Cool News
Dear AICN Readers, Jonathan Mostow would like to talk with you about a film he directed... U-571
Hey folks, Harry here. One of the aspects of this site I dearly love is... Talk Back. Why? Because, quite frankly... it's where people in Hollywood can see instant reactions and fears and praise and hopes by you, the most ardent of film-goers. As with many 'reactions' and 'beliefs' some of these are ill-founded. Based upon hunches or even upon the belief that Hollywood is always stupid and must be doing it wrong. One of the most recent 'problems' with Hollywood films has been historical accuracy. And from the start with the film, U-571, it has been feared that we had yet another 'rah-rah' pro-American re-writing of history. Many readers have been quite angry and upset about this, mind you... without having seen the film. Well, upon that first review of U-571 at the test screening the other day, it seems that director Jonathan Mostow decided to come and check out AICN, and of course stumbled into Talk Back. And... Well... He's reacting now. I'll see you at the bottom of his letter...
Dear Harry:
My name is Jonathan Mostow and I am the director and co-writer of "U-571".
It has come to my attention that some of your readers are posting questions,
and in some cases, angry objections about the historical accuracy of our
movie, specifically as it relates to the capture of the infamous Enigma
coding device. Harry, I would greatly appreciate if you could give me the
opportunity to set the record straight by posting this reply.
The first thing I wish to get across is that "U-571" is a work of fiction.
It is an action-suspense movie that follows a long tradition of fictional
tales set against the backdrop of history. In making the movie, I have
absolutely NO intention of stealing credit for daring exploits by courageous
men of the British Navy. There has been much debate and confusion among
your readers about the actual historical record, so please allow me a moment
to clarify the facts: During the Battle of the Atlantic, there were three
occasions in which Enigma machines and/or materials were seized from German
U-boats on the high seas - two by British, one by Americans. The first
seizure, which was also the most strategically important, was from the U-110
by British sailors of the HMS Bulldog and HMS Aubretia, on May 9, 1941. The
second seizure was a short weather enigma cipher taken from the U-559 on
October 30, 1942 by the British ship HMS Petard. The third seizure was an
Enigma machine and coding documents captured from the U-505 on June 4, 1944
by U.S. Navy Task Force 22.3.
In our movie, the Enigma machine is what we filmmakers call the "mcguffin".
It's a term that Hitchcock coined to describe the object in a movie that
everyone is chasing after, but which by itself is not really the point of
the story. The fact is that the Germans redesigned the naval Enigma several
times during the war, and codes were always changing, so the Allies were
constantly seeking ways in which they could steal up-to-date Enigma
materials. Some of these capture schemes were so audacious that they almost
appear to be the work of a Hollywood screenwriter. (One of your readers
correctly identified a plan to steal an Enigma that was devised by a young
British intelligence officer named Ian Fleming.)
Our movie is set during 1942, when changes in the Enigma system made the
German codes unbreakable for a period of nine months. It was also during
this time that Hitler launched Operation Drumbeat -- a devastating U-boat
assault against the Eastern seaboard of the United States. (It is an
astonishing but little-known fact that one quarter of all the ships lost in
the Battle of the Atlantic were sunk right off the American coast.)
Although my primary goal in making "U-571" is to create the visceral
experience of being aboard a WWII submarine, I also want to give the
audience a taste of some of these fascinating strategic aspects that
occurred during the Battle of the Atlantic.
The Enigma is an element in the film, but the film is not about the Enigma.
The film is not about code-breaking, nor does it address in any detail the
Enigma itself. The film is about submarining. It's about the notion of
facing the enemy in a container with the structural integrity of a sardine
can. It's about half-inch thick steel pressure hulls that creaked and
groaned and crushed like eggshells if the subs went too deep. It's about
torpedoes and depth charge explosions and the terror of battle. And it's
about awesome responsibilities being placed on the shoulders of extremely
young men -- sailors barely out of high school, officers in their early 20s,
captains often younger than 30.
As director of a movie that will reach a worldwide audience, I realize that
I have a moral responsibility not to rewrite history. So even though
"U-571" is a fictional action-adventure movie, I took several measures to
ensure that the film would not distort the historical record. Here is what
I did:
1) During the script stage, I consulted extensively with WWII experts,
including David Kahn, author of "Seizing the Enigma", who is considered by
most historians to be the world's expert on the subject. I reviewed the
screenplay with him in tremendous detail and asked him to correct anything
that would give a false impression of the historical record. (Incidentally,
Mr. Kahn quite enjoyed the script, as he immediately understood it for what
it is -- historical fiction.)
2) Next, I surrounded myself with retired WWII submariners, both American
and German, to ensure the technical accuracy of the submarining aspects of
the movie. We went so far as to have retired WWII submariners on the set
during every minute of shooting to ensure the authenticity of the action.
We even put the actors through technically complex submarine instruction,
the curriculum of which was designed by a distinguished retired
Vice-Admiral.
3) Next, because I wanted to be absolutely certain that the movie would
cause no offense to the actual men who participated in these real-life
events, I sought out the person who is at the epicenter of the entire issue:
Lt. Cmdr. David Balme, the brave British officer who actually led the
boarding party onto the U-110 in May of 1941 and captured the first Enigma
machine. I did something that perhaps few other filmmakers would risk: I
showed Mr. Balme the movie. His response? He thoroughly enjoyed it and
gave his approval. Why? Because he too saw the movie for what it is: an
exciting tale of historical fiction, inspired by a composite of actual
events. (As a footnote, in the DVD release of the film we will be
including an interview with Mr. Balme about his Enigma experiences.)
4) From the beginning, I always envisioned that the movie would end with a
testimonial to the real-life sailors and officers who captured Enigma
devices and materials from U-boats. And that is precisely how the movie
ends: with a crystal clear account of the actual historical events upon
which the movie was inspired. For anyone who sees the movie, there can be
no doubt about who captured the Enigma and when they did it -- British or
American.
Harry, the irony about this controversy is that it is taking place among
people who haven't seen the movie! There have been recent controversies
over movie inaccuracies but
these erupted AFTER the movies came out and people took issue with the
dramatic license taken by the filmmakers. In the case of "U-571", the
naysayers are judging the movie without even seeing it. I truly believe
that once these people see the movie, they will realize that their fuss is
much ado about nothing.
I hope this letter helps allay the concerns of those who have been critical
of the historical accuracy of "U-571". Please know that I have great
respect for the record of history -- and that I would never want to be part
of an endeavor that distorts that record. The sad truth is that many young
people today have no idea what occurred in World War Two, much less the
Battle of the Atlantic. It is my sincere hope that people will see our
fictional movie and be motivated to study about the real-life heroes who
fought to preserve world freedom.
Harry, I was glad to see that your reviewer liked the movie. Thank you for
giving me the opportunity to respond to your readers' concerns.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Mostow
Hey folks, Harry here again. "Historical Fiction". Did you ever see THE GUNS OF NAVARONE? Or WHERE EAGLES DARE? What about VON RYAN'S EXPRESS? That is what is going on here. This is a 'FICTIONAL' movie set within a time period of documented history. I love history and I love films, but frankly... I try not to get my panties in a wad over the historical accuracy of fictional events. It seems to me, that our dear Mr Mostow is simply making a movie that is striving to be a kickass film set within the confines of a very intense period of time. So chill on the ol anger button folks, let's see the movie he made BEFORE ripping it to smithereens!
