SUMMARY: This all-star
epic is a dramatization of the Battle of Britain from WWII. It concentrates on
the RAF pilots, but gives some coverage to the Luftwaffe. There are some soap
operaish elements to it. The movie has excellent aerial combat.
BACK-STORY: “Battle of Britain” was released in 1969 and was specifically meant to be a tribute to “the few”. The movie fits into the sub-genre of old-school all-star epics with vignettes supporting the main story line. It’s sisters are “The Longest Day” (1962) and “The Battle of the Bulge” (1965). In some ways it can be viewed as England’s response to those earlier films. It was directed by Guy Hamilton of “Goldfinger” fame. The screenplay is based on the book The Narrow Margin by Derek Wood and Derek Dempster. The book gives a traditional retelling of the Battle of Britain and thus the movie stands as the definitive film treatment of the battle. It is not a revisionist film. The film was big budget and it shows. Not only did the producers round up most of the great British actors of the time, but they went to a lot of trouble and expense to round up military hardware appropriate for a 1940 air battle. During the filming, more bullets (in the form of blanks) were fired than in the actual Battle of Britain. The movie has a very impressive list of technical advisers which included famous aces Adolf Galland and Robert Stanford Tuck. Several airfields that were part of the battle were used in the film. The scenes at RAF Fighter Command were filmed at the headquarters of Fighter Command. Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding's original office was used.
BACK-STORY: “Battle of Britain” was released in 1969 and was specifically meant to be a tribute to “the few”. The movie fits into the sub-genre of old-school all-star epics with vignettes supporting the main story line. It’s sisters are “The Longest Day” (1962) and “The Battle of the Bulge” (1965). In some ways it can be viewed as England’s response to those earlier films. It was directed by Guy Hamilton of “Goldfinger” fame. The screenplay is based on the book The Narrow Margin by Derek Wood and Derek Dempster. The book gives a traditional retelling of the Battle of Britain and thus the movie stands as the definitive film treatment of the battle. It is not a revisionist film. The film was big budget and it shows. Not only did the producers round up most of the great British actors of the time, but they went to a lot of trouble and expense to round up military hardware appropriate for a 1940 air battle. During the filming, more bullets (in the form of blanks) were fired than in the actual Battle of Britain. The movie has a very impressive list of technical advisers which included famous aces Adolf Galland and Robert Stanford Tuck. Several airfields that were part of the battle were used in the film. The scenes at RAF Fighter Command were filmed at the headquarters of Fighter Command. Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding's original office was used.
TRIVIA: wikipedia, imdb,TCM
1. Technical advisers
included three of the greatest aces of WWII:
Robert Stanford Tuck, Ginger Lacey, and Adolf Galland. Lacey was the main adviser. He shot down the second most German planes in
the battle and finished with a total of 28 for the war. Tuck shot down 29 and was captured and
imprisoned for much of the war. Galland
became head of Luftwaffe fighters and was famous for speaking his mind to authority. He is portrayed in the film as Major Falke
who gets to say Galland’s famous line about Goring giving his squadron some
Spitfires. Galland wondered why they did
not use his name for the character. So
do I? Tuck and Galland became close
friends because of the experience and Tuck became Galland’s son’s godfather.
2. The movie had the use of
over 100 aircraft including 12 flyable Spitfires and 3 Hurricanes. The Germans were played by 32 Spanish
versions of the He-111 and 27 versions of the Me-109. This “air force” was the 35th
largest in the world at the time. The
Ju-87 Stukas were models. Models that
dropped their bombs AFTER they dropped their bombs.
3. The main filming platform
was a B-25 Mitchell.
4. Queen Elizabeth II
attended the premiere at Leicester Square in London.
5. Two samples were used in
Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”. The noise of
the Stukas diving and the phrase “Where the hell are you, Simon?”
6. The aerial footage was
reused in “Midway”, “Dark Blue World”, “Baa Baa Black Sheep”, “Piece of Cake”,
and in the video for “Skeet Surfing” in the movie “Top Secret!”.
