one for all the ph film buffs, re- the dambusters remake??
Discussion
Los Angeles said:
Eric Mc said:
I don't think that this film will suffer from any "Hollywoodisation" of history. I don't think the two driving forces behind it, Jackosn and David Frost, would allow it.
If you mean in storyline, perhaps not. If you mean cast and casting, most certainly it will. The money behind it and its worldwide distribution is American, as is its most potentially lucrative audience - North America.
Does it really matter who plays the parts, writes the music, or even the twang of the accents.. what cannot be taken away is that this is essentially the spirit of a British achievement of quite stunning proportions.
However, a movie is just a story played out on a big screen - if they change parts of the story, or shift the emhpasis, does it actually matter? Those who know the truth still know the truth, those who want to see the 'baddie get it' .. also get that too. Does an historical movie have to be a truthful 'testament' to the memories of those who were there? Why can't it be just be a good film, a decent story told in the way the director wants it told with a shift of emphasis, bias or storytelling where needed to satisfy those demands required to make the movie successful?
It's an incredible story, of remarkable human endeavours and bravery, but does a film of it have to be a 'celuloid shrine?'
However, a movie is just a story played out on a big screen - if they change parts of the story, or shift the emhpasis, does it actually matter? Those who know the truth still know the truth, those who want to see the 'baddie get it' .. also get that too. Does an historical movie have to be a truthful 'testament' to the memories of those who were there? Why can't it be just be a good film, a decent story told in the way the director wants it told with a shift of emphasis, bias or storytelling where needed to satisfy those demands required to make the movie successful?
It's an incredible story, of remarkable human endeavours and bravery, but does a film of it have to be a 'celuloid shrine?'
drivin_me_nuts said:
Does it really matter who plays the parts, writes the music, or even the twang of the accents.. what cannot be taken away is that this is essentially the spirit of a British achievement of quite stunning proportions.
However, a movie is just a story played out on a big screen - if they change parts of the story, or shift the emhpasis, does it actually matter? Those who know the truth still know the truth, those who want to see the 'baddie get it' .. also get that too. Does an historical movie have to be a truthful 'testament' to the memories of those who were there? Why can't it be just be a good film, a decent story told in the way the director wants it told with a shift of emphasis, bias or storytelling where needed to satisfy those demands required to make the movie successful?
It's an incredible story, of remarkable human endeavours and bravery, but does a film of it have to be a 'celuloid shrine?'
It has to contain a "core" of truth - otherwise you pay a disservice to those who died (which was a very high proportion of those who took part). It doesn't have to be 100% accurate - that would be impossible anyway as the narrative has to be condensed into a time period not exceeding three hours. It must be remembered that the original film contained MANY inaccurate elements. But most of these did not detract from the basic retelling of the real events.However, a movie is just a story played out on a big screen - if they change parts of the story, or shift the emhpasis, does it actually matter? Those who know the truth still know the truth, those who want to see the 'baddie get it' .. also get that too. Does an historical movie have to be a truthful 'testament' to the memories of those who were there? Why can't it be just be a good film, a decent story told in the way the director wants it told with a shift of emphasis, bias or storytelling where needed to satisfy those demands required to make the movie successful?
It's an incredible story, of remarkable human endeavours and bravery, but does a film of it have to be a 'celuloid shrine?'
Eric Mc said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Does it really matter who plays the parts, writes the music, or even the twang of the accents.. what cannot be taken away is that this is essentially the spirit of a British achievement of quite stunning proportions.
However, a movie is just a story played out on a big screen - if they change parts of the story, or shift the emhpasis, does it actually matter? Those who know the truth still know the truth, those who want to see the 'baddie get it' .. also get that too. Does an historical movie have to be a truthful 'testament' to the memories of those who were there? Why can't it be just be a good film, a decent story told in the way the director wants it told with a shift of emphasis, bias or storytelling where needed to satisfy those demands required to make the movie successful?
It's an incredible story, of remarkable human endeavours and bravery, but does a film of it have to be a 'celuloid shrine?'
