Expedition: Bismarck

In a nutshell: director James Cameron and his crew (among them his engineer brother Mike, German WWII veterans, DP Vince Pace and a bunch of equally brilliant scientists and historians) join a Russian research ship in order to film the wreckage of battleship Bismarck, a ginormous Nazi cruiser sunk by the British (or was she?) in May 1941 off the coast of France, or as the commentary by Lance Henriksen dubs her: "the Death Star of her time".

This is a docu-fiction type of documentary. Phenomenal archive footage and stunning present-day images are blended (sometimes not flawlessly) with CGI schematics as well as stiff period dramatization. As much as I love Jim Cameron's movies (I truly think he's one of the most important filmmakers working today, even his lesser efforts in the fiction domain being better than 95% of their rivals IMHO) I wasn't introduced yet to his documentary work. Now that I've seen "Expedition: Bismarck" I honestly can recommend it to anyone interested in history, underwater filming, or just documentaries altogether. That being said, some of Cameron's flaws or shortcomings as an artist were more visible here than in his previous work, and it prevented me to completely dive into it.

Cameron's brand of tech-heavy obsession transpires logically more here than in any other film. There is a strong emphasis on engineering aspects and basic underwater physics. As much as it's portrayed efficiently with much pedagogic concern, it might be a bit hard to follow for the younger - or less tutored - audience. The first 30 minutes skip quite bizarrely through the historical facts, the Bismarck being portrayed in such a hammy manner than its sinking in comparison seems like a mere footnote. As much as this choice pays off later on, I still found the intro quite unbalanced and suffering from a poor dramatization that looks like a cheap A&E biography.

Another annoying aspect was the historical theories submitted by the film. Much like another Cameron-produced documentary (you know, that obnoxious movie about the tomb of Jesus?) some established historical theories are being challenged here by the filmmakers. And even if I don't believe in any bias on their end, the way they present their "discoveries" is way too rushed or opaque to be credible. Sometimes James Cameron and his mates sound like smug, arrogant tomb raiders jumping to conclusions while said conclusions are neither really explained nor sustaining their arguments. Nothing in this movie shows a lack of good faith from the filmmakers, but the way they mistake themselves for History detectives is totally out of place.

That being said, these flaws are quite forgettable compared to the astounding undersea filming. This is truly the most breathtaking marine film since Louis Malle and Jacques Yves Cousteau's groundbreaking 50's film "Le monde du silence". And more importantly, the usual criticism toward Cameron's work (a so-called coldness and lack of emotion) is here negated by the very moving story of two 80 year-old men who survived the sinking. The genuine emotion from those two German WWII vets not only humanizes the story, but shows how young spirits could've been brainwashed by the Nazi propaganda. Yesterday's enemies being today's friends gives this movie a well-earned upbeat ending that never feels staged or stolen.

Interesting documentary but totally corny and laden with historical inaccuracies. How Cameron thought it would be a good idea to put rock music over nazi footage or ham up the narration to the point of making star wars references is beyond me.

for the most pat,this documentary is pretty decent viewing.it's mainly about the German juggernaut war ship Bismark and it's sinking.it gives a bit of a brief history of the ship.the some battle scenes are shown,many computer animated.the ship is shown as it sinks int the water under a barrage of British fire from most of the British fleet.meanwhile James Cameron and his crew prepare to explore the wreckage of the ship on the sea floor,using two submersibles.the footage of the ship 61 years almost to the day that it was sunk is pretty impressive.you get a real idea of how massive and well built the ship was.Cameron's crew were also able to enter the ship through many different holes,some caused by enemy artillery.you get an idea of what the inside of the was like.along with Cameron and company are two survivors of the sinking.there are a few things I didn't like here.one is that they never really had the two survivors relate much of their story,which would have been nice.another thing is i felt it took too long to get to the point where they were exploring the wreckage.also instead of letting the viewing just enjoy what they are seeing,sometimes Cameron and crew throw in some "ooh" and "ahh" comments.the documentary focuses a bit too much on the scientists and the technicians,which is not really interesting.there are a few scenes i thought they could have left out,which had very little to do with anything.other than that,though,it wasn't too bad.the computer animation was outstanding.i should qualify this by saying that this version is a two disc set,which contains special features.one of the feature is called Behind the Scenes,which has a featurette entitled Survivors.i haven't watched any of the features,but this one presumably focuses on the two survivors who are with the expedition.how in depth,i don't know.either way,though that footage should have been included in the actual feature.for me Expedition Bismark is a 6/10

It's a hard but wonderful documentary about the end of this war ship. James Cameron forgets one thing, a very important thing. Despite the first radars , the MI6 knew exactly the position of the Bismarck, owing to "Enigma machine" built by Turner. The Admiral Reder was so stupid to communicate from Berlin with the war ship.The results is knew: 2,500 dead sailors and a fall down during 12 minutes near the french harbour: Brest.But, fortunately, the liberty for all the english then U.S.Ships to help England and 3 years ago, liberty for the free Europe.