-
+ Expand All
-
I have never for a minute understood why people get so uptight about the inaccuracy of movies that use a historical backdrop. What part of "This is a work of FICTION" does anyone find difficult to swallow? Now, I can see where some people would find objection with liberties with history, but I think the fiction disclaimer is more than enough. If it's real history you want -- read a history book. Don't go to the movies. Would you trust someone as agenda-prejudiced as Oliver Stone, for instance, to give you the "real" truth about JFK's assassination? That doesn't mean that writers of historical books are any less potentially prejudiced, but they are subjected to far stricter peer review and criticism for their accuracy than almost any movie you could name.
-
The movie may now go forward Mister Director Sir. You have pleased the Talkback crew muchly. You bring honor to your family. And submarine movies rule. Peace.
-
Sounds fantastic.
-
What? You're urging the cizizens of TalkBack to hold off their judgement of a film until AFTER they've seen it?! It'll never catch on...
-
Didn't read the review or the TBs. but my two cents: Movies are movies. Anyone who goes into a period flick expecting exacting historical detail and accuracy knows diddley-squat about movies. Looking forward to this flick? You bet.
-
...of shows to see this year. I think it shows heaps of class and respect for movie fans that the director took it upon himself to right in this thoughtful letter. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. DIVE! DIVE! DIVE!
-
I must have missed out on the whole U-571 debate. History is probably the greatest source for ideas for movies. Sometimes I've been so fascinated by a story that I've actually went to research what actually happened (most of these were Japanese films about the revolution in the late 19th century), but something tells me that this doesn't applyto themajority of moviegoers who are looking for a quick thrill and then forget it as they leave the theater. It takes a rare thing for a film to spark the curiosity of minds who are preoccupied with turning their minds off and having things forcefed to them.
-
I'm personally not a big fan of submarine flicks. When a movie is ONLY a submarine movie, than I like it. But I'm so fucking tired of every single James Bond movie having a sub scene. TWINE was the worst. Boo! But, this movie is gonna rock.
-
Thanks for clearing up the historical record. I've been looking forward to this movie for months and am now doubly excited. Mostow has shown a respect for history that I doubt will be repeated by other upcoming WWII movies I could mention, and "U-571" will be all the better for it. Can't wait.
-
Does this count as part of my fifteen minutes of fame even though he didn't name me directly? Oh well, I'll take whatever I can get.
-
Most of us loved Braveheart ... but that movie totally rewrote history for the sake of moviemaking.
But I didn't realize that until after I watched it. The movie so interested me that the next day I headed to the library to learn all I could about the man and the time period.
The point is ... most "historical" movies are not accurate (if not all of them). A good historical movie, though, should motivate you to go and check up on the REAL events on the internet or your public library.
I will admit that the commercial for U-571 are misleading ... I was miffed that it appeared as if Hollywood was once again re-writing history to glorify the U.S. of A.
Kudos to Mr. Mostow for allaying those fears!
Thanks for the space, dahling,
Holly Golightly. -
Jan 30, 2000 2:06:57 AM CST
It's not only all history movies that are biased, but all histor
by loki trickster
When you realize that, then you realize what really matters is not how "accurate" they may in fact be, but how entertaining they are. There should be some attempt at verisimilitude (like making a movie that forgets that the Civil War happened or something), but there's no real need to nitpick, especially for movies with the intention to entertain...not educate. That said, I am really looking forward to this movie. Whether it's any good or not, it got me to watch "Das Boot" and "Hunt for Red October" in a movie marathon...and that can't be bad. -Loki
-
I would like to take up some space on the internet to thank Mr. Mostow for finding time in his probably extremely busy schedule to stay in touch with his audience and especially for writing that article to clear up any misunderstanding. I too am looking forward to seeing this movie and as a history major am always a little skeptical of how much research goes into historical fiction films. I'm glad to see that I'll be spending my money to support a man who cares as much about the audience as he does his film. Kudos Mr. Mostow!! Okay, I'm done now.
-
For the record: Israel is not the biggest recipient of American foreign aid. Egypt has received more consistently per year.
-
If you are going to make an action-suspense movie that follows a long tradition of fiction set against the back drop of history, why not go to the next level and include THE IRON GIANT? His arrival on this planet took place during the very tense and historical period know as
-
Spielberg doesn't need to make a movie about U.S. internment camps as Alan Parker made that in 1990. It was called COME SEE THE PARADISE and it bombed. It is a good thing you are not a Hollywood executive. Anyway, this whole debate is ludicrous. People do not go to the movies for a history lesson. They go for entertainment, and that is what Hollywood (in its infinite wisdom) attempts to give them. There is a reason why PBS is free (or at least not "supported by viewers like you"). What is worse than people soapboxing about historical innacuracy (as if it's the biggest problem with the motion picture industry) is the sycophancy that goes on in these talkbacks (now that they're being read by Hollywood players.) HARRY: As the ever-wise Liam Neeson said in that elegantly understated masterpiece THE HAUNTING, "You don't tell the rats they're in a maze!" and you shouldn't tell these rats they're being read by hot shot directors. It's getting uglier and stupider in here every minute, kind of like that elegantly understated masterpiece THE HAUNTING.
-
is whether or not there will be nudity in the movie? I heard it was a naked naval babe who stole the Enigma.
-
Tell Paco he better do a good job or else its back to painting sets at Roger Corman's Wonderland!
-
Wonder why they only broadcast this at 2 am in austin?
-
but the film is not about the enigma, the films is not about code breaking.The film is about submarining and wings on your heels.It is about the notion of facing the enemy in it's latex container with the structural integrity of a coke can.It's about half inch thick pain thresh holds that creaked and groaned if his sub went too deep...Its about torpedos launching and the enormous responsibility put on the young SSZero's shoulders to please just one young lady
-
Thanks for caring about aicn readers. I really liked BREAKDOWN and I wish you the best for U-571.
-
Mr. Mostow's excellent essay here has given me hope. So, do YOU read talkbacks? If yes, I want you to know that I worship you. Meet me for dinner sometime, okay?
-
Matthew McConaughey is
one of my favorite
actors, and I've been
looking forward to
seeing it for a while.
I remember it was
originally supposed to
be out in December,
but got delayed to
April. Do you know
what date it will be
released?
-
Thoughtful, thorough, interesting, and well-balanced presentation of 'your side', Mr. Mostow. I read the original TalkBack and was amazed at the way so many people were angry with the film (that they hadn't seen) for what they felt should and should not be depicted in the movie. When movies are made with the intention of being an accurate history lesson, we have reason to demand historical accuracy. Until then, we must allow filmmakers to create their vision. To not do so is to put creative restraints on them ... just as the studios do ... we become part of the system that damns and limits.
The important thing is what Harry and Jonathan stated ... that many TB'ers judge movies before they are released ... basing this judgement on trailers, what someone said who read draft #2 of a script, or the actor/director/producer's last film. In response to what someone said about letting the TB'ers know that the studios read the site ... DUH! *of course* they do ... you think we are the only ones who love film, want to read what other people think, and have an opportunity to sound off? -
We TBers tend to jump the on filmmakers even before the movie opens. Let's give 'em a chance, people! Hey, if we give Mostow a break, maybe we'll have to give George one too. Or is that too much to ask? :) Peace...
