An American 'communist' in London

[D Cairns]

A good case study is MRS MINIVER, made to show support for the British struggle, but NOT to encourage American entry into the war. The portrayal of the German soldier became a discussion point, with the director William Wyler being urged not too make the German too nasty. Wyler (a German Jew) argued that if the film featured several Germans he's be happy to have one or two nicer ones among them, but as he had only one character to represent the whole of Nazi Germany, he was going to make him a vicious little Hitlerian.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by D Cairns A good case study is MRS MINIVER, made to show support for the British struggle, but NOT to encourage American entry into the war. The portrayal of the German soldier became a discussion point, with the director William Wyler being urged not too make the German too nasty. Wyler (a German Jew) argued that if the film featured several Germans he's be happy to have one or two nicer ones among them, but as he had only one character to represent the whole of Nazi Germany, he was going to make him a vicious little Hitlerian.

And of course there are those P&P films made during the war that include nice Germans - as well as rabid Nazis. Like The Spy in Black (Hardt), 49th Parallel (Vogel the baker) & The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (Theo). And after the war, The Battle of the River Plate (Langsdorff)

Steve

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook There were some slightly subtle ones like Fire Over England (1937) or That Hamilton Woman (1941) which appeared to be about fighting the Spanish Armada or the importance of defeating Napoleon. But it wasn't too difficult for most people to guess which European dictatorship they were really talking about Steve

I just saw That Hamilton Woman for the first time a few weeks ago. It was much better than I had expected, and the "England expects that every man will do his duty" scene was effective. I can understand why Churchhill saw it so many times!

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin I have wondered if that related back to the American/Mexican relationship prior to mass immigration across the Rio Bravo and the leavening of the WASP influence. I happened to watch the remake of The Alamo on TV last evening and it was quite odd. The Mexican Army was just like Napoleon's hordes, prim and proper in beautiful uniforms (but no shoes in one scene which seemed odder than odd). The Texans were dirty and unshaven louts. The Texans won but there seemed little rhyme nor reason to how or why. It was as if Hollywood was trying not to be on either side, but relate 'history', but it made very little sense.

Interesting points - I have to think about that.

Yes, I think Mexicans were very much seen as "the other" in the decades before the immigration laws in the sixties - and in films were sometimes a "stand in" for native Americans (or Indians as they are called in the westerns and in life until very recently). But of course it was always much stronger among people in the west and the southwest. For most of us in the north and especially the northeast, Mexico had little significance and no relation to daily life.

I disliked "The Alamo"; I turned it off before I finished it - something which I rarely do. It was an expensive flop, which was almost unheard of for John Wayne.

I think the reason has to do with what you observed: a combination of the traditional heroics of westerns and the new politics of oppression and victims. Of course, that was very, very early for that - but "The Alamo" was one of the first films to portray the anglos as ambivalent and the Mexicans (at least in part) as honorable and impressive.

The result was a mix that didn't work, but I think it's interesting as an example of the very beginning of the new relativism. Ten years earlier, John Ford would have made a heroic (although perhaps dark) tribute and ten years later we would have had something like "Little Big Man".

[TimR]

Originally Posted by D Cairns A good case study is MRS MINIVER, made to show support for the British struggle, but NOT to encourage American entry into the war.

Well, "Mrs. Miniver" was the big film of 1942, and by that time we were already in it. I think the film was first planned in the terms you describe, but by the time it was released it had become a powerful instrument for propaganda, and Roosevelt wanted it released immediately.

I had interesting talks with older relatives who recall what that film and others meant at the time as far as the war effort was concerned.

The portrayal of the German soldier became a discussion point, with the director William Wyler being urged not too make the German too nasty. Wyler (a German Jew) argued that if the film featured several Germans he's be happy to have one or two nicer ones among them, but as he had only one character to represent the whole of Nazi Germany, he was going to make him a vicious little Hitlerian.

Well, it made sense to make the one German vicious, as there was only one and he was a pilot who was there to bomb Britain! The film was too basic in its intent to delve into character study.

