 sj |
||
|
||
U571: what is it about the Yanks? II
|
|
|
Subject: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Pene Azul Date: 15 Jun 00 - 02:19 AM This is the continuation of U571: what is it about the Yanks?. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Skipjack K8 Date: 15 Jun 00 - 07:04 AM I haven't waded through 102 messages, but got the gist at the start, when I sat through a trailer for U571. I raised one eyebrow, but don't agree with the xenophobic spleen vented in the last thread (the bits I read, anyway). My apologies if this story has been told earlier in the thread. Far better to deal with these things with a bit of sharp satire. The example I immediately recall is called "The Strike", which was a Comic Strip production in the UK for television. The synopsis is Hollywood making a film of the 1983/4 Miners strike in the UK, and the scriptwriter's (Alexei Sayle) slide into alcoholic oblivion as the American Director continually makes ridiculous demands to sexy it up a bit more. It has the immortal line, delivered by Carlsberg voiceover man, ..... "Al Pacino IS Arthur Scargill" (Arthur Scargill is the miners leader and could not be physically, idealogically or in sex appeal terms, further from Al). The farce gets deeper and deeper, until Al as Arthur speeds into the Houses of Parliament in tattered T shirt, on a stolen motorbike, to witness the House of Commons voting that the miners can go back to work! And all delivered in polished New England accent. It is a masterpeice in sending up Hollywood, and not letting anything approaching the truth getting in the way of a good story. Skipjack |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Jun 00 - 09:14 AM Just read the earlier thread. All of it! The forum that Mudcat is providing for friendly and largely intelligent debate about UK/European v American culture etc is turning out to be a pleasing by-product of the main objective. Bald Eagle's view, and Aine's extraordinary first posting (from which she seems to have backpedalled hastily) suggest that the problem does go a little wider than Holywood. But it is not exclusively a Yank thing. Recently I saw a documentary comparing eye-witness accounts with the film version (Bridge on the River Kwei) of the Burma railway. They were miles apart, and that was down to the Brits. And the Guildford Four movie was a travesty of the history it claimed to be. But Holywood takes some beating. Look at the way Disney stole the Hunchback of Notre Dame. And rewrote the Hercules legend. WHY?? And if the original Pooh is not box-office, why not give the Disney-ised version a new name, rather than brutalise a character who has been known and loved for generations? IMHO the BBC production of Dennis Potter's "Pennies from Heaven" was a milestone in creative tv. The remake, sans subtleties etc that might have been too much for the American viewer, was a joke. The alarming thing is that the Bald Eagles and Aines seem happy to be spoonfed through this Holywood filter. Thus, when I was with a roomful of people in the states, not a single Yank knew how America got into WW2. Most thought it was an American reaction to Pearl Harbour, whereas it was Hitler who resolved it, by declared war on the States while Congress still dithered. But then again,history books can be as bad as the movies. Find one that says Britain was conquered by William of Orange. They all say that he and his colossal army were "invited" to come and take charge - thus preserving the fiction that Britain has never been invaded since 1066.
|
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: AndyG Date: 15 Jun 00 - 09:56 AM Fionn,
Just a minor niggle really;
AndyG |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Áine Date: 15 Jun 00 - 10:56 AM Dear Fionn, Nope, no backpedaling here. The movie industry is a business based on presenting fantasy, not fact, and expecting the opposite will only lead to disappointment and twisted knickers. I'm not suggesting that if the historial inaccuracies a particular film make smoke come out of your ears that you just put your head in a bucket of water -- Vote with your feet and/or your wallet, and write to the local paper about your feelings. It may be old-fashioned, but, I've always been of the opinion that you should always consider the source when reading, hearing, or viewing anything in the media. Perhaps it's because my father was in the newspaper business for years, and I always knew what the "boys in the backroom" were up to, and how the editorial policies and news coverage were influenced by money and politics of all kinds. To sum up, be careful when you throw your net of criticism -- sometimes it's only one kind of fish that you're really after. All the best, Áine |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Rick Fielding Date: 15 Jun 00 - 11:07 AM "The Strike" sounds hilarious. Anyone else seen it? Is it available on video? Rick |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Jon Freeman Date: 15 Jun 00 - 11:31 AM Rick, I didn't see many of the "Comic Strip Presents:" and missed that one but I found some of them very funny - I liked their Famous Five ones. I have tried to search for a video of the Strike but all I have managed to come up with is a deleted video in PAL format (which