Subject: SMML VOL 1255 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 07:34:43 +1000 shipmodels@tac.com.au -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS INDEX 1: 'historic' films of dubious accuracy 2: Re: Book Shop in Greenwich 3: Re: Deck of Rurik II 4: Re: Model of Cruiser Gloire 5: Ship Modeling Forum?? 6: Re: Pearl Harbor 7: Shizuoka Hobby Show 8: Re: Pearl Harbor 9: Re: Ned and Pearl Harbor 10: Re: BB Trivia 11: Modeler 12: Hollywood, History and Entertainment 13: Ned Barnett/Pearl Harbor movie 14: Fwd: A good story 15: USS Washington 16: Pearl Harbour Movie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MODELLERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) From: Shirley Sachsen Subject: 'historic' films of dubious accuracy in view of all the controversy surrounding the upcoming fantasy "Pearl Harbor" and whether or not it's merely 'to entertain' or 'to educate', I offer the following squib from HNSA (Historic Naval Ships Assn): ...various Fleet Members were being used for on-location filming of motion picture and TV productions. Mercedes Neiss at the H. Lee White Marine Museum (Fleet Member with Army Tug LT-5) sent the note below RE: Safe Haven CBS mini-series Just a note, those refugees were bound for Oswego NY where they were housed on the Fort Ontario grounds in military housing. Unfortunately, the series had some blatant exaggerations and inconsistencies and did not do well by the people of Oswego. Remember, not to believe everything you see on TV. The refugees arrived on a sunny August morning to welcoming crowds here at the train station not in the middle of the night with guard dogs and search lights as depicted in the movie. The fence was a standard military facilities fence that existed at all military sites at that time. They were quarantined for a while but not locked in implying another concentration camp. And finally, the citizens of Oswego came everyday, initially during the quarantine period to give the refugees; shoes, cosmetics and candy for the children through that fence. One Oswego resident would hand her bicycle over the fence everyday for the children to ride all day long. Another supplied the wedding ring for the first wedding held at the camp. The local schools were opened up to the children some of which had not been in school for years. After the series, letters from actual refugees appeared in our local paper denouncing the depiction and lack of recognition of the media for the people of Oswego. It is their letters of thanks that have helped to smooth over this terrible oversight. The H. Lee White Marine Museum has an exhibit about this time in Oswego's history. There is also a group that has been working to raise the money needed to open a museum on the Fort grounds. The organization is known as Safe Haven, Inc. Oswego was the only place that holocaust refugees from WWII were relocated to within the USA. Mercedes Niess, Associate Director and to add to this subject, the USS Hornet recently was the subject of an MTV "Fear" episode, a series similar to Survivor, but including 'haunted locales' as part of the premise. Granted, we should have known better than to agree to let the ship be used in this way, but the result was even more distasteful than we imagined. The show pictured the ship as being haunted by tortured spirits due to violent fights among the crew and horrific acts by the officers. As a result of the show being aired, we are getting inquiries from those who have seen it eager to ghost hunt on their own or wanting info on the 'violent acts'. we have spent a great deal of time doing damage control. the general public does not read. they get their 'knowledge' from TV and film and believe what they are told in this genre. if 'entertainment' is the only goal, then why use a historic setting at all? just make something up using fictional countries and characters. the defense that 'no one will notice' is not good enough. those of us who are interested in history are more likely to see a film based on a historic setting. the glaring errors in such a treatment will be very noticeable. and those who have no knowledge of the errors, will believe them as fact--not bothering to find out what really happened. what adds to my personal outrage by such misinformation in films, that often as not the filmmaker will use a museum ship or historic park as a setting. Museums go to a great deal of trouble to present the facts of their chosen niche of history. when a film twists history to fit the storyline, and then in the credits a museum ship/house/park is sited--the film suddenly has credibility: a museum was consulted--it MUST be true. entertainment is one thing--I enjoy a good 'summer nonsense' film with the best of them. but when it comes to touting a film as 'history' when that 'history' is revised to fit agendas, no thank you. if I want a love story set during the Pearl Harbor attack, I'll watch From Here to Eternity, when I want history of the Pearl Harbor attack, I'll watch Tora Tora Tora (its own errors notwithstanding). special effects and surround sound do not an epic make. s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From: Sanartjam@aol.com Subject: Re: Book Shop in Greenwich Hi, The book shop in Greenwich is Anthony J. Simmonds, which is still there (as of this morning, anyway). It usually has a very good collection of books on ships. Art Nicholson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) From: Sanartjam@aol.com Subject: Re: Deck of Rurik II Hi, The index for Warship International shows an article on the Rurik (I think it is on the Rurik