SPR: Historical & Tactical Analysis (fm PE Forum)

[Hundminen]

Although SPR is possibly my favourite movie of all time, I agree with John Wayne that the Krauts should not have been misrepresented as bumbling canon fodder in the final battle scene.

I think the movie would have made a much bigger impact if the Jerries had been accurately represented demonstrating superior skill, experience, weaponry, and (in some cases) intestinal fortitude. The audience might have then got the true flavour of the terror and challenge the average GI faced.

The final battle scene was a discredit to the men involved, on both sides.

[This message has been edited by Hundminen (edited 04-17-2000).]

[Guest mch]

Funny Topic.(still havent gotten a link to

TSPRA!!!)

One thing to consider.....

whenever a movie is made about anything

historical,it will dissapoint alot of people.

no matter how "realistic" it is....it must

still have to be ENTERTAINING!

If you want the real thing,it IS out there.

rent something like THE BATTLE OF SAN PIETRO by J.Huston.It's actual WWII combat!but,

despite some amazing shots,it's kind of

edited like a high-school science film.

(same narrator too...)

back to my original point.......

Hollywood dosen't make movies for"grognards"

it makes them for MONEY!..you couldn't make a movie for a "grognard"anyways....They'd

hate it.

It's just entertainment,folks!

------------------

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[Guest Big Time Software]

The real question about the HMG42 still hasn't been asked. What was a 4 man HMG team doing out in the middle of nowhere defending a bombed out radar installation with absolutely NO support? The Germans were no known for penny packeting forces willy nilly about the battlefield like this. So if you want to say how unrealistic it was for the Grunts to do a frontal assault (and it was silly), you should first question the situation as Cpt' Miller's group "found" it.

Sorry, the link to the SPR Chin Strap Abuse article is dead. It was written by a reenactor who wanted to show off how much trivial knowledge he knew about US uniforms. Nobody, not even the average reenactor, would have picked up on 1/2 of what this guy did. And to trash the movie because it got some MINOR equipment and vehicle aspects incorrect is just plain moronic. We are sensitive to this in the wargaming business (and gaming biz in general!) because there are LOTS of people out there that think that if they can find one tiny thing that they are somehow better than the designers. Check out the CGO article about just this point.

But like with games, I doubt even one of these people could make even a short, totally realistic film. Not to mention one that people wouldn't fall asleap or laugh during Anybody catch the old Simpson's episode where Homer got the chance to design the every man's car? End result was something that even he didn't want to have anything to do with

Steve

[Guest GriffinCheng]

*snipped*

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng (edited 04-18-2000).]

[Guest GriffinCheng]

For you ppl who may wish to know if Mr. Speilberg is listening to the critism, according to imdb.com: "Brand of Brothers" is under production, as a mini-TV series, which he sits as the executive producer.

For details, please refer to: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0185906

IMO, in SPR, the German commander attacking the town in the last scene may be stupid, but what Mr. Speilberg wass trying to re-create an epic battle where the Americans were facing an terrible even odd -- and won. Actually, after the inital landing scene, the remaining film is just brain-dead. Or put it: they resemble many scenes we have seen in other stupid war movies, like the scene where German infrantries just popped up from the burning HT one after the other just to get shot. Even so, SPR is so far my favourite land-battle movie, but I am yet to see "Winder War" and "Stalingard".

Griffin @ nu job

P.S. I have the original SPR scirpt in hand but it takes time to read them through...

[Fionn]

Spook,

Well, I've trained to be a doctor so I've seen more horrific injuries in real, living, screaming people than you saw on-screen. It's far, far, far worse in real life than you saw in SPR. I remember once walking into an Operating Theatre and being told they'd already done one operation and to stand and watch this one. I looked into the bin to see what the previous operation had been and found it had been a leg amputation because the top portion of a left leg was sitting in the bin. I was looking at the cut through portion of the thigh and thigh bone. I turned and started counting limbs on the patient on the tableand realised that he had both legs. Unfortunately he ended up dying on the operation table while we stood there ( well, we were actually ordered out by the surgeon once the guy got ventricular fibrillation and started to actively die.)

Anyways, my point is that the scenes in SPR are sanitised quite a bit IMO. For it to be "real" I'd have wanted to see more slow deaths, more screaming etc etc.

