Filed under: History, World War II | Tags: Movie, Pearl Harbor, World War II
I almost wonder whether the directors were trying to make a point when they created the fiasco that was the movie Pearl Harbor (2001). One of the greatest tragedies in American history becomes one of the greatest tragedies of American cinema? And no, I do not mean that the movie is sad, I mean tragedy in it’s first sense: an event causing great distress or destruction such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe. Yes, Pearl Harbor is a crime against cinema and history, and here’s why:
When the attack began on Pearl Harbor, Doris Miller was not carrying an elegant tea service as in the movie. He was carrying laundry.
The Zeros in the movie aren’t the right model. The ones in the film are A6M5 Zeros which came out later in the war. The ones used at Pearl Harbor were the A6M2′s.
One of the intelligence photos shown to the Japanese preparing for the attack on Pearl Harbor shows a North Carolina class battleship which wasn’t in Pearl Harbor at the time.
Of course the dramatic two-plane resistance piloted by Rafe and Johnny is inaccurate. In reality six planes reached the air and fought the Zeros.
The Zeros on the Japanese aircraft carrier are lined up backwards and the island changes position from shot to shot.
In one wide shot of Pearl Harbor you can see the Arizona Memorial. This is not only a failure of history, but also Hollywood. What kind of self-respecting director let’s that slip by?
A Japanese Naval officer says in the movie “We have hit battleship row. Now we must hit the smaller airfields.” Actually the attack was planned so that all the targets were hit simultaneously. The movie changed this to give Rafe and Danny more time to get to the airfield.
The P-40′s used in the movie were later models than the ones used at Pearl Harbor in ’41.
When the Japanese planes fly over a low hill towards the harbor to bomb it, a cross is visible on the hill. That cross was not there in 1941, but was placed there as a memorial to the point where the enemy planes first came over the hill.
When the Zeros fly through a valley to reach Pearl Harbor, they are actually headed away from the harbor.
The spinning fans on the bombs weren’t the actual fuses, they were meant to arm the fuse so that the bomb would detonate on impact. Therefore the bomb that landed intact on the airfield should’ve blown up, not bounced. It also should’ve suffered some damage in the fall, but it is completely intact.
When the USS Arizona is sinking down sideways, water pours down the deck. This is impossible.
This is definitely very Hollywood: the nurses wear a ton of makeup. However, this was (and still is) against regulation. Medical nurses have only ever been allowed subtle skin tone make up and surgical nurses none. No bright red lipstick, eyeliner, or mascara.
In the very beginning of the movie there are news reels shown dating 1939-1940. In one of them an M-26 Pershing for a couple of seconds, however the M-26 Pershing wasn’t introduced until early 1945.
Also in the scene by the Queen Mary, the Queen Mary wears her customary red and black paint. However, during the war she received a gray coat for “camouflage”. She received that in 1939. The movie takes place in ’41.
And lastly, to give an idea of Japan, there is at one point a shot of three geishas. However geisha communities were shut down in 1939 by the Japanese government.
If I had the time, I would rip the RAF airfield and Operation Doolittle to shreds. Maybe another time.
Filed under: History, Uncategorized, World War II | Tags: Enemy at the Gates, History, Movie, Reflection, World War II
I’m afraid I had more trouble coming up with scenes true to history than ones not, being rather unfortunately bombarded by glaring inaccuracies in Jean-Jacque Annaud’s Enemy at the Gates (2001). First, the bad news: the depiction of the style of fighting by the Red Army at Stalingrad is virtually the opposite of the truth, the sniper duels between Zaitsev and König and the happy ending are pure Hollywood, and the given impression that Khrushchev led the Soviet army at Stalingrad is false, among other smaller and more-debated issues (such as the characters of Danilov and König and, inevitably, the whole Tania situation).
In the very beginning of the film, “zagradotryads” (barrier soldiers) are depicted being forced to face Nazi machine guns, half of them rifleless in a weak imitation of the opening sequence in Saving Private Ryan. The men are herded towards the Nazis by sadistic whistle-blowing, machine gun-wielding Soviet officers in an extremely foolish attempt at stalling the Nazis. None of this ever occurred at Stalingrad, the Soviets would never have wasted so many men in such a pointless fashion. This was purely for cinematic purposes to grab attention at the beginning and pull people in with an excess of blood—something that seemed to work well for Saving Private Ryan.
Snipers do not duel. It’s just a fact. They can’t. Once a sniper shoots, he or she must get away as fast as they can for Shock troops are on the way. Enemy at the Gates portrayed snipers like amateur detectives: stalking each other around and hiding, taking a shot every now and then. Sure, that bit with the mirror was cool, but it was pure Hollywood—completely historically inaccurate.
And a happy ending for the Vasseli/Tania romance? A likely story. In reality, Zaitsev received a letter notifying him of Tania’s death and he never questioned it. He married another woman after the war and had a family. Tania did not know what had become of him until 1969. They never saw each other again. But of course Hollywood couldn’t give the public this, oh no. They cooked up some impractical and improbable letter romance which eventually leads Vasseli to Tania’s hospital bed where she has amazingly recovered. And they lived happily ever after. *Closing music, roll credits*
What happened to Zhukov, Vasilevsky, and Chuikov, the real commanders of the Red Army at Stalingrad? Oh, we’re sorry, they have ceased to exist for the ease of the filmmakers. Instead, Khrushchev runs everything from right there. Of course.
The love triangle. The most inanely Hollywood bit of the story. What is it but Twilight forced on the heros of the war? There is no way that Danilov could ever have met Tania. His contact with Zaitsev was limited and he would never have known of anything between the sniper and Tania. The love triangle could not be for that simplest of reasons.
Onto the rather few and far between accuracies. My favorite one: Khrushchev’s filthy mouth: “The Nazis are beginning to shit their pants!” We know he did talk like this, if not with the cockney accent of Bob Hoskins. Another accuracy: Danilov making Zaitsev (really Zaytsev, but that’s hardly the film’s most egregious error) a national propaganda hero. This did happen, thank goodness. Though whether or not a German Major König was sent to kill him is unknown, though highly doubted.
Note: This was a homework assignment for my WWII history class which I posted for fun.
Filed under: History, Uncategorized, World War II | Tags: Dr. Seuss, Political Cartoons, World War II
Hmm, yes, these Dr. Seuss political cartoons need some explanation, don’t they?
I’m taking a History of WW2 class and needed these (and their links) for my homework but their links failed, so I gave them new ones through my blog.
Enjoy, I guess?
Oh, in case anyone cares they’re about US neutrality and indecision in the beginning of WW2.
Filed under: History, Uncategorized, World War II | Tags: Dr. Seuss, Germany, Political Cartoons, USA, World War II








