Talk:U-571 (film)

"Lifeboat Massacre" scene

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

==It should be noted that there were instances on both sides of Submarine crews machine-gunning survivors. Fortunately these were very rare instances. One such American involved in machine-gunning survivors was Dudley Walker Morton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_W._Morton

What is interesting in a tragic manner is that Heinz-Wilhelm Eck was tried for war crimes and executed for machine-gunning survivors when he was the Captain of U-852. No charges were ever levied against Dudley Morton. Dudley Morton was killed in action in 1943 so it is a legal moot point whether he did or did not commit war crimes.

War crimes are sometimes the excuse the winners use to hang the losers. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The British Royal Navy itself is apparently of the opinion that there was exactly ONE incident where a U-boat crew massacred survivors, the one mentioned above. You'd think that if there were more, the RN of all organisations would make a point of publicising them. And on an only loosely related topic, the RN found NO incidents (as in, not a single one) where a U-boat crew could be accused of shelling (with the 100-odd mm gun) survivors in the water. They found that in all instanced of such accusations, the shelling was directed at other ships, and any shells that did land in the water were misses, not deliberate. Finally, during the Nuremberg trials, it should be noted that Dornitz was only given a prison sentence and not a death sentence and from memory he was the only one from High Command so treated. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dönitz was sentenced to 20 years in prison, whereas Raeder received a life sentence (but was released early due to "ill health"). Jscb (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

meh, i think that they still would have got the same finances if it was done by british - but there we go again with the americans trying to cupture the glory of what other nations have done. so many british soldiers were killed trying to get that, but oh no...thers americans trying to claim that they did it, so what if its sci fi - people who don't no the truth will look at that film and beleive that the amerians did it. but its a good film tho lol --Infinitive definition 13:37, 5 April 2007 (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)

It seems strange to me that every place that there is a place for the Birtish to use the word "Yanks" they jump at the chance. I have known a lot of British people in my life and they are only not racist against Americans when they are actually travelling in America. The second they leave the boarder they turn into these shocking racists. The first few times I encountered this word being used I just assumed that the british person using it was just a complete idiot that was ignorant of the real meaning, since after all a very small number of Americans can actually righty use that word for themselves. I have however during more contact with those people discovered that they really do indeed know the correct termonology and use Bloody yanks as a racial slur. British people really do seem to be completely prejudiced against all Americans at large regardless of anything outstanding and the level at which they have indoctrinated their entire populus into this nazi like credentem would make Hitler proud. At this point I really feel that the site should ban the use of the word Yankee unless specifically talking about the northeast or the baseball team. The phrase Bloody yanks as seen above should be banned all together and if the british can't accept that then they should just create their own racist site to say what they want on it. Maybe they would feel better going over to the German language site since it seems they have way more in common with those guys. --Billiot 01:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As a limey, I feel like I've just been given a good kicking :-) I never realised that the word 'yank' could still cause such offence, as (on several transatlantic chat groups that I belong to) Americans seem to normally refer to themselves as 'yanks'. I just thought that as the civil war has been over for a long time now, it would have lost its power to offend south of the Mason-Dixon line. 'Bloody Yanks' is not used here as a racist term. It's not really possible for a Brit to feel 'racist' against an American, after all most ya Americans' ancestors hail from the same neck of the woods as ours. I suppose there are sadly a few who would harbour racist sentiments against African Americans, but you have to ask yourselves who we learned that from. 'Bloody Yanks' is used in the 'Elmer Fudd' manner as an expression of outrage or indignation at some of your little 'ways' (or more likely those of your government, or in this case Hollywood). Brits don't tend to be prejudiced against Americans, and we generally find you likeble (if sometimes a little loud and boastful) face-to-face. Maybe best to share what we do best, a sense of humour. Try not to take offence where none is intended and (if you are so touchy) thank god that you are neither a bloody ungrateful would-be-speaking-kraut-if-it-wasn't-for-us limey, an island ape, rosbeef, sassenach or whingeing pommie b***ard :-) ChrisRed 12:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me just add that where I am from the word 'Yank' is about the most offensive word in anyone's vocabulary. Anyone who knows me knows that I am totally against racism in all forms and thus I also take offense to this word being used, especially to describe people that are not part of that small specific ethinic group in America. There are real Yankees here but not all Americans are Yankees. Just to let everyone know, the word Yank is actually worse then saying the word Nigger. A black man might be called a nigger and there would be an arguement, but if he was called a Yankee then there would be violence. Everytime. People still get shot for using this word. It is very serious. I understand that the British and even more so the Irish have a much broader sence of humor then we Americans but this is one issue that I think the sence of humor needs to take a back seat or the next thing we will see is editors like Storm Rider using 'Blood Thirsty Savages' as he has on occation to describe American Indians and then say, oh but I was just having fun with you. Please consider. It is true the civil war is long dead and over but this prohibition of this word is still part of the culture here.--Billiot 09:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that were I come from "Yank" and "Yankee" are NOT racial slurs and insults but proud terms that I use to describe myself. I am from New England where we all are Yankees and proud of it, just about fifty miles from me is a tiny little town with a famous magazine devoted to the New England lifestyle, a magazine that has been around for decades and has won awards. And what is it's name? "Yankee Magazine". That's right. I am Yankee, will always be a Yankee, and damn proud of it and use the word as often as I can squeeze it into a conversation, whether it be speaking in public before a crowd or before my pastor in a church setting. Yankee is NOT a swear word, it is a badge of honor. Signed "Yankee Dave". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.226.27 (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As to the historical in accuracy of the film itself, I do understand the sentiment and it should have been made clearer in the initial film that it was fictionalization not hard history but a film is a film. This film is basically a magic item adventure film set during world war 2. Go on and adventure, defeat the bad guys to get the magic item. More, tougher bad guys come to try and get the item from you and a battle ensues. Defeat the even tougher bad guys and go home with the magic item a hero. I think just getting the movie on film with a plot acceptable to a large movie going American audience was really the driving force. Hollywood will commit any historical inaccuracy to sell a movie. We all know that.--Billiot 09:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

