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

[Cuchulainn]

Merely to say that when I posted the initial article that started the thread, I felt that within it were the seeds of a good discussion.

How little did I realise how right I was!

My hat is off gentlemen to your inestimable eloquence and perspicacity.

(That's my ten dollar words used up for the month - but it's truly meant)

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hell, the same is true of a huge porportion of the population concerning real snakes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... funny enough, I was thinking the SAME thing yesterday as I watched three snakes slither through my back yard a couple of feet away from me. Cute little buggers too

As for mistakes in school history books, they abound. A few years back one text book maker in Texas (don't know who they are) got into the bad Public Spotlight after huge and gross errors in one of the most common history text books. The one error I remember was that it had Pearl Harbor happening in December 1942. No, it wasn't a misprint, since they had the event cronologically placed in the December 1942 time slot. How they could have possibly made sense of that section is beyond me. YOu would thing even the copy editor would have said, "gee... Pearl Harbor was what got the US into the war, right? Well, what about all this fighting that went on before? Were we not at war then?" It really is sad...

Steve

[Spook]

I’m pretty sure that I had mentioned this once before on the CM forums, but it still stands as a classic for the ages.

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

The following poll question was posed a couple of years ago on the streets of Washington, DC: “How did the USA enter WW2?”

One response: “I think the USA got into the war after the Japanese dropped the atomic bomb on Pearl Harbor.”

[Maximus]

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

What do you call an American without a passport?

Typical.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, maybe it stems from the fact that we don't have to produce "our papers" to go from state to state. Americans aren't used to driving 2 hours and crossing Country borders, which is what you got in Europe. I swear, if half the countries in Europe would combine together and form one country, then you wouldn't need a passport.

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

"The greatest risk...is not taking one."

[TargetDrone]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I swear, if half the countries in Europe would combine together and form one country, then you wouldn't need a passport.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well.. that is going to happen.. its called the European Union.. and boy, i have to say i LOVE my passport...

Gimme back my old green austrian passport and not that ****ty red eu one...

you know, i liked the borders... and i liked diferent currencies...(you can even benefit if you exchange at the right time.. besides the Euro is absolute crap )

guess nobody will understand me, but im not so fond of that EU... (and i havent been even before the sanctions agains austria...)

oh well.. sorry for getting of topic...

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

-- TargetDrone

who doesn't want to draw attention...

especially from guys with big guns ...

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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

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...

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).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put Steve. As long as a film doesn't promote itself as a documentary, then there is no use in psycho-analylizing it has historical accuracy. The film was made to entertain based on some historical event.

To slam SPR for not having British troops represented is not what the story of SPR was about. It was never intended to represent the British, just like it didn't represent the Canadians either.

A film is ART unless otherwise stated. Simple as that!!!

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

"The greatest risk...is not taking one."

[Guest Germanboy]

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

A film is ART unless otherwise stated. Simple as that!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is stretching it a bit. Can we just stick to entertainment? I am not into this post-modern attitude where everything is art, really. And the thought that all that spews forth from Hollywood is art is really a bit too much.

BTW, when traveling in mainland Europe you can go almost anywhere within the EU without a passport, since about 1994. Which is great. Between Germany, France and the Benelux countries the only way you notice that you crossed the border is because the language and design of street sign changes. Between northern Belgium and Holland you don't notice it at all, until you reach a Pommes Frites stall (that's when you know you reached Belgium).

Please note that all smilies on this iMac were but a dream within a dream and did vanish when I woke up.

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

Andreas

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

[Speedy]

OB&..woops Maximus, I think what stirs some people up is that the only mention in the film of British/Commonwealth/Polish/French is a negative comment made about them, without any reference to the favt that the vast majority of German armour at the time was facing these troops and not the Americans.

The actual comments made between the two captains is probably quite understandable and realistic in the context it was made. They would have absolutely no idea of the larger strategic picture and would have the natural inclination that they and there fellow countrymen were being stuck with the greater share of the burden of fighting the war.

