MovieChat Forums > Rescue Dawn (2007) Discussion > Angry Family Members: The Truth

Angry Family Members: The Truth


Several posts have been made asking why Gene DeBruin's family members are angry about Gene's portrayal in Rescue Dawn.

I am a relative of Gene DeBruin's and I'd like to take this opportunity to explain why our family is upset.

The majority of the early promotional pieces for this movie tout it as a "true story." Example: http://rescuedawn.mgm.com/ ("This summer experience the incredible true story of one man's fight for freedom.") Some movie reviews have been posted under the title of "documentary." This leads people to believe that the movie is factual and that the characters are factual. However, the movie is not truthful. In many instances, it does not even closely recount the book upon which it is based: Escape From Laos, written by Dieter Dengler himself.

If you know the facts behind the story, it quickly becomes apparent that Herzog did not do his research for this movie, nor did the performers who have respresented the real POWs in the movie. In fact, Herzog, ignored repeated attempts on the part of my family to discuss the character of Gene DeBruin. We offered to provide Herzog with the facts about Gene. We offered to consult with him - free of charge. We emailed him, called him, wrote him letters. All were ignored.

Instead, he created a completely fictionalized chacter that is "based" on the real person Gene DeBruin and used Gene's name without out permission. The fictionalized character completely defames the real Gene. When challenged by our family, Rescue Dawn, promoted as true, suddenly changed to fiction. This was an interesting shift that left my family without legal recourse.

Our contention is that if Herzog wanted to make a documentary, then he and the performers should have done their homework and made it a true documentary. If Herzog wanted to make a work of fiction, then he should have dropped the "based on a true story" approach and not promoted it as a true story. He needed to make his intention clear, rather than riding both sides of the rail. His mixing and matching of fact and fiction has had a very sad and troubling result.

Gene DeBruin was a kind, highly intelligent, gentle man with a solid sense of morality. He wasn't perfect, but he was no idiot, either. His mother was always amazed how he earned so many A's in school without hardly cracking a book. He loved baseball, hunting, fishing, and the out of doors. He graduated from the University of Montana with a degree in Forestry and worked as a smokejumper (parachuting out of planes and putting out forest fires). He always left packages of Juicy Fruit gum in his pants pockets so his little sisters would find them when they cleaned out his pockets when doing the laundry. He made sure they would have a treat after helping their mom do the laundry for 10 kids in the old wringer washer. He sent me hand beaded slippers from Alaska. I still have them - complete with holes in the bottoms due to so much wear and tear. I won't give them up.

Gene DeBruin was a living, breathing human being who does not deserve to be misrepresented so non-chalantly in the the movie, Rescue Dawn. There are much better and more respectful ways to artistically express the message that is intended to be conveyed in Rescue Dawn. It is a pity that Mr. Herzog did not rise to this challenge.

reply

Before i write my reply i have to say one thing; i completly understand your situation and thoughts.

When i saw the movie, i did not think that Gene was a nuthead, or anything close to that. I just saw this 5 guys, each and one of them representing a common personality in those horroble situationes. They could have choosen another one to represent that "nuthead", dont get stuck on small parts, you have to see the whole picture here. I know that can be hard when its in a personal matter, but i hope you understand what i mean.

We can never know what happend in that camp/prison, but this film show us a picture of how ppl can change with this kind of stress. I dont think anyone who get stuck as a hostige is insane from start, but i think we all would get insane in time.

As you maybe notice, Gene got there before the others (Duane/Dietre) and i think the director tried to show us the timeline of how you change in time beeing a prisoner.

(sorry for my bad english, i hope you all understand me)

karim

reply

It's somehow fitting that today is rememberance day here in the UK - the day we take each year to remember and honour those who have fought in wars before us so that we can lead the lives we have now. The sentiment behind this day I think sums up the very simple argument (if you can even call it that) being put forward here - we should remember the sacrifices of others, the individual and the nation, made so that we may lead the our lives.

