Having recently seen a factual documentary on BBC2 TV here in England about the Battle of the River Plate, it confirmed the authenticity of how the film portrayed the action and in particular, the intelligence aftermath.
My only minor criticism of the film was the feeble high pitched whistling sound of the Grand Spee's shells flying overhead. My understanding in reality a heavy naval shell sounds more like a heavy express train/deep roar.
also surely most of the crews in action would be wearing white antiflash hoods and gloves.
share[deleted]
A further comment on the authenticity of the film; the ship representing HMNZS Achilles was in fact....HMNZS Achilles! Although by that time she had been transferred to the Indian navy and had been renamed Delhi. HMS Ajax was represented by HMS Belfast (now preserved on the Thames opposite the Tower of London). Does anyone know what ship was used for the Exeter?
shareAccording to this site it's HMS Jamaica, I believe the ships are credited at the beginning of the film. As for authenticity there's sometimes a rankling when I see the Graf Spee's double, but then obviously you can't get the Real McCoy. I clean forgot Belfast was in the film.
"They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally they became heroes".
Thanks for the info. Both Exeter and Jamaica were three-turret ships so that sort-of makes sense.
shareThe funny and not-so-authentic part of this picture: It seems not one german was involved in the cast. Probably because it was too early after the war to be acceptable to a british audience. Today they would prefer real germans to be shot at.
[email protected] I Rostock, Germany
I wouldn't say that Ekkard, but I do see some point. Finch seems to make a good enough German, better than some of that decade
"They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally they became heroes".
That is true. Finch is an impressive as German captain and I am proud how sympathetic and heroic his acting as Langsdorf is.
share[deleted]
I saw this DVD recently nd can;t remember if I had seen it before.
I was dissaponted with the Graf Spee's double also!
They could not use the original but maybe using models they could have achieved a better result. When you see a much earlier "Sink the Bismark" the silouhettes of the ships were for the most part correct.
Here there is no action shots of the battle from the graf Spee, we only get the comments from the captured crews held in the German ship. On some early shots of the Graf Spee you see the American AA gunners withtheir US helmets...
But all in all en enjoyable film.
Actually, HMS Ajax was "portayed" by HMS Sheffield, one of the earlier Town-class cruisers. HMS Belfast was in the last group of this class, and her design was modified so that the funnels were well aft of the forward superstructure. Sheffield was the last Town class ship to serve in the RN and went to the breakers in the late 1960s.
shareH M S AJAX WAS PLAYED BY H M S SHEFFIELD AND NOT THE BELFAST AS QUOTED.H M S EXETER WAS PLAYED BY H M S JAMAICA AND THE CUMBERLAND WAS PLAYED BY HERSELF.
shareYes, though he was portrayed as a traitor in his time. As far as I am informed, the way he dealt with the situation is still topic of discussions among naval experts. I feel a lot of sympathy for this man.
[email protected] I Rostock, Germany
[deleted]
Well he probably would have reacted like many of his generation did who did not know or didn´t want to know: His whole world of officer´s honor and prussian discipline would have fallen to pieces. That happened to many who fought to the last bullet for the wrong cause, I guess.
[email protected] I Rostock, Germany
[deleted]
It probably can happen to anyone, but the fall was never as deep as from prussian glory to the guilt for the holocaust. Guantanamo is definetely far away from Auschwitz.
[email protected] I Rostock, Germany
[deleted]
Well, I wish you and the US troops all the best. I hope torture is not part of the programm to win. If one uses inhuman methods, Auschwitz is already closer than one thinks it is. These methods only open up pandora´s box of terror.
[email protected] I Rostock, Germany
[deleted]
> As I said before: "As an American, MY conscience is CLEAR!"
my knowledge of the english language is not very good, so kindly elucidate:
does the above statement mean that you don´t have one?
[deleted]
So..... based on MOST of this board, this is a film worthy of being seen.
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
[deleted]
Ok, I'll see it. The above posts were getting a bit off-topic.
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
[deleted]
Hmmm... if you have any leads as to how/where to acquire this film, please let me know.
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
[deleted]
Hmmmm... I asked my out-of-date DVD player if it can play PAL format, and it just sat there looking dumb.
Methinks I shall have to find another way to enjoy this film.
