SYNOPSIS: “The Dam Busters”
is an old-school British film about a bombing mission to destroy some German
dams. It covers the development of a
“bouncing bomb” by a scientist named Barnes Wallis (Michael Redgrave) and the
training and delivery by a squadron of Lancaster bombers led by Wing Commander
Guy Gibson (Richard Todd). The movie
concludes with the iconic bombing raid.
BACK-STORY: The studio asked
Paul Brickhill to write a treatment of his book for a possible Richard Todd
vehicle. Brickhill decided to concentrate
on just Operation Chastise and not include the later missions covered in the
book. Operation Chastise was the bombing
of three Ruhr Valley dams using Wallis’ bouncing bombs. R.C. Sheriff (“Journey’s End”) wrote the
screenplay. The director was Michael
Anderson (“Operation Crossbow”). It was
nominated for an Academy Award for Best Special Effects. It was nominated for BAFTA’s for Best British
Film, Best Screenplay, and Best Film From Any Source. It was voted the 68th best British
film of the 20th Century. It
was the biggest box office success of 1955.
TRIVIA: Wikipedia, imdb
1. It is based on “The Dam Busters” by Paul
Brickhill and “Enemy Coast Ahead” by Guy Gibson.
2. It was the biggest box office hit in 1955 in
Great Britain.
3. The climactic attack scene (and the one in
“633 Squadron”) influenced the attack on the Death Star in “Star Wars”.
4. The War Ministry made four Lancasters
available for 130 pounds per plane per day.
This cost was 10% of the budget.
5. Guy Gibson’s dog was named N*****, so the
movie is accurate about that. The dog
was not as beloved by the squadron as the movie implies. The men would get him drunk and he would pee
on their pants. Unlike the movie, the
driver of the car tried to avoid hitting him and several passengers were injured
in the crash. The dog used in the movie
was also named N*****. In 1999, ITV
censored the name and in American versions of the movie, the name was changed
to Trigger.
6. Before release, Gibson’s widow sued, which
held the film up for months until references to her husband’s book were added
to the movie.
Belle and Blade = 3.5
Brassey’s =
4.0
Video Hound =
N/A
War Movies =
3.8
Military History = no
Channel 4 = #11
Film Site = no
101 War Movies = yes
Rotten Tomatoes = no
OPINION: It is
historically accurate in the main points. It is pretty realistic for its
time. It was a huge hit in England, helped by the thrilling opening
theme. It glamorizes the RAF like "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo"
recruited for the U.S. Air Force. The two parts are both interesting and
the raid itself is thrilling. However, it is definitely old school in its
quaintness and Peter Jackson's version should be much better, although
unnecessary. It may be the 53rd
greatest war movie, but it is not the 53rd best war movie.
You know, I am not really bothered about the dog's name. I understand that many films from the past are filled with all kinds of “isms” as viewed through our modern lens. But to remove scenes that could be offensive to some, or to lock away certain films for the same reason is censorship. Racism was, and continues to be very much an ugly part of history. To try and erase it does a disservice to all human beings because to sweep it under the rug and pretend it was never integral to our national identity will never allow that scar to heal properly.
ReplyDeleteFor me, as a free thinking adult (or at least I’m under the illusion that I am. I have no choice ;) I would like to be able to choose what to watch, view, read or listen to, even if some of it might be ugly or offensive. It’s difficult to be enlightened if the truth is buried or censored. Am I right?
So yes, if anything, put a disclaimer on it as being a product of it’s time (as they have done with some re-releases of The Dam Busters), let people know they might find it offensive, and then put it out there as it. People can then choose whether or not to watch it.
While I am curious to see what the dubbed version with "trigger" sounds like, I don't think it would be the same as watching the accuracte version. Also, I don't really like political correctness, such as trying to censor or change the dog's name (the dog's grave still has its original name on it); it’s a slippery slope when films, art, books, music and other forms of art or expression are altered to appease the zeitgeist of a particular moment in history (especially since that appears to be happening with over 90 percent of films and shows today).
I agree that there is no reason to change the dog's name for this version. It's not like the dog is a key character. However, I see no reason not to change the name for the remake. It's just not worth the controversy that would take away from the film. Plus, 90% of the audience would not even be aware of the change.
Delete