It absolutely disgusts me that there are people here who so ignorantly fail to see even why Gene's family mambers should have the right to voice any upset or ill-feeling over this film. Granted, gene may not have been part of a sacrifice that changed the way we live today, but he made sacrifices to help his friends, those of whom formed the basis of the films story. Saying 'but it's fiction' or arguing about artistic license such as kessinger-1 does is shocking. Put it this way... let's imagine your life story is being filmed right now somewhere in hollywood with a cast of stars, a wealth of marketting behind it, and a worldwide cinema release lined up. Now let's imagine the director decides he likes the basis of your life story, but it needs something more. So... he decides that your father, portrayed under the same name, was a child abuser who regularly raped you and your sister. I'm assuming that as long as 'based on a true story' was stuck on before the main titles then you'd have no reason for complaint. Afterall, it's fiction, regardless of the use of names, locales, family structure, and other resounding events in you life.

The fact is this movie sells itself on holding an element of truth. The average viewer will attach real peoples names with the portrayal of them in the film. The lead characters and author of the foundation source for the film all testified that Gene was a great man. So it's not even close to being a matter of opinion as some people here have tried to claim. Artistic license is one thing, but degrading the memory of a real person is another, so show some compassion. It completely bemuses me that anyone here can't see that.

reply

I read Dieter books "escape from laos" He in fact did say Gene was an idiot.

*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´Love is Magical

reply

I haven't read all the posts here, but my thought is while DeBruin's family has the right to be upset and voice their criticism of his depiction (I probably would feel the same way), I think the concern that his portrayal in the movie trashes him in the minds of the people who see him in this film is basically a moot point.

My guess is that 99 percent of the people who see this people don't even remember his name after the film is over (now you could argue whether they ought to, but that's a different argument I'll get to in a bit), and of those people most will probably assume he's fictional. And the hard fact is that in the minds of most people who see this film it doesn't matter whether or not he's a real person. They don't know him, will never meet him, never have anything to do with him, and never have any interest in him outside of the movie. In their minds he might as well be fictional. The film's main purpose is to glorify Dengler. I know that must be hard for his friends and family, and like I said I'd probably feel the same way. To put it in frank words, while DeBruin must seem like the most real person in the film to people who know him, to everyone else he's just a side character in the movie. And strictly in the context of the film, he is.

And I think that's the fundamental problem here. Even if his portrayal was completely neutral, would there not still have been complaints that more details about him should have been included, that he should have been seen as more of a hero? I remember similar complaints about World Trade Center. No one in that movie was depicted in an unfavorable light, but numerous complaints were made that so and so should have gotten more credit and screen time. The bottom line is that the movie is about Dengler.

The argument about Titanic characters above underlines my point. Unless people are going to think about Molly Brown in context outside of the movie Titanic it doesn't matter whether they think she was exactly like how she was played by Kathy Bates. Obviously if a person was going to become a historian on her, they would have to deal with the facts real Molly Brown. The same here. People aren't stupid. No one's going to write a book or article about DeBruin based on this film alone. This film only stands for Jeremy Davies' performance, and I don't think anyone is going to take DeBruin's depiction any more seriously than that. If they are interested in writing an article or book, then they'll do their own research. Otherwise, you can't help what people are going to think in the privacy of their own head.

So no it isn't fair, but it's the way things are. Now the question in terms of artistic responsibility, is was the portrayal within any version of the truth (or Herzog's interpretation of it). For example, a movie about OJ Simpson. Or was it malicious (the example above about your father being turned into a rapist)?

UPDATE: Ok, I've read the rest of the posts and I see I wasted a lot of time going over points that were already discussed. Now I'm sure I agree with the family. Herzog should simply have cast away all trappings of the real DeBruin including his name and made the character completely fictional.

reply

Where?

reply

As a sort of margin note for your "child abuser" example... The character played by Ewan McGregor in Blackhawk Down, you know, the company clerk that could make good coffee and ended up going outside of the wire... That guy's name in the movie because the person it is based on was picked up for child molestation charges (or something pretty embarassing)... It was changed because no one wanted to glorify a child molestor.

But contrast it with this producction staff, who will happily portray a brave man as a weak one, just to serve drama.

reply

[deleted]

From Wikipwedeia:

Capture and First Escape Attempt

On September 5, 1963, DeBruin took off on a mission with fellow Americans, Joseph C. Cheney and Charles Herrick, Thai Pisidhi Indradat, Prasit Promsuwan and Prasit Thanee, and Chinese Y.C. To. During a flight over Laos, his C-46 aircraft was hit by ground fire and crashed about 2 kilometers from Tchepone on the Savannakhet Province. DeBruin, Y.C. To, and the three Thai nationals parachuted to safety, but were immediately captured by the Pathet Lao. Cheney and Herrick were killed in the crash.

