What's the future of WW2 historical writing?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Jim Oxley

My only concern is that as more emphasis in time is placed on primary documents (due both to ease of availability and new archival finds), and less on first hand accounts, there is the increased risk of historians writing about the War, and drawing conclusions, from the point of view of hindsight. It happens to a small degree now, and is likely to grow with time.

Surely 'hindsight' is not the concern. Writing history by definition is to benefit from hindsight.

The concern, surely, is the increasing prevalence of anachronism.

For example in films; the GIs in 'Saving Private Ryan' behave like the potsmoking generation in Vietnam. In the film 'Atonement', a Lancaster flies overhead in 1935, while an infantry soldier kicks off his army boots and arrives in Dunkirk without his rifle. None of these could happen.

Anachronism occurs when historians fail to appreciate the values, knowledge and thinking of WWII participants. Reading their history is like watching Bing Crosby and Rhonda Fleming in a 'Connecticut Yankee in the Court of King Arthur.'

Tony

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

In the film 'Atonement', a Lancaster flies overhead in 1935, while an infantry soldier kicks off his army boots and arrives in Dunkirk without his rifle. None of these could happen. Tony

It's literature! Don't you think the Lancaster represented a premonition of war (and, as such, a recognisable symbol for UK audiences, which I doubt that a Whitley would have been)?

With 300,000+ on the beaches, I suspect that soldiers arrived there in all kinds of states of dress and equipment. Who can say for sure?

More to the point is a character's reference to the loss of the Lancastria which didn't happen at Dunkirk and not until after that operation had closed.

What the hell, it was a really good film.

[tcolvin]

Well I didn't like it, Nick. Too contrived, and the inaccuracies got to me.
I went because of McEwan's reputation for writing literature based on literal accuracy achieved through thorough research. See: http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/...957845,00.html .
In McEwan's words;
"The writer of a historical novel may resent his dependence on the written record, on memoirs and eyewitness accounts, in other words on other writers, but there is no escape: Dunkirk or a wartime hospital can be novelistically realised, but they cannot be re-invented. I was particularly fascinated by the telling detail, or the visually rich episode that projected unspoken emotion. In the Dunkirk histories I found an account of a French cavalry officer walking down a line of horses, shooting each one in turn through the head. The idea was to prevent anything useful falling into the hands of the advancing Germans. Strangely, and for exactly the same reason, near Dunkirk beach, a padre helped by a few soldiers burned a pile of King James bibles. I included my father's story of the near-lynching of an RAF clerk, blamed by furious soldiers for the lack of air support during the retreat. Though I placed my imagined characters in front of these scenes, it was enormously important to me that they actually happened."
"As with the Dunkirk section, I drew on the scenes she (Lucilla Andrews) described. Again, it was important to me that these events actually occurred."
The Lancaster was not seen until two years after the main characters were dead in 1942. British infantrymen throughout WWII were in love with their boots and their rifles; none would be seen dead without them. They also stood up when the National Anthem was played. These are facts.
Everybody has their pet hated anachronism; I just read about someone who looks out for steel helmets worn before 1916.
Knightley and McAvoy affected the clipped tones of the period. The film tried hard. The anachronisms were inexcusable.
Tony

[Nick Beale]

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...

[NickM]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Surely 'hindsight' is not the concern. Writing history by definition is to benefit from hindsight.

The concern, surely, is the increasing prevalence of anachronism.

For example in films; the GIs in 'Saving Private Ryan' behave like the potsmoking generation in Vietnam. In the film 'Atonement', a Lancaster flies overhead in 1935, while an infantry soldier kicks off his army boots and arrives in Dunkirk without his rifle. None of these could happen.

Tony

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

[tcolvin]

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

[NickM]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

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

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

[tcolvin]

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

[B.F.M. Droog]

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