-
I guess no matter what people say about this movie I'll go see it. I mean Keitel, Paxton and Jon Bon Jovi in the same movie. That's cool.
-
Hi Harry.
As long time visitor to your site, this is only the second time I have been motivated to post to Talk Back, and the first time it -
Historical vagaries portrayed in a film about (or concerning) the Enigma machine are fine. It's called 'Enigma' for a reason; the Allies knew they were coding/decoding machines, but unless they saw the innards they had no idea how it worked or the bit encryption they were dealing with. Just treat it as a WWII version of the holy grail and let the historical fictions begin. The only real dangers in naval films, in my mind, involve either generic plots and/or bad microscale vehicles (water, as anyone who's seen a Japanese horror film knows, doesn't scale down). I look forward to a few hours of nice claustrophobic shots of grimy-faced submariners, flooding in various compartments, perhaps some jammed dive planes, and some aryan officers yelling at one another in accented English. With a little luck, we'll get some snorkeling, burning diesel fuel, and catalina flybys.
-
For anyone that's interested, there is a novel called Enigma that takes place in Bletchley Park immediately following the nine month black out that Mr. Mostow mentions. This novel revolves around the cryptanalysts, (codebreakers) and their attempts to get back into the Enigma code. I enjoyed it thoroughly. It's also a work of historical fiction with set on a backdrop of true historical events. I apologize, but i'm at work at the moment and cannot for the life of me remember the author's name. I highly recommend it though, for those that have had their interest piqued by the synopsis of this movie.
-
sweet delicious Enigma McGuffin
-
The biggest problem when basing a purely fictional account in amongst historical setings is that balancing act between 'where are the boundaries', 'did we go too far' and 'are we being faithful, at heart, to the spirit of those involved in the real'? It's the 'Pocohontas' syndrome: You're making a movie, you're targeting an audience... How do you skirt issues that might arise. Certainly nothing as scandalous as John Smith's pedophelia, but this is merely a 'for-instance'... Will this movie be faithful to both sides of the code-breakers, the U.S. as well as the U.K.'s Bletchley Park initiative? To stretch the truth happens all the time. Never take "based on a true story" as a guarantee for journalistic integrity. But if this movie becomes a load of cheerleader tripe with Stars And Stripes prominently featured, this movie will bring wrath upon itself, both here and abroad. I would say, certainly, you must see before you judge, but be certain that the film's most vocal critics WON'T.
-
U-571 isn't meant to be a documentay or recreation of actual historical events. It is an action movie. It is designed to entertain, not enlighten. Personally, I find movies like GI Jane and Lost In Space to be downright offensive but you don't hear me gripe about it. It's amazing how much controversy a movie can arouse. The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ almost ended Martin Scorcese's career. I finally saw that movie the other day and wondered what the big deal was. So what if it showed nudity? So what if Jesus was portrayed as a human who makes mistakes? The bible tells us Jesus was in fact part human so he did have to make mistakes. So what if this U-571 movie has an American instead of English crew? There was an all black company that landed on Omaha beach on D-day and yet you didn't see them in Saving Private Ryan. Why? Becuase we're not paying 8 bucks for a history lesson(at least I hope we're not) we're paying for entertainment and to watch good acting.
-
As a Brit, I *was* rather annoyed about the potential for jingoistic historical misrepresentation in this film. As it is, the director has kind of convinced me, and I guess I'll make a point of catching it on video before forming my opinion... as an aside, in a couple of mag articles over here last year, the U-571 debate was compared to the Titanic issue.... for those that don't know, there is this little town in the North of England that has a statue of their town hero, a staff member on the Titanic, who helped many people to safety before himself going down with the ship. In the movie, he was the guy who took one look at the helpless masses and shot himself in the head. Hollywood's appeasement? A tiny note in amoungst the end credits, I have heard. I can't even confirm that, as if it was there, I missed it. Considering the stranglehold the American studios have over British film distributors, and therefore the way homegrown fare is pushed out of the multiplexes, or kept away from public holidays etc, in favor of Hollywood's products, a little sensitivity might be in order. NB this is not to rag on "The Americans", whom all seem very nice.
-
...that Americans can only enjoy movies about Americans? That in order for the film to be financially viable, it has to be Americanized? Sounds like the typical Hollywood back office line (a cousin to the one about your lead having to be male, white, and handsome). Personally, I give Yanks more credit than that. To take a story that is a source of great national pride to a country, to distort that story, and to then have the audacity to market that story to that country, is insulting (to say the least). To then excuse the whole thing with the comment that it's justifiable because it might motivate some people to learn the true facts, is bullsh*t. And if the whole issue of the Enigma machine is just a McGuffin and, as Mr. Mostow suggests,
-
As a Brit, I *was* rather annoyed about the potential for jingoistic historical misrepresentation in this film. As it is, the director has kind of convinced me, and I guess I'll make a point of catching it on video before forming my opinion... as an aside, in a couple of mag articles over here last year, the U-571 debate was compared to the Titanic issue.... for those that don't know, there is this little town in the North of England that has a statue of their town hero, a staff member on the Titanic, who helped many people to safety before himself going down with the ship. In the movie, he was the guy who took one look at the helpless masses and shot himself in the head. Hollywood's appeasement? A tiny note in amoungst the end credits, I have heard. I can't even confirm that, as if it was there, I missed it. Considering the stranglehold the American studios have over British film distributors, and therefore the way homegrown fare is pushed out of the multiplexes, or kept away from public holidays etc, in favor of Hollywood's products, a little sensitivity might be in order. NB this is not to rag on "The Americans", whom all seem very nice.
-
I saw the teaser trailer for "u-571" at Tinseltown Plano (the theater next to Cinemark's corp. headquarters) during the summer and I've been excited ever since. Dino de Laurentiis is the ultimate showman and Mostow has a flare for suspense and action. In terms of historical accuracry this movie is like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Braveheart". These films capture the emotion of the people living during the turbulent events. If you want 1000% historical fact go watch the Discovery channel. (But remember, even that has bias). "U-571" is a movie that you go to see becuase you want to be thrilled for two hours. It just happens to be based on actual events.
-
Order your FREE copy of the new Tom Stabb spoken word album THE SYMPTOMS OF ATOM. LIstEn to this aLbum and the message wIll becomE
clear....email for proof.....
Valas14864@aol.com -
For if nothing else, to show for future generations how difficult and brave men and women were all over the world circ. 1940-1945, so freedom can reign over tyrnatny.
I only wish we had more directors like you out there.
Oh, and can you just skip the initial release and just give us the DVD now? I wanna see thoes extras. -
And I can't wait for the DVD interview. Whether or not he reads the talkback or not, I personally appreciate the nod in the direction of AICN - and the incredible free advertising. Coolsville, Mr. Mostow. By the way, "Breakdown" was 500 times better than I thought it would/should be. I was entertained as fuck.
-
So was the one for Gladiator and Titan A.E.There shoulda been one for Rocky and Bullwinkle!Oh well.Go Rams!!!!Gotta Go To Work,people!!!!
-
Well I was just wondering if you (Mr. Mostow) had ever read Cryptonomicon by Neal Stevenson?
