Talk:U-571 (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the U-571 (film) article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 "Lifeboat Massacre" scene 2 Destroyer duel 3 Americanization 4 "Americanized" 5 Uncited

[edit] "Lifeboat Massacre" scene

I added a paragraph discussing the controversial 'lifeboat massacre' scene - 8/5/05 KMC

[edit] Destroyer duel

I think that the duel with German destroyer was partly inspired by a real duel between HMS Jupiter and the Japanese sub I-60 (of a Kaidai type), though in this fight the sub got the worst of it. I also think the movie sucks and that it represents a poor, overaly action-packed and (as mentioned), historically incorrect attempt of creating an American-style Das Boot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.137.119.238 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 August 2005.

Hmmm... Well, I'm British, and an ex-navy man, but even I think that this article is a bit 'Anti-American' in its belittling tone. The article is supposed to be about a movie, but mentions so little about it that it doesn't even merit the usual spoiler warning (not that there's much to spoil, to be honest). We all know the real history, but the film is nothing more than a typical Hollywood action adventure 'yarn', which never claimed to be a historically-accurate documentary of real events. If Hollywood ever makes a movie where Tom Cruise designs a bomb that bounces on water, and the 'Memphis Belle' destroys dams with it I will change my mind. But the fact that I am writing this in English means that we can maybe let Hollywood have its fun now and then without taking offence so hysterically.

I think that the Germans have far more reason to be upset by this film than the Brits. The film is unintentionally funny to British eyes, but at least we are not shown stereotypically as committing an atrocity ChrisRed

I'm not certain about this, so i won't include it in the article... but it does make sense. Jonathan Mostow wanted to do the film with a British cast but couldn't get the funding. I know that was the case with Memphis Belle. David Puttnam wanted to do a film about a British bomber crew, but couldn't get the money so he did a film about the Memphis Belle instead. I agree with what Mr. Red said; this is a movie and this article mentions next to nothing about the movie. For my mind I rather enjoyed it, in particular the Oscar-nominated sound effects. Those depth charges were earshattering in the cinema. Scott197827 23/2/2006

Have attempted to correct this by adding a section entitled "Redeeming features of the film"--88.96.3.206 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Humph...I was joking when I made the crack about Tom Cruise above, but I can't wait to see The Few. Apparently Mr Cruise also won the Battle of Britain for us as well :-) ChrisRed 08:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

I agree with ChrisRed that this article currently spends too much time bashing the historical inaccuracies compared to how much space it devotes to sketching the plot, for example. (I'm guilty, as I've added some myself). — Matt Crypto 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Americanization

Bloody yanks, I don't think this article quite captures the massive European (mainly British) anger over this film. There were also threats of bans of American films over the incidents. Unfortunately I'm unable to find (other than BBC) sites which evenly capture and verify this side of opinion, so if someone can find an appropriate source, please do edit the page appropriately.

Ding Ding...time out!. I didn't mean to start a transatlantic incident here, I was just having a pop at Hollywood, not Americans in general. I imagine that most of them (especially the knowledgable 'wiki-yanks') probably find the Hollywood 'plot-dependant funding' situation as ridiculous as we do, so let's laugh about it together.ChrisRed 07:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh!......Dambusters (film remake) :-) ChrisRed 15:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"massive European (mainly British)"....does the writer suggest that there is some Europe vs Yanks thing here ? Is "Europe" being used as a synonym for the EU (or not?). The suggestion of "massive European (mainly British) anger" seems to be a contrived statement with heavily biased connotations attached. Yes, the yanks got the history wrong, which is irritating to many, but it's only a film after all. In any event, let's not forget lend-lease and the Marshall Plan as well. And let's not forget how the yanks ended the lend-lease scheme too.....funnily enough, the UK will be, this year (2006), paying off it's last war debt to the USA. Anon.

