A bridge too far - question

[Jürg]

Although I have seen the movie around 15 times or more I did not read the book until now. While reading I have a question regarding the charactes mentioned in the book compared to the one in the movie. The character played by Hard Krueger in the movie is called General Ludwig. He got order to hold the bridge of Njmwegen at all cost but decided to blow it up. This attemp failed and the british tanks crossed the river. Now in the book there is nothing written of a General Ludwig. The General in the book was
Standartenfuehrer Heinz Harmel, commander of the 10.SS Panzer Div. "Frundsberg". As anyone an idea why in the film they did not taken the name seriously? He got the swords as on 15.12.1944 als Brigadefuehrer .

Would be nice to get your ideas.

Jürg

[Larry deZeng]

Probably for legal reasons. Harmel and/or his family probably would not grant written permission to use the family name in the film's portrayal of the event. This is the usual case when we see that a name has been changed in a historical scene in a film. Without the written permission, Harmel and/or his family could have objected to the portrayal and sued the movie studio and the producers.

--BHS1956

[Bobwirtz]

So if you want to do an historical movie on George Washington, who signs for the family? I think that if you're an historic figure you can put them into movies without permission, as long as you're portraying them historically accurate.

Also in the movie, SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Harzer, temporary commander of the Hohenstaufen Division, which stayed in Arnhem wasn't even mentioned in the movie.

Bob

[Jürg]

So if you want to do an historical movie on George Washington, who signs for the family? I think that if you're an historic figure you can put them into movies without permission, as long as you're portraying them historically accurate.

Also in the movie, SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Harzer, temporary commander of the Hohenstaufen Division, which stayed in Arnhem wasn't even mentioned in the movie.

Bob

Yes Bob, you are right and he too was an important figure in this battle. At least Gräbners attack was mentioned in the movie. I find it really sad that they did those mistakes as the movie was based on the book written by Ryan. I have a After the Battle magazine who deals with the movie. Need to see if the mentioned anything in this direction.

[Erwin L]

When i'm right they called Joachim Peiper in the movie Battle of the Bulge Hassler

regards erwin

[Gunbunny]

I believe the character Krueger plays is a composite of both Harzer and Harmel. Typical of Hollywood and another reason not to like this movie.

[Paul B]

Gunbunny is absolutely correct -"General Ludwig" is a composite of Harzer and Harmel.

Bearing in mind that the movie had less then three hours to tell a complex and lengthy story, I suppose that plot devices like combining characters and events are only to be expected, although some other examples in "A Bridge Too Far" are pretty bizarre...."Major Carlisle", the Para officer with the umbrella who is later killed seems to be based on Major Digby Tathem-Warter, an umbrella-carrying company commander in 2/PARA who not only survived the battle but was also alive and well in Kenya when the movie was made. Kurt Student and his fallschirmjager are notable only for their abscence in the movie, and the plans recovered from a British glider were in fact recovered from a US one....

In some ways "A Bridge Too Far" was a groundbreaking movie -in terms of the attempts to get the uniforms, weapons and vehicles correct it was ahead of it's time, and it was also the first war movie where the director insisted that some of the actors train with real soldiers before filming. The parachute drop was recreated by soldiers from 1/PARA (check out the 1970s Dennison smocks...) and many of the actual participants in the battle (Frost, Vandeleour, etc) were actually on set during filming. Far all that, and for all the fact that I find it a very entrtaining movie, it remains a bit of a disappointment to me....and the few 1st Airborne vets I've talked to seem to regard bits of it as a joke at best...

All the best

Paul.

[behblc]

Paul,
Take a look at the SS officer who leads the attack on the bridge ...around his neck a set of British Barr and Stroud naval binoculars , they might even be a civilian set.
A movie will never get things quite "right" or "as it was" ABTF gets it more "right" than most have done.

[Bobwirtz]

Remember when the Dutch boy is riding his bicycle down the road and is stopped by the Feldgendarmerie? He tells the guard that it's his birthday and he is going to see his friend down the road who has a gift for him. Then he rides quickly past the gate and sees the car with Generalfeldmarschall Model's car pennant. Did each Generalfeldmarschall have his own unique car pennant? The kid and his father look in reference books and discover that it is Model's car and pennant and wonder why there is a GFM in Arnhem. Anybody know anything about the GFM car pennants?

Bob

[DJT]

ABTF is a war movie (a great one at that) and not a documentary (a point it seems that needs to be often repeated in these movie threads). It has already been alluded to that Operation Market-Garden was a complex operation and I can only agree (I had to write a 6000 word essay for University explaining why the operation failed. I struggled with the length restrictions and could have easily written another 4000 words on this aspect of the operation). Therefore I think it is commendable that they managed to tell the whole story within 3 hours screen time. Please also remember that Cornelius Ryan was a journalist and not a historian which may explain some of the discrepancies

[John Hodgin]

As Paul states, the movie is far from historically accurate. IMO the movie also over simplifies reasons for failure, in part laying blame mostly on Monty's shoulders as being overly ambitious. Had Market Garden succeded, Monty would have forever been lauded a hero.

[Paul B]

Interesting point about the binoculars -Captain Paul Grabner, the officer in question, wasn't adverse to using British kit, I believe in reality he was killed whilst riding in a captured British vehical.

One of the really interesting things about ABTF is that it was contraversial almost from the moment it was released, and the whole back-story of the casting and financing of the movie is a topic in itself. Sir John Hackett and Daphne du Maurier (the widow of General Browning) made their feelings plain at the time of it's release, and it could be said that it was a very brave project that attempted to tackle such a contraversial theme when so many of the key players were still alive.

Another point is that certain facts -mainly the importance of ULTRA and the decoding of German information about the presence of II SS Panzer Corps in the Arnhem area- weren't actually in the public domain when either the book or film were produced.

John's point is a very good one -many senior commanders were surprised at the audacity of the plan given Monty's usual reputation for caution, and it is interesting that both Monty and Ike don't physically appear in the movie, with Browning representing all that's percieved to be wrong about the planning of Market Garden.

Des's point is also an important one -war movies are movies and not documentaries. I love "Zulu", which is probably best described as a great movie but bad history, and whatever it's factual errors I probably would never have heard of Chard, Bromhead and Hook (or been inspired to read up on the subject) had I never seen the movie in the first place. To a degree the same could be said for ABTF.

Cheers

Paul.

[behblc]

Agreeded, movies are about entertainment and not about getting things strictly 100% spot on.
As it stands ABTF is a good show.
(Lots of good lines in it).
" Delighted .....truely...delighted".

[Suber]

I too happen to think that ABTF is probably one of the all time best movies in terms of delivering a "relatively" accurate account of actions during that portion of the campaign. It is nearly the opposite in comparison to say Saving Private Ryan, where the special effects were outstanding, but the story line is largely ficticious. I would love to see them "redo" ABTF, with modern graphics and special effects.

[Laurence]

I thought it was excellent movie when you put in context of when it was made and when compared of same era . Not perfect of course but what movie is, i also think Cross of Iron which has its critics falls in same catergory. As others have stated the movie is primary to entertain not educate. Though it would be great to have seen directors like Peckinpah have the budget and effects of Speilburg