I know U-571 is about capturing the German enigma which the British obtained first, and the US didn't capture one until 1944. There are plenty of other movies like Patton that make little mention of what the other countries did. So, why don't these other countries make their own movies and correct the historical inaccuracies?
It's not for the want of trying.
The problem is the main studios who release and market the films are all American, and since British films with an entirely British or European cast dealing with British/European subjects don't play well in the backwaters of the US, they don't get released or receive finance.
A good example would be the film "Memphis Belle". The original script and idea from the British director (Michael Cayton-Jones) was entirely based around an RAF Lancaster bomber squadron, but Warner Studios wanted it to feature American pilots and demanded a script change or they would pull out of the project stating that "It's full of Brits and what does the American market care about British things?". Consequently the entire film was reworked.
More recently, the soon-to-be-released film "The Few" starring Tom Cruise was only able to deal with the Battle of Britain if the main character was Billy Fiske, one of the seven Americans who took part in it. It was previewed to a large proportion of the battle's veterans...who were so disgusted by it's content and treatment of British,Canadian,Australian,New Zealand,Polish and Czech pilots, every one of them walked out, calling the film a travesty.
We all do it. All countries lionize their own people and discount other. Clearly U-571 is not historically accurate - is any war film? The British have made plenty of movies. For example, the Battle of the River Plate is shown as a British victory, and yet there was a New Zealand ship there too, a major player. This ship is totally ignored. The film "A Bridge too Far" is told from a purely British perspecive. It is portrayed as a British Victory and the Germans are shown as buffoons. The film Patton does show the efforts of others, and is quite scathing of the Americans, including Patton himself. It is far more historically accurate than most British war movies.
Why should people have to correct the inaccuracies spread about them by others?
Some American films are excellent, well researched and accurate. Most aren't though, they're poorly written, not researched at all and totally fictional, even when they're claiming to be factual.
The issue also lies with big US studios putting out these films, people pay to see them (goodness knows why) , they aren't going to pay to see a film about roughly the same subject a few months later are they? Which means no studio would bankroll them and they don't get made.
Also to the cretin above making comments about 'Limey's blah blah' you might want to look at some history books before you bump your retarded gums.
The phrase 'The sun never sets on the British Empire' didn't appear out of nowhere you know.
Yep the Dambusters! and
Bridge over the River Kwai
Raid on Rommel
Play Dirty (with Michael Caine, the end always gets me)
Cockleshell Heroes to name but a few.
not WWII but you cant have your war Film Collection without Zulu! One of our colonial campaigns old boy.
There is also the fact that Hollywood dominates the mvie industry which is whey you get distortions such as U571 which I refuse to watch and The Patriot which is pretty thin on facts. The fact is that facts don't sell, scripts do!
As an "ad endum" here to the fat man and little boy, we had an empire that lasted over three hundred years, the USA has been trying to play at this for the last forty years which has amounted to nothing more than you losing sordid little wars; Korea, Vietnam,Somalia,Iraq and probably Afghanistan. Who's help do YOU ask for these days?
go watch Passchendaele
Canadian movie about the Royal Canadian Regiment over in europe WWI at the battle of Passchendaele. people say Canada is a pushover country and can't stand on her own two feet thats a huge historical inaccuracy :)
so yes other countries have made their own movies :)
there are way too many incorrect historical inaccuracies to correct, and you simply can't do it by a making a movie
hollyy
We do make our own, or at least we did, but America came to dominate the entertainment world and films depicting British people fighting in WW2 that dont involve some kind of appearance of the Yanks to save the day didn't sell very well in the US.
With Hollywood becoming the giant of the film industry it did and making films with much larger budgets than the British Film industry had while also aiming their films at American audiences the British films fell out of favor and all but dissapeared and were consigned to the annuals of history.
Its kind of a reflection on the American psyche that almost every English actor in American films has to be the bad guy or some kind of comedy relief while the Americans get cast as dashing heroes.
So, why don't these other countries make their own movies and correct the historical inaccuracies?
Possibly because they don't have the largest worldwide production of movies and also they dont want to offend Americans (who like being depicted as heroes who save the day all the time).
Other countries have there own movies, they just don't get seen by many people. And other countrys don't blow there own selfish trumpets.
And the nuclear bomb named guy, your an idiot i really hope north korea bomb you guys see what damage it can do on your own stuck up kind. it'll do the world a favour at the very least.
I am afraid you have been misinformed although of not the extravagance of American movies none the less exceptional British movies of our efforts were mad . The cruel sea , above us the waves , went the day well, dambusters, The desert fox, Penny field ,They were not divided, The man who never was, D Day, The battle of Britain,Frogmen,Sink the Bismark, These are just a few of the top of my head there are many many more .
