 sj |
||
|
||
U571: what is it about the Yanks?
|
|
|
Subject: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Steve Parkes Date: 12 Jun 00 - 03:50 AM I know a lot of brave men and women went through a great deal of pain and suffering and more in the Second world War, and helped to make sure the Good Guys won; which might not have happened if they hadn't. Free people in Europe are aware of the the debt we owe to everyone, whichever side of the Pond, civilian or service. What is starting to get up the noses of many of us is this: America has plenty of thunder of its own - why do your movie makers feel obliged to steal ours? We know who captured the German Navy's Enigma codes, but I suspect a lot of people over there don't. Ignorancemay be forgivable, but willful misinformation isn't. What's going to be next? How the US Mercantile Marine rescued the American troops from Dunkirk? How the USAF saved the day in the Battle of Britain? |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: sledge Date: 12 Jun 00 - 03:56 AM AS an Ex-matelot, to see the heroism of the crew of HMS Petard Shanghaied in such a shallow way really "grips my shit" as we used to say, but what does Hollywood care if it turns a Buck at the end of the day. BASTARDS. Nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Ringer Date: 12 Jun 00 - 05:00 AM Surely, the point is that it's a good yarn. If it's not absolutely correct historically, does it matter? |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: The Shambles Date: 12 Jun 00 - 06:00 AM My thanks to all those that perished or suffered in that conflict, to ensure that we all had the freedom to make and watch films about it. Whatever part of the world they came from. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler Date: 12 Jun 00 - 06:56 AM Steve'll be too young to remember that great film epic where Errol Flynn won the Burma Campaign single-handed! WE get our own back by supplying classical actors to play Hollywood villains so they can afford to come back here and take low-paid stage roles! RtS :oD |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,Aldus Date: 12 Jun 00 - 07:22 AM Actually we are making a film about how we won the American Revoloution and the hero is Benedict Arnold...what do you think Bald Eagle, accuracy be damned. I too find this film an offence...But I suppose that a country who has manufactured huge chunks of its own history, sees nothing wrong with stealing someone elses. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: sophocleese Date: 12 Jun 00 - 08:22 AM All of the above being said its also an lousy movie, even if Harvey Keitel is in it. "Start the engines! Play the music!" |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: A Wandering Minstrel Date: 12 Jun 00 - 08:29 AM This movie is just total pants. It's an insult to HMS Bulldog and HMS Amethyst who actually did capture the U571 and the objective was for Lt Balme to get the "offizier" code books. The british already had two machines. The german crew were taken off and interned for the period and the u-boat was then scuttled. nobody stayed aboard or tried to sail it away. What makes it even worse is that until about 1944 the US high command regularly refused to believe the intelligence that Bletchley was sending them from Enigma sources!!! The next thing you know some Yank will have invented the Spitfire! |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 12 Jun 00 - 08:47 AM At least at the end of the movie credit was given to the Royal Navy. One must not forget that it was the bravery of many nations that ultimately brought about the defeat of the Nazis. In 1938 a brave Polish mechanic was responsible for bringing the exsistance of the Enigma/Ultra machine to "friendly" intelligence services. Books I recommend to anyone interested in reading about this subject are: The Ultra Secret by F.W. Winterbottom CBE. A Man Called Interpid by William Stevenson A History of British Secret Service by Richard Deacon
Our Comradeship |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: sledge Date: 12 Jun 00 - 09:06 AM The facts: The code books from U110 captured 9.5.41 by HMS Bulldog and Hms Aubretia. The code books and settings from U559 captured 30.10.42 by HMS Petard, two men drowned when the boat suddenly sank before they could get clear. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: kendall Date: 12 Jun 00 - 09:31 AM Hollywood has never been concerned with the truth. We Yanks have learned to live with it, but, it still fries my ass to see them going this far. I'm an historian, and, I dont care who is doing it...a lie is a god damn lie..period. I have vowed to not watch this piece of trash. My own apologies to the Brits, for what they are worth. (Please dont burn the White House again, OK?) |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,Dave Date: 12 Jun 00 - 09:47 AM The movie U571 not withstanding, the US Navy did capture the U505, including her codebooks, and sail her to an allied port. She is currently on exhibit at a museum in Chicago, IL. The wirship involved, a pocket carrier under the command of Rear Admiral Dan Gallery, came upon the U505 while she was recharging her batteries on the surface, if memory serves. After a brief surface battle, the German crew set scuttling charges and surrendered, abandoning their boat to her fates. A specially detailed and trained crew boarded her, closed seacocks, defused the scuttling charges, "rescued" her code books and took her as a prize. I'm not sure if she repaired to a US port or one in Bermuda, but she ended up as an exhibit in Chicago. This story originally was published in Colliers, a now defunct US magazine, and subsequently retold in one of Gallery's autobiographical novels. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Gary T Date: 12 Jun 00 - 10:00 AM Echoing Kendall, Hollywood routinely corrupts history, and we've grown largely inured to it, though it often gets mentioned in passing in film reviews. Of course they have their reasons. Those reasons seem to be essentially based on trying to make a ton of money and assuming that the average filmgoer has the intelligence of a swamp turtle. Unfortunately, the occasional well-crafted, thoughtful, intelligent film usually goes down in flames at the box office, even if it is highly praised by both the critics and the viewers. Same thing happens in our network TV programming. (Sigh) That's Show Business! |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: BanjoRay Date: 12 Jun 00 - 10:10 AM You'll find the story of the U505 here . I don't know the plot of U571, so I don't know whether this bears any relation to it. Cheers Ray |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Gervase Date: 12 Jun 00 - 10:16 AM As a Brit, Could I offer this letter received (and, thankfully published) by my own newspaper today, which should make us all think a little harder before grabbing the glory for anything... "How could the horrid Americans steal all the credit for Enigma?" cried all the critics, including Alexander Walker, about the film U-571 (Trojan Horse under water, 1 June). Easy - they just followed the example of the British who have been stealing Polish thunder since the war. Marian Rejewski and his team of cryptologists in the Polish Government Cypher Office first broke the Enigma code in 1938, having worked on it since 1932. In 1939, when they realised Poland was about to fall, the Poles handed over an Enigma machine they had built, together with all their research, calculations and findings, to a General Stewart Menzies, on 16 August at Victoria Station. The British staff hurriedly recruited for Blechley Park then went on to break the successive refinements that the Germans introduced throughout the war. At its height there were 7000 staff employed at Bletchley Park. Along with Alan Turing, named as one of the two most important mathematicians employed there, was Gordon Welchman, whose life was nothte stuff that TV films are made of and therefore is also doomed to be unacknowledged. The machine and code book captured by the British Navy (subject of the Hollywood film) helped them crack the variant used by the German Navy. Other countries also worked on Enigma variations, including the Americans who tackled and cracked the Japanese version PURPLE - which they naturally claim was the most complex of all and the most difficult to crack. The heroes of Enigma are many and international but the man who first broke Enigma was a Pole. Perhaps now that we all know how it feels to have thunder stolen, future English writers and journalists will give credit where credit is due. Ewa Lipniacka, Polish Library, Polish Social and Cultural Centre, King Street, W6. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 12 Jun 00 - 11:18 AM Gervase, makes a good point mates. Poland deserves a big hand of applause for its contribution to the WWII effort. Ever read about the Polish submarine Sokol? A very distinguished war service record. Yours,(give credit where credit is due) Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: paddymac Date: 12 Jun 00 - 11:37 AM I think I can hear the ship's bells in the background, thus making this a musical thread. But that aside, it represents one of the things I cherish about Mudcat - the opportunity to learn, even if in what some might consider an obtuse fashion. Thanks to all! |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Rick Fielding Date: 12 Jun 00 - 11:45 AM Canadians have been looking for years with jaundiced eyes at the way history has been re-written for the movies. In the flicks, the Yanks even won the War of 1812! And that takes some SERIOUS messing with reality. Perhaps the funniest fantasies were those "Mountie" movies with jolly Canuck law enforcement guys (with American accents) patrotically wearing their neon-red dress uniforms to track down evil French-Canadian trappers with names like Jaques Le Rubberboot! About 15 years ago in a truly bizarre situation, American producers refused to believe that "Goldrush Era" Mounties didn't carry guns (as their US counterparts did), and forced the Canadians to "pack heat" for "viewer authenticity" before they'd make a TV series about maintaining law and order up North. I know this sort of thing really angers some, but I'm afraid that the only folks who know "what really happened" in wars, battles, etc. are the ones still capable of absorbing the printed page selectively. You (for the most part) ain't gonna learn it from the movies. Heck, in a documentary on WW2 flying aces a few years ago, the filmaker managed to ignore completely BILLY BISHOP, of all people. It's our fault really. If Bishop had been a Yank from Oshkosh Wisc. (or someplace like that) they'd have statues of him all over the country. Here in Canada, we often seem embarassed to have heroes. I doubt one school kid in a hundred would know his name. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Áine Date: 12 Jun 00 - 11:51 AM Frankly, I think casting aspersions on the population of an entire country because of the actions of an extremely small group of people in a particular industry is extremely small-minded and stupid. My advice is to remove your undergarments and give them a good shake to eliminate whatever bunching has occured therein. Replace said undergarments on your person and go and seek enlightenment and fulfillment of a positive nature. -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: AndyG Date: 12 Jun 00 - 12:07 PM I think I can fairly say I've yet to read an account of Enigma/BP/Ultra that doesn't give full credit to the Polish effort prior to the opening of WWII.
The Poles handed all they knew of the German forces version of the Enigma machine-encipherment system to the British. This was not complete information but it was all they knew. They also provided the concept for the bombe which Alan Turing and others went on to build.
The U571 storyline is a compilation of many events from the Battle of the Atlantic which enabled the intelligence service to read Naval enigma. (The Kriegsmarine having developed a particularly complex form of enigma machine). The struggle against the U-Boats ultimately determined when (if) the invasion of Europe could occur.
The U571 movie however, unlike any book I've read, appears to give no credit to either Britain OR Poland for their roles, and claims not only the defeat of Enigma but the provision of Ultra for the USA. If this is true it is playing fast and loose with the truth. (to say the least).
This is the important bit:
AndyG
|
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Steve Parkes Date: 12 Jun 00 - 12:15 PM Áine, if you're talking to me, you could try reading what I actually wrote! The Poles - I thought everyone knew that they made thae whole thing possible? Without them there would have been no Station X at Bletchley Park and the war might have been over before Pearl Harbor. I've been to Bletchley Park: there's a room dedicated to their efforts in cracking Enigma by hand, and bringing their machine and their expertise to Britain. If you go along you'll probably meet some of the people who worked there ithe war ... don't leave it too long, there aren't so many left now. Have a look here, and here. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: DougR Date: 12 Jun 00 - 12:27 PM Aine, I can't disagree at all with your summation of most of the messages above yours. I do take friendly issue with Bald Eagle, however. I saw the film in question and personally thought it was a lousy film. It had every submarine movie cliche in it in the book Having some familiarity with the history of the Enigma project, however, I was particularly disgusted that the film made it appear (even though there were explanatory statements in the rolling credits) that the U. S. solved the Enigma problem all by its lonesome. I do think it is important that films depict history as it was. After all, many young people today probably rely much more on movies to supply them history, than the public schools. Since a great deal of the history taught in the school today is revisionist history (musn't offend anyone), I'm not sure which is the best teaching method of the two. Thank you, Guest Dave, for the information you supplied ont the U505. I was not aware of that. Suppose the screenwriters based their screenplay on that? Even so, I still thought it was a lousy movie. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,Mbo_at_ECU Date: 12 Jun 00 - 12:32 PM "History is a set of lies agreed upon." --Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: sophocleese Date: 12 Jun 00 - 12:34 PM Yeah, but who agrees on them? Historians, winners or entertainment moguls? DougR was right when he said it isa lousy movie, it is. I saw it with my two brothers and sister in law, we represented a little over 50% of the audience. We very quickly started gentle heckling at every cliche. Its the best way to see it. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: SeanM Date: 12 Jun 00 - 12:48 PM If it's any consolation to all, the director caught a fair amount of heat from critics, historians and newspapers in Los Angeles (which contains Hollywood, much to the world's surprise). That, and the History Channel made much out of running several specials about the "REAL story of U-571", with interviews of as many ULTRA staff as were able to be interviewed and as many other sources as were found. Somewhere, it all balances out... those who would ever have appreciated the true story have doubtless used the very flawed movie as a springboard to learning the whole story, and those who wouldn't... well... it gave them something to watch before the next Pokemon movie comes out. M |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 12 Jun 00 - 12:49 PM AndyG, The Enigma machine, and the staff made up Ultra; a combination of the Government Code and Cipher School, Bletchley Park (GCCS,Golf Cheese and Chess Society)consisting of cryptographers, communicators, translators,and mathematicians, all placed under the "Umbrella title of "Ultra" (short form of Ultra Secret)I used the combination Enigma/Ultra only to interest readers who may have associated the two names. Yours, Aye. Dave (dont forget to read about the Polish submarines Wilk, Dzik and Orzel) |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Áine Date: 12 Jun 00 - 01:01 PM sophocleese and SeanM -- Exactly! It ain't History, folks; it's just a Movie... And Steve -- Sorry, but you deserved my admittedly curmudgeonly comment, since you did use the term "what is it about the Yanks?" in your thread title. If you want historical accuracy, watch documentaries; although, many of those are made from a propagandist point of view, too. I don't blame you at all for getting your hackles raised by inaccuracy. However, to even consider that an industry whose entire purpose is to provide entertaining fantasy should give an owl's hoot whether the "facts" are right, is not putting your little grey cells to their best use. Providing accurate information to those people you think would be interested (as several folks here are), is an admirable way to make the point to which I believe you were aspiring. -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: sophocleese Date: 12 Jun 00 - 01:11 PM Now Aine its just a thread discussing the inaccuracies in a movie for god's sake. No need to get your knickers in a twist. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Áine Date: 12 Jun 00 - 01:16 PM soph -- I'm shaking 'em out with one hand and typing this response with the other! No bunchies here! *BG* -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: NH Dave Date: 12 Jun 00 - 01:24 PM Doing a quick search fro the U-505 reveals that there were several German submarines captured (including the U-570), and a few brought to Allied ports. Most of these captures took place towards the end of the war where little intelligence could be gained from their codes. As has been mentioned the British at Bletchley Park had taken material developed by the Polish and reverse engineered this and captured commercial Enigma machines to develope crypto machines similar to those in use by the German High Command. Similarly, people at MIT working from this material subsequently broke many but not all of the Japanese military codes, and produced crypto machines to continue reading these messages. One product of this effort was the interception and downing of the aircraft carrying Japanese Admiral Yamamoto over the island of Bougainville, by US Army Air Corps fighters. While this code breaking and message interception did not win the war by itself, it gave the Allies suitable insight into the Axis' thinking and plans, which made the prosecution of the war easier. This was just ONE of many counter-intelligence efforts that speeded the close of the war. Another, cataloged in the novel, "The Man Who Knew Too Much", involved allowing a corpse, suitably equipped with disinformation about the Allies proposed landings across the channel into the north of France, to wash ashore onto the shores of "neutral" Spane. This effort, along with a phantom army headed by General Patton in central England, kept several Panzer divisions tied up while we attacked at Normandy, on D-Day. While D-Day wasn't easy, not having to fight through these units made the task just a bit more doable. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jun 00 - 01:25 PM There has been a growing, if not completely enveloping, tendency to learn history from the movies. As Rick stated, the written word is rapidly becoming a thing of the past (History I guess). The History Channel has a series on Hollywood and History which shows a movie along with interviews of historians or other folks (who were there) discussing the movie versus the reality with Sander Vanocur. Its quite good. It would be nice to think that seeing a movie would trigger an active interest in learning more about a subject, like listening to PPM might trigger an interest in folk music and make the listener want to learn more. Sadly, this is not always the case in either historical events or folk music. A few years ago, the producers of an excellent 6 part series which aired here on Public Broadcasting, took an awful lot of flak from the "people who were there." It seemed that the major objection was that the book's author had written a fictionalized account and the producers of the series had added even more. It wasn't the fiction part that was troubling, but many objected to ALL these things taking place within ONE GROUP of people. All the incidents and accounts were realistic and DID happen, but the problem seemed to be that folks objected to all this happening within a single group. Well, Okay...that was correct. But the situation that applies to history is that, in point of fact, it can be rather dull, to put it mildly. At least this series portrayed accurately real events and real composites of characters that everybody could relate to. The series was "Piece of Cake" and followed an RAF squadron from 1939 through the Battle of Britain. I have read every situation that took place in the series somewhere and the characterizations were superb. So it wasn't accurate as the squadron didn't really exist. I think for many though, it at least gave them a depiction of what actually did go on. Is that bad? I have seen several movies which I think fit that category. Nothing beats the written word and its a shame we don't have more accurate portrayals in the movies of the Billy Bishops or Robert Stanford Tucks. In truth we don't have enough written words either. Its not only war movies certainly. "Mississippi Burning" was far from completely accurate, but it did raise an awareness. "JFK" was totally bizarre. Stone may have left out a couple of theories but not many. The real problem with all of the movies is the unfortunately growing tendency to accept them as history and not entertainment. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Bert Date: 12 Jun 00 - 01:45 PM Áine, yes it's 'only a movie'. But unfortunately the movies and TV are all that most foreigners see of America. And if the movie is a load of crap then that's what they'll think of America. There are so many 'True' stories of American heroes and achievments; why couldn't they have chosen one of those. Of the American contributions to WWII, one of the most overlooked is the contribution of supplies and materials. Not front line heroic stuff, but without it the war would not have been won so quickly. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: kendall Date: 12 Jun 00 - 02:36 PM Rick..wuddayou mean, we think we won the War of 1812? Do you have another version? |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Sapper_RE Date: 12 Jun 00 - 02:52 PM Was "The Man Who Knew Too Much" the US title of "The Man Who Never Was"?? If so, it had nothing to do with Overlord. It was about fooling the Germans into thinking the allies planned to invade Greece instead of Scicily. It worked. Sapper |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 12 Jun 00 - 02:53 PM Anyone seen the movie "The Hunley"? (Civil War Submarine) really good show. Regretfully it was lost in the overall scheme of things when awards were handed out. My opinion being, it was well presented and fairly factual. Yours, (loves his movies)Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jun 00 - 03:08 PM Hi Dave.....That's a good example, "The Hunley." It was as imperfect as "Mississippi Burning" but without the subplots, a lot of folks would have missed the story entirely. Some may have gone on and read more with any luck. This isn't to say that the absolute truth is boring, but it don't play in Peoria. I have such mixed emotions on these movies. What's better? I dunno......I like the written word, but at times it too is open to question obviously. Taking Rick's example of Billy Bishop, I would love to see even a dramatized account of the man as long as the producer/director accurately portrayed the life as it related to history and not that one that was made about him by a Canadian no less. I can't remember the title, but it really tromped all over the deeds and reputation of a great man. All that one did was make the unwashed aware of Bishop. It did nothing but revise history otherwise and frankly perhaps, made many think less of him. Spaw Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Peter T. Date: 12 Jun 00 - 03:19 PM Just to add two cents: the Polish air force has never received the credit from anyone it was due for its unbelievable heroism during World War II. My father's colleagues (all heavily decorated airmen from Canada and Britain, and all now dead save one (my dad!)) used to shake their heads in awe whenever they spoke of the Poles and their desperate exploits. They had no fear, and only faint hope, which was cruelly betrayed. Because of the internal politics after the war, when Poland was taken over (yet again) it was all poisoned and wrecked. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Jun 00 - 03:46 PM If it was just Hollywood, it would be bad enough. Have been in the 'history biz' for a quite a while, and if you REALLY want to get depressed and/or PO'd, pick up a copy of F. Fitzgerald's _America Revised_ or Loewen's _Lies my Teacher Told Me_ or _Lies Across America_. U.S. history texts have a good percentage of fantasy and wishful thinking, and what is taught as World History is in many cases absolute crap. And look out for the "History [sic.]Channel"- its mostly hollywood, too. Why this does not seem to bother more people I dunno- as others have said , above, the REAL story is exciting & gripping enough. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Gary T Date: 12 Jun 00 - 04:00 PM Kendall, I asked myself the same question--"what do you mean we THINK we won the war of 1812?". I skimmed a U.S. Army article here and became aware that a big part of the war was our invading Canada, where we were essentially repulsed. We did kick butt with our Navy, and I believe we got most of what we wanted in the settlement (Treaty of Ghent, I believe). But what I remember from school is we won the Battle of New Orleans, and we got the British to stop doing objectionable things on the seas. I didn't remember getting thrashed by the Canadians. I think this is what Rick had in mind. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Gary T Date: 12 Jun 00 - 04:02 PM I must have goofed up the link. The word "here" was supposed to take you to: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-06.htm. One more try click here. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jun 00 - 04:13 PM Greg......We got into the aspect you refer to somewhere else recently although I don't recall what thread. You're quite right, but then again, all history is philosophy, colored by the bias, small or large but always present, of the author. I like ol' Ambrose Bierce, a good Ohio boy, who defined history in his "Devil's Dictionary:" HISTORY...An account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Rick Fielding Date: 12 Jun 00 - 04:45 PM Yup Gary. Being an unpatriotric, non-religious, objective cynic, one of the things that I've enjoyed immensely on the "Net" is checking out historical events from different perspectives...without caring "who won or who lost". It's fascinating. The truth seems to fall squarely between any two opposing accounts. A few examples: The Canadian mega-sports team owner who, upon the outbreak of WW2 rushed off to fight Hitler (with several of his players in tow.) His views (well documented) were perhaps even MORE heinous than Adolph's....but I guess when you're really rich, a good fight can be fun. Returning home a hero, he continued to spew anti-Jewish, anti-black crap, to a city happy to hear it. Two nights ago defenseman Scot Stevens won the trophy named in his honour (the Conn Smythe trophy). This is a guy I'm supposed to admire? Well if I'd only read the sports books provided by my schools, I'd have thought he was the greatest guy in the world. For some bizarre reason I started reading the "alternative press" by my teens, and as I say...they stretch it as well, the middle ground's usually right. But ya GOTTA check out the "other grounds" to find that middle one. I think quite a few here at Mudcat do, which is why I stay interested. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: kendall Date: 12 Jun 00 - 06:07 PM It's true that our invasion of Canada was a fiasco, but, it was never meant to be a major objective anyway. It was to divert and stretch the British forces, which it did. It was not great victory, but, it stopped the English from pressing American sailors. And, finally, it was the Brits who sued for peace in the end. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Mbo Date: 12 Jun 00 - 06:41 PM Not to mention, Rick, that Scott Stevens is a dirty jerk himself. Anyone who relies on constant deliberate vicious violence really ticks me off. I wish someone from Dallas woulda rammed a hockey stick up his bunghole. --Mbo |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Áine Date: 12 Jun 00 - 06:52 PM We hear your call, oh Mbo -- (and now, for the terrible inside "hockey" joke...) Eddie ... Eddie ... Eddie ... Eddie ... Eddie ... -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Mbo Date: 12 Jun 00 - 07:03 PM I got it Aine! Scott Stevens signature move is bending down low in front of someone, so when they skate into him, he hits them at the knees, thus knocking them off their feet. I once heard that if this manuever is performed right, you can break the other players knees. Incidentally the move is called "The Submarine." See how it all fits together? Now all we need is a song... --Mbo |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 12 Jun 00 - 07:15 PM To get back to The U571 topic... And to keep Rick and I from ending up back-to-back against ya here!! LOL!!! I was having this discussion recently with a good mate who said something rather profound, or I think it is anyway... "Some Americans are so concerned with proving that they are the best, they are willing to steal the truth from thier children"
The whole thing make me thing of Big Brother, and the "Who controls the past, controls the future" idea... (besides, we all know it's "He who controls the spice, controls the universe!! LOL!) Especially, as was said above, when these MOVIES, intended to be purely entertainment, end up being read as historical fact...
Rick touches on the best solution... read history... read everybodys account of the event in question, and remember they are ALL biased, all inaccurate in some way or other... there is no such thing as total objectivness... Especially when dealing with ideals, or motivations... But you'd think someone could at least get the basic FACTS down eh!! LOL!!! {~` |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: kendall Date: 12 Jun 00 - 07:22 PM Dont forget our penchant for self examination, and sometimes self criticism. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Jon Freeman Date: 12 Jun 00 - 07:29 PM I have not read every post in this thread so apologies if I am duplicating things that have been said. Holywood are into making money and don't care less about facts but to me, the scarey part is people believe the Hollywood versions. IMO, this gets even worse, I have met people who are more concerned over the fate of a character in a soap than their own neighbours. Worse still, I have a freind who's daugther starred in what was a leading UK COMEDY. I believe that she had people sit her down and tell her what was wrong with her tv relationship. Question: is Hollywood guilty of exploiting peoples preference towards fiction rather than reality, or should the people who believe the nonsense get in touch with reality? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Jun 00 - 07:33 PM Spaw- Whoops! Didn't realize this had been dealt with elsewhere. While you're right to the degree that there is always some personal bias in "Cynic, n.: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees I'm not talking about "bias", but great big obvious, thumping, |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Áine Date: 12 Jun 00 - 07:39 PM Jon said, "...is Hollywood guilty of exploiting peoples preference towards fiction rather than reality, or should the people who believe the nonsense get in touch with reality?" -- Exactly my point, Jon. Let us all remember that is humans who write the human history, and none of us are without prejudices and subjective viewpoints. I agree totally with Rick that we should check out every side of a story and then make an informed decision about the past . . . however imperfect that decision may still be . . . -- Áine (P.S. Next year in Philly, eh Mbo?? *BG*) |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,Dave (the ancient mariner at work) Date: 12 Jun 00 - 07:54 PM The CBC (McKenna brothers) produced some real crap about WWII (Dieppe and The Horror and the Valour series) which has now been introduced as definative historical fact. (even though objected to by Canadian Vets) I caution everyone to read diverse accounts of history before making a final opinion. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Fiddlin' Big Al Date: 12 Jun 00 - 08:06 PM Well ... we bought the Jaguar. So how much for the U571, and the Spitfire? Actually I think the Brits should sever diplomatic relations over this one ... that is with Hollywood only ... and withdraw their actors. Americans don't properly appreciate good acting anyway. Can John Travolta or Brad Pitt do Shakespeare? Apologies to all. I won't see the movie ... maybe. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Jun 00 - 09:35 PM Battle of New Orleans took place after the war was over didn't it? Communication being a bit slow in those days. So it's not relevant to any discussion of who won. Good song anyway.
