Film Irvin

[rich]

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.[/quote]


You seem to be completely overlooking the fact that films are made in order to make money, ie the investors want to make a return. The creative people involved with the film process often don't have the final word anyway, the money usually calls the shots. On-time and on-budget will decide the outcome, not the authenticity of something from the props department. The BOB cost an absolute fortune in it's day, and the likes of Michael Caine and Robert Taylor were far more likely candidates to put bums on seats than some 19 year old unknowns, had UA tried to finance this movie with unknowns it probably would never have been made in the first place. Personally I think it's a great film, warts and all - in 1969 I don't imagine they thought that in 2008 a group of obsessives would be sat at home, repeat freeze framing DVD's on their 48" plasmas.
The lack of Dorniers and Junkers and the model Ju87's are a source of disappointment I agree, you won't see a round of tracer either but despite these shortcomings - to a more sophisticated 21st century audience - IMO it's still a great tribute , the Walton scored sequence still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. The film was a box-office train wreck anyway but I believe it was a very sincere attempt to convey something of real historical importance to a wider audience and in this I don't think it can be regarded as a failure.

 

[Roughwear]

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.

You seem to be completely overlooking the fact that films are made in order to make money, ie the investors want to make a return. The creative people involved with the film process often don't have the final word anyway, the money usually calls the shots. On-time and on-budget will decide the outcome, not the authenticity of something from the props department. The BOB cost an absolute fortune in it's day, and the likes of Michael Caine and Robert Taylor were far more likely candidates to put bums on seats than some 19 year old unknowns, had UA tried to finance this movie with unknowns it probably would never have been made in the first place. Personally I think it's a great film, warts and all - in 1969 I don't imagine they thought that in 2008 a group of obsessives would be sat at home, repeat freeze framing DVD's on their 48" plasmas.
The lack of Dorniers and Junkers and the model Ju87's are a source of disappointment I agree, you won't see a round of tracer either but despite these shortcomings - to a more sophisticated 21st century audience - IMO it's still a great tribute , the Walton scored sequence still makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. The film was a box-office train wreck anyway but I believe it was a very sincere attempt to convey something of real historical importance to a wider audience and in this I don't think it can be regarded as a failure.[/quote]

Rich, The BoB is one of my favourite films. You have explained why the film is not 100% authentic which is fine. Of course most fims are made to make money, but neverthekess it is a shame that the flying kit is not accurate, especially as there were vets around who advised in the making of the film.Clearly gathering together all the aircraft was a huge outlay for the makers of the BoB. At least today when a war film is made the film makers can get good repro kit if they chose to so. ELC supplied the A2s for Pearl Harbor and the Irvins for the forthcoming Dambusters re-make.

 

[better duck]

(....) but nevertheless it is a shame that the flying kit is not accurate, especially as there were vets around who advised in the making of the film.

Ah well, maybe there is part of the explanation. Many of us who have met vets and queried them about the intricacies of their flight gear found out that they didn't remember, probably never noticed in the first place and - most of all - never cared one hoot.
How many a flyer in WW2 would have compared zipp brands and the pros & cons thereof on their A2 - or the cut of their pocket flaps with their mates?
So maybe it was exactly those vets that advised that those jackets, used in BoB, were just the thing (as they remembered them)

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, BTW I collect WW2 Flight jackets. Stop and and watch the starnge looks you get. Weird.

 

[rich]

Rich, The BoB is one of my favourite films. You have explained why the film is not 100% authentic which is fine. Of course most fims are made to make money, but neverthekess it is a shame that the flying kit is not accurate, especially as there were vets around who advised in the making of the film.Clearly gathering together all the aircraft was a huge outlay for the makers of the BoB. At least today when a war film is made the film makers can get good repro kit if they chose to so. ELC supplied the A2s for Pearl Harbor and the Irvins for the forthcoming Dambusters re-make.[/quote]

Sorry Andrew, got a bit defensive there didn't I? Have you ever noticed in the BoB hanger at Duxford, there's a documentary about the battle which runs on a continuous loop. It's packed with many out-takes from the film which I'd really hoped would be there on the DVD release- no such luck! The Irvin jackets in the film are indeed a let down, but hopefully the many other positives far outweigh these anomalies. (The doorway of Shaw's cottage must be particularly grating for the pedants.)

As for the Dambusters, if they choose to advocate complete authenticity, they're going to be walking a tightrope, the jackets will be the least of their worries................