ChrisRed, silliness runneth over on many articles! When someone wants to be offended, they will certainly find a way. Having lived on both sides of the pond (France and the US) and being American, I am not aware of one American that has ever taken offense at the term Yank or Yankee.

Possibly even more relevant, I lived in the south for many years and gradutated from high school there (we are talking the redneck part of the panhandle of Florida; the real Florida), I can also assure you that it barely raises an eyebrow among Southerners unless it is spouted from some twit talking about the war of Northern Aggression commonly known as the Civil War.

On the world stage, Americans have no penchant for Balkanization as portrayed by the ever offended Mr./Ms. Billiot. I would be stunned if there was ever a person so offended; even an African-American as portrayed by this same editor. BTW, do you have any references for it being an offensive term to people as a whole or is this just something that you have dreamed up at which to take offense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, please note that the above posting is from Storm Rider, who is an admitted RACIST who will lie and insult at every opportunity. He has nothing better to do with his time then to follow me around the Wikipedia and try to create personal insults. He claims to be an America, this is suspect. He claims to have lived in the South, this is even more suspect. I do not believe a word the it types and niether should anyone else that comes across this page or any page that has seen the contributiions of said Storm Rider.--Billiot 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from personal attacks. Do you have any references or not? It is a simple question; you either do or you don't. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the topic at hand is now well and truly off-topic. If we're going to have wiki-drama over whether the word "yank" is racist or not, please take it to a user talk page or e-mail, or even Talk:Yankee, if it's about the contents of that article, but not here. Cheers! — Matt Crypto 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, back to the topic: I'm tired of the British riding their high horses on historical accuracy here. If you want to nit-pick, let's start with those paragons of historical accuracy in Britain, ole Bill SHakespeare and his contemporaries, and work our way up through the British film industry, and see if we can find any errors and misrepresentations there. I imagine we'll be there a LONNNNG time! So please, let's not pretend the fudging history for the sake of entertainment is unique to America or Hollywood, or even Britian. The movie is meant to be a fun ride, not a history lesson. Just enjoy it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCJ (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 July 2007