It's a neat peice of historical Fiction about the code breaking wars during WW2.
Just thought you might find it interesting. . .
Go Squirrel Force! GO!
-
Wow, that sucked. Shoulda used the original one that was on the net... this one looked like Any Given Sunday with togas. I swear, if I hear "Bawitdaba" one more time, I'm gonna fuckin puke.
-
RAMS BABY!!!SUPAHBOWL CHAMP-EE-ONS!!!!!!OH HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!
-
I thought the U-571 preview during the SBowl was pretty damn good, actually. It was the first I'd seen, so that ain't bad. Good prod. placement.
Speaking of which, why in the world would you run a commercial for Oxygen, the new Lifetime-esque all-women channel, during the testosterone-rich Super Bowl and right before nice close shots of the Rams' buxom cheerleaders? Ha! Spunky or stupid, you decide. Rams rule. -
Damn straight,LSHB.It was their Cinderella year and they deserved it,right down to the one-yard win!!Hoo Ha!!!!!!1
-
First off, thank you Mr. Mostow for taking the time to respond to a lot of the flak flying around here about U-571. Personally, I think it's going to be a great movie and can't wait to see it. Also, I doubt if you will be able to please all of these "prophets of doom" who seem to hanging around the Talkbacks these days. Anyway, I think you're absolutely correct in that most people in this generation know absolutely nothing about the Battle of the Atlantic, or even the Second World War in general. I teach Western Civ, and am sad to say that I have encountered way too many 18 and 19 year olds who don't even know about Pearl Harbor and/or Normandy. In my not so humble opinion, any movie that attempts to bring attention to the conflict and its human ramifications, even if it is historical fiction (which can be really informative in itself--i.e. "The Hunt for Red October" or "The Red Badge of Courage"), is worthy of praise. In this era of "feel--good" political correctness, poignant war movies have seemingly been forgotten, or worse yet, deliberately discouraged by Hollywood execs fearful of offending someone, or else seeking to make a quick buck on silly teeny-bopper style films. U-571 looks to be an awesome film, and I sincerely hope that you will do further work in this re-emerging genre in the future. Thanks!
-
Memo to Paddy O'Furniture: If it's a movie about Alan Turing ye be wanting, check out 1997's "Breaking The Code", starring Derek Jacobi. Made for the BBC, it has aired once or twice on PBS and is available on their video label.
-
Hehe, sorry 'bout that. Anyway, Mr. Mostow, if you read this, I'd like you to know that if this movie comes to our local theater you've already got my six bucks (albeit a Canadian six bucks, making it more like 3 U.S., but money nonetheless). I never knew of this movie until reading about it just now, but I don't usually roast something I don't know anything about. Well, all right, except the Dreamcast. I haven't had a bad experience with a sub movie yet, however, and I always thought WWII stuff was cool. Give'er corn! Make movies and have fun!
-
Jesus. WHat the fuck? How cheesy could you get? The trailer on the internet is a perfect. Why the hell did they have to add those 'Any Given Sunday' shots?? Jesus. So fucking queer.
Though Mission to Mars trailer looked amazing. And U-571 looked pretty damn good too. Even though I knew there wasnt gonna be one, I was still hoping for an Xmen trailer. Sigh. Oh well. -
I too love historical movies. I too like them to at least try to be reasonable, and accurate but I also realise that sometimes very accurate movies could be dull and that action sometimes has to be 'spiced up' in order to make it enjoyable. I know the difference between going to the movies and watching The History Channel, I enjoy both but I expect different things from them.
-
The problem with Hollywood History, or remaking history for the sake of the movies, is the fact that a large segment of the general populous accepts what they see as fact. I cannot recount the number of times people have forced what they saw on movies to me as historical fact. You would think Germany and the United States shared a land border in the 1940's.
I really hope some good new animated sci fi comes out this summer because Iron Giant guy is getting a bit...well... -
Dear Mr. Mostow:
thank you for posting your measured and steady argument in the favor of your movie. Personally I cannot wait for it; the historical implications as well as the historical accuracy will put it on my list. I'm glad you have responded to the voices of many talkbackers and I hope this convinces everyone that fiction is not history - and that HISTORY is biased, but this movie is hopefully going to change the way a few people looked at that war. -
Thank you mr Mostow for putting the record straight concerning U-571. I have been looking forward to this film for ages now but have become rather disturbed by the endless whining about it on Talk Back. Nothing annoys me more than when a film purporting to be historically accurate distorts the facts in order to create a more "Hollywood" product. However as Mr Mostow claimed U-571 is a work of fiction within a historical background and doesn't proclaim to show the absolute truth. Those wishing to know the truth can read the details at the end of the film.
One last thing to all those moaning like children about who won the war (us Brits are particularly guilty)the Nazis may certainly have lost the Second World War, but with regard to the sheer amount of loss and devastation it caused,I don't think you can quite say anybody won it. -
Hi,
Ok - if U571 was SO WELL researched, then our great and glorious Direfctor would not have insulted the fine men and women of the Senior Service, by calling them the "british Navy" - it is the ROYAL Navy, and the ROYAL Marines - HMS stands for His/Her Majesty's Ship/Submarine..... -
Jonathan, I caught the trailer for this film yesterday while watching the Super Bowl, and I'm totally juiced to see it. This film immediately moved up on my "Must See" list for 2000.
Your letter to AICN readers was brilliant and wonderfully worded. I'll go in viewing this film like I have any other work of fiction set against a backdrop of history or loosely based on real life events. Folks, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was a great example of this. Yes, I know, it was loosely based on the Sullivan brothers, but let's face it, SPR was not based on complete 100% historical fact. I don't see why Jonathan's film deserves this kind of reaction, especially--as he notes so often--when you haven't seen it.
Buy your ticket, grab a bucket o' popcorn and a 10-gallon drum of soda, and let yourself be entertained. That's what movies are all about. If you want historical fact, go buy a history book.
McFly
-
Jan 31, 2000 9:47:15 AM CST
Dave666 - It's aboot justice, It's aboot doing what's right...
by funny ha ha
Your posts kill me! I can't get South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut out of my head, where the Canadian ministers whine at the United Nations about the unfair treatment of Canadians. Now I have the song "Shut your f-ing face, uncle f-a" stuck in my head - which is a good thing. I think you can be proud of being a Canadian without complaining about U.S. subversion of your culture -um, or at least that portion of your culture which isn't driven by our TV, magazines, movies, etc. I think Canada is great - don't misquote me as dismissive of your nationalism - just be a patriot and not a jingoist. By they way: ROCK ON ARTAUD!
-
Thanks for joining the dialogue. I for one, can't wait to see this, and will reserve my critiques until AFTER I have done so. "....you don't eat or sleep or mow the lawn, you f* your uncle all day long..." Canada Rules!
-
hello harry
i have been a great fan of this page for about a year and a half, and this is the first time i -
I completely agree. I live in Indonesia (expatriat) and Shindler's list is banned her. Why?? This is a muslim country?! And just so you know, the same sort of thing happens in the states sometimes, like with Dogma and the whole Catholic League thing (of course they shut up after it opened and they realized it was pro-religion). Later.
-
...at least that's the feeling I got when seeing the trailer for the first time. Some of the shots are almost identical.
