Film Irvin

[Hawkeye]

A few screenshots for your consideration from Battle of Britain. What say you guys, civie sold copy or costume department creation?

And say what you want about the accuracy of Robert Shaws sweater, but DAMN does it ever look good.

 

[deeb7]

What say you guys, civie sold copy or costume department creation?

Okay ....... here's the first clue.

 

[Cliff]

The seam tapes on "Simon's" jacket look as if they were almost painted on !!!! Maybe a civvy copy that the wardrobe department has attempted to make a little more realistic.....though with all those panels in what should be a jacket made no later than 1940 is a little confusing . But in 1968 no body could analyse frame by frame a film even if there was a jacket nut around who would have wanted too, so I guess they thought they were dressing the actors in realistic "costumes" !!!

rgds

cliff

 

[Geir]

I think Christopher Plummer has a sheepskin jacket with no windflap in that film, but that is not a big deal when you consider that all the He 111s and Bf 109s use Merlin engines.

 

[Roughwear]

I guess its supposed to be a "copy" of a late War multi-panel jacket made by the costume department. Shame-they could even have used an original two panel jacket. There were many available in the '60s which, then, could be bought cheaply. But 100% authenticity did not bother the film makers.

 

[tgd31968]

I guess its supposed to be a "copy" of a late War multi-panel jacket made by the costume department. Shame-they could even have used an original two panel jacket. There were many available in the '60s which, then, could be bought cheaply. But 100% authenticity did not bother the film makers.

And, since the studios all have huge wardrobe departments, it is easier to buy something and modify it or knock out one from scratch than to hunt all over for an original jacket that fits the actor. Also, "fitting" the actor does not mean proper fit, but an attractive on screen fit. Look at some of the jeans they stuff actors into to show off the undercarriage.

 

[havocpaul]

From what I recall they purchased civvie Irvin-style jackets with a few costume hire jackets too. The Luftwaffe leathers were obtained from Lewis Leathers 'off the peg'. Obviously the main budget went on getting all the aircraft together and the costumes and in particular make-up/hair styles were stuck in the 1960's which spolit the London blitz scenes especially.

 

[Roughwear]

I guess its supposed to be a "copy" of a late War multi-panel jacket made by the costume department. Shame-they could even have used an original two panel jacket. There were many available in the '60s which, then, could be bought cheaply. But 100% authenticity did not bother the film makers.

And, since the studios all have huge wardrobe departments, it is easier to buy something and modify it or knock out one from scratch than to hunt all over for an original jacket that fits the actor. Also, "fitting" the actor does not mean proper fit, but an attractive on screen fit. Look at some of the jeans they stuff actors into to show off the undercarriage.

Now if ELC or Aero had been around in the 1960s it might have been a different story. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

From what I recall they purchased civvie Irvin-style jackets with a few costume hire jackets too. The Luftwaffe leathers were obtained from Lewis Leathers 'off the peg'. Obviously the main budget went on getting all the aircraft together and the costumes and in particular make-up/hair styles were stuck in the 1960's which spolit the London blitz scenes especially.

Still while not authentic, the Lewis Leather Corsair looks the part! http://filmjackets.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=763

 

[Geir]

About 15 years ago I was a member of Historiske Militære Kjøretøyers Forening (The Society for the Preservation of Historical Military Vehicles) in Norway because I owned a GMC 2 1/2 ton truck. I remember a guy who had seen A Bridge too Far and complained that there was something or other wrong with a German half track that completely spoiled the film for him.

Going back even further: When I was at high school my girl friend's brother very nearly walked out of the theatre when he discovered that all the slaves in a film set in Ancient Egypt 4500 years ago all had scars on their shoulders from smallpox inoculation.

I tried to point out to The Wife what was wrong with the Irvin jackets in The Battle of Britain when we saw it on DVD some time ago. She just gave me that look with slightly raised eyebrows and said nothing. So I realize that the worries expressed here are the symptoms of compulsive obsessive disorder to the rest of the world.

 

[havocpaul]

We do suffer from some kind of disorder! The best example to look for is in the film 'Excalibur' from the 1980's where soldiers running around the castle ramparts have one of their troop with a cigarette in his mouth!! I have to admit I have not enjoyed films or TV programmes because of some mistake with wardrobe or vehicle/'plane etc but I think we should expect near perfection these days and Private Ryan, Band of Brothers have certainly moved the goalposts for getting it right.

 

[havocpaul]

'Excalibur' being about King Arthur in the dark ages, forgot to say.....

 

[Anonymous]

Dark Ages; pre GoodWear period.

 

[Anonymous]

C'mon guys. You can't say that a film from the 1970's has got something 'wrong' !! I think it is a reflection of the fact that attention to detail that has massively improved. I'm not sure if we as an audience, got more picky or if the levels of detail improved so we became more aware of these finer details but if someone says to me that the BoB movie was spoiled because the He111's had Merlin engines, I say 'get a life'. No-one complained when those movies came out about such things and it is unfair to judge an older movie on today's standards. There are no genuine original He111's out there and using CGI it is as easy to make something correct as incorrect. There is also the reality that budgets have gone up to insane levels and therefore attention to detail is covered. No-one wants to make a movie these days where anyone can say that '£250 million was spent and they couldn't even get the engines right' do they ?