Well, I don't remember any great 'anger' about this film. It is a work of fiction after all, and the true story that it is inspired by is credited at the end (and the producer was more than happy to do this after chatting with vets). Unlike some people, it takes a bit more than that to get us burning 'old glory' and bombing McDonald's. Brits tend to regard Hollywood's 'Yankification' of history with humour (and perhaps sometimes mild irritation). As for launching a lecture about US-UK relations and the financial aftermath of WW2 - I can't see the relevance, but perhaps I will in 20 years when maps of the world will feature a thick green line running across the centre of the Mediterranean, up the Bosphorus, around the 'Stans' and along the border between India and Pakistan, with a massively-garrisoned Israel playing the part of West Berlin on the 'wrong' side of it. Best not to upset the colonies too much...we may need them again before too long, and vice-versa. Toodle-pip from jolly old blighty, and all that :-) ChrisRed 08:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "great anger" is a bit strong. I've changed the article to "irritation and anger", which is probably closer. — Matt Crypto 08:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The press was angry - I think that most people felt something between irritation and bemusement. I flicked through the film again last week, It's starting to feel like a lobotomy. Thank God for 'Enigma' :-) ChrisRed 08:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite! Enigma had some pretty authentic stuff (like codebreakers writing bombe menus). Funnily enough, the film caused "great anger" in Poland... Oh well. — Matt Crypto 09:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

At least it didn't mention Mohammed. ChrisRed 09:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How did Enigma end? I fell asleep. Why do British producers feel that to be histrically accurate, it has to be boring too. Oh, there is some excitement in it, but at that point it feels contrived.

Seriously though, as stated above, the film was a fictionalization of the various incidents involving the capture of the Enigma machine. When I first heard about it, I didn't understand why it was changed to Americans either. When I finally saw it, I really enjoyed it, and bought the DVD the first chance I got. The Director's commentary explains how he (the director) came to write the Story (he wrote the first story treatment; David Ayer wrote the script based on the story), and that lends some understanding of his point of view in doing in that way. He wasn't trying to write History, but rather to tell a good story, and that I believe it is. The historicity of the capture aside, U-571 seems to accurately portray the difficulties of submarine life and of leadership. The director even claims that the US Navy has used portions of it as training material for the Submarine Service (though I have not seen this verified elsewhere). So I do believe there is much here to recommend the movie.

To me, it's like two movies in one . The first is about the capture of the Enigma, and the second about a US submarien crew in the Pacific, but put together in the Atlantic. However, there are many exciting stories from US action in the Pacific worth telling.

However, I agree that a key issue here may be Hollywood, not Americans as a whole. Hollywood seems to perceive Americans as dumb, and caters to that audience. But one thing to keep in mind is that the movie was produced by an Italian, and partially filmed in Rome. It also used German actors for the German parts. So for all it's perceived faults, it's not strictly an "American" film, and had substantial European involvement. - BillCJ 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Americanized"

I made an error in my edit summary. In reading the paragraph in the Editor, with all the cite info, I thought the quote being referenced was from Bill Clinton. Upon seeing the viewed text, I realized that it was from "David Balme, the British Naval officer".

However, the text does not quote Balme; if it were a full quote where he said "Americanised", British spelling would prevail. However, as it is part of the text, American spelling is the default, since it is about an primarily-American-made film. (Oops, forgot to sign :(. - BillCJ 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

Yeah, fair point: US topics get US spelling -- even if the film is really about a UK topic ;-) — Matt Crypto 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited

I have removed the following parragraph:

The movie has also been criticized for a scene in which the U-boat crewmen machine-gun Allied merchant crewmen who have survived their ship's sinking, killing them in cold blood as they float helplessly in their lifeboat^{[citation needed]} . The implication is that the killing of survivors was typical U-boat behavior; critics of the U-571 movie, however, point out that this is an incorrect depiction of typical U-boat crew behavior^{[citation needed]} . In contrast to the depiction of U-boat men in the movie, U-boat crewman almost universally followed the accepted rules of war; in a number of incidents, they helped survivors with food, directions and occasionally medical aid.^{[citation needed]} Assistance to survivors only stopped after Admiral Karl Dönitz issued the "Laconia order" following a US attack on U-boats transporting injured POWs under a flag of truce. In fact, out of several thousand sinkings of merchantmen in World War II, there is only one documented case of a U-boat crew deliberately attacking the ship's survivors: that of the U-852, whose crew attacked survivors of the Greek ship Peleus.^{[citation needed]}

All of this may well be true, but it's uncited. I added two of the cite tags a week ago, and there was at least on other tag already there. Find a credible source before putting it back in. Thanks.

Oh, and use American spelling, unless its a direct quote. - BillCJ 18:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)