War films; which need to be remade?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Charge of the Light Brigade
tgoc — 19 years ago(January 03, 2007 10:42 PM)
Films like "The Dam Busters", "Zulu" "A Bridge too Far" do not need to be remade. As cinematic retellings of the true stories on which they are based, they have done all that can be done, for better or worse, and nothing would be gained by trying to cover the same ground again. "The Charge of the Light Brigade" (1968) notwithstanding the talents of the actors involved, was a travesty of the film-maker's art, and could, with profit, be replaced by a better treatment of the subject. After all, it would not be particularly expensive all you would need are the uniforms, some horses, and artillary pieces of the period which are not hard to find. And, God knows, the story offers a wealth of good parts for which many actors would sell their souls.
And what about "Custer's Last Stand"? "Little Big-Man" had its own agenda, and truth, or even good film-making, had little to do with it. There is now a wealth of historical data on this event, information which would make the making of a good film possible.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this matter?
TGOC -
lambrettaguy200 — 19 years ago(January 21, 2007 03:00 AM)
I think remakes of films can be a two-edged sword. In theory, we would all think that new methods of film-making, CGI, sound and visual quality etc should make every re-make of large scale epics better than the original. But of course, as ever, studio financial pressures will probably get in the way. The need to make the film sell to the biggest potential movie audience may compromise the screenplay (or original source), as always. And I have to say that whilst CGI can add a lot to the viewing spectacle, it can be overdone or relied on too much. (Pearl Harbor for instance)
I am thinking about 3 films here.:- Battle of Britain, Tora Tora Tora and Pearl Harbor. On paper, Pearl Harbor should win hands down and indeed the attacks on the ships sequences are impressive. However, the aerial sequences of the film look like Star Wars as well as the contrived story-line and I for one was very disappointed. I preferred Battle of Britain (Christopher Plummer added for US box office potential) and Tora3 for their use of real vintage WW2 planes and the aerobatic skills they showed. Though amassing an impressive number of planes, these were still small compared to real events, but clever use of a limited number of planes, imaginative filming, plus ground-scene dummies, gave a good effect.
Bridge Too Far had impressive drop-scenes, but the story was too detached in the telling to become really involved with the characters. Box-Office wise, it had an impressive American cast (for US box office), though the real reason for Dickie Attenborough's film was to showcase the gallant British failure at Arnhem itself. It was a series of cameos. Also, I found the 'German' tanks a let-down, but I appreciate the only still-operating Tiger Tank in the world is at Bovington Camp, Dorset, UK. The infantry of the 43rd Div looked too much like extras to me - probably local Dutch extras (filmed around Deventer).
Zulu Dawn was an attempt to tell the prequel to Rorkes Drift and dress the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regt of Foot more accurately, compared to the sparkling white helmets of "Zulu". For US box, Burt Lancaster was a character in the film.
I liked the Charge of the Light Brigade, especially the uniforms of the light cavalry. I did notice however that every scene depicting Highlanders, they only showed the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders. In fact they were part of the Highland Brigade, along with 42nd Black Watch and 79th Cameron Highalnders. I wish they had showed the 93rd's stopping the Russian cavalry at Balaklava and earning the Times newspaper nickname 'Thin red streak tipped with steel' which became the Thin Red Line'. I seem to recall that the movie had to re-dress the British heavy cavalry for technical filming reasons, so they wore blue instead of the proper red.
Which brings us to Waterloo - Sergei Bonderachuk / Dino Di Laurentis' spectacle film using thousands of Warsaw Pact army extras. Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer (US Box ?) though they put up a good showing. The aerial panoramic scenes were jaw-dropping at the time (1970 ?). The colourful uniforms and mass spectacle ! But, in 2007 Waterloo could be re-made on a mind-numbing scale with skillful and sensible use of CGI. But is it worth it ? Will people queue to see it ?
But if they won't queue for a new Waterloo, would they queue for a new Charge of the Light Brigade ? -
tgoc — 19 years ago(January 21, 2007 06:45 PM)
Dear Lambrettaguy,
Many thanks for a most interesting message. I appreciate your emphasis on box-office appeal.