The inaccuracies in Shakespeare have more to do with ignorance and political expediency, which aren't really comparable. In any case, it's not always Brits complaining about how 'they are prepresented (or not, when they should be) in American films - just look at the furore over Pearl Harbor! What irks British audiences is when specific British or Commonwealth military actions are "appropriated," or when actual British or Commonwealth aparticipation could be included, but is omitted. Nobody bats an eyelid if an entirely American story is presented as such (e.g. The Thin Red Line). Nick Cooper 12:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Nick, you must admit that at least some exhibit a certain hypersensitivity: vide the furore over Saving Private Ryan- a film depicting avents at Omaha Beach and the Cotentin hinterland, a hundred miles west of the British sector and where a Tommy or Jock would have been as out of place as a Huk tribesman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solicitr (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, some people might think that, but the reality is that it's a complete fallacy that Omaha and Utah Beaches were 100% American operations. Over 350 Royal Air Force and Royal Navy personnel (naval gunfire observers and forward air controllers) were part of the first-wave follow-up operation on Ohama on 6 June 1944 - that's approximately 10% of the Allied personnel in the location (Dog Green sector) and time-frame the opening part of the film covers. In addition, the crews and landing craft that took all of the 2nd Ranger Battalion units (the outfit Hanks et al are in) in were British, and were loaded from a British troop-transport ship (HMS Empire Javelin). Not "a few," not "some," but all of them - these are the LCs designated "LCA" here. The Rangers (2nd and 5th Batallion) trained with the British Royal Marine Commandos and were so were used to working with the Royal Navy. Yet who is "driving" the LC in the film? A US Coastguardsman! Had just that single detail been rendered accurately - i.e. making the LC crew British - it would probably have deflected/negated 95% of the criticism of this type the film was subject to. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick, like so many before you, you have completely missed the point here. "Saving Private Ryan" is not, and makes no attempt to be, a story about America winning D-Day, although that is a criticism that could be levelled at say "The Longest Day". SPR is a fictional work of historical drama about a group of Americans DURING D-Day. And secondly, as BillJC says, if you want to start examining British fiction being passed of as historically accurate accounts of WW-II we could do that - although we would probably and rightfully be banned from doing it here. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Saving Private Ryan goes to great efforts to accurately "name-check" just about every American unit that was on that particular part of Omaha beach on the day, no matter how obscure. The relatively small number of British ground units are an obvious exception, but the landing craft crews are a glaring deliberate change. The reality was that all the 2nd Rangers were taken in by British landing craft and Royal Navy crews, but a conscioius decision was made to "replace" them American landing craft and US Coastguard crews, which did of course take other American units in. Considering the effort was made to give the landing craft serial numbers linking them to an American ship, I think it's legitimate to question how such attention to historically accurate detail can be adhered to in some places, but not others, and in this context changing the landing craft can't look like anything other than a deliberate snub. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Any number of historical movies have made and continue to make what are often very significant changes (including additions and omissions) for continuity of story, or to prevent distractions, or for cost considerations, or for any other number of quite valid artistic or theatrical reasons. Neither you nor I know why. What amounts to an obsession with a tiny detail that's not part of the main story in a fictional film is going to make it very difficult for you to make any kind of claim to have a NPOV, don't you think? Enough for me. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This puts it quite well. http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/feb/25/u-571-reel-history The film is pointless instantly forgettable dreck of the kind satirised by the Christian Slater movie Churchill: The Hollywood Years. And during the Second World War the US Army published a weekly paper called Yank, so God knows what somebody was going on about back there. 146.199.101.19 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Hugo Barnacle

"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)

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. 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. 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. 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.

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)

Done. Cited and reinserted.--67.10.240.169 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

Hey I noticed that the spoiler warning here is in the plot. After looking at Wikipedia: Spoiler_warning I'm going to remove it from that section. I realize that it was edited to include this today to conform with movies in general, so if that author would like to reply, I'd be happy to discuss. If you have any objections reply below or let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Jussen 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot:

The plot section is made self-contained (and is a totally separate section designated by ==Plot==), so plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section are repeated here. Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot.

Describe the basic premise of the film in a couple of sentences. Introduce key characters, with actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor).

{{spoiler}}

Then put in a {{tld|spoiler}} template, which will warn readers of the article not to proceed if they do not want the film "spoiled" for them. After that, start a new paragraph going into more detail about the plot of the film, including the ending. The events of the film do not have to be described in the order in which they appear onscreen, however; see Pulp Fiction for an example of this. Spoilers should not under any circumstances be deleted, as it directly contradicts the Wikipedia-wide content disclaimer. There are also other unacceptable alternatives which have been proposed in the past. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy.

So, what part of Spoilers should not under any circumstances be deleted, as it directly contradicts the Wikipedia-wide content disclaimer. are you not understanding? Spoilers are NOT optional in film plot sections. Please stop removing them, and take this up with the Film project if you disagree with the guidelines. Thanks for complying. - BillCJ 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bill, I read up on the project (thanks for the link) and it appears to be talking about spoilers, not spoiler warnings. What I glean from the policy is that if a spoiler (i.e. an important detail in the plot that could possibly "spoil" the experience of the viewer) exists in the plot summary, that plot element should not be deleted. I recognize that the template does suggest the use of spoiler tags, however I'm going to suggest we remove them from this particular film. I can't find a fact that I think would "spoil" a users experience of the film. See also: Toy Story. Thoughts? Jussen 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the text I highlighted is about the spoilers themselves, not the tags. However, the text makes it pretty clear they are to be used.

