Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: whalus
A recent war movie enjoyed by myself and my wife (who generally hates all war movies) was Battle for Sevastopol about the WW2 Russion sniper Lyudmila Pavličenko.

Saw this one too. Nice film. An interesting part was when she was in the US on some kind of public relations type thing and Eleanor Roosevelt asked her how many Nazis she had killed and she replied with a number over 300 kills, can't forget the exact figure. The First Lady was rather shocked by the fact a woman was in combat and had so many.

Always wondered if that moment really happened. Where's Beevor when ya need him!

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: berto
Spielberg makes a film about one narrow story in a much larger war, and he is somehow supposed to make "reference" to the British and Soviet role.

Hey Berto-Saving Private Ryan did make reference to the British role in the Normandy landings.

Remember the discussion between Captain Miller and Captain Hammill in that bombed out French Burg, where they're talking strategy? They make reference to Field Marshall Montgomery's stalled efforts to take Caen. Captain Hammill opines that "That guy is totally overrated." Captain Miller responds with, "No argument here."

[:D]

But seriously, the British take their Montgomery fanboyism seriously. It's not cool to dis Monty. [:-]

Like I've learned, the hard way, never to dis football to a Brit. Especially from an American, they will take mighty offense at that.

Thats funny, because its FROM Beevor that Ive learned that Montgomery was a credit-grabbing, over-promise/under-deliver roll-eyes kind of guy.
Now thats in no way to diminish his role in the desert or the Brits conduct in the war.
Actually come to think of it Beevor also comfirmed my belief that Ernest Hemmingway was a class A dick. Such a pompous ass.

Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing it. A couple of comments.

Despite that fact that the majority of the movie tells a fictional story that is unrealistic in many ways, I think the opening combat scene, praised by Beevor, redeems the entire movie. I can't imagine anyone wanting to sit through 2-3 hours that goes on and on just like that opening scene of the D-Day landing.

I also think he is wrong to be critical of what he called the "arc of character." The character development he describes is a standard and traditional part of world fiction. We all understand it and expect it in some form. A reference would be Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces. As Campbell wrote: "A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder. Fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won." So Spielberg was simply using a pattern that has been with us since humans first started telling stories. Beevor writes history, outstanding history. But Spielberg tells stories of heroes. These are two different things.

I would also say Hollywood owes no debt to the world or even America to tell stories that are accurate. Hollywood is first and foremost in the business of making money, though sometimes something truly artistically great comes through in the process. To do that, Hollywood must first make movie that people will watch. And historically accurate war movies aren't high on the list of movies that people will watch and that will make money. Compare this to the world's great literature. How many of the world's greatest books are accurate histories or extremely accurate historical fiction? And, yes, I know Hollywood lies about the accuracy of its movies, but I think we all know and understand that.

But back to the article. Fun to read. Thanks for posting it.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: berto


Sophistry at its finest.

Spielberg makes a film about one narrow story in a much larger war, and he is somehow supposed to make "reference" to the British and Soviet role. And the Canadian? The Polish? The Chinese? The Australian? And who else?

Do Russian films (or Chinese? or ...?) universally or more than infrequently make "reference" to the American role? Or the British? Or? I somehow doubt it. [8|]

I hate Hollywood just as much as the next guy. I bemoan American cultural imperialism and our dominance of the world's cinema. But c'mon, when we bash America, let's at least be a little fair, please.

I do not agree at all.

Hollywood is a international film making centre. Hollywood is internationally financed. Hollywood make movies for a worldwide market. So, in my humble opinion, the reason that it is a US film just isn't good enough. If they cut out other nationalities for other reasons then I might accept it. But not because it is a 'US film'.

I always thought that US counted itself better than Russia, or China, but I stand corrected.

Hollywood distributes its films internationally, as do many other 'movie houses'. But the financing and leadership at the corporate level are predominantly American. Period. Full stop. In recent years, particularly with the growing influence of the Chinese at the box office, Hollywood has gone out of its way to cowtow/pander to Chinese sensibilities with recent fare. All in pursuit of the box office dollar. When this formula no longer works for Hollywood, then they'll change. But it's worked pretty well for them thus far.

If British or French or German or Polish or Bulgarian or Turks want to supply the deep pockets to start their own national film institute they certainly can-and some have. These films primarily focus on their domestic audience consumption and sensibilities. They're every bit as nationalistic and self-centered in their own way as American films are in theirs. Because they're playing to their audience.

If the last sentence sought to compare our domestic box office production with State Media from Communist China or Post-Communist Russia, then it's waay off the mark. In fact, it's a ridiculous assertion.

Yes, I thought so. That is why I made that statement.

ORIGINAL: berto

Like I've learned, the hard way, never to dis football to a Brit. Especially from an American, they will take mighty offense at that.

Didn't know Brits are so ... fanatical(?) about football. I thought they're more of soccer types.

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: berto
Spielberg makes a film about one narrow story in a much larger war, and he is somehow supposed to make "reference" to the British and Soviet role.

Hey Berto-Saving Private Ryan did make reference to the British role in the Normandy landings.

Remember the discussion between Captain Miller and Captain Hammill in that bombed out French Burg, where they're talking strategy? They make reference to Field Marshall Montgomery's stalled efforts to take Caen. Captain Hammill opines that "That guy is totally overrated." Captain Miller responds with, "No argument here."

[:D]

But seriously, the British take their Montgomery fanboyism seriously. It's not cool to dis Monty. [:-]

Like I've learned, the hard way, never to dis football to a Brit. Especially from an American, they will take mighty offense at that.