I recall the SS camo in 'A Bridge Too Far' was wrong but I was just pleased that the movie was made and didn't care if the materiel wasn't quite right. The important fact were all there.

Dave

 

[havocpaul]

Fair enough but at the time (1969) there was criticism about the lack of care in the fashion which lost the real 'feel' of 1940 Britain. The aircraft were fine with some of the finest flying sequences ever filmed, the Heinkels and Me-109's may have had Merlin engines and several Spits were much later models but they did look 'right'. Modern techniques don't always succeed, take Pearl Harbor as an obvious example; the unrealistic cgi flying was truly awful in places and it was way inferior to the real flying done in Tora, Tora, Tora. No amount of Eastman jackets could save that movie.

 

[greyhound52]

Fair enough but at the time (1969) there was criticism about the lack of care in the fashion which lost the real 'feel' of 1940 Britain. The aircraft were fine with some of the finest flying sequences ever filmed, the Heinkels and Me-109's may have had Merlin engines and several Spits were much later models but they did look 'right'. Modern techniques don't always succeed, take Pearl Harbor as an obvious example; the unrealistic cgi flying was truly awful in places and it was way inferior to the real flying done in Tora, Tora, Tora. No amount of Eastman jackets could save that movie.

Yeah Paul but it was cool to see "Zeros" flying over Pearl. I was there during the filming and was out running with a Navy buddy of mine when they flew overhead. He stopped in his tracks and shouted out "their doing it again". I almost busted a gut laughing. :lol:

 

[tgd31968]

Fair enough but at the time (1969) there was criticism about the lack of care in the fashion which lost the real 'feel' of 1940 Britain. The aircraft were fine with some of the finest flying sequences ever filmed, the Heinkels and Me-109's may have had Merlin engines and several Spits were much later models but they did look 'right'. Modern techniques don't always succeed, take Pearl Harbor as an obvious example; the unrealistic cgi flying was truly awful in places and it was way inferior to the real flying done in Tora, Tora, Tora. No amount of Eastman jackets could save that movie.

Yeah. I left a DVD copy of Pearl harbor on the floor, and my cat tried to bury it. After about 20 min of that POS, I was rooting for the Japanese.

 

[Geir]

I'm as obsessive as the next guy, but I obsess about different things. When I saw Battle of Britain in 1969 or 1970 the Irvin jackets didn't bother me at all. They were brown and had these furry collars and that was good enough for me. But the Bf 109s with Merlin engines did bother me as did the lack of Dorniers. OK, I know that weren't any Do17s around, but it did not look right.
What annoys me today is casting: Most of the stars in these movies are far too old for the characters they play. When Battle of Britain was made Christopher Plummer was 40, Robert Shaw was 42 and Michael Caine was 36. For comparison Douglas Bader was 30 during the Battle of Britain. In The War Lover Robert Wagner and Steve McQueen are 32. Tom Hanks said that he was about 10 years too old for the character he payed in Saving Private Ryan (which I think is one of the best war movies ever). I think I remember reading somewhere that when they made The Memphis Belle they did not want to use well known actors, but people of the right age for the part.
It's not just the jacket — you need to have the right person inside it.

 

[Roughwear]

I'm as obsessive as the next guy, but I obsess about different things. When I saw Battle of Britain in 1969 or 1970 the Irvin jackets didn't bother me at all. They were brown and had these furry collars and that was good enough for me. But the Bf 109s with Merlin engines did bother me as did the lack of Dorniers. OK, I know that weren't any Do17s around, but it did not look right.
What annoys me today is casting: Most of the stars in these movies are far too old for the characters they play. When Battle of Britain was made Christopher Plummer was 40, Robert Shaw was 42 and Michael Caine was 36. For comparison Douglas Bader was 30 during the Battle of Britain. In The War Lover Robert Wagner and Steve McQueen are 32. Tom Hanks said that he was about 10 years too old for the character he payed in Saving Private Ryan (which I think is one of the best war movies ever). I think I remember reading somewhere that when they made The Memphis Belle they did not want to use well known actors, but people of the right age for the part.
It's not just the jacket — you need to have the right person inside it.

Thanks for this Geir. I too share you views entirely on the BoB (planes and flight gear) and the problem of having actors of the right age.

 

[MikeyB-17]

I'm terrible for this kind of thing-historical and technical inaccuracy in films drives me mad. I can stand the likes of 'Battle of Britain' or 'Battle of the Bulge', where they had to use what they had available at the time, but I, for example, have never watched 'Where Eagles Dare' past the first ten minutes, upon seeing the Germans using a 1960's Bell helicopter to get to and from the castle. That sort of blatant disregard for realism gets on my wick. I know that historical accuracy isn't the film makers' highest priority, but I like to see some sort of effort being made.
It's nice to see films like 'Saving Private Ryan', where at least some effort has gone into accuracy (that having been said, I saw a site once which listed pages of inaccuracies from SPR, but thankfully I'm not quite that anal). The thing is that your average filmgoer isn't really that bothered about the sort of things that annoy the likes of us-they just want to be entertained.