II) in a 1967 isssue of WI that I do not have. Perhaps that article has photos or plans that can shed more light on the question of what materials covered her deck. The plans in the Kombrig kit of the Rurik II do not show any deck covering one way or the other, and the kit only has planking on the foc'sle, as far as I can tell. Art Nicholson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) From: Sanartjam@aol.com Subject: Re: Model of Cruiser Gloire Hi Group, The only kit of a La Galissoniere-class cruiser that I am aware of (that is larger than 1/1250, anyway) is the WSW Georges Leygues, which seems to represent her NOT in a 1943-44 fit but in a later, post 1945-46 refit fit. I suppose you could make a dazzle-painted 1943-44 Gloire out of the kit, but, according to "Les Croiseurs de 7600 tonnes," you would need to reshape some of the gun shields for the quad 40mm guns, reshape the structure under the foremost 40mm tubs, leave off the kit mast that is stepped aft of the tripod foremast and substitute a light pole, and, by far the worst, hack off the angled extension to the after deckhouse (formerly a hangar) that neither the Gloire nor the Georges Leygues had in 1943-44 but that both were given later. Do you REALLY want to paint the Gloire in that zebra scheme?!? I once suggested that to a listmember who had been zebra-painting a US PT-boat, and was told that I was "a very sick man." Incidentally, I think Samek's web site shows a 1/700 kit of the La Galissoniere in preparation; this would have to be a pre-1943 version, since she was scuttled at Toulon in '42. I would LOVE to see that. Art Nicholson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From: DaveRiley1@aol.com Subject: Ship Modeling Forum?? >> If it's time to lighten up, one should remember that this is a forum for those who might be a little bit more aware of naval history than the average public and who might actually care. << And all this while I thought this was a Ship Modeling forum. Silly me! There must be at least a zillion Navy History forums out there. And probably twice that number of Movie/Entertainment forums. Dave Riley Portsmouth, Rhode Island USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) From: aandmblevins@att.net Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor For an excellent study on Pearl Harbor read the 50th Anniversary edition of "At Dawn We Slept" by Prange and "Day of Infamy" by Lord. Both are available in trade paperback editions. Barnes and Noble University also offers a free internet course on the subject using these two books as material. Al Blevins -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) From: Gernot Hassenpflug Subject: Shizuoka Hobby Show I am heading off to Shizuoka Friday night with two model clubs, from Osaka and Kyoto, hopefully I will be able to get some good pictures of the new Chokai, and the Aoshima Takao class. Not to mention that I hope to buy the Maya, which was advertised as an April or May release... slaver, slaver, drool, drool. And BTW, anyone that saw the latest Model Graphics may have noticed the references for the Myoko class included a research work by the Nihon Kaigun Mokei Hozonkai - now that is a big step from the now outdated Maru specials and there ongoing reprints! Excitement is only very slightly tempered by the realization that this trip is going to cost a few bucks. Will post report on my return next week. Regards, Gernot Hassenpflug -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) From: Roland Mar Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor TO: Jodie Amen and thanks. Amen as far as the thought that we in this group are by our nature amateur historians and have higher standards as to what we will accept, and thanks for being a teacher in an institution of higher learning who holds to some basic standards in class. The line between entertainment and reality is all but gone in our society, and I wish you the best in trying to redraw it. You are facing an uphill battle, because our secondary schools have a policy of deliberate historical ignorance. Stay Strong! Fiat Veritas Ruat Caelum! Roland Mar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) From: Ned Barnett Subject: Re: Ned and Pearl Harbor I must say (because there are three angry lit professors, two professional historians and one person with taste holding guns to my head) that I stirred up a storm here. Let me offer a few thoughts on these. Before I start, an important caveat: I have written Hollywood screenplays - one that my wife and I wrote was optioned three times - to date, it has not been made (but was stolen - I'm no "fan" of corporate Hollywood, folks). So, despite my bad experiences, I have some working knowledge of Hollywood, along with a profound disrespect for the blood-sucking bastards who populate it (example: the script that was optioned was about an American President who, while on Air Force One, was captured and taken hostage by dissidents in a former Soviet state to the south of the Russian Federation - and American Air Force pilots had a hand in freeing him ... sound familiar? Just try looking for our names on the roll-credits of the film you think it sounds like ...). That experience (among others) has made me a bitter enemy of Hollywood producers (and an unlikely defender of them) - it also has me writing fiction for books instead of films, now - and I write about WW-II, and frankly, I'm more concerned about getting the interior details of an S-Boat right than I am in accurately capturing MacArthur ... though his paralytic inaction during the first three weeks of the war