OT: How Hollywood is rewriting the role of the British and the USA in war (Big)

[Cuchulainn]

An interesting article:

From the (London "Sunday Times" June 4 2000

John Harlow and Nicholas Hellen on how the movies are rewriting British history

'Lies, damned lies and Hollywood'

The British soldier, resplendent in his redcoat and musket, kicks down the door and stares at the huddled group of terrified children: with a sneer, he orders the razing of the South Carolina farmstead. The oldest boy is carried away to be hanged. The distraught father arms his children to wreak bloody revenge on the redcoats.

This, according to Hollywood, is how peaceful farmer Benjamin Martin was dragged into the American war of independence. More worryingly, thanks to the charismatic portrayal of Martin by Mel Gibson in The Patriot, a $100m blockbuster due for release soon in America, this is how the world will once again think of the British Empire.

Martin was a real-life fighter in the war of independence (1775-1783) but the film is far from an accurate account of his participation. Instead, in the hands of an Australian actor working with a German director and funded by Hollywood money, his story has been transformed into a 160-minute polemic against the British.

Dramatists have long sacrificed fact in pursuit of art, and much of the time it can be shrugged off, like geography teachers patiently explaining that the volcano Krakatoa is, unlike the erroneous title of the 1969 adventure movie, west rather than east of Java. But there is a growing concern that in a "post-literate" society, where children get more information from films and television than books, the routine distortion of history in Hollywood films is becoming pernicious.

Films are no longer mere entertainments: they are a prime and often sole source of information for many young minds.

Lord Puttnam, whose 1981 film Chariots of Fire was praised for accurately recapturing the social tensions behind the 1924 Paris Olympics, last week became the first cinematic heavyweight to rail against distortion in Hollywood films and warn of its long-term damage.

Speaking as chairman of the General Teaching Council, his particular target was Disney's computer-animated hit, Dinosaur. "It is cute, but the film does not explain why the dinosaurs are no longer around. It is compelling in terms of imagery, but in terms of education it misleads children," he said. "It is up to us in education to come up with something better."

Yet this is innocuous stuff compared to The Patriot and others of its ilk.

Gibson has been here before: he made his name in the film Gallipoli, in which the Australian troops were depicted as the main victims of a first world war campaign in which, in fact, many more British than Australian troops died. He played the lead, too, in the anti-English epic Braveheart.

For The Patriot, to be released on Independence Day weekend, the film-makers have gone to unusual lengths to assure the public it is historically accurate, even hiring experts from the Smithsonian, the American equivalent of the British Museum, to cast an eye over the 38 script drafts written by Robert Rodat, best known for writing another film that marginalised the British, Saving Private Ryan.

Yet there are good reasons to suspect the British are going to lose in this film as surely as they lost the war. The sadistic dragoon, whose violence stirs Gibson to hatchet-wielding mayhem, is, according to the film-makers, partially based upon the British soldier Banastre Tarleton. In real life Tarleton, the son of a former lord mayor of Liverpool, was a dashing officer loved by his soldiers. He was no bloodthirsty villain.

Hollywood preferred to rewrite history to make the story more dramatic; nor does it end there. Two battles in South Carolina in which the Gibson character and Tarleton are known to have taken part, at Cowpens in January 1781 and Guilford Courthouse two months later, have been merged and "rearranged" by the film-makers to the advantage of the Americans.

"We had to simplify a few things, both to save budget and to explain the bigger picture," said a source close to Roland Emmerich, the director, who also made the science fiction fantasy Stargate.

Simplify is one thing: distort another. The English are shown running away from Gibson, just as they were depicted at a battle in Braveheart; in reality, the British won both battles.

WHEN Chris Smith was appointed culture secretary after the last general election, one of his first tasks was to order a rethink of Britain's image abroad. This was the height of "cool Britannia" and he was concerned that Britain was still perceived as a land of warm beer and poor plumbing. A confidential report, compiled by the British Council, made disturbing reading.

