17 Oct 2014
Behind the Scene and other Major Plot Points
Genuine TIGER TANK used in the production of WWII Film.
Fury features “Tiger 131” from the UK’s Bovington Tank Museum, the only fully functioning Tiger tank in the world.
Haircut of Brad Pitt and Jon Brethal
Brad Pitt’s and Jon Berthal’s haircuts in the film weren’t formal haircuts for soldiers in the World War II-era. But, tampered looks like theirs were popular among soldiers with a lot of combat experience, who most likely did it themselves.
Rigrous Training Course
The cast underwent a rigorous month long course of boot camp, in which the final test was manning a real tank during a combat exercise. Despite being considerably older than his cast mates, Brad Pitt made sure that he participated in all of the physical training alongside the other actors
Many of the outfits in the film were based on real exhibits acquired from museums around the world.
Sherman Tank Capabilities
The Sherman tanks seen in this movie were considered the weakest of tanks at that time period. However, the L55 M1A2 76mm gun mounted on Fury was capable of penetrating the front armor of the Tiger tank at ranges up to 700 meters, further if HVAP ammo was used. Also, since the side armor of a Tiger is actually thinner (60mm vs 80mm) than the rear armor, an experienced tank commander would fire at the side armor of the Tiger, given the chance.
Ayer aimed for a greater degree of realism in the film
He definitely achieved it. The movie was as realistic as it gets.
Depiction of Germans + Objectivity
One thing I really appreciated in this movie was the depiction of the German soldiers and the apartment scene.It emphasized the difference between the Wehrmacht and the SS, while it also showed viewers a part of the German civilian side, which (with exceptions of course) was hopeful by the arrival of the allied forces.I’m sick of WW2 movies that portray ALL Germans as Nazis.A movie that deals with historical material should have a somewhat objective stance just like a historian ideally does. Despite the focus on the armored division it manages to broaden the scenery. Very refreshing! I would definitely side it among the better WW2 movies.
The final standoff I thought was a great conclusion to the film, the tank’s peeling paint after the shoot out and the final birds eye scene seeing the dead SS was a great finisher, even the credits were well displayed.
Brad Pitt hopes Fury ‘respects’ World War Two soldiers
Brad Pitt said he hoped his new film Fury recognized the trauma suffered by soldiers in World War Two as it closed this year’s BFI London Film Festival. “War is hell,” said Pitt, who plays a Sherman tank commander on a mission behind enemy lines in 1945.
He said the film “was about the accumulative psychic trauma that every soldier carries to some extent.”
The London showing was the European premiere of the film, which is released in the UK on Wednesday.
Brad Pitt hopes the film will go some way towards recognizing the horrors and suffering that soldiers go through
Speaking on the red carpet, Pitt told the BBC News website: “The film follows a tank crew – which hasn’t really been dissected before to this kind of detail.”
Pitt and co-stars Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal were greeted by hundreds of cheering fans in Leicester Square.
They were also joined by World War Two ex-tank crewman Peter Comfort, 90, who had worked as an adviser on Fury.
Bernthal said: “This movie is family drama. It’s about a family travelling through hell in a metal box.”
Earlier, Pitt told a press conference that he hoped soldiers would feel “respectfully recognised” by what the film showed.
“It is an amazing fact of human nature that one year we can be chopping each other up [and] the next we can be sharing a pint. We continually devolve into conflict, no matter how much we evolve.”
The 50-year-old was working on Fury at the same time his wife Angelina Jolie was directing her forthcoming WWII film Unbroken, which stars Jack O’Connell as an Olympic athlete taken prisoner by Japanese forces.
“I was studying the European theatre [of war]; she was studying the Pacific theatre. I was studying tanks; she was studying bombers.”
“It was a lovely experience; we don’t normally work at the same time,” said Pitt, who previously played a soldier in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds.
Fury’s director, David Ayer, said it was a “privilege” to close the BFI London Film Festival with a film shot in the UK – specifically around Oxfordshire and at Bovingdon Airfield in Hertfordshire.
“It brings great closure to the process,” he said. “One year ago to the day, we were shooting some of those very battle scenes.”
According to the director, Pitt would often stay inside the tank during breaks on set.
“There’s nothing ergonomical about a tank,” Pitt admitted. “You were always getting banged up on something.
“But we were forced to familiarise ourselves with the tank and we all found our little comfort spots. I became quite proprietorial about it.”
Q&A with Director
You were in the Navy, your grandparents fought in WWII. Was doing a war film a goal?
Kind of. I was always aware of the horrendous conditions these guys faced and the dysfunctional family that comes from that. You cannot imagine what they faced. And I’m a big fan of war movies. But they seemed to be engineered in a specific way. You had one big event, like an invasion. Or a series of episodic events, where you survive the ambush, clear the village, something like Platoon. I wanted something different—the emotional toll. I wanted to show how claustrophobic war can be. A tank was a great vehicle to tell that story. Pardon the pun.
You filmed on one of the last operational Tiger 1s in Europe. Why was that important?
There were two skills I wanted the actors to have. One, they had to learn all the actor shit. Two, I wanted them to be acting while on autopilot, doing things like operating a cannon while not looking distracted. That’s something that feels so natural on camera, but it only works when your actors can operate on both levels.
You made headlines getting your actors to that level, with Navy SEALs overseeing combat between them. Why so rough?
I had the boot camp because (Navy SEALs) would engineer it in a specific way, one that was authentic. It’s brutal. It’s engineered to break you down psychologically. It forces you to change in ways you can’t by being on a set. You throw a punch differently.
Did you really let the actors throw punches at each other?
Yes! They got into it. Actors really do act differently when you put them on a real set, instead of just around fiberglass props. Boot camp wasn’t just about getting people in shape. It was about getting the guys to open up and get to know each other. That’s the story of the movie, the dysfunctional family that comes from that. Too often (in a war film) the mission overruns the journey of the people.
But you must have been nervous someone was going to mess up Brad Pitt’s face.
They really got into it. Every once in a while I had to shout, “Don’t punch the money!”
Fury is fiction woven from real anecdotes. How do you navigate concerns with accuracy?
That’s tricky. (Military life) is in my family, so I had personal experience. I can point to places, where a battle took place. As a storyteller, I did tons of meticulous research. But people like to play “gotcha” journalism with historical movies—this fact wasn’t right, this was left out. But once you have actors in your movie, it’s not a documentary. The purpose is to make these characters real. That’s the only way to make an honest movie about the period. The physics of actors acting with the set and each other are different. You’ll be sitting there with the effects people, watching the action, and you’ll think, “Damn, I never would have thought of doing that.”
How nerve wracking is it to make a movie where real survivors—in this case, WWII veterans—can tell if you got your story right?
Very. The most nervous I’ve ever been was on Veterans Day, when I knew some of them were going to see it. But a veteran said it was the most accurate (war) movie he’d ever seen, that he relives some of that every day. You can’t describe how something like that feels.
Why are war and military movies resonating right now?
I think it’s where America is at. We’re in Hollywood—the coasts, the big cities—and the rest of America is seeing something very different. I don’t know how much stuff out there actually speaks to them or their shared sensibility. (InFury’s case), I think people are responding because they’re coming in and getting a different animal than they’re expecting.
Which is what?
A story about the big mission and saving the world. That’s not this story. This is about a family that comes from the love and complexity of war. It’s not glorified.
RT/Meta Critic Review
In the end, Fury is a war movie as much as an anti-war movie, and a damned fine one. (Click here to see)
FURY is a grim, violent and uncompromising WW2 flick told from the perspective of an American tank crew. (Click here to see)
My emotions were deeply touched, particularly as a reminder that those we ask to go to war deserve our gratitude and respect. (Click here to see)
Much better than I expected and is a movie even women will enjoy. It is more about relationships built in war and less about the war. Good tank fighting scenes also and the acting is wonderful Micha(MetaCritic)