Discussion in 'WWII Films & TV' started by stgrhe, Jun 29, 2017.
70-mm will do that to you.
Now tell the kids what Kodachrome is.
I realize that I was quibbling! Re. your comment about leading the target: We Americans need to remember that gun-ownership in GB is much rarer than here and most British people haven't had the experiences we've come to take for granted. (NOT trying to start a gun-con debate here!)
To be fair, combat at low altitudes was a good way to walk or swim home...Only for the loser, but then again, the loser at low altitude will probably be the loser at higher altitudes.
You run a higher risk of flak...But it also tends to dissuade those pesky fighters chasing you. However, they do not refer to it as flak, but "friendly fire."
Low altitude is probably slightly safer for the bomber. It does not have to worry about any attacks from below. Nor, does it have to worry about any high side passes, that would put the enemy fighter right into the water.
That is because of the timing issue, the same firing passes were shown multiple times. IIRC, the Spit pilot was only firing in short bursts except for one, maybe two times
A song by Simon & Garfunkel...
"How long is thirty seconds?"
"Depend on whether or not you're on fire."
Perhaps one pass was shown multiple times but I interpret that each time was supposed to be a different pass.
In staying low they gave the advantage to the Germans. The spits were in their inferior 3-plane "vic" formation-vulnerable to a diving pass from the rear or out of the sun. The 109s attack would have probably been broken off with a climb since the Germans would have had superior speed plus an advantage in the climb. A turning battle, which was the spit's forte would have been short due to the fact that all dog fights lose altitude and there wasn't very much altitude to lose. Also, fuel was a big factor so flying at low level would have reduced the loitering time over the Dunkirk area.
The bomber (He 111) was at low level over the beaches and thus very vulnerable to the 40mm Bofors on the beaches and the light AA on the ships. No "friendly fire" there.
Your point about forced landings is right, harolds - the Hawker Hurricane in particular ( having a very large air intake beneath the fuselage ) was absolutely not an aircraft to 'pancake' on water.
Suppose I say that the play Macbeth does not give its audience an accurate view of the fundamental features of events in 11th century Scotland, and I explain why I say that. That is to talk about one particular aspect of the play: its relation to what actually happened in history. That’s all. There is no logical implication there about the intentions of the author of the play or about my opinion of the quality of the play.
Well for one born in 1940 Kodachrome was one of the first color films, not sure when Agfa showed up but it was a slow film, either lots of sun through a big lens or long exposure. It was a lush saturated color film, not totally clear but more like chiaroscuro, a renaissance look .. To this day I do not think it has been excelled for portraits . Ektachrome came along, faster but bluish instead of the warmth of Kodachrome. The color shots of WW2 are mostly Kodachrome but it's slowness was a problem in action shots.. I used a Argus C 3 back them and a pilot for the local military showed up with an German SLR Exacta V, made in the post war period . The Nikon of it's day !!!, we let him hunt on our land and he gave it to me as a gift..Not sure if the Germans or Japanese had color film in the war but I used Fugi long after it..
Of course digital changed all that, no film !!!, nor light meters , nor stop baths , etc. World is still changing.
The British actually did a good bit of bird hunting prior to WW 2, Where Purdey;, Boss, , Westley Richards, Greener , Webley , etc were at their peak but not available to everyone.. I highly recommend the "Shooting Party" a great movie and James Mason's last. He and John Guildgood give fine performances. It portends the coming of The Great War through a weekend of bird shooting. A must see movie..
My apologies for getting off tract ..
It's going to be the same for all films/plays...None purport to be an accurate view of the fundamental features of whatever events that they are portraying. You might as well look up at a blue sky, and say "The sky is blue."
Considering that the play "Macbeth" does not even give an accurate view of it's title character, one can only wonder as to why it would be expected to give an accurate view of the fundamental features of events in 11th century Scotland.
"The Pacific" miniseries does not give it's audience an accurate view of the fundamental features of the Pacific War. Nor does it purport to
"Band of Brothers" does not give it's audience an accurate view of the fundamental features of WW2 in the ETO. Nor does it purport to.
These two examples only look at one small slice of a greater overall whole.
Conversely, taken to the extremes, the film "Dunkirk" does present the fundamental features of Dunkirk Evacuation.
Fundamental feature #1: A bunch of guys on a beach - Check.
Fundamental feature #2: Waiting to get off - Check.
Fundamental feature #3: Another bunch of guys protecting them overhead - Check.
Fundamental feature #4: And, another bunch of guys coming to get them - Check.
Fundamental feature #5: They guys get off - Check.
Fundamental feature #6: Most make it, some don't - Check.
Of course...This will imply that what construes "Fundamental features" of the Dunkirk Evacuation can be agreed upon.
The Germans had Agfacolor since 1939, it wasn't that bad (an example here) but troublesome. It was available to amateurs too.
Thanks William, I thought maybe they did as it was available here in the early fifties and discussed before then in photo magazines. The Germans certainly had good glass, and optics as well..
In "Kong: Skull Island" Mason Weaver, the war photographer ("embedded with MACV-SOC") takes pictures of everything, and they're all black-and-white. This is 1973.
He was embedded with MACV SOC? Did the movie makers mean MACV SOG? SOC wasn't stood up until April 1987.
Yeah. I keep hearing "SOC" and just typed it. And
"Mason Weaver is a woman?!"
"Last time I checked."
One of those ladies who eats two grains of rice a day.
Apparently many liked Chrostpher Nolan's version of Dunkirk, but to me the film was a disapointment.
There were many fact faults and using, what appeared to be a 1980s destroyer with two radar trackers, was just too much for me. Also, in spite of his film’s $150m budget, the Royal Air Force seems to consist of three Spitfires, although real-life pilots flew 3,500 sorties at Dunkirk. The Luftwaffe, which Hitler made solely responsible for wiping out the beached Brits, seems able to summon up little more than a couple of Messerschmitts, three Stukas and one bomber. The Royal Navy appears to comprise just two destroyers; in fact, it deployed 39 destroyers and 309 other craft. Nolan’s film also chooses to ignore tales such as that of the Medway Queen, a paddle steamer that brought home 7,000 troops in seven round trips and shot down three German planes, or the Royal Daffodil, which returned 9,500 soldiers after blocking a hole below the waterline with a mattress. Instead, we encounter just one boat. Also the beach appeared too empty and there were no photage from Dunkirk harbour although many soldiers were evacuated there.
Too me the film lacked contex and were flat.
I FINALLY got to see the film now that the DVD is out (no cinemas within a hundred miles of me). I have to largely agree with strghe above, in that the panorama of such an enormous event is simply too small in the film. Not enough ships, planes, men... The sea is nearly empty in every shot, the sky over Dunkirk largely free of smoke, and the noise of battle missing or muted. The director had a 150 million budget which sounds like a lot, but isn't at all when you consider the enormity of the subject. I suppose he chose to focus on the stories of the characters in the film rather than the larger event around them. The film suffers for that. He might have gone CGI which has its own drawbacks, but it's so good nowadays that I think it would have been a better film.
Still, I'd give it 3.5 stars out of 5. The individual stories are intriguing even if the backdrop is lacking.
As I've said before, they could have told 400,000 individual stories minute-by-minute, but thankfully they didn't, my OMS* would have killed me.
*Old Man Syndrome
I was thinking tell the stories as done in the film (which I liked very much), but add 15 or 20 minutes of additional CGI footage, and better CGI in the background of the stories as seen in the film. This was Dunkirk, not a rainy Tuesday at Brighton Beach.