It has to contain a "core" of truth - otherwise you pay a disservice to those who died (which was a very high proportion of those who took part). It doesn't have to be 100% accurate - that would be impossible anyway as the narrative has to be condensed into a time period not exceeding three hours. It must be remembered that the original film contained MANY inaccurate elements. But most of these did not detract from the basic retelling of the real events.However, a movie is just a story played out on a big screen - if they change parts of the story, or shift the emhpasis, does it actually matter? Those who know the truth still know the truth, those who want to see the 'baddie get it' .. also get that too. Does an historical movie have to be a truthful 'testament' to the memories of those who were there? Why can't it be just be a good film, a decent story told in the way the director wants it told with a shift of emphasis, bias or storytelling where needed to satisfy those demands required to make the movie successful?
It's an incredible story, of remarkable human endeavours and bravery, but does a film of it have to be a 'celuloid shrine?'
drivin_me_nuts said:
Does it really matter who plays the parts, writes the music, or even the twang of the accents.. what cannot be taken away is that this is essentially the spirit of a British achievement of quite stunning proportions.
However, a movie is just a story played out on a big screen - if they change parts of the story, or shift the emhpasis, does it actually matter? Those who know the truth still know the truth, those who want to see the 'baddie get it' .. also get that too. Does an historical movie have to be a truthful 'testament' to the memories of those who were there? Why can't it be just be a good film, a decent story told in the way the director wants it told with a shift of emphasis, bias or storytelling where needed to satisfy those demands required to make the movie successful?
It's an incredible story, of remarkable human endeavours and bravery, but does a film of it have to be a 'celuloid shrine?'
I think it depends. If it strays too far from reality then it may as well be pure fiction or fantasy. No different to Lord of the Rings.However, a movie is just a story played out on a big screen - if they change parts of the story, or shift the emhpasis, does it actually matter? Those who know the truth still know the truth, those who want to see the 'baddie get it' .. also get that too. Does an historical movie have to be a truthful 'testament' to the memories of those who were there? Why can't it be just be a good film, a decent story told in the way the director wants it told with a shift of emphasis, bias or storytelling where needed to satisfy those demands required to make the movie successful?
It's an incredible story, of remarkable human endeavours and bravery, but does a film of it have to be a 'celuloid shrine?'
If the audience knows that this is an accurate depiction of the events then it will have a stronger impact.
What is often forgotten is the massive Allied loss of life the raid caused:
wiki said:
according to the latest sources, at least 1,650 people were killed: around 70 in the Eder Valley, and at least 1,579 bodies were found along the Möhne and Ruhr rivers, with hundreds missing. 1,026 of the bodies found downriver of the Möhne Dam were foreign prisoners of war and forced-labourers in different camps, mainly from the Soviet Union. Worst-hit was the city of Neheim (now part of Neheim-Hüsten) at the confluence of the Möhne and Ruhr rivers, where over 800 people perished, among them at least 526 female forced-labourers from the Soviet Union.
Also, interestingly, the raid would now be prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Edited by Bushmaster on Sunday 8th February 14:42
Mr Dave said:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTHFVBlm_A and a trailer for a short film he's makiing/made about WW1 seems pretty accurate and historically sympathetic.
He could have, at least, spelled 'Valour' correctly in the trailer.tinman0 said:
Bushmaster said:
What is often forgotten is the massive Allied loss of life the raid caused:
Not sure of the point you are making to be honest.Think of the number of people it saved by hurting Germany's industrial core and its inability to create more weapons.
If the sole criterion of success is the permanent paralysis of the Ruhr's munitions industry and Germany's consequent inability to prolong the war, then Operation CHASTISE failed. The Air Ministry and the Ministry of Economic Warfare both knew that the destruction of the Sorpe dam was vital if this aim was to be met, but that Upkeep was not really a suitable weapon for the task. It is interesting, however, to speculate on what might have happened if more of the second and third wave aircraft had reached and attacked this target. If the disruption to German transport infrastructure, reduced agricultural production, and the diversion of labor from the construction of Atlantic defenses are considered, a picture begins to emerge of the Dams Raid as a triumph.
