The ANZACs- myth and reality

[RussGannon]

Pete and all.

Sorry about the late get back - I only get an hour per day, perhaps, on the Library PC's and the internet went down all around Salisbury on Friday. Yesterday I had othe Forum business to attend to. Yeah, of course I have a video and DVD player. Actually have a bad VHS copy of the Broodsneide counter attack piece.

Actually as I see you are really into the movies, my pet gripe are the battle sequences. Calling on my own experiences and a reasonable knowledge of Military History, I often cringe at what I see in war movies. Some of my favourites for believable battle sequences are: Pork Chop Hill, Walk in the Sun, Battleground, Hell is for Heroes, Cross of Iron, Platoon and an old 1957 Brit film called the Steel Bayonet (set in Tunisia WW2). Have no truck with the overated Finding Private Ryan and am not too keen on what I have seen in Band of Brothers. Carentan proper was actually taken without a fight! Uniforms, production values & graphic effects are fine, but the battle sequences are as if they drew their inspiration from the old 60's series Combat - Vic Morrow with his Thompson and 1,000 round magazine. Quite 5 Germans get knocked over for each GI - and as you no doubt know research has shown that in NW Europe 44-45 the Germans inflicted 1.5 cas per 1 of their own. I love the way they all stand around in groups on the battlefield before and after the action - just inviting a mortar stonk. War is seen from a very low perspective and goes for 24 hours a day.

Alex

Yeah Olivia stands the test of time in those movies. Garry Owen is the regimental march of 2nd Cavalry Regiment in the Australian Army - always gets the toes tapping.

Russ

[Pete Hill]

Hi Russ,
Yes I agree Saving Private Ryan is over-rated as a movie. It is certainly good but not the great masterpiece that the very cleverly hyped marketing campaign made it out to be prior to release. The media reports of the emotional reactions of veterans and historians to the film's opening Omaha-Beach sequence were all part of that very subtle and contrived campaign. I agree with the Melbourne Age film critic who, at the time of the film's release, wrote of Speilberg's increasingly pompous self-importance and his belief that his films were the last word on whatever subject they were portraying be it the Holocaust (Schlinder's List), Amistad (Slavery) or World War Two (Private Ryan).
The film's battle scenes were lauded for their extreme realism and originality but underneath all the flying dirt, loud sound-effects and bobbing camera-work, they are actually more conventional. The Omaha Beach scene is superbly done but the climatic battle in the ruined French town is highly far-fetched and cliched.
Regarding their originality, Speilberg has actually lifted many ideas from previous films. I don't mean to come across as some know-it-all ex-film student off SBS but the great director has certainly had numerous influences from other war movies.
The confusion, bobbing hand-held camera-work and jarring noise has been done before- Oliver Stone did it in 'Platoon' and 'Salvador' and in the 1960s, there were the made-for-TV dramatized documentaries produced in Britain- "Culloden" and a film about Atomic Warfare that I can't remember the name of.
The scene of the dazed soldier standing up minus one arm was a steal from a similar incident in the 1960s war movie 'Beach Red'.
The device where Tom Hanks temporarily loses his hearing due to concussion from exploding shells and the soundtrack briefly goes silent was nicked from the hard-hitting Russian 1989 war movie "Come and See".
The shots of the viewpoint from the German machine-gunners mowing down G.Is by the boatload was already done similarly in films in the 1930s such as the Gallipoli-Landing sequence in "Tell England" and the French Infantry attack in "All Quiet on the Western Front".
Even the rumbling noise of the approaching Tiger Tanks in the final battle is a homage to the sound of the horse's hooves as the bandits approach the village in the climax of "The Seven Samurai"

