MovieChat Forums > The Lost Prince (2004) Discussion > Zero mention of the Yanks?

Zero mention of the Yanks?


Please don't get me wrong with this topic title; I enjoyed this screenplay very much from the fine direction to the sets and costumes to the scripting. Kudos to the cast that all performed with excellence, (and I was especially disarmed by Miranda Richardson as Queen Mary if you needed to know). Certainly it afforded educated insight of the challenges, and the resulting successes and failures, of a precariously inept royalty during that period that I would have not otherwise ever known of let alone considered.

However, after I dried my eyes and the credits were rolling, I realized that there was something missing... With a great portion of the performance centered upon the horrors of WW1 and how royalty was becoming totally inefficacious in doing anything to either prevent it, stop it or win it, I did not catch one mention of America entering the war. Granted, casualty-wise, (and not to diminish the sacrifice of any soldier in any way), the USA was a mere footnote compared to the losses of Russia, Germany, Austria, England and France. But perhaps such low casualties out of over four million US soldiers mobilized can be seen as either the result of our lateness in arriving, our ability in fighting to win or a combination of both?

The fact remains however, (and this was brought out well and repeatedly in the play), that morale had reached new lows with earlier assumptions of a quick Allied victory becoming very dubious with most everyone at home waiting day to day to hear whether or not the Germans had broken through Allied lines.

That's when we yanks showed up and turned the tide in the Spring of 1918. If we had never shown up, that war might have lasted yet another 4 or 5 years and the death toll doubled to over 18 million but not with only more soldier's lives - certainly more women and children too with many of those being English and French.

As the expression goes, "If you don't toot your own horn, who will?" Well, I 'toot' only that I was dismayed that American involvement was not mentioned in this screenplay and that led me to ask the question why? Is the absence some sort of European psychological process of denial at play or is it a reflection on the affect intravenous doses of liberal news media have upon them in regard to Iraq?

If the latter, let me make one thing perfectly clear to my European brothers and sisters, if the USA had had a hawk president in 1914 and a willing populace that put him there, (and I say 'him' because women couldn't even vote back then let alone be president..), and we had entered the war near the start, is there any doubt that it would have tipped the scales and MILLIONS of lives would have been saved? If we had all stopped Hitler from taking Poland in 1938, (per what should have happened per the Treaty of Versailles, correct?), is there any doubt that many more MILLIONS of lives would have been saved? And yet, if such had indeed taken place there would remain no proof of such millions having been saved! There would be only the musings of political pundits bandying about their experts' projections in tabloids whining about what was wrong with doing it and of what 'might of' occurred and all them likely wrong in one fashion or another.

If that alternative outcome sounds a wee bit familiar and, if those two wars were of any indication, it seems that the USA was guilty back then of waiting too long while watching evil power gather in the distance and all of us in the free world guilty of watching history repeat itself in WW2. Let it be known that I for one see George Bush and Tony Blair as two leaders of the free world unwilling to watch it all happen yet again with both knowing fully well there will be little or nothing to prove 'what might have happened' if they had been as willing to wait and watch as were our leaders in the past. The courage to endure the prospect of such lack of proof, endure the tabloid pundits et al, to me, is the mark of true leaders and was, apparently, a painfully absent quality back in 1914. Though this screenplay did make its mark on that point, I believe that it should have at least mentioned that we were there too so that people might consider that, today, the yanks have come to the rescue yet again but, this time, - on time.

reply

This might seem strange to you but not everything is about America nor does everything relate to the Iraq war. Can you not watch a film without wanting some mention of America or something? I wouldn't read too much into the fact America was not mentioned, especially if you consider the era in which the film is set. Britain-- then the most powerful country in the world-- was fighting an exhausting war and were losing so many soldiers while America was only just coming out of isolation and had yet to establish itself as a World Power. To the people of that era, yes America's involvement was a footnote since it was a war fought in Europe and that caused the deaths of millions of Europeons.

