The hairstyles were not of the forties, back then they were known as the Brylcream boys, they looked too modern and sounded modern as well, was that the writing? Susanna York's makeup was positively sixties as well. And the fact that some of the cast were sixties icons didn't help either.
shareI think Michael Caine in particular was reluctant to have his hair too short as it interfered with other roles he was involved with around this time.
share
Films set in earlier periods rarely get the hairstyles and makeup right. If a 1968 movie is set in 1940, you can bet the makeup and hair will be closer to '68 than '40. American films were the same.
"We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did."
Yes. Very anachronistic.
That Mickelfhoff/michael Caine with his appalling speech would not have been allowed in a posh team.
And that appalling Susannah York wearing the blue uniform and cap looked like a koala bear.
Indeed just after the french won the war the whole thing had an air of indifference about it ..
givemebackthelast1136.789wastedsecondsofmylife----Ididnotneedtoseethat,Ivotethumbsupthismovie!
It was typical of its day. Most war films of this era made few concessions to 1940s fashions, particularly with women's hair styles. For a man, adopting a typical 40s 'short back and sides' haircut would have been too much for the Swinging 60s; it was still too recent and therefore very 'square'. Look at 'Where Eagles Dare' and '633 Squadron' as other typical 60s war films with few concessions to 1940s authenticity.
Having said that, I struggle to see what was so 'disgusting' about Michael Caine's accent; I think he pulls off an upper class Brit accent quite convincingly, just like he does in 'Zulu'. Bear in mind also that only 7% of RAF pilots during WW2 were from public (ie fee-paying) school, so he could very likely have been a state-educated middle class character, if his accent failed to pass muster!
BTW what is so 'disgusting' about Susannah York? A perfectly competent and attractive actress IMHO.
^
I say that Susannah York looked like a koala bear because she does.
Jennifer Aniston has the same problem. Speak to a hairdresser and they'll tell you that some ladies cannot be versatile in their hairdos. Susannah York was obliged to wear the 60s Sexpot style even though it was utterly wrong for this movie.
"That Mickelfhoff/michael Caine with his appalling speech would not have been allowed in a posh team."
True, because the RAF, desperate for pilots to save Britain from a Nazi invasion, based their acceptance of trainees on accents.
All the young women's makeup looked uniformly pancaked on without any contrasting rouge on the cheeks or lipstick or eye liners, and the hairstyles were decidedly not early 1940's. Where were the pompadours?
I've noticed that any movie made in the late 60s/early 70s that the groovy hairstyles and even clothes to a degree are worn. I can't recall the movie, possibly Soylent Green, which is set in like 2020 was a big culprit in this mess. I guess the designers were so confident that the hairstyles, 'futuristic' furniture, and clothing, right down to an ascot will still be in style 50 years later.
Love's turned to lust and blood's turned to dust in my heart.
As an earlier poster pointed out, film stars of this era were reluctant to change their appearances too much from one production to another. Take a look at Arthur Penn's 'Bonnie & Clyde' to see similar attitudes on the other side of the pond. By contrast, Steve McQueen's navy crew in 'The Sand Pebbles' was quite daring for its day; contrast this with George Peppard's hairstyle in 'The Blue Max'. These attitudes rapidly began to change shortly after this period, as concepts in branding, as well as film production values, underwent a quantum change.
share