MovieChat Forums > Mrs. Miniver (1942) Discussion > A point about ignorance.

A point about ignorance.

posted 15 years ago by simplemines
14 replies | jump to latest

Just reading through some of these posts, it's astonishing how little people know about World War 2. Everyone acts NOW as if it were some kind of horror that a film like Mrs. Miniver would take the side of showing England as a place that it would be in American interests to defend.

In 1942, not only did anyone know if "our side" would win, but in fact, it seemed for very much of the war as if Hitler would win! Are any of the naysayers about "Mrs. Miniver" even aware of that?

I also see diddling references to "propaganda." Well, if propagandizing is a crime, Hollywood should be on Death Row, part. for movies that nowadays seem incapable of telling a story without introducing either pro-leftist sentiment or characturizing any non-leftist belief as being ridiculous. How about just telling a story and keeping your politics to yourself?

I keep wondering what's with the strangely over-the-top complaints against "Mrs. Miniver," complaints that seem to have so little to do with the movie, and so much to do with the obsessions of the complainers.

It truly makes no sense, although I do have some ideas as to what the issue is. I won't go into that here.

Of course I think "Mrs. Miniver" is a remarkable film, one I can see tons of times and never get weary (a remarkable thing for me, as I don't like watching the same movie over and over.)

It's just so absurd to judge a movie like this by one's personal CONTEMPORARY standards. It's so sad that so many lack the imagination to put themselves AT THE TIME this movie was made before passing judgment on it.

IMHO, the movie holds up remarkably well. Its sentiments are timeless. And if you don't get it, just move along. There's so much here that if you miss it, you need more education than you can get on an internet message board!

[–] lewis-51 15 years ago

"Well, if propagandizing is a crime, Hollywood should be on Death Row, part. for movies that nowadays seem incapable of telling a story without introducing either pro-leftist sentiment or characturizing any non-leftist belief as being ridiculous"
.....

"It's just so absurd to judge a movie like this by one's personal CONTEMPORARY standards. It's so sad that so many lack the imagination to put themselves AT THE TIME this movie was made before passing judgment on it. "

Well said! Right on!

- henry

[–] ecjones1951 15 years ago

I have to wonder why people bother to watch movies that are so outside their frames of reference that they don't understand or appreciate them. Mrs. Miniver was a contemporary drama when it was released, and nearly 70 years later it's a piece of historical fiction that has indeed held up very well. You can approach movies based on actual events either as a departure point to learning about the period they depict, or be familiar with the time, place and events and see how well a movie dramatization pulls all of that off. This is just way too much "work" for a lot of people when it should be fun, and it's too bad for them because they miss so much.

[–] thames-5 15 years ago

I dread the day when movies like Hannah Montana and The hottie and the nottie are rememberd rather than movies such as this, gone with the wind and citizen kane.

[–] thbryn 15 years ago

The late 30's had a battle going on in the US between the Roosevelt WH and the Republican Party. The latter didn't even want to help arm and feed Britain (and other countries) never mind actually join the war.

It is very likely that had we not been attacked by Japan we would have not got into the war until late 1942, if then. So in that sense films like "MM" were useful in trying to prepare the US mindset that war in fact was inevitable and not aiding the UK (ie.neutrality) was crazy.

[–] ChickNLittle 14 years ago

Yeah. The more things change, the more they stay the same. In recent times you have exactly the same sort of battle going on between the Bush White House and the Democratic Party about fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Funny how history repeats itself.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wakanohana 14 years ago

thbryn wrote: "The late 30's had a battle going on in the US between the Roosevelt WH and the Republican Party. The latter didn't even want to help arm and feed Britain (and other countries) never mind actually join the war. "

That's not exactly true. There were isolationists in both parties, but also people in both parties who recognized that Hitler and Tojo posed an existential threat. Some of the biggest critics of Roosevelt were people like Father Coughlin, who had started out as one of his biggest fans in 1933-34. Anti-Semitism was rampant in the Democratic Party, which was also the home of the KKK. Additionally, after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler and Stalin were pals, and American communists and other leftists quickly adopted an anti-war position vis-a-vis Nazi Germany.

The America First Committee, led by Charles Lindberg, grew most rapidly when it merged with the Keep America out of War Committee, one of whose leaders was the Socialist Norman Thomas. But its membership and funding came from both right and left, and included some who were pro-German, some who hated the British (like Irish Catholics), and some who simply did not trust anything that FDR said or did.

As for Lend-Lease, it was begun in March 1941. Until then, Roosevelt's Treasury Department insisted that Britain pay in gold for every rifle and every bomb. It was not until Britain's stocks of gold were drawn down practically to zero that Roosevelt agreed to sell additional armaments on credit. Roosevelt's motives were not so pure -- he sucked Britain dry before saddling that ally with huge debts it could never repay.

Edit: one last point. Lend-Lease passed with bipartisan support, 60-31 in the Senate, and one of the biggest advocatesx was the 1940 Republican presidential candidate Wendell Wilkie.

[–] ecjones1951 12 years ago

Thank you, Wakonohana for the backstory. You're either a fine history teacher or missed your calling. Meant in all sincerity.

[–] Wakanohana 12 years ago

I was a history teacher, long ago, but not a very effective one. I didn't have the knack to teach those who didn't care to learn. But thanks anyway.

The 20th century is a difficult era to teach. Too many people have too much riding on their own particular version of the past. The first "red scare" happened when Woodrow Wilson was president? Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal prolonged the Great Depression? Soviet agents really had infiltrated the highest levels of the US government? Alger Hiss was guilty and Richard Nixon was right? Communists really were trying to take over the Hollywood movie business and use it for propaganda purposes? The US had the Vietnam War won, when the Paris Peace Accords were signed and all US forces returned home? The Reagan economic program worked and led to 25 years of almost-uninterrupted economic growth? And the Reagan military build-up led to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact?

See what I mean? Are there any history textbooks that tell this story? Instead my niece in 9th grade is exposed to the Howard Zinn version of American history.

[–] Nannygoats 14 years ago

Do you honestly think that people will remember crap like Hannah Montana over truly great movies? And do you honestly think that nothing of artistic or social merit is being produced now?

[–] FickleBickle 14 years ago

There seems to be a noticeable increase in age on this forum.

I understand your concerns. I have the same complaints with my peers.

But, if it's anything, I am 23, just finished watching this, and loved it as a work of historical fiction. But for folks of my age group, I can't recommend doing research and watching special features on the DVD enough. Context is essential for something out of time like a person my age watching this film. Oh, but, can I say ... I did actually quite like "Colonel Blimp" a bit more ... if we're comparing World War II films with fictional british icons. And Churchill hated that right?

And don't worry ... work of artistic, memorable merit is still being produced. Great Caesar's ghost, we got our "Dark Knights" and our "Milks" and our "Trouble the Waters"

So please, don't dislike youth, just individuals. Not that some of you weren't making that point anyway.

[–] abalone324 14 years ago

@ Thames-5

I am a twenty-something year old who will always appreciate a classic movie like Mrs. Miniver over any Miley Cyrus/Paris Hilton drivel. As for my husband...I decline from speaking on his behalf ;-)

[–] justaudrey 14 years ago

Hear, hear! I completely agree. Thank you for breathing some perspective into this debate. This is one of my favorite movies ever, and it did great things for the war effort. And still today the timeless lessons that it teaches are invaluable.