Also, in the film we only saw a handful of re-enactments of meetings that might of took place, and since this is a British film then obviously the focus will be on Britain. Had this been an American film then of course, it would be very clear the part America played in WWI. After all, in 'Saving Private Ryan', you'd barely know there were as many British soldiers who stormed the beach at Normandy as there were Americans. Even when scripts do attempt to remain balanced, there will always be bias towards the country who developed the script. It doesn't mean there is any great conspiracy against America or denying they contributed to the wars.

Is the absence some sort of European psychological process of denial at play or is it a reflection on the affect intravenous doses of liberal news media have upon them in regard to Iraq?

If anything, the BBC are quite pro-Iraq.




'She never stated that the stags in the books are male deers.' ~ Gracie11, IMDb troll

reply

Just rented this wonderful movie and do totally agree with your posting, especially the notation about "Saving Private Ryan".

The British people as a whole are quite aware of our contributions in both WW1 & 2, and have expressed those feelings many times over the years, and due to the length of this movie,they may not have wanted to devote a portion of an historical film about our involvement in WW1, just to make us feel better, and correctly so.

reply

to have someone saying 'better late than never' or what took them so long?' or 'ABOUT BLEEDIN' TIME'?

reply

Because this movie shows the events of WW1 from this Prince John's prespective and since the U.S. did not enter it until later then naturally they aren't going to really mention the Americans.

reply

True, lot's of things about the war weren't mentioned, it seemed to focus more on the "family" than the war, ie the british royal family and it's relatives.

For me, the series was about Johnny and his relationship with Lala and his family - they just happened to be royalty and at war.

reply

The way I saw this film was it was about the British Royal family, especially Prince john and his parents ect aswell as his nanny.

Of course WW1 featured in it because it was a major part of life in that time 1914.

To me it would not have done anything for the film ect to mention the Americans, and so it was better leaving them out. Also they did not really play much of a part in the actual story of Prince John.

reply

I'm Amercian, and I saw this beautifully done piece this week (rented it from Netflix, BTW). I also found myself waiting for a mention of Amercia's contributions to WWI. When none came, my first thought was that the English people went through so much deprivation and sacrifice during that time (and later during WWII) that we Yanks can have no idea about. The populace was also under great threat of invasion and attack. Very anxious times for the English that, again, we Yanks didn't experience. I'm sure the makers of this wonderful movie didn't deliberately slight America's involvement in the war.

reply

I'm with anne tonner on this one. The exclusion of America's role in WWI was due to the film's focus rather than as any intended slight. I saw this as a domestic kind of movie with the public profile of the royal family demanding a greater scale; the War, because it was the central public event of the time of Johnnie's adolescence, was a lens through which to examine a private tragedy. If you watch the behind the scenes mini-doc on the DVD, it says something about wanting to show history from the perspective of Prince John.

An incredibly moving film, simultaneously heart-breaking (on so many levels) and life-affirming. Johnnie's recital reduced me to tears.

reply

<<or me, the series was about Johnny and his relationship with Lala and his family>>

Well then, I can only suggest that you watch the film over again. To me it illustrated how royalty, as a ruling power, had becoming totally archaic and neutered. For one thing, the situation of Johnny and his family was a good tool to reveal how royalty were no different than any other humans when it came to facing the cards you are dealt. But I especially saw a strong parallel between Johnny's perceptions of his own family and the perception of the royals in regard to their very own country. He had a childish, simplistic yet adoring perception of his own parents. Was that not the very same perception the royals had of Britain?

WW1 put them clearly out to pasture and the story even included a scene of the king with his son and or others (?) playing an archaic war game with toy foot soldiers suitable for stratagizing the next squirmish with the Normans. Those toy soldiers were not stored in the boys' bedrooms - they were in the King's chamber.

The film was about the end of royal power and infuence languishing in a modern world. Ask Czar Nick where Russian royalty ended up than ask yourself where English royalty would have LIKELY ended up if not for an independent people English royalty 'created' in the New World (by trying to control and profit by them) - but who came back to save them! The USA is the direct result of English royalty.

Like I already said, I liked the film very much and I am only trying to make a minor point saying that it wouldn't have hurt to have included a single line such as this for example, "Oh, it says here that the USA is going to send troops to help us. Aren't they the same ones that wrote that nasty note to King George III way back when?"


reply

"it wouldn't have hurt to have included a single line such as this ... "

I am disgusted by this display of ego. SERIOUSLY - this film has nothing to do with America. It IS a domestic story - the war did happen, of course, but Johnnie is kept right out of it coz he is not in the mental state to understand what is going on, except to mull over why his parents are so moody all the time.

