The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on June 10th, 2017 at 04:27 am
The Age’s Brian Courtis whines about American cultural imperialism:
Well, we’ve known the rules. We’ve known them since Errol Flynn liberated Burma without any help from British, Australian or New Zealand forces. Churchill and a few Diggers may have been upset, but the fact is when it comes to Hollywood only the good guys win and, since we’re playing with their toys, those good guys must inevitably be Americans.
Errol Flynn was, of course, Australian. (And a Bulletin columnist, for that matter.) The solution to Courtis’s problem: don’t play in Hollywood, and make Australian films that people actually want to watch.
- There is enthusiasm for such gung-ho films as The Longest Day, Top Gun or, believe it or not, Pearl Harbor. There is no point talking to them about Apocalypse Now, Platoon or Dr Strangelove.
Longest Day – not much mention of Commonwealth activity there.
Top Gun – in real life Tom Cruise would never have made Fighter Weapons School. He would have been dead or grounded. Singing in the O Club pretty accurate.
Pearl Harbor – chick flick not a recruiting film.
Saving Private Ryan – I don’t think the theme of the movie was other than to show the activities of a very small group of men, not the entire damn invasion.
Apocalypse Now and Dr. Strangelove (one of my favorite satires of all time) weren’t even filmed in the United States. They were outsourced before it became popular.
I’d be more concerned with the reversed cultural imperialism of such classics as Kangaroo Jack, Joey and Rabbit-Proof Fence.
- I suspect more Americans are likely to have seen Breaker Morant, The Light Horsemen and Gallipoli than Mr. Courtis is to have seen Wake Island or Battleground.
But I’m just an iggerant insular Amurcan whut don’t know nothing about famuss Austrilin histry…
By the way, if you want some keen insight into Australian politics of the 80’s, check out The Return of Captain Invincible…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 20 at 12:11 PM • permalink
- I saw a very good Aussie war film called “Prisoners of the Sun” (Oz title “Blood Oath”) with Bryan Brown (Breaker Morant).
Immediate post-war US ‘realpolitik’ ensures that Aussie POWs don’t recieve justice.
It’s really a court room drama but the theme of selling out your allies to protect your enemies is one the Left oughta be familiar with (although, of course, they’d never see themselves in it).
Make more films, Australia. I’d watch ‘em.
- And of course Mr. Courtis is aware that the Errol Flynn movie was about an American unit that DID fight in Burma and DID conduct the campaign depicted, right?
I love it when film critics pretend they’re competent to refer to history. It reminds of when Siskel and Ebert panned the film A Bridge Too Far because they’d seen “all these war-movie mock heroics before,” in blissful ignorance of the fact that every incident in the film was fully documented…
My personal favorite, though, was when the LA Times’ Kenneth Turan panned the film The Four Feathers (distributed by a Japanese company, funded with French and German money, starring an Australian, and written and directed by a Hindu Indian) with the opening line, “Americans just don’t know enough history to make this kind of movie properly…”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 20 at 03:09 PM • permalink
- And of course, I liked the way they made Gregory Peck’s character a Texan in Horatio Hornblower…Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 20 at 06:13 PM • permalink
- This issue was EVEN MORE ridiculous when it frequently appeared on the ABC in the run-up to the signing of the FTA with America. We saw the likes of Rachel Griffiths, Kate Blanchett and Tony Collette stand up for preserving the Aussie accent on Australian telly. Given that THESE chartacters in particular, have earned squillions speaking in American accents, was particularly irritating, but what was TRULY GALLING was the fact that the stupid ABC failed to notice the incredible irony of running such an argument on a broadcaster whose programming is almost entirely BRITISH in content!!!
- Mike G. writes:
“There’s nothing Cate Blanchett can do that Ice Cube can’t do just as well!”Ya gotta be kidding, right? As just one example, imagine Ice Cube in a diaphanous gown. I rest my case.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 02 20 at 07:57 PM • permalink
- Once I grew up, I realized that Hollywood projects its own reality. Sometimes the movies with an historical setting are accurate, but these are rare. I don’t believe everything I see on the ‘big screen’.
