| 14 JUN 2004 at 3:06pm |
MadHatterCenturion
Posts : 398
Joined: 10 MAY 2004
Status : Online | Well.. most of those movies are made in Hollywood... in the United States. So it's to be expected that most of the movies made are going to have American heroes. I'm sure most war movies in the UK have Heroes from Scotland, Wales or England. I'm sure most movies in Germany have German heroes, this will go for anywhere. Why? Because you have to go to a target audience, and in Hollywood, that's the United States.
"I'm a Mog, half man, half dog, I'm my own best friend"
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 3:21pm |
majingaCenturion
Posts : 436
Joined: 16 MAR 2004
Status : Online | not all are so biased
consider
the eagle has landed
Stalingrad
Iron Cross
All 3 come to mind when thinking about un-biased (or at least not anty German) war films.
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 3:21pm |
MadHatterCenturion
Posts : 398
Joined: 10 MAY 2004
Status : Online | I'd like to add something else, like you're in Awe of the Wehrmacht, I'm awed by the Marines and the Japanese in the Pacific. The Germans never had to land on a hostile beach that was heavily defended, nearly every campaign for the Marines in the Pacific started with that, and continued with near total horror as they had to clear the island after that. Ontop of that.. the Germans were beaten, in North Africa, Eastern Front, Western Front and Italy.
"I'm a Mog, half man, half dog, I'm my own best friend"
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 3:41pm |
MullerCenturion
Posts : 26
Joined: 14 JUN 2004
Status : Online | Many of the defeats were due to orders from Hitler and the German generals not being able to do what they wanted to. THe landings at normandy could have been repulsed had hitler allowed reinforcements to go. Instead he was convinced it was not normandy where the main invasion was coming from. Even though the germans were outnumbered, they managed to break thorugh the allied lines in the ardenne which later came to be known as the battle of teh bulge. The americans suffered huge losses there. For ure apprecation of US marines in the pacific.....i can understand what they were up against and the japs were sure well dug in. Capturing those islands was a nightmare for the americans. At Iwo Jima i think the japs suffered 3 times as many casualties as the americans.
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 3:51pm |
VicKevlarCenturion
Posts : 381
Joined: 30 APR 2001
Status : Online | Every war movie i have seen related to the second world war (although not too many) i have always seen the germans at the recieving end. They have been depicted as worthless fighters and the allies, especially the americans, have been shown as near invincible soldiers capable of killing loads of germans single handidly.
This is one heckuva troll. BTW.....trolling is not allowed here per the Wargamer Forum policy.
And has been stated numerous times both here and across other sites.......it truly depends on the filmmaking studio. American studios create 'American' based and focused films. Trying viewing Das Boot, Peckinpah's Cross of Iron, Stalingrad, Paths of Glory, When Trumpets Fade, etc; etc; etc; to see the gamut of WWII filmmaking.
A bridge too far...gave a slightly better impression of thier fighting skills.
The movie has a number of flaws also and I'm sure the grogs round here can point them out in full.
The most shocking was the fact that the film U-571 shows US marines capturing german enigma codes although in reality this raid was carried out by the british.
First off it was naval officers and an OSS type. Yes, on May 9th, 1941 the HMS Bulldog captured and enigma machine from U-110.....but not the actual submarine itself. The US Navy captured U-505 on June 4th, 1944 marking the first time that the Navy had captured an enemy vessel at sea since the nineteenth century. You also forgot the Polish team and individuals who first broke the code in 1932 and built several enigma mockups before transferring all information before the outbreak of the war in 1939.
The german wermacht was a powerful and formidable foe, evident from the fact that the germans managed to achieve amazing feats. German Luftwaffe pilots managed to reach 315 kills, whereas the top number of kills by any allied pilot was 38.
Sheesh....you didn't get anything close to correct here did you? Erich Hartmann had 352 aerial kills with several other German pilots with over 200. Richard Bong had 40 aerial kills in the Pacific theatre. The Russian leader was Ivan N. Kozuhedub with 62. Did you just pick numbers out of thin air?
German units were superior in the war......thier tanks especially. It took 5 shermans to destroy one tiger tank.
