‘Memphis Belle’ Gets Flak From WW II Gunner

I regret picking lint out of the old B-17, but as a veteran of more than 80 missions over Europe, first as a tail gunner in the RAF, Yankee volunteer before America got into Big Whiskey II, and later as a ball turret gunner in the Eighth Air Force, I cannot abide either the film, which is ludicrous, or Sheila Benson’s statements about the B-17 in the film “Memphis Belle.”

As fine a writer as she is, Benson apparently fell afoul of a Boeing public-relations flack when she wrote, “The original Memphis Belle was one of America’s fleet of B-17s, lumbering 30-ton Flying Fortresses that could carry twice as many bombs and go longer without refueling than any bomber before them.”

The British Lancaster could fly faster, farther and carry a heavier bomb load. Only the Lancaster could carry “Tall Boy,” a 14,000-pound bomb. Even the obsolete Whitley twin-engine bomber in 1942 carried a heavier bomb load than the B-17, whose bomb load was somewhat reduced by the ball turret, which weighed around 2,000 pounds. In the movie “Memphis Belle,” the ball turret rotates 360 degrees--so the gunner can shoot off his own engines. In reality, the ball turret has cut-offs at 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock to prevent that from happening.

The Royal Air Force even had a song about the B-17, sung to “John Brown’s Body,”that told it all pretty well:

Forty-thousand Fortresses at forty-thousand feet,

And they’ve only got a teeny-weeny bomb,

Glory, glory, what a helluva way to die.

This is not to deprecate the B-17, for it saved my life several times, but the film is ludicrous. Nor is this to deprecate the real crews, even though the Fortress was in England nearly a year before it could bomb German targets, since it needed fighter cover with drop tanks.

It’s ironic that “Memphis Belle” was made by David Puttnam, who has always been complaining about American films. And here he makes a typical Hollywood piece of technical baloney.

I never saw so many airmen arguing, fistfighting at 20,000 feet with their oxygen masks off and still alive, and so much wise-guy chatter on the intercom, every crew member with Bob Hope-like dialogue, talking on and on. Absolutely ridiculous, a co-pilot who always wanted to shoot at a German aircraft, going back to the tail and taking the tail-gunner duty station; crew members screaming about losing a good-luck talisman, and ready to kill for it. The early part of the film was artificial with forced dialogue between the crew members that never happened, and so much more.

Then, we get to the air shootout at Bremen, the heavily defended seaport on the north coast of Germany. The story line proceeds just like a Western, with the lead characters facing snakes, coyotes, crazed wolves, bears, pumas and mad Indians--enough obstacles en route to the German target to last an entire squadron. Not that it is impossible for one crew to face so many obstacles before reaching target and returning home, but it’s highly improbable. A member of the original crew recently recalled that on his entire tour of 25 missions, he never faced as many deadly problems as the Memphis Belle faced on one mission. And all during the film, the crew is wisecracking through fighters and storms of flak.

The funniest part was the flak. The B-17 bounced up and down with each explosion as if it were on a rough road, and the bombardier’s head kept bouncing up and down. When I heard the flak explosion on a B-17, it was too close, but it did not bump you. When it bumped you, it sent you to heaven.

By my count, the Memphis Belle went to heaven about 50 times en route to Bremen, but what is a director going to do on a five-hour flight when a lot of the time there is no drama, only static narration?

The public-relations officer depicted in “Memphis Belle” has got to be one of the biggest buffoons ever seen; utterly incredible, just like most of the film. There have been some authentic air warfare films, however. Henry King’s “Twelve O’Clock High” with Gregory Peck remains a film that was true to life yet dramatic. Why can’t we see more like that?