I see more tearing down of the US by Hollywood (Hollywood Left hates the US) than building it up. As far as I’m concerned, Hollywood is a place apart from the rest of the US.
When I was a child, I grew up watching a lot of old movies, mainly produced in England, on late night TV. *I* was convinced that as soon as Scotland Yard took on a case, it would be solved. I thought Scotland Yard was much better at crime solving than the FBI.
For some reason, I also had the same impression about the RCMP – Royal Canadian Mounted Police (‘We always get our man’).Was I culturally brainwashed? Should I be upset about it?
I’d be more than happy to watch good movies produced in other countries. I’d love to see Hollywood have some competition.
Posted by CJosephson on 2005 02 20 at 08:05 PM • permalink
- I saw the documentary Courtis is writing about. They try to make a big deal out of the fact that the military wants to check the script before they lend expensive military hardware to movie producers. They try hard to paint this as censorship and propaganda.
But the documentary gives several examples of script changes suggested by the military; presumably the “worst” examples they could find. Almost every change made the movie less clichéd and more realistic. There was not one change that didn´t seem harmless and justified. And not once did they suggest that the filmmakers are asked to clean up the fighting, not show wounds and gore or things like that.
- c’mon tim, errol flynn wasnt australian – he was a tasmanian.Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 02 20 at 08:41 PM • permalink
- When we were younger we used to joke in Austrailia that all American movies about WW2 should have been called “How the Yanks Won the War On Their Own”, followed by a number. Can you recall all the actions in which there was no American involvement in reality, but in which Yanks suddenly appeared in starring roles in the movie version?
- Well ozpat, the most recent example I can think of is that sub movie a few years ago called U-571.
Watching this movie you would believe that the yanks got hold of the enigma code machine, while in actual fact it was the poms. Direct credit claiming for others blood, sweat and tears if ever I saw it.
And that movie was excessively noisy too. There was a smarmy cerdit at the end of the movie to the Royal Navy, which actually annoyed me more than the appropriation. There is a long history of this in Hollywood.
But I have to agree totally with tim (and others here) that this carry on about the Australian film industry is pretty pathetic (and the stream of Aussie holywood stars condemning the FTA pretty nauseating). if the OZ industry wants my dollars, make a watchable movie about something interesting and with a decent script, and I might even watch it twice (and buy the DVD).
- OzPat — Like?Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 20 at 10:49 PM • permalink
- ozpat
How many Aussie movies have been made about kiwi war heroes? If you watched the “Australians at War” TV series you’d have noticed that we managed to whitewash mentions of other countries out of actions we were involved in. There’s a big difference between rewriting history as fiction and rewriting history as history.
- ozpat,
One of the greatest complaints Aussies have is about how we get airbrushed out of American and English histories. The first episode started the rot by airbrushing the Rhodesians out of Elands River. The point is we can’t complain about other nations doing it to us if we do it to other nations.
I didn’t notice too many kiwi charcters in Gallipoli or The Light Horsemen despite their historical involvement in both campaigns.
- Hullo Brian
I was so impressed by your long overdue comments on the destruction of our proud culture by American movies. It’s time Aussie filmmakers rose up against this tsunami of trash from Hollywood!
So, I thought you might like to see the synopsis of my new movie Jihad Now!
It’s the story of a poor, disabled, Lebanese layabout from Bankstown. Despised by the Aussies and even kicked out of the mosque by local Moslems, Harry Habib flees to Pakistan – first class, thanks to a grant from a kindly Saudi businessman – and there he opens a cleaning business. Soon he is successful, even opening franchises in Afghanistan. But evil CIA operatives capture and torture him (I see Russell Crowe in this role). Finally released, he returns home, makes a packet on 60 Minutesand opens Habib’s Halal and Fine Dining restaurant in Lakemba.It’s an Aussie boy makes good story, Brian. The ant-american theme should prove popular as well. What do you think, Brian, Brian.. are you there??