After his capture, DeBruin was moved to four different prisons, together with the other four prisoners. In May 1964, they managed to escape for three days, but were caught at a watering hole.

[edit] Second Escape Attempt

After that failed attempt, DeBruin attempted a second escape. The seven prisoners that worked together for this second attempt were:

* Pisidhi Indradat (Thai)
* Prasit Promsuwan (Thai)
* Prasit Thanee (Thai)
* Y.C. To (Chinese)
* Duane W. Martin (American)
* Dieter Dengler (American)

Dengler and Martin were the last to arrive at the POW camp. Initially, DeBruin and the other prisoners didn't trust them, but after some time, they revealed their escape plans to them. Once they overheard their captors discussing the potential of shooting them in the jungle and making it look like an escape attempt, everyone agreed on a date to escape.

On June 29, 1966, while the guards were eating, the group slipped out of their hand and foot restraints and grabbed the guard's unattended submachine guns. The Pathet Lao guards spotted some of the other prisoners trying to escape. A shootout between the two sides ensued and Indradat ended up killing five guards so the others could escape. Two others ran off, presumably to get help. The seven prisoners split into three groups. Indradat, and the other Thai prisoners; DeBruin stayed with To, who had been too ill to continue with the escape; and Dengler and Martin headed for the Mekong River to escape to Thailand. Martin was eventually killed, while Dengler was rescued after 23 days in the jungle. Indradat was also rescued later.

[edit] Later life

Of the seven prisoners that attempted to escape, only two reached safety (Dengler and Indradat). One report stated that DeBruin was killed in the escape attempt, but Indradat originally reported that he last saw DeBruin attempting to "reach high ground in a classified location".

DeBruin's family has found reports that confirm that he was alive as late as January 1968. First, US Intelligence confirmed that DeBruin was recaptured and returned to the Muong Phine prison in late June 1966. According to intelligence reports, he was later moved to a POW camp at Muong Nong with other 8 American POWs. According to reports, in January 1968, DeBruin and the other Americans were moved out of the complex by the North Vietnamese Army. Their destination was never known.

DeBruin's brother, Jerome DeBruin, traveled to Laos in 1972 in search of information. Although the Pathet Lao openly admitted holding American prisoners of war, they insisted that the United States negotiate directly with them to ensure their release, but this never happened. Since the end of the Vietnam War, live reports continue to surface indicating Gene DeBruin remained alive well into the early 1990's.

I'm so tired of the club scene... So are the baby seals.

reply

The film is, like most war films, inaccurate in a big way.

I made contact with Gene DeBruin's brother Jerry via email and he said the following in a response to me - take it for what it's worth (of course after you yahoos understand the reality of the escape and the documents that prove it).


From: Jerome DeBruin ([email protected])
Sent:Wed 8/29/07 10:14 AM

"Donald,
Thank you for your kind message. Our Family does not knowif Gene is alive or dead even though the movie would leave theviewers with the impression that he is dead. Keep checking, and haveyour friends check rescuedawnthetruth.com for further updates.

Thank you. Jerry DeBruin, Brother of Gene DeBruin


Aug 16, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Don Lamb wrote:
"Hello sir, I just saw RESCUE DAWN for the 1st time only 2 hours ago and came home to find out how accurate it was. I thank you and the people who put together this web-site to clear it all up. The film moved me in many ways, but I am so saddened to see how your brother was depicted, treating him like a hapless stereotype.

May he rest in peace and be recognized for his real efforts, the opposite of what is seen in this movie. I thank you for reading this notice.

Regards,

Donald J. Lamb"



reply

Donald,

Just an FYI. That is Dr. Jerry DeBruin. He is also a published author.

