sniper1shot wrote:Um, if we are going to talk about this in the BOOK form then that is great....it can join the other 10 threads (exagerated of course) on this topic and I will keep it here.
If we keep going on about this as a MOVIE then it is going to be moved.
Its not a movie yet as far as I know. The topic hasn't changed since the original post and how long ago was that made?
Sounds like your just are one of those that don't like the book eh?
Brian:
Well, my opinion on this book was that I liked it......however, this is a book forum and NOT a movie discussion forum.
Unfortunately, it seems that you did not read my last thread......
If you want to talk about it as a book great.....but as a possible movie then no, not here. This thread seems to jump all over the place.
Well, the topic was not the book itself, but rather a future movie of the book might possibly be made. Perhaps the distinction is not obvious to everyone but its not a rehash of the book. Just conjecture about a future movie.
Brian, I believe that was the point Dan was trying to make. Granted, the movie is about a well-known and somewhat controversial book, but any discussion of the movie most likely belongs in Soldatenheim.
The word is that the director who's signed on to do it wants it to be the European equivalent, in terms of authenticity and grittiness, to be more like "Band of Brothers," and not like the typical apologetic European film covering the period.
Abbott: This sure is a beautiful forest.
Costello: Too bad you can't see it for all those trees!
That would be great news Doug. I think we all need to be spared the PC bullshit lesson. At what stage of development is it in? Is Sajer involved? Is Verhoeven the director? Can you kindly post more info on what you know?
I wonder who they'll get to play Sajer? or "The Veteran"...?
Doug Nash wrote:The word is that the director who's signed on to do it wants it to be the European equivalent, in terms of authenticity and grittiness, to be more like "Band of Brothers," and not like the typical apologetic European film covering the period.
Doug Nash wrote:The word is that the director who's signed on to do it wants it to be the European equivalent, in terms of authenticity and grittiness, to be more like "Band of Brothers," and not like the typical apologetic European film covering the period.
Ave Doug,
where are you coming by this information? Sorry if I seem skeptical, but I cannot count the number of upcoming movies that were never seen.
Perhaps the movie will depart from the book radically!
Vale,
-Spandau
If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze into you.
Doug Nash wrote:The word is that the director who's signed on to do it wants it to be the European equivalent, in terms of authenticity and grittiness, to be more like "Band of Brothers," and not like the typical apologetic European film covering the period.
And what apologetic European movie do you have in mind? Please give an example.
For starters, there's Europa, Europa. Not much need to elaborate there. Then there's Vilsmeier's Stalingrad. Though this is a good movie, the portrayal of German soldiers as hapless victims doesn't wash. The thought that a few hundred thousand unwilling men being led to their certain deaths by a few maniacally callous and evil officers, as depicted in this movie, just stretches the bounds of credulity. Sure, there were a few good combat scenes, but Stalingrad was just like Saving Private Ryan, but in reverse - that these hapless men deserved death, even though they were helpless to prevent it, and even needed to die to expunge Germany's guilt, etc. etc. It was nothing but a big pity party. In my humble opinion, any new German war movie, such as one based on TFS, ought to try to depict it as it was, without the modern German embelishments. Show the German soldier as brave, well led, efficient, caring of his comrades, and lethally effective. For God's sake, there were German heroes, which is something that can't be denied, whether you hate the NS regime or not. One of the saving graces of "Cross of Iron" was that it depicted German soldiers as real men, which included its fair share of heroes, drunkards, cowards, careerist, etc., but also that they belonged to an effective and powerful military organization. If a new movie could at least carry that off, (with a little more attention to authenticity), then it will be a success.
Abbott: This sure is a beautiful forest.
Costello: Too bad you can't see it for all those trees!
Exactly, Doug. Stalingrad had a few great battle scenes (the T34s in the snow engagement for one) but is otherwise seriously flawed. I mean, how many Landsers expressed the defeatism and insubordination in 1942? Maybe in 45, but in 42? Perhaps fatalism overtook many by Jan/Feb 43...but leading up? Also, most of the soldiers seem to suffer from PRE-traumatic stress, or right as the Reds engange them. I'd have to believe that they would fight first, cry later. The Reds aren't even the enemy, or even a threat--only sympathetic characters handing out bread and quoting Goethe. Indeed, the only enemies are the Heer Officers themselves. I have often heard and seen many Allied soldiers question their leadership, but in the Heer? At Stalingrad? Maybe Paulus of course, but at the plt/co/bn level?
Also, the characters are disjointed. We have Rollo, 1st a hero from Alemain, then a dirtbag at the awards ceremony ,then a hero in pursuit of the E.K., then an insubordinate coward, then in a punishment bn, then a loyal follower again. huh?
then we have the automaton, Sgt Pflueger ,who, as a good loyal soldier and Plt Sgt, is ridiculed. halfway through, he just disappears from the script (anybody can tell me what his fate is?), to be replaced by Otto, who we are all assumed to be familiar with when he shows up in the middle and becomes the moral voice of the German people's collective guilt.
A straightforward telling of the story would have been much more accurate and effective at conveying the misery of soldiers in the kessel without late 20th century new-age PC hindsight.
I'm probably arriving slightly late to the party but anyways...
Stalingrad... it has its flaws but I don't quite see where the last couple of criticisms are coming from - it's concerning people who are for the most part experienced combat veterans (the exception being the commanding officer, whose distaste at the mps' treatment of russians comes over almost as naivite), you'd maybe expect them to be fairly 'earthy' characters without much tolerance for the rhetoric, and to have their bull***t detectors in working order. If I have a criticism of that film, it's that it gets sidetracked from the historical perspective into a kind of psychodrama between the particular characters, for example, you don't hear shellfire in the last third of the film - was Stalingrad that quiet?? I can't quite look at it as an apologist's pc makeover though - if you're going to make that accusation, you equally say that of Cross of Iron, which is set less than 8 months later, but includes such lines as 'Do you think they'll forget us, or forgive us for what we've done?'. Maybe we could even credit a German landser as being capable of such sentiments at the time?
Europa Europa - what exactly is the beef with that film? (apart from the 'foreskin reconstruction' sequence, which really made me wince!)
"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow!"