I can't help feeling that, if Canada had been incorporated in the United States as a result of the war, that would have been the big story.
What I find odd about all the U571 stuff is the tendency there seems to be for the American movie and TV industry to assume that if audiences are going to be able to relate to stories, they have to be Americanised in some way. It's the same thing that shows up in remaking sit-coms made in England in American versions. Or even cop-shows like Cracker.
I can't think of any case where it's gone the other way. It just seems a peculiar practice. Have the media business people got it right when they assume that most Americans can't tolerate non-American English? |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Mbo Date: 12 Jun 00 - 09:50 PM Did you ever notice that American movies (and especially Disney flicks) the bad guys are always British, or a least have the accent? On the other hand, in Agatha Christie novels, the killers, thiefs, scoundrels, etc. are almost always American or "foreigners" from the Continent. --Mbo |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Jon Freeman Date: 12 Jun 00 - 10:02 PM No Mbo, in films, villians have accents, mostly German sounding... Bristish have other baddies, I liked Terry Thomas - are you a cad Mbo? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Jon Freeman Date: 12 Jun 00 - 10:10 PM ... and Mudguard, if you read this, the war is long gone. Please visit me if you get that far north in Wales. I can joke as I tried to above but I always worry when the war crops up in conversation, that people still hold grudges. I doubt that it happens in Mudcat but just in case, when you get here, Welcome to Wales! Jon. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Gary T Date: 12 Jun 00 - 10:17 PM McGrath, you're right about the battle of New Orleans actually occurring after the peace was made. But the news of the battle victory reached the Americans before the news of the treaty did, so there was a general feeling that winning the battle provided victory in the war. Even without movies, some people got their history muddled. (BG) |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Wavestar Date: 12 Jun 00 - 10:18 PM Having read this entire thread, I think everything that needed to be said about Hollywood, rampant disregard for truth, fictionalised accounts, and the basic issue of this movie (which I haven't seen and don't intend to) has been said. However, I wouldn't mind responding just briefly to Aldus's comment, way up there at the top... just what do you mean by "a country who has manufactured huge chunks of its own history, sees nothing wrong with stealing someone elses."? From whence cometh this assumption, firstly, that the US is the only country that propagandises, and has "altered" its history? All the winning countries have - all of them. Most of them more frequently and a good deal more successfully than the US. We've made out mistakes, and as Kendall said, we criticise ourselves for them. Secondly, whatever was manufactured has usually been brought to light. Of course, only having 230 years of history helps... This viscious attitude about America, which lumps all of us in with those who seek to decieve or make mistakes, and doesn't even try to be charitable towards us, is, as Aine said, small minded and stupid. Regarding your question, McGrath, I've often wondered that myself. There are frequently two versions of books, even! (Sacrilege!) the American, and the British. This is invariably, of course, because Americans are too stupid and not nearly culturally minded enough to understand the different spellings, colloquialisms, and vocabulary.... :P Unfortunately, this is all done by American publishers... so we obviously think of ourselves as not nearly clever enough for it. *sigh* I always like the explanatory notes in Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's Good Omens, (a marvelous book) which make this treatment unnecessary - addressed to 'Americans and other aliens'. I had a Scottish friend, however, who apparently thought the same thing... that anyone who wasn't Scottish couldn't read the book Sunset Song (written in a mixture of English and the Scots dialect), because they wouldn't understand the Scots. This is, of course, what context is for, but we always underestimate each other. It's an excellent book, btw. -Jessica |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jun 00 - 10:24 PM GREG my friend, I certainly wasn't trying to stifle conversation and I really couldn't agree with you more. Books or movies, it seems to be gaining in popularity to not only distort the truth, but completely dismember it and throw it in a vat of acid. Though this has always happened to some degree, in the past it seemed that books especially might just "embellish" a few facts to improve the tale, but more and more the program seems to be revisionism. And in the movies, its even worse at times. The Hunley story was worthy of the telling as close to the known facts as possible and would have been very exciting. An awful lot of th War Between the States stuff is incredibly glamorized or just plain, outright lies and fabrications. In the case of the Bishop movie I mentioned above (and that I can't remember the title of), he was completely trashed! Do you find Pat Sky's line going through your head?---"Reality is bad enough, Why should I tell the truth?" McGrath, I think you have a point in a way. Maybe its just me, but I have seen several excellent British documentaries on American subjects and been impressed that we HERE have never done the subject as well. One comes to mind immediately because the Hollywood piece was excellent and as close as I suppose they can get to the truth (so its probably not the best example). The movie "Ghosts of Mississippi" tells the tale of the final conviction of Byron Beckwith for the murder of Medgar Evers. Though the movie gets lost in the family problems of the DA, it does at least portray history accurately and James Woods as Beckwith is superb. But I saw a British documentary that was far more compelling and accurate as it traced the parallel lives of the two principals, Beckwith and Evers. But again, I guess we Americans as a group seem to need a love interest or something. We have an odd way of seeming to need some subplot in everything though. Even comedy. The Marx brothers were wonderful in "A Night at the Opera" and its generally conceded to be a great comedy thanks to Irving Thalberg and his commitment to having a plot since the public wouldn't buy just zaniness. I think he was wrong, at least for some of us. Most Marx fans prefer "Monkey Business" or "Animal Crackers" which had paper thin plots and unrestricted wackiness. Oh well, what do I know? We all want it our way anyhow and are willing to bitch at length (like this) when we don't like it. Hey Greg, that's another Ambrose definition. EGOTIST n, A person of low taste who thinks more of himself than of me. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Racer Date: 12 Jun 00 - 11:49 PM This is a really cool thread so far. When I read the subject, I thought it would divulge into the, "You're an idiot!" "No, you're an idiot!" type of thing. The arguments so far seem to have been very well thought out. I think one of the problems with society is not our belief in film. In America, we tend to believe that if something is in the newspaper or on the evening news, then it must be an un-biased opinion. This scares me because the government can control the media, and the media can control the country. I haven't seen U-571, and after the rave reviews that I've read here, I don't plan to. I learned the bad part of learning history from movies from "Michael Collins." If I want to watch a cool sub movie, I'll watch "The Hunt for Red October." At least I know that it's fiction. As far as english people being bad guys, just watch "Star Wars." Everyone in the Empire (except Darth Vader and the Emperor) was English. Everyone in the Rebel Alliance (except for Obi-Wan-Kenobi) was American. I also saw numerous other films as a child that depicted the English as being cold-hearted and cruel. I'm sure some of them were Disney productions. For some reason, I can't remember any titles right now. As for being cynical, I don't believe anything unless I was there to witness it. History is largely written by whoever wins a war. For some reason, people believe it anyway. -Racer |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Wavestar Date: 13 Jun 00 - 12:19 AM I think it's because the posh English accent lends itself very well to wonderfully nasty lines... and villians are more fun to play! Besides... Everytime I try to imagine my very very English friend Pretentious Ian saying something heartfelt, sweet, and romantic... it only comes out saunding sarcastic! *grin* -J |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Jun 00 - 12:30 AM Say Jessica......Is "saunding" a typo or a Brit way of spelling sanding and you mean her comments are kind of gritty or rub you the wrong way? ***BG*** Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Terry K Date: 13 Jun 00 - 01:08 AM This business about people believing what they see in the movies is true - where else would we get the "posh" English stereotype? I can assure you that the typical English villain does NOT have a posh accent - nor even does the typical English non-villain. The posh thing is a hangover from the 30s/40s/50s when only well connected people (generally) could get into the movies. But it is encouraging that whatever distorted view we get can be easily corrected by reading the follow-up on the Mudcat! Cheers, Terry |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: zonahobo Date: 13 Jun 00 - 01:44 AM Where do I order my "I READ THE YANK THREAD" T-Shirt. Someone ought too make some money off of all this great content!...I learned more in 30 minutes of thread reading than I could have possibly learned in 10 minutes of PBS. Just kidding .. where did you guys learn all this stuff .. to say nothing of the music knowledge so often demonstrated here. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Jun 00 - 01:48 AM Most of us just watch movies. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: The Shambles Date: 13 Jun 00 - 01:58 AM Or even Films? |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,rebecca Date: 13 Jun 00 - 03:16 AM First of all, I saw U-571 because I am a sucker for action movies and sub movies in particuler. "Hunt for Red October" is one of my favorites (and I highly recommend it). I won't say that it lacked drama and action because it didn't. That's what Hollywood specializes in. But previous threads were right in pointing out that movie studios are only in it for the money. If they can tweak history and get away with it, they will. I don't think I have ever seen a completely historically accurate movie. Just look at the recent "historical" movies: "The Messenger," "Gladiator," etc., etc., etc. However, it's not Hollywood's job to teach history. In fact, I don't think that the problem is historically inaccurate films but apathy. Most people (this applying to Americans because they are the only ones that I can speak for) are too lazy to get off their butt and go find out the truth. Another good point that was brought up was that to find the "middle ground" of history, you need to read varying accounts. True, very true. It is also true that all history is biased. In fact, all writing is biased no matter how careful the author is. I know that from experience. I used to write for my school paper and of course, we were admonished to write objectively. I was shocked to find out how hard that is. But while history is about the big battles and other major events, it is also about the individuals and what they went through. Most of the time, history books and teachers are so wrapped up in the big picture that they don't examine the small human aspect of history. And that is unfortunate. And as was pointed out, credit is often stolen. Of course, that has been going on since practically time began. And I'll admit, it is a practicular American obsession. I've seen it before. But you have to remember that Europeans have a lot more history to work with than Americans do. Not that that's an excuse. It isn't. It's just a fact. I'm not advocating it, I'm just trying to figure it out myself. We Americans have plenty of heroes of our own that we don't need to steal from anyone else but I guess that a lot of people (and movie studios in particular) don't see that. I also sympathize with those struggling to gain recognition for the Poles who worked so hard to break the German codes. Again, unfortunately the little guy or the guy stuck in the back where no one sees him, is often over looked by history. I know how that feels. I'm of Irish decent and it is unbelievably hard to find accounts of Irish history in standard history classes. In world history accounts, Ireland is treated as part of Britian. In British history, it is excluded because it isn't British. Irish history just floats in this no-man's-land and the stuff that does make it to history books is usually short and inaccurate. It is extremely frustrating. In closing, I would like to end by addressing the topic that popped up near the end of the thread concerning American English and British English. All that I can say, is that Americans like to be different. I mean, besides spelling words differently, we drive on the other side of the road and still use the old English system of measurement while practically everyone else had gone metric (did you know that a yard was the distance from Henry VIII's nose to his thumb? bizarre, isn't it?). However, you were wrong when you said that all American villians speak with English accents and then used "Star Wars" as an example. First of all, I am a big "Stars Wars" fan (and not afraid to admit it) and I couldn't let such heresy go unanswered. "Star Wars" was filmed in England at Ellstree Studios and all of the actors besides Mark Hamill (Luke), Harrison Ford (Han), and Carrie Fisher (Leia), were British. All of them, Imperials and rebels alike. However, when everything was filmed and taken back to the States, it was discovered that the rebels' lines were too quiet and had to be dubbed over. Because most of the lines were small and flying people all the way from London to LA for what would essentially be an afternoon's work proved too expensive, American actors were brought in to do the voices. AND THUS IT CAME TO PASS THAT ALL IMPERIALS WERE DESTINED (or doomed, depending your point of view) TO SPEAK WITH ENGLISH ACCENTS! However, there is one very famous, very important, and much loved character who spoke in the unmistakable accent of a British butler who made it to the screen in fine style: C-3PO! Of course that was mainly due to the fact that no other actor could match Anthony Daniel's idiosyncrasies on film (or "metal wanderings" as he calls them). So he was flown all the way from London to do his lines over. So, no, having the Imperials speaking in British accents was not a concious choice by George Lucas but a mess of circumstances. Of other films, I cannot be so positive. Anyway, I will stop rambling now. Rebecca |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: canoer Date: 13 Jun 00 - 03:25 AM I can't believe we got all this way and no one has mentioned the really good submarine movie from several years ago: "Das Boot." Go get this video, forget U571. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,rebecca Date: 13 Jun 00 - 03:29 AM By the way, that last paragraph about "Star Wars" was directed at YOU, Racer. You are mettling with powers you cannot possibly imagine. rebecca |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,rebecca Date: 13 Jun 00 - 03:31 AM Well considering that I have never *gasp!* seen "Das Boot," I didn't think it was fair to include it. Thanks for reminding me to go rent it. rebecca |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: sledge Date: 13 Jun 00 - 03:57 AM As an ex submariner, Das Boot is the best sub movie ever made and well worth watching. Us Brits cruel and cold hearted, never. Anyway see you guys later I have to go and drown some puppies. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: AndyG Date: 13 Jun 00 - 05:51 AM Dave,
The point I was trying to make, perhaps badly, was that I don't really have a problem with the idea of the movie industry compressing various stories into one to make a better film.
I believe that many people do accept as fact the stories that film-makers present, and whilst I don't expect the rigourous standards of the academic historian to be applied to an action movie, I hope for better than outright distortion.
