Being A Celebrity Doesn't Make You Any Better A Re-enactor

Hamden’s comparison of the Dambuster’s clock and Private Ryan says it all. But “action” films cost huge sums of money these days and the art of subtlety is subsumed by the need to exploit the bold brash features required to sell the film big. Blood, guts, trauma, sentimentality and worst of all mawkishness, all fill the pot to draw in an unthinking audience.

I don’t think war films can ever be too realistic; the only problem really is one of certification and the squeamishness of the audience.

One of the best war films ever made is ‘Born on the Fourth of July’. It is good because it doesn’t glorify war; in fact, it is so good, I don’t like to watch it.

‘The Dambusters’ or ‘Angels 1-5’, even if re-made, will always be old fashioned war movies because they depict the ‘clean’ war in the air; planes crash, whole crews are wiped-out, but you don’t get to see any of it close-up. I’m not saying that some of the more subtle filmmaking techniques weren’t effective but certainly, with the older films, those made closest to the war, the audience had, to a great extent, experienced war for real (if only as children) so didn’t need to have it spelled-out for them. Today, most of us are so removed from war, even though our country has been at ‘war’ for more than a decade, that the filmmakers are forced to spoon-feed us so we know how to feel (either that or subtlety in the movies is a lost art).

I wasn’t knocking Fury for being like Pulp Fiction. I quite like the film and certainly better than most.
Modern war films are getting far too `realistic`. While I think there is a place to tell of the horrors of war
I think there is still a place for the `old fashioned` war movie, but with a more modern take. Like Angels 1-5 or the Dambusters.
Films are for entertainment at the end of the day.
The ticking clock in Dambusters says as much as the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan IMHO.

Wholly endorse your second paragraph.

‘Reservoir Dogs’, ‘Pulp Fiction’ and ‘Jackie Brown’ were all extremely good in my opinion; with just those three Quentin Tarantino achieved more than most writer / directors do in a lifetime.

But, to return to the thread, most ‘war films’ are not war films at all; World War Two was not won by small groups of desperate men on a secret mission, behind enemy-lines. Yes, these sorts of mission did happen but their importance to the war effort has been blown out of all proportion by their popularity with movie scriptwriters and cinema audiences.

Contrast this with ‘Inglorious Basterds’ by Quentin Tarantino, another director who I have a lot of respect for, but who managed to produce a joke of a film that actually had me feeling respect for the Nazis at one point!

The end of Fury is very Pulp Fiction.

I am happy for you, then.;)

‘Jaws’ and ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ are two of my favourites.

Schindler’s List was indeed a good film and with Duel, his first, are his two best films by a very long way.

Spielberg also made ‘Schindler’s List’ and co-produced ‘Band of Brothers’ so he has a lot of credit to spend on my account.

I suppose the thing that makes the difference to me is the subject matter; World War Two is not, in my opinion, just some random period of history that is an easy backdrop for a fantastically unrealistic script. That, again, in my opinion, does a great disservice to those that fought in that war, what they fought for, and, more importantly, against.

Spielberg made an important film in ‘Schindler’s List’ because the subject mattered to him; more importantly it was both extremely educational and yet entertaining (not an easy task given the subject matter)!

Contrast this with ‘Inglorious Basterds’ by Quentin Tarantino, another director who I have a lot of respect for, but who managed to produce a joke of a film that actually had me feeling respect for the Nazis at one point!

Good to read more sense about “Ryan” with which I am in total agreement. It is a typical Spielberg film, fine if you like that sort of film I suppose.

Most of you lot are typical of the whinging poms on this forum…..

Maybe, but in my defence I’m a pretty good judge of what sort of film I’m going to like and this (probably) isn’t it!

In defence of ‘Fury’ it isn’t really what I’d call a ‘war film’ anyway. It is a ‘Hollywood yarn’ set against the backdrop of World War Two; and that is no criticism of Hollywood or the American film industry in general. ‘Hollywood’ has produced some good war films, even a few great war films, but it mainly produces these sorts of ‘yarn’ because that is what apparently sells to its target audience (and again that is no criticism) and some of these do contain moments of cinematic genius.

‘Saving Private Ryan’ is a case in point. Awful ‘war film’ (but typical scriptwritten yarn) but a truly remarkable opening sequence of the assault on Omaha Beach; the rest of the film, and the ending in particular, is a fantasy that has only a vague connection to World War Two.

It’s actually a bloody excellent film, with a few small flaws, and by far exceeds most war films that have been put out in the last decade or more.

.

Which is of course only your opinion. Others might differ. I have not “whinged” because I have not seen it. Some friends have and the general consensus is that it is a reasonably good film with a few dissenting voices. So no “bloody excellents” within my ken, yet.

Hi Moggy,

I went to see Fury yesterday. The film, `kindof` works

My scepticism over Pitt remains, but I will see the movie anyway.