Oh, perish the thought! I was merely pointing out the reference to the British effort as portrayed in the movie Saving Private Ryan. [;)]

There's also plenty of references to the British war effort in the movie Gallipoli. I know this is one of Warspite1's favs. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

There's also plenty of references to the British war effort in the movie Gallipoli. I know this is one of Warspite1's favs. [:D]

Indeed. But I know that he likes Braveheart, and The Patriot, even more due to the strong English characters.

I think that Unbreakable Spirit might not be such a hit, because the inclusion of Japanese and Chinese in the flick might exclude the presence of a heroic Englishman. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: berto

Like I've learned, the hard way, never to dis football to a Brit. Especially from an American, they will take mighty offense at that.

Didn't know Brits are so ... fanatical(?) about football. I thought they're more of soccer types.

By "football" I meant what we American provincials call "soccer", of course.

I call the game by its proper international name, football, because I don't want people to think I'm chauvinistic. [;)]

Time for an oldie to make an appearance.

John Cleese - Soccer vs Football

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sD_8prYOxo

True. I really don't think Monty is seen as some WW2 hero by us. This day and age you'd be hard pressed to find someone who knows who he is. Yes there was El Alamein, but the ground work had already been done to be honest, Rommel was on his last legs. Then we have Market Garden, hardly a roaring success.

As for Beevor I did enjoy his Stalingrad book must admit. However people like Jason D Mark are more up my alley so to speak.

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight

Thats funny, because its FROM Beevor that Ive learned that Montgomery was a credit-grabbing, over-promise/under-deliver roll-eyes kind of guy.
Now thats in no way to diminish his role in the desert or the Brits conduct in the war.
Actually come to think of it Beevor also comfirmed my belief that Ernest Hemmingway was a class A dick. Such a pompous ass.

ORIGINAL: berto

By "football" I meant what we American provincials call "soccer", of course.

Well, according to Wiktionary, soccer is word of British English. Like railway.

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight
Actually come to think of it Beevor also comfirmed my belief that Ernest Hemmingway was a class A dick. Such a pompous ass.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that Hemingway was a class A dick. But in my view, that no way detracts from the quality of his literary output. Especially his earlier work such as the short story collection In Our Time.
Unfortunately, by the 1950's his alcoholism and deteriorating mental capacities due to numerous head injuries made him even more of a dick.

And to get this post back on the topic of war films: For Whom the Bell Tolls is a favorite of mine.

Wow you mean he was even more of a dick than he was in Normandy? When he carried a weapon, which was banned for correspondents, and held court with his own personal Maquis cell? Or when he wanted to torture a young German prisoner by "roasting his toes"?

Give me Monty any day.

Where did anyone get the idea that we think Hollywood is great at making accurate movies? We aren't stupid. They make movies thinking they're not stupid, but we don't care as long as they pay to see them. So, we watch them and realize "This is crap" when it is inaccurate. And they know that is what we think, but like I said, as long as they make the money, they don't care.

As for Saving Private Ryan, I wasn't all that enthused about it myself. The opening Landing at Normandy scene seemed realistic, but who wants to watch that over and over? The rest of it was just OK if you ask me. I truly enjoyed Band of Brothers, but refused to watch Pacific because of Hanks' comments about racism and the Pacific War. I can't remember his exact comments and I get that a lot of whites thought, said, and did racist things against the Japanese, but Hanks' comments were something along the lines of, "We want that war because we are racist against the Asians". That is a paraphrasing of what he said, and you can look it up on google what he said. I think he was way over the line.

As for "American-centric", we can argue all day about that. Band of Brothers was about the Airborne in the 506th Regiment of the 101st Airborne. It was a micro-story about American guys, because someone wanted to tell their story. As a matter of fact a lot of British actors played roles in the show, Damian Lewis played arguably the biggest role in the movie and I thought he was excellent. I'm pretty sure Major Winters thought he did great, too. Other actors who are British who played Americans - Matthew Leitch, Shane Taylor, Nicholas Aaron, Philip Barantini, Dexter Fletcher, Ross McCall, Robin Laing, Rick Warden, Michael Fassbender.... I wouldn;t change one of them out for an American. All did great jobs. Not really on topic, but wanted to point it out.

Saving Pvt Ryan wasn't a movie about D-Day and who did the heavy lifting. It was a narrow story about a small group of Rangers on special detail. I don't get comments about it excluding other nationalities. Maybe the media tried to make it a "comprehensive statement", but that wasn't what the movie was about. And yeah it was a little meh after the beginning. I've seen way worse though. But what Hollywood questions is the whole concept of war, and usually asserts an anti-war vibe, but never the basic assumptions about it.

ORIGINAL: Zorch

He doesn't mention TMTSNBN.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/m ... -cant-bear

warspite1

Coming from someone such as Antony Beevor, this is a really disappointing article.

Spielberg may not even have included them consciously but, during the landing, the blood in the water in the first machine-gunning prompts memories of Jaws, another Spielberg film. And German Tiger tanks can indeed appear like prehistoric monsters, but when the sound effects of their approach later in the film resemble that of the Tyrannosaurus rex in Jurassic Park, it all seems too much.

Seriously? And as for the whole, Saving Private Ryan should have acknowledged the British / Canadian contribution to D-Day chestnut.....[8|]

In my humble opinion If yoo want historical then watch a documentary, if yoo want to be entertained watch a film. [:D]

Cheers
Jev

Films are virtually re-enactments. Documentaries are historical footage. I don't see why the former should be allowed to be fictitious if they're both purporting to be "historical" (and many people [wrongly] gain their "historical understanding" from them).

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Films are virtually re-enactments. Documentaries are historical footage. I don't see why the former should be allowed to be fictitious if they're both purporting to be "historical" (and many people [wrongly] gain their "historical understanding" from them).

It is called artistic license and politically correct history. And propaganda, can't forget that.