It annoys some people basically for the reasons mentioned above that alot of people take what they see on TV/Movies/Newspapers etc for gospel.

P.S.- Whats a passport?

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

IN VINO VERITAS

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

[Formerly Babra]

Babbaro said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We all know that even educated and well read people are capable of responding to Hollywood's appeal to less than the most sophisticated in humanity through our own personal experences. We find ourselves as succeptable to the primative appeal, as does the cat's wandering attention, instantly fixed by the flutter of a feather.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true. In fact, some survey a few years ago showed, somewhat surprisingly, that the favoured entertainment medium of male white engineers was pulp novels. A little further investigation revealed that for the most part, the more one has to think during working hours, the less one *wants* to think during recreational hours. I know I love a cheesy 'Nam book from time to time.

As for film-makers, there is little we can do. As much as I know it will make me cringe, I'll still see The Patriot. I hear it's good

As for our education system(s) in general... Well, don't get me started

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

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Maximus]

This following statement stems from the statements regarding Mel Gibson's Patriot and Braveheart movies.

When are the British gonna realize that that Colonialism is an out-dated concept? The United States broke away. India broke away. Hell, even Hong Kong went back to the Chinese. The sun never sets on the British Empire, huh, yeah right! people across the globe do not want to be ruled by some small island nation.

Apparently the English people don't understand the concept of free will and freedom. Speaking of which, Monarchies are dead! The concept of a ruling King and Queen is totally ludicrous. You have one ruling person until they die?? Gee, talk about being static. I'm with Mel Gibson in his anti-British sentiment. Being from Australia, the so-called "penal colony" of Britian, I don't blame him for his film role choices.

If anyone wants to know my ethnicisity, I'm part fascist-Italian (I wish I could say Sicilian, but I can't), and semi-Russian Lithuanian. But I'm first and foremost--American.

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

"The greatest risk...is not taking one."

[Seanachai]

What follows are excerpts from an upcoming article.

"England in Film: History's Greatest Monster"

Many will recall the day when then-President George Bush startled the international community by declaring that "Saddam Hussein is worse than England". Oddly enough, I was working at the time as a bootblack in the Baghdad airport (doing research for my forthcoming book "Iraq & Hollywood: the Undiscovered Country"), and was just finishing putting a high-gloss buff on Saddam Hussein's jackboots. I remember the big smile he got as he watched the speech on a nearby monitor, as Hussein was, as a rule, very proud of and concerned with his image as a Dictator. I could not let this pass, however, and told him: "I'm sorry, Mr. Hussein, but I've met England, and you, sir, are no England." I was immediately deported.

Now, anyone who has ever entered a theater and spent two hours watching a history book will understand why I had to say what I did. If Hollywood has taught us nothing else, and it certainly hasn't, it's taught us that most, if not all, of the world's woes can be laid at the door of England. Besides the fine film work of Mel Gibson, which has been discussed at length elsewhere, many Hollywood filmmakers have worked to enlighten the world about the menace that is England. Many, for example, do not realize that Oliver Stone has, in two of his works, illuminated England's role in the horrors of history. In "Born on the 4th of July", Stone's early footage elucidated the role England played in creating the war in Viet Nam through the competition France felt they had to enter into with England to colonize, which led them to Indochina, and, eventually, to our entry into the war. This footage, sadly, never made it into the final release, purportedly because the finished film would have required a full week of 8 hour days to view, and the Studio decided that that was too much, even for an Oliver Stone film.

