Paul_Sjordal

America won the Battle of Britain

Forgive me if there is already a thread for this movie.

Apparently, there's a movie coming out starring Tom Cruise that does to history what Hollywood often does to history. I have to imagine some of our British friends will be angry about this.

http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNo...tentPK=9562995

I can understand making small changes to history to make a movie interesting, but Hollywood all too often goes too far.

“It’s great to be known, but it’s even better to be known as strange.” —Takeshi Kaga

Jim_K

I'll pass judgement only after I've seen the finished film. I just don't buy into negative publicity on movies that haven't even been made yet.

I'm a WWII/history buff & also a fan of Michael Mann so I'm very interested in seeing this.

I do admit that U-571 was an injustice to the Brits along with being a mediocre WWII sub film. Give me Das Boot, The Enemy Below & Run Silent Run Deep any day.

The Collection (Blu-Ray High Definition/DVD)

Pre-orders - BLU-RAY: Akira, The Dark Knight, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Death Proof, Dr No, For Your Eyes Only, From Russia With Love, Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, Incredible Hulk, JFK, La Femme Nikita, Live and Let Die, Planet of the Apes (Evolution Collection), Planet Terror, Poltergeist, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, The Third Man, Thunderball, WALL E DVD: Budd Boetticher Collection, Popeye the Sailor Vol #3, Warner Gangster Collection Vol #4

Brian Thibodeau

One should never be surprised at this kind of reactionary gun-jumping whenever Hollywood makes a historical epic, particularly one rooted in such an easily researchable historical event. Likewise, one should never be surprised at Hollywood's revisionist approach to narratives rooted in real life - particularly those that deal with other cultures.

I'm with Jim on this - wait until it comes out. That said, the article writer's use of phrases like "However, winning the Battle of Britain was not one of his many accomplishments." is frustrating, as it's so obviously a preemptive lob against something that hasn't even happened yet - and it assumes the Americans are saying that it WAS one of his accomplishments without quoting the source. This kind of one-sided journalism burns me, and it's so prevalent these days it makes me sick - exactly where is the opposing viewpoint in that article?

At the same time, somewhat ironically, I must express my disdain for Hollywood's ceaseless ability to find even the most tenuous, America-centric (and too often white) point of entry before in order to make a film about other cultures. This train of thought, unfortunately, backs up the thinking behind that interviewees in that story, but at least we can look to finished films to find examples. THE LAST SAMURAI - another Cruise starrer, ironically - is just one good example. Surely Japanese filmmakers of today would have done the story far more justice, although it's a given they'd downplay the American's involvement since it's open to so much speculation. Knowing the Hollywood history of questionably inserting American characters into alien environments so we can see the history of the world through their eyes, one can see where the Brits might be getting a little nervous - but that's still no reason for shoddy, one-sided journalism to help them make their point.

Paul_Sjordal

Thanks for reminding me why I like K-19.

Sadly, your point is correct, and it's stupid. Take the above mentioned project: it's not as if British culture is particularly alien to us.

“It’s great to be known, but it’s even better to be known as strange.” —Takeshi Kaga

Dennis Nicholls

So is "The Few" going to be a remake of this potboiler:



Actually it's the other way round: the Battle of Britain won the Americans (to the cause).

The closing credits of the 1960's film The Battle of Britian gives a breakdown of the pilots by nationality. It lists British, Irish, French, Czech, Polish, South African, American, and even one Israeli. The last is odd in that there was no "Israel" in 1940.

Tales of US circumvention of neutrality in 1940-1941 would make a much more interesting film. For example, US aircraft would be flown to isolated points on the Canadian border, pushed by hand across into Canada, and thence flown to the UK.

We need Steve Christou's commentary..... :p)

Feline videophiles Susie and Dukie.

Steve Christou

Typical isn't it? Top Gun's Maverick wins the Battle of Britain singlehandedly.
Crap. That link says it all, someone should print and paste that article on the posters when the film comes out.

Holadem

The Battle of Britain is one of the most heroic battles in recent Western History. It has been the pride of a whole nation for 60 some years. The mere idea of yankeefying it is repulsive to me, one sided journalism or not.

Heck, even Steve can't find anything funny to say about that one. What does that tell you?

--
H

Paul_Sjordal

Hey, we've had to put up with those lunkheads screwing up our history for long enough; it's high time someone else get a taste of the misery we've endured, and I can't think of a better victim... erm, "subject" than the Brits.

“It’s great to be known, but it’s even better to be known as strange.” —Takeshi Kaga

Ernest Rister

You know, as an avid - almost rabid - amateur American history buff, I always start to get a bad taste in my mouth with when Americans bash either England or France.

The French & Indian War brought great benefits to the colonies, and yet England incurred serious debt fighting it, weakening that nation, which would soon be forced to fight uprisings throughout its Empire. Without England, there would be no "English colonies" to begin with, or room to expand in the American North.

On the flip side, without the English Social Order, Thomas Paine could not have penned the beginnings of the American philosophy...self-determination free of the class system, and a democracy based on limited government.

France, on the other hand, was a stalwart ally against England during the Revolution. The French adored America, and especially Ben Franklin. Our cause led to their own revolution. I see and hear all these people bashing France now -- without France stepping in on the side of the Americans, there would be no USA as we now know it, and without Napoleon granting the Louisiana purchase, it is possible that eventually the fledgling American nation would have found itself in a disastrous war with France to settle lands east of the Mississippi.

Both France and Britain refused to intercede during the American Civil War, refused to come in on the side of the Confederacy...if they had stepped in and bolstered the south, or worse -- used the opportunity to conquer or reclaim the Americas for themselves -- the American experiment would have perished. Flash forward 140 years, and I keep hearing people bash England and France, saying that "we saved England" and "we saved France" in WWII, and therefore, they owe us allegiance.

Both nations saved us first. Not just once, either.

American pilots took part in the Battle of Britain. This film is about one of them. Does it suggest that "America Saved Britain"? I have not seen the film. I don't know. I do know that Americans *helped* during that battle. I do know that American involvement in WWII - coupled with the disastrous move by Hitler to try and invade Russia - was the turning point of that war. I do know that modern English and French people are very sensitive of that fact, and that it is deeply offensive to them to hear young Americans gloat about such things.

Looking at the Western world through the prism of history, the fact is, we've all saved each other from time to time.