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
[deleted]
I'm very late with my reply, but I only came to this board because the movie will be on Turner Movie Classics soon.
First, let me congratulate you on your English. So many Americans speak only English and the little bit that they remember from high school (from about age 13-14 to 17-18), and perhaps a semester or two in college, of another language.
If I felt guilty, I would say I have "something on my concience" or "my concience is bothering me". To say one's concience is clear is to say that one has nothing to feel guilty about.
"Clear" has many uses with similar but different connotations. One common use is to mean that something is transparent, like window glass.
We also use is to indicate perfect understanding. If I had trouble learning something, or was confused about a topic, and someone made it easy to understand, I might say: "Ah, now it's clear to me", or "Thank you for clearing that up for me (although "Thank you for clearing up that for me" would be more correct - hardly anyone in America talks that way). If someone felt they were being misunderstood, they might say "Let me clarify that for you" or, as Richard M. Nixon was famous for saying, "Let me make it *perfectly* clear". "Clear" often has a connotation of something that might be bad, but actually is good. To say that one is "in the clear" maens that the person had been concerned about being in trouble or danger, but has been found not to be. Similarly, when one has been accused of a crime, but then is found to be innocent, that person has been "cleared". One more use is in granting someone access to private, secret, or privileged information - that person has been "cleared" or "granted clearance". Many people in the military have a "security clearance". The common usage here is that there is something that could be unfavorable, but if it is "clear" or "cleared", then it is favorable.
[deleted]
2- The scum that the U.S. forces are fighting against in Iraq are armed, insane, religious fanatics who will stop at NOTHING, and are determined to kill US unless WE kill THEM first!So wrong that I don't know where to start. Educate yourself before screaming about.
I am embarrassed to even call them "religious" because to do so tends to give religion a bad name.You should think about that.
it is insane to even TRY to fight HONORABLY with such a DISHONORABLE enemy.At least you admit that you fight dishonorably. share
[deleted]
YOU need to take ANOTHER look at those beheading videos that were posted on the INTERNET!!!No I don't. I don't let terrorists control my actions.
How much is al-Quida PAYING you?Now you are starting to be funny. share
[deleted]
[deleted]
You are quite mad.
At least the Waffen SS wore UNIFORMS and they DID NOT hide behind CIVILIANS!Nope, they had no civilians to hide, cause they had murdered them.
The Geneva Conventions ONLY apply to UNIFORMED combatants, and if the U.S. has to use force to obtain information that will save American lives, then I can accept that.This is simply fiction. More important, do you have the right to torture anyone not covered by the Convention?
My answer is this to ANYBODY who is critical of U.S. actions at Guantanamo: "TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE BEHEADING VIDEOS THAT WERE POSTED ON THE INTERNET!"This is really the standard for which you want the US military to aim?
And if we don't fight to WIN, WE ARE DEAD.It doesn't look like you've been particulary successful in the past years. share
[deleted]
So the US can only be militarily successful if they drop their constitutional right of a free press?
I think this article describes it best: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28121
- And that makes TWO of us-!(burrell_dale on Mon Sep 18 2006 15:08:26)
BTW, he is not mentioned in the cast among the first twenty names and one has to look in "see more". He is though the main person in the film, is he not?
Thanks for your answer. IMHO he was the main person in the film, but ever if he was only one of the main should appear among the first five or so. Just my personal estimation. Of course the film was not about him. That is clear.
I thank you also for your help regarding the update possibility of my site.
Langsdorff was not good only to his crew, but also to his captives, therefore I compared him to Rommel. That is made clear in the film too.
As to his ability as a captain of a warship, I cannot express any opinion as I am not an expert.
It is a great pity that Captain Langsdorffs subsequent suicide is not mentioned even as a postscript.
share[deleted]
THis has been shown again on Film4 in the UK just this afternoon.
About an hour in, just after Achilles, Ajax and Exeter have engaged the Graf Spee, the Exeter has been badly damaged and has set up a chain of men to pass messages to the second helm point; there's an explosion and a a red split appears across a room: does anyone have any idea what this is supposed to be? Has anyone seen anything like this? Has anyone seen this in the movie?