In another Stone film, "JFK", the final footage of the movie revealed that Lee Harvey Oswald, as a rifleman, was merely providing 'suppressive' fire for England, who was running like a bastard for the crest of the grassy knoll with a German heavy machine gun, probably an MG42, although some vehement arguments have been made that it was, in fact, an MG34. Until the records are finally unsealed, we will probably never know which. One thing that history is currently certain of, and that is that England did not call in White Phosphorous rounds on Kennedy. Again, this footage never made it into the final product. Oliver Stone informed me, upon my assurance of complete anonymity as to the source, that "two guys dressed all in black showed up in the editing room one day. At first I thought it was Johnny Cash and Roy Orbison, but they were actually government agents. They seized all the footage dealing with England's role in the assassination, and one of them told me: 'I don't give an (expletive deleted) what History or Oliver Stone have to say about the shooting, Castro and LBJ are going down for this one, and that's that. We're putting this film into a sealed vault in Washington, and the only one who's ever gone see it is Jimmy Hoffa, if he feels like running it while he's in there.' Then they drove off." ...

[Long, rambling, partially incoherent section follows, dealing with the role movies have played in revealing England's responsibility for the First World War, Apartheid, the Fall of Rome, fees charged for using ATM machines, Iran-Contra, and the Benny Hill Show. Cut in the interest of brevity and relevance to reality. Besides, no one's responsible for the Benny Hill Show, including Benny Hill. Sometimes things like that just happen. It's no good pointing a finger, and at least everyone got to see some naked ladies on television. Move along, people, show's over, nothing to see here...]

... Finally, then, we should consider some upcoming films that help people, especially young people, understand that 'rogue' nation, England.

Fan! (for release this fall) Mel Gibson returns to putting England in her place in his role as a mild mannered, but plucky Pakistani grocer living in Liverpool. Mel's character laughs at the joke of a friend during a football match, his laughter unfortunately coinciding with an own-side goal against England. He is brutally beaten by English football thugs (role not yet cast), along with about 30 other people who just happen to be standing there. The grocer's anger and rebellion force him to ever greater acts of defiance, until finally, at a World Cup match waving the Tricolour in one hand, and the Dutch flag in the other, he is dismembered in the stands. The final triumph is his, however, as it is revealed after his death that he has already fathered Tony Blair.

The Immigrants (coming in winter) In this film, England engineers the potato blight in order to force a mass exodus of the Irish to every corner of the globe. No longer content to abuse the Irish themselves, England decides that every culture deserves a chance at them as well, and arranges the famine so that the chief export of Ireland becomes the Irish. Using flashing imagery and stream of consciousness camera work, the degradation of the Irish in the new world is conveyed by such devices as the 'Lucky Charms Leprechaun', Hallmark St. Patrick's Day cards, and, in the film's most intriguing vignette, with Jesse 'the Body' Ventura's accusation that the street system of the city of St. Paul is 'the fault of drunken Irishmen'. Ventura later apologizes to the city of St. Paul, clarifying that he never meant to insult the city, and that he merely meant to indicate that all Irish are drunks. When Irish Americans ask for an apology, Ventura informs them that his friends Jack Nicholson and Sean Penn are both Irish, and they're always drunk. No further explanation or apology is offered. Irish Americans decide that the only way Nicholson and Penn can stand to be around Ventura is by being constantly drunk, and let the matter drop. (footnote: critics who have seen the early release of this one say that stylistically it's similar to "Thin Red Line", and encourage moviegoers to 'take a lot of caffeine pills and study Zen koans before viewing the film if they want to have any chance at all of following the action")

Falklands: The Return (opening soon). The movie opens with England colonizing the Falkland Islands, the motivation for which at first seems bizarre and obscure. But soon it's revealed that it's to provide the pretext for war with Argentina decades in the future. The first half of the movie deals with the Falklands up through the war (the battle footage is mediocre, but the special effects dealing with the settlement of the island are stunning). The second half of the movie focuses on how Argentina, shamed and degraded by defeat, works quietly in the background for years, through agents, in order to create the musical Evita!. Thus their agony, in the end, is visited on the rest of the world. In a heartbreaking final scene filled with irony and pain, a touring company actually performs the musical for Falkland Island inhabitants.