- OzPat — There were Ozzies at Wake Island? Guadalcanal (OK, a Coastwatcher in that one, and PT-109? The Phillipines? Normandy Beach? I know they were in North Africa because Sahara was loaded with Brits and Ozzies and Senegalese riding on Humphrey Bogart’s tank. I don’t think there were any in China with The Flying Tigers.
So really, any titles would be a help…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 21 at 01:20 AM • permalink
- entropy — Actually, the Brits got their Enigma machines from the Poles. Full props for them breaking the code, of course.
And the USN actually did capture a U-Boat in the fashion described. It was done by the Bogue task group. The Enigma was a gratuitous Hollywood addition, as the surviving vets who were involved publicly stated. You know, because just capturing a U-Boat at sea wasn’t big enough…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 21 at 01:26 AM • permalink
- Yobbo — The Man Who Would Be King, as scripted and directed by John Huston, did indeed feature Gurkha Corporal Billy Fish.Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 21 at 01:28 AM • permalink
- ‘course, if y’all get pissy about it, we’ll just tell the Japanese they can have another whack at Darwin…Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 21 at 01:32 AM • permalink
- Now, Now Guys. Just when the film industries are getting along fine, with many of our talented people working here and overseas, no need to start WW3 over this.
Making a movie about Gold, Juno and Sword would be a bit better than one about the difficulty of parking in the city, but Omaha was the tough one, as they say, and will always be the one to feature in films.
Our USA cousins took a lot of casualties in WW2, and inflicted a hell of a lot on the opposition.
There are huge untold (in film) stories about the logistic support behind the war effort, such a Bill Kaiser’s shipbuilding, and the supply, maintenance and engineering servicemen. You get some sense of this from the old Victory At Sea series.
The modern equivalent is the huge effort going into Iraq – much of it is private contractors – that it the modern way – but the logistics efforts should be talked about too, not just the fighting.
- Right now, 2005, is the sixtieth anniversary of the end of WW2.
The US was instrumental in ending that sad, massive conflict.
Commenters such as the previous should be told to vanish or be squashed. Ozpat, I should be happy to personally deal with you should you be happy to ‘show up’, as you so derisively described the US World War Two effort, in which millions were saved.
- richard mcenroe:
Actually, there was an Enigma link on that captured sub. They picked up current code books for the Enigma syste (but not the machine—Hollywood did rewrite that part). While having the actual hardware made cracking the code possible, much of the British brain trust centered finding on the physical settings (the “key”) for the machine. The key had been changed earlier, and the sub capture was an intelligence bonanza for the Enigma group.
Ozpat:
No one familiar with WWII history denies the essential elements ALL the Allies provided in the final victory against the Axis. But the whole point of this thread is that many people are not familiar with history in general, let alone WWII. Especially Hollywood who, with some notable exceptions, tends to rewrite history for money, politics, or convenience. Or just plain stupidity. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 02 21 at 09:02 AM • permalink
- If I remember correctly, three U-Boats were taken in the Atlantic. The first two were by the Royal Navy, one of which was captured with an Enigma machine. The third was captured by the United States Navy, and is still on display today in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. That one was also captured with the Enigma intact.
The story behind the different Enigma captures is often contradictory, because naturally until well after the war, it was in the interests of the Allies to confuse the issue.
As far as I know, the subterfuge of disguising a submarine as a German U-Boat was not done by either side.
Posted by John Nowak on 2005 02 21 at 09:04 AM • permalink
- John, as I recall, the secret of Enigma (code named ULTRA perhaps?) wasn’t released until the 1970s. And a number of intelligence agencies were not happy that the story broke, either, even that long after the war ended.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 02 21 at 09:11 AM • permalink
- Real Jeffs, I believe the present state-of-the-art public knowledge of Enigma is, as presented in “Hitler’s U-Boat War”:
1) Germany had a powerful encryption device called Enigma. This was very secure for the time, and simple enough to use that it could be utilized by enlisted personnel on lurching U-Boats. A remarkable accomplishment for the time.
2) A Polish mathematician developed an algorithm to crack Enigma codes, and designed a mechanical computer named a “bombe” to run the calculations. It was named for his favorite dessert.
