U-571
History
is bunk - so said Henry Ford and he should know, he's history himself.
Much of what has been said about the new Hollywood stab at getting to grips
with the Second World War has detailed how not only did the events in U-571
never happen, but actually are stealing the thunder from our British lads
who did all the hard work on this front. Fair dues, and a point well made,
but history is written - rewritten - by the victors and in the battle to
have a healthy film industry there is only one real winner. If you are
so pissed off about it I suggest you write a film redressing the balance.
Bottom line
- U-571 is a hideously farfetched movie however true it is. Of course deeds
of derring do will often fall into the spurious category, but there is
something rather disappointing about U-571 liberty taking with the truth.
The plot is a simple one: an American submarine crew attack a German U-boat
to capture an Enigma coding device. In the process of this act their own
submarine is destroyed. We now have a skeleton crew on an unfamiliar submarine
who cannot radio anyone that they are not actually German's because to
do so would tip Gerry the wink that they had captured the enigma - therefore
negating the point of the mission. Its a good set up, and yet the film
squanders some of the much more interesting aspects in favour of a pretty
bog standard cat and mouse plot. (That's cat and mouse not in the Tom and
Jerry way. As much as we might like to see it, Matthew McConaughy does
not get a anvil dropped on his head, leaving an imprint.)
What should
or could have happened leaves an equally deep impression on this film though.
Simply, in the second act of the film - crew stuck on German sub - they
should not be pursued by a German destroyer. It makes much more sense for
their assailant to be from the allied side - causing the perfect moral
question, how do they save their own lives without killing their attackers
who are on their side. Sure, having the battle with the German's gives
us the proper sense of life endangerment, but it is nearly nothing we haven't
seen before. Luckily the submarine movie as a genre is one which is only
ever toyed with every five years or so, therefore every new permutation
usually brings something new to the mix. Like Gladiator, we haven't seen
a WWII sub flick for nigh on thirty years, so there is something rather
refreshing about this revisionist take.
U-571 is
a very traditional movie in terms of its action, plotting and exposition.
Little clunky plot devices all mesh nicely to give the various cast members
motivation. That said, the choice lead actor for rookie captain was an
error. I usually like Matthew McConaughy, but here his buzz cut does most
of the acting for him. He looks pensive a lot, and the character is supposed
to grow through the film on paper, but you don't really get the feeling
that the results are such a triumph for him. This is odd since he is surrounded
by relatively bland actors - Harvey Keitel does his blindfold grizzled
Chief, Bill Paxton does nothing with his brief stint as the captain. In
the end this is not an actor film, they are just there to move the plot
along. Which is why it is a pity that the plot could not have taken a more
interesting route.
I like submarine
movies. Damnit, I've even helped write a submarine based sitcom I love
the genre so much. U-571 promises a new take on the U-boat flick, and instead
just gives us another pretty well made but by the books rewrite of world
war two action. This disappointment spoilt much of the excitement that
the well set up and executed action set pieces had to offer me. So while
it passes the time on cliché and a particularly overblown score,
it never quite hits the spot. (6)
IF THIS
FILM WERE A CAR CRASH: The Silent Service meets Saving Private Ryan. DIVE
DIVE DIVE!
