Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Imagine this: controlling and oppressing as much and as many they did in oh say 1700. Then the lowly subjects steal the best pie on the window sill and kick your uppity ass back to england...twice. Then the pie stealers have to travel back across the pond to save you twice in the last 100 years because you can't take care of your own back yard.
Imagine how bitter that pill is for some brits. The ones with the classic british superiority complex.
On the assumption that by twice, you are referring to the War of 1812, most historians are in agreement that the result of that conflict was at best a draw, although I have read that Canadians see it as a victory for Canada, I stress that that's what I've read, not what I believe.
They do it all the time but usually because they don't have the props available. In this case though it's for narrative reasons, so it's worth questioning is it not?
Only if you are into conspiracy theories.
Quote:
Yes, hence my line about them not needing to make stuff up!
That is what Hollywood (and Wardour Street) does- The Make Things Up. That is what actors do- They Pretend. Hollywood is not a purveyor of Truth and Reality. They are selling products- Fantasy and Entertainment.
Quote:
Again, personally, it's just a discussion. You have it in your head that I'm some fall-waving nationalist (John Bull? come-on) but - believe it or not - I'm married to an American and have visited and enjoyed the US over ten times.
Being nationalistic does not mean you hate Americans. It just means the UK is your first priority in all things, which apparently includes made up stories on film. You Britons have always been a Nationalistic tribe. How could you not be? Your history is quite grandiose.
Whatever. I indulged your obsession with the film. I find it sad that people in the UK take Hollywood of all things so seriously. But back to the topic at hand.
That is what Hollywood (and Wardour Street) does- The Make Things Up. That is what actors do- They Pretend. Hollywood is not a purveyor of Truth and Reality. They are selling products- Fantasy and Entertainment.
What I was trying to say was that there are REAL LIFE events and stories in ww2 which portray American soldiers as heroic, no need for a film like SPR to make stuff up. Just what is your problem if you can't even see that the remark is actually positive one? And don't be so patronising re: Hollywood. I'm an aspiring filmmaker, I know what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Being nationalistic does not mean you hate Americans. It just means the UK is your first priority in all things, which apparently includes made up stories on film. You Britons have always been a Nationalistic tribe. How could you not be? Your history is quite grandiose.
I know that, I just thought i'd mention it in case you did think I hate Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Whatever. I indulged your obsession with the film. I find it sad that people in the UK take Hollywood of all things so seriously. But back to the topic at hand.
What are you on about? It's a discussion forum Moth, that's what people do! You know, discuss things! And besides you seem to be taking it far more seriously than I.
On the assumption that by twice, you are referring to the War of 1812, most historians are in agreement that the result of that conflict was at best a draw, although I have read that Canadians see it as a victory for Canada, I stress that that's what I've read, not what I believe.
There's a big thread on 1812 here somewhere. I believe it comes down to what the true war aims of the US was when they declared war. If it can be proved that annexing what is now Canada was one of the aims then the US didn't win. But officially, as you know, it was a draw.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,317 posts, read 8,659,555 times
Reputation: 6391
The thread that never dies.......
Here's some facts. The USA and The UK are the best of Allies and have been for over 100 years now. In WWII the UK was never going to be invaded by the Nazis, the Royal Navy was the finest navy afloat at the time, the Kreigsmarine was way outclassed....the RAF had defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britian.
The Brits are some tough ass MFs and deserve our (Americans) respect. They were the first to stand by us after 9-11.
As for Hollywood and the movies, they made by and for American audiences first. Of course they will take liberties with facts, it is just entertainment.
Das Boot was supposedly as excellent movie, I had a hard time with it, because I can't root for the enemy...
Both countries did their best with the cards they were dealt. Both the British and American military forces were by war's end the two best militaries in the world qualitatively. The Soviets had the largest army, but unit for unit lagged behind. Also, the Soviets did not have much of a Navy and their Air Force did not compare to the western Allies.
The weakness of the British was economically and their lack of available manpower. They were dependent upon U.S. financial aid and military equipment at a very early stage of the war. Without U.S. involvement, the British could not have continued to persecute the war in a meaningful way beyond 1942.
Concerning D-Day, it could have been 100% American troops or 100% British troops that stormed the beaches of Normandy. It would have been just as successful either way. Both countries had ample troop numbers by 1944 to launch such an operation. The necessary element wasn't the troops. It was the overwhelming force of airpower, tanks, artillery, equipment, logistics, naval units, and support units.
As for Hollywood and the movies, they made by and for American audiences first. Of course they will take liberties with facts, it is just entertainment.
Das Boot was supposedly as excellent movie, I had a hard time with it, because I can't root for the enemy...