I mean, if the Brits were to mention any other nation they would probably mention their colonies. Certainly they would have thought about their relationship with their Continental relatives, how they have changed (Germany now bad). They would have thought about that LONG BEFORE America comes to the picture.

This is not your era, man. (And it soon will not be anymore.)

reply

[deleted]

Agreed. The prince's story didn't need the presence of the Yanks. In fact, the lengthy inclusion of the Romanovs, if that was factual, seemed a little too stretched out as well.

reply

Sadly, the Romanov stuff is true, with Lloyd George being pilloried for a decision that the British monarch actually made. I thought that the Russian-royals story was in the film primarily as a gloss on the notion of familial responsibility. In other words, we see King George and Queen Mary keeping Johnnie from public view in order to maintain some sort of public image; abandoning the Romanovs was rooted in the same motivation.

reply

I think it's also important to remember that in dozens of American movies that mention both the First and Second World War there are almost NO mention of the Europeans who fought on the same side (let's not forget "U-571" when it was in fact a British team which cracked the Enigma code, not the Americans.)

reply

Adding to your comments, include the Canadian soldiers, who are RARELY mentioned by any American made productions ! One glaring omission was in the wonderful movie, The Great Escape, largely planned and carried out by many Canadian captives - NO credit whatsoever in the movie. Canadian servicemen bravely fought in both World Wars, long before their U.S friends ever were.Please don't take for granted your neighbours & allies.

reply

Very good point. I've noticed that Canada is always sending their military to help out whenever there is a crisis in the world but they rarely get any acknowledgement for their service. Last year when Hurricane Katrina hit and devastated the Gulf Coast Canada sent troops to help out with search and rescue in New Orleans.

reply

"Slavery endorsing scumbag"? Let's see, who started slave trading first? The English or the USA? And where did slavery start and where is it still being practiced today? But this has nothing to due with the topic anyway and, seeing how you offered nothing of substance in that regard, I really don't feel obligated to offer anything in return. That's how things work. Really....

reply

"Let's see, who started slave trading first?"

The Dutch...

reply

Guess again - it was Africa. Slavery was the BEST thing you hope for when your tribe lost a war with another tribe ...

(and don't forget that Europeans were the first ones to STOP the practice.)

reply

Which Europeans were the 1st to stop the parctica of slavery????. Spain, The Netherlands?, France? Are you serious?.Please explain your statement.

As of Africans being happy about it, do you speak for yourself?

reply

In 1794 France abolished slavery in all French territories. In England the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was in 1817 and slavery itself was outlawed in all of the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. I don't know when exactly for Spain or Germany etc. but white Europe was the FIRST to abolish the practice of slavery, followed by the USA with the Emancipation Proclamation. Though it was abolished in all of Europe and North America in the 19th century - slavery continues to this day in some remote parts of Africa! (plus there's Turkish sex slavery and maybe some slavery still in remote parts of Burma and elsewhere in SE Asia?)

As for your silly remark about "Africans being happy" - WHO said that? Not me! I said slavery "was the best that they could hope for" and that's true.

Tribal warfare in subsaharan Africa was the primary source of slavery there. If you were taken as a slave by the tribe that conquered you - then that means you were not KILLED! Later on, those same winning African tribes bartered their slaves for goods brought by Arabs by ships and later by Europeans. The first sale of a black African slave to an Arab or European was made by a black African.


reply

Who said anything that the "focus" should be on the USA? Certainly it was not me! (Go ahead and find it ...) You may enjoy ~thinking~ whatever you want to concerning WW2 which isn't the focus anymore than WW1 is in this topic but you might want to read a little history to learn of all the 'irrelevant' stuff like the lend lease act or stuff that traveled from the USA to England in the North Sea for starters. So, the 'tide was turned' at the Battle of Britain!?! Right, the Battle of Britain prevented the Blitz which then never happened - of course! http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/london-blitz.htm (Hint: It was the Blitz that turned the tide - having over 35,000 innocent men, women and children slaughtered by Nazi bombs changed some HEARTS in England ...)