3) After Poland was conquered, a protoype bombe made it to England. England put bombes into production and began to decrypt Enigma messages. It is standard practice to “name” intelligence sources by code names, so analysts could provide feedback on how reliable a source was without compromising the source. The Enigma decrypts were sourced to ULTRA. Nobody except the people doing the decryption knew that ULTRA was an Enigma decrypt. It is likely that analysts assumed ULTRA was a spy.
4) It became clear that Enigma was about to be upgraded, and given an extra layer of complexity. The Bombes would need to be redesigned. British industry was not up to the task… but National Cash Register was. So, the US was informed that ULTRA was an enigma decrypt, and the bulk of decryption through most of the war was carried out on US soil.
5) Meanwhile, three U-Boats were captured, two by the Royal Navy and one by the US Navy. The RN and USN each caught one Enigma machine. While valuable, these captures were not in themselves the reason that ULTRA worked. However, nobody involved in those captures had a need to know that, so they probably didn’t.
Finally, remember that codes and code-breaking is the absolute highest level of secrecy a country can have. For the past fifty years, every intelligence agency involved has lied about the story. It is entirely possible that next week it will be revealed that the Poles had nothing to do with it, and that Enigma was sold by the Japanese to the Dutch on a boat captured by Australians.
However, it is simply incorrect to claim that “The Enigma was captured by the Royal Navy, not the US Navy.” ULTRA was the product of Polish design, British development, and US electronics. So cheers to all of them.
Posted by John Nowak on 2005 02 21 at 09:44 AM • permalink
- It’s difficult to compress several years of chicanery and disinformation into a few paragraphs, John. But I’ll agree with the last paragraph. Cheers to all!Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 02 21 at 11:20 AM • permalink
- ozpat — Any titles at all.Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 21 at 11:32 AM • permalink
- Remember when Gregory Peck and the US Cavalry saved Field Marhsall Zhukov during the Great Patriotic War in Days of Glory aka The Red Star?Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 21 at 11:45 AM • permalink
- I’ve never met anyone criticizing the US for staying out of the war prior to 1941 who could actually point to any justification for a US entry into the war. Unlike the Commonwealth, the US had no treaty obligations to Poland, and certainly the US violated its neutral status repeatedly on behalf of the Commonwealth prior to the entry into the war.
But, on the other hand, he did mention “Bridge over the River Kwai,” which had an American character inserted to sell the film in the US. But since the novel was pure fiction anyway, it’s faintly absurd to claim that replacing a fictional British guy with a fictional American guy is “taking credit” from an actual person.
Posted by John Nowak on 2005 02 21 at 12:37 PM • permalink
- 1.) As an American with Irish ancestry, some of whom came here from Newfoundland, I’d very much like to see works which highlighted the Commonwealth’s Contributions, such as Canada’s assignment of one beach, though her population was not nearly that of the US or Britain.
2.) A comprehensive film of Australians and Kiwi troops in World WAr II, especially through North Africa Greece and beyond, would be very interesting now, as Rommel, among others, were impressed by their abilites. If they wanted to spice things up for political effect, they could contrast that with the policies set by both governments and their representatives, Blamey and Freyburg. If there are any such films out there, I’d like to know.
3. Trivial point: I believe that the US escort carrier that captured U-505 was the USS Guadalcanal (Dan Gallery commanding).
- Admiral Gallery it was, Blue Hen. He wrote a book about it.Posted by Old Grouch on 2005 02 21 at 07:21 PM • permalink
- Blue Hen, Old Grouch — I sit corrected. Bogue was the carrier/flagship of the first operational subkiller group…
You know, I rented a weird American war movie the other day. Sam Peckinpah movie no less…but…Something wrong with it. All these Russians and Germans running around like the Americans had nothing to do with it.
Cross of Iron, I think it’s called….
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 22 at 01:12 AM • permalink
- “Slaughtered millions” by 1941? I don’t think you remember accurately.
At any rate, ozpat, it’s clear you supported the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds—or do those only count when “Western Europeans” are involved?
Posted by John Nowak on 2005 02 22 at 01:42 AM • permalink
- John Nowak—
Sigh. I wasn’t going to argue history with you, as your grasp of Enigma is semi-solid. But that last post….