 

[Hawkeye]

wow, didnt think this would end up generating so much discussion. Personally, I love the movie and the innaccurate gear doesnt really bother me. In fact, for me most of the films films deficiencys are more than made up by seeing a fleet of Heinkel 111s and 109s (yes yes really Merlin engined CASAs but just seeing the these very unique looking airframes beating around the sky is a real treat.) it's tremendous luck that the Spanish were still using these German designs so many years after the war, or who knows, we might have been watching a very different movie with B-25s and P-51s in German splinter camo :lol:

 

[Geir]

As for the Dambusters, if they choose to advocate complete authenticity, they're going to be walking a tightrope, the jackets will be the least of their worries................

I think Guy Gibson flew the Dambusters mission in his shirtsleeves so in this film there should not be any flight jacket problems at all.

 

[tgd31968]

(....) but nevertheless it is a shame that the flying kit is not accurate, especially as there were vets around who advised in the making of the film.

Ah well, maybe there is part of the explanation. Many of us who have met vets and queried them about the intricacies of their flight gear found out that they didn't remember, probably never noticed in the first place and - most of all - never cared one hoot.
How many a flyer in WW2 would have compared zipp brands and the pros & cons thereof on their A2 - or the cut of their pocket flaps with their mates?
So maybe it was exactly those vets that advised that those jackets, used in BoB, were just the thing (as they remembered them)

Big A-men. As pointed out, we, 60 years later have the luxury of sitting there studying pictures and equipment, measuring every stitch, every bolt, every whatever, and pounding our fists on the table about how inaccurate things are.
The real vets could give a Sh*t. They were given a jacket, a hat, a radio, a rifle, whatever, and they didn't pay that much attention as long as it worked. I remember asking my dad about things, as he was a 37 mm anti tank gunner on Leyete, and Okinawa, and he didn't remember details of uniforms or anything. I saw a pic of herringbone fatigues that were issued in the pacific, and I asked him if that was what he wore, and he didn't know. And this was when he was still of quite sound mind.

I occasionally get bugged by inaccuracies, but I consider the overall quality of the movie and if it is a serious attempt at depicting things more or less correctly. The movies are about the story, the people, the achievements.

If you watch BOB, A bridge too far, Midway, or any of them that tried seriously to portray the struggle and the bravery of the participants, and get upset about the sound of an engine, or the number of idler wheels on a tank, frankly, I think you are missing the point, to put in nicely.

 

[Geir]

I totally agree with you. Over the years I have read many books written by WW2 airmen and I have never come across any obsession with leather or sheepskin jackets. They had more serious things to worry about.
I may have given the impression that the inaccuracies in some of the major WW2 movies bother me, but they really don't. The point I was trying to make is that these films have inaccuracies that are more serious than bad flight jackets. I can even put up with tank battles where the Germans operate post war US tanks painted with black crosses, if the film itself is basically honest.
I have a sizable collection of war movies and BOB is definitely one of my favourites and I'm know that there are no Do17s in the film simply because there were no airworthy planes around and I know that a major effort like this needs an all-star cast to ensure commercial success.
I have even watched 633 Squadron more than once, and this film is total rubbish, but I only watch it because it is a chance to see Mosquitoes in the air. I fast forward over the rest of the film. By the way, in this film I suppose the use of Irvin Jackets by the crew of low-flying Mosquitoes is wrong. These planes were so well heated that sheepskin jackets were not used.

 

[rich]

I have even watched 633 Squadron more than once, and this film is total rubbish, but I only watch it because it is a chance to see Mosquitoes in the air. I fast forward over the rest of the film. By the way, in this film I suppose the use of Irvin Jackets by the crew of low-flying Mosquitoes is wrong. These planes were so well heated that sheepskin jackets were not used.[/quote]

I guess it's down to artistic license Geir, I've never sat in a Mossie but I gather it was so cramped in the cockpit (the Nav was perched on some kind of shelf rather than a seat) they probably couldn't have worn Irvin's even if they'd wanted to!
I found that the 'Memphis Belle' has aged very badly, it has a lot of weak SFX and bears no historical accuracy to real events -
their flying kit appears to be very good though?!? Anyone else seen this recently?

 

[Cliff]

[

I have even watched 633 Squadron more than once, and this film is total rubbish,

Rubbish ??? !!!!

When this film came out we all instantly became Mosquito pilots in the school playground !!!!

I will not have a word said against such a classic

Now "Mosquito Squadron" with David Mccallum ......that really was awful !!!!! :lol: :lol:

 

[Geir]

I'm sorry! It was not my intention to offend anyone!