reply

[deleted]

Unable to offer anything in rebuttal, this poster somehow manages to find satisfaction by implying an obscenity and writing boring derogatory hyperbole. Why bother? If you have something on your mind to cause you react with such tripe – why not skip the tripe and actually express the reason instead? Are you unable to muster the courage to reveal your underlying thoughts in public or is it simply that you are incapable of communicating them because they are so ugly? Something tells me we will likely never know the answer to that…

reply

In another message board someone told me that because I'm an American I couldn't pick out my own country on a map and that it was sad that I hadn't been educated properly. I responded by pointing that it was sad that they assumed that I wasn't properly educated when they didn't capitalize their letters and spell properly. People will assume things and sterotype people because they are American, British, German, etc. Don't worry about it and ignore it.

reply

On the other hand, Americans are pretty good at skipping over explaining themselves or actually thinking about the questions posed - through rhetoric. Pretty good at English, this lot.

reply


1:The United States of America is NOT the only country in the world, which many Americans seem to think. They are so insular.

2: The whole world DOES NOT revolve around the U.S.of A.

3: This film had sweet FA to do with Americans, it was about the British Royal Family. The First World War just happen to occur during part of when this film was set, and it was not a historical drama or documentary about WW1. Mentioning Amercians would have been totally irrelevant.

4: It is refreshing to see a film with no American accents.

reply

[deleted]

I would see absolutely no reason whatsoever for America or any Americans being mentioned in this film. In fact it would have added a decidedly disconcerting note if they were. The subject matter at no point touches on anything that would lend itself to an insertion of America or Americans into the film.

That said there are a few things that as an historian I must comment on.

“But perhaps such low casualties out of over four million US soldiers mobilized can be seen as either the result of our lateness in arriving, our ability in fighting to win or a combination of both? “

This would be a decided mistake believing this to be true. By the time the US got involved militarily it was all over but the shouting. When it became apparent we were going to enter the war we made sure that sales of food and war materiels stopped being sent to Germany. The sad fact is even without that happening Germany’s fate was sealed. The US were notably inept soldiers for much of our involvement on the battlefield. The only change in tactics was in the fact the US had newer working tanks. There was no superior will to win.

I will not even comment on trying to bring Iraq war into this. It is just too laughable. Sad but laughable. It really is. I’m actually embarrassed for you.

“If the latter, let me make one thing perfectly clear to my European brothers and sisters, if the USA had had a hawk president in 1914 and a willing populace that put him there, (and I say 'him' because women couldn't even vote back then let alone be president..), and we had entered the war near the start, is there any doubt that it would have tipped the scales and MILLIONS of lives would have been saved? If we had all stopped Hitler from taking Poland in 1938, (per what should have happened per the Treaty of Versailles, correct?), is there any doubt that many more MILLIONS of lives would have been saved? And yet, if such had indeed taken place there would remain no proof of such millions having been saved! There would be only the musings of political pundits bandying about their experts' projections in tabloids whining about what was wrong with doing it and of what 'might of' occurred and all them likely wrong in one fashion or another.”

