Why did the British find this film offensive? - Objective, Burma! (1945) Discussion

[–] The_Khazi 18 years ago

U.S. forces were involved in Burma(Merrill`s Marauders amongst others)on a much smaller scale but they did play a part.It`s easy to blame someone else or ban something when the real blame lies with the British Film Industry.I can`t think of too many British films (Long,Short,Tall & Yesterday`s Enemy) which depict this theatre.Samuel Fuller in "Merrill`s Marauders" was probably aware of the fuss generated by OB & has a sequence in his film which praises the British Army;almost embarrassingly so.OB & Desperate Journey(why no dvd?)were meant as morale boosting flag-wavers & certainly didn`t go out of their way to offend anyone in my opinion.I can understand some of our veterans` views at perhaps feeling omitted but the blame lies within our own industry for not honouring them.

U-571 is more deserving of criticism as it effectively pinches a part of our history to make it more palatable to the U.S. market.I like to think an American audience would have appreciated a British film about the subject but we don`t make war films anymore for some reason.Pearl Harbour was also criticised in the British press for the Battle Of Britain sequence(& rightly so)but the whole film was so dumb it`s almost beneath contempt.

reply

[–] gjwalker 18 years ago

Objective Burma was released in 1945, the war was still being fought. Portraying the Burma campaign as a single-handed US effort was offensive. Not helped by the possibly harsh but understandable feeling that old Errol - an Australian - should probably have been fighting for real.

reply

[–] tdemos 18 years ago

The British may just be a tad overly sensitive about certain war films.

There were similar criticisms about "The Great Escape" with the heavy American participation (the Steve McQueen and James Garner characters), when in reality, the Americans were not major players in that particular POW camp (at the time of the escape). The British Veterans accused Hollywood of distorting their history.

Also, David Lean's Bridge on the River Kwai was (in my opinion) unfairly criticized by many British War Veterans for not telling the real story and making light of what was a deadly business of Japanese exploitation of POWs and the native people. The real bridge looked nothing like the one shown in the movie and it was not blown up by British Special Forces.

Lean's follow-up movie, “Lawrence of Arabia" was loosely based on the legend and the autobiography of Thomas E. Lawrence, but it did not depict each and every event with historical accuracy.

The film makers choose to make good stories and tell dramatic, though partially fictionalized accounts of those stories. It may not have happened exactly as it did in the film, but they were sure-as-hell memorable motion pictures.

Other great war films such as "Where Eagles Dare" and "The Guns of Navarone" are complete works of fiction.

reply

[–] DD-931 18 years ago

Maybe OB should have been banned in America because the American hero is actually played by an Australian.

Maybe Where Eagles Dare should have been banned in America because the British character leading the operation is the smart one and the only American character is only good for killing people.

Maybe The Great Escape shouldn't have been made because the characters in charge of the escape are all British and there are only a couple of Americans in the whole movie.

Maybe the Bridge Over the River Kwai should have been banned in America because the only American character is a fraud, a coward, and a womanizer.

Maybe some British should stop getting so defensive about every damn WWII movie that isn't all about their role in winning the war. This is all getting way too ridiculous.

reply

[–] windsong05 18 years ago

Right on DD-931. By the way is DD-931, by any chance a designation for a U.S. Navy Destroyer?

reply

[–] DD-931 18 years ago

Yeah, you got me. But I'll let you figure out which one it is.

reply

[–] windsong05 18 years ago

Okay Tin Can Sailor I'm going to take a wild guess: The U.S.S. FORREST SHERMAN
Gorgeous Fletcher Class Destroyer
Keel Laid: 27 October '53
Launched: 5 February '55
Commissioned: 9 November '55
Decommissioned: 5 November '82

Hows that?

reply

[–] DD-931 18 years ago

Almost perfect. You got everything right except that the "Forrest P" was the first ship in the Forrest Sherman class, not the Fletcher class (No knock on the Fletcher class cans, which were quite beautiful).