Possible spoilers:

1. The reason for the mission itself, revealed after the party, and some datails.
2. Radioman Wentz being fluent in German, and his fears.
3. S-33 being sunk by the real resupply sub, and the death of S-33's captain.
4. Resuing the U-boat's captain who claims to be a cook, and later killing two crew.
5. The German destroyer sending a boat while the S-33 crew plans to fire at her.
6. The details of the engagement with the destroyer, including the U-boat captain trying to send a signal.
7. Most importantly, some (though not all) details of the ending.

While mostly minor, these are details are nonetheless plot points readers might not want to know in advance, especially the ending. I honestly don't understand why you object to the tags being used, as you have not explained it adequately, other than to referenceshaving read such and such guidelines. I am not going to revert again at this point, as I am close to violating the WP:3RR rule. However, I hope you'll add them back on your own, as there is no harm in having them if they aren't necessary, but the reverse is certainly not true. In this case, it's better to be safe than sorry. - BillCJ 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion does belong more on the project page than for this specific film. I'll change it back while we discuss the guideline itself. I'd like your input on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#plot. Jussen 22:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Everything from the cleanup tag onward needs a rewrite. Much of the assumptions and assertations are not cited, there are grammatical mistakes, etc. Just needs a general cleanup. Zchris87v 06:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical inacurracies section

Felt this was worth bringing up, but on the anti-submarine warfare page it mentions that there was only one time during World War II when a submarine successfully attacked another submerged submarine with torpedoes, and this involved some fairly complicated calculations and guesswork to achieve, whereas the movie appeared to make it look like a fairly routine procedure Masterblooregard 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I can't in the movie any evidence that the U-boat sent to repair U-571 was specifically a resupply one (the picture seems to depict a submarine with a thinner hull than the Type XIV). If no reasonable objections, I'll remove the sentence related to this: Furthermore German Type XIV supply U-boats didn't have torpedo tubes and thus could not have attacked S-33.[15]
Regards, DPdH (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I too, agree that the section concerning the resupply sub should be removed. The underwater shots show a Type IX sub which decidedly did have torpedo tubes. Though the Americans referred to the sub as the resupply sub, this was in referring to the sub's mission, not it's class. In reality, BdU would have sent out whatever available sub was most prepared to sail on a moment's notice with extra mechanics and spare motor parts. Cg23sailor (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph which begins with this sentence: An earlier military Enigma machine had been stolen by Polish Intelligence in 1928 contains several errors. See Enigma machine. French stole some material which included two months worth of matching plain / encrypted transmissions. The Poles probably had a commercial Enigma machine. Polish contribution was brilliant mathematics rather than espionage.Rdmoore6 (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to Lead

I've replaced the following highly-POV sentence with the previous one:

The film attracted criticism for including a real-life event (capture of an Enigma machine and ciphers by the British during World War II) but changing it to appear an American achievement.

The existing phrase does need still some work for clarity, however that is not how to do it.

Do we have to go through this every time? This is a fictional story! They do use the word "fiction" in Britan, right? Lighten up, please! It's not as if the British film has a perfect history of historical accuarcy either! (Lawrence of Arabia, Beckett et al.) If the story had used Britsh characters on a British sub, with the same basic story, I can easily imagine how many objections there would have been about how "British sailors would never do that!" And please, give us Americans a bit a of a break here - the producers were Itailian! Go pick on them for awhile! - BillCJ (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're feeling "picked on" Bill, but you're kind of missing the point. The best fiction has some grounding in fact and doesn't aim to change its underlying historical reality. Apart from the British, this film demeans the servicemen of three other nations: Australia, whose aircrew actually sank this sub; Germany, who never surrendered their boat; and not least the United States of America, whose submariners apparentlly never performed any feat memorable enough to be worthy of their own story.87.101.182.98 (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't like it, and please do check the rest of the article - I've tried to copy-edit according to what was there. But how is the sentence "false/misleading" and "misrepresentations" (yr edit summary), and what's this POV you're claiming?

The film-makers and film itself make clear that this part of the story is not entirely fictional. The criticism cites are split between (not verbatim) "you're insulting British servicemen" and "we had to change historical content because of American money, and Americans want American heroes." I completely agree with comments on this Talk that the lead should not mostly be about criticism. And in fact, there's nothing actually wrong with your current sentence:

The film attracted criticism for its portrayal of an Enigma capture by an American, as opposed to a British crew, early in the war.

but my sentence was more informative because it had the two criticisms plus additional context for the gain of few words (and even those could be reduced). But it is slightly longer, so you may prefer the shorter, woollier one on that ground. In which case it'd be good to add "in World War II" to the lead.