I didn't see Das Boot the movie, but I saw the TV show, it was an excellent production, extremely well written, photographed, and acted.
It doesn't matter where you are from, you can root for a well made piece of television, without rooting for either side in the war.
As someone whose father landed in Normandy on D-Day + 6, and also I had one son stationed in Germany, while his younger brother was in Northern Ireland, and eventually had my elder German grandson enlist in the Bundeswehr, where he trained as a helicopter pilot in the Luftwaffe, injuring his foot just in time to be medically discharged before his unit went to Afghanistan, WW11 movies are a source of mixed feelings for me.
Naturally I'm glad that we were the victors, but then I start to think of my grandson in his Luftwaffe uniform.
When so many get uppity about a single line of script in a work of fiction, what else could be the motivating factor? Most people are Nationalistic to some extent or another. Why would you be exempt?
My eyes glaze over when someone starts whining about how a film isn't 'historically accurate'.
I loved The Lion in Winter and Andrei Rublev - I don't care that there are some historical inaccuracies in each. I enjoyed The King's Speech and Nixon. Again, the fact that the history in them was distorted for artistic and commercial reasons doesn't bother me in the least. Why? Because I never watch historical fiction with the lazy notion that I'm learning history. For example, I find King John to be one of the more interesting of English monarchs. I've read W.L. Warren's excellent biography, King John. But that's where I take what I know of Lackland, not from Nigel Terry's the depiction of the young prince in The Lion in Winter.
The very idea that people should learn history from a non-documentary film is absurd and lazy. It's as laughable as the idea that Shakespeare's Richard III or Hamlet are historically accurate plays. As for Richard, I also loved Sharon Kay Penman's The Sunne in Splendour, in which he is the protagonist. But again, I've never expected that work of fiction to be history, and while I know that Penman tried to present Richard in a more historically accurate light, she freely admits in all of her historical fiction that she takes some liberties for the sake of the dramatic narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Yours is a prurient form of Nationalism.
I suspect it's resentment of American cultural hegemony.
It is quite true that the United States, in addition to being the dominant military and economic power, projects a cultural influence completely out of proportion to its size. The irony is this: so does the UK. British cultural influence permeates international media second only to the U.S.. If American culture is presently king of the hill, British culture is just below the summit, looking down on the cultures of the other 200 or so states it stepped on while clawing its way to the top, before being dislodged.
And I suppose that when its time in the sun has come and gone, a similar resentment will simmer among some Americans unhappy at no longer being top dog, and they'll find all manner of perceived offenses at which to be aggrieved.
My eyes glaze over when someone starts whining about how a film isn't 'historically accurate'.
I loved The Lion in Winter and Andrei Rublev - I don't care that there are some historical inaccuracies in each. I enjoyed The King's Speech and Nixon. Again, the fact that the history in them was distorted for artistic and commercial reasons doesn't bother me in the least. Why? Because I never watch historical fiction with the lazy notion that I'm learning history. For example, I find King John to be one of the more interesting of English monarchs. I've read W.L. Warren's excellent biography, King John. But that's where I take what I know of Lackland, not from Nigel Terry's the depiction of the young prince in The Lion in Winter.
The very idea that people should learn history from a non-documentary film is absurd and lazy. It's as laughable as the idea that Shakespeare's Richard III or Hamlet are historically accurate plays. As for Richard, I also loved Sharon Kay Penman's The Sunne in Splendour, in which he is the protagonist. But again, I've never expected that work of fiction to be history, and while I know that Penman tried to present Richard in a more historically accurate light, she freely admits in all of her historical fiction that she takes some liberties for the sake of the dramatic narrative.
I suspect it's resentment of American cultural hegemony.
It is quite true that the United States, in addition to being the dominant military and economic power, projects a cultural influence completely out of proportion to its size. The irony is this: so does the UK. British cultural influence permeates international media second only to the U.S.. If American culture is presently king of the hill, British culture is just below the summit, looking down on the cultures of the other 200 or so states it stepped on while clawing its way to the top, before being dislodged.
And I suppose that when its time in the sun has come and gone, a similar resentment will simmer among some Americans unhappy at no longer being top dog, and they'll find all manner of perceived offenses at which to be aggrieved.
Do you actually believe that the British have 'resentment'!!! loool self obsessed much? You really have no idea.
Because I never watch historical fiction with the lazy notion that I'm learning history.
As do I. Sadly, you do come across people who don't realise that. That's what I was trying to convey until Moth got his knickers in a twist and dragged it out for longer than it was worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
I suspect it's resentment of American cultural hegemony.
Not in my case, no.
Anyway - good post from you as always
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