-
... that this film has such a dull, unmemorable title.
-
Why does U-571 have so many people upset? Because Ultra intelligence played a huge part in the Allied Victory in WWII and because of the high price the British merchant marine paid during the war. Approximately 20,000 British sailors died on torpedoed tankers and frieghters. If you were a British seaman on a freighter crossing the Atlantic between 1939 and 1944 you had a better chance of being killed than if you were in the Army, RAF or Royal Navy. Thousands of ships were lost. But with the breaking of the Engima codes, the Brits were able to pinpoint the location of the German subs and blast them out of the water and the Atlantic. Out of 40,000 U-boat sailors, 28,000 died. The highest percentage of killed of any armed service of any country during the war. If U-571 plays fast and loose with history it risks becoming a silly picture like Operation Burma where US soldiers save British Burma. I hope it's a great movie, it looks great on the preview. For anyone who wants to know what it was like to cross the Atlantic during the war I reccomend Action in the North Atlantic starring Humphrey Bogart--great movie.
About the Titanic suicide. Several witnesses, independent of each other, wrote letters saying they saw an officer shoot a passenger and then themselves after giving a salute. Noted Titanic historian believes it was either Murdoch or Wilde. I'm sorry this upsets some people, but the historical record is there. Murdoch is probably the best choice because the collision occured on his watch and by the law of the sea he was responsible. -
The director makes the comment, "In making the movie, I have absolutely NO intention of stealing credit for daring exploits by courageous men of the British Navy", and you took offense to it saying he "insulted the men and women" of the ROYAL Navy, by calling it the British Navy as opposed to the Royal Navy. The director was paying your veteran countrymen a compliment, and you turned a stiff upper lip and got all huffy because he called them British sailors as opposed to Royal sailors. Get a life. Your Navy is the British Navy (the navy of Britain)Royal Navy is the proper (egotistical) title. Hey, he refered to the German Navy of WW2 instead of calling it the proper name, Kriegsmarine... I'm outraged! So did the king actually command the Navy? Hey there were other royal navys in WW2 too, Denmark, Jordan, etc. The Brits posting comments here were sounding like rational men living in the 20th century, until you posted. Did you forget that your king signed the Magna Carta centuries ago? Does calling it Royal make you feel better about your Navy? Okay, I'll play along, but if you reply to me don't address me as Brendan3, address me as His Exhalted Majesty God Emperor Grand Poopah Brendan3... I insist on proper titles. harumph!
-
While I wasn't one of those worried about historical accuracy, I just wanted to say thank you for your dedication towards your craft, and the seriousness with which you addressed these concerns. You show a lot of respect for your audience with your letter, and I can only imagine that that respect will translate to the screen. I'll definitely check out U-571 when it releases!
-
Didn't the British burn down the white house in the Falklands? HAHAHA
-
Read Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. Excellent, excellent book. Most of it is fiction, but it is nevertheless very entertaining and intelligent at the same time.
-
Historical accuracy is good...i mean look at Braveheart...1)Wallace never met french princess as edwards son married after walaces death
2)Edward Longshanks died a few years after Wallace
3)Stirling was a battle over a river..not a field.
and there is a hell of a lot of other things changed from the history..too many to mention to be frank
(Frank??? my names Dave..ach well)
But Braveheart set out its stall to be a true depiction of William Wallace...or at least i think it was meant to be..they had every source of info available to them yet changed it all...the true history of William Wallace is a hell of a lot better than the film..but the film IS still good (what scot didnt shed a tear at the end when we ah charged the english :o) or when wallace was hung drawn and quartered :o( )
I like Braveheart dont get me wrong..just would have liked it to be more true to the history...cause as a work of fiction why did it choose to be about one of scotlands greatest heroes then change history so much? -
Whatever you want to say about England, they DID give us Mr. Methane.
-
I'm sure that to a man you could find a pithy one-liner to insult each of our Presidents, but the beauty is they come and go as we see fit. Your preposterous notion that we desire a monarchy bespeaks your misunderstanding of Americans. We like a good freak show. We get good ones here, but in case we get bored with our own brand of lunacy, your country turns 'em out with great regularity. We enjoy your monarchy like we enjoy the monkey house. "Look at that one Ed - he's peeing on the other one!" Like Canada, I love England (except for the native food - you guys need to work on that!) and have been there many times. But get all nationalistic and snotty is to forget: "The Yanks are comin', the Yanks are comin'" and the importance of our entrance into WWII to assist you in routing the Third Reich. Or are those photos of brits hiding in the tube faked? We couldn't have done it without you and vice versa.
-
Hmmm... unless I'm mistaken we rebelled against a monarchy (yours I believe) and won. As far as the lowest common denominator of our citizens being intrigued by your monarchy, I supose it's akin to watching a freak show. That your noble monarchy only comes to our attention in the gossip pages with their Jerry Springerish escapades should tell you something of how serious our respect for your monarchy is. Does the royal family actually do anything besides embarass your nation in tabloids worldwide and take your tax money to support their lifestyle?
-
Not defending our presidents, but when exactly did Nixon steal from our country, as you suggest? I think you heard his "I am not a crook" quote regarding his denial of involvment in the Break in at the DNC headquarters at the Watergate building, and not knowing what that quote refered to, just made up the rest in your own mind... sort of like your version of the war of 1812 that you posted earlier. Ford was a Clutz? He tripped a few times in public... so what. You've seen tooo many SNL sketches. And Clinton got blown in his office by an intern (good for him)..so what? Don't compare politicians, because few can be as morally bankrupt as Thatcher and the rest of her Tory poll tax cronies.
-
Imagine for the moment you are the host of a nationally recognized website. Imagine that site is the source for scoops on upcoming projects and unadulterated film comment - allowing input from the audience itself on a site that is read at every level of the industry. Imagine creating such a stir that film makers and studios alike try - and fail - to shut you down. Imagine you triumph. What would happen then? A possible scenario would involve the studios changing tactics - as studios often do, despite the popular opinion - because while they don't make movies more ways than one, they know how to skin a cat. The studios would invite you to premiers, include you in note sessions, put your face in the paper, rope you into development deals, by the rights to your life, erase your precious anonymity (which, despite its practical applications was a principal motivator in the creation of your site in the first place) and - like all corporations do with the competition in the end - they co-opt you.
Then, the tail starts to wag the dog. To curry favor and get the honest to goodness deep inside information, you have to chug outrageous amounts of studio head. You can't be too abrasive - or even honest - for fear of being cut off. You can only elude to films you didn't like - usually after they have come out and failed - and you even find ways to "forgive" the odd bomb. Soon, your aw-shucks facade becomes almost comical. Your tragic attempts at humilty and incredulous gratutude for the way things have turned out make you the cartoon icon that is the banner on your home page.
Pretty soon, people start to take notice - but their criticism are put down as quickly as they spring up, because like a good studio, you have learned the power of bad press and rush to quell it. In fact, in many ways you have become what you have beheld. You forget that what you started out to do was improve film by exposing its weaknesses and instead, you have become a media-whore. You have injected so much of your own personality into your work, that your work IS your personality. Your comment becomes a relfection on yourself and not the medium. In short - you have sold you soul. You forget that you made yourself and they were afraid of you. You overlook your own rapidly swelling irrelevance. None of your scoopers on the inside are telling you that no one is afraid anymore. No one is checking in with you for fear of what you know, but what you don't. Hollywood has long since breathed a sigh of relief, knowing they can check in on you and your utterly pathetic, blind and uninformed cronies and see that nothing about their film is there - it's all about you.
