Forget about the original Top Gun and its recent sequel, Top Gun: Maverick. The Battle of Britain – a fifty-four-year-old movie – provides the same thrills and spills but does so from a more interesting perspective.
This WW II story’s roots can be found in the grand-scale, fact-based productions that began appearing less than two decades after peace was declared in Europe. The Longest Day (1962), The Great Escape (1963), Battle of the Bulge (1965) and Patton (1970) tread similar turf and feature their own charms. But The Battle of Britain stands out thanks to the efforts of director Guy Hamilton and three-time Oscar winning cinematographer Freddie Young, BSC, ASC.
Given the technology of the day, the many dog-fighting sequences are fabulously well shot. Remember, there were no Sony Rialtos, A7’s, Go Pros or reduced-sized gear of any stripe to work with while airborne (sorry, a Bell & Howell Eyemo with a 100′ daylight spool doesn’t count!). There also were no CGI or digital tools available to generate effects or smooth things over. Instead, miniatures and process photography were sparingly used to compliment the live footage. Nowadays, there’s a tendency for the technical to overpower the practical with regard to anything remotely dangerous. There was no such concern during the making of The Battle of Britain. The majority of it was achieved in-camera!
Young’s contributions – though mostly limited to the ground – are no less impressive. Pay special attention to his treatment of night\exteriors on the streets of a blacked-out London. I defy anyone to show me a better example of what a “no light at all” effect should look like on screen. Compliments must also go to aerial cinematographers Skeets Kelly and John Jordan. They clearly took cues from Elmer Dyer, ASC’s work on Howard Hughes’ production of Hell’s Angels (1930). The use of billowy clouds as background to the flying sequences in both movies gave scale and dimension to the action in ways that wouldn’t have been possible under clear conditions. No doubt all of them risked life and limb in the process, and the results were worth it.
But it’s not just the incredible cinematography that places The Battle of Britain above similar efforts today. It’s the human touch that’s so evident in every frame. There’s no denying: That attribute has a more profound effect on viewers than anything birthed from a computer. It’s also something I’m starting to miss more and more as we wade deeper into virtual production techniques.
Maybe it’s time use our intelligence – real, not artificial – to find new ways of evoking this sensation as we move forward.
Wow! Thanks, Richard.
Having grown up on WW II films as many a kid in the sixties, this is one of my favorites, and is in my collection.
The cast was phenomenal.
Another favorite is The Train.
Hey Gary! I’m in the same boat as you…loved those movies as a kid and still do. There were a few others that qualify as factually based – The Bridge at Remagen, A Bridge Too Far, etc. But then there were the flights of fancy that were so much fun, too: The Dirty Dozen, Where Eagles Dare, The Guns of Navarone, None But the Brave (directed by Frank Sinatra!), Von Ryan’s Express (starring Frank)…great stuff, all of them!
I might also add Tobruk to the list of fact-based WW2 movies. Rock Hudson and George Peppard at their best!
“Castle Keep” is another one..!
All great; saw all of them at the Canarsie Theatre on Ave. L in Brooklyn.
I’m going to get together a list of my collection.
My favorite opening gambit to soften up Stanley Cortez was to ask about Bridge at Remagen, and the time they had to quickly pack up the cameras and flee the Russian tanks headed for Prague. One of his favorite stories, embroidered a bit perhaps, but fun. Eric van Haren Noman (later ASC) was on the local crew.
That’s hilarious, David, but so typical of Stanley!
I watch my blu-ray of “A Bridge Too Far” almost on a regular basis, being such a fan of Geoffrey Unsworth, but I also think it’s a great story!
David – I saw that one recently and love the look of it, too.