And obviously, no film (fiction or supposedly historic) is historically accurate - rose-tinted views of the jolly British Empire can be particularly teeth-grinding. WP articles critiquing films should exactly cover all this, and many do.

Two other thoughts. Should we change the subheads further down to be more bland (eg just "Americanization"), and sigh over the irony of changing, to make American readers more comfortable, an article about changing stuff to make American viewers more comfortable... Or should we be more explicit about why this is an issue - not just for this film - which is nicely summarized here. My own feeling is that the latter suggestion, though important, does not belong on an article about a specific film; and I'm certainly not qualified to create an article on it, tho I'd guess there's academic or commentator material around to ref it.

Cheers, JackyR | Talk 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the phrase: he movie depiction, although fictional, is loosely based in principle on real events, but attracted criticism for ----falsely claiming---- that the Americans (rather than the British)

With:

The movie depiction, although fictional, is loosely based in principle on real events, but attracted criticism for the ---fictional portrayal---- that the Americans (rather than the British)

If someone can find that this was claimed by anyone related to the film, you can change it back or I will do it for you.

"In these situations the destroyer captain would also have the option of sinking the submarine through simple ramming."

Inaccurate I'm sure, as the sub was at 90 degrees to the boat and only a short distance off to the boat's port side. No way the boat could have turned around fast enough to ram the sub, however as I'm no nautical expert I'll leave it up so somebody else to remove this. Mathmo ^Talk 09:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts I'll be bold and remove it, but obviously I'll have no problem at all with anybody restoring this sentence. Mathmo ^Talk 09:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am confused as usual.

The main point I took from this movie was that life in a WW II submarine on BOTH sides was very dangerous with death always very close by. Did no-one else get this?

Secondly, right at the beginning it says that this movie is a TRIBUTE (my capitals) to submarine crews; and does not mention any nationality. Does this not then make it vastly different to any alleged re-writing of history?

Finally, I am confused by the concept that it is somehow "wrong" for Americans to make a movie about non-Americans. Following this logic, William Shakespeare should never have written "The Merchant of Venice" because he wasn't Italian; "Anthony and Cleopatra" or "Julius Caesar" because he was neither Roman nor Egyptian; "Hamlet" because he wasn't Danish; "Macbeth" because he wasn't Scottish, etc, etc ... Old_Wombat (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think you'll find that the problem was that the true story on which the plot/storyline was based was actually carried out by another country, and not America. So the film could be misleading to anyone watching it as to who actually did capture a U-Boat and its Enigma machine.

BTW, Shakespeare never tried to make out that Hamlet, Othello, Julius Caesar, or the events surrounding them, were British. He kept them in their original nationalities.

As a Briton myself I can understand the furore about the film but it needs to be born in mind that the making of films is a business, which is why the performing arts are sometimes known as 'Show Business'. The people behind the film were in it to make money and there was nothing stopping the British film industry (apart from it being effectively, moribund) from making the same sort of film about the true story of U-110 and HMS Bulldog. They didn't because the British stopped making films that anyone wanted to see about twenty years ago, which lead to the films they did make not making any profit, which, in turn, meant that no-one in their right mind would risk their money investing in a British film. So they don't make films worth watching any more, unlike the 50s-70s when they did at least make films like the Hammer Films which although low budget, made money. Remember the British war films of the 1950s such as The Cruel Sea, Above Us the Waves, Morning Departure, etc., well these were relatively 'low budget' films but also did make money. So did the final few popular films of the 1980s, such as Clockwise and A Fish Called Wanda. My point is that you couldn't have got the money to make a British film about the true story of the Enigma machine capture at the time U-571 was made in 2000.

You see, at least since the 1980s, the people in the British film industry have completely forgotten the first principle about movie-making. Which is that you make make a number of popular low-brow films in order to make the money you need to make a few, 'arty' high-brow ones. See, no-one (relatively speaking) wants to watch a film about some of the subjects that have been chosen by recent British film makers, and these sort of films are usually the 'pet project' of someone who is convinced that the story is a money-earner. The people involved often think that they are creating a 'classic' film that will please the critics, however, one needs to remember that the films that have gone down in history as 'classic cinema' almost never started out as anything more than a good story that got people into the cinemas. The problem with British film makers since the 1980s is that they all want to make a 'classic' film and so choose subjects that only appeal to themselves and a few similar like-minded people who they manage to get to finance these films. As a result no-one wants to see them and they are lucky if they break even. Because of this every new British film has to be treated as a one-off, which means that raising finance for it becomes difficult, as no-one invests in a 'business' except to make money. None of this is 'rocket science' and it continues to amaze me that every now-and-then someone in Britain does manage to get finance for whatever drivel of a story they have cooked up. Stuff that by all rights, should have trouble filling ONE cinema, never mind selling enough tickets to make the money back for the investors.