I would think we would have to take it as a given that, sadly, audiences don't give a damn about historiacal accuracy, or about history for that matter. But a good story is a good story and a well-made film is Whether we are talking sci-fi or the equally remote past.
What I objected to about the Charge(1968) was the contrived element of anti-war editorialism, those stupid little animated sequences and so on. The actors themselves, in particular the late great Trevor Howard, did all that one could ask.
I have to say that I found the Battle of Britain pretty good value, but then I was pulling for the side that won, and again there were many fine, if brief, performances.
I find it amusing that you twice mention Mr Plummer with reference to American box-office along the lines of James Garner and Steve McQueen in that travesty "The Great Escape" in that he is Canadian.
As you say, it is difficult to imagine what would appeal to the public. The Battle of Waterloo was, you know, pretty important as was the Battle of Britain in terms of the future of the world. Perhaps a skilled film-maker could make that clear. And then there is the potentially fascinating contrast between the characters of that Sicilian up-start and the Duke of Wellington. The latter was a very much more interesting person than we are usually given to believe, Something interesting
could
be done with this material. And then the battle itself was not without interest full of an amazing number of little sub-plots.
Would enjoy pursuing this with you in future.
Yours,
TGOC -
lambrettaguy200 — 19 years ago(January 22, 2007 02:35 AM)
I think were of a like mind here. There are many fascinating stories waiting to be told or re-told and in the right hands, who knows ?
I really like Christopher Plummer and as you say, hes Canadian. I seem to recall James Garner in Great Escape wearing Canada titles on his RAF uniform, same as Cliff Robertson in 633 Squadron, Americans portraying Canadians in the RAF. In the Battle of Britain, despite his very acceptable English accent, Christopher Plummer asked the film-makers to give him Canada titles, his real nationality. This was duly done !
In Waterloo, I thought he was great as the Duke of Wellington, he had some cracking one-liners, some apocryphal, some actually verified at the time. One memorable one you might recall, as he lay resting under the tree before the battle, his second in command, Lord Uxbridge asked Your Grace, as your second in command, if you should be killed, what are your plans for todays battle ?. The Duke pushes his bicorne off his eyes, looks up and says with confidence and also surprise and bemusement at such a strange question Why, to beat the French, of course !
Just looking at my own country, Scotland, there are many historical stories which can make laughter, tears or frustration. Some have been told, some have not, yet I think most can be understood worldwide. Scotland has many tragic war stories, some are disasters brought on by poor decisions or manipulative leaders.
Just a few war stories:-
Battle of Flodden (1513) Scotlands most chivalrous and intelligent king, King James IV (who was of the Royal House of Stewart or Stuart), who championed the arts and creation of universities, had a dream to lead a Christian Crusade to the Holy Land. Meanwhile, the manipulative French King and Queen, whose country was at war with England, promised men and money for James Holy crusade if he took a Scottish army and invaded Northern England first. As France and Scotland had formed close ties in past years, James agreed and led his large army (accounts vary, about 30,000+) with his latest modern artillery and met the well-outnumbered English (maybe 7,000 men) at Flodden in Northumberland. James chivalrous nature was to be his undoing and when chided by the English commander for forming a strong hilltop position, was duped and out-manoeuvered by the English commander into leaving their strong position and coming down the marshy hillside to fight. This rough, soft terrain unraveled the Scots continental renaissance tactics of close-packed pike formations, allowing the English to get in close with halberds and axes and butcher the Scots army. The Scots artillery on the hill was now useless. Most of the Scottish army was killed, including King James, all his retainers, most of the entire Scottish nobility and many menfolk of the Highlands and Lowlands. The Scottish Border regions were also very hard hit and in particular the Borders town of Selkirk, which sent many light cavalry and foot-soldiers off to battle, saw only one armoured man on horseback return safely, who, as he arrived at the edge of the town, was so distraught, he was speechless and could only lower his banner toward the ground, to signify all the others were dead. Till this day, that 16th Century gesture is still replayed every year in Selkirk during that towns civic week, by a chosen Selkirk man intricately choreographing and maneuvering a Scottish flag on a staff to the rhythm of the town song, evidence of a centuries-old wound still hard to heal.
