 

Nice discussion!

"Pearl Harbour"'s issue is that the Battle of Britain should not have been portrayed in the film in the first place. It's a very extense and important subject on its own to be denigrated by some stupid Hollywood producers who wanted to 'kill' Ben Affleck in a war... The script is awful, the research is bad and the film is not objective at all. In a 10 scale it gets a mediocre 7...

"Saving Private Ryan" has no problem within this thread.

Nor does "Band of Brothers". The British portrayed there only play their actual part in real History, 'red devils' being rescued and British armoured troops being smashed by Bittrich's Panzers.

"U-571" has no excuse at all. That is changing History in such unrealistic way which is insulting. I was very angry when I heard the intelligence officer say: "This 'type-writer' is costing us this war". Who is us?! The USA?! Indeed, they were going to starve and make peace with Hitler because of some U-boats... The film is CRAP! Wouldn't it have been more realistic that they go into British waters and are attacked by British who take them for Germans? No, I don't think that not killing nazis is politically correct...

"The Patriot" (even if I like it as a fiction story) is an insult to the British and to History. Making British élite troops do an Oradour-sur-Glane in a church in South Carolina which DID NOT happen in reality is a vile insult and even more, when the actual mand that is represented by Mel Gibson comitted even more attrocities in reality than the British.

I know that's sarcasm, but even if Americans are good warriors, they win their wars because of luck, becuase during their revolution and independence they lost 90% of the battles... the problem was that the 10% were the decisive ones...

 

Actually it's not the British who torch the church, it's Americans. The officer who throws the first torch is a Loyalist American officer, as for the infantry, it's not clearly said whether they are Loyalist infantry or not, but the uniforms seem to indicate British Infantry. They are most definitely not Tarleton's soldiers though, as Tarletons rangers wore Green coats, not the British red, in the movie this is only partially shown as some times you can see green along the lines of Tavington's uniform, in case you missed who he is based off of.

 

My views on these Hollywood movies in reply to Carl C.E. Mannerheim

As Hollywood films go, I would agree it doesn't insult us Brits to any greater degree than most other movies.
However it does insult the memory of a small group of Americans who we Brits hold in high regard. That is the American volunteers who joined the RAF/RCAF in the dark days of 40/41, by the act of having the hero who is a member of the USAAF being assigned to the Eagle Squadrons.
This is a base LIE, at no time did a single serving or ex-USAAF pilot EVER serve in a Eagle Squadron, they were all civilian volunteers.

Saving Private Ryan
As a Brit I have no axe to grind with this film at all. As you stated it is in an American sector so the fact there are no Brits in it causes me no problems

Band of Brothers
Thanks to the help of Ambrose, it does have a slight anti-Monty/British bias,but it is only noticeable in the Arnhem episode, otherwise an excellent series

U-571

But only because one of the men who actually captured the Enigma was still alive, and created such a PR stink that the producers were forced to put on that credit.

The Patriot

Total and utter Bollocks.
Hate this film, its just one lie after another.
Mel Gibson is a complete Ars*-**le

 

WRT "Patriot"

No kidding: I actually watched that film from exactely this POV: Mel Gibson the terrorist oops: "freedom fighter", who is murdering people who are just loyal to the authority in place
out of personal or idological reasons.

But, as a cold comfort for our Brits out there, remember it could have come even worse:

Mel Gibson in "The Patriot": The story of an IRA freedom fighter in his honerable fight for the liberation of Northern Ireland.


Unfortunately we don't have any Vietnamese poster here who might have to say some words about the "REDICULOUS, INFURIATING and frankly OFFENSIVE desicration of history" in HollyWood made Vietnam war movies (Rambo, Dudikoff, the 'Nam series and many other).

Cheers,

[ 08. January 2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

Well,
On a similar note, its disturbing how many pro-IRA sites there are which are STILL being run by Americans...despite all the whingeing about "fighting world terrorism" since September 11th!
All the rhetoric about "fighting British Imperialism" bored people in the '70's, never mind now.

Regards,
Gordon

 

About the film the Patriot it is a total deriliction of history. The character Gibson plays was a ruthless man who committed as many attrocities as the british. Tarleton, who tavington is supposed to represent, only retaliated to what the americans were commiting themselves.

 

I don't wanna tick you UK guys off by saying this but, Tarlton was nothing but a miserable murderer.

 

Carl that is slightly hard on Tarleton. Read this:

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/merseyhersoc/tarletonslegion.html

Here is a passage from this which is typical of Tarletons rule of the legion.

'It happened soon after the advance guard crossed the Roanoke River in Virginia. The Legion was overtaken on the road by a group of local people accompanied by Cornwallis himself, with six dragoons of his guard. The country folk had a tale of rape and robbery to tell. Tarleton promptly ordered his troops to dismount and line up, so that the witnesses could pick out - these are Tarleton's own words - "the villains who committed (these) atrocious outrages." A sergeant and a dragoon were accused, taken to Halifax, Virginia, tried by court-martial and condemned to death. Let me quote Tarleton again - "The immediate infliction of the sentence exhibited to the army and manifested to the country the discipline and justice of the British general." He might well have added, "and of the British Legion."'

 

Pearl Harbor- this movie stole two hours of my life.. and i want them back.. one of the worst films its ever been my dishonor to sit through.. i remember sitting in the theater and feeling really embarrassed because i knew brits would watch that RAF officer say "if all americans are liek you then god help whoever goes to war with the yanks.." <retch>
Saving Private Ryan- an american unit in an american sector in an american battle (omaha) really i think the brits complained about this one just cuz they felt like it was their duty. the only problem i have with it is the coxswains should have been british
U-571 - tripe.. utter, utter tripe
what i want to know is how are americans portrayed in british films? in the ones i've seen they are portrayed no better.. if at all.
i think is cases liek U-571 british anger is definitely justified.. otherwise i think you guys make way too much out of it