It postulated that the image was worse, pointing out that the film Ghandi might have rekindled anti-British feelings, potentially costing British companies business contracts. In the film Richard Attenborough had restaged the 1919 massacre at Amritsar in which British soldiers killed 379 demonstrating Sikhs. At least that massacre was historically accurate.

The report also warned that some outside Britain believed that the British army deployed a tank to shoot dozens of spectators at a 1916 football match in Dublin - a horror that was controversially altered for the 1996 film Michael Collins by its director Neil Jordan.

"Filmgoers have no way of distinguishing between the two events, so we should ensure that British interests are represented in the earliest stages of film production: otherwise we shall find it difficult to shake off the image of our past as a cruel and unfair epoch, which will continue to resound upon our interests today," said an official behind the report.

Smith has since beefed up British representation in Hollywood. It will be an uphill struggle against a global tide of historical ignorance, however,especially among teenagers, who are the prime cinema-going audience. A Gallup poll taken just before the release of the film Schindler's List found that four out of five American children had not heard of Auschwitz. Similar polls have found that the majority of American high school students believe that the second world war leader in Russia was Lenin rather than Stalin, and some believed his first name was John.

Even so, the British cannot be smug: a Scottish survey last summer revealed that children at a mix of public and private schools believed that John F Kennedy led the allies during the second world war and D-day was the German invasion of Britain, possibly through Dunkirk.

Hollywood is not to blame for this, but its effect is noticeable. Judith MacKinlay, who teachers history at City College, Manchester, said that the Hollywood-funded Michael Collins film had directly caused confusion.

"One student reproduced whole chunks of dialogue almost verbatim from the film in support of an argument in her essay. Even undergraduate students would rather watch movies than wade through a textbook, without realising that directors are twisting the facts. Hollywood leaves behind powerful images."

William Rubinstein, professor of modern history at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, believes there is sometimes a deliberate agenda. "It is more than just dramatic or commercial considerations: the great liberal establishment of Hollywood does all it can to blacken the western, imperial colonial past, probably because the Americans largely missed out on the spoils."

James Bowman, an American historian, said that Steven Spielberg was responsible for some of the most powerful Hollywood fakery, not only in Saving Private Ryan (which relegates the British role in the D-Day invasions), but also Amistad, his anti-slavery epic. It failed to mention how the black hero, after being freed, became a slaver himself.

"The deeper sin is to make every historical character, from Merchant-Ivory's Jefferson in Paris to Elizabeth I as played by Cate Blanchett, sound like a modern liberal. They distort in subtle as well as obvious ways, such as making us feel superior to Nazis and slave-traders rather than questioning if, in another life, we might have been Nazis and slavers. It gets in the way of understanding the foreign country that is the past," he said.

Despite Smith's best efforts, there is little sign of a halt to the cinematic rewriting of British history. Last week saw the release in Britain of a war movie called U-571, starring Harvey Keitel and pop star Jon Bon Jovi. It tells the story of how the US navy recovered an Enigma Nazi code machine and changed the course of the war.

In reality, although the US navy captured a cipher machine off West Africa in 1944, the original was seized in an equally daring and costly mission by HMS Bulldog three years earlier when America was not even in the war. The code books were snatched by HMS Petard the following year. It took a parliamentary protest by Dr Julian Lewis, Conservative MP for New Forest East, before the film-makers tacked a dedication to Bulldog on the end of the film.

Even more bare-faced distortions are planned for the Hollywood version of The Colditz Story, first filmed with John Mills in 1954. Miramax has purchased the rights to the original accounts by Pat Reid, who broke out of the "escape-proof" prisoner of war camp near Leipzig in 1942. Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax boss, is talking about casting Tom Cruise, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck as American escapees when, in reality, no American came close to getting out of the castle.

Kenneth Lockwood, secretary of the Colditz Association, said that no American was even at the camp when Britons were launching their imaginative escape attempts, including building a glider in the rooftops.

"The film will be laughed out of court if it shows Tom Cruise leading a 'mission impossible' escape. The problem is people so very easily confuse films with history," said Lockwood, who was incarcerated in the castle for more than four years.

