HMS Ulysses
 

Just finished reading Alistair MacLean's "HMS Ulysses" an excellent novel on all accounts. Very gripping perspective on the Russian convoys, and many other themes of the human condition. I just happened to pick it up by chance at a used book store in Cambridge.

Kinda surprising that it was not made into a movie like MacLean's other works. (Where Eagle's Dare, Force 10 from Navarone, The Guns of Navarone...)

opinions?

I gotta agree wholheartedly. That was an excellent book.

Why Hollywood would rather continuously re-hash old movies with sequels instead of looking for excellent new material like that is beyond me. :up:

Part of me is grateful for this *cough* U-571 *cough*

You got me there. :yep:

That movie was one hell of a dog. Ruff! :down:

I think that we can all agree that U-571 was merely meant as a popcorn flick and nothing more.

Hopefully one day it will become practical to make a movie of this scale despite the apparent lack of interest in the mainstream for this type of movie. Who knows stranger things have certainly happend.

They may have had "Eagles" in mind when passing on "Ulysses". On the other hand, while it's a great story, it's also a relentlessly grim story, full of tragedy and carrying the implication of war's futility on every page. Hardly movie stuff - also I doubt it would translate well to the screen (and let's not forget bad effects). The execs probably thought that with "The Cruel Sea", "The Enemy Below" and "Das Boot", that territory had been covered enough.

BTW - I discovered "Bedford Incident" by accident about a decade ago - buying the novel from a street vendor. I discovered the film under similar accidental circumstances. Was the movie a flop? I thought it was well made and the performances were dead on - but how did it do at the box office? If it did badly, that may explain why many of these great books were never adapted. (As fortuitous as that may be.)

I'm going to take two stands here that may make me instantly unpopular.

1) I enjoyed U-571. I never thought it was a true story because even slightly true stories are relentlessly hyped as "based on a true story" or "inspired by actual events". I disagree that it disrespected our British allies who also nabbed an Enigma code-machine (apparently before the events "depicted" in -571) by showing us get one. The secrecy surrounding Enigma was heavy during wartime and remained in effect even after the end of the war - it's conceivable that the British government disclosed their acquisition of Enigma to the Americans with strict instructions to keep that fact under wraps. Thus, -571 doesn't deny the British achievment simply because characters therein didn't know about it. Britain's obsessive secrecy of Enigma was raised in the Robert Harris novel "Enigma" (and presumbaly in the movie as well, though I never saw it) to the point that a British codebreaker in Bletchley gets trapped into conversation with a visiting American who all but accuses the Brits of sitting on top of vital informatio as a way to entrap the Americans. Now, I know that movies don't get the attention of books - still I think the conspicuous lack of protest against "Enigma" points to a darker accusation than the slight of U-571.

2) I think our pop culture places waaaay too much importance on movies as a barometer of what really matters. If you've got a pivotal book, the only way to ratify it's importance is make a movie about it - even though movies have to make (often) painful compromises. Nobody questions this because these compromises are crucial to get the movies made - therefore characters are constructed as composites of real life characters, and situations unfold to fit dramatic as well as historic considerations.

What nobody questions, however, is why these movies are made if they can't be without these compromises. I think this point was conspicuously evaded during the controversy over the recent 9/11 TV-movie. we had to cut corners they told us - all but insisting that they couldn't make the movie without doing so, but never admitting that the world could do without a 9/11 movie (perfect or otherwise) given that the subject was already exhaustively covered in innumerable books and magazine articles.

Taking that rationale to the histories of submarines, why make compromised movies (that we just know we'll hate when we've got tons of books already? Are we so hot to amaze the wider audiences who don't read by giving them escapist fare like 571 or Pearl Harbor? Are we going to do a big movie version of Blind Man's Bluff with Eastwood as John Craven and Anthony Hopkins as Gorshkov? A movie that glances over the real milestones in place of the dramatic ones, fudges history and guarantees that it will get slammed on boards like this? I know I don't, and given the reception given here to other movies, I'm sure I'm not alone on this.

I think the movie will be made by making it palatable only to the mainstream, which is to say that it might as well not be made at all.

I saw The Bedford Incident. Not a bad anti-war film as these things go. Lots of tension throughout and believable actions by the characters. Worth a peep.

Did not expect this thread to come to the top again :D I'll have to find a copy of "The Bedford Incident" and give it a read. Thanks for the headsup.

After you read the novel, rent the movie. You'll see that the endings are quite different:|\\

Sorry for bringing up this old thread. You know I don't know if HMS Ulysses could be made into a movie by Hollywood, maybe financed like Enemy at the gates was. Maybe a UK/German/Russian co-production? Just read this book myself and I really appreciate it, living high up north in the Scandinavia I found it interesting to read about the war effort up north in the cold climate. Also the descriptions of the general cruelness of the war at sea were very gripping, reminded me of some really 'disturbingly realistic' stuff.

And McLean was there on a few of those convoys, not PQ-17 though although that in a way is what that book is based on. PQ-17 would be another good subject for a war movie and would lend the movie the historical flair that it would need in case McLean's book would be seen as too fictive.

Wasn't this the novel where the U-Boats lined up and fired at the convoy like a firing squad?;)

I don't think so. The focus and point of view is in the one ship, HMS Ulysses, the events are seen from their perspective. Subs are only briefly mentioned and sometimes torpedos sink the ships.

This book is widely acknowledged as one of MacLean's very best as like Nicholas Monsarrat who wrote the Cruel Sea MacLean also served in the Royal Navy in World War II.

I haven't read the book yet myself but a friend gave me a talking book version on cassette while back read by Dennis Quilley and it was excellent.

If anyone happens to be interested, found out that there is a Russian made tv-miniseries called "Konvoi PQ-17" about, as you may have guessed, convoy PQ-17.

Found at least some episodes on Google video. Looks ok although it's in Russian.