I served on her in her last years (77-81), when we called her "The Last of the Great Gunships." She was pretty worn out, but she still had a few tricks left in her.

reply

[–] windsong05 18 years ago

After I sent the message I started to think about it and it occurred to be that the Fletcher's had two five inch turrets up forward, not one turret as the Sherman does.
Oh Well, what can you expect from an "airdale"!? I have a picture of your ship sitting right in front of me as I'm writing. You're right she's just as beautiful as the Fletcher's.

reply

[–] DD-931 18 years ago

Thanks. They're trying to set her up as a museum in Maryland. Maybe someday you can visit her there. Maybe someday I can too.

reply

[–] David Harrison 18 years ago

A couple of observations:

Well noted on U 571. No-one in Britain bothered with that one, in which Matthew McConaughey and his plucky crew retrieved an Enigma machine actually recovered by the British. It's probably worth a look in reality, as I seem to recall that Jonathan Mostow directed it, but the skewing of history makes it about as palatable as watching any Mel Gibson film involving the English.

It does get quite tedious to hear General Montgomery mentioned in war films, only so that he can be disparaged (see: Patton, Saving Private Ryan etc.). Defeating the Nazis in North Africa and playing a key role in the liberation of Europe - what a non-entity he was.

If we feel - correctly - that our role in winning the war is played down, imagine how the Russians must feel.

reply

[–] DD-931 18 years ago

A couple of responses:

The disparagement of Montgomery by American troops in numerous WWII films is based on fact. The reason for it was that Montgomery is widely regarded (even by British historians) to have held American troops in barely concealed contempt, ignoring the vast improvements in the quality of those troops during the course of the war. Measuring the American Army on the basis of Kassarine Pass is equivalent to measuring the British Army on the basis of Dunkirk. You put down an entire nation's military, you can expect a backlash. No respected American general (including Patton) ever behaved so disrespectfully toward British troops. But I have yet to see a film (except for the mainly British made A BRIDGE TOO FAR) that actually shows Montgomery as less than a quality general.

It gets quite tedious to have U-571 held up as some kind of standard of American WWII films, since that film did only mediocre business in the U.S. Now, hitting us with the crap that was PEARL HARBOR is more justified, since it was far more typical of Hollywood at it's most bombastic. But if you'll notice, PH is not exactly high on most Americans' list of great war movies.

Just a few nights ago BATTLE OF BRITAIN was shown (yet again) on a movie classics cable channel in American. On the other movie classics channel they were showing TORA! TORA! TORA!. BOB ended just in time for me to switch over and watch the Japanese massacre the American Fleet.

Break down this concern by the British about their role in WWII being "downplayed", and you'll find all it really means is they're just not interested in America's role in WWII.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DD-931 18 years ago

Oh, please. So now American soldiers were supposed to spend their leisure time working out the fine distinctions between whether Montgomery thought American soldiers were inferior...or "just" American generals? And I guess it was natural to assume that Monty considered American soldiers from the rank of colonel down to be equal to British troops?

Or did Monty draw the line at lieutenant colonels?

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DD-931 18 years ago

Since you seem bound and determined to be oblivious to my point, I'll simply restate it for the rational people out there: if I'm an American soldier in WWII, and you show contempt for an American general like Patton, you're showing contempt for me. Patton may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's MY son-of-a-bitch.

Just think of it in the same terms as your own defensiveness in defending Monty from American detractors.

reply

[–] DBloodnok 18 years ago

I think the Britih reaction to OB was as much to do with the relative paucity of attention given to the 14th Army back home as to how Hollywood treated the subject. Called 'The Forgotten Army', the 14th Army suffered from being towards the end of the priority list for men and material when weighed against the Britsh war effort in NW Europe. Perhaps there was a touch of guilt in play in 1945 - that the British home audience had not been given a lot of fayre about Burma/SEAC and now the first helping being served up was an American film about a US Army unit.