Which 'unit's specifically? Where did you get the magic number of "5"?
One german tank crew manged to destroy 22 ALLIED TANKS before being blown up.
Pulling numbers out of thin air again? Germany's Michael Wittman was credited with the destruction of 138 Allied tanks and 132 anti-tank guns in less than two years. In one short encounter in France, Wittmann's company destroyed over 25 Allied vehicles, most of them tanks/tracked vehicles.
The Allies celebrate that they freed France from the germans. Only 15 % of the total german wermacht was present in france, while 70 % was in russia.
Where did these statistics come from? Please cite.
Had their numbers been different......the allied wont have not dreamed of making it to paris.
Not quite getting this point.....are you stating that if your "numbers/percentages" were reversed....the Russians would have been Berlin earlier?
THe germans were the first to create the jet fighter, the ME-262.
The first jet plane was the Coanda-1910 built in Romania. The second jet plane was the Heinkel HE 178 in 1939. The first jet fighter was the Messerschmitt Me 262. The first jet fighter squadron was comprised by the British and their Gloster Meteor in 1944.
The eastern front was a disaster for them becuase of the Russian winter.
Not to mention leadership and supply issues, etc; etc; etc; What about the other 7-8 months of the year?
They were only 38 km from moscow.
Point?
Thier achivements in the war have been amazing. No allied nation comes close.
Really? Compared to what/who exactly? Grogs round here could argue no other group on earth could have staged several cross-ocean invasions, pulled of a several front war, etc; etc; etc;
In short, opinions are fine.......but have some data handy to debate with.....otherwise most of your post is trolling. Don't do it again.
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 5:06pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | I'm not very comfortable with the concept that expressing an opinion without being a learned scholar about it is consider a crime known as trolling, and that the forum administration regards it as an infraction. If that's the case, then just about everybody on this forum shopuld be banned and many removed for life, as there are a lot of unsubstantiated opinions expressed daily. Doesn't sound like a very practical way to get new members or to keep old ones. Discussing thoughts and opinions is an interesting and stimulating thing to do, and the whole purpose of a discussion is to agree or disagree with what the other person presents. If this forum is limited to historical scholars who can only state documented facts, then it won't last long at all. BTW - even learned scholars argure and disagree about well known and documented events.
The 5 Shermans per Tiger figure has always been the official US statistic. In fact, that whole issue of why the Americans totally failed to upgrade their armor was exhaustively argued for weeks on this very forum. The Allies - specifically the Americans - were more than willing to sacrifice thousands of young men to maintain cheap and plentiful production of an extremely obsolete tank. And that's it in a nutshell. Our best tank design, the incredible Christie tank/suspension, which became the basis of the fast, rugged and powerful T-34, was sold to the Soviets after it was refused by the American military. that's histoprical fact. What is interesting is that the refusing officers never faced even so much as an inquiry for their failure to adeqautely evalaute and appreciate what should have been a superior American design. It might be "trolling", but I have often wondered why and I always will.
German pilots wracked up impressive kill totals for several reasons:
They were not rotated home as Allies were but served for the entire duration.
They fought against obsolete aircraft and untrained pilots during the early parts of Poland, Ukraine, Barbarossa, Greece, Africa, etc.
They fought against masses of Allied bombers and fighters; therefore, to survive was to have a pretty good total.
They made an impressive number of kills as night fighters against British bombers who never even saw them.
The exact number of kills of any German tank commander did not appear to be the author's point; his point apppeared to be that German armor was quite superior to ours. No one, not even on this forum, has ever successfully argued otherwise, and I doubt they will as history does not support that contention in any form. The Allies won by out-producing the Germans, not by superiority of armor.
The author's point re Moscow, etc., was that the Germans managed an incredible feat of arms. If anything, the fighting men on the Ost Front were betrayed by their top leadership, starting with Hitler. The fact remains, however that they sliced their way through the Soviet defenses and very nearly acconmplished what the Soviets had previously considered all but impossible - the capture of the very Soviet capitol and symbol of the Rodina herself. They managed to do this without the Allies pounding the Soviets into rubble and submission; the Soviets, however, ultimately required enormous aid and supplies from the Allies and an unrelenting effort by the Allied air forces bobming around the clock PLUS a Second Front before they could even come close to duplicating the German feat of arms. So on the surface, it appears that the German military is, in fact, vastly under-rated. I have often had the same question myself - why? The explanation that it's "just Hollywood" falls a long way short of the truth, as no one ever offers any actual proof of this contention, which per the administrator makes such an opinion nothing more than "trolling" and therefore illegal.
In fact, Hollywood shows an increasing tendency to demonstrate the shortcomings of Americans and their leaders in time of war and crisis. Sam Peckinpaugh, BTW, was an American and his movies are also "Hollywood." [i]Tora, Tora, Tora [/i] was an American/Hollywood production, as was [i]Pearl [/i] [i]Harbor[/i]. So was [i]Saving Private Ryan[/i], which showed the opposing Germans as tough and tenacious fighters. The basis for [i]Courage Under Fire[/i], a Hollywood film, was the possible mutiny of American troops caught when their chopper went down, and it was made plain that the officer investigating was himself guilty of fratricide by killing one of his own tanks. [i]The Caine Mutiny [/i] was all about the failure of a senior officer brought about by the very naval system that created him.[i]A Few Good Men [/i] is all about inflexibility and both racial and sexual bias in the US Marine Corp and a seriously flawed senior officer, and it came to us courtesy of Hollywood.That same Hollywood brought us [i]Platoon[/i], which certainly did not show the American military in a good light, [i]Blackhawk Down [/i] which showed the American military as almost totally inept, [i]Rules of Engagement [/i] which portrayed the American military and the American government as willing to lie to cover up incompetence at the highest levels, and [i]We Were Soldiers[/i], a portrayal of a complete American military disaster. And so it goes - for every Rah-Rah film made by Hollywood, an equal number of highly critical ones are also present.
Germany, on the other hand, does not have the political luxury of making films showing their superiority over others or touting German feats of arms, as they remain under a cloud from WWII that may well persist into the next century. [i]Das[/i] [i]Boot[/i], however, is an excellent film that realistically portrays any number of positive things about the German Kriegsmarine and especially about Doenitz's U-boat crews. Personally, I would like to see the German film industry tell many stories from their perspective. History is writtren by the winners, which pretty much guarantees distortion and self-service. I would pay dearly to see a German movie or series about the Fallschirmjaegers, for example, especially at Eban Emael. Or about the German Panzer Corps. I think their historical and military viewpoint would be worthwhile to see.
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 5:15pm |
Tigerstripe_ShadowCenturion
Posts : 100
Joined: 7 JUN 2004
Status : Online | The first jet plane was the Coanda-1910 built in Romania. The second jet plane was the Heinkel HE 178 in 1939. The first jet fighter was the Messerschmitt Me 262. The first jet fighter squadron was comprised by the British and their Gloster Meteor in 1944.
Hi!
I've got a question/remark on this one...
Wasn't the German Jagdverband 44 (JV44) the first all jet fighter-squadron?
For the rest, I found your corrections very good. Especially the stuff about enigma. I'm always amazed how those Polish guys are ALWAYS left out of the picture concerning enigma...
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 5:51pm |
MullerCenturion
Posts : 26
Joined: 14 JUN 2004
Status : Online | An excelllent response by mountainman. I thank him for defending me. I apologize to those who got a little emotional with some of the stats i got wrong. Much of my knowledge of the war has been gained through watching countless hours of discovery and history channel documenteries. Although it was quite surprising the mod came down so hard on me.
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 5:53pm |
SmuckatelliColonel
Posts : 7965
Joined: 8 JUN 2004
Location: US
Status : Offline | A Few Good Men is all about inflexibility and both racial and sexual bias in the US Marine Corp
Wow, are you ever waaaaaay off target if you think that movie is a representation of racial and sexual bias in the Corps.
Inflexibility in the USMC?, take a look at it's history.
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:07pm |
MadHatterCenturion
Posts : 398
Joined: 10 MAY 2004
Status : Online | Muller, I didn't mean to sound angered by you, but I did want to present some alternatives, I also know that many would be angered considering the fact that so many of the people on this forum have had relatives, grandparents and the like, killed in WWII by the Wehrmacht.
