Hey folks, Harry here. One of the aspects of this site I dearly love is... Talk Back. Why? Because, quite frankly... it's where people in Hollywood can see instant reactions and fears and praise and hopes by you, the most ardent of film-goers. As with many 'reactions' and 'beliefs' some of these are ill-founded. Based upon hunches or even upon the belief that Hollywood is always stupid and must be doing it wrong. One of the most recent 'problems' with Hollywood films has been historical accuracy. And from the start with the film, U-571, it has been feared that we had yet another 'rah-rah' pro-American re-writing of history. Many readers have been quite angry and upset about this, mind you... without having seen the film. Well, upon that first review of U-571 at the test screening the other day, it seems that director Jonathan Mostow decided to come and check out AICN, and of course stumbled into Talk Back. And... Well... He's reacting now. I'll see you at the bottom of his letter...
Dear Harry:
My name is Jonathan Mostow and I am the director and co-writer of "U-571". It has come to my attention that some of your readers are posting questions, and in some cases, angry objections about the historical accuracy of our movie, specifically as it relates to the capture of the infamous Enigma coding device. Harry, I would greatly appreciate if you could give me the opportunity to set the record straight by posting this reply.
The first thing I wish to get across is that "U-571" is a work of fiction. It is an action-suspense movie that follows a long tradition of fictional tales set against the backdrop of history. In making the movie, I have absolutely NO intention of stealing credit for daring exploits by courageous men of the British Navy. There has been much debate and confusion among your readers about the actual historical record, so please allow me a moment to clarify the facts: During the Battle of the Atlantic, there were three occasions in which Enigma machines and/or materials were seized from German U-boats on the high seas - two by British, one by Americans. The first seizure, which was also the most strategically important, was from the U-110 by British sailors of the HMS Bulldog and HMS Aubretia, on May 9, 1941. The second seizure was a short weather enigma cipher taken from the U-559 on October 30, 1942 by the British ship HMS Petard. The third seizure was an Enigma machine and coding documents captured from the U-505 on June 4, 1944 by U.S. Navy Task Force 22.3.
In our movie, the Enigma machine is what we filmmakers call the "mcguffin". It's a term that Hitchcock coined to describe the object in a movie that everyone is chasing after, but which by itself is not really the point of the story. The fact is that the Germans redesigned the naval Enigma several times during the war, and codes were always changing, so the Allies were constantly seeking ways in which they could steal up-to-date Enigma materials. Some of these capture schemes were so audacious that they almost appear to be the work of a Hollywood screenwriter. (One of your readers correctly identified a plan to steal an Enigma that was devised by a young British intelligence officer named Ian Fleming.)
Our movie is set during 1942, when changes in the Enigma system made the German codes unbreakable for a period of nine months. It was also during this time that Hitler launched Operation Drumbeat -- a devastating U-boat assault against the Eastern seaboard of the United States. (It is an astonishing but little-known fact that one quarter of all the ships lost in the Battle of the Atlantic were sunk right off the American coast.) Although my primary goal in making "U-571" is to create the visceral experience of being aboard a WWII submarine, I also want to give the audience a taste of some of these fascinating strategic aspects that occurred during the Battle of the Atlantic.
The Enigma is an element in the film, but the film is not about the Enigma. The film is not about code-breaking, nor does it address in any detail the Enigma itself. The film is about submarining. It's about the notion of facing the enemy in a container with the structural integrity of a sardine can. It's about half-inch thick steel pressure hulls that creaked and groaned and crushed like eggshells if the subs went too deep. It's about torpedoes and depth charge explosions and the terror of battle. And it's about awesome responsibilities being placed on the shoulders of extremely young men -- sailors barely out of high school, officers in their early 20s, captains often younger than 30.
As director of a movie that will reach a worldwide audience, I realize that I have a moral responsibility not to rewrite history. So even though "U-571" is a fictional action-adventure movie, I took several measures to ensure that the film would not distort the historical record. Here is what I did:
1) During the script stage, I consulted extensively with WWII experts, including David Kahn, author of "Seizing the Enigma", who is considered by most historians to be the world's expert on the subject. I reviewed the screenplay with him in tremendous detail and asked him to correct anything that would give a false impression of the historical record. (Incidentally, Mr. Kahn quite enjoyed the script, as he immediately understood it for what it is -- historical fiction.)
2) Next, I surrounded myself with retired WWII submariners, both American and German, to ensure the technical accuracy of the submarining aspects of the movie. We went so far as to have retired WWII submariners on the set during every minute of shooting to ensure the authenticity of the action. We even put the actors through technically complex submarine instruction, the curriculum of which was designed by a distinguished retired Vice-Admiral.
3) Next, because I wanted to be absolutely certain that the movie would cause no offense to the actual men who participated in these real-life events, I sought out the person who is at the epicenter of the entire issue: Lt. Cmdr. David Balme, the brave British officer who actually led the boarding party onto the U-110 in May of 1941 and captured the first Enigma machine. I did something that perhaps few other filmmakers would risk: I showed Mr. Balme the movie. His response? He thoroughly enjoyed it and gave his approval. Why? Because he too saw the movie for what it is: an exciting tale of historical fiction, inspired by a composite of actual events. (As a footnote, in the DVD release of the film we will be including an interview with Mr. Balme about his Enigma experiences.)
4) From the beginning, I always envisioned that the movie would end with a testimonial to the real-life sailors and officers who captured Enigma devices and materials from U-boats. And that is precisely how the movie ends: with a crystal clear account of the actual historical events upon which the movie was inspired. For anyone who sees the movie, there can be no doubt about who captured the Enigma and when they did it -- British or American.
Harry, the irony about this controversy is that it is taking place among people who haven't seen the movie! There have been recent controversies over movie inaccuracies but these erupted AFTER the movies came out and people took issue with the dramatic license taken by the filmmakers. In the case of "U-571", the naysayers are judging the movie without even seeing it. I truly believe that once these people see the movie, they will realize that their fuss is much ado about nothing.
I hope this letter helps allay the concerns of those who have been critical of the historical accuracy of "U-571". Please know that I have great respect for the record of history -- and that I would never want to be part of an endeavor that distorts that record. The sad truth is that many young people today have no idea what occurred in World War Two, much less the Battle of the Atlantic. It is my sincere hope that people will see our fictional movie and be motivated to study about the real-life heroes who fought to preserve world freedom.
Harry, I was glad to see that your reviewer liked the movie. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your readers' concerns.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Mostow
