MovieChat Forums > U-571 (2000) Discussion > Re-Interpreting the Infamous Lifeboat Sc...

Re-Interpreting the Infamous Lifeboat Scene


Forget, for a moment, all of the "all Germans weren't Nazis" arguments and let's approach this scene from the "historical fiction" standpoint. As has been stated many times the Kriegsmarine weren't all goosestepping Nazis. These fictional Kriegsmarine crewmen, however, are.

Now then. They have orders not to take on survivors from ships they've sunk. When confronted with the lifeboat, they're in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation, in their minds. They can't take those people aboard. But at the same time, simply leaving them adrift is essentially consigning them to death. Given the way Nazis stereotypically think, it's entirely possible that by just shooting them they were sparing them a slower death by starvation at sea. Cold and methodical, yes, but potentially, from their viewpoint, a merciful means of carrying out a necessary evil.

Besides. Given that prior to the arrival of the Americans they mostly would just otherwise be farting around on their sub, from a storytelling standpoint it's obvious the writer(s) wanted Wassner and his guys to do something that established them firmly as bad guys beyond the simplistic "they're Nazis so they're bad" approach. Although usually being a Nazi does automatically guarantee your evilness, sometimes, in films, "they're Nazis so they're bad" is a bit cartoonish (see the Indiana Jones films), so a graphic depiction of WHY Nazis are bad is called for in a more serious story.

And machine gunning a lifeboat of people is a surefire way to get across who you're supposed to be rooting against.

So, while on some level I find this stereotyping of WWII Germans simplistic, I at least get that these are made up Germans and understand what it was the filmmakers were going for with this scene, and why it was needed, and have to admit that actually showing them doing something bad rather than simply asserting their badness without any evidence is the right way to go about this.

So I don't get why people bicker about it so much. On either side.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

You just opened a whole can of whoop-a$$ on yourself by GSBR...



I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

By who...?

All I was trying to do was approach the scene from a rational standpoint.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

Sup.

reply

Ah, having looked over some of your earlier comments on the matter, I take it you do not share my belief in the lifeboat scene being pivotal in establishing the Nazis' villainous nature?

EDIT: I am reading some other of your comments and it seems my assessment was incorrect, both in how you viewed the scene, and in the characters' motivations. I'll reread your stuff a little more carefully.

In the meantime, feel free to, as CGSailor put it, open a can of whoopass on me if you desire. I'm only trying to argue that there is a reason this scene exists in the film, and that it isn't to demonize Germans, and offer my own theories as to why Wassner (I believe that's the U-Boat captain's name) would order it done.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

No, I realize that was the point of the scene. I just don't like the way the Germans were depicted in this film.

reply

Well so do I, to a point. In fact despite understanding that the scene's purpose is to make the German characters clearly bad guys, I dislike that the filmmakers chose this route; however I am just trying to stay within the context of the film's story.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

Fair enough.

reply

I just don't like the way the Germans were depicted


That is soooo funny. The Germans voted in a murderous loon a decade before the war was under way, a war in which they, the Germans, sought to control all before them as the Master Race.

You sit to watch a film about those times yet you are surprised when you see them portrayed as the murderous narcissists that they were?

You are fortunate the forces of good stopped them from taking control of your life! You wouldn't have enjoyed life under the Nazis, I'm sure.

reply

I guess you see by who now. gsbr. Total jackwagon (gotta love Lee Ermy)

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Do I need to remind you of the director's views?

reply

He seems reasonable enough to me.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

Although I see your point, I must disagree.

Firstly your two arguments negate each other, on the one hand you argue it was the humane thing to do, then on the other you argue it was done to firmly establish who the bad guys were.

In my humble opinion, a Hollywood film set during WW2 concerning US submariners attempting to steal an important intelligence asset from a German U-Boat, doesn't need any such scene to 'firmly establish' who the bad guys are. It is quite clearly the Germans, and it always will be the Germans. It's one of the perks of winning the war you see, the allies are always right!

That said, the scene in question went a bit too far, when confronted with a boat full of survivors the captain need merely have told his crew to ignore them, rather than give the order to 'sink them', don't you think? It really was a display of cartoon worthy Nazism.

When coupled with the directors own comments on his opinion of German submariners at this time... well, you start to see it was more than just establishing the bad guys, but instead establishing stereotypes.

The film would have been fine without it, at least in my opinion.

----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers

reply

I never argued that machine-gunning the survivors was humane, only that the Germans may have thought it was.

And I don't see how that contradicts my second argument about it establishing them as the villains. Even if they did think it was more humane than leaving them adrift, it was still quite nasty. After all, just because they think they're right doesn't mean they really are.

And, on your second point, you're correct. But, it's still an "establish the bad guys" scene, and so has a place in the narrative, right or wrong. Even when we know they're intended to be bad beforehand, scenes such as this serve to demonstrate their badness.

Don't get me wrong, though, I agree with you about the stereotyping. Boy, do I ever. I, too, would've preferred the scene not exist. But exist it does.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply

I didn't say you did, or at least I didn't mean to say you did.

I simply meant, if it was intended as a 'they thought it was the humane thing to do' scene, it wouldn't very well be accomplishing an 'establishment of the bad guys' scene. If the director/writer really wanted to portray that they thought they were doing the right thing, then he clearly wasn't trying to establish them as bad guys with the very same scene.

I hope you understand what I mean.

Not to mention that wasn't the case anyway, it was clearly a scene designed to paint the German submariners, and captain in particular, in a very bad light.

I think you will agree they could have established them as the bad guys in various other ways.

----------
Shouldn't have been cancelled..
-Firefly
-New Amsterdam
-Journeyman
-terriers

reply

True, I'll concede that. Or they could've not made them outright evil at all and portrayed them a little more fairly. Would've been interesting to maybe see Wassner or someone in his crew as anti-Nazi and help the Americans maybe. Or, heck, keep the lifeboat scene, but have Wassner feel guilty over it, and help the Americans later on because of it. Lots of possibilities.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

reply