Since you like against the odds type stuff, check out Chosin Reservoir, during which in my opinion is one of the most amazing modern military feats.
"I'm a Mog, half man, half dog, I'm my own best friend"
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:13pm |
dave fergusonCenturion
Posts : 829
Joined: 4 MAY 2003
Status : Online | I suppose the fact that they were a evil regime waging a agressive war and lost might have something to do with it. Also, being fair to the germans won't sell many cinema seats
Dave
ps just discovered the other replies, must learn about these cascaded posts, tricky things these computers
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:14pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | Oh? Off base? Maybe you might want to watch the movie again. Nicholson plays a commander of such rigidity and intolerance that he orders the Code Red of a man with a medical problem that he knew about. Kiefer Sutherland is questioned about his open dislike for the Negro corporal, who has the highest ratings but never gets promoted.
Finally, Nicholson's remarks to Demi Moore at the first meeting at Gitmo are nothing BUT sexual bias and descrimination, for which alone he would ordinarily have been at least relieved of command, more likely required to resign immediately.
As far as general bias in the Corp throughout history, where were the Negroes who were anxious to serve when the Marines hit the beaches? Mostly they were in the Navy as stewards and permanent mess mates, or in the Army as drivers, supply troops and so forth. As for flexibility, the Marines got slaughtered on every beach they hit, but the tactics stayed the same. All this reminds me of is the inflexible tactics of WWI. Good commanders do not hesitate to sacrifice soldiers for an appropriate objective, but they NEVER sacrifice them needlessly.
This is not a film about the glory or pride of the Marine Corps; it is a film about command failure, racial and sexual bias, cover up, and an eventual resolution which results in the trial of the commander, Nicholson. Since it was made specifically by Hollywood, it refutes the claim that Hollywood movies always glorify the American forces.
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:16pm |
jacknastyfaceCommander
Posts : 1945
Joined: 4 MAR 2004
Location: CA, BC
Status : Offline | To your question "is it too much to ask that they be depicted fairly?" the answer, of course, is "YES".
History is history, and Hollywood is fiction. It is important to remember that the entire cast and crew of a film are creating "product". Although some films rise above mercenary concerns and become art, many more seek to be successful (read: profitable) by appealing to the lowest common denominator. This usually, but not always, includes a hero we love, a villian we hate, a conflict that we "enjoy", and poetic justice for all. As a result, movies tend to discard verisimilitude and historical accuracy for character identification and emotional engagement. Cheer for our team - boo the bad guy - things go better with Coke.
In a way, you may as well have asked "how come the Orcs weren't presented in positive light in LOTR?" or "how come movie terrorists are always bad?" or even "why are the bad guys such lousy shots"? The germans/japanese/somalis/orcs/stormtroopers in war movies are poor (or evil) because it makes us feel better about watching them lose - it just feels "right".
Of course, exceptions exist and some have been noted (das boot, cross of iron, stalingrad). I would add that the Germans in "A Midnight Clear" were as fallible and human as the GI's, and the plight of the soldiers in "All quiet on the western front" transcended plot stereotypes.
What I think is most interesting about your post is that Hollywood hasn't turned a keen cinematic eye to the war in the Pacific. IMHO, the Pacific theatre was where the US performed so incredibly well in WWII, yet few movies tackle this theatre with justice. Perhaps it is too easy to demonize the Japanese?
Your most humble servant,
Jack Nastyface
-----------------
Kiss me, Hardy.
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:21pm |
MadHatterCenturion
Posts : 398
Joined: 10 MAY 2004
Status : Online | I agree with you fully Jack. There has been no movie on the Marines of Guadalcanal since the 40's. Nothing on Iwo Jima, nothing on Tarawa, Saipan, Wake Island, New Guinea. Nothing lately on Midway. About the only thing lately was Pearl Harbor, which.. sucked.
"I'm a Mog, half man, half dog, I'm my own best friend"
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:29pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | So it's ok top denigrate somebody else to sell movies? I think Muller just completed making his point. Hollywood, as referenced previously, has made a number of good films that show both sides with both humanity and some degree of accuracy. Try [i]The Young Lions [/i] some time.