How did the people of Britain see the film? I understand it was also a great success there. Today it seems highly sentimental and Americanized - at least to me, yet also quite effective and I can see why it was such a success.

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook And of course there are those P&P films made during the war that include nice Germans - as well as rabid Nazis. Like The Spy in Black (Hardt), 49th Parallel (Vogel the baker) & The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (Theo). And after the war, The Battle of the River Plate (Langsdorff) Steve

Yes, the sequence with the baker in "The 49th Parallel" and the whole sequence with the Canadian German Hutterite community was brilliantly done.That scene with Eric Portman screaming all the Nazi hysteria at the top of his lungs and the Hutterites farming community just sitting and staring at him and implicitly rejecting all he said is so moving and subtle. I first saw it as a boy over thirty years ago and I still remember the power of it - and the complex message about Germans.

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by TimR I disliked "The Alamo"; I turned it off before I finished it - something which I rarely do. It was an expensive flop, which was almost unheard of for John Wayne.

If you think that one was bad, you should see the one I was meaning: The Alamo (2004)

..... or maybe not..........

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin If you think that one was bad, you should see the one I was meaning: The Alamo (2004) ..... or maybe not..........

Oh - that one! I haven't seen that one, and probably never will. It was an even bigger bomb than the original, and I'm not much for westerns in the first place, especially not politicized westerns of any kind.

I just assumed you meant the original, for no good reason except that almost all of my favorite films were made before 1960 , so I automatically think in those terms ...

even the original "Alamo" seems comparatively "new" to me.

[batman]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin If you think that one was bad, you should see the one I was meaning: The Alamo (2004) ..... or maybe not..........

I quite enjoyed it ...

Bats.

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by batman I quite enjoyed it ...

I had hoped to because I often rather enjoy Dennis Quaid (when he's not being soppy). It was well-made enough but it just seemed so soulless. I was left with no idea of why the Texans were so determined or why the Mexicans didn't just reduce them to dust with artillery, as they appeared more than capable of doing. Davy Crockett was the only character that made any sort of sense to me. The relationship between Bowie and the h'Officer just seemed to be resolved in a terribly twee way and Sam Houston's epic marching around was glossed over like an addendum. The producers seemed to want to set up the plot at the start with all those unshaven men at political meetings in huts but it just didn't work to explain anything. They all postured a bit like 'Gangs of New York' out west but I had no more idea about what the battle over Texas was all about, than I'd had at the start. Maybe it would have worked better if one really knew the subject and were able to enjoy the human spectacle, which I guess most Americans would.

I couldn't help but compare it to ZULU, in my mind, and it was so uninvolving in comparison.

[TimR]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin I had hoped to because I often rather enjoy Dennis Quaid (when he's not being soppy). It was well-made enough but it just seemed so soulless. I was left with no idea of why the Texans were so determined or why the Mexicans didn't just reduce them to dust with artillery, as they appeared more than capable of doing.

It's interesting to read these comments - it appears that the film makers didn't bother to make the basic facts clear. The Texans were fighting for independence from Mexcio and for control of the land allotment - they had enacted policies through local legislatures that would allow American settlers to move in under very liberal conditions, and the Mexican central government wouldn't allow it. Sanata Anna was head of the Mexican forces and also self-styled dictator: he had abolished the constitution and called himself the "Napoleon of the west" who would bring the Americans to heel - not a popular way of thinking in the American west at the time. It's interesting that the defenders at the Alamo were both anglos and Mexicans.

As for reducing them to dust - well, the Mexican forces did utterly destroy the defenders. The Alamo was a glorious failure. If that was not made clear, then the movie failed even in its basic storyline. The Alamo is one of the great noble American disasters in the history of the 19th century. Virtually everyone was killed, but they managed to take down three times the number of Mexican troops before destruction.

That was followed by the Goliad massacre, where the POW's captured by Santa Anna were slaughtered in the hundreds. The outrage produced by both the Alamo and Goliad provided plenty of energy and initiative - and new recruits - for Sam Houston, the "father of Texan independence", and at the Battle of San Jacinto a few weeks later, Santa Anna was defeated and Mexico declared independence.