A friend who saw it earlier this week described it as “Saving Private Ryan with a tank and without a story”

Moggy

Most of you lot are typical of the whinging poms on this forum, you are so quick to run it down without even bothering to see it.

It’s actually a bloody excellent film, with a few small flaws, and by far exceeds most war films that have been put out in the last decade or more.

As for the age of men in the field, many guys were older, they were not all young boys. The kiwis and Aussies had guys in their Army in WWII who’d landed at Gallipoli in WWI, and they were not all high ranking officers by any means. Gallipoli was 30 years before 1945, you do the maths.

Saw a trailer for ‘Fury’ the other day…..’a lone tank on a mission behind-enemy-lines‘!

Oh dear! That did it for me…..it’ll be more A-Team than D-Day!

Dear Brad Pitt.

WW2 tank commanders were generally in their early twenties or younger.

You are 51

Can you see the problem?

Moggy

Hi Moggy,

I went to see Fury yesterday. The film, `kindof` works and Brad Pitt is a good choice for the role of tank commander IMHO.
I would rather see a good actor who was older than a youngster who isn’t right.
It’s a good war film and portrays a tank crew at war very well. The tank battle is very well done and the interior scenes are
powerful. The demise of some of the tanks is quite realistic.
The end is far fetched but very watchable.
Predictable, American but better than most.
7-10.

Fascinating reading Baz, thanks for posting!:)

We had a canter through the youngest and oldest operational Aircrew (british) a few years ago…
The youngest operational Pilot was Tom Dobney…
From an earlier post of mine –

Thomas Dobney

Joined RAF aged 14yrs 3months
awarded wings 15yrs 5months
Flew (I believe) 20 ish operations on AW Whitley bombers before being grounded.

‘Shopped’ by his Father (separated parents) after being photographed meeting the King…the RAF immediately grounded him but told him he could rejoin when old enough.
He later became a Captain on Kings/Queens flight !

From the same thread –
The oldest RAF operational aircrew I am aware of was Wing Commander Lionel Cohen DSO,MC,DFC – RAFVR Admin during during WW2 but attached himself to operational crews as a gunner !

He managed to get a Commission as a Pilot Officer (no. 72629) in the RAF in Feb.1939 and when war did break out he was aged 64 years! He served, now in his fourth war, as RAF Coastal Command Liaison Officer with the Admiralty, volunteering to take part in 70 operational flights as Observer and Air Gunner (always carrying his lucky gold sovreign with him!), in over 500 hours flying in the Atlantic (convoy escorts); Iceland (ice reconnaissance – where on one Liberator sortie, when the heating failed, he insisted on doing his stint in the turret round Bear Island, and on landing at Reykjavik, it took two crew members to prise him out of his seat!) [11]; North Africa and Spain (anti-submarine patrol), Bay of Biscay (light aircraft patrol) and over North West Europe, including a stint with the RAAF (Australians). Promoted Wing Commander, he took part in the attacks on the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau over the port of Brest on April 23rd 1941. In the same year, during a shipping attack off Norway, his aircraft was chased by three Me 110’s and a Ju 88 and on another occasion, his Sunderland aircraft took part in a 4 strike attack on U Boat over the Atlantic, and claimed it sunk. Over the North Sea on May 19th 1942 he was wounded in the head by anti-aircraft fire in the attack on the German pocket battleship ‘Lutzov’. [12] His longest patrol was in a Catalina – 21.5 hours over the Atlantic in July 1941. His penultimate sortie in a Halifax , hit by flak, resulted in a crash landing from which he walked away unscathed.

When asked why he insisted on flying he told First Sea Lord Admiral Dudley Pound, ‘ without practical experience I could not offer solutions to problems’ and that ‘it was good for morale to have senior officers sharing watches with the young air crew’.

His list of 12 decorations is ‘interesting’

DSO, MC, (WW1) DFC (WW2), Matabeleland Campaign Medal, Queen’s South Africa Medal (Boer War), 1914-15 Star, War Medal, Victory Medal with MiD (WW1), 1939-45 Star, Defence Medal, War Medal with MiD , American Air Medal (WW2).

Good point Moggy!

Isn’t that the same for an awful lot of war films though? How old was James Coburn when he played Sgt Steiner in Cross of Iron, or Tom Hanks in Private Ryan..or all the big 60’s epics like Bridge Too Far, Longest Day, Kelly’s Heros etc. The casts of most of those films were always way too old!
Steve

Todd was 36 when he played Gibson in The Dam Busters and most of the actors who played the young pilots in The Battle of Britain were in their late 20s or early 30s…well above the 20 + or – years old Sgts. and who did much of the fighting.

I have no statistics to back this up, but I’d guess that ground troops were a bit older than aircrew on average.

But recall not everyone was real young in the war.
My uncle was almost 30 when he landed his glider in Normandy and Arnhem….almost 10 years older than my father, a B-17 co-pilot.