Battle of Brittain Movie question.

k5083 · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 1:55 pm

Airdales wrote:

In regards to the wartime "Memphis Belle", many shots in the film were staged and created to tell the story. Once the "Belle" had made 25 missions, and the film makers now had a focus, the re-shot many of the scenes, including the crew flying in the aircraft and the crew arriving at the aircraft prior to the mission.

Does it now become a "docu-drama". I'm not sure, but it wasn't accurate in many respects including the make-up of the crew. Co-pilot Jim Verinis had already been in command of his own B-17 when he was ordered back to fly in the "Belle" and "hit " the magic 25 as a whole crew.
Some people may hit me over the head on this, but I have it from the horses mouth, both from Jim Verinis and Bob Morgan.
Just food for thought.
Blue skies,
Jerry

Those facts are mostly pretty well known. Okay, so the original Belle wasn't a particularly honest documentary. I don't think that makes it a docudrama, but of course it is really a propaganda film so it bent the rules of documentaries. If they had used actors instead of the real crew and filmed the flight scenes over Kansas, I would call it a docudrama.

August

Dave Homewood · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 3:21 pm

k5083 wrote:

No. A documentary is where you point the camera at something real, not staged. The correct term for both BoBs is "docudrama" which is to say, a drama (fiction) based on real events. The wartime Memphis Belle was a documentary; the 1980s one was not. I have never heard the term "drama documentary" but if it exists, and I'll take your word that it does, it is an attempt to puff up fiction films into things that they are not.

August

A documentary is most certainly not just pointing the camera at something real. There are many variations of filmmaking under the documentary umbrella. Have you ever heard of mockdoc (mock documentary)? In fact, look at nature documentaries, they are as staged and false as any drama, but we still call them documentary. Reality TV has no relation to any reality, but it is still a branch of documentary.

Docudrama is merely a buzzword bastardisation of Drama Documentary, exactly the same thing. As stated below, the wartime Memphis Belle was staged and cut from all sorts of shoots and does not just record the 25th flight of one aircraft, but it is presented as doing so. This is still documentary, just not reality. The dramatised version was largely fiction but had it been based on the real events of that 25th flight it would also be documentary, under the Drama Documentary or 'docudrama' category.

Raven said:

Quote:

I don't agree. That's how the industry works now, but certainly not then. It did OK at the box office, and a fair amount of tie-in guff cash, but the whole Video (1980s) and DVD (1990s) industry came way to late to attribute anything to the film's bottom line, although United Artists were probably happy. TV rights were and are small beans. The film team counted box office, and the books were closed when the rest happened.

Fair point, but UA are still making money from DVD sales, and the actors will still receive their royalties with each sale and screening.

Quote:

I'd agree with Dave's sentiment, but k5083's detail - it's a 'docudrama', or 'dramatised documentary', but it's a fictional version of real events. Closer than most, and closer than some that claim to be documentaries.

That's what I was saying too, it's docudrama, or dramatised documentary. The fictional parts are only the personal lives of the characters, all the rest including most characters were based on real people and events (even if some names were changed). Sqn ldr Skipper for example was based on Sailor Malan.

I have to get to work now, but will coime back to this later.

k5083 · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 3:45 pm

Dave Homewood wrote:

I have to get to work now, but will coime back to this later.

No need. I get the point. Every film ever made that contains any reference to anything real is some "form" of documentary. I don't agree with the definition, but it helps me understand your POV. If you'll excuse me, I have to go watch a documentary about the Catholic Church, Mary Magdelene, and the Knights Templar that is now playing in theaters.

August

Dave Homewood · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 5:48 pm

No, you don't get the point. I like the sarcasm thiough, rather amusing.

As a documentary filmmaker who has studied the art of making documentaries in depth, I suggest you look at some of the written works by an American chap called Bill Nichols, who devised the categories of documentary sub-genres to clarify where I am actually coming from.

I don't think everything is a doco, for example unlike most people I see U-571 as action drama, not something purporting to be true.

Raven · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 6:19 pm

Dave Homewood wrote:

Raven said:

Quote:

I don't agree. That's how the industry works now, but certainly not then. It did OK at the box office, and a fair amount of tie-in guff cash, but the whole Video (1980s) and DVD (1990s) industry came way to late to attribute anything to the film's bottom line, although United Artists were probably happy. TV rights were and are small beans. The film team counted box office, and the books were closed when the rest happened.

Fair point, but UA are still making money from DVD sales, and the actors will still receive their royalties with each sale and screening.

Ummm. Actually, as I was trying to say, the film will have been depreciated to zero by the accountants. They accept the money, but the book on the profit & loss for BoB is long closed. Also there's a fair few of the film team no longer collecting royalties - they're dead.

More accurately, no one is budgeting NOW on revenues raised in 2036 from and films at today's box office. They're nice to have, but you can't operate a profit&loss over that timeframe.