Nor is this the last in the current glut of military madness to come out of Hollywood. Okracoke, the next Kevin Costner film, will tell the story of the disgraced British naval captain Robert Maynard, who redeemed himself by chasing down and beheading the pirate Blackbeard at the bloody battle of Okracoke off the North Carolina coast in 1718.

In early versions of the script Marc Norman, who more playfully mixed up history in Shakespeare in Love, has stereotyped the British admiralty as full of snobs and fools who do not recognise the true talent of the American accented Costner.

Where will it all end? Sherl Bearlstrom, the Los Angeles-based author of Hollywood and History, said there was a simple morality at work in Hollywood. "We are the top nation and we need history to explain how we got here. If that means stealing your history and heroes to do it, then Hollywood will think it's a small price to pay for success at the box office.

"Your Lord Puttnam was right: its up to you guys to make your history more interesting than our version of your history. Otherwise you are going to lose - forever."

[Mannheim Tanker]

You mean the Wermacht didn't really have hybrid Russian-Tiger tanks ala SPR?

Good points, though. I've often pondered the impact of many movies while I've nitpicked and pointed out the discrepancies that I was aware of (Lord knows how many slipped past me!)

[Guest Germanboy]

That's what you get from Edutainment. There was a lengthy report on Radio4 here the other day slamming U-571 and SPR. Can I sense an agenda somewhere in here?

What I find more lamentable is the state of history education in general, as raised in the article. But I remember making those jokes about Americans who thought Hitler was still alive 20 years ago. Plus ca change...

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[HoosierTreadHead]

Hold on there my Celtic friend! The Brits won the battle of the Cowpens? I think not. In fact they got the **** kicked out of them in one of the most complete victories of the war. And Guilford Courthouse was at best a draw, since the tattered British army was in no condition to persue the Americans, and infact had to withdraw the next day.

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

...But I remember making those jokes about Americans who thought Hitler was still alive 20 years ago. Plus ca change...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you call an American without a passport?

Typical.

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

Dulce Et Decorum Est

[jgdpzr]

Cuchulainn,

This article raises some very good points. However, Stephen Ambrose notwithstanding, the British are not at much a greater risk of being skewered than any other nation, including the U.S. Hollywood is in the entertainment, not education, business. Sure, in today's age that line is almost imperceptable, but to hold Hollywood accountable to historical standards is virtually beyond hope.

One thing I will dispute regarding this article is the assertion about Tarleton. Perhaps he was loved by his soldiers, but the historical record is pretty clear that he was a brutal commander and was ruthless in his treatment of the colonists, both combatant and civilian. Maybe that is just the lesson we, as Americans, have been taught (for those of us who were awake in class when this was discussed) about Tarleton. I'd imagine some embellishment was thrown in, but I do believe Tarleton earned his reputation with blood.

[waffen]

hi to all, thought this would be of interest to this threed hope you enjoy THE TRUTH BEHIND SAVEING PVT RYAN .In late July 1998 the film 'Saving Private Ryan' will open in theaters in the USA. This is Steven Speilberg's grand attempt at a WW2 film. In most editions of the script, the film opens with the title "Based on a true story." We do not know if this will be in the final cut. (Note: at some point shortly before the film opened, they dropped this. Why? no one is saying, but the rumors are that either they realized it was so far from reality they could not get away with it, or else that it opened them to a lawsuit from some families. We've got the script here to prove they were going to though...)

Is it? Is it really?

The story revolves around the Normandy invasion in WW2. So far, both the invasion and the war actually happened. It seems that Private Ryan, a paratrooper, has been dropped behind German lines (by accident). Sadly, he has had three brothers killed: one on Omaha, one on Utah, and a third in the Pacific. In order that Ryan's mother be spared getting news that all four sons were killed, he is ordered from combat. Nice try, but he's behind German lines. How to get him out?

The truth- Ryan is based on a 506th P.I.R. trooper who did have one brother killed at both Omaha and Utah beach. His 4th brother was missing in the Pacific, but later located and survived the war. The military ruling about sole surviving son being allowed out of combat is real. The soldier in question was dropped behind German lines. Many paratroopers were mis-dropped all over Normandy- he was one of many in this situation.