Culloden (1746) In the seemingly never-ending violent history of Scotland and the destructive effect of the Royal House of Stuart (think Mary Queen of Scots who caused civil war and lost her head, Charles I who caused civil war and lost his head, James VII/II who was the first Jacobite and caused a civil war and lost his throne, James Old Pretender who caused a civil war, Charles Edward Stuart Bonnie Prince Charlie who cause the last civil war), this was to have particular repercussions echoing down the years. In 1745, despite heartfelt pleas from Highland chiefs to leave things alone and stay in exile in France, Charles Edward Stuart Bonnie Prince Charlie, insisted on reclaiming the British throne for his father and intended to use his traditional position as Chief of Chiefs of Highland Clans to coerce and rally them to his cause. He soon had an army and the adventure started. The unprepared British authorities were surprised and defeated at first, but with winter, the Highlanders, who were guerrilla raiders and opportunists not suited to a long campaign, began to desert and the army retreated back to Scotland. Now pursued by a strong British force, including Scottish regiments, they were brought to bay at Culloden, near Inverness on a miserable day in April 1746. The battle was a massacre. The well-trained Royal Artillery fired round-shot which smashed paths through the clumps of men, until the Highlanders, tired and starved after days without food, could stand no more an -
tgoc — 19 years ago(January 24, 2007 07:46 PM)
Dear lambretta,
I am impressed beyond words by you knowledge of Scots history, the First War, and its connection to football.
( In case I did not make it clear, I am a Canadian, and for reasons I know not, our sports, whith the exception of hockey, which is something of a religion here, have mostly, saddly, followed American trends.)
As you say, Scottish history alone offers much material for what could be great films. I must say that I never saw "Braveheart", but from what little I know of it, Mel Gibson was grinding his own axes in that film. The same, I am told, is true of his film"Patriot", which even people who had no particular position on the American Rebellion found to be offensive.
The story of Col McCrae sounds like it would make an outstanding film, but I am not sufficiently familiar with younger actors to suggest much in the way of casting. Obviously, twenty years ago, it would have been a part
made
for Sir Sean Connery. Who was that brilliant young Scottish actor who was in "Train-spotting"? I think he went on to do some American television.
Speaking of Culloden, did you ever see that , I suppose the word would be docu-drama, about the battle done by, I think Lindsey Anderson ? It was rather quirky, with "reporters" interviewing the participants, but was quite striking. I remember a point at which one of the reporters held up a bag of shot and said," This is grape-shot, and this[ at which point we saw a group of charging Highlanders blown to smithereens] is what it does."
I should add that while I am Canadian, my maternal grandfather, name of Dorrance, fought with the Canadian army in the trenches. He was born in Kilmarnock.
There is sometyhing special about war films that I cannot quite define perhaps it is the chance to view humanity stretched to its uttermost, and sometimes it produces great films. You have no doubt heard of the various exploits of Sir Colin Campbell; now there is a man whose character and leadership would be well worth exploring.
Yours hoping to pursue this in future,
TGOC -
lambrettaguy200 — 19 years ago(January 28, 2007 12:45 AM)
I tend to feel that Mel G (sounds like one of the spice girls) tends to use his same acting formula no matter what the film role. To me, he was the same in Braveheart as in We Were Soldiers and other pics - the straight, sometimes awkward, honest guy confused by double-dealers and big politics (the eyebrow raise and distant 'its beyond me' look), who always has time to cross himself (are all his heroes RC ? I know he is himself and seems to fit it into film roles).
Braveheart is a good yarn if seen as that with its big battle scenes lovey-dovey scenes etc. It registers high on patriotism and 'bash the english' agenda, which Hollywood likes to do now and again (English actors have cornered the market in classy Hollywood villains). Historically it stretches fact such a long way its difficult to know where to start the inaccuracy list, but just look at it as a ripping yarn, that's all. Mind you, I first saw it in Bandar Lampung, Sumatera, Indonesia in 1995, with some Dutch work colleagues and a cinema full of everyday Indonesians. Remember Indonesia had a big struggle for independence against the Dutch in the mid/late 1940's, which they won. The audience was enthusiastic about this subtitled tale of a struggle for independence. But the ending - where Wallce is being tortured and dissected, when he shouts that last word "FREEDOM !!", as soon as the subttitled version of that word came up on screen "MERDEKA !!", the cinema audience went really wild, cheering and clapping as hard as they could. I was amazed ! I realised Freedom is a big word there.