As for the so-called realism, the climatic Town battle is highly far-fetched. The German Infantry march in like toy-soldiers and stand around like stunned mullets allowing themselves to be picked off. Tom Hanks and Matt Damon are able to run through massed machine-gun fire without a scratch whereas the Germans drop like flies. And, in an incredibly corny finale, a P-51, emerging like a shining noble Knight out of the smoke, is somehow able to pick off a Tiger Tank only using its .50 calibre machine-guns wth such accuracy that Tom Hanks lying only a few metres away isn't touched!
It took the combined American, British and Canadian armies six weeks to break out of the Normandy area but in this movie, Tom Hanks and a handful of infantry can just stroll out of the beach-head, walking over a rise to be darkly silhuoetted against the skyline and chatting loudly as they go. Presumably all Germans in the area were fast asleep.
Even the make-up of the squad is pure cliche, not surprising given Speilberg's known love of Hollywood war movies of the 40s and 50s. There's the smart-ass cynical New Yorker, the fast-talking Jew, the quiet, mum-loving Medic, the big soft-hearted Italian, the timid book-worm, the tough veteran Sarge and the middle-class WASP officer in charge. All that is missing is the tall, slow-talking Texan with a guitar and the stern-faced Sioux from the reservation with the eagle feather stuck to his helmet. Maybe add an Hispanic and an Irish Catholic and we would have the classic comic-book Infantry Squad!
And don't me get started on how the film mentioned the British! At least they got a mention, the Canadians didn't even receive that.
Regards Pete

[NeilE]

I don't analyse war movies. There is no point as they are movies, designed for mass entertainment and to turn a profit (and not necessarily in that order).

If they entertain me - fine - if not - well too bad.

They can never be "serious recreations' really, and perhaps nor should they attempt to be.

Much 'educated' criticism of war movies in regard to to accuracy etc. comes off as pompous bumpf.

Regards

neil

[Pete Hill]

Hi Neil,

when you say 'pompous bumpf', I hope you are not including me?
regards Pete

[alex_revell]

Russ,
Yes, Garry Owen was always a favourite of mine. You've now got me humming the damned thing!

[NeilE]

Originally Posted by Pete Hill

Hi Neil,

when you say 'pompous bumpf', I hope you are not including me?
regards Pete

Lol Pete, I'm not meaning you! What I'm on about is the interminable pissing contests that go on in web forums about this sort of thing. Have a look here at the long running whinging about flyboys and the new MVR film. It all usually ends up as some sort of pissing contest with everyone falling over themselves to display their superior knowledge.

I say.. so what if its not accurate... its a movie!

Movies are not about historical accuracy, they are about entertainment or are vehicle for a statement by the director about something or another. Any accuracy (or not) is incidental often.

For mine, derivative or not, the first few minutes of "S.P.R." were very effective bits of movie making. The average movie goer found them chilling and affecting. To my mind, they achieved the director's aim. Speilberg does make truth claims in his movies and maybe that does change the standard of judgement - particularly in "SPR", where that truth claiming was more pronounced.

When I saw Flyboys, i just enjoyed it for what it was... a sort of boys own adventure. Pulling it apart would have just spoiled it. And when I left there was kid about 10 with his dad and a mate coming out at the same time... and his eyes were shining with excitement. If that film led him to become more interested and then read and learn more, its done its job. The serious stuff can come later. Imagine if his dad sitting next to him was telling him, "those aircraft colours are all wrong you know", "they didnt talk like that", it just would have destroyed the film for him.

Thinking about it, a truly accurate film about WW1 pilots could be pretty boring, given that many flights passed without incident, there would be big slabs of the film where nothing goes on. Do we want to see that? How about a SPR, where after the opening landing Tom Hank's spends his time supervising fatigues? We need Hollywood's licence to make these films interesting to us.

Still this subject is a topic in itself... might have to start one...

And me? I like sword and sandal epics and the more inaccurate and corny the better!

[Pete Hill]

Hi Neil,
thats okay, I wasn't being serious. And you are right, being a stick-in-the-mud intellectual obsessed with historical accuracy can spoil a good movie. "Braveheart" is one of my favourites even though I know full-well that in terms of historical accuracy, 80% of it is up the pole. I even loved the recent "300" and I have a copy of the original Frank Miller comic. Legend is more entertaining than fact and the reason I don't mind is that Braveheart and 300 don't pretend to be anything other than semi-fictionalised movies designed for entertainment. One reason I dislike SPR is that it pompously promotes itself to be the last word on portraying WW2 and the makers hyped it as being a monument to all veterans of that war rather than simply a war movie.
I read a fascinating essay on all the films that have been made about the famous Wyatt Earp gunfight at the O.K Corall and how ironic it is that the ones that have presented the gun fight in its most realistic light, (ie, a confused and messy shooting-brawl that lasted less than a minute) have been commercially the least successful.
Its the same with historical paintings. You know that famous painting of Washington and his men crossing the Delaware, with the great man standing poised and ready for action astride his boat, his chiselled features staring resolutely into his future path to destiny. Imagine if the artist had painted the scene in a more realistic light, ie, with the rowboats crossing the river in pitch darkness in freezing snow with Washington huddled in his greatcoat shivering with icicles forming on his hat? Such a painting would not have had a fraction of the impact on the minds of successive generations of Americans.
However it is when film-makers deliberately falsify historical truths not as mere artistic licence to make better entertainment but to promote their own social or political agendas then I have a problem. Thats when historical films become propoganda and thats when they should be exposed and analyzed.
Here's hoping some-one trys making a movie on the classic WW1comic 'Charley's War"! Sign me up as an extra!
Cheers, Pete

[NeilE]

Originally Posted by Pete Hill

... However it is when film-makers deliberately falsify historical truths not as mere artistic licence to make better entertainment but to promote their own social or political agendas then I have a problem. Thats when historical films become propoganda and thats when they should be exposed and analyzed....
Cheers, Pete

Funny that's how I read "300"... neo-con clash of civilised west vrs evil east propaganda... the only sword and sandal epic I've ever loathed... Give me the Richard Egan 1960's version any day!

Gunfight at The OK Corral film: Tombstone!

Personally I'd like to see "War Story" filmed... but not "Hornet's Sting" and I'm ambivalent about "Goshawk Squadron" in that regard... Who could play Woolley?


Cheers

Neil

[RussGannon]

Pete, Neil & Alex

Pete your preaching to the converted re your thread #82. I remember watching the Omaha beach scene and the dramatic cries of what are we going to do, when under the hail of MG-42 fire. I felt like yelling out in the theatre - "you've got entrenching tools on your packs why don't you bloody well use em!" And of course the US forces never saw a Tiger tank in Normandy: sSS Pz Abt 101, sSS Pz Abt 102 & sPz Abt 503 fought exclusively against the Brits & the Canucks. I've also got figures for after battle examinations and relatively few Panzers in Normandy were actually destroyed by air attack. .50 Cal might chip the Zimmerit. It was all the light AFV's and soft skinned veh that suffered.

Sure films are meant to entertain (loved 300 on that score), but far too many people take war films as actual history. I don't know how many times in the Aussie Army that I was told that Private Hook of Zulu fame, later lost his VC for drunkeness. As such I feel that films which pretend to look accurate should also be as historically accurate as possible. I remember a War Movie book by George MacDonald Fraser of Flashman fame - a Scot himself, but he spent three pages rubbishing the historical accuracy of Braveheart.

Got to go.

Russ

[Pete Hill]

Hi Russ,
I didn't know that about Hooky! I have read that book you mentioned, its called "Hollywood history of the world" and yes he does not have a lot of time for 'Braveheart'. Fair enough, there are plenty of in-accuracies. In the movie, Wallace's army sacks York, in reality, they never went near the place. In the movie, Stirling is fought on an open field but the real site was on a bridge. The movie portrays Edward 1st as a murderous and cunningly evil ruler whereas the real man was a relative moderate who instituted England's first parliament. The film depicts Edward's Irish conscripts at Falkirk changing sides at the last moment and turning on the English. In reality, the Irish may not have had any love for the English but they had none for the Scots either. It was actually the Welsh bowmen in Edward's army that kicked up a ruckus and showed some reluctance to fight Wallace's army but, as far as Hollywood is concerned, the Welsh just aren't as sexy are they?
Mel Gibson's Wallace has intimate relations with Queen Isabella and sires England's next male heir to the throne. The real Queen did not give birth to a child until some years after Wallace's death- that's a long pregnancy! And the real Isabella ordered the poor Edward II be tortured to death (his torturers inserted a red-hot-pocker into his rectum- supposedly his dying screams were heard for miles).
And Robert the Bruce did not betray Wallace at Falkirk! The man was not perfect and certainly not the 'pure' hero that Wallace was, but I certainly doubt that he would betray his country.
Yet, I really enjoyed the film! Its great entertainment, like '300' was. I even enjoyed the battle scenes in the much-malinged 'Pearl Harbour', enjoying the sheer spectacle, regardless of how little it resembled the real thing. As Neil said, the best thing these films can do is to inspire people to seek knowledge on the real events.
regards Pete