Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

I know when the Lancaster entered service, I simply questioned whether its presence in the film should be taken literally.

And I'm pretty sure that not all upper-crust women of the era looked like Keira Knightley...

Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

I apologise for appearing to correct you. If I'd intended that then I would have mentioned that a Whitley would also have been anachronistic.

The date of the Lancaster's introduction dismissed premonition as a possible rationale, which thought actually occurred to me also in the cinema. But premonition required a Whitley, Blenheim, Battle or Wellington, all of which would have been seen by the two protagonists before they died. But not a Lancaster.

Tony

Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

How odd...I would have thought Dale Dye (the Guy who trained them to 'act like proper soldiers' ) would have kicked the 'current attitude' out of them while he was still putting them through their basic training';

NM

Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

Dale Dye served in Vietnam. He trained the GIs in Saving Private Ryan to behave anachronistically like potheads.
Why did Spielberg choose Dale Dye?
Tony

Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

Spielberg chose Dye because all the WW2 vets were TOO old to train them young whippersnappers...

but seriously, it must be said that Dye joined the Marines in 1964--a time when the USMC was still populated by MANY NCOs & "Mustang Officers" who had served in Korea AND WW2;

In addition, in the Extras Dye & His training cadre took EXTRA Special pains to 'expunge' all current 'slang' from their vocabulary---and at least in SPR I didn't hear one: "Wazzup Dawg", "Far out", "Cool" or "Groovy"; :)

Now all that being said, how they sounded would depend on the script & who wrote it;


NM

Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

There is a difference between drama and docudrama, the former is less bound by facts and realism. Atonement is a drama set in wartime, not a reenactment of the Dunkirk campaign. 99% of the audience won't give a damn if the bomber they see on the big screen actually flew in that exact time period, as long as it matches / represents the general era in the popular mind.

Of course there is the issue of availability of aicraft types, or the need to go CG.

PFC isn't only a war movie set during the Normandy campaign, it also reflects OUR perception, interpretation and even translation of the events that happened 60 years ago.

Movies reflect OUR current culture and interpret events that happened in a different (past) curture. The way 50-ies movies portrayed WW2 differs from the way 70-ies movies did etc. We change, our taste in drama changes with us.

Of course current politics and ideology plays a part.

Das Boot, Stalingrad and even the upcoming Red Baron all have one thing in common, incidentally you could call it atonement, that is the death of the hero in the end. Only Der Untergang gives a new beginning for the main protagonist - who as a secretary can still be considered an innocent bystander.

That thinking movies have an element of philosophy is something that I personally welcome.

Of course there are times when I enjoy a movie like 300, that is drama without deep thought and perhaps even more than a little propaganda. But at least now I am old enough to filter out the message that I don't need and enjoy what is left.

Looking forward to watching Atonement, not because of Dunkirk and WW2, but because I enjoyed the director's previous movie with Knightly: Pride and Pejudice! Call me a sissy...

Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

Surely 'Atonement' would be docudrama if McEwan suggested the protagonists were real people. He doesn't, but he does claim that its drama of a special kind in which the background events are historically accurate. This genre is typified by C.S. Forester's 'Hornblower', Bernard Cornwell's 'Sharpe' and Patrick O'Brien's 'Aubrey/Maturin' series. Here fictional protagonists, who are an amalgam of real people, operate in real or at least realistic events. Details are researched and historically accurate, including language and attitudes. Everything is historically kosha; except in 'Atonement' it isn't.

I also like Pride and Prejudice, and not least because it's historically accurate. But Keira Knightley is not in the same league as Jennifer Ehle, and the same goes for Matthew Macfadyen and Colin Firth!

Tony

Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

In an article in December's History Today, Capt Crispin Swayne describes providing historical and military advice to Joe Wright, director of Atonement.
1. Swayne, like most advisers, was called in at the last moment before the cameras rolled. He does not explain why this is the custom or why advisers allow themselves to be used like that, but he asks us not to blame the adviser next time we spot inaccuracies in a film.
2. Swayne joined Wright on Redcar beach to comment on the set up. The two walked along the route the cameras would take during the shot. Swayne approved of the scenery. When they finished walking, Wright asked if there were any questions. Swayne asked; “Where are the Stukas?” Answer; “Too expensive”. Question; “Why no officers among the extras?” Answer; “To accentuate the lack of order”.
3. Swayne reckons the adviser has a limit of just six silver bullets per production. He let the Stukas and officers go (what else could he do?), but asked Wright to approve six additional actions for the extras to be shown doing; digging-in, praying, weapon cleaning, burning of equipment, card playing in shell holes, and restraint of deranged soldiers. Wright approved; “Great. One hour till the first run-through”. Then ten assistant directors followed by a thousand extras approached Swayne. The first assistant director handed the microphone to Swayne; “Good luck, mate”. Swayne and the assistant directors then distributed the extras around the beach and Swayne showed the extras what they had to do and rehearsed them in the allotted hour. The run-through was filmed and Swayne then ran around the beach making detailed corrections. The scene was finally filmed after a day of rehearsal and on the third 'shot'.
4. Swayne describes the extras as poorly paid civilians with no military training. “Too much stress on set and the shot will be filled with bored extras rather than exhausted Dunkirk evacuees. ... Make the action too difficult to sustain and performances will pall. Complicate the action with real Dunkirk tales.... and more likely the suggestion will be overruled for detracting from the main story”.
5. Swayne describes Atonement as “fictitious drama, but one that takes place in a true military setting....If the military and historical scenes look real, they add gravitas to the drama... Wright's knowledge and respect for history made my job easy, although I wish I'd more time to work with the cast and extras prior to shooting. In the army it takes six or more months to turn a civilian into a soldier, yet on many British TV or film productions I might not even have an hour...The cast of Band of Brothers attended a two-week 'boot-camp' before a camera was even out of its case. This is one of the reasons it looks and feels so real”.
6. Swayne argues that “British film-makers realise they have a large mine of history from which to dig gold, if historians and screenwriters can only strike up a more conscious dialogue.” He hopes that with some courageous funding and help from government he will get his boot-camp and Wright will get his Stukas.

So we now know why anachronism in film-making is systemic. Claims of realism for Atonement need interpreting with the information Swayne has provided. Wright believed Swayne had OK'd the film, while Swayne says he'd done what he could with his six silver bullets and let the rest through. And in any case Swayne was retained only for the Dunkirk beach scene. Apparently he was not shown the earlier part of the film with the anachronisms that irked me – the 1935 Lancaster and the un-military behaviour of regular infantry on the retreat to Dunkirk. Nor would he have known of the anachronistic mention of the sinking of the Lancastria. Wright had almost certainly seen Saving Private Ryan and believed that Dye's portrayal of WWII was accurate even though we can see Vietnam-war attitudes in it. There is a cinematic culture.
Also, why would directors ever be pressured (by ridicule) into making historically accurate films if the people who recognise anachronisms just shrug their shoulders and in effect say, "It's only a film".


Tony

Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

I am new to this forum, and I am glad to be here. I am a refuge from the History
Channels forum on "Dogfights". The television program was a wonderful new and
exciting way of showing Air Combat.
Unfortunately the program has been canceled. And it seems the History Channel has become just another Reality based Channel, like so many other
cable channels before them.
My point , as is the theme of this post is that we are moving away from History.
Not just WWII, but all Historical venue`s.
There is no medium any more to get Children interested in the Past, and create
an interest in finding out about that History.
I think if History is treated like Archeology and there is no interest in reading
about it then we may be doomed to repeat it.

Re: What's the future of WW2 historical writing?
 

Gentlemen,

As an ex-publisher, ex-tv program maker, ex-radio program maker, eyewitness of a coup d'etat in Roemenia 1990, and ex-etcetera, and as a professional poet I think there's a world to be won for WW2 historical writing.

If all prime-source material is published online -which will happen in due time - then historians will have a tremendous treasure chest of material, from which they can produce books which will sell.

Regards,

Bart