Talk:Von Richthofen and Brown

Historical Accuracy

Recently, an entire section has been excised. Reproduced below is the salient information that has been retained for some future work: The film contains so many factual errors (a selection of which are listed here) that it is effectively almost completely fictionalised:

• Richthofen is shown flying a Fokker D.VII before flying the Fokker Dr.I, when in fact the Dr.1 came out earlier than the D.VII. Von Richthofen died (just) before the D.VII entered service.
• Hermann Göring was not in the Flying Circus until he took over command some time after von Richthofen's death. Wilhelm Reinhard was Richthofen's immediate successor.
• Hawker died in November 1916, flying a D.H.2. Brown did not begin flying combat missions until March 1917, and in any case never belonged to the Royal Flying Corps (see next point). Thus the two never served in the same squadron, and probably never met.
• Brown's squadron had just ceased to be part of the Royal Naval Air Service, which had just amalgamated with the Royal Flying Corps to form the Royal Air Force in April 1918. He and his squadron mates would still have been wearing naval uniforms.
• Roy Brown and his squadron flew Sopwith Camels, not S.E.5s, as depicted in the film.
• Brown almost certainly did not actually fire the bullet that fatally wounded Richthofen.
• Lothar von Richthofen did not join Jasta 11 until 1917.
• Anthony Fokker and Oswald Boelcke were both still in their twenties at the time - not balding men in their 40's. Boelcke never served in the Flying Circus, which was formed after his death, although he was Richthofen's commanding officer in another unit (Jasta 2) in 1916.
• Ernst Udet did not join the flying circus until 1918.
• The portrayal of the death of Werner Voss had little relationship with the facts. He was shot down and killed in northern Belgium, some time before Richthofen's death.
• Lt May did not enter the RAF 209 squadron until 1918 - in fact he was still an almost complete novice at the time of Richthofen's death.
• During a scene where the Red Baron is rescued in No Man's Land, the Germans are shown firing British World War II era (Mk.IV) Lee Enfield Rifles. In any case, German fighter squadrons as a matter of policy flew well behind their own lines. The only time Richthofen was shot down before his death was on his own side of the lines. On the day of his death he was probably lost, and did not realise he was so close to the Allied lines.
• Attacks on the opposition's airfields (by both sides) were relatively routine and in no way "unexpected" - counter measures such as alarm bells, anti aircraft machine guns in permanent positions, fire fighting equipment, and above all military preparedness were also routine. Such attacks were normally undertaken by bombers rather than fighters, even by the Allies. German fighters, in particular, simply did not undertake bombing missions, nor were they employed on the Allied side of the lines.
• Base hospitals were not located at military airfields (this in itself would have been a breach of the Geneva Convention). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As the editor who removed the section, I have no objection to any part of it being restored to the article, as long as it is properly cited. A reminder, though, that a citation to the fact of an event which does not mention the film is not sufficient, as that qualifies as WP:SYNTHESIS, which is not allowed. Any citation has to connect the historical event with its representation in the film. BMK (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, let me amend what I just wrote. All films based on historical events or people take liberties with the facts: chronologies are muddled, two or more real people are combined into one character, etc. A film, after all, is a piece of entertainment, not an historical monograph, and needs to tell a story. Given this, I would object to the restoration of some of the items here, which are within the scope of what normally occurs in historical films.

For instance this item: "Roy Brown and his squadron flew Sopwith Camels, not S.E.5s, as depicted in the film." While I have no reason to doubt the complaint, films naturally have constraints, such as budget and availability of equipment, and a "historical inaccuracy" such as this is perfectly acceptable in a non-documentary film. It does not add to or establish that the film is "fictionalized" (although, again, I have no reason to doubt the judgement that it is). BMK (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Roger Corman and his screenwriter would have to work within the confines of available resources, especially in an era of aviation films when real aircraft rather than CGI predominated. There are some departures from the historical record, however, that were deliberately made to enhance the dramatic elements of the story arc. To introduce Boelcke and Göring was to involve historically significant individuals who did play a part in the drama of Richthofen's life, even though they are juxtaposed into convenient, if not historically accurate periods of time. There is some trepidation into wading into this territory as evidenced by the uproar following the debacle of Pearl Harbour (2001) where production decisions were made in a deliberately obtuse fashion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you see this on cable TV last week as well? Nice coincidence if we did. FWiW Bzuk I fear you give Corman and the writers too much credit. Their research into the history of the men and events was likely minimal. Make the films as fast and as inexpensively as possible and then get them to market was the hallmark of Corman's work. His films rarely contained any attempts at accuracy. I certainly don't say this in a pejorative sense. Most of his films are a fun watch. Your work (as well as BMKs of course) are up to their usual excellent standards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this is not a typical Corman production as it was well-financed and featured some excellent air sequences. I agree that this film is a disappointment but for exactly the wrong reasons. It was a film that Corman had wanted to do since 1965 and he arranged an impressive armada of aircraft as well as filming in Ireland where he had a free hand to fly over the countryside. Rather than a lack of research and background information, the screenwriters knew that they were manipulating historical events. Corman still considers this film as one of his "Hollywood" rather than independent period. I also shudder at the liberties taken in the historical events but realize that what the director was trying to do was make an anti-war film within the structure of a war film. Yes, I too, saw it on TCM last week. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I also saw it on TCM -- recorded it and just watched it last night. BMK (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

V or v

Bzuk and Beyond My Ken this has come up a couple times in the last few weeks. Due to the fact that my edit summary might be in error I thought I would get your input as to how his name should be handled in the plot and cast sections of the article. Whatever your decide will be fine with me. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

To get out of the current cycle of Von/von reverts, why don't we cut the Gordian knot and just call him Richthofen in normal passing use? See both the English and German articles about the real bloke: he's Manfred Steve Timmy Cooldude Etc von Richthofen in first and formal appearances, but just Richthofen thereafter. (For the record, if we must have the von in then I do not think it should be capitalized, but I think that leaving it out most of the time is even better!) I'll give Ludwig van Beethoven a ring later and ask him what he thinks, too. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a workable solution DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. Thanks for the chuckles as well :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)