To segue into the whole Monty discussion, the disregard displayed towards 14th Army was also played out at his headquarters. When one of his former corps commanders from 8th Army was sent out to take over an AG command in SEAC, the sheer contempt shown by the former 8th Army staffers he'd taken out there was remarked upon by the throughly pissed off 14th Army staff officers. Interestingly though, the 8th Army men were soon put in their place as they had next to no idea at how to pursue offensive operations at the end of a logistics chain like the one in Burma. Made Libya/Cyrenica seem like a cakewalk.

"Someone has been tampering with Hank's memories."

reply

[–] windsong05 18 years ago

David- We Americans, and indeed the entire free world owe Great Britain a debt of gratitude which is immeasurable. It was the tenacity and defiance of the people of this island nation that allowed them to stand alone against the full weight of the German onslaught. After the fall of france (Purposely not capitalized) Churchill said, "The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or loose the war." He concluded by saying, "If the British Empire and it's Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: "This was their finest hour." Indeed it was and is. Thanks and praise always to that great generation of courageous people.
Having said that I will now say that General Bernard Law Montgomery was an insufferable son of a bitch with an artificially inflated and over bloated ego. Let me explain, "Artificially inflated." If you remember the history of the desert campaign you will recall General Auchenlech was relieved of command by Churchill who then replaced him with General Montgomery. Under him the British 8th army then went on to defeat the Axis armies in a series of battles and earned for themselves a glorious place in history. However, after the war was over, Churchill was compiling notes and information for his memoirs. He came across documents which showed the entire order of battle had been formulated by Auchenlech. "My God," he exclaimed, "I sacked Auchenlech for nothing, all Montgomery did was to carry out his (Auchenlech's) plan."

Operation Market Garden (On which A Bridge Too Far is based) was entirely Monty's brainchild. It was a total disaster for the Allies. The losses of men and equipment suffered probably extended the war by at least six months, which of course resulted in even greater loss of life. It was only his hero status that kept him from being relieved of command.

The information presented in the following was gleaned from a biography of General Patton written by a retired British officer. He said that Patton for all his bombast would always listen to the suggestions of others and would defer to them if their plan sounded better. To Montgomery the only ideas that mattered were Montgomery's. Of course I've never met the man, but what I have read and heard about him cause me to have an intense dislike for him (To put it mildly).
As far as the former U.S.S.R. is concerned, they never even called it World War II. They always referred to it as The Great Patriotic War, refusing to admit any real help from the Allies in defeating the Axis.

reply

[–] The_Khazi 18 years ago

Auchinleck always looked at El Alamein as a possible last stand & crucially he stopped the momentum of the Afrika Korps in July 42 & later formulated the successful defensive battle at Alam Halfa carried out by Monty. If Auchinleck had taken personal control of 8TH Army sooner rather than overseeing inadequate candidates such as Richie he probably would have kept his job.Even so he still made provision for the withdrawal of Allied forces into Persia ,perhaps recognising that even a numerically superior force is almost worthless if morale has collapsed(Singapore),or very near to collapse following on from the loss of Tobruk. Montgomery refused any notions of withdrawal & totally transformed the fighting belief of 8th Army-for this-despite being an awkward & at times unpleasant man- he surely deserves credit.

reply

[–] windsong05 18 years ago

Yes sir, are absolutely right about Montgomery's deserving credit for inspiring his men during the desert campaign. I had fully intended to site that fact in my posting. However, my distaste for this man overrode my better judgment and it was somewhat dishonest of me to omit historical fact.

It's just that Monty was so demeaning and condescending to the officers on Eisenhower's staff. It's told many of the American S.H.A.E.F officers could not bare to even be in the same room with him. He could not reconcile, in his own mind, that these too were professional soldiers. He thought of them as rank amateurs who should be placed directly under his command. Never mind that at this point we were supplying the greater bulk of the men, equipment and money to keep the war going.

At any rate it was wrong of me not to give the devil his due and I thank you for calling me out on it.

