Doesn’t look so bad to me.
What’s wrong with it.
well, as much as i like the 80s untouchables mafia historians quibble with the fact that ness killed nitti at the top of the Chicago train station …
The best part of that movie was the banquet scene. It was also the most accurate.
There was a film made for American servicemen in WWII, about British culture and customs. Of course, it was aimed at American servicemen being sent to the UK, and it was hosted by Burgess Meredith:
It’s basically Meredith playing a role, but breaking the fourth wall constantly, to inform American forces of what to expect culturally in the UK. One of the most interesting parts is when Meredith and a Black GI get off a train–it becomes apparent that they, and their British civilian travelling companions on the train have had a pleasant conversation during the trip, and when it’s time to say goodbye, an elderly British woman invites the Black soldier around for tea sometime. Meredith explains that the British don’t have the hangups that Americans do about race, so don’t expect them to deal with a person’s race as Americans do. Terms such as “Negro” and “colored boy” are mentioned, but remember, this film was made in the early 1940s.
That incident happens at 25:25 of the film, but the whole thing is fascinating to watch: what to expect and how to behave in a British pub; what British schoolchildren learn (and how their teachers had to go off to war, leaving them with old retired teachers); and things to remember if you are invited into a British home for tea or dinner.
This may have been due to the British seeing black GIs as just American servicemen. I wonder if the attitude was the same when it came to colonials serving under British command.
I was so confused by the trailers for that movie. I was convinced it was a retelling of Robin Hood set in a post-apocalyptic era.
Which would actually be a pretty good idea for a movie when you think about it. Or an Amazon mini-series.
This excellent article will give you a detailed answer.
This movie is from 1950. At the time, the utter majority of American men were clean-shaven. Mustaches, when worn, were typically clipped short. Peck’s mustache, which he was given for the noble purpose of period accuracy, did not sit well with viewers, because in their time, the clean cut look was the social standard. The article includes a quote straight from the horse’s mouth. In a period memo, Fox boss Darryl Zanuck referred to reports gathered from ushers who had spoken to viewers, which he quoted as follows: “Why do they cast Gregory Peck in this kind of role and then put a walrus moustache on him and hide his face? If they wanted an ugly man, why didn’t they take an ugly actor? Why waste Peck? This comment occurred hundreds of times, particularly from women and young girls.”
Sounds harsh, but it’s in line with the prevailing aesthetic standards of the time. It has been stated above: although a faithfully recreating a certain look / fashion may ensure period accuracy, viewers may prefer to see actors who look good by their own standards, and so historical accuracy often gets sacrificed.
The mini-series The Saboteurs (aka The Heavy Water War) a few years ago was pretty accurate, aside from things like period automobiles, which I’m not at all qualified to comment on. However, I did notice the transport that delivered the commandos to Norway was an RAF Stirling marked with black and white Invasion stripes.
The Telemark Raid happened in February 1943. Invasion stripes were applied to Allied planes only in the hours before D-Day in June 1944, to make sure they weren’t mistaken for Luftwaffe aircraft.
And it was just five years later that MAD Magazine published a side-by-side comparison of the Hollywood cowboy and “the 100% genuine cowboy”…starting with the observation that the latter wore a “nauseating” walrus mustache.
Donald Sutherland’s hippie character in “Kelly’s Heroes” (set in WWII) is especially egregious, if your mindset demanded realism. Even if you consider him a “beat” type instead, he’s way out of place.
Always with the negative waves, Jackmannii. Always with the negative waves!
There’s also the post-war Sherman with 90mm(!) Cannon but they actually write that away by claiming they put a fake 90mm barrel extension to scare away lesser German tanks.
“John Smurd” looks like Larry Storch on F Troop.
Like Don Rickles said, “That boy is sick!”
Things like tanks and planes I’m willing to give them a pass on, because how many historically correct units are actually operational?
I recall watching an episode of Black Sheep Squadron once, where it was pretty obvious that they kept over-dubbing everyone who said “Five planes” on set with “Four planes”, because they discovered after filming those scenes that they only had four planes for the flying scenes.
I don’t think I understand the OP’s question. When you rule out both things that are intentional or an accident what’s left?
When you just don’t give a shit.
Like if a modern car just showed up in a 1950s movie and it’s not meant to be a joke, it’s just a really stupid oversight. When I say “Accident” I mean stuff that’s entirely out of the filmmakers control or was very easy to overlook.
In the episode where they have a competition to determine who shoots down Yamamoto, the Army fighter jocks fly P-51D Mustangs instead of the P-38s that were actually used in the raid. The Lightning was the only Allied fighter at the time that had the range to intercept the transport as it was coming in to land at Bougainville Island.
The raid took place in April 1943; the P-51D entered service in 1944. The Army would have killed to have Mustangs in the Pacific in '43.
And yet, they had an episode with two flyable P38s. (The thinly disguised Major Bong episode with Frank Converse). So they didn’t have to be wrong.
Rin Tin Tin, It wasn’t an accident they picked a breed that didn’t exist, and it wasn’t intentional to have an anachronistic pooch. They just didn’t care. And neither did the audience (me included).