[Spook]

Yes, Fionn, I recall you telling some of your medical training experiences in some earlier forum topics. That's my meaning to my earlier "perspective" statement, but I didn't state so very clearly.

In fact, I still also remember your earlier descriptions of what you've seen with smokers suffering from multiple complications. THAT horrified me even more to read than what I saw in SPR, and of course, reading isn't the same as being there.

Regards,

Ed

[Lanzfeld]

You want picky? I got picky.

In the D-day scene after they make it to the seawall Sgt Horvall says that "Dog One" is that cut on the right...or maybe the one on the left. Captain Miller responds that Vierville is to the west and this is Dog One. In reality, Vierville is to the ESE of Dog One. If Vierville was to the west then they were at Dog Three!!!!

Hehe.....told ya picky....beat that!!!!!!

[MCab]

Originally posted by Fionn:

"Ambrose... Hackles rising... fighting urge to retort with references to "massaging the facts and playing to the public need for a eulogising myth fabric"."

Easy, Fionn, asy (Throwing 16 oz. Porthouse steak in front.

(OH, THE SNIPPAGE!)

"God, that man is as bad as Irving. Irving's a Hollocaust Denier but Ambrose just is too populist and willing to write what people want to hear instead of giving them a fully-rounded picture and challenging them with facts sometimes."

Beg to differ on that point. Irving's writing not to give people what they want to hear, but to promote his own perversion of history.

Here's a link: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-200041719232.htm

"Fiction brings out fiction. Facts bring out truth. To say anything else is just justification for lying to readers in books."

So what about books like "All Quiet on the Western Front?" Is this a blatant lie because it's fiction? Even if it is written by somebody who fought in WWI?

Fionn, does a war movie/book need to always depict something that had actually happened to a few real-world individuals? (and I don't mean sending those MTV pukes to combat, although it would be nice!)

Wouldn't it suffice to create a fiction story whose setting is in a war that actually happened, as long as it has its basis on fact?

(Sorry about the incomplete message: I had to get to work!)

Not to do the time warp again, but did SPR claim to be historical or based on history? There the problem probably lies.

MCab

[This message has been edited by MCab (edited 04-18-2000).]

[Fionn]

Spook,

Ah, ok, I get you now. As for the smoking... Yes, it's much worse in person. Still, I try not to lecture smokers about it. After all, so long as they're not blowing the smoke in my face they're free to do whatever they want, including blow their own heads off with a shotgun if they so desire ( at least that's a bit quicker and less painful than smoking ).

MCab,

1. I'd like to point out that there is a definite subsection of the population in America and Europe which WANTS to hear what Irving says. In fact I saw an interesting interview with him on Sky News over in England in which he mentioned that he wrote "for his audience" and in some senses tailored the message for the audience he was expecting to appear before/have read his book.

The fact that Irving tailors his message to neo-nazis and their beliefs is only different from the fact that Ambrose clearly tailors his message to play to the comfort myths of the American public and their beliefs by degree.

Qualitatively speaking I feel that both are distorting history in order to gain easy acceptance by their respective publics. I'd rather see someone spinning "gee, American boys fought the good fight" myths than spinning myths about the hollocaust and so Ambrose is less harmful than Irving but they are both distorting history IMO.

Some historical distortion is inevitable in all works since researched facts and annecdotes undergoe subjective interpretation by the author before being written down in book form but in both Irving and Ambrose's cases I would hold that there is an avoidance of clear issues which do not fit into the story THEY want to tell and which their audience wants to hear.

As for "All Quiet On The Western Front"...

It never sets out to say it is a historical document. It is a fictional book based on the remembrances of a soldier who was there. As such it has value since many more people read it than would ever have read a dry historical account full of statistics and research.

Fictionalisation of war has a role to play in spreading the word widely since many people who never pick up a proper war history will watch SPR or read a fictionalised war novel and gain a new understanding of war. Fictionalisation is a means to gain populist attention and that is good.

However, fictionalisation of facts is NOT something which books which purport to be rigorously researched accounts of history should go into IMO. Within the context of a history book fictionalisation clouds the facts and leads to confusion and the possibility of the author pursuing a personal agenda.

A fictionalised account representing a "normal day for a platoon in combat" or something similar has value since it will gain a wide audience, certainly wider than the number of people who would read dozens of historical daily situation and combat reports from platoons submitted during the war.

