what were The Old Men thinking?

[flag4]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

And then he says something about this being hard to believe, given the weather or sea state or whatever. At least according to the English subtitles altho my German dictionary would have me believe that the "hard to believe" part is pretty spot on. And there's a bit later on in the uncut version, when they are trying to make repairs after the Gibraltar disaster, where he remarks on the fact that the plane seemed to come right at them in the dark, the implication being that it already knew where they were. The 1WO says he's heard talk about the British having new and improved radar and der Alte says (again, according to the subtitles) that if the Tommies can find them in the dark there's not much left they can do except pray.

I think all of that stuff is a reflection of the already stated fact that the Happy Times are over, the Allied offense and defense in the war at sea are improving in ways the Germans never anticipated and for which they have no ready answer, and the men out there trying to deal with them are getting the first inklings of that unpleasant fact.

to attack the destroyer from the front - means magnetic - high seas too. i rekon this is worse than throwing a dart at a dart board blind aiming for the bulls eye. what ever the reasoning behind the attack or mixed messages, the idea that he - a seassoned Kaleun, should do this is just desperate. the destroyer, it would seem, knows that they are there hence the coming down on top of them.
to bother with such a small vessel for one torpedo is crazy. he may hit it -sure. but it would take only one can to destroy nearly 50 lives.

better to have stayed away and slunk into the cellar....but then the film may not be so exciting just more realistic.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

If only some kind German subsimmer would promise to make you a literal translation of the original language!



But not in .docx format!

I'm pretty sure when der Alte says the line about them spotting the 'scope, the first phrase is "kaum zu glauben" which does translate to "hard to believe" or "[it's] barely believable" or perhaps in more graceful English, "It's almost unbelievable that they spotted our 'scope in this weather" (or "these seas," whichever it is, I can't remember).

And, yes, this is how I'm learning German. By listening far too closely to little bits of dialogue in Das Boot, using my knowledge of German phonetics to figure out how what they're saying is most likely spelled, and then looking for the words I think I'm hearing in my German-English dictionary until I stumble across a phrase that matches what I'm hearing and fits the context of what the characters are talking about.

At this rate I should be fluent in German in about, oh, 300 years or so.

[VONHARRIS]

Taking into account the title of this thread I would like to put an other issue on the table.
After the initial attack on the convoy , the DCs that rocked the boat they finally surface next to that blazing tanker.
Why do they waste an other torpedo at a stationary undefented target instead of using the deck gun? IIRC it is night , the convoy is long gone and there is no sign of the RAF or the FAA.

Is our tactic in GWX wrong , finishing creapled merchants with the deck gun?

[JazzJR]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

At this rate I should be fluent in German in about, oh, 300 years or so.

Oh i speak already fluent German but therefor you a are far ahead of my english.
Well as they dived in the Destroyer scene the first thing he says after coming down from the Coning Tower is "They really must have spotted our Periscope" Then he says "Hard to believe by this seas" (he means the high waves)

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by VONHARRIS

Taking into account the title of this thread I would like to put an other issue on the table.
After the initial attack on the convoy , the DCs that rocked the boat they finally surface next to that blazing tanker.
Why do they waste an other torpedo at a stationary undefented target instead of using the deck gun?

Because by using a torpedo, they were able to shoot the entire scene indoors on a soundstage with a mock-up of just the bridge and half a dozen guys standing on it looking at a screen with previously-shot footage of a burning model tanker while people off-camera fanned smoke in their general direction and held up mirrors reflecting fiery light onto their faces so it looked like they were bathed in the glow from a nearby burning ship... instead of having to create a mock-up of the entire deck of the u-boat and film a whole bunch more guys manning and firing a gun, with all the special effects necessary to make it look like they were in fact firing shells at a burning ship that only existed on a huge screen a few feet away.

And also IMO because in terms of how that scene works emotionally for the characters (and thus the audience), or at least was meant to work. The emotional impact comes from the fact that the torpedo has been fired and has hit, it's a done deal, and *now* they realize that the survivors are still aboard and there is no hope for them because it's not like they can take back that torpedo or make the hit any less critical. It's not like the deck gun where they might've fired one or two shots and then seen survivors on board and - what? Stopped firing even though the ship was still afloat? Well, then it doesn't have the same kind of emotional punch and doesn't set you up for some of the tense interactions that follow. Or they keep firing anyway and then it looks like they're a bunch of heartless bastids and suddenly the audience is no longer able to sympathize with your protagonists. What they have to do in combat to get the job done and stay within their orders is terrible and gutwrenching enough without crossing that line.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by JazzJR

Oh i speak already fluent German but therefor you a are far ahead of my english.
Well as they dived in the Destroyer scene the first thing he says after coming down from the Coning Tower is "They really must have spotted our Periscope" Then he says "Hard to believe by this seas" (he means the high waves)

Yep, that's it exactly! Thanks for the clarification. I'm afraid my memory of the exact order of the lines is somewhat obscured by the fact that I spend a bit more time there just looking and not listening, lol. One of my favorite Prochnow moments, when he comes down the ladder and walks toward the camera. *sigh*

[JazzJR]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Or they keep firing anyway and then it looks like they're a bunch of heartless bastids and suddenly the audience is no longer able to sympathize with your protagonists. What they have to do in combat to get the job done and stay within their orders is terrible and gutwrenching enough without crossing that line.

Well in one scene the Kaleun says "It had to be like this...." and after Lt. Werner asked "Why did it had to be like this?" he answers "Because we don't have the room for so many survivors. How many of them you would have rescued? 1? 10? 100? We have the order to sink ships, where we find them. All other things you can ask the guys which started this war!"

[flag4]

@ frau kaleun

...i am going to assume you may be a film critic or therapist or both!

on th whole, there seem to be inacuresies in the film, things that dont quite add up.
but then this is an action film in general - squeeezzing in the human condition when it can and quite well too, may i add.

so i guess for us subies the argument will rage on regarding beleivability or not.
still. makes great disscussion none the less!

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by VONHARRIS

Taking into account the title of this thread I would like to put an other issue on the table.
After the initial attack on the convoy , the DCs that rocked the boat they finally surface next to that blazing tanker.
Why do they waste an other torpedo at a stationary undefented target instead of using the deck gun? IIRC it is night , the convoy is long gone and there is no sign of the RAF or the FAA.

Is our tactic in GWX wrong , finishing creapled merchants with the deck gun?

Just an educated guess, but they may have circled around, being more interested in evasive maneuvers than going somewheres at the moment. Deep down they wanted to confirm it I believe, seeing as few Kaleuns had that pleasure, unless the sonarman heard it sink/release air/hit bottom.

I wondered the same thing about using them not using deckgun, and the only conclusion I can come to is that they wanted to finish it fast before the destroyer got a bearing on them again.

Then again I only saw the directors cut, so I don't know what kind of background or foreshadowing I may have missed.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by flag4

@ frau kaleun

...i am going to assume you may be a film critic or therapist or both!

Both. But on a strictly amateur basis!

on th whole, there seem to be inacuresies in the film, things that dont quite add up.
but then this is an action film in general - squeeezzing in the human condition when it can and quite well too, may i add.

so i guess for us subies the argument will rage on regarding beleivability or not.
still. makes great disscussion none the less!

There are definitely elements of literal "realism" that are sacrificed in order to, IMO, illuminate a deeper or higher truth about what those experiences might have felt like (or actually did feel like) to the people who went through them. Or simply because the filmmaker was trying to get something across or elicit a response on the part of the audience and the technical aspects of filmmaking required that something be done or shown *this* way as opposed to *that* way in order to accomplish that.

I know it's come up before about how, in the exterior shots of the submerged boat under attack, it seems like the depth charges are going off way too close for them not to have done more or even critical damage to the boat in many of those scenes. Well, that's probably true, but in order to communicate visually the peril the boat was in, and the effect that had on the men inside, AND fit the boat itself and all the exploding charges into the frame, the charges in those scenes had to explode within a certain distance from the boat (or more precisely the model they were using). You can't have an image of a charge exploding underwater at a greater distance from the boat, and then put a footnote on it that tells the audience "well what you have to understand is that the blast wave created by this even at that distance is still enough to shake the boat and be really loud and make it seem like your world is coming to an end because inside the boat you can't really tell exactly how far away the charges are, just trust us on this one."

Another thing was the interior paint job of the boat, from what I've seen the interior surfaces were painted in lighter colors to maximize the effect of what limited lighting they had. Not so in the movie, because 1) having surfaces that constantly reflected all the lighting needed to film a scene would have been a technical nightmare and 2) the dark interiors, while perhaps not historically accurate, are more effective in communicating to the audience (and probably to the cast during filming as well) the sense of having to live for weeks in a dank, dark, dirty and claustrophobic environment. The literal truth is sacrificed for one that better serves the larger emotional and psychological truth that is being conveyed.

[desirableroasted]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

There are definitely elements of literal "realism" that are sacrificed in order to, IMO, illuminate a deeper or higher truth about what those experiences might have felt like (or actually did feel like) ....

I wish they would give Petersen a low-budget movie again with a script that is more than 50 pages. I simply cannot believe that the guy who made Das Boot went on to make Air Force One and Outbreak.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by desirableroasted

I wish they would give Petersen a low-budget movie again with a script that is more than 50 pages. I simply cannot believe that the guy who made Das Boot went on to make Air Force One and Outbreak.

He also made The Perfect Storm and the remake of The Posiedon Adventure, as well as Troy, all pretty good flicks in my humblest of humbles .

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000583/

Wolfgang is amongst one of the greats with his resume.

[frau kaleun]

Most of what I've seen of Petersen's Hollywood output has been watchable and entertaining enough, although none of it comes close to Das Boot as a - *puts pretentious film snob hat on* - genuine work of cinematic art.

I enjoyed Air Force One, not least because it has a) Harrison Ford, b) Gary Oldman, and c) a Prochnow cameo. It's no Citizen Kane but it's a fun ride. Poseidon Adventure didn't really do much for me, altho I didn't *hate* it. Probably it's not much worse than the original even if the original did feature a somewhat more stellar cast... I can't even remember who was in the remake.

I'd have to look at a list of everything he's done just to remember what Petersen films I've seen, it's probably more than I realize - wouldn't have thought of Outbreak if it hadn't just been mentioned here. (Saw that on TV once... not bad enough to turn off at the time, but, generally: meh.)

The only thing that stands out as a real perennial personal favorite is Troy, but that movie has so many things going for it where I'm concerned that it would take a lot to make me *not* like it.

But overall, I agree that I would love to see Petersen get his hands on, and be allowed to make, something that has the potential to be the kind of film Das Boot turned out to be. I feel the same way about Prochnow, Hollywood has pretty much wasted a great talent there. He always seems to give it everything he's got in whatever part he plays, and heaven knows it seems like he takes darn near any job he's offered, but this guy is clearly capable of giving an Oscar-worthy performance and it doesn't look like he's ever going to get that opportunity in LA-LA-land.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

But overall, I agree that I would love to see Petersen get his hands on, and be allowed to make, something that has the potential to be the kind of film Das Boot turned out to be. I feel the same way about Prochnow, Hollywood has pretty much wasted a great talent there. He always seems to give it everything he's got in whatever part he plays, and heaven knows it seems like he takes darn near any job he's offered, but this guy is clearly capable of giving an Oscar-worthy performance and it doesn't look like he's ever going to get that opportunity in LA-LA-land.

You touched on something that bugged me as well. As soon as I see a film worthy of high praise from me I look up the cast and see if they managed to take the triumph further.

I was suprised Prochnow didn't achieve further success as he was the "glue" that held the movie together. There was heroic moments by others, of course. He just seemed as fatherly yet stern as I would envision a Kaleun would be. After all he was willing to shoot Johann when he went a little batty, yet showed true gratitude and brotherly love towards him when he stopped the leaks at the bottom of the strait.

Underappreciated big time!

[VONHARRIS]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

He also made The Perfect Storm and the remake of The Posiedon Adventure, as well as Troy, all pretty good flicks in my humblest of humbles .

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000583/

Wolfgang is amongst one of the greats with his resume.

Troy stinks!
It has nothing to do with Greek mythology , and trust me I know MY mythology.
Sorry , I couldn't help it.