Quiller

The asterix one, is Billy Fiske, and there are conflicting reports whether he actually ever managed to shoot down an enemy plane. Guess which American on the list Tom Cruise is playing...

A few things have really flawed me today about this. First I find out there might be a remake of The Dam Busters, then I find out there IS going to be a "un-official" re-make of the Battle of Britain - where they're going to extort facts to an all-time low. The American way.

One script review states that The Few screenplay has the americans winning the battle of britain - which it just didn't happen that way - and that we had planes in the hangers because there weren't enough men - why? were Brits less brave than Americans? There wasn't enough men because they were being shot down and they couldn't make the planes fast enough.

It's impossible, no matter how Hollywood portray it, for 7 americans to win the entire thing. To put it into perspective, there were 10 irish, 13 french, 20 south africans, 21 australians, 29 belgians, 84 czechoslovakians, 86 canadians, 98 new zealenders, and 139 poles, from other countries that fought in the battle of britain, along with us.

Yeah, there are remakes, but most of them don't re-write history to the extent that The Few changes it completely. And Churchill's comment of the "Few" wasn't refering to the few americans, but all of the fighters in the battle of britain.

And another thing that's really made me think, is that looking at the list of names of people that fought in the battle of britain, there's one A. McNay that died. McNay is my surname, and it's a pretty rare name. I had one great uncle fight in the second world war, and he was captured by the Japanese, for all I know, I could have have had another fighting in the battle of britain.

djdave

I have the greatest of respect for all of the servicemen and women who fought in WWII. The Americans who fought in the Battle Of Britain were brave men who - at the time - had no way of knowing that their country would end up entering the War. They fought alongside us when they didn't have to.

However, Tom Cruise's film will not be the best way to remember these pilots. It will, inevitably, distort facts to present an American-centric viewpoint. Conversly, this will, in my opinion, actually do a disservice to these men.

djdave

Interesting to note that classical composer Sir William Walton was exempted from military service during the War so that he could write the music for such films as Henry V.

The authorities knew how important music was to films, and how important films were to boosting morale.

Quiller

Cool bit of trivia. I doubt it possible that anything today could be achieved on the same level of scale back then. We're so used to propoganda on the news, it would be a bit hard to stir this island back up into a country I think.

Steve Crook

Err, this island is at least 3 countries :)

Steve

Quiller

In my best James Mason voice, oh yes, we're united. I forgot. ;)

Marky B

On the whole,I should agree with the above comments about the Cruise version of the Battle of Britain,but as I have pointed before on this forum (I think),rather than put Hollywood in the dock,should we not forward some blame to our industry. The 1969 epic was US financed,and the last all British account of the 1940 conflict was Angels One Five. It seems to me,that the British film industry of today likes to shy away from recreating our triumphs of the past,as if it was some form of embarrassment. I am sorry for saying this again,but there a lot of people in this country today are ignorant of the magnitude of that battle,and the consequences if had gone the other way.
We would have been invaded and more than likely (this is debatable,I know) we would still be a Nazi state today,as there would have been no foothold for an invasion of mainland Europe.
I can only hope,that the Cruise version will have some respect towards our lads and lasses. In fact,I have some faith it will,as it will be directed by Michael Mann,who has an eye for historic detail and has lived in Britain before his success with Miami Vice. Furthermore,whilst I will NEVER dismiss the contribution of our lads and lasses,the fact is,if it wasn't for the Americans,we would have lost.
Ta Ta
Marky B

I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas - how he got in my pyjamas,I'll never know

Quiller

Marky, good points.

I really want to see Angels One Five, as I've heard it's really spectacular.

The British Film Industry today... is terrible. We're much happier making period pieces or romantic comedies.

Hollywood isn't big on respecting history at the present time. Yeah, in the old films they never got it right either, but they came up with a fair balance of Brits and Yanks, and made the films entertaining. I just can't see how they'll do it today, when it's more about box office takings than it is about telling a story - truthfully and factually.

If it weren't for the Americans... are you talking about the end of the war, or the Battle of Britain, because the Americans stayed neutral for over a year while we got the shit bombed out of us. The Battle of Britain was fought, and won, by a predominant range of Brits. Over 2 and a half thousand of em. Oh, and 7 Americans.

Michael Mann - has made quite a few un-official remakes. Heat was a rip-off of a french thriller called Un Flic, and Collaterral is similar to Le Samaroui. Most of his films have a habit of looking just like other classic films, usually foreign. I think he thinks no one will notice.

Quiller

And Marky, where did you read Battle of Britain was US financed?

IMDB has it listed as a UK production. Produced by Benjamin Fisz (Hell Drivers), John Palmer (I Was Monty's Double), and Harry Saltzman (early Bond films).

The two independent production companies were Spitfire Productions, made just for the Battle of Britain, and Steven S.A. (The Ipcress File).

I don't think there are any Americans in it, but I could be wrong. If it were US financed, then there would be quite a few in it I imagine.

It was distributed by MGM, but as far as I can tell, in no way financed by them.

Marky B

Okay,as you put it,they kept out of it for nearly two years,whilst we got bombed,and the reasons for Roosevelt's stance on neutrality is that it was a European war and it had nothing to do with the USA.
The attack on Pearl Harbour,made FDR declare war on Japan,and the US military became focused on the Pacific War,rather than turn their attention to the war in Europe,as there were a lot of German born people in the USA. However,Hitler made perhaps his biggest mistake and declared war on the USA (for quizsters,it was the only country he declared war on),thus bringing in the USA into the European theatre.
The Battle of Britain did not put off an invasion on a permanent basis - the threat was still there,and perhaps having US Forces based in Britain gave the German High Command remote thoughts of having the swastika flag flying over Buckingham Palace. There is also one thing for certain,the D-Day landings would have been an impossibility without the USA (despite the fact the whole plan was developed by the British).
Indeed,the war was won by the combined efforts (in all areas of warfare) of the Free Forces of Europe,the forces of the Commonwealth,USA and of course,that little fighting bulldog,Great Britain
However,I still say that without them,we would have lost,or at least the war could have taken longer to finish at a conclusion different from what history has served.
I may have qualms over the war in Iraq,and I have more faith in Sooty and Sweep than Bush and Blair,but on the whole I am glad the Americans are on our side.
As for the financing of the 1969 epic the Battle of Britain it maybe classed as a UK picture,but I am sure US dollars were involved. I doubt Britain could have financed a picture that big.
So while we may disagree on some things,I am sure we all agree to educate people (particularly the young) the importance of 15 September,giving it better recognition than what it is getting. On a personal note,I will also add the contribution of the British Merchant Navy is seriously neglected.
Ta Ta
Marky B

I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas - how he got in my pyjamas,I'll never know

Quiller

I agree Marky, and fascinating info. regarding WWII. It was a pleasure to read it.

Saltzman probably could have afforded to fund Battle of Britain. After all, it was the sucess of him producing Saturday Night And Sunday Morning that enabled him to finance the first Bond film, so with several successful Bond films making tons of money, he probably had the means.

MrDrakesDuck

Nice post Marky, although I think you may have forgotten someone. ;)





The inumerable arguments across the web about who won the war are rather sad.

Brits, Yanks, Russians etc who believe their country deserves all the credit or that they could have sewn things up alone. :rolleyes:

Britain (& the Empire\Commonwealth), the Soviet Union and the USA all made a huge and vital contribution.

Take anyone of those away and things would have been very different.

It's amazing how many people fail to grasp this.

"I thought I had to shoot Germans, not chew 'em"

Quiller

Take all of them away and there'd have been no war in the first place.

Marky B

Whoops - big blunder on my behalf,MDD. How could I forget the Russians? I had visited one of their war graves in (at the time) Leningrad,which had the longest seige inhistory. The Russian civilians really suffered - if it wasn't the Germans,it was hunger or the cold that killed them. Sorry about that .
Mark

I once shot an elephant in my pyjamas - how he got in my pyjamas,I'll never know

bartonbank

The Battle of Britain ensured that there would be no invasion until Germany gained superiority in the air...exactly the same was true of D Day, which would never have happened if the Luftwaffe were pre-eminent at the time.
The battle of Britain, however, should have been lost and would have been if Goering, because one bombing raid on berlin, had not switched from bombing the airfields to bombing London etc...
I do not believe, however, that any one of the allies could have won the war singlehandedly