Belle and Blade = 2.5
Brassey’s =
3.0
Video Hound =
3.8
War Movies =
3.1
Military History = #90
Channel 4 =
#29
Film Site = yes
101 War Movies = yes
Rotten Tomatoes = no
OPINION: “Battle of Britain” is a good movie, but probably does not deserve the fondness many war movie buffs have for it. As a tutorial, it does a fine job in informing about this important event in history. It is fair-minded and does not treat the Germans as evil and the British as saints. In fact, it is not even very patriotic, which is surprising considering it was made in England in the 30th anniversary of the beginning of WWII. It covers both strategy and tactics so you get the pilots perspective as well as what the commanders were thinking. Unlike “Midway”, BOB makes better use of its cast. The heavy-weights (with the exception of Olivier) are put in officer rather than high command roles. This allows Shaw, Plummer, and Micheal Caine (Squadron Leader Canfield) to put their stamps on their roles. They are all effective. The dogfights are spectacular, but tend to be repetitive as the movie goes along. The stand-out is the “silent” scene which is almost surreal. Interestingly, the score for this scene is from the original composer and differs from the more bombastic, patriotic music that backs the rest of the movie.
In conclusion, “Battle of Britain” is the best movie on its subject. It could have been better, but it could also have been much worse. The producers tried hard and deserve to be credited with a game effort. You can learn a lot from this movie and if you hate to read it’s the best tutorial you will get.
This was one of the first war films I saw as a child; not a bad one to start off with, eh?
ReplyDeleteI do think it has aged well, especially with the use of actual aircraft. I think it also did much to revive Hugh Dowding's reputation in the battle.
I just wish it would have delved more into the controversy of Leigh-Mallory's Big Wing policy.
DeleteI agree with the above comment; the movie has stood the test of time, which is all the more impressive because you would think that such a special effects-dependent movie would show its age. The limitations of the time show, of course, but the use of real planes and realistic maneuvers grounds the film and makes me more willing to overlook the several special effect failures mixed in with the battle.
ReplyDeleteA part of the movie may have aged more is its then-conventional account of the battle as a close fight that the Germans almost won until they foolishly began concentrating on British cities rather than British airfields. The popular view today is that the Germans overestimated the capabilities of their aircraft against the opposing British planes and the logistical challenges of long-range air combat and were never likely to do enough damage to make a difference. I don't mind a historical account that argues for a theory, so long as it is honest about the underlying facts, and I don't mind a movie that portrays that theory in action even if it proves to be incorrect - the movie, in addition to depicting a historical battle, becomes evidence of how people in the 60s viewed that battle. And who knows? It may be the modern consensus that is wrong.
By the way, there's a 1980s game called "Fighter Command" that seems very heavily inspired by this movie. It's a fun little game and surprisingly immersive, given the limitations of the hardware that it was written for. "Battle of Britain" does not necessarily need a remake but I wouldn't mind seeing a new version of "Fighter Command."
You touch on a dilemma I encounter when I am checking the accuracy of war movies. Do you judge it on what we know today or what they knew at the time of the production? Do you judge it on how close it comes to the source book or on the most recent scholarship? I don't think it is fair to criticize an historical movie for the fact that historians have changed from the source material. However, it is important to point out what information the movie passes on that is not accurate as we know it today. What really pisses me off is when an historical movie purports to be based on historical sources but still heavily fictionalizes the narrative.
DeleteI agree. I'm not sure how many people decide to go and see a movie when they hear claims that it accurately depicts a historical event but it's obviously sizable enough to prompt movie makers to advertise in that way. When it turns out that the movie takes undue liberties with the record such promises seem to be deliberate frauds. Also, I'm unhappy at the idea of filmmakers teaching a false history the non-historians who just wanted to watch an entertaining movie.
DeleteI feel a little bad that the points we are making are coming at the expense of a movie that I think is not a good example of the problem we are discussing. There are many movies worse than "BoB".
DeleteWas there a real Squadron Leader Canfield? Or was this a character made up for the movie?
ReplyDelete