Ok, let me address this in steps.
First, there is no evidence that the US would not have suffered even worse than any country involved had there been a hawk as president. The Americans have no corner on having better soldiers. By the time the US entered the war, the wolf packs of German submarines were just about gone from lack of fuel. Had the US entered early there are no telling how many 100s of thousands on troops ships lost. Same can be said about ww2 as well. The wolf packs were pretty much beaten by 42. in both wars the US was lucky enough to enter after submarine threat diminished.
Second, there is no reason to suppose the US would have used any different tactics had they joined in the beginning. None. We were of the exact school of thought.
Third, there is nothing in the Treaty of Versailles about Poland that Germany violated with the US. Indeed nothing the US could sqwak about because the Treaty was a League of Nations Treaty and the US did not sign on. Had they done so then they may have had a voice. But American ‘Hawks’ refused it as being Un American (meaning no oil or ground to be cut up with our name on it). Had America joined the League, of who Wilson was a deciding founder, ww2 may never have happened. If the US had joined the League it is entirely possible Stalin might not have slaughtered 35 million people before ww2 even started. But bear in mind, Germany would not have even thought of invading Poland if not for Stalin. Hitler and Stalin divided Poland, talin getting the better piece too. Yet why was Russia delegated to valued ally but Germany to villain? The reason England and France entered the war upon the invasion of Poland was due to treaties with Poland. The US had no such treaties. The US only had a treaty with Poland with the falling apart of the Russian dominated Warsaw Pact. And only then because after ww2, unlike after ww1, America made a point of joining the United Nations. Naturally though the US only did so being self assured they’d dominate the UN, to the point of having its HQ in the center of the known universe.
Third, for someone who says “There would be only the musings of political pundits bandying about their experts' projections in tabloids whining about what was wrong with doing it and of what 'might of' occurred and all them likely wrong in one fashion or another.” You seem to exclude yourself from this type whining equation. Deliberate irony on your part?


“If that alternative outcome sounds a wee bit familiar and, if those two wars were of any indication, it seems that the USA was guilty back then of waiting too long while watching evil power gather in the distance and all of us in the free world guilty of watching history repeat itself in WW2. Let it be known that I for one see George Bush and Tony Blair as two leaders of the free world unwilling to watch it all happen yet again with both knowing fully well there will be little or nothing to prove 'what might have happened' if they had been as willing to wait and watch as were our leaders in the past. The courage to endure the prospect of such lack of proof, endure the tabloid pundits et al, to me, is the mark of true leaders and was, apparently, a painfully absent quality back in 1914. Though this screenplay did make its mark on that point, I believe that it should have at least mentioned that we were there too so that people might consider that, today, the yanks have come to the rescue yet again but, this time, - on time. “

Oh, my. this is not only rhetoric but just simply repugnant. Not only once again based on fallacy but nauseating jingoism at its worst. There was no “evil power gather in the distance and all of us in the free world guilty of watching history repeat itself in WW2." Germany in ww1 was no more evil than any other state. As to “watching history repeat itself in ww2" I find this astonishingly devoid of anything remotely resembling historical fact. The stronger case can be made the evil would not have risen in Germany prior to ww2 if not for the evil put upon it by the Draconian tenants of the treaty it was forced to sign after ww1. That and crippling loans they were literally forced to take out to pay as tribute after ww1. As to Bush and Blair, obviously you are in admiration and awe of these two men. Neither of whom has the combined intellect to forgo having L and R written on the soles of their shoes. Or is it you are merely you saw this movie on a Haliburton private jet?

The movie is about a family. You may have failed to notice but believe it or not the family was not American. It focused on one little boy's life and the family he was part of. Being that there was a war on during much of his life, that three of the main protagonists of that war were Kaiser Wilhelm, Tsar Alexander and King George and they were all cousins is the reason they are included.

I would also point out to the rest of the world that not every American is like this xenophobic right winger. Sadly, too many are. But not all. Some of actually appreciate the movie for what it was about. Not what it should have been. Perhaps he should stick to watching Ronald Reagan in Hellcats of the Navy. Enjoy how a war was won via commute from Burbank California.


reply

"I’m actually embarrassed for you." "xenophobic right winger" ??

I don't respond well to personal attacks on message boards and the rest of your diatribe is conjecture anyway. Ask Eastern Europe who won the cold war and ask Howard Dean if he had fun skiing at Stowe in late 60's. While you're at it, ask Clinton about that indictment against OBL in 1998 for the African embassy bombings that clearly stated al Qaeda and Iraq had a working agreement to develop weapons, (or did Berger also manage to stuff that in his socks?). While I suppose that you'll say either that Bush somehow lied back then too or, that liberals generally lie to fabricate indictments; at least I’m giving you a choice.

The movie is not about this one 'family'. It is parallel comparison of two relationships. One is the relationship between Johnny and his parents and the other is the one between them and Britain. The film flips between those two relationships all the way through. Johnny’s concept of their love for him is about the same as their concept of Britain's love for them - each simplistic and adoring. Likewise the converse, their way of dealing with him was to hide him away in isolation and that's just what Britain did with them. Johnny was out of touch with reality and so was the royal family, each in their own relative way.