As I watched this broadcast, I was surprised to see certain representations of damage and their explanations. I was also quite surprised that there was not adequate 'expert' witness present during the commentary. I am not a naval expert, but I do study these things, and consider wreck sites with a physics perspective. If I could come to an understanding of certain basic items, I expect that the on-site experts could as well. That the commentary shows otherwise leaves me questioning just who was where with what knowledge.

A few points as examples: The tower, with the admiral's bridge, foretop director station, etc.. JC suggests in the film that the tower landed on the bottom upright, and was pushed over as the hull moved against it after impact. His graphics even show this. I can not accept that explanation. Considering that the entire tower broke away as the ship sank, most likely during the righting of the hull after leaving the surface, and that the tower at that time was extremely TOP-heavy, it's quite apparent that it plummeted to the bottom much like an arrow. The very heavy armored foretop station (a thick box of armor plate dominating the upper levels of the tower) would have lead the way down (tower upside down), with the relatively long body section acting as the arrow's shaft. It would have plunged into the bottom sediment top-first. The hull did not knock it over from an upright position.

When JC's crew came across a hull section of the bilge broken away, they puzzled over just what it could be. It was obvious to myself and others that red antifouling paint, and a sharp near-90-degree bend in such a below waterline structure could only be the turn of the bilge. The uniform shape of the plating on either side of the turn, extending in both directions marks this wreckage even further as being the bilge turn near the center of the ship. No other shape could fit that area. To their credit, later in the documentary, they described this. What stood out to me was that no expedition member readily recognized this at the time of discovery.

The views of the stern underside show a rudder jammed into a propeller. JC stated that the torpedo hit must have jammed the rudder over to this point. This can't be. The propeller, in that shot, was truly fouled. However, the survivor's testimony states that efforts were made at steering the ship with engines only. There was no mention of a jammed shaft. Ballard's initial study, matched with eyewitness records show that Bismarck sank by the stern. This is because the ship's sea intakes and engine room water passages were blown open. The rear of the ship settled first from the flooding. As the ship dove to the bottom, it likely went down stern first as well, since the flooding in this area was more complete. Bismarck's stern quite well could have hit bottom first, jamming the rudders hard over. The rudder could not have been pushed so hard as to bend the rudder shaft so far that it hit the propeller from a mere torpedo hit. The weight of the ship, through an angular impact would certainly be able to accomplish this, however.

JC also states that the hull bent as it hit the bottom, like a shoe as the owner moves through a step. He says that this is what caused the bottom sides to blow out, assisted by hydraulic blowout. I can't see how this would be. His graphic representation is quite extreme. In order for the ship to bend as he shows, the very structure of the bottom would have to fail. You simply can not expect a warship to bend like that an not, a) compress the upper decks accordion style, and b) stretch the lower decks and double bottom to the point where they split. Bismarck sits intact (largely) and inline. No indications of hull warpage have been reported. Lastly, in order for this ship to bend like the banana move in the computer recreation, a large number of the huge armor plates on either side would have to be dislocated and /or removed. There is no way to bend 12' armor plate of that type against its plane! Warping it through the surface for hull fitting is one thing. Bending it along the thin edge several meters thick is impossible! You can watch and see that there are NO loose armor plates (only lower hull plates BELOW the armor line), and not even an open seem between the plates. The plates themselves could not be expected to work back into position and not leave evidence of having moved. Also, the inner torpedo bulkheads, which were so obligingly exposed, would have to bend as well (along with every other vertical longitudinal structure amidships). They did not. And if they had, they would never return to form since they were designed to flex and bend under stress in order to contain the torpedo blast, the following waterhammer jet, and still keep the citadel dry. The hydraulic blowout theory seems best, especially when you consider that German welding of the period was not the best. Reference the clean break in the tower base, the stern separation and the clean breaks at every point where lower hull sections are missing. Each break is at a weld joint.

Of all the points raised and issues taken during this film, I was most pleased with the study of the inner torpedo defense. It has been my contention that the torpedos were NOT the cause of her sinking. The large hole in the deck, next to the catapult, seems to me to be a torpedo hit, as the ship was rolling onto her side. The torps arrived too late.

The saving grace of this film is the quality of the video. One can draw his own conclusions from the clear images presented therein.