Embedded Files
Volume 3 | Issue 1 - Film
Article by Stephen Woodward. Researched and Edited by Ellie Veryard.
Please note: this article includes discussion of racist slurs against Black people - reader discretion is advised.
1955’s The Dam Busters is an iconic film that has burned itself on our national consciousness. A favourite of broadcasters for transmission on St. Georges Day, the story of Wing Commander Guy Gibson’s daring raid on the Ruhr Valley dams with Barnes Wallis’ pioneering bouncing bomb technology, as played out by Richard Todd and Michael Redgrave respectively, has become a British institution. Even the score by Eric Coates has become more renowned than any other from films of that era. So great is the fame of the 1955 film that Carling based a series of humorous television advertisements around and utilising footage from the film. The most famous of these adverts can be found here (and makes for an entertaining watch!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVSBtivbUs4
Renown aside the Dam Busters is an important film for its record of historical events. Many claim the Dam Busters to be one of the finest films ever made about the Second World War, so much so that it often garners praise for its accurate treatment of the real raids of 1943. This is mainly down to Michael Anderson’s desire to toe the line as much as feasible in keeping the film as accurate as possible. Recently however there has been somewhat distressing news for fans of this British classic, a proposed Hollywood remake.
Such is the popularity of the original that it has long been held dear by and influenced the work of modern directors. George Lucas cites the 1955 Dam Busters as one of the films with the greatest influence on his early work. This influence is so profound that the last half of Star Wars: A New Hope is virtually identical to the last third of the Dam Busters, from the briefing scene, the control room scenes, the raid itself and even the dialogue. Indeed when Lucas showed a rough cut of A New Hope to his financers for incomplete footage of the raid he spliced in scenes from the Dam Busters. For a stunning example of this similarity please follow this link which dubs dialogue from Dam Busters over the top of the raid on the Death Star: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q47GIgmQWo
Peter Jackson has since 2006 been developing a new version of the film, with a screenplay by Stephen Fry and supposedly to star James McAvoy as Gibson. This raises two important questions. Firstly will a modern day version aimed at the mass market bother to pay any such near attention to detail as the original? Secondly can, nay should, you ever remake a classic?
The 1955 version went to extreme pains to be as truthful to real as events as possible. Filming took place at real locations used in the development of the bouncing bomb technology; the bases from which training and raids took place and the dams in the peak district on which 617 squadron used for their dummy runs resumed that role in the film as well as standing in for their German counterparts in close ups (the wide shots were taken at the actual German locations). Meanwhile Frank Phillips rerecorded verbatim the radio announcement he made to the nation on the morning following the raids. The film simply portrayed the true story, the truth being fantastical enough to fill two hours of entertainment. There was no soppy romance, no tortured backstory for Gibson. It is doubtful that any remake would come anywhere close to the accuracy of the original, so would perhaps cheapen the record of events without being close to impressive for anyone aware of the original.
The famous contentious issue concerning the film is of course the name of Guy Gibson’s dog, N*gger. This was a commonplace name for black dogs of the time in Britain and did not, as it did in America, carry racist connotations. In real life he had been a mascot of the squadron and his name was chosen as the radio codeword for a successful strike, meaning his name is spoken 12 times in the original cut. This is an issue that modern filmmakers have struggled with. Even on the 1955 version’s release in America the dog’s name was redubbed to Trigger and versions screened on British television now also maintain this change. Fry announced in 2009 that in his treatment Gibson’s dog would be referred to as ‘Digger’. Jackson himself has conceded it is a lose lose scenario. On the one hand a director would get hammered for having a supposedly racist connotation, on the other he would be slated for perverting historical memory.
The other difference inevitable with a modern remake, and my chief concern with a Jackson made production is CGI. The use of computer generated images to portray the climatic assault on the dams could be potentially horrendous. The 1955 film itself is argument enough against CGI, its special effects, the mushroom clouds of water as the dams are breached, are evidently regular film of the crests of seawaves cut into a pineapple shape then super imposed on the original film. In short now they look appalling and childish, however at the time they were nominated for a special effects Oscar! My point is that CGI fast goes out of date and looks tacky. So why can Jackson not go to the same lengths Anderson went to in 1955 to recreate the raids? The millions spent on computer generated images could be easily redirected to build working airframes which looked like Lancaster bombers even if their fittings and mechanics were modern versions inside a shell. There would be many museums worldwide who would happily relieve the film studio of such aircraft post-production. At present there is only one airworthy Lancaster left in the UK, kept at RAF Coningsby and flown for ceremonial purposes. Surely anyone who has seen and heard its engines in mighty hum as it flies overheard will agree that CGI Lancasters could never be capable of recreating the experience?
However it seems that Jackson’s project has sunk as well as one of Barnes Wallis’ bombs; there having been no movement on the project since 2009. Personally I can’t say I’m sorry. There are many other daring stories from the Second World War as yet untouched by cinema, so why Hollywood feels it must remake over and over classic films is beyond me. If you haven’t seen the original it comes of course highly recommended and I’m sure the tension and wonder of exploits of Gibson and 617 squadron should provide ample entertainment as well as being incredibly informative.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The bouncing bomb was designed to bounce overwater towards a target, sink once the
target was found and then explode underwater. This design enabled attackers to avoid underwater defences and strike right at the target they wanted to demolish.
The British military had already identified targets such as hydro-electric dams before Barnes Wallis invented the bouncing bomb but found them difficult to attack as torpedo nets stopped underwater missiles.
Alongside Barnes Wallis, A.R. Collins, Sir William Glanville, Dr. G. Charlesworth, and other scientists at Road Research Laboratory vastly contributed to designing and producing the bomb.
The documentary Dambusters: Building the Bouncing Bomb recreated the Dambusters’ mission, dropping a replica dummy bomb and blowing up a dummy dam.
Operation Chastise hit dams at Mohne and Edersee flooding the Ruhr and Eder Valleys and destroying villages within them. The dams were chosen because breaching these locations would cause the most widespread devastation and impact cause loss of hydro-electric power and drinking water to the surrounding towns and cities.
Out of 19 aircraft sent to carry out the mission only 11 made it back to Britain. 2 crashed after hitting power cables on the outward journey and the remaining 9 were shot down over Germany, Netherlands and the Dutch coast.
Report abuse