Although this is probably a roundabout way of saying it, the point is that the American film makers made a film and the British ones didn't. Like the Cohen Brothers' re-make of The Ladykillers, U-571 may not go down in history as a classic film, but that's not the point. It got 'bums on seats' (UK meaning of 'bum' - i.e., backside) meaning it got people into the cinemas. And it gave employment to a substantial number of actors and other personnel who hopefully had a good time making it. So it's justified it's costs and the effort put into it. That's all it needs to do. Good luck to them, I say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that, "you couldn't have got the money to make a British film about the true story of the Enigma machine capture at the time U-571 was made in 2000," isn't very convincing, given that the British film Engima was released just nine months after U-571. It's also a fallacy that a British film about HMS Bulldog would have cost as much to make as U-571; American films cost a lot because the money is available, while other countries produce films of a comparable or even just adequate quality for a fraction of the cost. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, Nick, you have missed the point. U-571, like the vast majority of movies ever made and still being made today, are first and foremost a business (whilst recognising the huge irony in the motto of MGM "Art for Art's Sake"). As such, they are specifically targetted at a customer demographic, which quite clearly in this case, was the US market. That's why producers spend these vast sums of money. Because, as you say, they can; and it is a business where the financial return does scale well with the financial investment. Thus, it is worth spending the money because every $X you spend gives you much more than $X back. I'm quite sure that you know all this. How many of those Americans who went to see U-571 do you think would have gone to see a movie about the HMS Bulldog? Hmm? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, because I was addressing 86.112.68.219's specific claim that, "you couldn't have got the money to make a British film about the true story of the Enigma machine capture at the time U-571 was made in 2000." Enigma was made around the same time, which clearly demonstrates an interest in the subject, and there's no reason to suppose that someone couldn't have raised the finance to film the true story of HMS Bulldog. German TV, after all, was able to made Da Boot, while more recently the BBC dramatised the Laconia Incident, both of which are technically comparable in film-making terms. Whether such a film would have appealed to US audiences isn't really as simple a question as you seem to suggest. American films genrally make a lot of money in America because they are heavily promoted to American audiences in a way that "foreign" films aren't, but even so many make more money outside of the US than they domestically. On the other hand, some non-US films make more money in the US than they do in their home country. Before The King's Speech, who would have bet money on it being as successful in the US as it turned out to be? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My point was that film making is a business and that the people providing the finance need to be reasonably sure of getting a return on their investment. With a US film the demographics ensure that even the most crappy of movies will at least make some money. The same is not true for the UK film industry, which, as I mentioned before in my initial post, seemed incapable of making a film that sufficient numbers of people would actually pay to see. It's the difference between breaking even and loss. With one the investor doesn't make money, but he doesn't lose any either. If the film makes a loss however, the investor will be lucky to get any money back at all. This is what I meant by it being a business. Once an investor has had his fingers burnt, he won't be keen on getting them burnt again. So that's one possible source of finance no longer available. Unfortunately, the British film industry had been doing this for some time, and by the time of the relevant issue, the likelihood of finding anyone willing to risk their money in a film on a subject matter such as the U-110/HMS Bulldog event was almost certainly rather slim.

My point was also that it's fine to make the sort or 'arty' or costume drama type of film, but the likelihood is that you won't make a lot of money - the people who actually get off their backsides and go to a cinema just aren't (for the most part) the sort of people who find that genre interesting. And it's money that allows a film maker to make more films. Once you stop making money then you can't finance your own films, and so have to get someone else to do it. That means you then have to find someone willing to invest in your film idea - and he's only going to invest if he thinks the film will make money. So the film maker is then restricted in what he/she can make a film about. See. That decides the subject matter for a film, and I was stating that in around 2000, no British investor was likely to put their money into a film that they couldn't see making money. It's not about what you or I think will make a good, popular, film - it's what the people with the money think. That's how it works.

Back in the 1950s-70s the people making the films knew what made money and also had access to the finance needed to make these sort of films. Some time in the 1980's-1990's this seemed to change, and the British film industry stopped making films that attracted large enough audiences. This meant that the films they DID make lost money. So eventually the film makers were deprived of the source of income they needed to make the sort of films they wanted - you may remember some of them complaining about being 'unable to finance' their 'new' film(s). They'd already stopped making the sort that the paying customer wanted. So they were then dependant on investors. And professional investors don't like taking risks. So the film maker then has to convince someone else with money to invest in their film idea. And these people tend to like 'art' films that they can claim an interest in. And any film about the U-110/HMS Bulldog encounter was not likely to fit into this genre.