There you have it. Let's remember, people, that God surrounded England with an ocean for a reason. Some might ask, then, why didn't he put an ocean between England and Scotland? Or Wales? Well, actually, he did put an ocean between England and Wales, but only the Welsh can see it. And if he'd put an ocean between Scotland and England, it would have killed a lot of great filmmaking, now wouldn't it? Besides, people shouldn't inquire so deeply into the nature of God's plans. It's rude. So, England, the ways of perfidious Albion are finally being revealed through that most powerful tool of history and truth: Film. But don't worry, given tested levels of geographical knowledge among young Americans, it's unlikely they could find you to enact a just revenge. But if you're making holiday plans, you might want to consider Spain or France this year. Because after Patriot and movies like it are released, there's gonna be a lot of pissed off New Jersey teenagers looking for anyone with a cultured accent to kick the snot out of.

Disclaimer: the essay above is purely a work of historical fact. Any resemblance to countries, films, or individuals, living or dead or even both, are simply coincidence, and try to prove otherwise. Also, no Englishmen were harmed in the making of this essay. Except for a few that were hit, very hard, with sticks. But they seemed to take it in the spirit in which it was meant. That is, of course, to make them fall to the ground, and to hurt a very great deal. From the expression on their faces and the noises they were making, they seemed to understand the intent. Then all the world's other nations were invited to gather round and put the boot in. Everybody joined in except Uzbekistan. It's not known if their refusal to join in was because of a lack of access to Hollywood films, or some kind of language problem. Oh, and Sweden and Switzerland decided not to have a go because it would violate their neutrality, but they did cheer everyone on, and the Swedes said some very nice things about William Wallace.

If CM doesn't arrive soon, I can't guarantee that there won't be more posts like this one...

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Guest Germanboy]

What I find more disturbing than history books that are false b/c the editors learned their trade on an etch-a-sketch, are history books and lessons closely controlled by governments where inconvenient bits of one's own history are conveniently 'forgotten'. An example for this would be the Japanese official history books' way of dealing with e.g. the Rape of Nanking (i.e. it did not happen/was not so bad/they deserved what they got), or the fact that when I went to high-school in Bavaria in the 1980s our wall-maps were still showing Germany in the borders of 1937 (i.e. including bits of what was then the Soviet-Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia). They only changed that after re-unification. Bavaria to my knowledge was the only federal state to do that. I can deal with ineptness, but this take-over of history to further government policy I really dislike. I believe that these lies come back to haunt you, as they did in WW II when the UK public was very incredulous when informed about what happened to Jews and selected minorities in Germany, because of the propaganda hyperbole of WW I.

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

Andreas

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

[Formerly Babra]

(Babra bows low before Seanachai). We're not worthy... we're not worthy...

Thanks for the good laugh.

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

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Guest Germanboy]

Seanachai, that was hilarious.

Perfides Albion!

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

Andreas

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

[Cuchulainn]

Brilliant Seanachai!

[19 Echo]

Germanboy,

My German teacher had a map like that. It showed all the lost Prussian territory in pink, but you could clearly see the pre-war boundary. She was from Frankfort-am-Main, and had been in high school during the war. Every now and then she would pull down the map and go on a 5-minute tirade about how Alsace-Lorraine was properly German. Then she would say "doch" to us. She was about 5 ft. tall. We were terrified of her.

-- 19 Echo

[Mark IV]

Seanachai: LOL, that was truly, very well done. Quite the classic. Impressive.

Bygones, eh?

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

Exactly, Seanachai!!

I was just about to say the very same thing, but goodness gwayshush, you beat me to it.

I *was* going to include a provocative bit about Horatio Nelson leading the 1st/16th Queens Own Firefly Brigade against the Spanish at Quumgee Gap, but it would have ben too much. You balanced the argument inpeccabley/impeccably/impeccabley - very nicely.

Spiked helmets off to you Sir, and mind the man next to you.

Ober

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

"Them Yankees couldn't hit the broa..."

[Mark IV]

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

This following statement stems from the statements regarding Mel Gibson's Patriot and Braveheart movies.