I doubt would any good to you even if still current) at http://www.blackstar.co.uk/video/item/7000000034291 Jon |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: The Walrus at work Date: 15 Jun 00 - 02:29 PM Brian, "...And of course, the British claimed to have broken the Sound Barrier in the early 50s movie of the same name -- Richard Todd getting performance characteristics out of a Vampire jet fighter well beyond its capabilities taking away the thunder of Chuck Yeager and his ilk. Some people believe that Geschicte to this day..." I thought that film was made (if not released) before the sound barrier was actually broken. More a case of wishful thinking than deliberately stealing someone else's thunder. I'm probably wrong (I lose interest when aircraft have more engines than sets of wings). Regards Walrus
|
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Jun 00 - 02:49 PM RE: The sound barrier......The cold war was just getting fired up and it was almost a year after Yeager broke the sound barrier before the news was declassified. The movie came out after the death of Geoffrey DeHavilland trying to accomplish the feat in England. Yeager saw the movie and found it "purty entertainin'" but not having much to do with the real thing. The plot line has the pilot reverse the controls to regain control as they go supersonic and as Yeager laughingly pointed out, "That feller woulda' dug a hole 'bout 50 foot deep." Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Jun 00 - 02:51 PM ....meant to say also that the movie came out before the news of Yeager's flight had been released and a lot of people believed it was an Engishman who broke the sound barrier. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Rick Fielding Date: 15 Jun 00 - 03:25 PM Sure paw, do you really think Chuck Yeager knows more about flyin' than Richard Todd? Remember how he messed up those Nazi's "Heavy water" plants in "Damn Busters"? Speaking of movies that distorted what REALLY happened. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Rick Fielding Date: 15 Jun 00 - 03:45 PM Well Paw, if you can post two in a row, so can I. If I had gotten all my knowledge from movies, I'd believe that: 1. King Arthur and Sir Launcelot were 700 years ahead of their time fashion-wise (not to mention the shiny steel armour) 2. Every heavyweight boxing match involves 15 rounds of never-miss, non-stop loud smacks to the jaw, resulting in both participants cartwheeling to the mat at least 5 times each. 3. Giant monkey-people dedicate their lives to imprisoning Charleton Heston (hmmm, not bad actually) 4. Woody Guthrie was 6'3" and played a Mossman Golden Era. 5. Leadbelly played jazz on his 12 string by flailing his hands up and down the neck like Charlie Christian. 6. Babe Ruth ran the "40" in 24.5 seconds. (and threw "like a girl") 7. William Wallace truly enjoyed being disemboweled 8. King Richard the Lionheart was hetero-sexual, and didn't spend only a couple of months of his entire reign in England. 9. That every WW2 Marine said "I'm scared Sarge" while sittin' in his foxhole. 10. That Dolly Parton could be a "9 to 5" secretary....and any work at all could get done in that office. I'll continue to rely on "the Enquirer" to be well informed. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Bert Date: 15 Jun 00 - 03:49 PM If I had gotten all my knowledge from movies, I'd believe that: That's grounds for a new thread Rick. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Wesley S Date: 15 Jun 00 - 03:50 PM And Rick - Don't forget my favorite. That western 6 shooters have an endless supply of bullets and Clint Eastwood never misses. John Wayne either. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: GUEST,Mbo_at_ECU Date: 15 Jun 00 - 04:32 PM Or watch "Combat!" where you can jump on a live grenade and get blown up...not only remaining in one piece, and without a drop of blood. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Jun 00 - 04:34 PM Yeah Meebo......Too bad that crap didn't work for Vic with helicopter blades. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Wesley S Date: 15 Jun 00 - 05:37 PM Catspaw - Vic thought he was talking to the hairdresser when he told him to "take a little off the top". |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: sophocleese Date: 15 Jun 00 - 06:06 PM There you go the perfect site for all movie watchers. This blicky will self destruct.. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Sailor Dan Date: 15 Jun 00 - 08:48 PM I think that after reading all 120 previous responses to this thread that some people have never gotten the idea behind Hollywood. It is the ENTERTAINMENT CENTER of the world. The nose out of joint attitude by some individuals are apparently those who are tried and true purists. Everything must be just so exactly, precisely and clinically just as it did happen. Yet those same people listen to the news, watch television and totally believe that what they are seeing are totally ""factual"". Most of us Old timers should remember a game we used to play, where everyone would sit in a circle and the first person would whisper a short story to the one next to them, who in turn would whisper the same?? story to the next person and so on until you got to the end of the circle. What went in as Black came out as White, what went in as White came out Black. Each time the story was told it took on the color of the teller, not what was heard. The greatest book ever written is the Bible. With all of the "truths" of the Old and New Testaments that were verbalized from generation to generation then written by thousands of people into so many languages and the translated back again. this book I love dearly only has a semblance of actual fact in it. The Basic truth is there the rest has fallen to embellishment or the inability to correctly translate due to the lack of proper word transferal. I am not so sure the Prophets, Apostles etc in reading the bible of today would believe they would recognise that this is your life bit. Hollywood is Entertainment?? And the bible is the greatest story ever written. Both started somewhere with the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Jun 00 - 08:56 PM About remakes - it isn't just the Americans. read here about plans to remake Fawlty Towers in a German setting, and Yes Minister in Hindi
Flann O'Brian in At swim two-birds has a fella who writes Westerns, with all the guns and the horses and the funny hats, but he sets them in 1930s Dublin. Now that would be a movie worth seeing. I was always disappointed the Spaghetti Westerns didn't have the nerve to have it all happening in the Dolomites. And we never got to see Clint Eastwood with a bowl of spaghetti. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Jun 00 - 10:02 PM I don't and have never objected to the entertainment of movies. I watch more comedies than anything else because I want to laugh. I don't have a problem with entertainment. What bothers me is the promotion of a movie as "based on actual fact" which should sometimes read, "based on something we heard about at lunch....third-hand ......from a Lithuanian pants presser......... on drugs........ and senile........ with a speech impediment" What I am far MORE concerned about is that I meet so many people who are learning their history from a movie and the damn thing ain't even close. I'm happy that they are at least enlightened to the subject, an exposure they may never have had before, and as I said WAY back up this thread, that's not all bad. All history is flawed in the telling for a lot of reasons. I just would prefer that everyone realized that fact and acted on it, garnering as much as possible from a multitude of sources.......even bad movies. But save me from the folks who watched "JFK" and are now experts on the subject. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: DougR Date: 15 Jun 00 - 11:44 PM I think it's absolutely amazing what you can learn on the Mudcat. I've been under the impression since 1941 (and yes I was around then) that the attack on Pearl Harbor triggred America's entry into WW2. Now I learn from Fionn that Hitler was responsible. I wonder, if that's the case, why we waited three years to get into it? Sorry, Fionn, I must challenge your statement (but in a friendly like way). DougR |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Metchosin Date: 16 Jun 00 - 03:05 AM DougR, if I remember my high school history correctly, it's been a long time, the U.S. declared War on Japan the day after the bombing of Pearl Harbour, December 8, 1941 and then on December 11, 1941, Hitler declared war on the U.S.
When the U.S. declared war upon Japan, I imagine the U.S. realized that, as Japan was Germany's ally, the German declaration of war would be a logical consequence of the U.S. declaration against Japan.
So you are correct regarding the cause of the entry of the U.S. into WW 2, although I think the U.S. still would have preferrred to stay out of the European arena at that time. I believe there were still those in power in the U.S., who believed they had no quarrel with Hitler and only when pressed by Germany's declaration of War did the U.S. enter they fray in Europe, albeit somewhat reluctantly.
You might also find The Arms of Krupp an interesting read. I am no scholar of events precipitating the U.S.'s entry into WW2, but this briefly is what I remember being taught in history in the Canadian school system. (with apologies to Mrs. Staples, my Grade 10 History teacher, who drove ambulance during The Blitz in London and added a dimension to the class that forever left an impression). |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Metchosin Date: 16 Jun 00 - 03:25 AM I should at least explain that if we asked Mrs. Staples about the War, we could usually get out of something dreary like the Treaty of Utrecht and into something we considered juicy like Doodlebugs. Ironically, Mrs. Staples survived the Blitz and the doodlebugs and other bombs, only to be killed by a drunk driver, shorly after I graduated. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: AndyG Date: 16 Jun 00 - 04:58 AM DougR,
What Fionn said was that Hitler declared war on the USA rather than The USA declaring war on Germany. If Hitler hadn't done that, the USA would have been pushed to find a justifiable reason to declare war on Germany and would have found herself at war with Japan only.
Hitler's declaration of war on the USA made for reasons of short-term military gain, was, IMHO the actual turning-point of WWII.
AndyG |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: DougR Date: 17 Jun 00 - 01:06 AM Metchosin and AndyG: The United States was unofficially involved in the European conflict long before Pearl Harbor. Witness the "loan" of United States navy ships to Great Britain in the late 1930s. Millions of dollars in goods shipped to England using United States Merchant Marine ships, Lend Lease to Russia resulting in thousands of airplanes, tanks, etc. which were made available to the Russians, I believe prior to Pearl Harbor. The actual declaration of war, in my opinion and admittedly it is only my opinion, was just a technicality. Yes, there were isolationists in the Congress and in the general population, but I think that even without PH, the U.S. would have committed to the European Theater. Europe wasn't the only place that recognized that Hitler threatened the whole world, not just Europe. If you want to suggest that the U. S. may have "pushed" Japan into taking the steps that it did to trigger the U.S. involvement, I would't argue much with you. DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Skipjack K8 Date: 17 Jun 00 - 04:59 AM More satire I was listening to Deadringers, on BBC Radio 4 (The only highbrow radio we have in the UK) last night. It is a very sharply scripted sketch show, and themes run contimually through the programme. I think it is repeated on Sunday, so if any of you cunning computer types that can access radio broadcasts care to hook up, it's well worth the listen. They picked up on the U571 story, casting Woody Allen as Sir Isaac Newton, sure in his own neurosis that someone had thrown the apple at him, Clint Eastwood as Geoff Hurst in the 1966 World Cup (Soccer) "I know what you're thinking, punk, did I score three goals, or was the last one offside? Make my day", and the piece de la resistance, Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson doing the Monty Python Parrot Sketch, "and take your stinkin' Norwegian Blue with ya", followed by a gun battle. Skipjack |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Jun 00 - 06:11 AM We had the debate covered in our TV too. And it was said, Hollywood is planning next a movie 'Colditz' with (who else?) gallant US soldiers escaping a Nazi prisoner camp. Wouldn't that even sell better if the escape was from a Cuban communist war camp guarded by aliens and the rescuing cavallery was led by president Kennedy commandeering the warship Apollo 11? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 19 Jun 00 - 07:28 AM Sailor Dan, If you're saying that the Bible and Holywood both deal in fiction, I think we can agree about that. It's the way they pretend otherwise, gulling millions, that sometimes annoys. But surely the game you mentioned, Chinese Whispers, is supposed to illustrate the dangers of hearsay and how easy it is to distort the message? It doesn't mean that's the only way. DougR, I can't argue, but are you sure that the US declared war on Japan before Hitler declared war on the US? That's not how I understood it. It's certainly fair comment that the US provided invaluable aid to the Allies before becoming one of the official belligerents. I am also aware that there were just as many Brits as Yanks and French etc, who were desperate for a deal with Hitler. They included most of the British Royals, who wanted Lord Halifax (one of the architects of the Munich treaty) and not Churchill to succeed Chamberlain as PM. On the other hand, some who backed Churchill did so for the wrong reasons - because they had vested interests in a major war. A book published in the States (subsequently almost impossible to get hold of, if not actually supressed) called Trading with the Enemy, detailed the extent of US business interests in German re-armament. There were similar business interests at work in Britain and obviously in Germany itself. Hitler being elected Chancellor in 1933 was certainly a happy day on Wall Street,if not for European Jews and Gypsies. |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Jun 00 - 07:40 AM "...I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire." Franklin D. Roosevelt - December 8, 1941
On December 11, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. The U.S. Congress responded immediately by declaring war on them. Thus the European and Southeast Asian wars become a global conflict with the Axis powers, Japan, Germany and Italy, united against America, Britain, France, and their Allies. copied and pasted from a history pafe on the web. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: DougR Date: 19 Jun 00 - 05:22 PM Yes, Wolfgang, you are right. My refrences state that President Roosevelt considered including Germany and Italy in that proclamation but decided, for political reasons, not to. Hitler did declare war on the United States, as both you and Fione state, on December 11, 1941, and the U. S. declared war on Germany and Italy on the same day. Hitler used the United States' actvitiy in the Atlantic as his justification for declaring war, not his Ally's attack on Pearl Harbor. DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: InOBU Date: 19 Jun 00 - 06:30 PM To add a little music to this, the old Woody Guthery song the Rubin James... if I remember my history corectly, had Germany not declared war on us, we were attempting to provoke an incident by attempting to ram U-Boat snorkles, hence the sinking of the Rubin James and attacks on the Kearney and was it the Grear? A statigy I would have rather seen would have been a straight forward declaration of war, but well, the US has a strange way of even doing the right thing. all the best Larry |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Jun 00 - 08:45 PM There is also a bit of theory, circumspect at best, but not completely dismissed, that Roosevelt and Churchill were looking for a reason to involve the US physically in the war and that the attack on Pearl Harbor was "fortuitous" for both. I seriously doubt the belief held by some that the attack was known in advance, and that has never been proven. But it isn't too much of a stretch to believe that the Japanese would make an attack on an American garrison somewhere soon. This was an easier "sell" to many Americans at that time than a declaration of war on Germany. It would only follow then that a war with Germany would be the inevitable result in one way or another. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: U571: what is it about the Yanks? II From: DougR Date: 20 Jun 00 - 12:04 AM Yes, Spaw, I think a case could be made (and has in several books) that the U. S. should not have been so surprised on December 7, 1941. There were certainly enough screwups and blame to go around and a great deal should have been assumed by some folks in Washington. The Commanders of the Naval Fleet and the Army in Hawaii were too handy to hang the blame on though. DougR |
| Translate Thread |