Hi 'Hgrainger' - I think the red line you refer to is on the 'Ajax' (Harwood's flagship - not the 'Exeter' which was already too damaged and just leaving for the Falkands for repairs). It is the effect of a shell hit causing an electrical 'short-circuit/fire'. You see the affected area again later when Harwood has just received his promotion/knighthood and. you see the crew repairing the officers bathrooms. Also, I think Harwood's golf clubs were meant to have been 'beheaded' with the same shot!
shareThe film's been shown so many times recently on FilmFour that either I'll be able to check it out in the next few days, or it won't be on the TV for another 5 years.
Thanks for your input - I'll watch and get back to you.
This scene on exeter actually happened, Captian Bell did infact steer the ship from this position.
Red split, maybe meant to show a weakening in the bulkheads, there were electrical fires on Ajax so maybe it was this?
[deleted]
I must admit that I have always been particularly impressed at how much attention to naval battle detail this film brings out. The bells ringing, the gun operators and the film is particularly accurate on the real life events. It is a very powerful film, I first saw it when I was eight and today eleven years later it still has the same effect on me. It was this film tht mad eme want to join the navy when I was a child. Although I myself have respected Capt Langsdorff's methods and he was an excellent naval officer, I've always thought he was something of a wet blanket really.
My criticisms, like yours, are the sounds of the Graf Spee's shells coming towards the british ships, and I wish we could have seen some of the action of the battle from the Graf Spee's deck and some of her crew instead of just from the British prisoners onboard. I also didn't ever understand why they used the US heavy cruiser Salem for the Graf Spee, as it bore no resemblance to the ship whatsoever. The Graf Spee was smaller than the Salem, probably faster and had six eleven inch guns, whereas the Salem had nine eight inch guns. As a double was often used for the deck shots of the Graf Spee, I dont see why they didn't just build a small model of the real Graf Spee as they built a double model of the Salem. Despite that it is a great propaganda film and shows the Royal Navy in a very powerful light.
I'm not a great Englishman - Charles Dickens, Laurence Olivier and William Shakespeare were great Englishmen!
I first saw this film on tv back in the 60s (must have been one of the first tv showings - we used to have to wait 5 years after the cinema release before it could be shown on tv in those days!) and I have to say it made me want to join the navy too! I never did, though I sent off for the application forms, but a navy midshipman I shared a flat with one year while I was at university 30 years ago is now an RN Rear-Admiral...
shareI've never seen this movie in my life but I work on the Salem and was really excited to see it mentioned.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
True, USS Salem was "available." Although substantially larger than the real Graf Spee, she had a single funnel (like Graf Spee) and had triple 8" turrets to simulate Graf Spee's 2 triple 11" turrets.
shareAnd they did have the line in the film about the Graf Spee changing her outline with false funnels. That was partly to cover themselves against people who would spot the difference.
The real Graf Spee had a big swastika painted on her foredeck. The US Navy wasn't keen on that idea. They also wouldn't let the Salem's crew be dressed in German uniform so they are still wearing US Navy issue helmets.
They also weren't allowed to blow up the Salem at the end of the film (of course). So they had to use models for the Graf Spee's scuttling. After the use of real ships through the rest of the film, the model shots aren't all that convincing.
Powell & Pressburger and the rest of the crew that made up The Archers were very good at making do with what was available. Changing the script at the last minute if necessary. In this case, through various contacts, they had use of large parts of the Royal Navy's Mediterranean Fleet and some visiting American warships. They sat down with the senior officers and worked out how they could do things so that The Archers could make their film and for the navy it would be a legitimate exercise.
There are many other small details that give things away. But it is one of the few feature films that makes use of real naval warships and the overall effect is about as realistic as you can hope to get. Yes the shells arriving should have sounded more like an express train. But how many other feature films have scenes of naval gunfire where the gunfire was real and was done for the film rather than cutting in some documentary footage?
Steve
Authentic?
As a student of history (with a particular affinity to the Royal Navy) id say yes AND no.
The (not so) special effects depict a sheet of flame in front of a close up of the bridge station. The film cuts to a lookout on another ship exclaiming that Exeter has been hit and then cuts back to a shot of Exeter’s bridge showing charred and wrecked instruments, with many men lying dead. Compare this film treatment to Able Seaman Len Fogwill’s account of his experiences aboard the Exeter when she was engaging the Graf Spee.
