Why haven't they...

[Dan R Porter]

Hollywood always has a crying need to get as many Americans as they can into a movie about WW2.

I humbly disagree.

"Braveheart", though controversial, was not about americans.

And the recent WWII epic, Valkerie, though I have not seen it. I would hope they would not choose Mel Gibson for this particuler role, but they probalbly will. I would almost bet gibson has this on his desk, we have seen...

Braveheart,
Patriot,
we were soldiers
apocolypto
etc etc.

[macwilkin]

I humbly disagree.

"Braveheart", though controversial, was not about americans.

And the recent WWII epic, Valkerie, though I have not seen it. I would hope they would not choose Mel Gibson for this particuler role, but they probalbly will. I would almost bet gibson has this on his desk, we have seen...

Braveheart,
Patriot,
we were soldiers
apocolypto
etc etc.

Dan,

Trefor's point, as I understand it, was that Hollywood tends to have a very limited view of WWII. Witness the Errol Flynn move Objective, Burma!, which was on TCM this weekend. The film basically implies that it was the Americans alone who fought in Burma, and never mentions the British 14th Army under one of the Greatest Generals ever, Slim of Burma, that fought the Japanese yard by bloody yard. In fact, British troops rioted in India when the film was released there because of its inaccurate depiction of the Burma campaign.

Even in "SPR", there was no mention of the other Allied forces engaged on Normandy -- No Gold, Sword or Juno Beaches. Another recent example was the movie U-571 which basically claimed it was the Americans who broke the Enigma code, when it was the British who actually did.

As I tell my history classes, there were 26 Allied Nations that won the Second World War.

T.