Oops! Wrong Emma 🙂 Edited!
No no no.
I am not generalising. I am talking entirely of the perception that the US industry has. Not my perception!! Because they are aiming for a maximum audience, their job is to generalise as accurately as they can.
This is a very specific thing about how films get ‘greenlighted’ or not and it comes from the horse’s mouth. I do not want an argument anti/pro US, neither am I making one!
If no characters in a Warner Bros. movie are American then it is a negotiating triumph for Emma Thomas and Chris Nolan.
There IS an Irishman in there.
No, you misunderstand. I KNOW the story makes for a good movie in its own right. But generations of US film makers have been hampered by the studios who believe that American audiences will engage less if there isn’t an American on screen in a good guy role. This has given us everything from Steve McQueen in The Great Escape to the whole concept of Memphis Belle being shifted from a time-served Lancaster crew to a US one very early in development.
Then there is the problem of this being a retreat. Hard for the Americans to ‘get’ unless there’s a heroic American saving our cowardly asses, and other animals. I am not saying this is how this one will go – but there is a precedent, and a risk. It is a possibility! I certainly expect an heroic American (or an Irishman, I was told by a US producer this will do) in there somewhere, for the reasons above.
This indeed does not add to the story for us Brits, but US film industry belief is that it will for Americans. And big budget films are made to strict formulae. Any pitch will raise the question ‘..and where’s the American’? I have done some pitching to the US – this is from experience.
Touchy!
No one is ranting, I am not Anti-American. You can’t imagine they would.. based on previous form, I can. You know as well as I do that to get funding for films like this the producer will ask the writers to include ‘American interest’. I was just expressing hope that they got around this in this case.
It sucks itself into the air…… Simples
Yeah, that’s what I meant to say. 🙂
Yes, it was a slip to call him ‘Senator’. I stand corrected.
Everything was paid for until way after the Battle of Britain. The Lend-Lease act only happened when it looked like Kennedy might have been wrong and the US Government had decided to end a show of non-intervention in European affairs that they had been putting on to the American people.
They did not weigh in to defend any part of Europe or democracy therein until then (Although the President clearly wanted to for all the right reasons) – and that was a matter of policy. And the materiel was not free – the UK gave up a lot of territory to the US military in strategic locations around the world.
I am not standing in moral judgement – the US Government was first and foremost looking after the interests of its citizens throughout, which is surely the right thing for any government to do. It’s the ‘US saves the world’ narrative that I often encounter that needs qualifying. I hope the Dunkirk film makers don’t try to squeeze it in there too.
It’s not that there’s no awareness, its more that there has been a lot of US-centric distortion through movies and gaming.
Without pre-judgement I doubt the Dunkirk movie will show the US government sitting back and watching how the ‘Europe thing’ pans out before making any decisions. I imagine we’ll not see US Ambassador to the UK Senator Joe Kennedy proposing meetings with Hitler to seek out an ‘understanding’, with the words ‘Democracy is Finished’.
Funnily enough I was talking about the Dunkirk film with a twenty year old colleague yesterday. Educated and clever chap, he nevertheless told me with confidence that we wouldn’t have got away with Dunkirk if it wasn’t for the US air force.
To me, It’s the most ‘concrete’ evidence the ‘for’ camp has shown. Thanks Mark 12. But it’s still only evidence of underground hangars, which might even be what has been located – not evidence of crated spitfires, which still doesn’t make too much sense.
Does anyone have more information about the ‘Recently declassified documents’ that can add to this thread? Or anything on ‘X-ray-style satellites based in space’ (best place for them, I always thought).
On a serious note, it seems that Mr. Cundall now has proper control over the dig, which should bring a lot of clarity to proceedings which were formerly made murky by multiple agendas. Thanks for the heads-up.
Some video from the set here – including Spitfire in close formation with helicopter camera ship: http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/dunkirk/41226/dunkirk-set-video-shows-scale-of-christopher-nolan-s-new-film
A pedant writes;
Technically we have established that a Yak IS playing a Spitfire. Mark Jeffries calls it a ‘Yakfire’.
The conversation was about how – close up or wide shot, from the inside or the outside.
I know a lady who played Kate Winslet’s feet.
What breed of Yak was that? Whatever it was, money talks with the CAA!.
It’s a thought, yes. Interesting. Not sure where they’d put a movie camera either cockpit. But I guess you’re right, that might be more than a straightforward extra Spit, bearing in mind the choice of the right Mk for the other two. All will be revealed I’m sure.
Thanks DDM. Mark, if you read this – really? I know it’s a gig but.. that Yakfire is WRONG!
I honestly don’t think a director who would try to pass that one off would be that bothered about getting a genuine authentic German type to provide the crash scene.
EDIT – I see this reads ambiguously. What I meant was I doubt anything crashed would be ‘authentic’.
Isn’t the most likely scenario that this is actually a load of boll*cks?