Talk:The Battle of the River Plate (film)

Dispute

"Unlike most British war movies of the time, The Battle of the River Plate is notable in treating the German sailors as honourable opponents rather than as cardboard cut-out "Huns"."

This is incorrect, the Gerrmans are portrayed as being somewhat slack!

Well, they're not Herr Flick style Nazis anyway! -- Arwel 14:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should be left in. Its an important theme in Powell and Pressburger films. They may be portrayed as flawed characters, but (as Arwel pointed out) they're not the stereotypical bad guys. Jihg 09:52, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Removal reasons

I removed Imansola's additions to the Historical details section because of their suspect accuracy. In particular, he claimed that:

• Langerdorff's voyage was unsuccessful, whereas a number of merchantmen were sunk
• Graf Spee was hit several times at the waterline, but according to other articles I checked, the amount of damage sustained is a subject of much dispute
• Langerdorff was surprised by the British

Clarityfiend 23:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Graf Spee was too badly damaged to go back to Germany without major repairs, particularly to her water purification plant. She could have been repaired quickly in a naval dockyard, but in 1939 she had no friendly port available to her where such repairs could be completed. The legal time limit for staying in a neutral port would have prevent serious repairs in Montevideo. In her cruise she sank nine Allied ships.

The decision made by Captain Langsdorff to close range with the British squadron was a tactical mistake; in the film, Peter Finch as Captain Langsdorff explains that he mistook the light cruisers for destroyers, but in real life Captain Langsdorff's explanation, if he ever made one, has not survived. I would argue that it is a reasonable inference that Langsdorff did not expect Commodore Harwood to be waiting for him, so to that extent the encounter would have been a surprise. Fleeming (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ill Met By Moonlight

This page claims that River Plate was the final "Archers" film, but the Ill Met page says it was released in 1957 under the Archers banner. Which is correct? Or was Ill Met made before and only released afterwards? If that's the case it ought to be made clearer. Angmering 10:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The releases were only four months apart, while previously Oh... Rosalinda!! appeared a year before River Plate. Screenonline hints [1] at diasagreements over Ill Met...; it may be that it was shot before River Plate, but finished afterwards, although quick search doesn't reveal anythign to support or disprove that. Presumably one of the various books on Powell & Pressburger can clarify the production dates. Nick Cooper 10:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ill Met was released in the UK on 4 March 1957. BoRP was released in the UK on 24 December 1956. That's when it went on general release. It had its Royal Command Film Performance on 30 November 1956. So Ill Met wins as their last film under the banner of The Archers -- SteveCrook 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There were some minor disagreements between Powell & Pressburger over Ill Met and BoRP. It was these that led to the break-up of the partnership. Although they weren't at all acrimonious and they remained great friends for the rest of their lives. It was more that making these two films made them realise that things had changed in the British film industry and they no longer had the freedom that they once had. Also that they had come to the end of all the films that they wanted to make together and they both wanated to try some solo projects -- SteveCrook 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Battle of the River Plate Finch.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Battle of the River Plate Finch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

copied from my talk page Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 11:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ships used

This may be too much detail for the main article, but some might find it interesting in talk:

for the battle:
Ajax,       7,270 tons, 555 feet, 8 x 6 in. guns, 4 inch armor belt.
Achilles,   7,270 tons, 555 feet, 8 x 6 in. guns, 3 inch armor.
Exeter,     8,390 tons, 575 feet, 6 x 8 inch guns, 3 inch armor belt.
Graf Spee, 12,100 tons, 610 feet, 6 x 11 inch and 8 x 6 inch guns, 4 inch (100mm) armor belt. 
for the film:
USS Salem, 17,000 tons, 717 feet, 9 x 8 inch guns.

USS Salem was probably the closest match to Graf Spee's size (12,100 t standard, 16,000 full load) at the time of filming, but her main armament was much lighter (8" versus 11" bore) and different arrangement (three triple vs two triple turrets). Salem secondary armament was twelve 5 inch in six twin turrets, while Graf Spee had eight six inch in eight single turrets.

The use of real vessels, rather than models, made the movie much more believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naaman Brown (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have since seen photographs of Graf Spee disguised with a fake "B" turret constructed of wood and canvas over the forward "A" turret: http://www.deutschland-class.dk/admiral_graf_spee/gallery/gallgrafspeeindisquise.html http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/pages/cruisers/admiral_graf_spee_page_6.htm Naaman Brown (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Other disguises used by Graf Spee included a second "funnel" (a frame covered in painted canvas aft of the seaplane catapult) and painting the pyramidal tower superstructure to look like a tripod mast. Graf Spee was reported at least once as a French battleship, indicating the disguises worked. So having Salem stand in for Graf Spee may not have been such a stretch. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That table does show how much more powerful the Graf Spee was. Better armed and better protected. It says a lot for the relative skills and training of those involved that she was even slightly damaged by such comparatively insignificant attackers. The Graf Spee should have blown them all out of the water before they got a single shot anywhere close to her -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rio de la Plata versus River Plate

I took the liberty of editing:

"River Plate" is a mis-translation of the river's Spanish name, "Rio de la Plata". "Plata" in Spanish means "silver" and "Plato" means "plate", so the river should actually be called the Silver River.

to:

"River Plate" is an English translation of the Spanish "Rio de la Plata" or Silver River; in old English, "plate" is a silver coin.

I have always heard the English name "Plate" pronounced plah-TAY as tho' the name were written in classic Latin, so I think the original comment was a misunderstanding. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Where have you heard it pronounced like that? I'm English and I've only ever heard it pronounced as you would pronounce any other plate. There was no English silver coin called a plate. Silver plate is a layering of copper and silver, see Sheffield plate. For the name of the river, see Río de la Plata#Etymology. -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The British English "River Plate" is "playt" macron "a" silent "e" as pronounced by the British actors in the movie. It suspect the Plate pronunciation I have heard was Spanish-ized in deference to the original "Plata": my great grandmother pronounced "join" as "jyne" rhymes with "line" just like Alexander Pope's poem, so maybe I have been exposed to obscure dialect most of my life but I have seen a dictionary entry for "River Plate" with stress marks Riv'er Plate' . The real point is that "River Plate" is a silver metal translation of "Rio de la Plata" and is not a mistranslation confused with "plato". The coin reference I found searching "plate" in Random House Websters Unabridged Dictionary, one of the last entries: "a coin, esp. of silver (1200-50 ME....)" i.e. a generic term for coin, especially silver, in really old English. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The coin reference is rather obscure, but one meaning of "plate" has been "silverware" since mediaeval times. The OED has a definition: "2. As a mass noun. a. Gold or silver vessels and utensils. Originally those made from a single sheet of metal rather than from separate pieces. Gold (also silver) in plate: gold (or silver) in the form of vessels or utensils (rather than as coins or bullion)." It continued to have this meaning in common usage throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. It survives in the rather archaic terms "Church Plate", "College Plate", "Regimental Plate", meaning heritage silverware used to decorate dining tables or assembly rooms for formal dinners or special functions. Most dictionaries suggest that in this context "plate" is a direct Anglicized version of the Spanish "plata".martinev (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve Crook's edit

"River Plate" is an English translation of the Spanish "Rio de la Plata" or Silver River; See Río de la Plata#Etymology

is straight, to the point, and all that needs to be said on the issue. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would go with something slightly different: 'River Plate is the English name of the Spanish "Rio de la Plata", meaning Silver River'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

where can I get a DVD of this British film?

Where can I get a DVD of this British film? I would like to donate it to our local library after viewing it. Is it available from somewhere in the U.S.? Mr.GSD (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been officially released on DVD in the Americas (AFAIK). It's available in the UK if you, and your library, can play PAL format region 2 DVDs. Or some people might offer one for sale on places like eBay but that'll probably be an off-air recording from when it was broadcast on TV or a copy from a VHS release -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS Birmingham

I have read the about the ships used in the filming of this film and felt I must make a comment. it states that HMS Birmingham was used as the Filming ship, this I must dispute as I was serving on HMS Birmingham at the time. Filmed ON BOARD this ship was the Burial of the German sailors killed (Carried out on the Quarter deck) and at the same time the explosion of the bows. It also showed the Gun P2 and the gun crew manning it at the time of the action; this was the gun I was the Gun Trainer on and from the scene I can still name my ship mates who manned it. There were various other scenes, such as our 6" gun on the Quarter deck being smeared with paint and such to show near hit, this of course upset the Gun Chief VERY much as his crew had to clean it ALL off when filming had finished.41.132.108.215 (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC) N.J. Budd O/Seaman C/J 947506 H.M.S Birmingham Mess 6. 1956.5th July2010

Thanks O/S Budd. I think it was me that added HMS Birmingham as being a filming ship and if it was, it would have come from the press book for the film. The American navy wouldn't let the film crew paint a Swastika on the foredeck of the USS Salem so I thought that some scenes that were meant to be on the Graf Spee were actually filmed on other ships. I'm just on my way out but I'll add this correction here and in other places -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Finch/Capt. Langsdorf.

My late Father was MN and his ship blockaded in Montevideo by the action. Seeing the film nearly twenty years after the events he thought that Peter Finches portrayal of Capt. Langsdorf was "very sensitive".

My Father also thought that Capt. Langsdorf was a Prussian, is this correct?AT Kunene (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he was from Bergen auf Rügen which until 1945 was part of Prussia — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMNLangsdorff (talk • contribs) 14:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Action damage

Stevecrook.

My late Father saw the "Graf Spee" coming into Montevideo and reckoned that it was blowing black funnel smoke, probably indicating engine damage. The "Graf Spee" was a diesel engine ship and such engines are much less amenable to damage control than steam ships. He always reckoned that concealed engine damage was the real reason the Langsdorf put into Montevideo rather than the much more sympathetic Argentina. AT Kunene (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"boarding"?

§ Ships used includes the item

• Gunboat Uruguay, boarding the Tacoma, was played by a British Ton-class minesweeper.

I've always understood the naval verb "board" as referring to the act of people getting onto a ship. How does a boat "board" a ship? I'd understand "was brought aboard", but if this is real naval jargon it calls for some explanation. --Thnidu (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, the Uruguay sends a boarding party onto the Tacoma. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Made at a time when the Federal Republic (West Germany) was just reintroducing conscription as a fully-fledged meber of NATO. The film's portrayal of Langsdorff ( and the almost complete non-portrayal of the Altmark, which makes a single appearance) seems to fit this (and to some extent also that of Kreipe in 'Ill Met By Moonlight') though the notion that at one level Germans and British are the same sort of folk runs through much of the Powell-Pressburger oeuvre. Even so, there weren't all that many British postwar movies with believable contemporary RussiansDelahays (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)