Prolly most of you have seen this back in the day.
My reaction at the time was that it was a confusing movie, because there were so many characters, and events. Plus the ending is just horrendously sad. At the time I thought it was an arty way to express the horror of war.
I made an effort, this time round, to keep track of the places. I have been on the Arnhem bridge, and the scene where they are walking uphill (with a brolly under the arm, and they get shot at) on the bridge, reminded me of driving over it, and worrying about what was on the other side of the rise, because it is out of sight. So suddenly it was real.
Seeing the movie again, it is very interesting for several reasons:
I believe now that the movie is historically correct - from the comments by the 'fans' who uploaded it. They say that they took out some of the tiny historically incorrect inconsistencies that have been bothering fans since forever. Ergo: the movie is historially correct - and the Anglos did NOT defeat the Nazis (actually the Russians were busy doing that, and had been for three years).
There is the ambivalent ending - did the Yanks and Brits win? It doesn't seem so. Attenborough tried to be as true to the story as possible, as I said.
Having followed the Ukraine thingie, (Military Summary every day, Smoothie x12, Duran etc.), I have come to understand a few things about land-wars that the Yanks and Brits had obvio no idea of. Smoothie also comments on this frequently: US and UK were always naval conquerers. They do not study land-wars. Also, their hierarchy is f*cked - a legacy system from the Victorians, whereby the highest ranks are incompetent fools with expensive tastes (because they are drawn from the upper classes), for example. This is made clear several times over - the general worries about his cigars, and resides in a mansion, safely tucked away. The other general fusses over his hunting trumpet to 'signal the troops', which comes off preddy pathetic when he does.
Or, how about the idea that one can just charge into a war-zone without logistics support (all the way from France - LOL) "It'll be only a few days" they said. They took ONE week to plan the whole thing, with some large arrows on a map. Arnhem is only just over there, in a tiny country - "it can't be that hard" "We'll be home by Christmas". "It's only one mile, why don't we push harder" - another meat-wave attack. The scene where they are all stuck in a long traffic jam, while waiting for radio-bits, or ammo, or orders. All of that reminds me of the counter-hruk in Kursk - 'deep into' Old Russia - it's just a few villages, and then we'll get the Power-plant - they said.
And of course, the the actual boots on the ground seek high ground in buildings, and then the bridges: Rivers turn out to be major barriers, that the Anglos thought they would just 'hold'. German General does not want to blow up the bridge, because of future counter-offensive (just as the Russians held off for ages not blowing up bridges - now they are), while Anglos believe they must 'hold' the bridge (how?) at all costs - and a heavy cost that is - just like the Ukrainians, holding ground till they are all dead. While lame orders even tell them to 'withdraw' when they are fully encircled, and mostly dead.
My husband and I have been there also... stood on the bank of the river and tried to imagine paddling with the stick of your rifle while the enemy is shooting down on you. ...like fish in a barrel. 💔
Prolly most of you have seen this back in the day.
My reaction at the time was that it was a confusing movie, because there were so many characters, and events. Plus the ending is just horrendously sad. At the time I thought it was an arty way to express the horror of war.
I made an effort, this time round, to keep track of the places. I have been on the Arnhem bridge, and the scene where they are walking uphill (with a brolly under the arm, and they get shot at) on the bridge, reminded me of driving over it, and worrying about what was on the other side of the rise, because it is out of sight. So suddenly it was real.
Seeing the movie again, it is very interesting for several reasons:
I believe now that the movie is historically correct - from the comments by the 'fans' who uploaded it. They say that they took out some of the tiny historically incorrect inconsistencies that have been bothering fans since forever. Ergo: the movie is historially correct - and the Anglos did NOT defeat the Nazis (actually the Russians were busy doing that, and had been for three years).
There is the ambivalent ending - did the Yanks and Brits win? It doesn't seem so. Attenborough tried to be as true to the story as possible, as I said.
Having followed the Ukraine thingie, (Military Summary every day, Smoothie x12, Duran etc.), I have come to understand a few things about land-wars that the Yanks and Brits had obvio no idea of. Smoothie also comments on this frequently: US and UK were always naval conquerers. They do not study land-wars. Also, their hierarchy is f*cked - a legacy system from the Victorians, whereby the highest ranks are incompetent fools with expensive tastes (because they are drawn from the upper classes), for example. This is made clear several times over - the general worries about his cigars, and resides in a mansion, safely tucked away. The other general fusses over his hunting trumpet to 'signal the troops', which comes off preddy pathetic when he does.
Or, how about the idea that one can just charge into a war-zone without logistics support (all the way from France - LOL) "It'll be only a few days" they said. They took ONE week to plan the whole thing, with some large arrows on a map. Arnhem is only just over there, in a tiny country - "it can't be that hard" "We'll be home by Christmas". "It's only one mile, why don't we push harder" - another meat-wave attack. The scene where they are all stuck in a long traffic jam, while waiting for radio-bits, or ammo, or orders. All of that reminds me of the counter-hruk in Kursk - 'deep into' Old Russia - it's just a few villages, and then we'll get the Power-plant - they said.
And of course, the the actual boots on the ground seek high ground in buildings, and then the bridges: Rivers turn out to be major barriers, that the Anglos thought they would just 'hold'. German General does not want to blow up the bridge, because of future counter-offensive (just as the Russians held off for ages not blowing up bridges - now they are), while Anglos believe they must 'hold' the bridge (how?) at all costs - and a heavy cost that is - just like the Ukrainians, holding ground till they are all dead. While lame orders even tell them to 'withdraw' when they are fully encircled, and mostly dead.
It just made sense.
My husband and I have been there also... stood on the bank of the river and tried to imagine paddling with the stick of your rifle while the enemy is shooting down on you. ...like fish in a barrel. 💔
A great film about a bad Military decision. They should have listened to the Polish Gen. Sosabowski
Gotta click through to yourtube, that's a setting from the creator.