in , ,

U-571

***
2000

‘…U-571 is junk as history; as a mindless Saturday night action flick, it’s pretty good…’

U-571 was a box-office hit, a number one film in the US, but things went badly when it made land in the UK; questions were asked in parliament about the ethno-centric changes made to agreed history, and even the Prime Minister criticised the content. It’s true that it was British bravery rather than American bravery that managed to bring the Enigma coding machines back to Blighty without the Nazis knowing, but history regularly takes a beating in cinema, and with the Brits unable or unwilling to tell their own stories on film, the US not surprisingly took advantage of history being written by the victors.

And so we have a WWII movie in which the Americans win by sheer force of manhood; they’re the most sizzling bunch of beefcake fictional sailors to hit the screen. Matthew McConaughey, still in the ‘who am I?” period of his acting, leads a merry band of Yanks including David Keith, Harvey Keitel, and, I kid you not, Jon Bon Jovi, to the site of a stricken German U-Boat. They manage to grab the vital machine while the Germans casually massacre the survivors, and manage to commandeer another U-Boat to safety. But with only one torpedo up the spout, and the German navy closing in, can the crew of U-571 escape to safety?

Since the Enigma story is now well-known from films like The Imitation Game, there’s little obvious tension here since the likely outcome is already established, but director Jonathan Mostow manages to engineer plenty of faux heroism along the way. It’s about as historically accurate as Raiders of the Lost Ark, but although screenwriter David Ayer later apologised for whitewashing the British effort in favour of a US fiction, it’s part and parcel of what cinema generally does to history; ie alter it to whatever floats at the box office.

U-571 is junk as history; as a mindless Saturday night action flick, it’s pretty good, with only a couple of regrettable CGI shots to break up some solid action sequences. Movies engage the interest, but they can’t all be primary texts; U-571 has some fanciful material that would upset Brits and Germans alike, but American audiences could and should lap up such propaganda; it’s made for them by them. When it comes to offering up a skewed view of history, nothing compares to U-571.

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. A Hollywoodized “historical” depiction, no doubt, but I do remember the theatre experience and how effective the use of sound was to create suspense in a very minimalistic way. That was the only thing commendable about the movie, but it was done brilliantly. You could hear a needle drop in that theatre, and everyone was on edge, trying to decipher what noise was the ocean, and what noise was an enemy sub.

    • Well said. That’s indeed my point; leaving the history aside, this is a remarkably well made action movie, probably best seen, as you did, in the cinema!

  2. I already knew from Hollywood that America won the war but it seemed a bit mean to take away from the poor Brits the one thing they did get right – breaking Enigma. That said, good cast, good action, good entertainment.

  3. I’m surprised you didn’t compare this to Braveheart in terms of historical accuracy.
    For me, after the Hunt for Red October, I was all set with submarine movies.

  4. Do we have to collectively blame all the Yanks for this or just Hollywood in general, I have a feeling something radical has happened there and we will never get historically correct accounts of events that are a real interest to me.

    • Paul Greengrass is still trying to do it, but his Kent State movie has been on ice for a decade. Attempts to be accurate could and should be a genre by themselves, separate from historical fantasies. IMHO…

  5. Is Jon slippery when wet? Did the Germans want him dead or alive? At any point in the movie does he give love a bad name?

    Also: “movie engage the interest”

Leave a Reply

Loading…

0