Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
The Film ARGO has won the Oscar for the Best Film. In the film the efforts of the British Embassy Staff to help the Hostages was ignored and, possibly, denegrated - why?
I know that Errol Flynn won the war in Burma and that the US Navy sorted out the Ultra Code Breaking problem and the Americans landed on D-Day by themselves but this is a step too far.
I wouldn't say they are anti- British. Hollywood has always employed its fair share of British actors/actresses. In fact it was probably the Brits which raised the standard of acting in America.
But they do seem to enjoy casting Brits as baddies don't they? Maybe other nation's actors can't or won't do baddies.
I have a feeling that Errol Flynn was Australian, but a heck of a lot of the best were, and still are British.
I've just been reading the story of the Convoys which took supplies to Russia during World War Two, and am surprised that no film has really been made to cover the many tales of courage and heroism by all nations in the terrible conditions in which they fought and died. Each and every convoy story is a blockbuster in itself. Maybe the other cold war prevented the tales of co-operation between Yanks-Brits-Russians and of course the Germans side of the story from being told.
There was an article yesterday in one of the Sunday papers how Hollywood rewrites history to suit the American views. Braveheart,Saving Private Ryan,The Patriot and U-571 to name 4. In fact the U571 film about a submarine commander who captures the first Enigma decoding machine caused a bit of a row. With Hollywood's inaccurate portrayal had the then prime minister Tony Blair calling the film an affront to British sailors.
The British film industry makes films which lean toward attracting American audiences for obvious reasons. We include American actors where possible to make the films attractive to the large audiences over there. But the Americans don't need to pamper to our audiences as I suspect the amounts of money involved are not all that much different. We still go and watch and pay towards "Saving Private Ryan" type films.
I wonder if the French, Italian, Australian and the Indian cinema audiences etc., have the same problems with wrongly portrayed stories?
I'm truly shocked. Next you'll be saying a boy can't sail in a small boat with a tiger and the French weren't singing all the time during the 1832 uprising.
It won 'Best Picture' not 'Documentary Feature'.
It seems to me that there are more and more British actors being cast in American made films. A film-maker's job is primarily to make money for the people who put up the production funding, and if that means deviating somewhat from total historical accuracy it's not such a terrible thing. A film's primary purpose is to entertain, after all.
FE the primary purpose of a film is to entertain- correct- but is it necessary to tell a deliberate lie. Apparently the film says that the Brits and the New Zealanders declined to help this is unnecessary lie. They could have ignored the Brit's help but to deny is is wrong.
Bing- alau You are correct. Flynn was born in Australia, became a Naturalised American, died in Canada and was buried in the USA. So says my friend - Mr Google.
The problem with films not being historically accurate is that there are people who only believe the film version.
Bing.alau - It would be very difficult to make a film about the convoys now. They would have to use archive film or cgi as the ships would not be available. The time to do it was soon after the war eg The Cruel Sea.
flycatcher1. I just had this memory from reading his story many years ago. It must have been a biography of his life. In it he tells the story of living on a farm somewhere in Australia. The bit that I have always remembered is that he tied a bit of fatty meat, or gristle to a length of string and fed it to a duck. It seems that he must have known that the fat would pass straight through the duck and out the other end. So he continued to feed the fat and of course the string through a dozen or so ducks until they were all in a line, stuck on the same string. I can't remember whether he got the hiding he deserved for that little escapade.
Wish I had known about it when I was a kid. Our gang of evacuees would have got some fun out of that.
The bit that I have always remembered is that he tied a bit of fatty meat, or gristle to a length of string and fed it to a duck. It seems that he must have known that the fat would pass straight through the duck and out the other end. So he continued to feed the fat and of course the string through a dozen or so ducks until they were all in a line, stuck on the same string.
There's more chance of a flying pig passing my window than there is of that story being true.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.