Orcs are in a different category, and were specifically created to destroy mankind. No relationship at all to contemporary warfare. I don't see how creatures from fantasy literature apply to Hollywood's possible denigration of actual nationalities. That particular series of movies is specifically about Good vs Evil.
Show the Japanese in a positive light? Hmm.. I seem to recall that [i]Tora! Tora! Tora[/i]! did exactly that. On the other hand, it might be a little tricky to humanize the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the slave labor used to build the real bridge at the river Qwai, the intolerable treatment of Allied POW's and civilians, especially women, the pointless executions of prisoners for cruel sport, and the atrocities of Unit 731 at Harbin, where germ warfare was tested on POW's. I doubt even Hollywood wants to tackle that. On the other hand, Japanese films always portray Godzilla as a sort of hero, so there you have it. It's really all about chubby guys in big lizard suits.
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:34pm |
MadHatterCenturion
Posts : 398
Joined: 10 MAY 2004
Status : Online | Actually I don't think it's easy for Hollywood to Demonize the Japanese, again, look at Pearl Harbor. In every book I read, the Japanese strafed houses in Honolulu, but in the movie you see a Japanese gunner waving for kids to get down. It's easier for Hollywood to portray a white man as evil, than an Asian. Then I also think there's the European factor, the Germans killed Europeans, the Japanese killed.. mostly Asians, and again, the US is mostly of European Descent.
"I'm a Mog, half man, half dog, I'm my own best friend"
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:35pm |
FRENCHMANCenturion
Posts : 122
Joined: 15 MAY 2004
Status : Online | I personally think, that while it is not a war movie in the pure sense, The Pianist is by far the best WWII era movie. Hollywood made, loved by all.
[img]http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/images/stamp.gif[/img]
"Bonjourrrrr, you cheese eating surrender monkey"-Groundkeeper Willie
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:40pm |
Euro-DoggieCommander
Posts : 1211
Joined: 29 JAN 2002
Status : Online | Yes, the poor Nazis should be portrayed fairly in our biased Hollywood movies. We should get Mel Gibson to direct some graphic scenes of Gestapo torture chambers and maybe some slow motion footage of Allied medics being cremated by Waffen SS flamethrower teams.
Maybe John Grisholm can write a screen play about Allied pilots being lynched by German mobs in Aushaffenberg, or maybe who ever did [i]Kill Bill[/i] should show us what really went on in Doctor Mengele's laboratories.
By all means, let us be "fair" to the Nazis.
Click here to visit
[link=http://url=http://prochelo.com/stl-web/bulletin/bb/index.php?sid=34c4df24f6e772c7ed7737206bc966d7]The Mad Cow Steakhouse and Doggie's Cheatin' Heart Saloon[/link]
[img]http://prochelo.com/stl-web/bulletin/bb/templates/subSilver/images/logos/logo3.gif[/img]
Why can't Americans learn to live in peace like us?
[IMG]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZK9zI_9NDIAC:www.greenpeacecanada.org/e/news/images/010716d.JPG[/IMG]
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:53pm |
J30VaderCenturion
Posts : 342
Joined: 25 OCT 2003
Status : Online | How about a movie on the destruction of Lidice? Or Oradour?(sp)
Yes, let's be fair to the poor people who did it.
What I've done in my life is nobody's business. And there is no one that I have to prove anything to.
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 6:59pm |
scootercatCenturion
Posts : 276
Joined: 19 OCT 2003
Status : Online | Five Shermans for every Tiger KOed????
Ok we have to place the qualifiers on this statement to "make" it true. In TANK on TANK combat with the Germans on the defensive AND with the Allies in traveling formation AND where no air cover was availible AND no artillery support was factored into the battle AND the allies were not usuing APDS or HVAP rounds THEN and ONLY THEN did the Shermans lose 5 for every Tiger they took out.
Battles are not fought in clean, clear scenarios like our simulations. And such was definately true in NW Europe in 1944.
Now I could point out that at El Alamein where the Sherman was first used in large numbers, it seemed to have the measure of anything with swastikas on. Something like thirty or fourty Shermans were destroyed in that battle, yet they tallied a couple of hundred Axis AFVs knocked out by the 75mm gyrostabilzied guns. (Which by the way was in advance of ANYTHING produced by the Germans until 1955.)
And as I mentioned above, since the Brits and Americans tended to be using the Shermans on the offensive, they tended to have higher casualties. When the German tanks were likewise on the offensive, their losses were higher also. Back before the forums were crashed I detailed some of the action in the Saar Campaign where German couter attacks suffered 6 or 7 to one loss ratios. You can also look at the 2nd US Armored division during December 1944 and their loss to kill ratios (2 to 3 in favor of the Americans).
All told, yes the Panther and Tiger were better individual tanks than the Sherman. BUT the Sherman was a carefully designed cog in a great Amercian war machine that was 10 or 20 times better than their adversaries at that point in the war. The Sherman was designed to fight an American war the American way in Europe... thousands of miles from the production base. As such it was a study in sucessful compromise. After the dust settled, the Sherman was a war winning tank used on all fronts.
Colt -- The original point and click interface.
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 7:28pm |
FRENCHMANCenturion
Posts : 122
Joined: 15 MAY 2004
Status : Online | NOt true. The discovery channel ran a simulation, where a tiger hid in the woods. He was able to disable 2 shermans before he was spotted, the two other shermans (i'm using 4) spotted him, one opened fire, hit, but it bounced off, while hte other sherman tried to flank. The 3rd sherman was killed, but the last one, due to it's speed and faster turret turning speed, managed to hit the weakish back armour, and knock out the tank. However, interviewed tank crew from both sides and all 4 western nation (Canada, Britain, Germany and the US) all said the tiger was better, if slower, than the Sherman, and that they would take it over the allied Sherman any day.
[img]http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/images/stamp.gif[/img]
"Bonjourrrrr, you cheese eating surrender monkey"-Groundkeeper Willie
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 7:36pm |
VI66Centurion
Posts : 297
Joined: 21 MAY 2004
Status : Online | Capturing those islands was a nightmare for the americans. At Iwo Jima i think the japs suffered 3 times as many casualties as the americans.
The Battle for Iwo Jima was the only battle in United States Marine Corps history where the U.S. Marine's took more casualties than their foe.
*Casualties:
The Japanese - 22,000+
U.S. Marine's - 24,053
*Source - Storm Landings - Joseph Alexander
Superior wargaming through better understanding. http://warmongers.net[img]http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/u/bandit.gif[/img]
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 7:40pm |
VI66Centurion
Posts : 297
Joined: 21 MAY 2004
Status : Online | Another movie from Hollywood, [b]The Blue Max[/b] w/George Peppard. World War I era but certainly not placing the German's in a "bad" light.
Superior wargaming through better understanding. http://warmongers.net[img]http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/u/bandit.gif[/img]
|
| 14 JUN 2004 at 8:08pm |
PraetorCenturion
Posts : 129
Joined: 27 MAY 2004
Status : Online | ORIGINAL: MadHatter
Well.. most of those movies are made in Hollywood... in the United States. So it's to be expected that most of the movies made are going to have American heroes. I'm sure most war movies in the UK have Heroes from Scotland, Wales or England. I'm sure most movies in Germany have German heroes, this will go for anywhere. Why? Because you have to go to a target audience, and in Hollywood, that's the United States.
Well the most recent UK film that comes to mind is Enemy at the gates, that was based on the Eastern front in Stalingrad..(though most likely the money came from foriegn sources)
One thing thats quite cheeky about that film (but in some ways is good to portray the characters without a culture barrier) The Russians were played by English actors the Germans by Americain actors. But i think the way that was arranged made the film more aimed at a UK audience as you guys dont tend to like being portrayed as the bad guy. It is however a good way of attempting to tell history of another people through entertainment at the same time.
Ironically that was also a Russian idea to tell its uneducated peasent population why the revolution happened, though the entertainment part of it wasnt as important obviously
Whenever you watch MTV and see a music video which uses surreal imagery or montage images (fast sequence of images) You have to thank Russian film makers for that, in particular a fella called Eisenstien
|