reply

This is what Herzog says about the inaccuracies

"It's a complex question because, sure, I do understand that the family of [Davies' character] Eugene DeBruin saw him differently, 40 years back before he went to Laos or even to Thailand, from where he flew. Apparently, and I would not have any doubts, he was a very kind family man. However, how Dieter Dengler describes him very precisely, over and over, after more than two years in medieval flip-flops, with diarrhoea, cross-handcuffed with others, there was a fair amount of delusion in him that he would be released in a week from now. Dieter told me quite often there were conflicts among the prisoners. He passes by this fleetingly in the documentary but, right after that, he said, "Well, it was much more serious. Sometimes we hated each other so bad that we would have strangled each other if we had a hand free, if we were not cross-handcuffed." And it's absolutely understandable that after two years cross-handcuffed and everyone has diarrhoea in the humidity and sweating and so on, there were very decisive and antagonistic moments. But I wanted to follow the story of Dieter Dengler. With him the film begins and ends, and it's his story. It's a basic problem about storytelling. Yes, if I had known every single one of the prisoners intimately, and had gotten each of their stories, I probably would have ended up with five different variations of the story. So for me it was always clear that I'd do Dieter Dengler's perspective. And yet Gene DeBruin's family is unhappy about it and angered and has started an internet campaign. And OK, that's alright. They see him differently than I see him. But I think they have not gotten any of the details that I have gotten from Dieter Dengler. And these things happen. Yes, someone may be unhappy with how one character is portrayed. You run into that, and it's fine. And it's absolutely legitimate that they raise their voices and explain that they see it differently."

reply

[deleted]

Yeah, exactly. I'm waiting for a movie based on 911 with radioactive monkeys and ninja rabis who have to kill all of the survivors cause it turnouts all of them are terrorists! Damn, that would be a good movie. The truth is boring. Herzog is a genious!

"They put the sights on the top for a reason."
The Punisher

reply

thank you for writing this.
I really want to read Dengler's book; thank you for posting here.

reply

Dengler wanted Herzog to make this film, and Herzog already made a dcou on the subject as Im sure you know so while I respect that you are the Gene's family to say Herzog didnt reasearch the subject seems far fetched since hes obviously very interested in it and is an obsessive filmmaker not liekly to ignore facts when he has Dengler right there.

Im sure Gene was exactly as you described him, and Herzog has said as much, but when it comes to the film the only one left to tell what happened is Dengler so Herzog had to go according to his account.

And I have to be honest, Who Gene was has nothing, nothing to do with the man he was after years in that camp. None of us were there and as much as you may not want to believe a loved one could have lost his sanity. Anyone could snap under those conditions. It happened to plenty of men and the film even depics it starting to happening to Dengler himself.

It is not an insult to gene or any of the men to show that those condiditons can shatter the mind and break a man down to a shell of his former self. Its not an insult at all, instead its simply real.

Also even as a man whos lost his sanity Gene is never depicted as anyone other than a man who we the audience should feel sympathy for. His last scene even depicts him as a man of honor, regardless of his state of mind, not willing to leave another.

Im not trying to be disrespectful in anyway, I just dont belive theres any reason to be upset with the way Gene was portrayed. Its very believable and honestly very possible. Its also sympathetic, not degrading.

reply

You have the heart at the right place, but you should really watch the site linked before. Even Dengler himself admits that it didnt happen the way shown. And the other survivor (don't remember his name, but one of the thai) is very outspoken that it didnt happen the way the movie shows. For example, Dengler wasnt the one who picked the locks, Dengler wasnt the leader, Dengler did not shoot the guards, and Gene was actually the most "heroic" of them, since he refused to leave one of the sick prisoners behind, so he stayed with his friend(and both got subsequently caught). HE DID NOT FLIP OUT AND ABANDON THE REST OF THEM WITH THE BEST GEAR. That is fact both of the survivors admit to.

"They put the sights on the top for a reason."
The Punisher

reply

"based" on a true story would imply that the true story laid the foundaton for the movie and nothing more...Herzog could have technically done whatever he wanted with it. on the rescue dawn page it says that gene's whereabouts were never known after the war? is that true?

reply

Debruinhein, I haven’t read all the posts on this thread and I don’t need to. I saw the film today, and curious about the reality of it, I came to the board to find answers to my questions.

The first thread I looked at was yours. I was shocked by your allegations.

I followed your advice and researched the case on the net, and I am appalled by what happened to your family member, who if I understand correctly, is your brother.

His portrayal in this film is a travesty committed on a fine and brave man, one who was oriented toward public service and obviously had a good heart.

He must have been incredibly valiant to be a smoke jumper. And then volunteer for Air America.

I read about how Dieter Dengler told a very different story about him than the one portrayed in the film. And that Pisidhi Indradat called Eugene “the finest man I have ever known.”

It is criminal that a director should take such liberties with the reputation of a man who was always trying to contribute to the betterment of others.

I am disappointed that Christian Bale was a part of this project. I have respected him in the past as an excellent actor who researches his characters. In this case, it appears that he did not. He should have.