In the film an understrength squad of Rangers, led by a Ranger Captain (Tom Hanks) is sent behind German lines to find Ryan and bring him out. They travel through German held terrain, risking life and limb, then find Ryan and a small group of Para's trying to hold onto a key bridge. But wait- there's more! The bridge is about to be attacked by German Tiger tanks. Will they save the bridge, and the invasion, and make a ton of money for Dreamworks? Go see the film.

In reality, the missing trooper spent about 18 days behind German lines evading patrols with the help of local French civilians. He finally walked into US territory on his own. When he reported in he was told, "oh, we've been looking for you." and a Chaplain drove him down to the beach in a jeep. No rescue, no risking a group of men to save one, no bridge, and no bloody TIGER tanks either! (The Tigers were further west in the British sector).

But... the main part of the story is the rescue attempt by Tom Hanks and Co. Hanks is the star of the film, and thus this action IS the main part of the film. As there was no rescue attempt (they had no way of knowing where to look in any case) the basis for the MAIN part of the film is not true. Neither is the bridge defense against Tiger tanks (guess what? they were lots of other German tanks in the war besides Tigers. Also guns other than 88's. Hollywood has yet to figure this out.) Of course, legally, the film is based upon the missing 506th paratrooper, and the fact that the Americans did invade Normandy in WW2.

(Curiously, quite recently the production company has been distancing themselves from the 506th story, and making claims of a 'fictional story loosely based on the 5 Sullivan Brothers.' Very curious. Might it be that after spending a ton of money of the film they discovered that no one had gotten permission from the family? Or could they have decided they went too far from reality and could no longer claim it to be true? Only Dreamworks and Co. know for sure)

Why is this film dangerous? Because after making films such as Schindler's List and Amistad, which were touted for being "real history", this film is not. It is a fictional story placed in what seems like "real history." Mark my words- in 2 years this film will be used in schools to 'teach' WW2. Many people will think that the entire story is true. For the vast majority of the population this film will BE the invasion of Normandy. Does it matter? Yes it darn well does! Anyone that has spent any time at all interviewing veterans can come up with a bunch of real stories that rival this one. By making up the story, they cheapen what the vets really did. They ignore the real sacrifices. And isn't it so nice that the Army thinks so much of our sons that they will risk a handful of men to save one.

Go see the film. Enjoy it. I am sure it is well made and great fun. Nit pick on the historical details (there's some very good stuff in it, also some botched things: you spot the difference!), But know that it is not reality. Reality was just as, if not more, thrilling and exciting (but more bloody, if that is possible). The catchphrase on the set was "We're making a movie, not a documentary." Just keep that in mind.

[gaffertape]

I see the point of the article, and I agree (to a degree) about the dangers of historical distortion. I also realize that these articles are not penned by members of this board, so my response whould not be taken personally.

However, I do think some of the criticism is off base. 'Gallipoli' didn't take into account that more British than Australians died in World War One? Well no. 'Dinosaur' didn't tell me that either. Why? Because those movies weren't focused on the British in World War One. Some have complained that Private Ryan didn't have any black soldiers in it. That's because the movie was not focusing on a black battalion.

Movies cannot be asked to be fully representative - they'd be twelve hours long.

On the historical accuracy point I am somewhat more in line, but I also understand the rewriting that occurs for dramatic effect. 'Gladiator' apparantly, was full of inaccuracy - but I loved it; it was a terrific film. I did not, however, leave the theatre convinced that it was factual.

Let's not forget that novels (and some badly written histories) have played with the truth for centuries. We just need to look at these films for what they are:

Entertainment. If the subject interests you - read about it, and discover the details.

GAFF

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HoosierTreadHead:

Hold on there my Celtic friend! The Brits won the battle of the Cowpens? I think not. In fact they got the **** kicked out of them in one of the most complete victories of the war. And Guilford Courthouse was at best a draw, since the tattered British army was in no condition to persue the Americans, and infact had to withdraw the next day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anybody using The Times, or any UK newspaper for that matter, who thinks they could learn about history deserve what they get, IMO. It's the world's worst writing...