But hey, you have what you want. You are recognized the world over. You have found a large enough cadre of dolts to justify your self agrandizement. You even foolishly believe in the back of your mind that this is a transition - a stepping stone and not your honest and admirable calling. You think, one day, you'll get to tell your story, and then you'll show 'em. You'll change the system from within.
And like every idiot in every movie from Citizen Kane to Episode One, you will be the only one to overlook your undoing. The audience will sit back and shake their heads and when the lights ome up, they will forget you like Godzilla.
And late at night, when you lie awake inbed and stare at the ceiling, you know exactly who you are. You have fleeting glimpses of the truth and you swat them away like flies. Because movies in this day and age aren't about the truth. They are about fame.
and somewhere...
out there...
The studios will go about their business, and they won't even taste you when they belch.
Harry. It's about the movie's, old man. Nothing else.
Tell the truth. -
Jan 31, 2000 5:13:05 PM CST
Whoa ! The Natives are restless! Time to post new stuff to AICN
by funny ha ha
After that last post (which was nicely written by the way - I'd love to know the details of what motivated it) and my own involvement in the ongoing tirade about a smallish island off the coast of France and a guy who is still resting on his country's victory over the Spanish Armada (That was like, so yesterday). It's time to put some FRESH movie news up!! I don't even care if it ain't all that cool! Something new please... Please?
-
... because your navy ain't shit now. Your tiny Navy is designed to wage short distance wars in the European theatre, primarily designed to fight the Soviets in anti submarine and electronic warfare and to transport troops onto the continent. Now I know what you're thinking.. you're probably getting all huffy preparing to go on some rant about the Falklands, so let me beat you to it before you start spouting about things you don't know about. The Falklands proved the problems of your Navy. Your fleet was not prepared to cross the Atlantic. All of your wartime troop carrying ships were designed for channel crossing, not trans atlantic excursions. As a result, you went to war in the Falklands with the majority of your ground troops transported on civillian liners, put into service by your military. In fact, 2 Para went to the Falklands in the QE2. The reason Harriers flew in combat, untested at war til then, was because you have no full size aircraft carriers. The harriers were operating off of small helicopter carriers. You were unable to send your airforce on sorties because your airforce had no refueling planes to cover the distance. You had no reconnaisance planes, so we secretly used our AWACS to provide you with intel. You also only had a handful of armored vehicles (no tanks) because you had no transport ships for them. Your best troops went to the Falklands because room was limited and you could only send a few. As far as the might of your shitty navy, here's a word British sailors love "EXOCET" Had the Argentines gotten their complete shipment of exocets before the war, they were impounded, your task force would have been completely sunk. Maybe the Royal Danish Navy or even the Royal Jordanian Navy would have been better prepared. Royal Navy my ass! glug, glug,glug
-
Jan 31, 2000 5:27:57 PM CST
It's so fun to put you down Obi-Wan, because you make it so easy
by brendan3
Just another thing to point out to you. You wrote, and I quote,"We, that is Britain, were the first country and Empire to use the term, ROYAL NAVY." BZZZZZ! Wrong The Persians had a Royal Navy in 480BC.. oh yeah and an empire twice as big as yours ever was. I know it was long ago, but I figured since you're living in the past you won't mind if I play along.
-
Thanks Mr. Mostow for this response. As I posted in the talk back of the review, I was almost ashamed of sending that review to Harry after I saw the response it created. Your letter shows how much you care about this movie and that you are here to entertain. Its sad to see people get caught up in debates over a subject or matter that they have not yet experienced or seen. This movie rocks and I am so glad that people will be able to have fun at the movies again. You better believe that I will be in line with a pack of friends and acquaintances to see this movie once again. Good luck and keep the filmmaking going!
-
"How dare you Americans speak about your involvement in WWII. There were other countries in it first, so you're not allowed to talk about it! Nyah!" --signed, Retarded Bigot
-
"P.S.: Keep sending us foreign aid, so we can spit in your faces at the same time as accepting your generosity and kindness."
-
I'm beginning to wonder whether it's really something worth arguing over. The reason for my doubt? RICHARD III. Now, this play is a masterpiece. A brilliant portrayal of villainy and one of Shakespeare's most enduring works. Here's the thing though- the real, historical Richard III was, in all likelihood, not the murderous monster he is made out to be in this classic. History seems to indicate he was no better and no worse than his immediate predecessors and successors on the English throne, using no more dirty tricks than the rest of 'em. In short, the play slanders him. A lot of the people who originally saw it- not necessarily being educated, wealthy citizens- probably came away thinking Richard III was a diabolical person.
But does that make RICHARD III a bad play? No, it's still a classic. So a work of art can be good even if it plays havoc with history. People just need to realize it ain't necessarily true, that's all.
Oh... U-571? Might be good.DAS BOOT was the definitive U-boat movie, hence a hard act to follow, but I'll wait. -
As my friends and I watched the Superbowl and the ad for U-571 came up, we all-being in film-thought the title suxs.
"Let's go see that 'U' movie!"
"Nah, let's go see 'The Clumps'!" -
Hey Gline, I have a quote for you: "This is our alternative myth to the myth of the Warren Commision." -Oliver Stone. If you don't believe it, check the middle section of the original laser disc release.
-
Thanks to Mr Mostow for his comments, its nice to know there's someone with intelligence in hollywood!On this historical bullshit question, as I recall all british(english)war movies show them "winning the war" ON THEIR OWN!Everybody does this(the Russians too!)its just the Americans control the movie industry and as such dont show others(ie.non blond WASP's)at all!If anyone can complain its the russians, they DESTROYED the wermacht, killing 2,000,000 germans before d-day(stalingrad,kursk anyone?)But people are taking this way too seriously, ITS JUST A MOVIE! and people do know how full of shit movies are historicly!if you want a historicly accuract sub movie try DAS BOOT ("the most awesome war movie ever made") tm-EMPIRE magazine.Also the book about the Enigma is called "Enigna" by Robert Harris(who also wrote "Fatherland" a book about an alternite future where germany won the war, made into a TV movie with Ruger Hauer and "Arcangel" about Stalin.Also there was a brillient TV documentary(Channel 4 England) about the Enigma and Alan Turing called "Station X".
-
Ok Brendan, lets get a couple of things straight. If I burn the US flag, people will take offence - if I belittle the bravery shown in Vietnam and Korea by the US forces people will take offence. The Royal Navy has been defending the citizens of the United Kingdoms since before the United States was even a country, and they do deserve the same respect. And that is the knub of this - it is the Royal Navy, that is the correct, respectful name. It is courtesy to use it. Also, The Magna Carta was never actually signed by the British Monarchy - they merely placed the Royal Seal on it, which is still a good after-dinner debate amongst the Legal Profession as to the legality of that - it is legally possible that the document was never "signed" and therefore is not binding on the Monarchy. The plain truth is that we have a Constitutional Monarch, who abides by the power of Parliament, and recognises the freely, democratically elected government - a right which has been guaranteed to us by the Royal Navy (even if the Government can't pay for any gas for them to go on exercise or patrol at the moment.....!!!!)