My heart goes out to you. I have never had such an experience as yours in losing a loved one, so I cannot imagine the pain and anguish you must feel over not knowing what happened to your brother. I offer you sincere sympathy, though I know it will not relieve your sorrow.

Your brother was a courageous and heroic man with tremendous heart, and the world should know this. Herzog should issue a public apology for defaming him as he did. I will boycott his films forevermore, and I encourage all of those who can perceive the truth behind this so-called “based on a true story” film to do the same.

Though it cannot relieve your grief, please find some measure of comfort in knowing that Eugene was such an exceptional man, and that there are those who will read your words, seek the truth, and honor him.

reply

Didnt Dengler want this film made himself?

Again I mean no disrespect. I appreciate all the men and women who have fought for this country, I just do not find Genes(or anyone in the film) portrail a disrespectful one.

If people there actually said, events didnt happen as shown at all and Gene was not like that in the least perhaps something telling the audience this should be added befor the film.

But still its a film, one "based" on a true story and as such is an amazing and moving peice of cinema. To boycott it is to only deny youself IMHO. I do not think any film every made after a true events as been 100% accurate. And the innacuracies in this film do not in anyway degrad anyone or take away from its powerful themes.

I also have to add, and again I mean no disrespect, please no that, Im simply discussing cinema here, that to say Herzog is a mster at turning fact into fiction Hollywood style is simply ignorant since he is the farthest thing from a Hollywood director and this is in fact the first film of his that in anyway could be called "Hollywood" and even thats a streach. Some of the issues with the film also seem as misinturpritations IMHO, its states Herzog felt this way or that or was trying to say this or that while I dont think thats the case at all.

Let it be known of conflicting reports of the events, thats fine but even still remember this film never said it was all fact and also somethings about those events just cannot be known for sure. Im not saying Gene lost his mind, but how he was befor the events keeps coming up and in a situation like that who who were and what you beocme can be two very different things.

Again Im not saying those things did happen to him, but even if they did why do you assume that makes him less of a hero or less respectable? You can not say the director was trying to say only those who escape are heros for example. I saw them all as heros.

reply

To boycott it is to only deny youself IMHO.


This is a sacrifice I can easily make. There are many other wonderful film makers to intrigue me. Denying myself access to one who defamed a smoke jumper and an Air America volunteer who intended to join the Peace Corp will be no loss.

By the way, everything said in favor of Eugene DeBruin can be confirmed on POWnetwork.org. Including Deiter Dengler's own postitive testimony about DeBruin, and Pisidhi Indradat's quote that he was the finest man he had ever known.

Herzog committed defamation of character. Support him if you will. Forget about the pain he has caused DeBruin's family. After all, entertainment comes first, right? As does not denying oneself access to a director who willfully corrupted the portrayal of a decent man come first?

Again, I extend my sympathy to DeBruin's family. It can only be heartbreaking to see a fine man and cherished loved one depicted so cruelly.

reply

No offense people, but it's JUST A MOVIE. I'm pretty sure most people out there with common sense don't watch 'Based on a true story' movies and think, wow, that's exactly how it happened!! Take it for what it is, entertainment, not fact. If you want fact, research it, watch a documentary, don't go ragging actors and directors out to make a buck. If you don't agree, don't watch it. It's pretty simple.

reply

No offense people, but it's JUST A MOVIE. I'm pretty sure most people out there with common sense don't watch 'Based on a true story' movies and think, wow, that's exactly how it happened!!


I disagree and I do have common sense. It's not JUST A MOVIE. It’s not a matter of thinking “that’s exactly how it happened.”

In this case, a good man’s name was slandered, which goes beyond JUST A MOVIE. Gene was a hero but was depicted as a cowardly maniac. It is one thing to take liberties with a story, and quite another to defame a man who devoted himself to helping others.

I invite those of you who see this as JUST A MOVIE to parachute out of an airplane to put out a fire. I invite you to place yourselves in a POW camp somewhere in the world and share your food and blanket with your fellow POWs.

Were you to do this, you might understand what a mockery was made of a brave and great hearted man.

But then again,. no.

Take it for what it is, entertainment . . .


That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? We must be entertained, no matter what price is paid by the family of the man who was so unjustly debased.

What a callous, superficial society this country has become.