... and they didn't make a film about it either.

And Das Boot was made twenty years earlier for WDR a German state broadcaster, the equivalent of the BBC, and by 2000 the BBC were not likely to have made a comparable film about U-110/HMS Bulldog - these were the immediate post-John Birt years when they were in the middle of dismantling everything good that the organisation had previously stood for.

The other point that may be worth making is that television and film are actually different. TV can, more or less, make and show any old crap and get away with it. Film makers, on the other hand, actually have to make people pay to see their efforts on the cinema screen. That makes a difference in what the film maker can get away with. Contemporary film makers should bear in mind that, as a rule, people aren't prepared to pay good money just to see what looks like the film maker's home videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

" ... no reason to suppose that someone couldn't have raised the finance to film the true story of HMS Bulldog" - you have missed the point I was trying to make completely. The only reason that one would need to raise finance is because the film-maker or production company has no money of his or her own with-which to finance a film. So he/she has to find someone else outside of the film making industry to stump-up the money, someone who likely has none of the film-maker's own cinematic interests, but who is interested only in the money he/she gets back. This limits the type/genre of film that will get financed, and it's the type of film that the financier thinks will make money that will get financed.

To make a career making films one needs to make films that make money, which is then re-invested in making more films, etc., This is possible for a studio, such as the old Ealing or Hammer ones used to, because they spread their risk over multiple films, so that if one film bombs at the box office it is not too important, they still make money on the others. This money is used to pay people's wages, and other costs, and the remainder is used to finance the production of future films. Making a 'one-off' film however doesn't usually allow this as the financier wants a bigger cut of the return which leaves little left to the film-maker for making new films.

Do you know how many of the biggest film-makers and directors knew their latest new film was going to be a smash hit with the public when released and make millions of pounds/dollars - none of them. Kind Hearts and Coronets, The Ladykillers, Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, North by Northwest, Psycho, Star Wars, Alien, etc., etc,. Not one 'classic' film was made as such. Their subsequent successes at the box office were all surprises to the film-makers - whether they admit it or not.

The moral for British (and other) film makers is that, unless you are a millionaire and can afford to lose money, if you are self-indulgent and don't make the type of films the public want to see, pretty soon you won't be able to make the films you want, instead the only films you'll be making are the ones your financiers - if you can find any - think will make them money. And unfortunately, they are no better judge of the public's tastes and interests than anyone else.

... or, if the film doesn't "put bums on seats in the cinema" then it isn't worth making. No matter how worthy a story it may appear to be to the film-maker. If you want to make films then better make sure that at least more than a handful of people are likely to want to watch it. If not, then they are no more than the film-maker's home movies.

.. also, contrary to what many media classes at college will tell you, to make good films you do need a modicum of talent. One only needs to see some of the truly abysmal films, often made by ex-TV directors going into big screen cinema who haven't grasped the differences between directing for TV and directing for the big screen, made and shown on TV over the last ten or fifteen years - and despite its criticisms I don't include U-571 here - to see that some people are of the opposite opinion.

... I could also mention that although tempting to a new film-maker, an offer of money to make a film is no excuse for making an esoteric first film that no-one else is ever likely to want to see. Make something that is likely to be popular, and you may then get to make more films, possibly later including the ones you would like personally to make. If you don't do this, then that first film you make is also likely to be your last. To make many successful films you have to not please yourself (or the critics) if it's at the cost of pleasing your public. They are the ones who pay for your film-making.

..the other thing is that if you are attempting to film an epic story set in such places as the Antarctic and go to the expense of location shooting off Greenland, it is probably best to show the remoteness of the characters from civilisation in wide panning long shots to emphasize the bleakness of the location, and the seeming hopelessness of their situation, otherwise you may just as well have filmed the boat scenes at the local lido. A fine opportunity to tell a truly epic story wasted. Unlike Touching the Void which, although in-effect a documentary, was excellent.

Most of what I have just written above was fairly self-evident to competent people within the UK and US film industries as early as the 1920s, but for some reason the people on this (UK) side of the pond seem to have forgotten it. Or more likely, the people who had drifted into film-making during the 1980s and later were never aware of these film 'facts of life' in the first place. They were/are too busy trying to 'create art', which unfortunately the public - which ultimately pays for the film-maker's wages - isn't interested in. Just ask any painter or sculptor struggling to make a living. The people who knew about film-making as a business gradually left over time or got old and retired, and the new people replacing them didn't know how to run the business side. That's why the British film industry died. The people who knew what they were doing left, and the people who replaced them didn't have a clue and so what films they did make no-one wanted to watch. Same as for the whole of British industry really. Run into the ground by people who didn't know their a**e from their elbow.