It should also be noted that the UK government does not seem worried about the correct portrayal of history, but about the negative portrayal of UK acts in history, no matter whether they are factually correct or not. See the paragraph about the movie Ghandi in the Times article.

BTW, wasn't the 'British' division that got slaughtered at Gallipolli actually Irish? So that's alright then...

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

edits fer Gramer mishtakes

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

When I was in my 2nd year of college I had to make a decision about my final Major which I would receive a degree for. What were my two choices, based on my interests, classes, and grades?

1. History

2. Film

I chose history, but my love of film is still there. So as someone who has interest and some schooling in both, I can tell you that the two articles quoted above make me yawn. Hollywood, and all other film production conglomorants around the free world, exist to do TWO THINGS ONLY:

1. Entertain

2. Make money

Film in controlled media nations (like the old Soviet Union) were there to do pretty much one thing, and that was to extend the state's control over its people.

Anybody who doesn't understand this is litterally out to lunch. Note that there is no third element, like "Educate" in the true balanced sense of the word. It simply is not part of what they do. I would no sooner expect Stephen King to have to write historically correct books than to expect SPR to be on target. As for that SPR review, I read it when it first came out and I think most of it is a load of crap I found it on the same site that ripped into SPR because they used the wrong chin straps...

If you want to look for flims that are "historical" that are in fact not, open your eyes. All of them are, to some degree or another, twisted. The author of Braveheart, for example, stated that "I never let facts get in the way of the 'true' story". Braveheart was horribly inaccurate, even switching around dates and omitting huge sections of Scottish history.

So... in conclusion here... so long as a Film does not promote itself as a Documentary, I don't have a problem with it. It isn't my fault that most people in the world get their "news" from the National Enquiror and the various British tabloids. Film = art, Documentary = fact. That is the way it works.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Hakko Ichiu]

What I find particularly laughable is the idea that somehow SPR marginalizes the British contribution to victory in the ETO. Last I looked, UK and Commonwealth troops were pretty thin on the ground at Omaha Beach. Oddly enough, you wouldn't have found too many US GIs at Juno either.

One could just as easily say that Sink the Bismarck marginalizes the U.S. contribution to the Battle of the Atlantic.

Furthermore, if one wants to see a British movie distorting the history of the War, look no further than David Lean's excellent "The Bridge Over the River Kwai". Colonel Bogey indeed!

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

Furthermore, if one wants to see a British movie distorting the history of the War, look no further than David Lean's excellent "The Bridge Over the River Kwai". Colonel Bogey indeed!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ethan, that was cruel! No need to tell me they did not whistle the River Kwai march. Another illusion destroyed.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[Allan]

Ok let me add my $.02 worth. As a chemistry and physics teacher I get to see the impact of film and TV on kids. It is not a pretty sight. In my classes I get quite a few questions like "can this really happen? I saw it in a movie". I almost always answer no and then proceed to explain Hollywood special effects vs reality. In my generation special effects in movies were not so realistic for the most part. We also gots our facts from several sources, not just movies or TV. Therefore, could distinguish between reality and fiction. However, with such glorious special effects available for multi-million dollar movies these days, it is no wonder kids have trouble with fact vs fiction. Maybe we should now label movies as well as books as fiction or nonfiction.

Allan

[Cuchulainn]

OK. Now for my two cents worth.

I should perhaps first of all say that as someone who is half-Brazilian, half-Irish, raised in England and living in the USA, I bring a certain perspective to this. (Just don't ask me what it is!!)

There is no doubt that to those who have the benefit of a good education (whether imposed or self-taught) and an enquiring mind, it is easy to concur with Steve that it is all too obvious that entertainment is ... well, entertainment.

However, as the visual media have taken precedence over written media over the years, and as the majority of the population have neither the time nor the inclination to "check out the real story" I do feel that there is a drift to the 'legend,' the 'story,' becoming 'history' even more than has been the case before.

The merits of the particular arguments laid out in the Sunday Times article I am not well versed in history enough to fully support or destroy (especially those concerning the 'Revolutionary War' about which I readily confess my knowledge is scant).