-
...there are Irishmen in it. Northern Ireland is part of the UK not Great Britain. I personally didn't take offence at Mr. Mostows British Navy comment, and those that have done are being very, very picky and should pack it in.
You can slag the royal family off all you want 'cos as far as I'm concerned they're a bunch of parasites.
And to the prick who talked about Patton saving Monty's arse, get your facts straight. -
Artaud in Bottle, Brendan3, Obi-Wan - hallo? Great views you guys have. You want a cause, fight one that matters NOW, but spouting the nationalistic crap and snipey comments you guys are just goes to show how many arrogant and ignorant people there are still left in the world. Perhaps thats a blessing. As Ghandi said, when addressing the masses after a particularly heavy day of being a thoroughly decent chap 'it takes all sorts'. Artaud in particular (though it seems Obi-Wan is one of the instigators of this pissing match) seems to be tucking into this childish 'mine is bigger and better than yours' with relish. I really don't know whether to laugh or get my windows and doors double-locked when i read his posts. Anyway.
The film - I've no doubt it will be terribly exciting and a good watch. Good cast, good subject matter. A few points though -
(1) I LOVE that old 'you have to see it to judge' wrangle. Cos once someone's seen it, what do YOU care, you have their money. Even if all their fears are verified and they bad mouth it a bit, you're getting bums on seats, and thats what its all about. Chicken and egg in a way, and can't be helped.
(2) Money is the driving force here - as someone so eloquantly put it before me, the biggest audience for this is in the States, so make it States-friendly. A film with American Stars will make twenty times the money a film with any other nationality. And Filmaking is sadly turning into primarily a business, it's not a public service. I'm not saying i agree with this, but that's the driving force of all big budget films, it seems.
(3) If this film didn't have the enigma machine in, if it was a fictional device, none of this 'my country is better than yours so poo to you with nobs on!' malarkey would be here. No-one should be arguing over anything but that. It's the mix of historical accuracy ('BASED ON A TRUE STORY!!' gets people watching even more than 'CONTAINS SCENES OF A SEXUAL NATURE hur hur!') and blockbuster appeal, that bastardisation of two, very hard to marry baselines, that will always cause people to spit out their donuts.
I don't know whether this film was conceived as a 'great money maker so sod the history' or not... from the Directors letter, and a very well written and appreciated one it was, I will take it on faith that that was not the case. And I WILL watch it to see, I like the cast and I like the setting. But I have a tiny sneaking feeling that when I come out of the sceening I'll be wondering 'now, why bother mixing fact and fiction at all? why not just make it a damn good story, based in an historical setting, with NO slight tampering of what actually happened? Still, it WAS a bloody good ride.'
Though, of course, I'll be in the minority, I'm sure. Especially as everyone else leaving the film will be headed for the nearest library to learn more about it all. Ah, the power of film...
Andy. -
I'm sorry I had to bring up historical facts to argue with you and it upset you, but you brought it up. Allow me to quote you, "We, that is Britain, were the first country and Empire to use the term, ROYAL NAVY. Primarily because when it was introduced, the monarchy was still ruling. Idiot. Also, we deserve to have our navy be called Royal since we have had the most successful and dominating navy in the world's history." If you want to bring up deeds that are centuries old to supprt your position, don't get all flustered when I do the same. By the way, the modern British navy is poorly equiped, underfunded, and out of date. You don't have the 2nd most powerful navy in the world... maybe 9th or 10th. Do you have any full size aircraft carriers yet? or hasn't your navy learned from its mistakes by not having any in the Falklands?
-
I'm sorry I had to bring up historical facts to argue with you and it upset you, but you brought it up. Allow me to quote you, "We, that is Britain, were the first country and Empire to use the term, ROYAL NAVY. Primarily because when it was introduced, the monarchy was still ruling. Idiot. Also, we deserve to have our navy be called Royal since we have had the most successful and dominating navy in the world's history." If you want to bring up deeds that are centuries old to supprt your position, don't get all flustered when I do the same. By the way, the modern British navy is poorly equiped, underfunded, and dangerously out of date. You don't have the 2nd most powerful navy in the world... maybe 9th or 10th. Do you have any full size aircraft carriers yet? or hasn't your navy learned from its mistakes by not having any for the Falklands?
-
You said, and I quote," What would you know about the European economy anyway? You've probably never stepped out of your own state." Well, well. Actually I've travelled all over the world and spent quite a bit of time in the UK. I lived for a while in Belfast and I've travelled throughout England, though I never went up to Scotland. I was staying with some friends for a while in London, working in a record shop in Croydon. Also I don't question the ability of the British Army in the Falklands, but you need to check your facts. It wasn't 70 marines and a few SAS lads against thousands of Argentines. It was thousands of British marines, paras, and infantry fighting on the Falklands. Your ground forces did a great job (I give credit where it's due) fighting in the cold against the dug in Argentines, many of whom were, however, eager to surrender. Aside from buggering prisoners of war, the Brits proved themselves in modern infantry combat. Your navy, however was illprepared as I described in an earlier post. The only reason they weren't all sunk was that the Argentines ran out of exocet missles, because their military launched the invasion a month ahead of schedule before the politicians could make their case to the UN and before the airforce got their shipment of exocets. Your navy had no ocean ready troop transports and had to rely on civillian liners. Your harriers were the only fighter planes to go because they could be launched from helicopter pads. Your navy was and still is only ready to fight in her own waters and short distance (European) conflicts.
-
Apart from some of the inane, nationalistic name-calling and vituperative lecturing this has been a pretty interesting talkback. There'll always be a tension between creative license in the service of entertainment and fact- the mention of Shakespeare was particularly appropriate in this regard. Hollywood is no different than Elstree, Cinecitta, the Globe Theatre or any other producer of entertainment past or present-just bigger, better funded and more pervasive right now. I don't think that makes them more responsible for the truth than Shakespeare. I didn't take exception to the British film "Breaking the Sound Barrier" even though it was patently untrue. As I recall, it was pretty entertaining. And movies first and foremost are an entertainment. As far as sub movies go I appreciated reading the director's defense and hope this one is good. I hope they keep making them- especially the WWII variety as it's a pretty short list-Das Boot, Destination Tokyo, Up Periscope, Operation Pacific, The Enemy Below and one of the best ever- Robert Wise's Run Silent, Run Deep. I know there are others but nothing else comes to mind. Question: I'd heard months ago that there were at least three sub movies in the works- all by different studios. I think the others were cold war stories. Anyone know anything about them ? Now if some studio would just make a decent film about B-17s. Or Lancasters. It doesn't make any difference to me...
-
I thought that the super bowl commercial rocked. can't wait to see it:-)
-
Question for Johnathon Mostow:
Is there a coincidence with the name of this "Unterseeboat" #571
matching the name of the first U.S. Nuclear Submarine Nautilus (SSN-571)?
Was there actually a German U-boat with this #571 designation?
I am eagerly awaiting the theatrical release of your film! I saw a trailer this morning, and it looks like a wild ride.
Ian Parent
Indianapolis -
In answer to Ian Parent's question.