.... and that's almost certainly why no-one ever made a film about the U-110 and HMS Bulldog. The people with the money to put up to finance the film would probably have never even heard of the incident and in any case are likely not to have thought anyone would want to watch (and pay for) a film about it. Financial people know about money, not film audiences, see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.50 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"General Inaccuracies" section

I think the entire "general inaccuracies" sections should be removed. This is a movie, and as they state in the first paragraph, COMPLETELY FICTITIOUS. Unless we are going to make a point to create an inaccuracies section in every movie there is a page for, I think that this section serves no purpose at all except to clutter up the article. It may serve a purpose if this was a movie based on actual events, as a comparison between the movie's storyline and history, but in the case of a fictitious story, it doesn't need to be there. I deleted it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Odie1344 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And I have reinstated it. The lack of factual accuracy received extensive media coverage at the time, and so it is valid to cover the subject on this page. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Must agree with you here, Nick. The movie was even discussed in your Parliament, thus your point is valid. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed completely inaccurate statements regarding Thompson submachine guns in this section. Editor had added a comment concerning them, stating that the Navy Boarding Party had folding stock Thompsons, which was inaccurate considering only Parachute units had these weapons. In actuality, no one had these weapons, as they did not exist, at least not as mainstream production examples. I believe they were confused by a variety of things. The OSS operative (played by David Keith) carried a Reising M55, an unreliable folding stock submachine gun issued in limited numbers to the Navy and Marines on the front line. This is indeed historically accurate. The remainder of the boarding team did carry Thompson submachine guns, in fact many appeared to be the more period correct M1928A1 example. And while early production Thompsons (namely the M1921, M1928, and early M1928A1s) did feature an easily removable stock and the weapon could function without it, there was not a folding stock Thompson that ever reached mainstream production (despite the myriad of subvariants that were produced using whatever parts were available). Finally, as for the Airborne comment, I believe the editor in question was confused with the M1 carbine, which did in fact have two folding stock variants issued principally to Airborne units, the M1A1 with side-folding stock and the incredibly limited manufacture/issue M1A3 with an underfolding stock. Just thought I would explain the removal.SAWGunner89 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

After further research I have reinstated the comment I was discussing above. It does indeed appear that for this film a number of M1928A1 Thompsons were extensively modified to a unique configuration that has no positively verifiable precedent in history. M1A1 carbine side-folding stocks and unique, Hollywood style star-fish compensators were fitted to these weapons. While a side-folding stock would have been handy for the CQB situations encountered in clearing an enemy submarine, there is simply no evidence that such a Thompson was ever completed or officially so-modified. However, necessity, in-field ingenuity and modification have long been the mothers of unique modifications to weaponry and equipment.SAWGunner89 (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There are guidelines at WP:FILMHIST to address this subject matter. In short, we need to reference reliable sources that compare this film to history. We cannot be making the comparison ourselves. There is a lot of that being done here, which is original research. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Erik, much of this section is in violation of WP:FILMHIST, WP:OR, and/or WP:SYN. In addition, comments sections/discussion forums are being used as sources that directly call out the movie for some of these inaccuracies, and thus violated WP:USERGENERATED. This is a work of fiction, unless reliable secondary sources specifically calling out these as inaccuracies in the film can be found, this section must be removed. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So, Nick Cooper, I look forward to your rather lengthy sections on "Historical Inaccuracies" in movies such as "Battle of Britain" and "Dam Busters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.214.238 (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

U-570 picture

Why is there a picture of U-570. There is no mention of this vessel anywhere in the text so I can't see what this is trying to illustrate. How does this picture relate to the film or the related real-life events?Tvx1 23:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Segregation

After reading Racial segregation in the United States Armed Forces#African-Americans 3, I can't tell if the role of Carson (played by Carson) is accurate. Would a black seaman be in a submarine crew and be ready to operate the devices he operates? Do you know? Antinitpicker antinitpicks:

While sub crews were not fully integrated at the time, African-Americans did serve, as shown here, as messmen and stewards.

Black men were allowed on submarines as cooks or stewards in WWII. In a sub everyone has to know two or three jobs. Often this was the only way for a black man to learn technical jobs like sonar or navigator.

Every man on the submarine learns the controls since they're out at sea for so long and it is so crucial to be able to run the submarine at all times.

--Error (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)