"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...
ŽiŠardo wrote in news:mGP%j.75386$zc6.60120
@newsfe29.ams2:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Robert Sveinson" wrote in news:euI%j.98$t07.25
@newsfe22.lga:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
...
"Robert Sveinson" wrote in news:7Gm%j.31$%g5.8
@newsfe13.lga:
"GC" wrote in message
...
small snip
For military movie fiction you can't "The Sound Barrier"
showing the British being the first to achieve supersonic
flight.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044446/
I am surprised that you could find that one
what with the extensive air brushing out of any
British accomplishments.
I assume that you are stating that the British
did nothing in the attempts to fly faster
than the speed of sound. No surprise there.
Air brush away!
No, just that British complaints about the inaccuracy
of "U-571" need to take into account their country's own
loose treatment of history.
And then there is British director David Leans' "Bridge
Over The River Kwai", which credited the British for an
action that in fact Americans accomplished.........
I noticed this review of U-571:
"Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre, Mostow's
(BREAKDOWN) submarine thriller pays earnest homage to the pluck and
determination of ordinary people forced to overcome extraordinary odds.
The mostly young and inexperienced crew of the S-33 is deployed on a top
secret, high-priority mission to intercept a disabled German u-boat (the
titular U-571) and capture the ship's encryption system--the Enigma--in
order to crack the Nazi's communication codes and hasten an allied
victory in the North Atlantic. Racing against a German rescue effort,
the S-33 stages a daring raid on the U-571. But after capturing the
U-571, the Americans find themselves its prisoner as they must pilot the
leaky, disabled vessel through hostile enemy waters. McConaughey (EDTV,
DAZED AND CONFUSED) leads a strong cast (Keitel - HOLY SMOKE, Paxton - A
SIMPLE PLAN) in this fast-paced, tense, submarine adventure."
Presumably "Faithful to the conventions of the World War II genre"
relates to rebranding all WW2 coups and victories as being down to the
USA?
The big US propaganda machine was even at work in WWW2, possibly
starting with "Objective, Burma", to belittle the endeavours of their
allies, or to ignore them completely.
Was there a likewise "big British propoganda machine" to credit
their country with feats done by Americans, as in The Sound Barrier
and Bridge Over River Kwai?
Sir -- as a land-bound lurker whose familiarity is mostly with things army,
and as an admirer of your contributions here and elsewhere, I raise a timid
hand in polite objection.
The British propaganda machine did nothing to slight or ignore American
efforts during WW2. (It could be argued that they didn't have the resources
for that approach, even if they wanted to take it.)
Meanwhile ŽiŠardo's point about "Objective Burma" has some merit -- or at
least Churchill thought so. He was infuriated that such a film should be
released in the last year of the war itself, that the hero was played by
someone who had ducked military service, and that it implied U.S. paratroops
were responsible for the sort of action Wingate's Chindits had been
generating since 1942. Objective Burma was banned in England until
1952.
I remember seeing "The Sound Barrier" in the year of its release, and my
memories of it stretch back that far. If you have access to a VHS or DVD
home version, please correct me ... but ... the film presents a disclaimer
that it is a piece of fiction, and if despite that it seems more truthful
than most works of fiction then that may be due to the skill of the
director, David Lean; it was acknowledged in the film that the sound barrier
had already been overcome by an American aviator, without, as I remember,
any mention being made that the American aircraft was not jet- but
rocket-powered; and the whole thing is really about Geoffrey de Havilland's
fatal semi-success in the DH 108 Swallow, when he tickled Mach 1 but didn't
survive.
As to "Bridge Over the River Kwai" -- also a David Lean film, as you
noted -- if there's blame to be handed out, blame Pierre Boulle for writing
the hit novel on which the film is based, and for turning several
stiff-necked and stupid French army officers he had known in Indo-China into
the one stiff-necked and stupid English officer played by Alec Guinness.
The novel (and the film) were meant to outline the torments of the POWs
building the bridge, not glorify the heroism or achievement of those
destroying it. Besides -- the film has the bridge destroyed in 1943, and in
a manner that exploits cinematic story-telling. The actual destruction of
the bridge in 1945 by the 458th Heavy Bombardment Group, U.S.A.A.F, wouldn't
have made much of a movie.