I’ve never met anyone criticizing the US for staying out of the war prior to 1941 who could actually point to any justification for a US entry into the war. Unlike the Commonwealth, the US had no treaty obligations to Poland, and certainly the US violated its neutral status repeatedly on behalf of the Commonwealth prior to the entry into the war.
1. Japan attacked us. We declared war on Japan. As a member of the Axis Powers, Hitler declared war on the US. We didn’t need a treaty, thanks to the Axis. Check your history books.
2. Prior to Pearl Harbor in 1941, the USA was not neutral. President Roosevelt was pitted against isolationist factions within the USA, to be sure. However, the Lend-Lease Act was pushed through Congress in spite of that “neutrality”. Plus FDR mobilized the National Guard in 1940 for training. Oh, and while I lack the links right now, American industry was tooling up for war before 1941. Because people saw war on the horizon. These are hardly the actions of a “neutral” nation.
All of this is in addition to ozpat said, by the way.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 02 22 at 01:57 AM • permalink
- And to defend ozpat—by December 1941, Hitler had invaded Poland (thanks to a mutual aggression treaty with Stalin/Soviet Union), France, and the European lowlands. I forget exactly when the Scandinvian nations and Balklands were occupied, but we’ll ignore that for now. All of this also ignores Italy’s activities in Africa, and Japan’s invasion of Korea and the Chinese mainland. All of which do count in the overall history that lead to the US entering WWII (note item #1 in my earlier post).
Perhaps “millions” hadn’t been “slaughtered” by 1941, but surely you won’t quibble over millions versus thousands of deaths. Assuming, of course, that the people slaughtered by Nazi Germany prior to the US entering the war are as valuable as the people slaughtered after 1941?
None of which has anything to do with the invasion Iraq, except as a moral lesson not to let homicidial dictators stay in power for the sake of world peace.
Nice thread diverting, by the way. From Errol Flynn to the Iraq invasion. There must be an award for this, someplace, somewhere.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 02 22 at 02:11 AM • permalink
- Would you believe hundreds of thousands?
The point was that quite a lot actually happened in the war before the Americans showed up. It was, after all, the ‘39 – ‘45 War, not ‘41 – ‘45.
I was and am a strong supporter of the action in Iraq, for what its worth, John Nowak. By the by, our PM annnounced to day a further commitment of Aussie troops to Iraq, so we’re standing solid as usual.
- > 1. Japan attacked us. We declared war on Japan. As a member of the Axis Powers, Hitler declared war on the US. We didn’t need a treaty, thanks to the Axis. Check your history books.
Yep—that’s exactly true. However, it doesn’t explain why the US should have entered the war prior to 1941. If someone’s attempting to argue that the United States should have entered the war prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, then I fail to see how pointing out that Germany declared war on the US after the Pearl Harbor attack supports that position.
And yes, in fact I do agree that the United States should have entered the war prior to 1941. Roosevelt apparently proposed a US / British blockade on Japan, but Chamberlain rejected it. Churchill was furious over Chamberlain’s sacrifice of the Czechs—but he wasn’t Prime Minister yet. I strongly suspect the entire war could have been averted if either Roosevelt or Churchill had gotten their way.
But that’s pure hindsight. How would you have presented a case for US entry into WWII prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor?
Honestly, the only good one I can think of is the same one you did—there is a moral obligation to remove homicidal dictators, and Hitler was a higher priority than the Soviet Union, Japan, and Italy. That’s entirely correct—but would it have been convincing?
But that didn’t convince Britain in 1938; why should it have convinced Americans in 1940?
I’d like to think it would have, but I doubt it.
Posted by John Nowak on 2005 02 22 at 03:30 AM • permalink
- >The point was that quite a lot actually happened in the war before the Americans showed up. It was, after all, the ‘39 – ‘45 War, not ‘41 – ‘45.
1937. Japan invades China. The point is that quite a lot happened in the war before the COmmonwealth showed up.
Posted by John Nowak on 2005 02 22 at 03:33 AM • permalink
- John, the United States didn’t formally enter WWII before 1941. It did so (formally) only after being attacked. As noted above, this is historical fact.
This “what if….” historical review is not even interesting. It’s second guessing the actions and beliefs of that generation, with the “benefit” of hind sight, while applying current beliefs and values of this generation. An exercise in futility.
So, exactly what is your point?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 02 22 at 04:13 AM • permalink
- >John, the United States didn’t formally enter WWII before 1941. It did so (formally) only after being attacked. As noted above, this is historical fact.
Right. Did anyone say otherwise? What was your point in saying this?
>This “what if….�? historical review is not even interesting.
This probably explains why you didn’t read it closely, or you would have addressed a point I raised instead of reminding us all that the US entered the war in 1941, which I think we all knew.
Why did you feel it necessary to repeat this fact? Did anyone deny that the United States entered the war in 1941?
Anyway, to answer your question, my point, is that it’s very difficult to come up with a compelling reason the United States should have entered the war prior to 1941, without relying on hindsight.
Posted by John Nowak on 2005 02 22 at 04:44 AM • permalink
But that’s pure hindsight. How would you have presented a case for US entry into WWII prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor?
Honestly, the only good one I can think of is the same one you did—there is a moral obligation to remove homicidal dictators, and Hitler was a higher priority than the Soviet Union, Japan, and Italy. That’s entirely correct—but would it have been convincing?
Shoot, It didn’t convince the peace-loving progressives on Iraq…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 22 at 11:14 AM • permalink
- >Shoot, It didn’t convince the peace-loving progressives on Iraq…
Exactly, and that’s the problem. Chamberlain’s “Peace in Our Time” speech was enormously popular, with cheering crowds and the whole flapdoodle, while Churchill was perceived as a gruff warmonger who was going to ruin everything. And, of course, “Chamberlain” is, to this day, a term of scorn and rebuke.
Where the heck does this leave us today? Personally, I’m of the opinion that wiping out a dictator is always a good thing—regardless of any other consideration.
Posted by John Nowak on 2005 02 22 at 11:24 AM • permalink
- 1. I noted that someone used the phrase, “The US formally entered World War II”. Please note that FDR deployed US naval forces in support of convoys that were targets for German U-boats. Several were attacked, and one was sunk with considerable loss of life (USS Reuben James). FDR then issued orders for the US Navy to shoot on sight. Effectively, elements of the US were at war before December 1941. Thus, it could be argued that the US was at war as much as it could be.
2.After the loss of Tobruk in 1942 (probably because the Australians weren’t holding it that time)The US literally took new weapons away from US formations and provided 300 Sherman tanks and some self-propelled guns, which were issued to the British 8th army.
3. Ozpat; I saw your notice that PM John Howard is maintaining Australia’s commitment in Iraq. I’m not surprised, but as an American, I’m grateful.
- magoo’s script is fine, but it needs to be ‘punched up’.
1. It needs cameos, like Rumsfeld playing himself, the eeevil genius who wants to wage global war with too few troops/too many armored vehicles/too few amored vehicles.
2. How about Mark Steyn as the infamous ‘neocon’, who stalks our dear innocent from country to country (in his columns of course)?
3. Why should the CIA guy be played by Russell Crowe? We can’t find an American to play the American? I’ll admit that most Australians and British actors can do a better American accent than the opposite. (think Tom Cruise in Far and Away)
- Paris Hilton as the evil female CIA operative who menstruates on Habib in prison.
Tom Cruise as Abdullah Popper, Habib’s feisty young lawyer, recently converted, who saves the day, negotiates the 60 Minutespayout and wins the Law Society’s “Lawyer of the Year” award for the highest commitment to ethical practice.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Actually, the spread of Australians and New Zealanders in our movies is a pestilence, sort of like cane toads. People going to movies would think that your sort liberated Middle Earth, not to mention that the Matrix is full of them. Time to put Americans back in American movies! Every time Hugo Weaving gets a job, Leonard Nimoy goes hungry! There’s nothing Cate Blanchett can do that Ice Cube can’t do just as well!