AndyG
|
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Micca Date: 13 Jun 00 - 06:47 AM For info, If you can get the TV series of "Das Boot" rather than the edited down Movie it really is the Dogs Bollocks of Sub "Movies". It also depicts the best portrayl of the experience of a small ship in a storm ever portrayed on film,IMHO. As for History and Hollywood... well,I gave up trying to get my History from biased sources after reading about the "Princes in the Tower" and their supposed " murder " by Richard III, as written by Thomas Moore, a Tudor and writing of events that happened when he was 4 years old, for the Tudors, who "won". |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,Peter T. Date: 13 Jun 00 - 09:22 AM The thing that is the most depressing is that the real history is always more interesting than the movies because the movies inevitably put the story into a familiar genre and leave the messy human realities out. Instead of broadening out our experience of what the human community can do -- heroism mingled inextricably with cowardice and stupidity in the same person, for example -- they narrow it down to familiar stock characters and acceptable responses. The most interesting thing about real history is how different the assumptions and responses were of human beings who were no smarter or stupider than we are. I think it comes down to a fear of undermining our current world view -- that we are smarter and better and more understanding because of our progress than these ignorant cardboard figures who lived then. A completely different example: I teach a course that includes a whole section on the slave trade. The only thing the students will not accept, will not allow, is that the British were primarily responsible historically for ending slavery. Since they had been among the main beneficiaries, they had to be evil. And since they were evil, they must always be evil. When you give them the real history, they consistently demand that the heroes must be the slaves and their minor revolts, because they were the good guys. The idea that the British Parliament, Quakers, and a collection of meddling do-gooders could have turned around the whole enterprise for fundamentally moral reasons is unthinkable. Even the economic arguments (only partially convincing at best) don't help: these people were evil, so they couldn't possibly do any good. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: A Wandering Minstrel Date: 13 Jun 00 - 10:05 AM Can I chime back in here 1) Slavery and Quakers As a quaker (no we didn't die out in 1645) our standpoint on the slavery question was based on the quaker belief of every person being possesed of the divine spark, therefore equal before God and therefore no one could be a slave of any other. (my life! communism and in 1644! :-)) this is why quakers in the US were very active in running stations on the "underground railroad" 2) British villains - I (and others) have a theory that this is something to do with it being very damaging to american actors career prospects to be seen being evil! 3)Americans playing Shakespeare Honorable mention to Kevin Kline?? in A Midsummer Nights Dream. Black mark to Micheal Keaton in Much Ado about Nothing and Al Pacino who can't tell the difference between the Duke of Richmond and Henry Tudor (they are the same person!) On a musical note has anyone come across any submarine shantys (Other than Deisel & Shale?) |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Steve Parkes Date: 13 Jun 00 - 10:47 AM Touché, Áine! I just wanted to be provocative. I think it worked! I know I'm guilty of discriminating against people from the former Confederate States, but even those of us who've seen Gone With the Wind haven't learned to differentiate! The world would be a dull place without twisted knickers. I haven't seen Das Boot, but I've read the book, so there! Steve |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: canoer Date: 13 Jun 00 - 10:59 AM All right Steve, "Das Book"! |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Áine Date: 13 Jun 00 - 11:18 AM Dear Steve, This has been a great thread with wonderful discussions, informed opinions and interesting viewpoints -- Congratulations! Besides, anytime I get to mention hockey on this forum AND make a hockey joke, I'm one very happy camper! *BG* -- Áine |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Rick Fielding Date: 13 Jun 00 - 11:42 AM God forgive me for bringing this up here, but has anyone seen the SCTV version of "Das Boot"? It's called "Das Boobs"! It's about a group of extremely busty German nurses hitching a ride on a U-boat. I laughed so hard I practically rolled on the floor. Andrea Martin was superb! I suspect they were re-writing history a bit though. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Songster Bob Date: 13 Jun 00 - 12:29 PM Anybody remember the movie "Breaking the Sound Barrier?" Didn't know that "Chuck" Yeager had a Brit. accent! Songster Bob |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,Mbo_at_ECU Date: 13 Jun 00 - 12:42 PM Hmm...just thinking....what about all those American movies from the 30's where everyone talked with this psuedo-British accent? "Oh dahhhhling!" --Mbo |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Skivee Date: 13 Jun 00 - 12:50 PM My 2 pence: I did see the movie. I liked it alot...as entertainment. Okay, so it wasn't Shakespeare, but the Bard's own sub drama, "Romeo and Juliet Get Blasted Out of the Water By Nazi's" didn't get good press. Appearently the groundlings had little knowledge or appreciation for the comlexities of undersea warfare. The story wasn't being sold as history. Matt MacConahey (sp?) said in an interview I observed, that it was a "yarn", then went on chat about the facts behind it. It wasn't promoed as a recreation of an actual incident. When the credits ran at the end, The first words visible were a dedication to the crews that boarded the real German subs to capture the cypher machines. Of the three cases were listed, the American crew were listed THIRD, in correct historical order. The Brits got top billing, as they should have. If you want to trash Hollywood for historical twistyness, just look at "JFK". Would it have been better if U571 had never been made? I think not. Since there is not likely to be any mention of the counter-intelligence story in normal public school history, ignoring many heroes on both sides of the ocean, then just maybe the movie can serve a purpose of getting some of it's audience to research the history behind the fable. BTW The Bletchley Enigma was recently stolen during an open house. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 13 Jun 00 - 01:11 PM Rick... "Das Boobs"? I gotta see that one. ( a subject very dear to sailors LOL)Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: kendall Date: 13 Jun 00 - 02:15 PM The Enemy Below was a kick ass sub movie too. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Jun 00 - 02:58 PM ........and "The Enema Below" was just a plain kick in the ass. Had a lot of folks trottin' up the aisles. A real crappy movie butt a box office blowout. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Greg F. Date: 13 Jun 00 - 07:26 PM Spaw-
I give up! You Win! If there's anything I can't stand, its being severely beaten about the head and shoulders with Ambrose Bierce! :-) -he said, wandering off into Mexico never to be seen again... |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Greg F. Date: 13 Jun 00 - 07:30 PM Ooops- that's SaYles'... been a long day. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Jun 00 - 08:08 PM You could start a Matewan fan Club around this place Greg. Its been brought up as a favorite by me, Kendall, Art (I think) and about half a dozen others......so come back from Mexico, I miss you already. Let's send Kendall since he's into "The Enema Below" which some of our political folks would have you believe IS Mexico......Did you hear that flushing sound? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jun 00 - 08:38 PM "But you have to remember that Europeans have a lot more history to work with than Americans do" - but that can't possibly be true, since it's the same history wherever we live.
It only becomes true if the definition of history is adjusted, so that only American history counts as history. And while that kind of thing might make some sort of sense for some countries, for a country made up of descendants of immigrants from all over - well, it just seems strange. If anything Americans have more hiostory to work with than people in any individual European country.
I tend to assume all this stuff is something to be with living in such a huge country that it becomes seen as an entire world in itself. My understanding is that that is how the Chinese tend to think about things.