Trainspotting actors included Ewen McGregor and Robert Carlyle.
Sir Colin Campbell ? Self-made man, born in poor background/surroundings in Glasgow, rising to General. Commanding the Highland Brigade in the Crimea (and direcing the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders defence of Balaklava - The Thin Red Line), then a rescue force in the Indian Mutiny to Cawnpore and Lucknow, in charge of the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders (6 VC's before breakfast) on both occasions. -
nowhereman-4 — 16 years ago(May 01, 2009 10:36 PM)
Lambrettaguy (and tgoc),
I realize these posts are more than a couple of years old now, but I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed them. You gentlemen's knowledge is impressive, to say the least!
I do have one minor correction, regarding "The Great Escape". You state:
I seem to recall James Garner in Great Escape wearing Canada titles on his RAF uniform, same as Cliff Robertson in 633 Squadron, Americans portraying Canadians in the RAF.
For all I know, you are correct about Hendley's insignia (but, see below). However, the character Hendley is definitely American. IIRC, this is stated more than once; plus, we see the only three Americans in camp - Hendley, Hilts, and Goff - leading the Independence Day celebration. There is also this, from IMDb's "Goofs" section on "The Great Escape":
Incorrectly regarded as goofs: Hendley wears USA flashes on his uniform. This shows that he is an American serving in the RAF and is a member of the Famous "Eagle" squadrons, three squadrons composed of Americans who joined the RAF. This also means that Hendley was shot down before 1944, since the squadrons were re-absorbed by the USAAF at that time.
Sorry to nitpick such a marvelously written post.
All the situations you describe have the potential for excellent portrayals on the silver screen. "Culloden", especially, if handled correctly. Whether or not any such films would find a large audience is another matter - but then, I suppose that's true of any film endeavor.
In regards to historical accuracy - I give a damn about it (and I certainly give a damn about history!), but not to the point of obsession. If a group of soldiers is shown carrying a model of rifle that was, in reality, introduced three years later, that in no way detracts from the movie, for me. "Gods And Generals" is a good example. All the uniforms, flags, equipment, and ordnance are rendered completely accurately, in meticulous detail - but that still doesn't make it a good film. And this is from an avid student of the American Civil War (about which there is still a serious dearth of good movies). On this matter, I tend to subscribe to Roger Ebert's view, expressed in his review of "Gods And Generals" - historical accuracy is an attribute, not a virtue. It shouldn't be the be-all end-all of moviemaking. You can still have a beautiful, affecting film, even if a few caps are the wrong color.
I have long been fascinated by your native Scotland. I don't really know why - my people were German and English. I guess it started with a boyhood obsession with Nessie! For someone over 45 years of age, I am embarrassingly poorly travelled, but I
have
managed to make it to Scotland, twice. On the first trip in 2000, I visited the field at Culloden (but sadly, arrived after the visitors center had closed). Four years later, I stopped in the Scottish National War Memorial at Edinburgh Castle. Magnificent! Unfortunately, interior photography was forbidden, and the gift shop had no good books on the Memorial. I need to find one on the web, somewhere.
Thanks again to you and tgoc, for all your wonderful contributions! -
Hancock_the_Superb — 16 years ago(May 21, 2009 03:19 PM)
I don't particularly like Pearl Harbor, but neither can I claim to be a fan of Battle of Britain or Tora! Tora! Tora! - both represent bloated epic filmmaking at its worst. I did love A Bridge Too Far though.
"If you cant say something good about someone, sit right here by me." -
tgoc — 19 years ago(January 31, 2007 07:46 PM)
Dear Ethelred, the ill-advised, or badly-counselled,
I can't say that I agree with you about the "Dam Busters". The great appeal of that film was its intricasy, not its scale. I don't see how CGI could improve on those scenes where they were trying to perfect the bomb. And after all, the mission itself only involved some 18 aircraft, so again an epic, army-of-millions scale is hardly needed.