Makes sense that American film companies would make movies focusing on American soldiers since their biggest market is the US. The British actually get pretty good representation in US movies compared to the other allies (the Russians, who fought longer and lost far more troops than any other allied nation, have had far less representation). We make up for it with 007 movies.
We've made some of the best war FILMS. They tell the truth. The American war films look like Disney creations with them doing all the killing and suffering no casualties. They don't show that they were very late entering the Second World War and that they only joined because Pearl Harbour was bombed. It makes me laugh when they tell us that they saved our 'asses' (ie arses). They only joined when they had to and for their own reasons. Even now, they excel at killing their allies in 'friendly' fire incidents.
There are hundreds of British made historically accurate WW2 films, we don't tend to alter what happened to make it more appealing to an audience as a rule (I will point out that SOME uk made films have warped history)
Why don't you guys look outside your own country?
British Film companies have churned out hundreds of films of the Exploits of our troops and navy as well as the RAF.
dambusters. Bridge on the River Kwai, Above us the waves, Sink the Bismark, etc. to name a few.
They do. It's just the the cable channels don't show them. One that comes to mind was "Sink the Bismark"1960.
BDB (Big Dumb Blockbusters) are what bring people to the cinema, they require lots of cash which UK studios don't have.
Have you not seen The Dambusters?
We Brits have made plenty of war movies, but since few of them show Americans in them, they will be of little interest to an American audience. You've got to remember that UK was in WW2 from 1939 and that American GIs did not arrive here in UK until January/February 1942 - but, better late than never.
Strange thing is that the Americans wanted to go straight on over and hit the Germans hard right away. Churchill had to explain that we were not ready yet and it would take a couple more years to build up Allied strength etc.
There are a lot of misconceptions about WW2 and one of them is not knowing that the US was deeply committed to helping UK from day one.
The Eagle Squadron Royal Air Force was manned entirely by American volunteers - this is before USA was officially in the war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z2fVNnI6鈥?/a>
I was born in 1941 and grew up with this sort of thing.
Here's the famous "London Can Take It" newsreel, shot by an American company here in London during the London Blitz of 1940-1941
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mXGy38xL鈥?/a>
Here's a Brit War movie - "The Malta Story" - the people of Malta withstood the Nazi bomber raids on their island and their bravery was rewarded by the King who awarded them the George Medal for bravery in the face of the enemy.
MALTA GC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7oGZm8Pc鈥?/a>
Something I did discover yesterday in my newspaper concerning D-Day minus One. The British SOE [Strategic Operations Executive] went in to France by parachute with lots of ammo etc in order to organise the French Resistance [Armee Secret] - also with the SOE were a large number of Americans. Thus we had the Brits and the Americans going in a day or maybe more than a day before the actual D-Day offensive. Stiring stuff.
I'll tell you another thing too. It was the Armee Secret plus front line American forces which liberated the city of Paris. The Communists took the surrender of the German garrison of Paris three hours before de Gaulle arrived, he was furious and ordered the surrender to be done all over again for the cameras.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2AzdkxO0鈥?/a>
WW2 in Europe is a massive story. It was a joint effort by the Allies - lead by the Americans with Ike in charge etc. But as in any democracy there were the usual rivalries and plots etc.
One of the best was a bet that Winston had with Patton in that he, Winston would be across the Rhine first. Ha! I've seen film of Winston almost running past Patton as they go over the Rhine on a pontoon bridge. Patton makes no effort to get in front, which no doubt he could easily have done.
Anyway, we all know the rivalries, the political plottings and all the rest and how Patton was gonna race to Berlin and kick the Hell out of the Krauts etc. Meanwhile Montgommery wanted to be there first and came up with a plan called "Operation Market Garden" through Holland - what the Americans call "A Bridge Too Far". Well, anyone can make a mistake and no harm in trying.
Actually I think "Operation Market Garden" was a plan concoted by Winston a notorious risk taker - but we won't go into that.
Winston carried a pistol everywhere, as he once said, "take one with you", meaning kill one Kraut each and soon there will be none of them left. He also wanted to turn Germany into one massive potatoe farm.
What happened to that?
Oh well. . .history etc.
Don't know how they can do that They all have different opinions The old people say we save them during and after the war Just read a post by Timmy who said the brits agreed to give up their empire if we saved them Read others that said we really didn't do anything they [brits] won the war in europe and we only waited till we know they were winning
all I have to say is limey bastards can't even win a world war without help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment