"SPR movie " Topic

I saw a critique in a magazine yesterday complaining that the movie didn't show any British (or Canadians, etc). My question is why should it?
It is a story about something that happened behind American lines,not the whole invasion. There weren't any US Marines either.

A movie about the entire operation (Like the Longest Day) should – but not something that is an isolated incident.

It's an old critique, one going back to when it was first released. In the end it is an American story about Americans, so it was appropriate. BTW, Band of brothers had Brits (as well as French) in a few eps…

Damon.

Offer the critic a pen and paper, then suggest they start writing their own version of the story. Expect to see it within a year.

I remember a certain wing of the political spectrum complaining at the time that the movie didn't show Russia's contributions!

What I get critical about in SPR is some of the Hollywood-isms that seem to be accepted for the most part. If one of my men pulled the pin on a grenade FIRST, then tossed it to me, so I could toss it into a bunker, we are gonna have some words about that. Strong words.

Fun movie though, and it did open the door for Hollywood to start paying more attention to at least getting equipment and weapons more accurate. No more Tiger Shermans.

I really don't have any problems with SPR featuring just US troops, it was about goings on in the US sector.

"Band of brothers had Brits (as well as French) in a few eps…"

It did indeed.

I think most of the 'Germans' were British too…

well seeing that there were no British Canadians or other forces in the area and time where the story took place they would have been out of place in the movie. now some French resistance would have worked.

It is a story about something that happened behind American lines,not the whole invasion. There weren't any US Marines either.

There weren't any Tiger tanks either, but that didn't stop them showing one (sort of).

Not having a dig at the film but the Rangers were deployed from British manned LCAs not Higgins boats crewed by the coast guard.

Still a great movie though.

V

Like any complaints meant anything to 99.99% of the millions that saw it.

Sometimes we (as hobbiests) are just too full of ourselves.

Dan

Sometimes we (as hobbiests) are just too full of ourselves

Too true Dan! Although I'm full of brekkie sausage roll at the moment!

But I do understand when folks get upset when hollywood skims over heroic action for the sake of ratings -

I used to teach the Royal Navy Cryptographic custodians course, including the episode when British divers repeatedly free dived on a sinking U Boat to recover an enigma machine and the code books…One of them never made it back to the surface after his third dive…Now that's real guts for you.

To teach that to young RN Officers and have them tell you it was the USN because they saw it in the film was a bit upsetting!

I really don't have any problems with SPR featuring just US troops, it was about goings on in the US sector.

I don't recall that when I was growing up anyone complained about this sort of thing:

"No Brits in A Walk in the Sun – that's insensitive of Great Britain's contribution!"

"The Cruel Sea is so Anglo-centric"

"Why are there no Free French in Ice Cold in Alex!"

"Why are there no Hungarian in Cross of Iron?"

"There are no Soviet citizens in Casablanca!"

Often the "Special Mission" movies (like Guns of Navaronne) would go for "One of Every Nation" ensembles, and Sahara is a classic case of this. But I think that was more to make the all-star cast more easily identifiable ("the British one," "the American one,", etc.) than an attempt at political correctness.

Spike Lee complained that Clint Eastwood didn't show any Black troops in his movie on Iwo Jima (Flags of our Fathers).

My understanding is there was one unit of about 40 guys that unloaded supplies on Iwo. Eastwood didn't show them at all in his film and said that they weren't critical to the story. That the movie was to focus on the 6 guys that raised the flag.

Spike Lee responded that he would show Eastwood how to make a war movie and filmed his masterpiece "Miracle at St. Anna".

I must say when I found this out it really spoiled "Flags of our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" for me.

Spike Lee responded that he would show Eastwood how to make a war movie and filmed his masterpiece "Miracle at St. Anna".

I was wondering what bizarre logic led to the creation of that dreck.

Now, just to get the lynching out of the way first, I really don't like SPR… never have, right from the first time I saw it. I give it a second chance, and ended up disliking it even more (ducks under the table to avoid the punches!).

Having said that,when I read rubbish like what the OP read in that magazine, it just confirms how desperate some of these critics are to get themselves noticed! Maybe the Swizz Army should have been represented too.

Mind you having said that, I was watching Apollo 13 last night and did think it was a bit unfair that the British was represented on the spaceship…

" it was a bit unfair that the British was represented on the spaceship…"

Should of course be, " it was a bit unfair that the British weren't represented on the spaceship…"

As V says above; the Rangers, as well as elements of 29th Division, were taken ahore in Royal Navy LCAs. It might only be a small thing, but the veterans of the Combined Ops Association were extremely hacked off by that omission when I spoke to them on their bus in Arromanches, circa 2009.

Loved "Miracle at St. Anna".

Dan

Okay, what the heck is SPR?

saving private ryan.

Jeez, that was too obvious, thanks.