But as I've said , I think that much could be done with the Battle of Waterloo. I mean a good film-maker like the man who did "Lord of the Rings" could bring out the importance of the event itself, the major personalities, the weight of numbers involved, the extreme violence of it all, and the many sub-plots that the facts make available, and could make of it a very fine film.
Yours,
TGOC
" Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained." -
tgoc — 19 years ago(February 16, 2007 12:40 AM)
Dear Ethelred,
If you are interested in a war film that really would benefit from CGI, I suggest that you get your hands on a copy of Len Deighton's "Bomber." Why that has not already been made into a film I cannot imagine.
Yours,
TGOC -
rglasby — 17 years ago(September 19, 2008 12:31 PM)
David Putnam tried to get the money together to make a movie about an RAF bomber mission - unfortunately he couldn't get enough backing
So he changed it to a USAAF bomber mission, got the backing and made "Memphis Belle" -
tgoc — 16 years ago(May 08, 2009 09:47 PM)
Dear Rags:
Well, there you are. A film of "Bomber" would (or could) have been good. "M.B." was another matter entirely: good of its kind, but a different kind, in my often wrong opinion.
But many thanks for your response.
TGOC -
mumpymorte — 16 years ago(April 04, 2009 05:16 AM)
"Culloden" for sure.
Peter Watkins' docudrama is quite commendable, but I always yearned for a big budget retelling of this harrowing and tragic tale. A problem from the "Hollywood" film making point of view would be a lack of sympathetic major characters on either side of the conflict; Prince Charles was an ass, plain and simple, and "Stinking Billy" Cumberland was an ignorant butcher. I would hate to see Bonnie Prince Charlie romanticized yet again. That silly film with David Niven was quite enough, thank you.
Perhaps one of the "minor" characters, especially on the Jacobite side, could be the focus of such a film. The story itself is certainly prime material for a cracking good piece of cinema.
I'm led to understand that the short film made for the Culloden Battlefield visitor's center is very good indeed. But I've only seen a tiny trailer, the only way to see the whole thing, so far as I know, is to travel to Culloden itself, and as wonderful as that would be, it is an impossibility for me. -
nowhereman-4 — 16 years ago(May 01, 2009 10:49 PM)
mumpymorte -
I think your idea for a big budget depiction of the Culloden story is spot on. I like your idea of focusing on one of the Jacobean lesser lights - perhaps even an ordinary soldier that managed to survive the battle, and brutal aftermath. Maybe the film could begin with the "battle" - "slaughter" might be more appropriate - and then cover a number of years after, showing how effectively and harshly the old Highland way of life was strangled to death. Perhaps end with the emigration of the old soldier and his family.
One question: what is the title of the Niven film of which you speak?
I made it to Culloden in 2000, but unfortunately, I arrived after the visitors' center had closed. So, I haven't seen that short, either. Doesn't look like I'll make it back over anytime soon, either. -
david_colbourne — 16 years ago(August 27, 2009 01:32 PM)
The Niven film is called "Bonnie Prince Charlie", made in 1948 with Niven as the bonnie prince. If I remember rightly it doesn't have that much in common with actual events! Niven didn't appear to rate it too highly, either, judging by his account in his autobiography, it appears to have been an uncomfortable experience.
There is another film about Culloden, "Chasing the Deer", 1994, starring Brian Blessed and Iain Cuthbertson. Little known, but very good, I've got a copy on video, well worth a look if you can track it down. -
Hancock_the_Superb — 16 years ago(May 21, 2009 03:16 PM)
I'd like to see a newer film on the Boxer Rebellion. 55 Days at Peking isn't bad for what it is, but we know so much more about the Rebellion in 2009 compared to 1963 that a remake in the right hands would probably be an improvement. Certainly the simplistic "world unites to smite a common enemy" theme of the original could be turned into something far more interesting and complex - "world powers forced to grudgingly cooperate with one another, each trying to protect their own turf and prestige."
"If you cant say something good about someone, sit right here by me."
Could always have done the Augsburg daylight raid, I suppose.