The REAL Memphis Belle

[Mark J]

Hi guys,
I have the chance at buying the original Memphis Belle movie made by Lt Col William Wyler back in 1944, in colour, using all war footage. Has anybody seen this movie, is it worth buying or is it just war time propaganda?

cheers

[PMN1]

If its the same one I saw a while back, its intresting but it doesn't really show much that you wont have seen from various other documentaries.

[Lightning]

Hi Mark,

That movie is an aknowledged classic WWII-era film. It is typical of hollywood's approach to whipping up the patriotic fervor of Americans at war. Yes, it has its share of propaganda, but it gives a genuine taste of how it was to go to the movies in America during the war. It also provides a lot of good (i.e. true) information on the war, on the "Belle", and on her crew.

Buy it!

Regards,
Lightning

[Tony Williams]

Agreed, I found it far more compelling than the recent Hollywood movie. Those pics of the fighters coming at them with the nose cannon flashing - chilling!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Mark J]

Thanks guys, I got it and just sat through it. I was dissapointed by the sound quality but then I forgot it was made over 60 years ago.
The aerial shots of rural England and the airfield dispersals in colour was interesting but not much else as there wasn't much of a story to tell. I suppose the film makers wern't experianced enough at the time, to portray a story line as they do today. Plus being a wartime documentary.....
The attacking fighters were hard to make out as they were filmed with 16mm film, hand held at 25000ft. Although I could identify Me 109's and Fw 190's and yes, those gun flashes were spectacular. One thing I did notice was the black smoke from the fighters, running rich on full power.
Not the sort of movie for the masses but I'm glad I got it.

I also got 12 Oclock High, with Gregory Peck. Not bad but it's in black and white. The enemy fighters in this movie included Me 109E's, a Spitfire, a P-51, a few P-47's firing their .50's and I think I saw 109G's as well. :)

While I was at it, I got Tora Tora Tora and Battle of Midway. Both these movies were made by the same people so the Midway movie had scenes from the attack on the Pearl Harbour airfields as Midway airfield. Same P-40's taking off, even though Midway had no P-40's, same B-17 landing on one wheel, same gunner shooting his .50 while planes blow up around him.
Both were good movies but I feel they dragged on a bit for many people, most of the action being in the second half of each.
A few aircraft swops in these movies, Corsairs, Hellcats, Helldivers, ship launched Avengers being seen doing the work of the Buffalo's, Vindicator's, Devastators, and Wildcats. Didn't see a B-26, a B-17 crashed and old war footage of Wildcats and Dauntles's was used, some of which involved planes crashing on deck.
I enjoyed both movies and will play them again sometime soon.
Might go and look for a few more movies....

cheers

[simon]

OT, but to be honest I find Midway a particularly crappy film.

It bugs me to see the interspersed footage from throughout the Pacific war (Including aircraft that weren't even in existance at Midway, I know actual footage of the Midway battles or Midway era planes is probably fairly difficult to come by, but I'd rather have seen less footage but more true to what was supposed to be represented), and the story-line itself, well that which exists outside of the half-assed attempt to tell the story of the battle is cheesey and naff in the extreme.

[Tony Williams]

There is an actual WW2 colour documentary on Midway.

What I remember about it is a rare shot of the USN's quad 1.1" AA gun chugging away.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Mark J]

Tony, you're right, I saw it in the video shop while waiting for fish & chips this afternoon. I forget the name, something like thin blue line or a name like that. I think I read on the DVD case that it was made during the war. I'll hire it as soon as I get a chance.
Oh yeah, I think it's in black and white.

cheers

[DoBravery]

Hey Mark,
I know exactly what you mean about that 1-wheeled B-17 and it annoys me a lot too.

What has bothered me about the Midway DVD is that is doesn't include the Battle of Coral Sea sequence that is part of the original. I like Midway for scenes and footage. That whole love story wasn't neccessary. Look how much better Tora Tora Tora is regarded now compared to Midway and Pearl Harbor. Human drama amidst war is fine (Casablanca - From Here to Eternity). I just think cramming two concepts into one picture doesn't work creatively, but I guess it sells. Keeping the Coral Sea part and losing the love story would have made for a great film that isn't needlessly long.

[Lightning]

Hi DoBravery,

Quoting you:
quote:I just think cramming two concepts into one picture doesn't work creatively, but I guess it sells. Keeping the Coral Sea part and losing the love story would have made for a great film that isn't needlessly long.

I'm in complete agreement! The problem for the film companies is if they take out the love story--no matter how "sappy"--they lose the female audience. A lot of potentially good films have been ruined by this.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Mark,

Quoting you:
quote:. . .while waiting for fish & chips . . .

I just had to respond to this. Ever since I first tried fish-and-chips in England, I have been crazy over them! That's where I learned how good French fries (chips) are with vineger. And, of course, fish-and-chips must be served "in the paper." [:p]

I assume that the New Zealand version of this delicacy is similar, if not identical, to that of the English. You just can't get good fish-and-chips in the USA, and the situation is infinitely worse here in Germany.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

French fries (chips)
Fench fries & chips are very different things...

[Mark J]

Hey guys, potatoe crisps in a plastic packet and hot potatoe strips or french fries, served in paper or cardboard cups can both be called 'chips'.
Here in NZ, chips means both the hot variety and the cold packet type.
I believe crisps are the term for cold chips in the UK.

Yes Lightning, fish and chips are a popular treat here in NZ, Australia and the UK and are all served in similar fashion, tradition dictating a newsprint wrap. [:p] yum

I like this as a compliment to a good movie

cheers

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

Quoting you:
quote:Fench fries & chips are very different things...
Maybe, maybe not. In the US, we have a great many variations of what are loosely called "Frech fries." There are the skinny little things (although delicious) sold by McDonalds. Then there are the wedge-cut type called "Texas fries", "wedge fries", or, sometimes, "Jumbo fries." Also, you will find "julienne"-cut fries. All are, at least in America, called French fries (except for a few years ago when they were called "freedom fries" as a result of our being "on the outs" with France).

There may be some differences between the US and England in the cooking medium (i.e. salt content of the oil, etc.), but they're not so different as to be described as "very different things."

By the way, Webster's II New College Dictionary defines fish and chips as "Fried fillets of fish and French-fried potatoes."

The American wedge-cut French fries are probably the closest in comparison to English "chips." To me, they taste just about the same, and, as this is purely a matter of taste, I enjoy them equally--especially with vinegar. Put them together with some good fried fish, dump them in a cone of newspaper, sprinkle them with salt and vinegar, and, call them what you may, I'll thoroughly enjoy them. As Mark J says, "[:p] yum."

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Ricky, the roadside truck selling French fries here we call the chip wagon. It sells the fat version of the skinny McDonald fries usually but also those described by Lightning. Every chip wagon, resturant and even McDonalds has salt, vinegar and ketchup, sometimes mayo and mustard also, for applying to the fries. Some people like to have some pepper also.

Can't believe you did not know about vinegar on fries Lightning.

In Quebec, a favourite is poutine (sp??) which is French fries, covered in cheese and gravy.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:Can't believe you did not know about vinegar on fries Lightning.

I never was aware of such a thing before I went to London back in the sixties. My friend on the London Fire Brigade (Southwark Station) had to talk me into trying them for the first time. I was immediately hooked.

My friends back in the States were skeptical when I told them this story. Most of them had not heard of them either.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

Ah, the difference between US English & UK English...;)

Indeed, Americans do seem to be entirely unaware that chips should have vinegar on them ;). Although when my American girlfriend (now ex) tried them she nearly choked...

[GregP]

Vinegar?

Maybe that's why she's an "ex." It explains a lot ... :)

[GregP]

Actually, there are a lot of things that recommend the "English" version of English.

1) We park on a "driveway" and you park on a "car park." I like yours better.

2) We drive on "freeways" but we have to pay for them.

There are maybe 100 similar examples, but I'm sure that in perhaps 2 - 3 months, I could adapt. I really like the "English" accent, but I cannot define what makes it different from an 'American" accent.

The one place I can take exception is in food. I have seen many British food items that look just like the picture on the menu, but they taste quite "bland." Personally, I prefer some spices in my food.

None of this detracts from the uniquely British classic aircraft such as the Lysander and Spitfire. They are equally good at flying somehwere to get both spicy and bland foodstuffs, and the props turn in the correct direction to boot.

In fact, the only real trouble I have when in England is driving on the other side of the road. Wonder how THAT came about since cars were pretty much invented in the early 1900s at the same time all over the world.

Anyway, as the French say, viva le difference!

I concur. :D

[Tony Williams]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Actually, there are a lot of things that recommend the "English" version of English.
Odd, that - as an Englishman I find the US approach to spelling far more logical! of course, there are oddities in use in both languages. The US one which always strikes me is 'I could care less' when what is actually meant is the exact opposite - 'I couldn't care less'.

quote:In fact, the only real trouble I have when in England is driving on the other side of the road. Wonder how THAT came about since cars were pretty much invented in the early 1900s at the same time all over the world.
Rules about which side of the road to drive on were decided long before, in the days of horse-drawn vehicles.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

[Lightning]

Hi Tony,

Quoting you:

quote:
Odd, that - as an Englishman I find the US approach to spelling far more logical! of course, there are oddities in use in both languages. The US one which always strikes me is 'I could care less' when what is actually meant is the exact opposite - 'I couldn't care less'.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. It irritates me because the expression so obviously doesn't make sense as used.

It is, however, a relatively recent bastardization of the original I couldn't care less. During my school years, and even for some time thereafter, I always heard and used the original expression. If the later version existed at all, it was rarely used--As I said, I never heard it.

How do I feel when I hear how it is said today? I could care less (a lot less). :)

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

American: Where you at?]/i]

English translation: [i]Where are you?

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:American: Where you at?

You're right about this idiom being used in America, but even in the US, this is recognized as poor grammar. "I <s>couldn't</s>--could--care less," on the other hand, uses correct grammar, but its wording is such that it has the exact opposite meaning to that which it is trying to convey.

Note: Above correction made by edit.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi All,

Let's see now. We've gone from the "Memphis Belle" movie to "fish-and-chips" to the differences between American and standard English. (I plead guilty to my part in all this.:))

It constantly amazes me how this happens. It's a study in itself. It's not irritating but very fascinating.

Regards,
Lightning

[Oli]

quote:"I couldn't care less," on the other hand, uses correct grammar, but its wording is such that it has the exact opposite meaning to that which it is trying to convey.
No, it means what it says: I could NOT care less (i.e. I do not care at all) whereas the "I could care less" generally implies the meaning but indicates that there is SOME level of interest involved...
Linguistic precision, old bean...:D
PS GregP: the French say vive la différence. Difference is feminine (I'm sure there's a joke there somewhere...)

[Lightning]

Hi Oli,

Quoting you:quote:No, it means what it says . . .Linguistic precision, old bean...

Of course you're correct. That was the point that I was trying to make, but I inadvertently typed "couldn't" instead of "could." If you'll go back and read that posting again, you'll see that I have, as a result of your observation, made the correction. The sentence now reads the way it was originally intended to read.

Thanks for calling this to my attention.

Regards,
Lightning