However,history, they say, is written by the winners. It does now appear that to write history, increasingly you not only have to win the battles, but also the ratings.

[Cuchulainn]

And what was this Battle of the Cow Pens, anyway?

All sounds very messy ...

[Wesreidau]

Speaking as a true Brit, I think Monty was over-rated...

[Wesreidau]

As an Englishman who was educated in Scotland not far from the battlefields in Braveheart, it was a wonder that i survived at all. Still, taking young virginal brides into my bed didn`t really help matters. Go figure.

[Wesreidau]

..and as for the Glory of the British Empire, well, once we started losing at cricket it was the beginning of the end. Anyone can see that. The final nail in the coffin was the World Cup when the USA beat us into submission.

[Wesreidau]

Hmm, no, thats it. Can`t think of anything else remotely funny. Can I consider myself a veteran of the Combat Mission Flame Wars now?

Please?

[dumbo]

As a brit now living in the states I beg to differ from the article.

The "anti english" tale of hollywood is simply wrong. While obviously Mel Gibson doesnt like british people he is hardly representative of hollywood. English actors are rountinely brought in if an "intelligent" or "dignified" character is needed. Nobody complained over here when an english actor played Nixon imagine the bitching if an american had played Disraeli.

Americans (including irish americans) I have met have a uniformly good impression of the british who they dont even regard as "foreigners".

Routinely in the American news media its "allies" around the world are regarded as spinless wimps or bloodsucking leeches, except for the UK which almost always described in a positive light.

American public teleivision which is regarded as the most educational channel is basically a pro british propoganda channel. Weekends are like watching reruns of british teleivision, almost all of which shows the british in a popular light.

As for movies being inaccurate, thats what countries movies do. Having lived for a time in France and Italy and seeing ww2 movies there I was amazed how flipped around thier history was (all showing themselves in a positive light), Britian is the same way. Look at the current celebration of Dunkrik in the UK. Little mention is given to the enormous contribution of the French in the evacuation effort.

So dont worry about Mel Gibsons anti english movies, frankly nobody cares over here what he says or does, women just want him to show his ass and men just want him to kill lots of people, the "history part" is greeted with a yawn and a shrug.

Americans are not dumb, they understand jerry Springer is a joke, they regard movies as just entertainment not a history lesson. I wouldnt bother getting uptight about the rewriting of history, Americans will just regard it as sad whining, they are not far wrong.

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

WHAT!!!!!

Jerry Springer is a Joke!!!

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

Dulce Et Decorum Est

[Mannheim Tanker]

Wow! I never thought that I'd see the day come when a European would defend Americans on a public forum...is that a tear in the corner of my eye? LOL! Thanks for the comments, and sorry about that tea we spilled in the harbor No hard feelings!

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cuchulainn:

It does now appear that to write history, increasingly you not only have to win the battles, but also the ratings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Steve has more or less said, only if you're the sort who gets his history from Hollywood movies (or anybody else's, for that matter).

You're supposed to get your history from history books and sometimes, teachers. Hopefully more than one of each. People who think history happened the way it does in the movies don't matter, when it comes to serious history.

Other things you should not expect the young to learn from movies, despite occasional depictions:

How to drive a car

How to fly a plane

How to aim a pistol

How to clean a pistol

How to perform a tracheotomy

How to behave around large wild animals

How to make withdrawals from banks

How to workaround network password settings

I'm sure there are others.

[Stoffel]

Although it has nothing to do with films I want to say this to Allan,

You say you could distinquis real things from science fiction.

Please explain to me why many people in the US tought they were attacked by Mars after hearing war of the worlds on the radio.

Many people actually believed it and fled their houses.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

How to drive a car

How to fly a plane

How to aim a pistol

How to clean a pistol

How to perform a tracheotomy

How to behave around large wild animals

How to make withdrawals from banks

How to workaround network password settings

I'm sure there are others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, speak for yourself - all I needed to know about these things I learned from 'The A-Team'...

Please note that all smilies on this iMac have gone in search of the missing link.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)