Watching LONGEST DAY as 6 June approaches

[Griff Murphey]

A lot of the crummy hardware is excusable but U.S. Airborne jumping from British LANCASTERS??? And crummy models at that. Sometimes I wish they would go back and fix these shortcuts with CGI. And C-47s were VERY common back then.... Arrgh!

Actually no worse than a lot of movies back then but Germans firing quad 50's and 40 mm Bofors, using ME-108 communications light aircraft for 109's, WW-2 CL's converted to missile cruisers as part of the D-Day fleet overflown by AD Skyraiders (well they had props)... Just a few things.

[Guamsst]

I normally refrain from commenting on this as I feel most of the fans of the movie sit around masturbating to the image of themselves as John Wayne. Lets just say I have never been impressed by this movie or its status as a "Classic war movie" and I assume you are probably not as far off from my opinion of this film as most people.

[ebeeby]

I remember seeing Patton in 69 when it came out. A WWII vet sitting behind me very LOUDLY had to comment to his wife EVERYTIME he saw a tank or a plane or an anything that was not right. "Martha that's not a such and such, that's a such and such painted with German colors to look like a such and such"

Ruined the whole freakin movie for me.

[Art]

Any movie made before 1980 that even got the small arms and web gear correct was ahead of the game. Somehow it just didn't seem to be as big a deal and when that was coupled with the lack of availability of the bigger items and the fact that computer animation hadn't been invented you see the problem. Some movies, like Tora, Tora, Tora, made very good use of model building which was central to special effects at the time. Some, like In Harms Way, tried the model building thing and came up way short. It's amazing that people like Stephen Spielberg who not only wasn't alive during WWII but wasn't in the military gets the details more correct than Darryl F. Zanuck who served with the Army in France in WW I, a Col. in the Signal Corps in WW II and was actually at Normandy.

I think The Longest Day's main claims to fame are that it was the first of the multi star (almost every male actor who was anybody seemed to be in it,) huge budget movies trying to present a major WW II event in documentary style. In 1963 attention to detail was sadly lacking in almost all war movies.

[Col. Colt]

There's the Story - and then there's the Hardware. I think the Story is what's important. Sure, we'd all like it to be perfectly "just as it was" but that is seldom possible. Hollywood has gotten better at it, but many of the events no longer have eyewitnesses to tell them what was "right". The closer in time the movie is to the event, the more criticism they will get from the people who were actually there. Later, not so much.

If a movie catches the Spirit of the Event or Time successfully, I don't kick them too hard about things they could not fix logistically or financially. They have to be somewhat believable, or the movie fails. But most people don't know much about what they are watching - and so the story and the acting become more important, as they should. I've had a spouse or family member get upset with me because I became the "technician" - and damaged the enjoyment for them! Sometimes we "know to much" to get the most out of an experience. CC

[budster]

I always thought it was a John Wayne Classic and always will be for me.

[Barryeye]

As one with a lifelong interest in the military and various conflicts I like to get lost in films about my topic of interest. Alas I get slammed back to reality when I see the odd or at times common errors made with the props used. However I accept that it is the price I must pay for having a bit more knowledge in this area than the average cinema goer. I don’t look for mistakes but when they happen it does produce a blip in the leisure experience. By the same token I get pleasure from seeing a director get it right with some minor detail that makes me feel that I am the only person in the cinema that appreciates the accuracy.
I am far from being a WWII expert and although I know now that there were errors in “Saving Private Ryan” and “Band of Brothers” I did not spot them. However something struck me as being wrong with both of them that I could not put my finger on. And then it struck me. The condition of the arms and uniforms looked too new. Then it dawned on me. 70 years ago they were new and little like the majority of collector’s items I am familiar with today. Also takes a while to come to terms that WWII took place in colour and not black and white. Wasn’t “The Longest Day” filmed in black and white so as real war footage could be used?
Barry

[edpm3]

If the movie inaccuracies bother you, ditch the movie and read the book. More action, more background, and all the equipment is correct. :banana100:

[Guamsst]

I find it funny that people will make excuses for this movie but bash a more modern movie for the slightest error. The truth is, they could make a giant crab look like it was clawing a man to death but couldn't be bothered with decent models or even a cardboard housing over the turret so the American and German tanks didn't look identical except for markings....LOL

[Barryeye]

I guess they can do things now with CGI that could not have been done back in 1962. With budget restrictions being what they are I think it is better that they made the film with “prop errors” than no make it at all. Can’t help but think that back in 1962 there would have been a large number of “experts” with firsthand knowledge of the correct props in the audience. I wonder what they made of it.

[Maury Krupp]

It's a MOVIE!

The bullets, grenades, artillery shells, blood, and guts aren't "correct" either. The same goes for the actors: On 6 Jun 44 Ben Vandervoort was 27; John Wayne was 55 when he played the part on screen.

I'll admit I look at M1s in movies and say that's a poppet Gas Cylinder Lock Screw or a T105E1 Rear Sight, those weren't available in 1944 or whenever. But I say it to myself and don't let it affect the storyline or characters.

Maybe it's because it seems like these days explosions, car chases, and swearing are substituted for writing, acting, and plot development that we find ourselves getting wrapped up in all this stitch nazi stuff. Even with older flicks that we were happy to just watch when they first came out.

Maury

[Griff Murphey]

Agreed it is OK to turn off our "military expert" persona and ENJOY the movie... no I am NOT a nitpicker and I do understand the older films were just very short on authenticity.

But how much trouble could it have been to build four 98 cent Airfix C-47s??? What is more iconic in American WW2 history than the 82nd and 101st jumping the C-47s??

