U-571 writer regrets 'distortion'
U-571 writer regrets 'distortion'
Hollywood have been doing it for years. This was just a particularly crass one and sillyas well. We've got german friends that visit us often. It's suddenly noticeable how much stuuf is on british TV about the second world war. I'd never noticed before.
U-571 writer regrets 'distortion'
Diuretic wrote: In creating what is billed as a work of fiction there are going to be misrepresentations, that's why it's called "fiction." It's more attractive to the huge US market to see Americans as the central characters in a story. So, to facilitate profit, the script - the fictional script - plays with the facts. But as has been said before, it goes on all the time.
Tell me, does anyone believe Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" has any historical validity at all? For me it has very little but it was enjoyable because of the theme - fighting oppression. That it was necessary to make Wallace a nice bloke and to make the English look particularly brutal by comparison was for the story effect, not to reflect the compexity of the real events.
I must say one of the best war films I've seen was "Das Boot" and the sailors could have been German, Russian, British, etc, it wouldn't have mattered because the story was about humanity, not nationality.
But then I suppose I should obey Basil's rule and not mention the war
If it generates an interest in looking in to the real events then it is a good thing. William wallace is kind of written out of the mainstream scots history with more emphasis given to the part bruce played but the legend was kept alive by ordinary scots. Kings used to be selected by acclamation not primogeniture. Braveheart did alotvto rekindle interest.
Lokeyou I thoroughly enjoyed das boot. You need films that remind you that there is humanity on both sides of a war as well as destruction regardless of who starts it.
U-571 was just plain not remotely based on reality. the trouble is many americans seem to think ww2 was between them and the germans and japs with no one else involved as it is.
Tell me, does anyone believe Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" has any historical validity at all? For me it has very little but it was enjoyable because of the theme - fighting oppression. That it was necessary to make Wallace a nice bloke and to make the English look particularly brutal by comparison was for the story effect, not to reflect the compexity of the real events.
I must say one of the best war films I've seen was "Das Boot" and the sailors could have been German, Russian, British, etc, it wouldn't have mattered because the story was about humanity, not nationality.
But then I suppose I should obey Basil's rule and not mention the war
If it generates an interest in looking in to the real events then it is a good thing. William wallace is kind of written out of the mainstream scots history with more emphasis given to the part bruce played but the legend was kept alive by ordinary scots. Kings used to be selected by acclamation not primogeniture. Braveheart did alotvto rekindle interest.
Lokeyou I thoroughly enjoyed das boot. You need films that remind you that there is humanity on both sides of a war as well as destruction regardless of who starts it.
U-571 was just plain not remotely based on reality. the trouble is many americans seem to think ww2 was between them and the germans and japs with no one else involved as it is.