Filmstalker: U-571 screenwriter regrets changing history

A recent feature on Filmstalker was about the historical innaccuracies of the movies, and U-571 turned out to be a favourite of just that. At the time Tony Blair, the UK Prime Minister, called it an affront to British sailors. Well now the screenwriter, David Ayer, is hastily backpedalling and apologising as his new film arrives on our screens, how timely.

According to the BBC...

Ayer told BBC Radio 4's The Film Programme that he "did not feel good" about suggesting Americans captured the Enigma code rather than the British.
"It was a distortion... a mercenary decision to create this parallel history in order to drive the movie for an American audience," he said.

You know I get that, and I understand that, but as he goes on to say how strongly he feels about it all, couldn't he have said no in the first place?

"Both my grandparents were officers in World War Two, and I would be personally offended if somebody distorted their achievements,"

Well I bet they would be even more offended if they knew it was their Grandson doing it and that he was doing it for cash. Surely he would have realised about his Grandparents at the time and had the same feelings? So why go ahead with the changes? Why accept them? He could have walked away from the script and denounced them at the time.

This sort of thing just keeps happening, and I do believe it's a problem. When a film with a big cast and distribution tells a different story to that of history, and makes no attempt to let the audience know otherwise, it does affect public memory. Now I'm not jumping on a bandwagon and shouting for banning or some such, but a message on screen would have been all that was needed, and at the most make the crew British, that's surely not going to turn America off to a film.

Add a comment

Your Name:

Your Email:

Your URL:

Remember my details?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Site Navigation

Promotion

Comments

I miss your rantings Richard!

Posted by: Simone | August 19, 2006 11:36 AM

I agree with you, but maybe it's only afterwards he realised just how many people took it as fact. It's amazing how many people see films like The Passion of the Christ, Saving Private Ryan etc. as being 100% accurate portrayals of historical events.

Posted by: bullet in the head | August 19, 2006 6:38 PM

Its about bloody time. Can't stand people taking credit for things they didn't do.

Posted by: pablo | August 20, 2006 9:15 AM

I for one do not see (most especially) "The Passion of the Christ" or "Saving Private Ryan" as accurate portrayals of historical events. This should include "The Ten Commandments" despite its grand scale production. But then, if the purpose was to entertain and not really for any us watching to be informed, then personally I dont see a HUGE problem with this.

But then the burning question is, are there any films, based on historical events that can rightfully say that theirs is an accurate depiction? I remember asking this in Richard's feature (http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2006/04/historical_accuracy_in_films.html) but it seems like there isnt, as there are no replies.

Posted by: Simone | August 20, 2006 2:50 PM

How about Apollo 13? Battle of Britain? There's two.

Posted by: Richard Brunton | August 20, 2006 4:48 PM

Who wants a 100% historical accurate portrayal of events in a cinema?

People would sleep in their seats like drunken babies, that´s what would happen.

Like they do when they watch History Channel.

LOL couldn´t help.

Posted by: Peter | August 20, 2006 6:46 PM

Not true - the two films above are examples of otherwise.

Posted by: Richard Brunton | August 20, 2006 7:04 PM

Obviously not very many Richard. I mean just 2 films out of the very many out there?

Which is what makes Clint Eastwood's 2 projects on Iwo Jima quite interesting as we are seeing it on both sides.

Posted by: Simone | August 20, 2006 7:21 PM

Well I don't know every film, I was just trying to kick off the thread. I'll think on some more for you!

Posted by: Richard Brunton | August 20, 2006 7:31 PM

LOLOLOL Now youre making me laugh.

I really should do some research too. What about 'Band of Brothers', I know its not a film but was that even close to what happened?

Posted by: Simone | August 20, 2006 7:36 PM

Well I personally don't take any films as 100% fact nor think filmmakers must strive for such. How ever there are plenty as films that strive to remain as accurate as they can while being entertaining and I think with important moments in history that’s commendable. The reason they changed U-571 was in my opinion exactly because they knew the majority of film goers would take it that it was American heroics.

Personally I was not commenting that films should be 100% accurate in the cinema, but on the slightly disturbing fact that people think they are.

I do not believe "The Passion of the Christ" was meant to purely entertain at all, churches would not have booked out the cinema if that was the case, Gibson fully intended it to educate.

Posted by: bullet in the head | August 20, 2006 11:19 PM

I don´t see the need to be obsessed with historical accuracy. Any fictional work, though based on true events, introduce a margin of subjectivity. Not even doccumentaries should be trusted 100%, as they merely reflect a human, if documented, point of view.

I see Passion of the Christ as a movie who still arises controversy. Besides the fact it´s a little Marian biaised, is far more accurate than that preposterous "Judas Gospel" coming from National Geographic.

One example of this obsession is the Rome miniseries. The obsession of this BBC and HBO production to be historically accurate is so high in its detail that misses the basic nature of characters. Its laughable how Marc Anthony treats such a man as Cicero, as he was a child. That is absolutely outrageus, as Cicero was a prominent and powerful figure in the Senate, that made even Cesar tremble.

Even a scholar would find that, to say the least, irritating. Old movies about old times were less accurate, but showed more respect to History, and the main reason we watch these films: entertainment and fascination towards the past.

Posted by: Peter | August 21, 2006 12:10 AM

spaceballs
groundhog day
independence day

should i go on??

Posted by: pablo | August 21, 2006 7:23 AM

I see where youre coming from bullet, and youre right, because as a member of the audience, what is the purpose one would have in watching a film like "Passion of the Christ"? You mentioned that Gibson fully intended this film to educate. I for one consciously didnt go in there to be educated, but to admire the cinematography and Gibson's choice of presenting the story in the Hebrew-Aramaic language, I was so engrossed that I didnt realise it until halway through! But then even if the film was intended to educate/inform you have to consider the variety of your audience. For a believer, will it renew one's faith, for a non-believer will it gain him to accept Christ, as for a non-partisan, will seeing the graphic scourging and beating make him feel that the film's message of salvation was intended for him? After I saw it, and as we were coming out of the cinema and the guy sitting beside me said, "so he did all that for me?" referring to Christ's sacrificial death. Do I know if the film had a big time effect on him, or gave him an accurate depiction of what really happened to Christ? To this day I will never know, but the point is, not very many films would be able to live up to the accuracy of events of any given time.

Peter said it quite well that accuracy not just in films but also documentaries will be a difficulty because there is, and will always be some sort of bias and hidden agenda. I suppose a 100% accurate historical film can be likened to having an 'icing on the cake'.

Posted by: Simone | August 21, 2006 1:40 PM