Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Why would an English speaking audience get geared up for a Kursk movie? A movie about Kursk would just be a compelling tank movie. There have been several Stalingrad movies. 

 

The problem is we've been fed so many stories about the Western Front we have ended up with a mistaken impression of the war and where it was really fought. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This weekend, Christopher Nolan's new movie came out, Dunkirk. It depicts the evacuation of the British Army after complete failure against the German Blitzkrieg in the 1940 Battle of France.   A

Das Boot is much better in German with subtitles as needed, which isn't often.    

Possibly the most famous foreign language scene of recent decades? I wish I knew German but one can get the gist even without the subtitles:   Here's one of countless spoofs:

15 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The problem is we've been fed so many stories about the Western Front we have ended up with a mistaken impression of the war and where it was really fought. 

If you're uninformed about WW2 then sure. Problem with English movies that discuss the Eastern Front is that they look fake because they're not supposed to be in English. But if they're authentic then people won't want to read a war movie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Boges said:

If you're uninformed about WW2 then sure. Problem with English movies that discuss the Eastern Front is that they look fake because they're not supposed to be in English. But if they're authentic then people won't want to read a war movie. 

So English language movies should only describe Anglosphere events? Nothing more about ancient empires, for example? No foreign novels should get their stories on the screen in our language? That's really going to cage us in even more.

 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So English language movies should only describe Anglosphere events? Nothing more about ancient empires, for example? No foreign novels should get their stories on the screen in our language? That's really going to cage us in even more.

Ever watch the movie Valkyrie? Seeing Tom Cruise play Claus von Stauffenberg and not even attempt a German accent was super distracting. 

Jude Law and Ed Harris in Enemy at the Gates was pretty good. That was a Stalingrad movie. Defiance was a good Eastern Front movie where they just half-assed Eastern European Accents. 

It can be done. But I don't see a movie about Kursk is begging to be told. 

 

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boges said:

Ever watch the movie Valkyrie? Seeing Tom Cruise play Claus von Stauffenberg and not even attempt a German accent was super distracting. 

Jude Law and Ed Harris in Enemy at the Gates was pretty good. That was a Stalingrad movie. Defiance was a good Eastern Front movie where they just half-assed Eastern European Accents. 

It can be done. But I don't see a movie about Kursk is begging to be told. 

 

I think the accents should be regional English-language ones appropriate to the character. The BBC adaptation of War and Peace was one of the first places I heard Cockney accents from Russian serfs and it worked. There should be no trace of the country of origin there.

One big mistake English language actors like Alec Guinness and Co. made with Hitler was making his accent and dialect too upper class. 

Enemy at the Gates was an excellent film that captured the madness of war in general and the Mad Max feel of Stalingrad in particular but it got panned by many critics for some reason. This is my favourite bit - "I have to report to the Boss. Perhaps you would prefer to avoid the red tape" (although I am not sure Hoskins pronounces his character's name quite right):

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think the accents should be regional English-language ones appropriate to the character. The BBC adaptation of War and Peace was one of the first places I heard Cockney accents from Russian serfs and it worked. There should be no trace of the country of origin there.

One big mistake English language actors like Alec Guinness and Co. made with Hitler was making his accent and dialect too upper class. 

Enemy at the Gates was an excellent film that captured the madness of war in general and the Mad Max feel of Stalingrad in particular but it got panned by many critics for some reason. This is my favourite bit - "I have to report to the Boss. Perhaps you would prefer to avoid the red tape" (although I am not sure Hoskins pronounces his character's name quite right):

  

I would have grabbed the gun, immediately shot Kruschev in the temple, and rushed out yelling "He shot himself!  He left me in charge..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Das Boot is much better in German with subtitles as needed, which isn't often.

 

 

I looked for "Stalingrad" with subtitles, but I could only ever find the dubbed version.  I've still never seen it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/2/2017 at 11:09 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

The problem is we've been fed so many stories about the Western Front we have ended up with a mistaken impression of the war and where it was really fought. 

The war was not fought on a "front" - individuals chose to  fight.

"Russia" did not defeat "Germany".

Many individual Russians, and British and Americans fought against indvidual Japanese/Gemans.

Nazi Germany lost. Without the effort of a particular Russian/British soldier, would this have happened?

====

Spanky, is the effort of a particular Russian soldier any less/more than the effort of a Canadian soldier?

  

 

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2017 at 3:00 AM, August1991 said:

The war was not fought on a "front" - individuals chose to  fight.

"Russia" did not defeat "Germany".

Many individual Russians, and British and Americans fought against indvidual Japanese/Gemans.

Nazi Germany lost. Without the effort of a particular Russian/British soldier, would this have happened?

====

Spanky, is the effort of a particular Russian soldier any less/more than the effort of a Canadian soldier?

  

 

The Soviet Union did most of the fighting on land against Germany. Its soldiers suffered by far the most casualties. The US and Britain waited until the tide had turned decisively in the east before invading Europe. Their losses were tiny by comparison and their contribution has been greatly exaggerated in popular culture. Every ally was important, right down to Greece, but one carried the lion's share of the burden. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The Soviet Union did most of the fighting on land against Germany. Its soldiers suffered by far the most casualties. The US and Britain waited until the tide had turned decisively in the east before invading Europe. Their losses were tiny by comparison and their contribution has been greatly exaggerated in popular culture. Every ally was important, right down to Greece, but one carried the lion's share of the burden. 

Except the US actually did fight a war on Two Fronts successfully, unlike Germany. Except it wasn't on two fronts it was on two sides of the world. 

The US also helped supply the USSR. 

I think part of the reason the Soviets lost so many people was people they were so willing to sacrifice people. Whereas the Western Allies tried to do stuff that didn't result in huge loss of life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boges said:

Except the US actually did fight a war on Two Fronts successfully, unlike Germany. Except it wasn't on two fronts it was on two sides of the world. 

The US also helped supply the USSR. 

I think part of the reason the Soviets lost so many people was people they were so willing to sacrifice people. Whereas the Western Allies tried to do stuff that didn't result in huge loss of life. 

The two US fronts together were nothing like the Eastern Front in terms of casualties. Sure, the US supplied the Soviets with equipment but they did not do much fighting with the Germans in either war. Like the British in many conflicts, the American fought WWII in other people's countries which gives the whole thing an air of unreality to them. The Russians understand WWII far more intimately. They were fighting for their survival against the best trained army in the world; they had to sacrifice everything they could and they did so brilliantly. The US army could not have withstood a similar assault by the Wehrmacht.

 

   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The two US fronts together were nothing like the Eastern Front in terms of casualties. Sure, the US supplied the Soviets with equipment but they did not do much fighting with the Germans in either war. Like the British in many conflicts, the American fought WWII in other people's countries which gives the whole thing an air of unreality to them. The Russians understand WWII far more intimately. They were fighting for their survival against the best trained army in the world; they had to sacrifice everything they could and they did so brilliantly. The US army could not have withstood a similar assault by the Wehrmacht.

Nor could the Soviets until it got Cold and Stuff. 

Barbarossa could have been successful if it got started earlier. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Boges said:

Nor could the Soviets until it got Cold and Stuff. 

Barbarossa could have been successful if it got started earlier. 

The Soviets did have winter on their side but they also outwitted the Germans. They figured out how to counter blitzkrieg with such things as defence in depth. Zhukov may have been the most talented general of the war, certainly up there with the top Nazis, and Stalin turned out to be sharper than Hitler.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The Soviet Union did most of the fighting on land against Germany. Its soldiers suffered by far the most casualties. The US and Britain waited until the tide had turned decisively in the east before invading Europe. Their losses were tiny by comparison and their contribution has been greatly exaggerated in popular culture. Every ally was important, right down to Greece, but one carried the lion's share of the burden. 

The "Soviet Union" did not do "most" of the fighting.

Individual soldiers did the fighting.

Which particular soldier did "most" of the fighting? A soldier from Canada or America or Russia, or the "Soviet Union"? 

======

Spanky, if you don't understand this point, I suggest reading Tolstoi's story about War.

Then, you can read his novel about, uh, Women.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Better Churchill quote from 1940 - when France was defeated, America (under Roosevelt) neutral, Russia (under Stalin) allied with the Germans (under Hitler):

Quote

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, August1991 said:

Better Churchill quote from 1940 - when France was defeated, America (under Roosevelt) neutral, Russia (under Stalin) allied with the Germans (under Hitler):

 

Is that not the quintessential Churchill quote? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/3/2018 at 9:20 AM, Boges said:

Is that not the quintessential Churchill quote? 

If you ever meet a Russian, wherever in the world, whatever the age of the Russian, remind them that Stalin was once an ally of Hitler.

Churchill and de Gaullle, never.

====

But which particular guy, Russian or Canadian, defeated the Nazis? God knows.

Maybe we should read Tolstoi, and think again about life. 

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...