Greetings, Sons of the Bird! The Bird is CRUEL!

reply

The thing is no one was depicted cruely, not one person(even the enemy were shown as human beings)was depicted in a disrespectful manner.


No one who should be seen as a hero was made out to be less a hero.

It may not be an accurate portrail of the real man, but I didnt assume it was meant to be. IF the film stated that it strived for as close to 100% accuracy as possible that would be one thing but it simply states that it is based on true events, which it is. Maybe "Inspired" would have been a better word. I do not recall, does it state "based" or "inspired" by ture events at the begining even?


Then it also says written by "Werner Herzog ", without siting any books or otherwise in which it would be based off. So its obvious its a screenplay that will not be 100% fact.

Im not trying to disrespect anyone, I just feel that people want to see Gene in the film as a defaming of the real man, not because Herzog wanted that but because you choose to see it like that.


As a film it is a amazing story that envokes a number of emmotions while covering a wide range of themes, told in an immaculate manner.

reply

The thing is no one was depicted cruely, not one person(even the enemy were shown as human beings)was depicted in a disrespectful manner.


No one was depicted cruelly? Eugene was depicted as a cowardly man who lost his mind, who did not support excaping.

The enemy were shown as human beings? Even when they tortured Dengler?

No one who should be seen as a hero was made out to be less a hero.




It may not be an accurate portrail of the real man, but I didnt assume it was meant to be. IF the film stated that it strived for as close to 100% accuracy as possible that would be one thing but it simply states that it is based on true events, which it is. Maybe "Inspired" would have been a better word. I do not recall, does it state "based" or "inspired" by ture events at the begining even?


The life of a real hero was corrupted into the portrayal of a gibbering idiot. Perhaps you would feel differently if this was done to yourself, or one of your family members.

Im not trying to disrespect anyone, I just feel that people want to see Gene in the film as a defaming of the real man, not because Herzog wanted that but because you choose to see it like that.


You don't have to try to disrespect anyone; you are doing it effortlessly. It is made clear in Dengler's book that Gene was a willing participant in the escape, and that he disappeared in an effort to help a wounded man. Representing him as being completely the opposite is defamation. It is not my choice to see it that way; the fact is OBVIOUS.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.



Greetings, Sons of the Bird! The Bird is CRUEL!

reply

People who go along with the technicality that it was BASED on a true story are absolute morons.

Here's a question for anyone who thinks that to answer:
LEts say you had a family member (actually think of one - think of your own father for example) who was a POW and acted very courageously in that situation.
Years later a movie came out that was BASED on the true story and it depicted your now deceased father as a selfish coward,would you really leave the theatre thinking nothing of it because of some techicality that said it was BASED on a true story?

Anyone who says they wouldn't mind is lying - simple as that.
Either they're lyers or they're complete walkovers as human beings.

reply

Which I think must have some bearing:-

Some families of prisoners felt their relatives weren't depicted accurately.

WH: It's a complex question because, sure, I do understand that the family of Eugene DeBruin saw him differently, 40 years back before he went to Laos or even to Thailand, from where he flew. Apparently, and I would not have any doubts, he was a very kind family man. However, how Dieter Dengler describes him very precisely, over and over, after more than two years in medieval flip-flops, with diarrhoea, cross-handcuffed with others, there was a fair amount of delusion in him that he would be released in a week from now. Dieter told me quite often there were conflicts among the prisoners. He passes by this fleetingly in the documentary but, right after that, he said, "Well, it was much more serious. Sometimes we hated each other so bad that we would have strangled each other if we had a hand free, if we were not cross-handcuffed." And it's absolutely understandable that after two years cross-handcuffed and everyone has diarrhoea in the humidity and sweating and so on, there were very decisive and antagonistic moments. But I wanted to follow the story of Dieter Dengler. With him the film begins and ends, and it's his story. It's a basic problem about storytelling. Yes, if I had known every single one of the prisoners intimately, and had gotten each of their stories, I probably would have ended up with five different variations of the story. So for me it was always clear that I'd do Dieter Dengler's perspective. And yet Gene DeBruin's family is unhappy about it and angered and has started an internet campaign. And OK, that's alright. They see him differently than I see him. But I think they have not gotten any of the details that I have gotten from Dieter Dengler. And these things happen. Yes, someone may be unhappy with how one character is portrayed. You run into that, and it's fine. And it's absolutely legitimate that they raise their voices and explain that they see it differently.


I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply