Matrix Games Forums

He doesn't mention TMTSNBN.

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

Maybe because that isn't a war movie.

Interesting read, thanks. For Beevor, whom I admire and have read several of his books, its all about realism and historical accuracy.

Any deviation from that for the sake of story telling or 'artistic license' devalues the movie in his eyes. I understand his viewpoint but do not agree. Movies are about entertainment first, unless its a documentary. Story tellers have always played loose with the facts whether its Spielberg or Homer. Some things are changed or exaggerated for effect to improve the story line and that's OK IMO.

Beevor's book on Stalingrad is one of the best I have ever read and it is highly recommended.

Thank you for sharing, Zorch. That was a fun read.

Nice read.

As a Canadian, yeah, sometimes Hollywood irritates the hell out of me. But what I can't understand, is why more Americans are not offended at the blatant assumption they are too stupid to know, or care, how horrendously inaccurate the films are.

War movies are a major source of continuing Allied propaganda on WWII. It has never stopped. And never been corrected. I share Beevor's view of these movies and mainly enjoy European entries in this genre.

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Nice read.

As a Canadian, yeah, sometimes Hollywood irritates the hell out of me. But what I can't understand, is why more Americans are not offended at the blatant assumption they are too stupid to know, or care, how horrendously inaccurate the films are.

When I was living in the US, my mom asked one of my friends who used to come over and play or have lunch with me etc. She once asked him why the americans always won in there war/indian war movies. He simply said, "because we are the ones who make them"! We were about ten years old then. We still laugh about this nowday´s when we remember about it.

Anyone who wants to see a good WWII film should see Come And See.
It's a Russian film, though it's about as far as one can get from that recent Russian Stalingrad film.

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

War movies are a major source of continuing Allied propaganda on WWII. It has never stopped. And never been corrected. I share Beevor's view of these movies and mainly enjoy European entries in this genre.

Have you watched this one about El Alamein from the Italian point of view? It is very true to the real events (they interviewed dozens of veterans and basically weaved their histories into a single plot)
https://youtu.be/zfSv87ZuJf4

No I haven't, but I will now. Thank you!

Hollywood can get it right when it wants to:

Tora! Tora! Tora!
Blackhawk Down
Band of Brothers
The Pacific

Spielberg said at the time that he sees the second world war as the “defining moment” in history. One also suspects that he wanted this film to be seen as the defining movie of the war. If so, it is a uniquely American definition of history, with no reference to the British let alone the Soviet role.

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.

ORIGINAL: berto

Spielberg said at the time that he sees the second world war as the “defining moment” in history. One also suspects that he wanted this film to be seen as the defining movie of the war. If so, it is a uniquely American definition of history, with no reference to the British let alone the Soviet role.

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.

Ooh, that is an excellent point! Many Finnish made war movies what I have seen focus on Finland and Soviet Union without any reference to other countries.

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: berto

Spielberg said at the time that he sees the second world war as the “defining moment” in history. One also suspects that he wanted this film to be seen as the defining movie of the war. If so, it is a uniquely American definition of history, with no reference to the British let alone the Soviet role.

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.

Ooh, that is an excellent point! Many Finnish made war movies what I have seen focus on Finland and Soviet Union without any reference to other countries.

Remind me again, which country should be included that helped Finland, or the Soviet Union.

Edit: for clarification, I do not think that the volunteer foreign support classify as other countries helping out. And that, I think, only applied to the winter war. There are some movies about the continuation war as well...

ORIGINAL: berto

Spielberg said at the time that he sees the second world war as the “defining moment” in history. One also suspects that he wanted this film to be seen as the defining movie of the war. If so, it is a uniquely American definition of history, with no reference to the British let alone the Soviet role.

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.

ORIGINAL: Orm

I always thought that US counted itself better than Russia, or China

Where did you got that idea from?

If one wants the kind of accuracy Beevor appears to want there are going to be few movies of any sort (not just war movies) that one can enjoy. Seems that the constraints that come with presenting an entertaining movie are going to almost always lead to some distortion of reality. One easy example is Hitchcock's Vertigo: without the addition of the non-existent tower at San Juan Bautista the climactic scene could not have been filmed.

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.

ORIGINAL: Saint Ruth

Anyone who wants to see a good WWII film should see Come And See.
It's a Russian film, though it's about as far as one can get from that recent Russian Stalingrad film.

Checked it out from Netflix. Will be watching it tonight.

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: berto

Spielberg said at the time that he sees the second world war as the “defining moment” in history. One also suspects that he wanted this film to be seen as the defining movie of the war. If so, it is a uniquely American definition of history, with no reference to the British let alone the Soviet role.

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.

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."