Movies and Films  
This is the forum for Movie and Film discussions. Again, our topic is naval warfare in WWII for the most part. 
What If...A Better U-571?
Posted by: Chris M. ()
Date: October 09, 2002 07:22AM

<HTML>There is little doubt that U-571 was (1) overly-Americanized and (2) historically challenged. Since we are all armchair historians around here, what could Mostow have done to make U-571 more realistic, i.e., more palatable to the history conscious? Here are five suggestions:

First, lets get some Tommies into this Yankee picture. As it was, in Spring/Summer 1942, the time during which U-571 takes place (read the letter to Lt. Dahlgren), the U.S. was still largely impotent against the U-boats. (I'm an American. I can admit the truth. I even live in Florida. In Spring/Summer 1942 the people of this good state were courteous enough to leave all shore lights blazing brightly all night long, so the U-boats could see their targets. All tourists, armed or otherwise, were welcome. But I digress.) By mid-1942 Ango-American anti-submarine efforts were coalescing to some degree. I think an effective plot line could be based on the capture of U-570 by the British in August 1941. Although this true to life historical incident was not the U-bootwaffe's finest hour, the skipper of U-570 did manage to destroy his code books and Enigma machine before being towed into port. Mostow could have cooked up the story that a few Tommy engineers figured out how to run a U-boat after capturing U-570 and were then loaned to the U.S. Navy to make the Trojan Horse plan work, since they didn't get the codes/Enigma from U-570. Make them speak German, too. What do you get? (1) More technical credibility on running the U-boat (2) at least some British representation and (3) more people who can understand what "klar" means.

Second, absolutely, positively delete the machine-gunning of the lifeboats. Adds nothing to the story, although it does make the Germans look maniacal. Granted, the Captain got a bit choked up when he watched the carnage, but he could just have easily ordered the lifeboats to tie off since his crippled U-boat wasn't going anywhere anyway. U-boat commanders routinely flouted Donitz' orders about not assiting those in lifeboats, and shooting survivors was against standing orders. (Aside: The story of U-156 rescuring 100's of survivors off the coast of Africa, an example of this humanitarian disregard for orders, would make a perfectly good movie by itself. Anyone want to front me $40 million to make it?)

Three, reduce the scale of the interior sets. They were constructed at 125% of reality. Made U-571 seem a bit "roomy." WRONG! Wolfgang Petersen had it right the first time. Preserve the clausterphobia and master steady-cam techniques instead.

Four, the explosion of the destroyer was way too fake. Get Industrial Light & Magic and do it right. Let's give the destroyer captain some credit, too, and let him at least attempt some evasive maneuvers before being incinerated.

Five, why in the heck were they rescued at the end by a U.S. Navy Catalina? Were they not in the Western Approaches? It should have been a British Short Sunderland flying boat with Royal Navy markings, although the RN had Catalinas, too, I guess.

In my view, these few minor changes could have produced an equally engrossing and altogether more historically accurate film, while still having a bit of the suspension of disbelief necessary for success in any work of fiction. What if indeed. Anyone else have some suggestions for reforming U-571, other than burning the script?

Chris M.
Miami, Florida, USA</HTML>

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Written By Posted
what was so bad about U-571 kemal 09/25/2002 06:07AM
Everything! Dietzsch 09/25/2002 08:33AM
Re: Everything! james Stewart 09/25/2002 01:47PM
Re: Everything! Neil Howard 09/25/2002 02:01PM
Re: Everything! Patrick Meagher 09/25/2002 06:37PM
Re: Everything! cate 09/25/2002 07:13PM
Re: Everything! ROBERT M. 09/26/2002 01:56AM
Re: Everything! cate 09/27/2002 05:53AM
Re: Everything! Volker Erich Kummrow 10/01/2002 08:28AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? Barry Scully 10/14/2002 12:28PM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? cate 10/15/2002 12:28AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? Barry Scully 10/15/2002 07:05AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? Barry Scully 10/15/2002 07:12AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? cate 10/15/2002 07:37AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? ROBERT M. 10/16/2002 10:01PM
Re: Everything! james Stewart 10/01/2002 10:56PM
Re: Everything! tim2 10/11/2002 04:30PM
What If...A Better U-571? Chris M. 10/09/2002 07:22AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? cate 10/10/2002 12:38AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? Wachoffizier 10/13/2002 07:26PM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? ROBERT M. 10/13/2002 11:42PM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? cate 10/15/2002 01:04AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? ROBERT M. 10/15/2002 02:46AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? cate 10/15/2002 06:52AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? Barry Scully 10/15/2002 08:59AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? cate 10/15/2002 09:06AM
Re: What If...A Better U-571? cate 10/15/2002 09:25AM
nightmare scenario cate 10/15/2002 09:40AM
Re: nightmare scenario Barry Scully 10/15/2002 11:14AM
Re: nightmare scenario cate 10/15/2002 06:54PM
Re: nightmare scenario Barry Scully 10/16/2002 06:29AM
Re: nightmare scenario walter M 10/16/2002 10:50AM
Re: nightmare scenario cate 10/16/2002 01:23PM
Re: nightmare scenario ROBERT M. 10/16/2002 09:53PM
Re: nightmare scenario cate 10/17/2002 05:07AM
Re: nightmare scenario cate 10/17/2002 05:13AM
Re: nightmare scenario ROBERT M. 10/17/2002 09:39PM
Re: nightmare scenario cate 10/18/2002 05:19AM
Re: nightmare scenario ROBERT M. 10/18/2002 12:09PM


Your Name: 
Your Email: 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **     **  **     **  **     **  **    ** 
 ***   ***  **     **  **     **  **     **  ***   ** 
 **** ****  **     **  **     **  **     **  ****  ** 
 ** *** **  **     **  **     **  **     **  ** ** ** 
 **     **  **     **  **     **  **     **  **  **** 
 **     **  **     **  **     **  **     **  **   *** 
 **     **   *******    *******    *******   **    **