So, I for one resent the trivializing and disingenuous repackaging of history in this fashion. These people confuse entertainment with education, and the lesser movie directors do little to disabuse them of the notion. (Some say that we even elect actors into the presidency because we mistake movie heroes for the real article.) Thus, for some folks, the cinematic mages of hollywood have become the architects of reality. With all due respect, however, I must offer the following observation: that the psyche sometimes blurs the destinction between real life and fantasy, and thus our movies have a way of becoming our reality. I like watching the tanks move and shoot everything up but that was not how the real battle was except in rare occasions.īlessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.ĬavScout, you're right, they're only movies. It was made in the early fifties and is filled with cliches and was shot in a sound studio, but it gives you more of the real flavor of the Battle of the Bulge than this movie of the same name. If you want to see a good movie on the Ardennes fighting watch "Battleground" when it comes around on TV. What you see happen in the movie is more like what you would have seen on the Russian Front. The battle was primarily an infantry battle with the armor supporting. The Germans were confined to the limited road network which was the main reason the Americans could slow them down, by defending "bottlenecks" until reinforcements could be brought up. The Germans were seldom able to deploy tanks en masse as shown in the movie since the Ardennes region is heavily wooded and very rough country. This is "The Battle of the Bulge" and is the most unrealistic movie I've ever seen.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |