LIES about Enigma

[unmerged(5578)]

Michael Apted craeted film "Enigma" which is nothing more but one big lie. Maybe have you seen it? What do you think?

If anyone wants true information about ENIGMA and Polish Cryptographers:
http://home.us.net/~encore/Enigma/enigma.html

Enjoy, and don't believe everything you watch on TV or in cinemas. Sometimes you'll find only barefaced lies.

 

[unmerged(904)]

It's based on a book that has quite a bit of praise for the Polish cryptographers.

 

[unmerged(598)]

I haven't seen, or read any info about the film, could you tell us what exactly does it distort, and is it as off base as U571?

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by sean9898
I haven't seen, or read any info about the film, could you tell us what exactly does it distort, and is it as off base as U571?

The Enigma code was broken chiefly by a group working out of Bletchley Park, in which Alan Turing played a major role. I don't know, without trawling through the net to find the stuff, exactly how many non-British persons were involved: there almost certainly were some, but it was a mostly British effort. The film, I gather, pulls the same trick as U571, The Thin Red Line and most other American WWII films of pretending that only Americans were involved on the Allied side.

In defence of Hollywood, I point out that most British WWII films make it look like only British soldiers were involved on the Allied side It's just that Hollywood films get seen by a far bigger audience and therefore mislead more people, and draw more criticism for doing so.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Heyesey


The Enigma code was broken chiefly by a group working out of Bletchley Park, in which Alan Turing played a major role. I don't know, without trawling through the net to find the stuff, exactly how many non-British persons were involved: there almost certainly were some, but it was a mostly British effort. The film, I gather, pulls the same trick as U571, The Thin Red Line and most other American WWII films of pretending that only Americans were involved on the Allied side.

In defence of Hollywood, I point out that most British WWII films make it look like only British soldiers were involved on the Allied side It's just that Hollywood films get seen by a far bigger audience and therefore mislead more people, and draw more criticism for doing so.

The Poles made breakthroughs into the code in the 30's and intercepted an enigma machine before war broke out. It was mailed to the German embassy (mailed ) they held it for a weekend and copied it.

With respect to the Poles, and Americans who worked on the project, the overwhelming work, including breaking the code after the addition of an extra wheel, was done by the Brits at Bletchley.

As for Hollywood, there is no excuse in making up stories as ridiculous as U571, and now this one about enigma. What's the point, the truth is usually more exciting.

What was wrong with Thin Red Line? It was set in Guadalcanal after all.

 

[Arkestra]

I believe one of the follies conducted when breaking Enigma was that the superb Polish mathematicians were merely set on useless tasks at Bletchley Park (lack of trust?), instead of working on the real problems with the British scientists.

 

[unmerged(5678)]

Originally posted by sean9898

As for Hollywood, there is no excuse in making up stories as ridiculous as U571, and now this one about enigma. What's the point, the truth is usually more exciting.

Perhaps, but will it sell in Wisconsin?

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Emperor Gupta


Perhaps, but will it sell in Wisconsin?

Sure, after all The Full Monty (a documentary on Steel Workers in Pittsburg ) sold very well.

A Bridge Too Far, and The Great Escape were Yank made weren't they?

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by sean9898

What was wrong with Thin Red Line? It was set in Guadalcanal after all.

I haven't seen it, I just remember that when it came out the British press were bitching about yet another US movie that pretended they were the only people fighting WWII. The only thing that pissed me off about it was the title - the US army has never worn red uniforms. Only one army in the world has the right to call itself the Thin Red Line

 

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm just boggling over what image the phrase "thin red line" would conjure in an American brain. Surely the phrase is meaningless for them?

 

[unmerged(1609)]

Originally posted by Heyesey


I haven't seen it, I just remember that when it came out the British press were bitching about yet another US movie that pretended they were the only people fighting WWII. The only thing that pissed me off about it was the title - the US army has never worn red uniforms. Only one army in the world has the right to call itself the Thin Red Line

The title of the movie is derived from the title of the book by Jmes Jones on which it is based (as in most cases the book being much better than the movie). And the title has nothing to do with uniforms of US army. It is based on the mottos of the book. One that I can recall at the moment goes like that:"There is only thin red line between bravery and madness" which is pretty much what the book (and the movie) is all about. The other motto is from Mark Twain but I can't recall it at the moment (though it also has thin red line in it).

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Heyesey


I haven't seen it, I just remember that when it came out the British press were bitching about yet another US movie that pretended they were the only people fighting WWII. The only thing that pissed me off about it was the title - the US army has never worn red uniforms. Only one army in the world has the right to call itself the Thin Red Line

It wasn't referring to that thin red line

The title, like the movie is less about war, more about characters set during war. From nutters to cowards, and their emotional states and changes.

Most people here thought it boring (check the OT thread about war movies) as it was 99% dialog with a bit of shooting.

It's a poetic kind of movie, and looks good, but it's not what people expect so didn't rate very well.

 

[unmerged(904)]

Originally posted by sean9898


It wasn't referring to that thin red line

The title, like the movie is less about war, more about characters set during war. From nutters to cowards, and their emotional states and changes.

Most people here thought it boring (check the OT thread about war movies) as it was 99% dialog with a bit of shooting.

It's a poetic kind of movie, and looks good, but it's not what people expect so didn't rate very well.

I loved it.

But then I don't really like shooty films so as long as the dialogue and actings ok

 

[unmerged(4386)]

Hollywood WW2 Allies?

Anybody sure that they want to see Hollywood make a movie that shows allied cooperation in WW2 ???? I'm sure that the Australian and New Zealand forces would get favorable depiction, but the British ???? There's a 50/50 chance that the British would be viewed as either awesome cool allies or dunderheaded blunderers. That depends on whether the particular director, producer, writer, etc. had a script that called for using the charisma of British actors who are very popular here, or whether the script focussed on an area where the allies didn't cooperate effectively and the Brits could be used as a convenient villain (a popular use of Brits in Hollywood movies).

 

[unmerged(4386)]

CBI--1941/42

Another idea for a movie about allies in WW2: get Hollywood to make a grand epic movie about the CBI theatre in 1941/42. Have Terry Gilliam direct. Have surviving members of Monty Python do some of the acting, along with Rowin Atkinson, Benny Hill (is he still alive?), and other prominant members of Britain's magnificent class of actors. Buy some old clips of John Belushi flying in the movie "1941" to represent Pappy Boyington in his Flying Tiger days. Find a tall thin actor to play the acid-tongued "Vinigar Joe" Stillwell. Have the movie stop when the Japanese advance is finally stopped. (That way there's plenty of time for a sequel!)

I would watch this kind of movie several times!

 

[unmerged(1609)]

Originally posted by Sheilbh


I loved it.

But then I don't really like shooty films so as long as the dialogue and actings ok

Actually I liked the movie too. I've seen it at around the same time as "Saving Private Ryan" and I liked it more. Just wanted to say that the book is great and still better than the movie.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Heyesey

The film, I gather, pulls the same trick as U571, The Thin Red Line and most other American WWII films of pretending that only Americans were involved on the Allied side.

I'm with you here - U571 was interesting parallel universe history at best. My favorite Hollywood convention is the one where all the villains have to speak with a English accent, even if they are some other nationality altogether (a la Alan Rickman in Die Hard) or from outer space (a la Governor Tarkin in Star Wars).

But "Thin Red Line"? I mean -- the US did do the heavy lifting in the Pacific. There weren't a lot of UK troops in the Central Pacific. And after all -- what's the most famous picute ever made about the Pacific theatre?

"Bridge on the River Kwai" (granted Bill Holden plays the "hero")

 

[unmerged(4303)]

Originally posted by Jan Zamojski


Actually I liked the movie too. I've seen it at around the same time as "Saving Private Ryan" and I liked it more. Just wanted to say that the book is great and still better than the movie.

Zgadzam sie z toba. The then red line by James Jones is about his experiences in Gaudalcanal as a member of the tropical lighting division.(25th?) If you read the book, then you realize the movie is a work of true genius. It captured the nuances of the book and the confusion and chaos of war.

 

[unmerged(4303)]

Originally posted by Heyesey


The Enigma code was broken chiefly by a group working out of Bletchley Park, in which Alan Turing played a major role.

I looked in encyclopedia britannica about Turing.
(the bomba was the polish machine):
The Bomba depended for its success on German operating procedures, and a change in procedures in May 1940 rendered the Bomba virtually useless. During 1939 and the spring of 1940, Turing and others designed a radically different code-breaking machine known as the Bombe. Turing's ingenious Bombes kept the Allies supplied with intelligence for the remainder of the war.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Keynes
I'm with you here - U571 was interesting parallel universe history at best.

I never saw the film, but a clip of a submarine firing a torpedo at another made me want to throw things at the TV.

But "Thin Red Line"? I mean -- the US did do the heavy lifting in the Pacific. There weren't a lot of UK troops in the Central Pacific. And after all -- what's the most famous picute ever made about the Pacific theatre?
"Bridge on the River Kwai" (granted Bill Holden plays the "hero")

Burma and China were in the Pacific theater, and Commenwealth and Chinese troops did an enormous amount of heavy lifting.

I love Bridge on The River Kwai, but it does trace an early development in Hollywood making up stories and turning British accented characters into either loonies or villans. Toosey was nothing like the portrayl in the film, and Bill Holden's character didn't even exist. The bridge was destroyed by bombers not commandos.


[/B][/QUOTE]