As for films adjusting the facts - in a sense any kind of drama has to adjust the facts, and even needs to if it is to get close to the truth. Characters need to say things that they never actually said in that way, or said at all, because that is the only way we can get inside their heads. Just listen to a tape of some event you are at, even a tea party - what you get normally gives no idea of what was happening, it's just confusion.
But in a film that purports to be telling a true story, the aim should be to present a version of what the people making the film believe to be the truth.
Would it be cynical to predict that sooner or later there will be a remake of Das Boot in which it's an Amerrican sub?
|
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Grab Date: 14 Jun 00 - 09:11 AM It's a film, set in a time when most of us weren't alive. So I'd guess the film bosses decided that accuracy wasn't that important, cos it was just a story. What gets my goat is when they say "The true story" or even worse, "Based on a true story". Hey, if it's fiction then it's fiction! Saving Private Ryan suffered from that. And there's Elizabeth as well - total fiction. That's the trouble - if the film's delivered as if we're expected to believe it actually happened, then it gets unpleasant feelings going when you know it's crap, and you start thinking "That didn't happen that way" instead of watching the story. Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Wotcha Date: 14 Jun 00 - 12:49 PM Back to music... At Shiloh's battle, so many were slayed A gold coin saved Dixon, so a skipper he was made Cho. Dive, H.L. Hunley, Dive! When the bulgine boilers, they were laid, The Rebel Sub, the H.L. Hunley, she was made. Any method, Dixon did employ The North's Men of War, to destroy On a pier boom spike, he set his spar, To set a torpedo, on a Yankee blockader When the Housatonic, hove into view Many a Rebel, forsaw its doom Dixon set the tripline wire The Housatonic, she caught on fire The Rebel sub, she signaled her cheer, That was the last we knew for over a 100 year In Eighteen Hundred and Sixty Four The Hunley, sank to the Ocean Floor ... Well I thought I'd update Roll Alabama Roll! BTW, "Das Boot" in the original German is great. Some German techno musicians even pilfered the score and made a very effective (in their special teutonic way) music video in the very early 90s ... my Nachbars couldn't stop playing it. I guess sea shanties on the Chicago sub will be in order this summer ... see you there! Where's the shanty crowd in Chi Town? Cheers, Allahamdalla Brian |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,rebecca Date: 14 Jun 00 - 11:03 PM McGrath of Harlow, What I meant when I said that Europeans have a lot more history to work with than Americans, was that European NATIONS have been around a lot longer than the US. Of course if the defination of history isn't restricted to nations, than of course America has the same amount of history. Especially if you consider the history of the Native Americans. But what I meant was that the US has been around AS A NATION for only about 200 years while European NATIONS have been around centuries long than that. rebecca |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Big Mick Date: 14 Jun 00 - 11:14 PM Right, Rebecca, but what Bro' McGrath was saying to you is that the immigrants that came to this country brought their history with them, hence having a multiplying effect. The history that was created hence, was colored by the experiences of the history brought with. No where is that more in evidence than in the example of the Irish American.........IMHO. All the best, Big Mick |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Wavestar Date: 14 Jun 00 - 11:15 PM That's very true, Rebecca, but part of what McGrath was saying, I think, is that one of the unusual things about the US, as a country of immigrants, is that all of the countries we all came from, their history is our history. All that history, from so many different countries, etc, is American history too. Where we all came from made us what we are. (This is not in the least meant ot discount the thousands of years of history of the more native civilisations and the native Americans, of course...) -J |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Wavestar Date: 15 Jun 00 - 12:09 AM Woops! Thanks, Big Mick.. you got there first, but I didn't realise it! You said it very well. -J |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: GUEST,Rollo Date: 15 Jun 00 - 12:28 AM As a german I was confronted with WW2 a lot in school (well, we had to learn a lesson, hadn't we?) and although I haven't seen this submarine film you are talking about I have to state something general about war movies we get to see in the telly, expecially about ww2. No matter which side the heroes are. No matter who is going to have his share of glory or to be honored by remembrance. There is only one point important. war is a very, wery cruel business, and whoever is taking part in it is marked until death. even my parents who were born in the last years of ww2 are marked, they survived hamburg burning in the bomb nights huddled up in some cellars as small children and still get panicked when a slow, big propeller plane is humming in the air. So whoever makes a war movie and portraits war as a field of endless bravery and heroism is guilty of war propaganda. There are to much such movies. There are some who try to show the truth. in my opinion "das boot" tries it, portraying the claustrophobic athmosphere down in the tube, and "private ryan" tries it too, starting with the big massacre szene on the strand. (although to be a "good" war movie" private ryan should have been shot in the last fight to make clear the senselessness of heroism.) thank god there is no movie showing the bravery of german reichswehr officers in stalingrad, or at least when they exist I haven't seen something like this. but all this films where american tanks cross the rhine, brits play foxtail with rommel in africa or officers salute each other over fields of dead troopers in dugouts along the western front are just drek. who watches a war movie must get tears in his eye and swear to "study war no more". besides, in german language "history" is the same word as "story", "Geschichte". Man should think about this more often. Storys change everytime they are told, because every narrator wants to deliver a message. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Metchosin Date: 15 Jun 00 - 01:29 AM Thank you Rollo.
When the subject of war arises, two images always flash into my mind. One of a friend, who as a small hungry boy in Germany at the end of WW2, sat in a room looking at his hand, trying to decide which finger he could chop off and figured his thumb, as that seemed to have the most meat on it, the other, shortly after the War, when I was six, described by a friend's father upon landing on the beach at Dieppe, of his buddy tring to push his intestines back through a gaping hole in his stomach. War is a dirty business from whatever side you look at it. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: ol'troll Date: 15 Jun 00 - 01:58 AM Any industry that tries- as Hollywood did - to IMPROVE on the true story of William Wallace (Braveheart), cannot be taken seriously as a source of ANYTHING except drivel disguised as entertainment. I have seen old war movies where the hero destroys a tank with a hand grenade. Hollywood writes neither good tech manuals OR good history. troll |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Jun 00 - 02:11 AM Nice post Rollo. And Troll.....reminds me of one of the movies of a Shakespearean work tha listed: Additional Dialogue by Morrie Lipschitz (not the name, but something close) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Wotcha Date: 15 Jun 00 - 02:13 AM And of course, the British claimed to have broken the Sound Barrier in the early 50s movie of the same name -- Richard Todd getting performance characteristics out of a Vampire jet fighter well beyond its capabilities taking away the thunder of Chuck Yeager and his ilk. Some people believe that Geschicte to this day. Cheers, Brian |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? From: Pene Azul Date: 15 Jun 00 - 02:24 AM Looks like it's time to continue this one. It's getting too long for some folks to load. Please post to U571: what is it about the Yanks? II. ---Please Do Not Post More Here--- |
| Share Thread: |