Apparently the English people don't understand the concept of free will and freedom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude. They, like, totally invented both concepts. (OK, well, developed them for modern folk, ya bunch of nitpickers). John Locke, David Hume, Magna Carta, Thomas Aquinas, Adam Smith, bunch a no-names like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Speaking of which, Monarchies are dead! The concept of a ruling King and Queen is totally ludicrous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed it is. For bonus points, name the ruling king of England:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have one ruling person until they die??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Historical fact aside, how do you reconcile that math with "a ruling King and Queen"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gee, talk about being static. I'm with Mel Gibson in his anti-British sentiment. Being from Australia, the so-called "penal colony" of Britian, I don't blame him for his film role choices.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa, who's from Australia, you or Mel? Mel's about as Yank as you get. Spent a few years down-under but lives and pays here in the good ole USA. I lived in Germany for 3 years but I'm not German. Mel's a friggin' box office ATM for producers, but he's as American as Hostess Chemical Pies (TM, and my fave is Cherry).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If anyone wants to know my ethnicisity, I'm part fascist-Italian (I wish I could say Sicilian, but I can't), and semi-Russian Lithuanian. But I'm first and foremost--American.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gawd. No wonder people hate us. Be a stranger in a strange land, and get back to us. And what the hell is a semi-Russian Lithuanian? The Lithuanians I grew up with, insisted that you pick one....

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 06-07-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Let us not spoil this gem of a thread because of ONE asinine post. And yes, it certainly is asinine. Having lived in London I had to try and convince people that we Americans were a bit more educated and less anti-British than Maximus. Although I will not hesitate to point out all the suffering the British Empire has brought to this world in the name of Divine Right (and later, Democracy), I am just as quick to underscore all the crap that my own country (USA if you haven't figured out) has forced on this world. And since we are, as Mark IV pointed out, largely the product of English government and social standards it should be no surprise that we are far more similar than we are different. In both the good and bad ways.

OK, so let us move back to the more interesting discussion that was going on before the disruption

Steve

[Renaud]

On the subject of Britain being depicted as the bad guy by hollywood and others...

Might I add that when you control a vast empire of far-flung colonies for an extended period of time you are eventually going to be depicted in a non-too-glowing light by all your former colonies. In Britain's case that's a lot of former colonies.

One other thing to consider is that brutality is required for the administration and exploitation of said colonies. For many native peoples there were undeniable and incalculable benefits to being a british colony (education, science, industrial civilization, parliamentary government, etc), but can any people be expected to submit to decades of exploitation and political domination without some serious 'persuasion' on the part of the overlords? I think the belief that some nationalities/cultures/races are inherently brutal/evil/badbadbad is laughable, or would be if so many people didn't seriously advocate it. That being said, if a nation-state is in the position of despotic rule over a far-flung colonial empire, you are going to find it's officers, administrators and military doing what it takes to hold the empire together. Regardless of the lovableness of these figures as individuals they will do dispicable things, willingly or not, if they wish to fit into the empire's hierarchy and advance the interests of the despots back home. It goes without saying that those with brutal tendencies will find comfortable niches within the edifice of such a State. This historical setting provides ample grist in the mill of future historians and dramatists, making fiction largely unnecessary even if fiction weren't an easier option than historical research.

Ren

ps: lest I be attacked by hordes of bloodthirsty Anglophiles , note that the above could well apply to the Roman Empire, or the relationship of the US Government to the various native american peoples in the 19th century.

[Major Tom]

I was going to say something, but, Steve cleared it all up. Plus, I am going to go to England next year for School Exchange (hopefully!) and I don't want all British Girls thinking that North Americans are all stuck up hypoctitical bastards.

Actually, many people haven't mentioned the GOOD war movies. There are many that were suprisingly accurate and fair to both sides. "Das Boot" was a spectacular rendition of the war of the ocean. It didn't vilianize any side, and portrayed solely the terror that individual sailors had to face while on submarine duty. "Tora, Tora, Tora" and "Midway" were both suprisingly fair representations of the historical events. I was really suprised as they are VERY old movies, and therefore much more succeptable to Holywood wrath of being politically correct (ie. American friendly). They were nationalistic, but, did not portray the Japanese as slanty eyed midgets who got lucky (at Pearl Harbor). The Line I remember most was from "Midway" where one of the Admirals states (Paraphrased) "It wasn't that Yamamoto was too confident, reckless, or incompetant, but, most probably due to the fact that we were very lucky". These movies were all epics, that they didn't focus on only a small part of the war. Thin Red Line tried this, but, they went too far, and confused the heck out of everyone!

Well, just to make Engalnd feel a little better, how about some American transgressions, other than the Amerindians?

Central and South America have been plagued since the 19th Century by unwarranted American involvement, militarily, economically, politically, and through espionage. MANY native South/Central American DEMOCRATIC governments have been overthrown by American supported Dictators (Chilie, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, etc...) The population has been killed, imprisoned, and had their freedom lost, solely to keep the American 'freedom' of making money.

Africa has a long history of being exploited not only by Britain and Europe, but, by America as well. 100 Million Africans died during the 200 years of Slave trade to South and North America. Economically America has had its tenticles into Africa since the end of the 19th Century. They didn't directly colonize Africa, but, the damage they caused is still being felt there.

China was seen by the United States for over 200 years as their natural 'economic colony'. Since the 19th Century (until the fall of the Empire) China had an AMERICAN as its foreign economic minister, who decided the trade restrictions for China. America funded the KMT goverment which was/is bruital toward the nation's people (even though the Communist government was as bruital!).

Need I mention South East Asia? Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia were all products of America's paranoia of Communism. They were willing to tolerate, support and put into power bruital Fascist regimes over democratically elected communist goverments, solely due to the fear that if Communism were to have spread in South East Asia, it would only be a matter of time before America fell to it (Like the Great Capitalist system of America could fall to Communism!).

Here's an interesting Australian twist that ol' Mel should take a gander at!

Since it's colonization, Australia has begun the 'indirect genocide' of the nation's aboriginy population. They have proved incapable of assimilation into the Australian society, and attempts at reconsiliation are beneath that of even Canada and America. (remember "Quigly Down Under" with Tom Selick?)

New Guinea and the Soloman Islands were seen as virtual Australian Colonies, with Australians as plantation owners, and basic landords over the native populations.

NOW, this isn't so say NYA! NYA! America and Australia suck! NO, nor is it to justify what England did to all of the nations it affected. What it should say, is that NO nation deserves the right to be a saintly judge over another. Heck, even Liberal Canada have our skeletons in our closets!

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 06-07-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes, there have been a few gems that are more "historical" than not, but most have come from outside of the US ("The Bridge" pops up right away). They are still out to entertain and make money, but traditionally films outside of the US weren't as hell bent on making a LOT of money and therefore didn't have to "whore" themselves to the masses as much. "All's Quiet on the Western Front" is another classic that was done up very nicely from the book. "Platoon" did a pretty good job I thought, while "Hamburger Hill" (a copycat film) was horrible.

I just noticed something though. The "best" historical films are the ones that are not trying to portray actual real life characters or an individual incident. Instead of focusing on a specific event or set of personalities, they instead focus on getting the setting, mood, conflicts, real life drama, etc. right. Not perfect of course, but pretty good. In a way, sort of like Combat Mission

Oh, and a bit of Revolutionary War trivia. Who here knows where the term "Lynch Mob" comes from?

Steve

[dumbo]

Ren: No gripes here (brit) about your analyses i think its fairly accurate. If anything I am amazed how KIND ex british colonies are to british folks.

I dont excuse for one moment the horrors commited in the name of Empire I do however take some pride in the manner we lost it.

Out of all the figures who are beloved in the annals of the Empire Ghandi stands out heads and shoulders above them all, how strange that a man can be regarded so highly by the losers (british) and the winners (indians). But as so often he understood even this phenomenoen very well as he himself said "I was the only person who knew how to defeat the british but only the british would have let me." In other words his tactics wouldnt have worked very well against Stalin. Smart cookie that pacifist.

As for Yanks visiting Britian I apologise in advance for my countrymens manners "Cold" and "Rude" really are applicable. Also dont expect any kind of customer service, no they are not picking on you becuase you are American, they treat everyone like that.

Here are my top ten hints for Americans visiting the UK.

1.) You dont tip in bars (you will look silly and people will be offended assuming you are trying to "buy them").

2.) Never, EVER say anything bad about British telivision. Yes it can be boring as hell but my countrymen think its the best in the world so best keep mum about it.

3.) Dont mention 1776 (obviously), comments of "we sure kicked your ass" or "so whose the woman with the silly hat on your dinky money?" do not go down well.

4.) Dont mention WW2 (unless its in the context of rubbishing other Europeans in which case you are fine. Like the general public in the US and Russia the UK firmly beleives it essentially won WW2 on its own with a little help from others. You may know better but this area is best avoided.

5.) Dont say "I shot Jill Dando" in jest or mention that Diannas death was rather overplayed.

6.) Dont talk about guns or imply they are "less free" becuase they dont have them. (Just asking for trouble here.)Also use of the word "subject" or "serf" should be avoided.

7.) Dont call them "Europeans". They dont like it. Likewise dont call Scottish people English, "after all your all the same right?". Stick with "British" When in doubt of the accent unless in Northern Ireland in which case "European" should once again be used.

8.) Dont assume the English dont like the Irish. As most English people are in someway related to Irish people such comments are going to backfire very badly.

9.) They call it Football not Soccer. Your game is "american football." You are allowed to show indignation at crowd violence but not allowed to denigrate the game.

10.) You accent IS sexy. Use it. You can get laid with an American accent.

Hope this helps

_dumbo

[snagdad]

great thread...

In Carlo D'Este's "Decision at Normandy" he characterized Monty as his own worst enemy. He was way too publicly frank with his opinions about Eisenhower and others and absolutely refused to admit any mistakes or miscalculations on his part, during or after the fact. He ended up making a lot of enemies, or perhaps losing a lot of friends, notably Eisenhower. Even though Monty and Patton traded jabs constantly, they had some common traits (seeking the limelight and an inability to keep their mouths shut) and some grudging respect for each other. At any rate, Monty seems to have alienated almost everyone except official British historians who might be guilty of hewing too closely to the party line. Between this alienation and his cautious handling of his dwindling, irreplaceable army, Monty has unfortunately been roughly handled since the war. I surprise myself by using the word "unfortunately" to describe Montgomery; I hated him for a long time. He was a pretty good general at a time when they were needed. His predecessor in Egypt was unfairly treated, but when given the chance, Monty beat up poor undersupplied Rommel with all that new U.S. equipment. He was a leader of British men and wasn't afraid to get going (a few waves in the Channel weren't going to stop him). Too bad he could be so insufferable, Eisenhower and the others wanted to like him but he made it too hard.

As far as movies, entertainment and dumbing down, etc. no one has mentioned the prime factor, IMHO. In the U.S. at present, the pervasivness and excreable content of television can turn even the brightest child into an idiot. We could spend millions per child on education, but when they get home and watch 6 or 7 hours of TV before bed it won't help. You can teach them reading and writing in kindergarten but if mommy and daddy don't read to them and limit the TV hours they will grow up ignorant, unread, and unable to hold a thought for 10 seconds. My strong opinion on this subject began some years ago; I was talking to a vet who was going over to the 50th festivities at Normandy. After our conversation I turned to two of my younger employees and asked the rhetorical question "Wouldn't it be great to go over to France for the 50th Anniversary of D-Day ??" They looked at me with blank faces and asked "What is D-Day ??"