The Lancs look like Plastic models - would have been Airfix back then.

WW-2 vets had odd memories at times. I have had them argue there was the postwar red stripe on AAF US national insignia.

Totally agree the toylike mis-proportioned ships in HARMS WAY were among the worst ever and close to ruining a great film which personally I enjoy more for the rear area shenanigans and one of The Duke's few romantic episodes in that case with Patricia Neal as the well worn Navy Nurse!

[jgaynor]

As one with a lifelong interest in the military and various conflicts I like to get lost in films about my topic of interest. Alas I get slammed back to reality when I see the odd or at times common errors made with the props used. However I accept that it is the price I must pay for having a bit more knowledge in this area than the average cinema goer. I don’t look for mistakes but when they happen it does produce a blip in the leisure experience. By the same token I get pleasure from seeing a director get it right with some minor detail that makes me feel that I am the only person in the cinema that appreciates the accuracy.
I am far from being a WWII expert and although I know now that there were errors in “Saving Private Ryan” and “Band of Brothers” I did not spot them. However something struck me as being wrong with both of them that I could not put my finger on. And then it struck me. The condition of the arms and uniforms looked too new. Then it dawned on me. 70 years ago they were new and little like the majority of collector’s items I am familiar with today. Also takes a while to come to terms that WWII took place in colour and not black and white. Wasn’t “The Longest Day” filmed in black and white so as real war footage could be used?
Barry

Barry I could be wrong but i seem to recall the makers of the "Longest Day" being quoted at the time as saying that B&W would most easily reproduce the overall sense of the gloomy bad weather conditions that were in effect during D-Day. Was that much real footage actually used?

Regards,
Jim

[Griff Murphey]

The only original footage I remember is of marching Germans on parade. There might be a long shot or two of the landing that they sneaked in.

The Orne River bridge glider assault is possibly the best bit in the movie. One of the actors had done the real assault and gave the director a lot of advice. Part way though filming Zanuck found out there was a massive 75,000 man NATO amphibious exercise that was taking place in the South of France and they were able to milk that for some free action. The Gorgeous French underground girl was Zanuck's girlfriend. Robert Mitchum was somewhat flummoxed when his infantry extras did not want to disembark into cold water, and he actually jumped in first.

When Peter Lawford as Lord Lovat and his "commandos" were landed, they jumped off the ramp into water over their heads. Lawford almost drowned and talked of suing. But they were all dried out and RE-shot the scene landed in waist-deep water.

[Barryeye]

Barry I could be wrong but i seem to recall the makers of the "Longest Day" being quoted at the time as saying that B&W would most easily reproduce the overall sense of the gloomy bad weather conditions that were in effect during D-Day. Was that much real footage actually used?


Regards,
Jim

To be honest Jim I was going on a distant memory and I could be wrong. It has been many moons since I saw the film and could not hazard a guess as to the percentage of real film used.
Barry

[John Sukey]

People like us tend to ruin these movies for other folks, ie;
Those buttons are wrong
That web equipmwnt is wrong
They NEVER had those rifles
:D:D:D:D
My contribution
Chard and Bromhead were using revolvers that didn't exsist until 1915
It was NOT a Welsh regiment at the time, though there were several Welsh soldiers in it
If they were singing "Men of Harlech" it would NOT have been in english
Sgt major Bourne was known as "the Kid" and he certainly would not have beem old enough to have grown those whiskers
The parson actualy helped build the defences but he had a wife and several children so his leaving before the attack is quite understadable
The soldier shown as a drunk was actualy a teetotlar and a good soldier
Then there was the "Blue Max"
They used the Irish arny for the battle scenes and to play the germans they only changed helmets! All the rest of their equipment was British, uniforms, rifles.
Not to mention the experimental fighter that Stachel was killed in at the end, was a FRENCH Morane from the 1930's

[Griff Murphey]

How about the 1970's ships they hammered in PEARL HARBOR... Plus, the rusty candy stripe control tower at Hickam, which was then a brand new facility.

I could live with the M48 Tiger Tanks in PATTON because it was such a damn good movie... And of course AT-6s have not only played "Jap Zeroes" but P-47s in PATTON and even RAF Typhoons in BRIDGE TOO FAR. BTF took a few shortcuts but they rounded up a lot of good hardware, too.

Have to agree the No. 4's in Blue Max were possibly the most egregious cheapskate ersatz war guns ever faked by Hollywood, unless we want to get into the Myriad Winchester 94's and 92's that armed nearly every cavalry blue coat in the Indian War flicks.

[Rick the Librarian]

Unfortunately, there are a number of war movies today that get (most) of the equipment right, but are totally lousy. If I had to choose between "Tora, Tora, Tora" from 1970s with some of the equipment, and that travesty they called "Pearl Harbor", made about 12 years, ago, the choice is not difficult. "Tora", every time! :icon_salut:

[Guamsst]

We like to think they were hindered by the lack of CGI and make excuses for them. But, a Late war or post war sight on a rifle or a wrong emblem on a button is a far cry from some of the stuff they did. What bugs me is that had Ed Wood Jr. made a war movie where each side used the same tanks and they spliced in stock footage, he would be made fun of for his incompetence....and he was, for exactly the same crap that big studios, big directors and big actors are forgiven for.

And Pearl Harbor was sad, just so damned sad....seemed like it was based on a short story by a 10yr old girl. A few great aspects were portrayed well, but REALLY? I bought it (used) based on a few scenes and some of the equipment as modeling references....and haven't been able to bring myself to watch it again.

When Trumpets Fade, Beneath Hill 60, The Greatest Raid, many good stories go unnoticed due to lack of budget.