View Single Post
  #8  
Old 22nd November 2007, 11:31
tcolvin tcolvin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Topsham, England
Posts: 422
tcolvin is on a distinguished road
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
Reply With Quote