‘Das Boot’

Press, 10 January 1987, Page 16

‘Das Boot’

Sir,—We found this compelling viewing. The very fact that the film was made by the Germans — in this case they were the suffering and “we” were the “enemy” — seemed a very objective, important "statement.” The repetitiveness of conditions; and the cliches such as "war is hell, about which politicians know nothing” (although they are largely the initiators?), only served to emphasise strongly the final few minutes of the film: the greatest “cliche” of all, the absolute'futility of war and conflict in solving anything at all, for either side} One can only admire the courage, endurance and purpose of riien who have gone to wars (and, indeed, those who refused); andj the futility of war only emphasises the magnitude of that which they have given, and suffered. We should do everything to create a society and a world free of all forms of bloodshed or we fail those sacrificed.—Yours, etc., ; NOELENE MILANOVICH. January 6, 1987.

Sir,—We were interested to note Ken Strongman’s negative comments regarding “Das Boot”

(January 2).. His reference to the lips not matching the dubbing seemed trivial. How on earth can spoken English fit like a jigsaw into the way a mouth moves when speaking a foreign language? “Das Boot” depicted war in grim reality. There was no smart uniformed John Mills standing aloft admiring the view, nor were there spacious cabins and luxurious feeds at mealtimes. Instead, disease was rife and human fear was starkly depicted. Killing the enemy was not portrayed as a sport, as in many films of this genre. And, most of all, the important antiwar message that ... prevailed throughout was totally ignored by the reviewer. If Mr Strongman prefers a “real" war movie, we suggest he should don Rambo uniform and stroll down to “Heartbreak Ridge.”—Yours, etc./

AL NISBET and DEFYD WILLIAMS. January 8, 1987.