However, such fictionalised accounts have no place in a book purporting to be a serious history book. neither does ignoring facts and data which don't fit into the author's preconceived agenda.

SPR, TRL, Forgotten Soldier, All Quiet on the Western Front all have their place but they should never be read or viewed as historically accurate accounts of history. They are historical fiction and NOT accurate historical accounting.

Ambrose should stick to unbiased accounting more often than he veers into pithy stories etc.

[Spook]

At this time, I would like to mention one example of a Hollywood "war movie" that really stepped out of bounds to present its fiction as if it were fact.

The movie in question was the 1980's version of "Memphis Belle". (Another movie with the same name was released in '44.) Those who are familiar with the story will recall that Memphis Belle was a B-17 bomber for which its crew was the first to complete a 25-mission tour in 1943 against German-held targets.

Thus in the film, the Memphis Belle's crew flys its 25th mission with all on board looking forward to a completed tour and getting out of the war. And true to Hollywood fashion, everything happens to the Memphis Belle & its crew along the way. The bomber is torn up by fighters & flak. A crewman is critically wounded. One engine after another conks out, with only one engine running by the time the home airbase is reached. And even one landing gear is stuck and has to be manually cranked down.

With the bomber finally landing and the crew both surviving their hellish mission and their tour, everyone is excited and celebrating. Then the movie concludes to say "The Memphis Belle finished its tour in May 1943." Thus is the impression indelibly left that the movie presented a historic moment.

The concluding line and the bomber's name were the only factual elements to this movie, however. The Memphis Belle's final mission was NOTHING like that portrayed in this movie, and even the names of the real crew were different. It didn't get all shredded up in ANY of its missions, it didn't fly on one engine, and no crew were wounded in the last mission. In fact, through the entire 25 missions, only one of that plane's crew suffered a minor wound.

The filmmakers would counter to say that "we were just trying to show what the bomber crews endured in WW2." Sure, go through all of the bomber units, and you'll find similar factual cases for all of the combat incidents in the movie, including one case where a B-17 did fly for awhile on one engine. So the movie did provide drama, and it did provide a "window" to many of the factual experiences of B-17 crewmen.

But beyond the use of name recognition, I don't see any reason whatsoever as to why a factual bomber & crew had to have its story so grossly fictionalized. A fictional B-17 (by name) should just as well been used, and that would've made the movie acceptable to me.

BTW, in my own ranking of U.S. "historical fictionalists", Ambrose would have to come a LONG way to equal the capacity of Oliver Stone.

[MCab]

I think the main issue with films/books with everyone here is that there is a question of how close must be the plot and the setting.

The one war movie that I had a huge discrepancy between the plot and the setting was "The Green Berets." Not that I'd been in combat, but I've never heard the Vietnam experience been described like this moving-comicbook of a film.

[von Lucke]

SPR based on historical fact?

Here's the fact that SPR is based on:

There was a family with 3 brothers (not 4) in the Army in '44 --- with a Polish last name, not Irish. Two of 'em were killed within a week of each other (one in the Pacific, one at Normandy). The War Department got word of the surviving brother, and sensing what could be another PR disaster along the lines of the Sullivans, decided to pull bro #3 out of combat. Said bro was indeed in Normandy --- but not with the 101. The man sent to find him was an officer --- but not with the 2nd Ranger Batt. (He was a priest, actually!). All said priest had to do to find PVT Wachowski (or whatever his name was), was stroll up the beach to the CP where said PVT was waiting for him, introduce himself, and then stroll back to the waiting boat and a trip to England.

Music up and out --- Roll credits --- Fade to black.

[johnma]

One tiny thing I disliked. When the Rangers and the Paratroopers are waiting for the German onslaught, they lug out a phonograph and listen to some Edith Piaf. Apart from the corniness of the scene, Upham (or whatever his name was) stands there translating the lyrics-- but gets them all wrong: to be more accurate, his translation and the lyrics are out of beat (whereas the actor's mimics and speech rhythms suggest that he's translating simultaneously). Very annoying (at least for me, because French is my native language).

One tiny thing I was impressed by: the puffs of dust spurting from uniforms and smocks when hit by bullets. I have no grounds for saying this; but it struck me as very realistic.