Respectfully,
windsong

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] smiley-39 16 years ago

Hello there, winsong05

I'm a bit late in the day but I just stumbled across your post, re. the campaign in the western desert. A slight correction is needed. When Winston Churchill relieved General Sir Claude Auckinleck, affectionately known as, "The Auk" to the British and Commonwealth soldiers, he was going to appoint General Sir Henry Maitland "Jumbo" Wilson, who commanded the Tenth Army in Persia and Iraq. The Chief of Staff General Alan Brooke suggested Montgomery instead, and Churchill went along with Brooke's advise. Up until then Monty was only known in army circles. And of course, as the world now knows, once out in the desert he became God AND a son of a bitch also!!! There was also another man who worked alongside General Auchinleck to plan the desert offensive from Alamein onwards. Brigadier Reginald Dorman-Smith.

I mentioned a few generals who came and went in the desert campaign in the comment on "Desert Victory" on this website. Some of the two and three star generals seemed to be neither use nor ornament when going up against the German Afrika Korps.
All the best for 2009 and happy days
smiley-39.

reply

[–] SouthernLibrarian1992 18 years ago

Man, I wish I had been in the Navy so I could use a ship for my handle. I did ride on the USS Constitution on July 4, but I guess that's as close as I'll get!

Is the USS Barry a Forrest Sherman class? Because I toured that at the Washington Navy Yard last April. What a sweet ship!

reply

[–] DD-931 18 years ago

Yes, the USS Barry is a Forrest Sherman class destroyer. They're actually trying to set up the "Forrest P" herself as a museum ship in Maryland. Cross your fingers.

reply

[–] SouthernLibrarian1992 18 years ago

Cool! But I guess it won't be ready when I go to Annapolis in Sept. Maybe I'll get to see it next time.

reply

[–] corek1949 18 years ago

Maybe the Brits should have made the Sands of Iwo Jima showing the sterling work done by 5th Para in capturing the island, and saving the Americans from disaster. Or maybe the work of the british submarines in sinking the 2 jap aircraft carriers in the Battle of the Coral Sea. Just can't wait for the story of how the Green Berets recaptured Port Stanley in the Falklands war.
But at least Operation Burma did have one Chindit in the force as a small placation to the British Troops who were fighting (and Dieing) whilst this fiction was being made. And that was why it was banned in Britain. Imagine if a British film came out now showing how a small British force went into Baghadad and stopped all the bombings and killings. I do not think it would be met with a great reception in US.

reply

[–] Sina-3 17 years ago

They just showed this movie recently on TV and it didn't show the Americans winning the war in Burma, it showed the story of ONE unit on one mission. The British clearly overreacted to pretty much nothing by banning this. It's a decent film with a fictional portrayal of a single mission. There were American units in Burma, it was nothing more or less than that.

As for Flynn's not being part of the fighting, which someone mentioned, he was rated 4F--he was considered physically unfit for duty. He had recurring malaria and an enlarged heart along with possibly one or two other things which I can't recall at the moment.(And he did have a heart attack while making a film during this time period, Gentleman Jim, a boxing film--he was only like 33 or 34 at the time too).

reply

[–] KlausHergesheimer 11 years ago

i didn't get your post (blah, blah, blah, rant...) but

Imagine if a British film came out now showing how a small British force went into Baghadad and stopped all the bombings and killings. I do not think it would be met with a great reception in US.

you said it yourself and i agree. hollywood HAS to respect fact; it cannot rewrite history for ANY reason.

reply

[–] brux (14837) 2 years ago

The sad shame is that the American news media operates the same way with the truth.

reply

[–] jpaulgagen 18 years ago

Have you watched the film?

It goes out of its way to pay respects to the British, Indian and Chinese armies that fought in the campaign, whilst focussing on an American unit. As earlier commentators have said, the problem lies with the British Film industry failing to produce movies telling the British experience, not Hollywood telling an American story.

reply

[–] DBloodnok 18 years ago

(posted in wrong part of thread, reposted here)

I think the Britih reaction to OB was as much to do with the relative paucity of attention given to the 14th Army back home as to how Hollywood treated the subject. Called 'The Forgotten Army', the 14th Army suffered from being towards the end of the priority list for men and material when weighed against the Britsh war effort in NW Europe. Perhaps there was a touch of guilt in play in 1945 - that the British home audience had not been given a lot of fayre about Burma/SEAC and now the first helping being served up was an American film about a US Army unit.

To segue into the whole Monty discussion, the disregard displayed towards 14th Army was also played out at his headquarters. When one of his former corps commanders from 8th Army was sent out to take over an AG command in SEAC, the sheer contempt shown by the former 8th Army staffers he'd taken out there was remarked upon by the throughly pissed off 14th Army staff officers. Interestingly though, the 8th Army men were soon put in their place as they had next to no idea at how to pursue offensive operations at the end of a logistics chain like the one in Burma. Made Libya/Cyrenica seem like a cakewalk.

"Someone has been tampering with Hank's memories."

reply

[–] lambrettaguy200 17 years ago

This film and I have a long history together. My dad told me about it many years ago and last night was the first time I've actually had the chance to see it - on TCM channel.

What did I think ? It wasn't too bad for the time. It was a bit more down to earth than some other films made during the war and didn't try quite so much to force glorious patriotic "gung-ho" propaganda down the public's throats. Being made in 1945, I suspect it didn't have to spoon-feed the public in quite the same way that films made during the darker, less-certain days of the earlier war would have been. Even the Japanese look like stealthy, capable soldiers rather than spectacle-wearing, treacherous demons as portrayed in other films of the period (eg John Wayne). The film made quite good use of war-footage, including US (airborne) training films and what looks like campaign footage from Chindit campaigns of 1943/44 (eg the footage of the ingeniously devised Chindit method of making grounded Waco gliders airborne for casevac, using goalpost pickups for stringing the towrope, to be hooked by a low-flying Dakota). The Chindits used mainly USAAC transport planes and crews (who deserved their high reputation) as well as Waco gliders, for carrying men, equipment and even mules on operations. My only criticisms came nearer the end of the film - the US soldiers seemed grouped too tightly, they were calling each other in their slit-trenches at night when Japs were very close (imagine if that had happened at Kohima ? Disaster !!) and then of course at the end, the sky black with paratroop-carrying Dakotas !

As for my dad ? well he smiles about it - he's at last made his peace with Errol Flynn and Co. But back in 1945 ? A very different matter ! My dad was in British Special Forces (S.O.E. Force 136) and spent his war on various operations (1944-45) in Burma. Showing ficticious Americans apparently winning the war in Burma as well as everywhere else was like a red rag to a bull to any British combat soldiers serving in Burma, seeing this in some cinema back in India while on leave after a hard combat operation. Are you surprised there were ripped-out cinema seats on occasion ?

The times my dad told me about seeing US soldiers in India while on leave (Calcutta), there were inevitably fist and bottle fights between British troops and our American Allies ! He managed to keep out of the fights, but it was hard to have a quiet drink with a mate, as someone, British or American, would always start a fight, then a general ruck would ensue - just like a John Wayne cowboy movie !!!

The only other time he told me about was one night him and a mate were walking up a street in Calcutta. They had recently come off an SOE op in Burma and were getting a short bit of leave. It was quite a wide street with decent-sized sidewalks. Anyway, as they walked, they became aware of footsteps a bit behind them. It was a group of American servicemen. The Americans spotted the British jungle-green uniforms and started name-calling and shouting insults etc. They then started to walk faster to catch up with my dad and his mate. It was clear that a fight would result, so the two British started to work out how they would respond. Escape was not an option, so they would get in their surprise attack first, even though there was little hope of winning.

Anyway, just like out a movie, a strange thing happened. As they crossed an alley entrance, a voice in the alley whispered sharply "Look mate, just keep going". It wasn't an American voice ! As they walked on and the Americans passed the alley entrance, there was a sudden rush of boots and lots of shouts ! Pouring out of the alley came a group of Scottish soldiers, Burma veterans one and all ! They were from the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders (which had a lot of Glaswegians) and they steamed into the surprised Americans. What a battle ! My dad and mate kept out of it as they saw fists and boots pounding and blades flashing. Soon US MPs and trucks arrived and the Americans dived on board as if chased by the Devil ! One poor guy got his outer leg pulled when he was halfway over the tailgate and no doubt he joined the WACs after this sudden sex-change !

Now if ond allies were doing this to each other, just imagine what they were doing to the enemy !!

You wanna f * * k with me? Okay. Say hello to my little friend! (Tony Montana)

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nick-613 17 years ago

Because its pure fiction. There were NO americans in Burma in WW2. It was a British/Chinese/Malay effort.

reply

[–] The_Khazi 17 years ago

Look up Merrills Marauders.American planes also flew supplies to the Chinese when the Burma road was cut.

reply

[–] smiley-39 16 years ago

To you folks out there still re-fighting the Burma campaign on these pages; and as a matter of interest, look up Wikipedia and click into the "First Air Commando Group" and also Colonel Philip Cochran. It is quite interesting. I read somewhere, many many years ago, that Phil Cochran was quite a character on his own.
All the best smiley-39.

reply

[–] adamwarlock 16 years ago

If this film retold an actual event of the Burma campaign & had Americans doing what the British had done in real life, I'd agree this would be a travesty. However, this film is fiction. There were Americans troops in Burma so this is not entirely off the mark. Plus, do our British friends realize that 2/3 of the troops fighting in Burma were Indian? Give credit where crdit is due.

reply

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

Check out THE BURMESE HARP, a Japanese movie about the end of the Burma campaign in 1945. Only the British are mentioned as the troops fighting against the Japanese there. No American troops are ever mentioned.

Now...does that make it an accurate movie about who fought who in Burma?

reply

[–] tenkisoratoti 14 years ago

I don't particularly care for the film because I know what happened in Burma but had I been a British soldier (or indeed Indian) in 1945, having laboured through the jungles and plains of Burma only to sit down watch this... I'd feel somewhat dissatisfied given the over glamorisation of the US Marines island hopping business and the fact no one back home gave a rats arse about Burma/SEA given Germany was defeated.

So yes I can understand why this film would seem 'offensive'.

reply

[–] grunsel 15 years ago

Yeah and if the British had made a movie about winning the Vietnam War, the Americans would have gone nuts, the film would not have been banned from the country , veterans would have been burning effigies of Winston Churchill and probably shooting up the British Embassy?
They can sure dish it out, but when something pricks that huge ego of theirs they stamp their feet and throw all their toys out the crib.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hardkaneda 8 years ago

Well said. The USA is sadly very proud of it military mite (which is considerable). This does not do their image much good when all they do is pride themselves on how many countries they've bombed or invaded while other countries concentrate on more humanitarian causes.
Films like Pearl harbor, U-571 and Objective Burma are just propaganda from Hollywood.

reply

[–] joegerardi-1 8 years ago

So is "Bowling for Columbine," but it don't see you excoriating it for all the lies it told...

..Joe

reply

[–] Bruce7 8 years ago

IMDB Trivia-

"The movie was pulled from release in the UK after just one week.
It was not shown in Britain again until 1952/1953, and only with an apologetic disclaimer. Incidentally, writer Lester Cole, who co-wrote the somewhat overly patriotic flag-waving script, would be branded an "Un-American" Communist, becoming one of the Hollywood Ten just a few years later."

Can you fly this plane?
Surely u cant be serious
I am serious,and dont call me Shirley

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] liscarkat (19383) 2 years ago

"'...Deperate Journey' where Errol Flynn's last line 'Now for Australia and a crack at those Japs' is quite sickening."

Quite sickening? Why? It's perfectly plausible that an Allied military man might say something like that during WWII. And why not? He was talking about a vicious, back-stabbing, immoral, inhumane enemy out for domination of the Pacific rim and islands. It's a good line, and well-justified.

reply