Every American child knew of The Alamo and Davy Crockett when I was a boy. He was the symbol of the tough backwoods American frontiersman who went down fighting. I have no idea if that is still as true as it was. But it certainly used to be.

Davy Crockett was the only character that made any sort of sense to me. The relationship between Bowie and the h'Officer just seemed to be resolved in a terribly twee way and Sam Houston's epic marching around was glossed over like an addendum. The producers seemed to want to set up the plot at the start with all those unshaven men at political meetings in huts but it just didn't work to explain anything. They all postured a bit like 'Gangs of New York' out west but I had no more idea about what the battle over Texas was all about, than I'd had at the start.

Ugh! That sort of nonsense is why I avoid movies like this now. The story itself is very basic. There is no excuse of the sort of confusion you are describing. It sounds like they made it much too fancy.

Maybe it would have worked better if one really knew the subject and were able to enjoy the human spectacle, which I guess most Americans would.

Well, yes - I suppose most of us would know the basics - but I think that even today many people are not thrilled about the revisionist history involved.

Sam Houston and Davy Crockett were far from perfect, but today there is a tendency to make them smaller than life. That was even true in the boring 1960 version.

I thought the same thing about Tony Richardson's "Charge of the Light Brigade". The film makers were so determined to portray the aristocrats as idiots and malicious fools that they reduced them to cartoons - far more offensive than sentimentalized heroics.

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by TimR it appears that the film makers didn't bother to make the basic facts clear.

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention....
Most of what you say was kind of in there, on reflection. 'The Alamo' was very well-known to me as a kid. I did know they all died. I'm guessing the movie tried to do too much. ZULU didn't attempt to tell the story of the Zulu War or make any commentary upon its morals or justification, it just picked it's ground, stood fast, and told it's small story. Now I come to think of it, the later 'Zulu Dawn' felt a bit like this recent Alamo... muddled.

[batman]

I had read a fair bit about The Alamo before I watched the film the other night, so maybe I enjoyed it more than Moor because I didn't have to work too hard to understand what was going on. The narrative on the film was muddled as Moor says, and I think that was because IMHO the scriptwriter made trying to explain the facts more important than telling the story, a trap which the writers of Zulu Dawn also fell into. Zulu, as Moor also pointed out, told it's story with the minimum of background information. It gave us a brief idea of what was going on and then concentrated on telling the story of the men at Rorke's Drift. I think that was what Wayne intended with the original version of The Alamo, but failed because neither the writer nor director were up to the job.

Bats.

[penfold]

The pro-British sympathies in 1939/40 Hollywood (The place rather than the industry) must be at least partly down to the huge ex-pat community working in film from the foundation of Nestor studios in 1913 Hollywood by two Scots....there were enough British comics in the silent era to make Hollywood seem like a department of Fred Karno's.....and once sound came, the need for British actors with impeccable diction and projection for the early sound recording made it a stampede...is Hollywood's cricket team still going, or are all the expats playing football with Robbie Williams now??
Of course the highest-profile victim of this, yet generally excluded from these discussions, was Chaplin; The Great Dictator, begun in 1939 and personally financed by him, was opposed at every turn in Hollywood; he was bullied into dropping it, but he continued. He was actually booked to appear in front of a Congressional Committee to explain his effort at anti-nazi propaganda, but Pearl Harbor intervened. His reward was to be exiled from his home for forty years for the rest of his life (Bar that Oscars appearance in the 1980's) at the next available opportunity. His crime... to appear at pro-Soviet Relief fundraisers....during the war when they were all our allies.

[penfold]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin Oh I agree, but it's rather like the English watching 'Braveheart'. Mel Gibson was really telling a story of the power of the individual but some found it a bit rude to the English at times, whilst some Scots seemed to see it as a paen to Independence.

Some English found it a typical "colonial with a chip on his shoulder" rewriting history to make England look bad . There's no history of oppression of native people for Mel to tackle in Australia or the US, is there??