-
In reply to Ian Patent's question,yes there was a real U-571. My wife's former brothe-in-law was the engineering officer aboard the U-571 for 9 months off the East Coast in the early 40's.
he saw the lights of New York City through U-571's periscope. They sunk 40,000 tons of shipping. according to him the score would of been much less if the cargo / tankers had gone 50 to 100 mile out to sea. There was no black out enforced on the shore line. The allied ships were silouetted against the shore making it ib\n his words like shotting fish in a barrel. The U-571 was sunk with all hands off the British coast late 1944 or early 1945. The brother-in-law was on other U-Boats and E-Boats and ended the war in Norway on the German Naval staft.
-
In reply to Ian Patent's question,yes there was a real U-571. My wife's former brothe-in-law was the engineering officer aboard the U-571 for 9 months off the East Coast in the early 40's.
he saw the lights of New York City through U-571's periscope. They sunk 40,000 tons of shipping. according to him the score would of been much less if the cargo / tankers had gone 50 to 100 mile out to sea. There was no black out enforced on the shore line. The allied ships were silouetted against the shore making it ib\n his words like shotting fish in a barrel. The U-571 was sunk with all hands off the British coast late 1944 or early 1945. The brother-in-law was on other U-Boats and E-Boats and ended the war in Norway on the German Naval staft.
-
Oh, you poor bitter little man. You have grown such a hard on for hating the UNITED STATES. My family is from England and I am so proud of that. Maybe some therapy and prozac will help you work through your anger. England and the United States are allies. You are a fucking hateful bloody nut. We are on the same side PROVDA dickhead! Take a pill. Does it make you feel better to argue wich country has the bigger, badder Navy. I respect all Navies on the map. It's OK if your's isn't as BIG. Read some Freud. SYNC HOUSE
-
Mr. Mostow,
In your letter of January 30, you defended your film U 571 on the basis that it is historical fiction. You stated that those who are criticizing the movie hadn't even seen it. I agree with you that the issue is not whether a movie is historically accurate or not - the only issue is quality. I firmly believe that it is not the role of Hollywood or any other creative enterprise to regurgitate history as a tribute to fact - the goal of any good film maker is art. I have no objections to using elements of history to create a compelling fictional story.
Unlike those who took it upon themselves to criticize your film before actually viewing it, I waited for it to come out before I made my judgement. When I left the theatre, I began to wonder if you could be so articulate in defending your work on the basis of art. Your film wreaks of corporate compromise - formulaic plot points blunted through poorly constructed dialogue, questionable casting, weak character and story development - it felt like there was a better film left on the editing room floor. Jon Bon Jovi's character felt like it was included as a favor to a studio exec - he added nothing to the story, he was poorly developed, executed and acted. I got the sense this was a sports genre film in a submarine - not very suspenseful.
I will give credit where it is due - there were several genuinely thrilling action sequences, such as the laying of the depth charges by the German destroyer. However, the pacing up to that point failed to impart any sense of suspense, the score was dreadful, and the acting was unforgiveably bad.
I'm sure you feel somehwhat vindicated by the fact that the world's foremost expert on WWII submarines and German coding devices enjoyed the movie. Speaking from an audience perspective, I was hoping you would have devoted a similar amount of time on character and story.
-
Of course people are going to be angry about the inaccuracy of this film before even going to see it. The mere thought of Great Britain having it's Royal Navy's proudest memories of World War 2 stolen and turned into an American tale makes people sick to the stomach. Why should they pay good money to go and see something that makes a mockery of their parents' and grandparent's efforts to safeguard the future of the free world? "Historical Fiction" it may be, but younger generations tend to believe every word that Hollywood writes because, as Jonathan Mostow said himself, they have never heard the historical TRUTH from anyone. They are being sytematically brainwashed into thinking that America won the war all on its own. Historical Fiction is just another way of selling propagander, something that the Nazis were very good at. What can we expect next from Mostow, Montgomery and De Laurentis? The story of the Dunkirk rescue, but with the little fishing boats manned by American fishermen setting off from Florida perhaps?!
-
Of course people are going to be angry about the inaccuracy of this film before even going to see it. The mere thought of Great Britain having it's Royal Navy's proudest memories of World War 2 stolen and turned into an American tale makes people sick to the stomach. Why should they pay good money to go and see something that makes a mockery of their parents' and grandparent's efforts to safeguard the future of the free world? "Historical Fiction" it may be, but younger generations tend to believe every word that Hollywood writes because, as Jonathan Mostow said himself, they have never heard the historical TRUTH from anyone. They are being sytematically brainwashed into thinking that America won the war all on its own. Historical Fiction is just another way of selling propagander, something that the Nazis were very good at. What can we expect next from Mostow, Montgomery and De Laurentis? The story of the Dunkirk rescue, but with the little fishing boats manned by American fishermen setting off from Florida perhaps?!
-
Lets talk accuracies again for a minute. There has not been a movie depicting submarines and those men who manned them that is as close to the way it is/was as U-571. As a former submariner, I applaud all who had a role in the making of this movie. Submariners live by attention to detail, their lives depend on at sea. The detail given to the uniforms, the way communications are passed via the sound powered phones, the age of the sailors in the movie, the real diving alarm,...Thank you! We've all had enough of the typical lack of regard Hollywood has given to these aspects (see Crimson Tide). Bravo Zulu!!
-
Dunkirk was a retreat! Pure and simple. With many heros. Although it was not until the AMERICANS supplied and organized the D Day invasion that the Brits got back on the continent. Not that there is anything wrong with that!!!!! The Pols are the ones that got their hands on the first ingima machine and allowed us to read the nazi mail, not the Brits!!!! It took the combined effort of the allies to defeat the Nazis, not just the Americans. So just knock off the insenced attitude. If America did not get in the fight you would more than likely be speaking German today.
Hey AMY babe, how dare you compare the USA to the nazis?
What you obviously do not realize is that we have been taught here is that America did not win this war alone, was not the only to suffer loss of loved ones. Dear Lord, we cry and remorse at the horrible bombings and raids yours had to endure.
We are allies. -
I LIKE IKE!
-
I am doing a course on History in film and I would like permission to use the directors letter in my research paper. Is it possible to pass the request on to Mr. Mastow and get some response.
-
One scene that continues to bother me is the one where the Americans have captured U-571 and are transfering prisoners when the other U.S. sub is torpedoed. This, of course, is supposed to be the re-supply Nazi sub--ahead of schedule. The problem......after a volley of torpedoes are exchanged, whatever happens to the re-supply sub? When U-571 fires a spread of torpedoes, a hit is heard, but they seem to agree it is their former U.S. boat (hence, why they surface to look for survivors--finding one and seeing the drowned captain).Did the re-supply sub just simply "walk away" from the fight??? This doesn't make any sense! Can anyone clarify this??? Thanks!
-
Mr Mostow,
Please accept my humble thanks on behalf of myself and other veterans of this nation's military on a job well done with your production of "U-571". I have briefely reviewed some of the other comments made by my fellow respondants and I feel as though some of them may not be able to appreciate the sense of commraderie that forms between people charged with a desperate task of life and death consequence. I also want to personally thank you for actually researching the facts and giving credit where credit is due. Perhaps the historical details of this movie were not accurate, but I feel as though the message of honor and selfless sacrafice was conveyed in a respectable manner. By the way, the music score is phenomenal! Again, thank you.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts