ORIGINAL: Major Destruction
The movie provides a concise history of the personalities and is given to unfair portrayals in some instances. I suspect that portrayals are incorrect or generalised in every case but I don't know about all the characters to comment.
For example
PATTON
Patton's break down after being redressed for his slapping incident is one case in point. According to Ike's book Crusade in Europe (highly recommended) Paton visited Ike on several occassions at Ike's quarters where they enjoyed stimulating conversation well into the small hours. The sobbin on Ike's shoulder and the helmet dropping on the floor (what was all that about?) is supposed to show us that Patton had a wide range of emotion. however the movie portrays Patton as some kind of patsy. Unfair!
Certainly Ike reminded Patton to not make any more embarrasing speeches but I think the slapping incident had been dealt with and buried in Sicily. Bringing up the incident in the movie is the producer's way of reminding us of the background. I believe that this time-shifting of incidents gives the viewer some false understanding of the relationship between the two men who considered each other as close friends.
MONTGOMERY
Monty's call for the incisive strike on a narrow front (twice!) is another indelicate handling of events by the producers. Made only for US audiences and sure to be hammered in Britain, this incident totally glosses over the fact that in planning for the ivasion, it was Monty who insisted on the 5 division assault over the 3 division assault that had been originally proposed by the Americans. Interestingly, Ike recalls in his book that it was he, Ike, who insisted on the 5 Division front.
We also always forget that it was Monty who planned all his operations from the standpoint of supply. The set piece attack that riles American history buffs is certainly not the stuff of the incisive assault on a narrow front.
Ike, in his Crusade in Europe, mentions that at some time or other, every General pestered him for enough forces to make an incisive assault on Germany but this was much later. The reference to Monty no doubt reminds us all of the Arnhem attack which went so very wrong. Again, time shifting this into the Normandy planning phase is unfair.
Ike tells us that the planners of Overlord always understood fully the objective first of landing a force in France and then of advancing on a broad front to the Siegfried Line (Westwall). Only after that, the plan was to advance into Germany via the northern route- north of the Ardennes. He states that at no time was this plan ever abandoned, even momentarily. Judging by Ike's veiled dislike of Monty, one supposes that had Monty made such comments contrary to the 'plan' in public that Ike would have mentioned it.
DE GAULLE
De Gaulle not doubt was a pompous ass. Between him and Leclerc, there was enough trouble caused by prematurely capturing Paris and trying to hold Strasbourg that the events in the Ardennes eclipsed.
De Gaulle, as president, is well known for his NON! to Britain when they wanted to join the common market in the sixties while Germany was a full member. Strange bedfellows!Even so, portraying de Gaulle as a little man (he was 6'5" tall IIRC) is again unfair. Of course, Tome Sellick is no shorty so the casters would have been hard pressed to find an actor to play de Gaulle of suitable stature who was not a professional basketball player.
De Gaulle did what he believed was correct for France, however misundestood that might be then - or now- and the directors attempt to portray him as a petulant creep is, perhaps, childish.
EISENHOWER
Nobody can say any ill about Ike, can they? We like Ike, don't we? [&o]
OTHER
There will be many references to minor errors in the film. Ike wearing British boots and webbing on his visit to the 101st on June 6th (it happened on June 5th and Ike wore his usual dress uniform with shoes) is one of note. But those are so minor. I want to see history told honestly. My misgivings about the portrayals of key figures makes me wonder about the other figures of whom I know so little.
How accurate was it?
Great summary of personalities [:)]
I agree that there was so much in the film that was basically glossed over and/or summarized.
I have a feeling that the character portraits were condensed versions of those people (I thought all the character traits of each person was done rather well - except for Patton). This is a simplified approach, I agree, and lends itself to some distortion.
There was so much material that could have been covered in the span of time covered by the movie, that inevitably, I think, some, or many, details had to suffer.
If nothing else, the film at least leaves us with the
impression of the difficulties that faced Ike.
I think any proper film on this subject would have to be many times longer than just two hours.
Goes to show you that there is no need for fiction, when there are so many great, true events and personalities to draw upon from history.
Cheers!