did cost us the Philippines and should have earned him a court martial, so how I could be too rough on him is hard to imagine ... (i.e., when it comes to people, I have and take literary license with my writings - I hope I do it better than Hollywood, but I do understand the professional workings of same). OK First, Duane said I should lighten up - Duane, I am now sucking helium, which is lightening me up quite a bit - and should explain why my words read like a cartoon character right now. You did make a point about others attacking an object while I was commenting on a person's opinion. That's truly valid, and I appreciate and accept your views - thanks for getting me back on track there. Next, Jodie (who invited flames to go to her privately), raised a point about the ignorance and cupidity of American college students. Jodie - I have taught college in several states (Tennessee and Nevada) and worked at a college in South Carolina where I had faculty status (but they wisely wouldn't let me near students ). Your comments about the dim-bulb nature of students who believe films (and who - being too lazy to watch the films, rely on the trailers for their historical and literary theses) do not surprise me. However, I feel (as a former prof) unmoved by their plights - it's not the job of free-enterprise capitalist film makers to sacrifice potential profits so the gullible will be fed a more historically accurate load of pap. That parents and educators (and I'm both) have largely failed to wake this up-and-coming generation up to the notion that JFK - the Movie isn't history ... that's a societal failing. While Hollywood can be blamed for lots of really bad crap they do, this isn't one of them. Now sure, the producer and director said this was historically accurate. Are we to believe them, or care? Or are we to recognize that - being from Hollywood - they are congenital liars? They said that: 1. To feed their already monumental egos 2 To attract yet more gullible people to theaters They didn't say it under oath, and nobody with sufficient brainpower to think critically would believe them for a moment. I consider every man, woman and Border Collie on this list too smart to believe anything anybody from Hollywood says. But Jodie, you're exactly right about Apollo 13 - it shows what can be done. A great flick. It shows what Hollywood can do - but I do not believe they are under any obligation to do so ... they are, in fact, free to screw up anything. Now, DP - I am the last to want to dishonor the memory of those who fought in the Battle of Britain; as an avid student of history, I have long honored those brave men and women for their unbelievably heroic stand against fascism and daunting odds. I would not sully the reputations of the brave Poles who - having lost a country - continued to fight on ... and fought an additional 44 years after the war to gain real freedom. But honoring real people for real deeds is not the role of Hollywood. Hollywood's role is entertainment - and Hollywood's duty (to it's stockholders and investors) is to make a profit. So American-made films generally feature American heroics (regardless of historical accuracy) - because the moguls in Hollywood think that American heroics is what will sell theater tickets in America (a film market larger [at least for American-made films] than the rest of the world's film market put together. That ignores the point that we can't even agree on history. Americans who know our history generally dislike (or worse) Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, Lord Alamein ... we often portray him as a strutting, ego-centric popinjay who used Churchill's need for a strong British presence in the ruling cadre of coalition Generals to keep such an awful general in power (Brits have a somewhat more charitable view, I understand ). My point - history, even by historians, is a matter of interpretation. Maybe Doolittle was (in his heart) a reluctant hero. Many books say he expected to be court-martialed for losing his command, and was surprised to be promoted and given the Medal of Honor ... so who, really, knows ...??? However, there is a long tradition in the theatrical world of fictionalizing "real" people - Shakespeare was very liberal in his interpretation of historical figures - caring more for the drama than for accurate portrayals - and didn't apparently care. And he was writing about kings, a subject Brits used to take seriously (ask Henry's wives). The Blind Bard, Homer, played fast and loose with the historical dealings of ancient Greek kings, heroes and gods ... he did it for dramatic story-telling purposes, and perhaps to improve a rhyme in ancient Greek. Hollywood is only the latest to rewrite history in order to tell what they think is a good story - and those who insist on accuracy will almost always be disappointed. Note what Jodie said about the way Lawrence was cast ... even if the story was accurately told, she had legitimate reasons for thinking a tall, fair Irishman-actor was the wrong man to cast as the runty real Lawrence ... My points: 1. Many of you have good points 2. Many of those good points reflect a strong wish about how you think things should be, as opposed to how they are 3. Many of you do not see that - as a work of fiction - this has no more obligation to tell the truth (as we see the truth - assuming we can agree, which we can't) - than Harry Potter stories 4. History is subject to interpretation - what some see as bogus or distorted some believe and can document 5. It's only a movie - and one that WILL be good for our hobby 6. You don't have to like it - but please, wait to see it before you hate it ... 7. "Titanic" lies - Jack survived, changed his name, moved in with Kate Winslett, and (using her jewel for funding) went on to start Warner Brothers ... (he only seemed to die because he has an ex- in Philly who still wants her money ...) Ned -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) From: "D.Przezdziecki" Subject: Re: BB Trivia >> Do you know which ship: Fought everyday of the war (WWII) << Did not have a clue that an American battleship took part in Polish Campaing in September 1939. Pray tell me on whose side ??? ;-) Regards D.P -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) From: "B.Fish" Subject: Modeler This is inform all who buy from people who don't deliver the goods As of this date, a scale modeler in Long Beach, California has not been forth right About sending what he says he has,? on his website {i.e.} new catalog, and a new 1\96 scale 20mm gun And I'm now Very glad I'm having Steve Brejnak, of Dreadnought Model Shipyard who lives Thousands of miles, from me, and will do very good job building the langley hull For me, and will be worth every dollar spent, and to the collage teacher, and Shane your both right Hollywood could screw up a wet dream, they just never get-it-right, And a word about the USS Midway Museum in San Diego, California You can call this number 1-619-702-7700 for more info. and "Lets not forget those who Gave there all," this month, or any day, Thanks Happy modeling Bruce -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) From: "Don Carner" Subject: Hollywood, History and Entertainment (but not necessarily in that order...) Every Hollywood offers a wartime piece revolving around an actual event or person, people seem to loose sight of the primary focus of the endeavor(s). Revenue and entertainment. Who actually believes Hollywood producers are more concerned with accuracy than ticket returns? That simply is not good business...and making money from films IS the business. If a somewhat accurate portrayal is achieved, it's often a bonus. As far as any director/producer striving for historical accuracy, the bean-counters always have final say...afterall, they pay the bills and have to balance the ledger. When the Rocketeer was released, a buddy of mine who had several of the original comics, whined and moaned about the "dramatic license" taken with the film...from a COMIC BOOK??? Geeze guys, where's it all end? LOL... Go see the movie. Enjoy it for what it is and not for what it "should have been". Leave that to the historians and official documents. Remember, modelers make up a small fraction of the ticket-buying public and movies must to target broader audiences. Evidently, every time a movie with ships is released can we expect volumes of SMML to be devoted to "point/counter-point" threads...I recall the same scenario here when U-571 was 1st brought out. I for one want to be entertained when viewing a movie...I rarely take notes, :-) Don -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) From: "Paul and Renee Jacobs" Subject: Ned Barnett/Pearl Harbor movie I agree with Jodie and the others on this. Most Americans do learn their history from the movies. Even Ronald Reagan confused what he saw in the movies with reality. So it is important that movies be accurate. Yes, "Pearl Harbor" is "just" entertainment, and the primary reason for making "entertainment" is to make a profit, but making money doesn't justify any and all distortion of fact. It may well be that the use of modern ships to depict ships 60 years ago is not a grave violation deserving of criticism. Rivet counters are rarely happy. But TITANIC showed that one can be faithful to the smallest details, while still telling an entertaining fictional love story. The two are not incompatible. Failure to satisfy every detail doesn't distort history. But at some point one crosses the line. Where does the goal of profit-seeking reach the point where it justifies wholesale re-writing of history? If someone makes a movie portraying Hitler as a victim of Jewish conspiracy and the death camps as pure Allied propaganda because they think it will sell well, should we pass that off as ok because it's "just" entertainment? Lies and distortions of truth are still lies and distortions, regardless of the motive for propagating them. The fact that one propagates them as a way to enhance profits, is an excuse, not a justification. Having said that, I look forward to the movie. I know that some of the ships won't be right. I know that the dive bombers wouldn't fly at tree top level. I know that a lot of those things are done to enhance excitement or save money. I know that only us military buffs will see those defects and grimmace. I think that's ok, even if it could have been done more accurately. I don't think that things like that necessarily hurt the historical accuracy of the film. Nor does the love story. But there are lines that should be drawn, and this and other such films deserve our continued scrutiny. Paul Jacobs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) From: Fkbrown90@aol.com Subject: Fwd: A good story This may not mean much to non-Americans of SMML, but it will to Americans. Franklyn >> World War II produced many heroes. One such man was Lieutenant Commander Butch O'Hare. He was a fighter pilot assigned to an aircraft carrier Lexington in the South Pacific. One day his entire squadron was sent on a mission. After he was airborne, he looked at his fuel gauge and realized that someone had forgotten to top off his fuel tank. He would not have enough fuel to complete his mission and get back to his ship. His flight leader told him to return to the carrier. Reluctantly he dropped out of formation and headed back to the fleet. As he was returning to the mothership, he saw something that turned his blood cold. A squadron of Japanese bombers were speeding their way toward the American fleet. The American fighters were gone on a sortie and the fleet was all but defenseless. He couldn't reach his squadron and bring them back in time to save the fleet. Nor, could he warn the fleet of the approaching danger. There was only one thing to do. He must somehow divert them from the fleet. Laying aside all thoughts of personal safety, he dove into the formation of Japanese planes. Wing-mounted 50 caliber's blazed as he charged in, attacking one surprised enemy plane and then another. Butch weaved in and out of the now broken formation and fired at as many planes as possible until finally all his ammunition was spent. Undaunted, he continued the assault. He dove at the planes, trying to at least clip off a wing or tail, in hopes of damaging as many enemy planes as possible and rendering them unfit to fly. He was desperate to do anything he could to keep them from reaching the American ships. Finally, the exasperated Japanese squadron took off in another direction. Deeply relieved, Butch O'Hare and his tattered fighter limped back to the carrier. Upon arrival he reported in and related the event surrounding his return. The film from the camera mounted on his plane told the tale. It showed the extent of Butch's daring attempt to protect his fleet. He had destroyed five enemy bombers. That was on February 20, 1942, and for that action he became the Navy's first Ace of WWII and the first Naval Aviator to win the Congressional Medal of Honor. A year later he was killed in aerial combat at the age of 29. His home town would not allow the memory of that heroic action die. And today, O'Hare Airport in Chicago is named in tribute to the courage of this great man. So the next time your in O'Hare visit his memorial with his statue and Medal of Honor. It is located between terminal 1 and 2. Story number two: Some years earlier there was a man in Chicago called Easy Eddie. At that time, Al Capone virtually owned the city. Capone wasn't famous for anything heroic. His exploits were anything but praiseworthy. He was, however, notorious for enmeshing the city of Chicago in everything from bootlegged booze and prostitution to murder. Easy Eddie was Capone's lawyer and for a good reason. He was very good! In fact, his skill at legal maneuvering kept Big Al out of jail for a long time. To show his appreciation, Capone paid him very well. Not only was the money big; Eddie got special dividends. For instance, he and his family occupied a fenced-in mansion with live-in help and all of the conveniences of the day. The estate was so large that it filled an entire Chicago city block. Yes, Eddie lived the high life of the Chicago mob and gave little consideration to the atrocity that went on around him. Eddy did have one soft spot, however. He had a son that he loved dearly. Eddy saw to it that his young son had the best of everything; clothes, cars, and a good education. Nothing was withheld. Price was no object. And, despite his involvement with organized crime, Eddie even tried to teach him right from wrong. Yes, Eddie tried to teach his son to rise above his own sordid life. He wanted him to be a better man than he was. Yet, with all his wealth and influence, there were two things that Eddie couldn't give his son. Two things that Eddie sacrificed to the Capone mob that he could not pass on to his beloved son: a good name and a good example. One day, Easy Eddie reached a difficult decision. Offering his son a good name was far more important than all the riches he could lavish on him. He had to rectify all the wrong that he had done. He would go to the authorities and tell the truth about Scar-face Al Capone. He would try to clean up his tarnished name and offer his son some semblance of integrity. To do this he must testify against The Mob, and he knew that the cost would be great. But more than anything, he wanted to be an example to his son. He wanted to do his best to make restoration and hopefully have a good name to leave his son. So, he testified. Within the year, Easy Eddie's life ended in a blaze of gunfire on a lonely Chicago street. He had given his son the greatest gift he had to offer at the greatest price he would ever pay. I know what you're thinking. What do these two stories have to do with one another? Well, you see, Butch O'Hare was Easy Eddie's son. << -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) From: "John Rule" Subject: USS Washington >>Do you know which ship: Fought everyday of the war (WWII) Not much was known about the USS Washington, << What exactly was she up to between September 1939 and December 6th, 1941? WTIC John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16) From: "John Rule" Subject: Pearl Harbour Movie To Jodie Peeler. I enjoyed your rant (SMML 1254) very much. It was a very fair comment on the dangers of "historically accurate" Hollywood movies being cited as representing the truth. Well done, Jodie. John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the SMML site for the List Rules, Backissues, Member's models & reference pictures at: http://www.smml.org.uk Check out the APMA site for an index of ship articles in the Reference section at: http://www.tac.com.au/~sljenkins/apma.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Volume