Airdale's point is a good one re- Memphis Belle. There's a lot more to the film's manipulation of 'the truth' too. (Belle wasn't the 'first to complete 25 missions' as they picked 'the wrong' aircraft to film. Another B-17 got to 25 missions first. (I won't mention the two that they started filming that were lost on operations before getting to 25 up!) So the correct tribute is 'completed 25 missions and came home'. True, but disingenuous.) However the flying, missions and enemy activity were real. The crew were the real guys, not actors, and for those reasons it stands well as a documentary. For those that look, the info is there on the compromises made, so it's not fraudulent.

Good debate, lets not get silly.

Dave Homewood · **Posted:** Thu May 25, 2006 1:00 am

Raven, yes i see your point about the finances. Thanks for making it clear. You're quite right.

Regarding Memphis Belle (1944), sure a proportion of it was constructed to fit a story, but that's the very nature of good documentary. A set of clips are edited and pieced together to form a linear narrative in any documentary. This doco fits into the mode of Expositional documentary, with crossover elements of Observational mode. Just because it's constructed from several shoots and purports to be one mission doesn't make it drama, nor does it make it fraud. When you deconstruct any good docmentary you'll find they are all subjective and a highly constructed piece of work. As much editing and decision making goes into what to keep and what to discard and what to reshoot in a doco as does in any drama film, somtimes more.

Like I hinted at before, a David Attenborough wildlife doco about lions seems to a viewer like real life being shown without any medling from humans. But anylise it and you'll soon realise it's also docudrama, as they've made up names and personalities for each member of the lion family, added suspenseful music at points, created a goody vs baddy element when the predator comes along, shows happy families when the cubs are born, etc. This is all done to create empathy, and to entice the viewer to watch. Yes, you're watching something completely real, but it's also completely constructed in a subjective manner by the filmmaker. If they'd just followed a family of lions for an hour and shown tat footage uncut, no-one would watch. Interesting stuff.

To be certain of what I was saying, I went and checked with my old university lecturer today who trained me in documentary theory, and asked him if he agreed that Battle of Britain was a Drama Documentary (docudrama) . He said it is without a doubt. He's a reknowned expert on the medium of documentary making in this country, and knows his stuff.

He's not an aviation buff, but is a film buff, so I asked him if he thought it deserved a b grade label. He thought that the cast were a grade, and the portrayal of history was tops, but said it's down to the individual's subjectivity to decide whether a film is good or bad. He's absolutely right. So Steve, I have no problem with you thinking it's B grade, that's your opinion. My opinion is it's great, one of the best films made on a historical battle, and one of my favourites.

en830 · **Posted:** Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:53 pm

BoB Spitfire and CASA taken in Jersey in 1968 during the aircraft's transfer back to the UK from Europe.

One Buchon lost its tail in a taxing accident and remained in the island for a few weeks until a replacement was shipped out

Spitfire MkIX note the slipper tank to extend it's range, I wonder if any have flown since with this arrangement ?

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

I know that Cavanaugh has one on display for their Spit, but not sure if they have ever used it.

corsair166b · **Posted:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:15 am

Let's not forget Bill Greenwood's T Mk 9 Spitfire was also a camera ship in this movie with the camera up front and the pilot flying from behind in the second seat....and it was used in some distant shots also as a combat 'Spit', where the twin canopies were'nt so easily noticed...and she still flies to this day on the warbird circuit as TE308.....

I happen to like both 'Battle of Britain' and 'Midway', tho one is WAY more accurate in terms of storytelling than the other and tends more towards TRYING to use the right planes for the story than the other (BoB)...still, there are technical faults in BoB that bother me, like the strafing runs by the Messers in the opening sequence where the bullets of the strafing Messers hit the ground AFTER the plane has flown over (check it out!) and then the Hurricane blows up....but overall it was a good movie with excellent air to air photography...

Who does'nt like 'Kelly's heroes'? We discussed this movie on another forum some time ago and everyone agreed it was an EXCELLENT war comedy (two words that don't often go together) and remains a classic with a top notch cast....if you don't like this one and laugh a bit at it you need your head examined...

M

Shade Ruff · **Joined:** Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:49 am **Posts:** 37

Dave Homewood wrote:

Shade Ruff, as for "The Dirty Dozen", "Kelly's Heroes" and "von Ryan's Express", all I can say is OH DEAR GOD!!!!!!!!!

It wasn't me.

Shade Ruff

Speedy · **Posted:** Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:15 pm

BoB was worth it if for nothing else than watching Susannah York trapse around in a uniform and stockings.

Jerry O'Neill · **Posted:** Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:36 pm

Speedy, you nailed it! Hubba-hubba!

Bluedharma · **Posted:** Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:19 pm

Here is a web site I found why researching the TE308.
You can google translate.

http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/film/bob/pag1.htm

It is in dutch.
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.strijdbewijs.nl%2Ffilm%2Fbob%2Fpag1.htm&lp=nl_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

Warbird Information Exchange

Battle of Brittain Movie question.

Who is online