Shells were passing right through the superstructure. There was shrapnel flying everywhere. In the first ten minutes, we lost five officers and fifty-six ratings…there were bodies everywhere and some of them were in a terrible condition. A piece of shrapnel took the back of our sub-lieutenant’s head off. I’d never seen anyone die before. We were a young ship’s company; a lot of us were in our teens and early twenties. This was our first action together…I was put on look-out on the wings of the bridge on the flag deck. It was pretty grim because there were still some bodies around. The shell which had passed from port to starboard had sliced right through the deck and chopped off the legs of all the telegraphers who were lined up on a bench. They were all killed instantly. There were over sixty killed and over one-hundred and twenty wounded.
In the film, apart from dirt on their clothes and a few men covered in blood, the dead are largely shown intact with none of the shrapnel or amputating wounds that Fogwill so graphically remembers. By today’s standards The Battle of the River Plate is relatively tame in its treatment of war casualities.
However,
The film is largely accurate in terms of the movement of ships and the chronology of the battle
The (not so) special effects depict a sheet of flame in front of a close up of the bridge station. The film cuts to a lookout on another ship exclaiming that Exeter has been hit and then cuts back to a shot of Exeter’s bridge showing charred and wrecked instruments, with many men lying dead.
One more thing: they should have taken HMS Belfast as HMS Exeter and HMAS Hobart as HMS Achilles. HMS Belfast is ugly, as hell, but it's larger, than the rest, while Exeter was larger, than Ajax and Achilles. Besides, it has a gap between a bridge and funnels, like Exeter (right, twice as big) and has funnels behind the center of the ship. HMAS Hobart was of similar class to Ajax and Achilles, only with two funnels - anyway, better, than HMS Sheffield, which is, by the way, the largest of the three ships used.
share[deleted]
Regarding the portrayal of casualties: everybody knows that in battles employing heavy ordnance, soft human bodies get minced. But is it necessary to show this on film? Viscera splashed all over the instruments and amputated limbs and disembowelled torsos might have been more `realisitic'; however, when the audience weren't puking-up in the aisles, they'd have been too distracted to follow the rest of the story. Remember; this was 1956. Censorship was much more strict in those days, and many of those who died in the action probably had surviving family members, ex-sweethearts, and so on, who would go and see this movie. It would hardly have been fair on them to display such carnage.
If someone you loved had been slaughtered in a road-crash would you really want to go and identify them as a binbag full of offal? If anything, this movie demonstrates how de-sensitized modern sensibilities have become. Remember all those paparazzi who swooped upon Princess Diana's corpse after her accident? Where they photographers enhancing a newsworthy story or just unprincipled, tasteless vultures?
[deleted]
`Amen' to that.
share[deleted]
There are a few good books on the battle as well.
Capt. Dove wrote his own book ("I Was Graf Spee's Prisoner". UK: Cherry Tree, 1940) and that was one of the sources used for the film, along with the good Captain himself and Captain Bell (Exeter). They also gave special thanks to Capt. Parry (Achilles) and Harwood's widow. They helped with a few points and some diaries and other papers.
Michael Powell also wrote a book about it ("The Last Voyage of the Graf Spee". London: White Lion Publishers, 1976). In that he included a lot of the information that they had collected as part of their research but that he was unable to use in the film. Like the way that the Royal Navy cruisers were in radio contact and could link up their range finders and feed those into the gunnery plotting computers (analogue computers that took into account things like the wind speed and even the rotation of the earth). So they acted like one large gun platform and so were able to get some very high accuracy.
It is a shame that they didn't mention what happened to Langsdorff. They did do a reasonable job of showing him as a man of some honour. Once he had buried his dead - he gave the naval salute at the funeral, not the Nazi salute - he saw his men to safety in Argentina he wrapped himself in the old German navy flag and shot himself.
Steve
[deleted]
Yawwwn, any chance of getting back to talking about the film?
I haven't sent this in reply to either one of you because I don't want to blame one more than the other. It takes two to tango.
I've just made this message a reply to the first message in the thread but it is really addressed to these discussions that are way, way off topic and would really be better suited to another thread
Steve