1960's & 70's WWII Movies, one little flaw

Why is it that in most of these movies, the axis powers, particularly Japan, seem to speak only English? For example, I am watching Midway on AMC right now, and all the Japanese soldiers and officers are speaking English, and not only that, but perfectly. The English is flawless, with only slight traces of an accent. Not to say that all of the movies from this time did this, but I think a majority did.

Take a modern movie, like Letters from Iwo Jima, in which the Japanese actually speak Japanese. It is my opinion that having the enemies of the United States or any English speaking nation (could be Britian, Australia, etc, but the most "war" movies I see feature the US military above all) speaking in their native languages adds alot to the movie. It makes the "enemy" so much easier to hate, it makes them seem foriegn.

Now, let's compare this to a movie such as Patton. Patton is and will always be remembered as one of the most epic films of all time.

Not only that, but I am a stickler for historical accuracy (hence my hate and despise for 300). If the Japanese commanders near Midway spoke English to one another, then fine, but I highly doubt they did.

To synopsize what I'm saying, little things do make a big difference in movies, and this is one of those little things that if worked out, would have added aot to these great oldies.

Thoughts?

Um, Dirty Dozen? The Longest Day?

Same with Tora!Tora!Tora! It had Japanese speaking Japanese.

Originally Posted by Lt.Bradford

Same with Tora!Tora!Tora! It had Japanese speaking Japanese.

I actualy really liked that movie (1970), and yes I was gonna say that too; the japanese spoke japanese.

In Bridge on the River Kwai the soldiers spoke Japanese. But what pissed me off was the Japanese are armed with Lee-Enfields! The inaccuracy killed me while watching the movie!

Originally Posted by Nikos_Rouvelas

In Bridge on the River Kwai the soldiers spoke Japanese. But what pissed me off was the Japanese are armed with Lee-Enfields! The inaccuracy killed me while watching the movie!

I saw a docu once, where some guys who where actually there as pow's/slaves where interviewed. Each and every one of them dispised that movie saying it was not even close to reality one guy was really angry and insulted.

it's hollywood...historical inaccuracies will be common

don't have a problem with it

As sad as it is, there are a whole lot of lazy folks that will not watch a film where they have to read subtitles, even if it isn't for the whole cast. Unfortunately, some producers also know that, and as we all know, when it comes to profit margins and lowest-common-denominators then both artistic- and historical integrity do not amount to a lot. Film making is more of a business than an artform, and even less of an historical document...

I have friends that just don't watch foreign movies because of subtitles. It's kinda sad.

_Ponti_ your points are valid and well taken but don't forget to bear in mind Hollywood's mindset during this era...

1. If a war flick does well..Keep'em coming. Selling the picture for profit superseded authenticity is many production aspects. Many folks would flat out refuse to go to a movie that carried subtitles.

2. I have always enjoyed the portrayals given by James Mason{Mostly portraying Rommel}, Richard Burton, Et Al. and other British & American artists even though they might have been miscast to accurately portray the characters they played.

John Wayne as Genghis Kahn..Go figure...

3. Also isn't better to have people follow a little bit of history {300} than none at all?

Originally Posted by Mega Tortas

_Ponti_ your points are valid and well taken but don't forget to bear in mind Hollywood's mindset during this era...

1. If a war flick does well..Keep'em coming. Selling the picture for profit superseded authenticity is many production aspects. Many folks would flat out refuse to go to a movie that carried subtitles.

2. I have always enjoyed the portrayals given by James Mason{Mostly portraying Rommel}, Richard Burton, Et Al. and other British & American artists even though they might have been miscast to accurately portray the characters they played.

John Wayne as Genghis Kahn..Go figure...

3. Also isn't better to have people follow a little bit of history {300} than none at all?

Perhaps, but when you follow this perspective you end up thinking JFK was a great movie.

PS. I loved 300

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(It's not a historical depiction. It is a speach. From the opening credits to the last scene, the whole movie is a speach being given by the one-eyed general to his men. A speach about how brave his king was. He's the narrator of the movie. That is why there are elephant monsters, and the traitorous spy is portrayed as a gimpy, despicable, horrid creature. Visual metaphorical interpretation.

Originally Posted by therussian

Um, Dirty Dozen? The Longest Day?

I didn't say all of them

I still love those movies to death, but I would like to see more realistic language used. I will give hollywood this, they did let the Native Americans speak their languages in all the westerns. I think only a few of them had Native Americans consistently speaking English, unless it was Indians speaking to Whites, then of course it seemed to be English. It always intrigues me how all the people communicating with Americans know English, instead of the other way around.

Originally Posted by Da Skinna

I have friends that just don't watch foreign movies because of subtitles. It's kinda sad.

Now, granted, watching foreign films in Spanish did help me learn the language, but I would never watch them just for the fun of it, the plots generally aren't that exciting.

Originally Posted by Mega Tortas

3. Also isn't better to have people follow a little bit of history {300} than none at all?

It's just my peeve.

I mean look at enemy at the gates, russian vs. german and both sides speak english...How convenient .

That's what I'm kind of getting at. I would love to see ethnic groups in movies act more like people of their origin. That's why I think Letters from Iwo Jima was so effective. I would rather read subtitles, but that's just me.

I wouldn't say that many more movies have foreigners speaking english in the 60's and 70's films as todays. I mean look at enemy at the gates, russian vs. german and both sides speak english...How convenient . But it is not really because Americans are that much more lazy than anyone else, I've seen countless foreign films where Americans speak their native tongue. The strangest was probably a French film where these dudes went to Chicago, and everything, I mean everything was French. At least we usually take the time to have writing in their native language at least lol. I guess my point is, even though I agree it is stupid, many people (not exclusively Americans like many think) are turned off by subtitles because they feel it detracts from the film. Personally I even like to watch English films with subtitles on because you catch much more than just from hearing them speak.

Tora! Tora! Tora! is as accurate as it gets on the Japanese side. Not only do the Japanese speak Japanese, the chap who planned the Pearl Harbour attack was the main consultant for the Japanese side of the crew.

Try that crappy movie called the Big Red One. German tanks in North Africa are just heavily painted shermans with crosses on them!