I already clearly stated that I liked the film very much. I highly recommend it and recommend that you watch it again. Who knows, perhaps you'll even enjoy it more the second time now that I told you what it is about?


reply

"I don't respond well to personal attacks on message boards and the rest of your diatribe is conjecture anyway"

You do not respond well to anything. Perhaps therein lies the problem. And there were no personal attacks. Trust me, had I chosen to waste my time attacking you there would be little doubt as to the difference. Telling the truth is not an attack. You consider fact conjecture? I seriously suggest you open a history book. Seriously. And to make this utterly clear, it is not an attack but a most sincere recommendation. Read your history before you start railing on message boards making it clear to everyone you have no actual clue as to the reality of what actually happened. Like I said, it is embarrassing to witness.

reply

For future reference why don't the British and European forces copy the action of the American forces in WW 1 & 11 and wait 2 to 3 years before joining in. This would have been particularly appropriate in both Gulf Wars when the European Allies could have joined USA say 3 to 6 months after the initial conflict.
Several years after the event the British and European film industries could have then issued films about the conflict with, shall we say, a variation of the historical fact in which, say, the Italians take Iraq single handed.
Without doubt the American contribution to the ending of both world wars is unquestionable.My Grandfather was a Desert Rat who fought throughout the entire North African campaign and then on through to Sicily and Italy but he always had the good grace to claim that the Sherman tank tipped the balance along with the heavily mechanised American Forces.
The "Lost Prince" would have gained nothing by going into any more depth about the actual details of the conflict,it would have detracted from the core issues regarding an antiquated monarchy throughout Europe and the tragedy of the individuals caught up as a consequence. Peace.

reply

bc-55

A Desert Rat eh? They fought a hell of a war. The British Eight Army, of which the 7th Armor was part of, was one of the toughest outfits to come out of the western allies during WWII. They fought extremely tough foes to boot. Rommel and Kesselring were professionals of the highest order. Side by side with the US Fifth, their overcoming Kesselring’s successive lines of defense, with the troops he had at his disposal, was a very long, strenuous and sanguine endeavor. One that deserves mention. Them was some tough ole boys on both sides there. I had family killed in Tunisian Campaign and then 13 months later another killed in Italy. Ah yes, nothing like coming from a military family to teach a person geography.

But as much value as the Sherman had, not for it being a superior vehicle but its abundance, I think the addition earlier in the war to the Eighth Army of the M3 Stuart (and later versions) was nothing to overlook. The British nicknamed them “Honey” for speed and reliability, although in combat they were less than sweet. But for desert recon, having a few hundred of them at hand was invaluable. Anyway, pretty cool hearing about your grandfather. I bet he has his share of stories.




Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John S Mills

reply

Unfortunately my grandfather was very reticent in mentioning the war, apart from being fiercly anti-Churchill and a staunch follower of Montgomery.Most of the memories of the second world war were from photographs my grandfather took in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. Incidently my grandfather's WW11 hero was Paddy Finucane (An Irish Battle of Britain pilot) who was brought down over The Channel after, I believe, becoming the leading ace in the aforementioned battle.
Thank you for your kind comments. Peace.

reply

You seriously don't get the point, mike-2309.

You seriously don't get the point.

reply

"The movie is about a family. You may have failed to notice but believe it or not the family was not American. It focused on one little boy's life and the family he was part of. Being that there was a war on during much of his life, that three of the main protagonists of that war were Kaiser Wilhelm, Tsar Alexander and King George and they were all cousins is the reason they are included"

I agree completely with this paragraph. I would also add with all the political meetings with the King had to do with what battles/schemes/decisions which had to set up the creative arc of the film and how it impacted Johnnie.

BTW, wouldn't the tsar and his family talked French instead of Russian to each other?

reply

Ah. Well, this certainly was an old post of mine. I honestly do not recall anything I said. I come off as a bit of a douche don't I?

But you are correct. French was what the Russian aristocracy spoke. To speak Russian was considered uncouth. At least until the revolution.

reply