One thing I don't get is: With all the dramatic things that happened during WW2 why are so many films made about events that are pure fiction. If you want to make a film about a daring Mosquito attack on Norway why not go for the attack on the Gestapo headquarters in Oslo. When I was a kid in the fifties that was still talked about by the grownups.

 

[Cliff]

Hi Geir

My rebuke was a little "tongue in cheek" , no offence taken and actually I agree it was a poorly conceived film but as a ten year old at school in 1964 I have fond memories of playing the adventures of the film with my friends !! :lol:

rgds

Cliff

 

[Geir]

Hi Cliff,
I understood that you weren't really serious. I think I was 12 or 13 when I saw Dambusters on TV and it really made an impression. My mates and I started shooting up our collection of Airfix models with an airgun as flak artillery. As this was done indoors there was always the risk of collateral damage.

 

[Cliff]

Ah such memories !!! I one shot my Airfix Heinkel lll which was hanging from my bedroom ceiling with an air gun !!!! Trouble was I kept missing..........my father went ballistic at the holes in the ceiling !!! :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

We would place small fire crackers in the airfix models, toss them in the air for an inflight explosion!

 

[Geir]

Now it all comes back to me! We also put firecrackers in the model planes. I haven't thought about that for more years than I care to remember.

 

[rich]

633 Squadron had good theme music though..... da da da da der der der..... another classic Ron Goodwin rat-a-tat-tat score.

 

[tgd31968]

I have even watched 633 Squadron more than once, and this film is total rubbish, but I only watch it because it is a chance to see Mosquitoes in the air. I fast forward over the rest of the film. By the way, in this film I suppose the use of Irvin Jackets by the crew of low-flying Mosquitoes is wrong. These planes were so well heated that sheepskin jackets were not used.

I guess it's down to artistic license Geir, I've never sat in a Mossie but I gather it was so cramped in the cockpit (the Nav was perched on some kind of shelf rather than a seat) they probably couldn't have worn Irvin's even if they'd wanted to!
I found that the 'Memphis Belle' has aged very badly, it has a lot of weak SFX and bears no historical accuracy to real events -
their flying kit appears to be very good though?!? Anyone else seen this recently?[/quote]

I have to agree with you there. Although I like to watch MB, I am not sure why. I guess because I consider it an honest attempt to give credit to the men that flew over Europe, but did they have to try to depict all of the incredible stories in one aircraft on one mission? I mean, there were cases of debating about pushing wounded crewmen out, there were cases of aircraft coming back on 2 engines, there were cases of having to crank down the gear manually, etc, but they happend to many different aircraft on many different missions, not ALL in one plane on one mission, and not to the Memphis Belle. I almost expected them to duplicate that famous picture we have all seen with the upper half of the nose section of a b-17 completely gone. I guess that would have been too much for them.

If they had called ME, and I am still waiting for that call.... I would have introduced 2-3 crews, and at least divided up the emergencies over a few aircraft, and I would have followed them through 2 missions, and spread it out a bit more.
I give them an A for intent, a B- on execution for MB.
I like the Tuskegee Airmen too, but somehow the actors they got just don't look natural in the flight gear. They look like, well, actors in costume to me, but I still enjoy it for what it depicts.

All in all, even though Gregory Peck is a bit too mom and apple pie, I like 12:00 High better. Even Command Decision.

BTW, although the show was historical abortion, my buddies and I grew up "flying missions" on the swing sets in the school yard as the Black Sheep Squadron in the mid 1970's. Between that show and Wild Wild West re-runs I thought Robert Conrad was awesome. Until I rewatched the shows as an adult......

 

[rich]

If they had called ME, and I am still waiting for that call.... I would have introduced 2-3 crews, and at least divided up the emergencies over a few aircraft, and I would have followed them through 2 missions, and spread it out a bit more.
I give them an A for intent, a B- on execution for MB.
I like the Tuskegee Airmen too, but somehow the actors they got just don't look natural in the flight gear. They look like, well, actors in costume to me, but I still enjoy it for what it depicts.

[/quote]

Shame they didn't call you, it would have been much better done that way! It's the usual problem of keeping a generic audience entertained though. I wonder if the Dambuster's remake will introduce other aspects of storyline, ie romantic interest etc. - how else will they get the potential female audience to give it a look otherwise? The Susannah York character
was a transparent attempt to introduce a love interest - a better route could have been with the Woods-Scawen brothers which was a sad but true event.