As we have seen, however, there are other important factors to take into account. The raid had very important moral and psychological effects. It was one of a number of Bomber Command "set pieces" (61) which raised both the British public's confidence in the Command's ability to take the fight to the Germans and public morale in general. Allied to this, the timing of the raid was fortuitous, as it allowed the British to parade an aerial success before the Combined Chiefs of Staff Conference and Churchill to exploit that success before the United States Congress. Furthermore, the dramatic pictures could be used both in persuading the Russians that Britain was doing its share against Germany and in showing occupied Western Europe that Britain could now attack precision targets. The Germans were not immune to the psychological effects: Speer records that the raid made "a deep impression on the Fuhrer." (62) Reinforcing Hitler's prejudices, this assisted the misemployment of the Luftwaffe as an offensive rather than defensive force. In addition, fear of repeat attacks (never apparently contemplated) caused the equivalent of an entire regular division to be tied down, protecting the remaining dams: in itself this was probably worth the loss of eight aircraft.
There were other gains for the RAF: the start of the "master bomber" technique allied to the demonstration that bomber aircraft could be effectively controlled by radio; the demonstration that Bomber Command could undertake precision attacks (albeit with specialized training and selected crews); the creation of an "elite" squadron which would develop new techniques and undertake other precision attacks; and the impetus the raid gave to the Command to take Wallis' other specialized bombs seriously.
Undoubtedly it was, at the time, in Webster and Frankland's words "the most precise bombing attack ever delivered," (63) even if their assertion of "a feat of arms which has never been excelled" smacks of hyperbole. Allying this precision to the dramatic post-raid reconnaissance photographs, the undoubted bravery of the crews involved and a pre-determination to use the raid for propaganda purposes, it is hardly surprising that the Dams Raid remains that RAF's most famous single operation and 617 its most famous squadron.
from:- The dam busters raid: success or sideshow? by TM Webster
As we have seen, however, there are other important factors to take into account. The raid had very important moral and psychological effects. It was one of a number of Bomber Command "set pieces" (61) which raised both the British public's confidence in the Command's ability to take the fight to the Germans and public morale in general. Allied to this, the timing of the raid was fortuitous, as it allowed the British to parade an aerial success before the Combined Chiefs of Staff Conference and Churchill to exploit that success before the United States Congress. Furthermore, the dramatic pictures could be used both in persuading the Russians that Britain was doing its share against Germany and in showing occupied Western Europe that Britain could now attack precision targets. The Germans were not immune to the psychological effects: Speer records that the raid made "a deep impression on the Fuhrer." (62) Reinforcing Hitler's prejudices, this assisted the misemployment of the Luftwaffe as an offensive rather than defensive force. In addition, fear of repeat attacks (never apparently contemplated) caused the equivalent of an entire regular division to be tied down, protecting the remaining dams: in itself this was probably worth the loss of eight aircraft.
There were other gains for the RAF: the start of the "master bomber" technique allied to the demonstration that bomber aircraft could be effectively controlled by radio; the demonstration that Bomber Command could undertake precision attacks (albeit with specialized training and selected crews); the creation of an "elite" squadron which would develop new techniques and undertake other precision attacks; and the impetus the raid gave to the Command to take Wallis' other specialized bombs seriously.
Undoubtedly it was, at the time, in Webster and Frankland's words "the most precise bombing attack ever delivered," (63) even if their assertion of "a feat of arms which has never been excelled" smacks of hyperbole. Allying this precision to the dramatic post-raid reconnaissance photographs, the undoubted bravery of the crews involved and a pre-determination to use the raid for propaganda purposes, it is hardly surprising that the Dams Raid remains that RAF's most famous single operation and 617 its most famous squadron.
from:- The dam busters raid: success or sideshow? by TM Webster
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff