U571: what is it about the Yanks?

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---

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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...

Guess I've been spoiled by the likes of Sales' "Matewan"- a film can be true to the facts & entertaining as well with a bit of effort by the director.

Best, Greg

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: canoer
Date: 13 Jun 00 - 10:59 AM

All right Steve, "Das Book"!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 don't object to the film showing the USN capturing an enigma machine, after all they did on at least one occasion. I get worried if the film then claims that this led to the breaking of the Enigma cypher system, which wasn't the case, and I object to any claim that the resultant Ultra intelligence was the result of American effort, which it never became, even after BP was recruiting US officiers to its staff.

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.
i.e. Both The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far (based on the books by Cornelius Ryan) certainly "played to the gallery" but I think they displayed that the Allied effort sprang from an Alliance.

AndyG

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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:16 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: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jun 00 - 01:58 AM

Or even Films?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.