Why don’t we make any decent war films any more?
Reflection — By Duncan Higgitt on March 7, 2010 7:00 am
Stanley Baker and Michael Caine in the iconic Zulu
ANYONE who’s seen the film will never forget its climax.
Having spent two celluloid hours fighting a hugely numerically superior Zulu force to a standstill at a tiny mission station somewhere in Natal, a tiny bunch of plucky Welshmen gird their loins for the final assault. Despite the many corpses of their fallen comrades littered across the plain below, the Zulus still have the numbers to completely overwhelm the exhausted Chard, Bromhead, Hitch, Joneses 593 and 716, and the other remnants of the 24th of Foot.
When the African warriors appear on this hills above Rorke’s Drift and begin chanting, Bromhead finally snaps. He shouts at the Zulus: “Well, what are you waiting for? Come on! Come on!” He whirls on Josef Adendorff, the Afrikaner who, having survived the slaughter of Isandlwana, spends the film dispensing native wisdom to the redcoats. ”Those bastards!” shouts Bromhead. “They’re taunting us!”
Adendorff looks at the floor and begins laughing. “No, you couldn’t be more wrong,” he grins back at Bromhead. “They’re saluting you. They’re saluting fellow braves.”
Whether those lines were spoken, or whether Adendorff actually existed, isn’t really the point. It’s the perfect, dramatic comment on an extraordinary passage of bravery in our shared history. And shared it certainly is. The record awarding of 11 Victoria Crosses following the battle of Rorke’s Drift was made to both Welsh and English soldiers. Despite the monarch of the time’s penchant for giving out tin (partly of out of personal concern for the appalling conditions that soldiers of the empire were forced to endure), few will disagree that it was worthy of dramatisation, and Stanley Baker’s 1964 film remains the definitive version.
Next month, Sky Movies begins screening The Pacific, Steven Spielberg’s long-awaited follow-up to his 2001 mini-series Band of Brothers, a huge worldwide hit with both audiences and critics, and one of the best selling DVD box sets of all time. Related to its forebear only inasmuch as it covers the Second World War from the perspective of American participants, The Pacific is primarily based on former US Marines Eugene Sledge’s With the Old Breed and Robert Leckie’s Helmet for my Pillow, along with the experiences of another soldier, John Basildone, the only enlisted Marine in the Second World War to receive both the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross.
A still from the forthcoming The Pacific. Expect it to be realistic
Whereas Band of Brothers concentrated on the war in Europe following D-Day, The Pacific will feature decisive moments of the war in the East, including Guadalcanal, Okinawa and the Battle of Iwo Jima (recently brought to life in Clint Eastwood’s partner films Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima). Not surprisingly, the inclusion of several battles, along with the epic scope of the series, has made it incredibly pricey. Current estimates are somewhere between $150 and $200million, with the lion’s share spent in Australia. HBO, which commissioned both The Pacific and Band of Brothers, brought in Seven Network Australia as a partner (along with Spielberg’s Dreamworks) and it is believed to be the most expensive series ever shot Down Under.
Cost is often cited as a prohibitive reason by UK film makers when they are asked why we don’t make ‘em like we used to. The Australians aren’t seeing it that way. Instead, Sydney’s Herald Sun has reported that The Pacific created some 4,000 jobs and added AUD$180m to its economy. Add to that the often generous incentives made by governments and grant-giving bodies here in Wales and across the rest of the UK, and the financial justification doesn’t sound quite so convincing.
When it comes to Spielberg productions, there is precedent, too. Back in 2001, the BBC paid £7m as a production partner on Band of Brothers (which cost $125m to make), the highest until that point that it had paid to buy a program. These days, such sums are more commonplace – 2005′s Bleak House cost £8m. That, of course, is still some way from a Spielberg budget. But a lot depends on how the money is used.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age, the appalling sequel to the far superior Elizabeth, focused on events leading up to and after the Armada. Leaving aside the unnecessary licence taken with a story that needed no embellishment, some $60m was devoted to the making if this film, and yet battle scenes – including decision-taking as well as flaming vessels – seems to fill less than five minutes of screen time.
By contrast, the dramatisation of Ian McEwan’s Atonement was made for around half the cost of The Golden Age, and yet its one-shot sweep of the beach of Dunkirk during the BEF evacuation of 1940 is so masterly and effective that it has been compared to the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan.
So if it can be done to a budget, why isn’t it being done? Perhaps film makers fight shy of making war movies and series because, if we are to believe the tabloids, their ranks are riddled with liberals who have a bias against recognising the sacrifice of our forefathers? Are they too squeamish? Too concerned with what their Islington set peers and chattering class critics might think?
There was evidence of such a mindset when the BBC decided to initially screen Band of Brothers on BBC2. Although the Corporation dismissed claims that it had taken the step because it considered the series not mainstream enough (a gigantic misstep if it was true), the promotion it gave to the program was noticeably less than that afforded by HBO at the time.
Could have been so much more. The Armada, from Elizabeth: The Golden Age
But if our dramatists are resisting the pull of gunpowder, then their colleagues over in factual certainly aren’t. The BBC, in particular, has aired two very fine military-based historical programs in recent months, in Dan Snow’s Empire of the Seas, and Rory Stewart’s The Legacy of Lawrence of Arabia. Neither presenters felt it necessary to lecture the viewer on the horrors of war, assuming – quite correctly – that most of us understand that conflict is generally a bad thing. Meanwhile, BBC Wales is tomorrow screening Afghanistan: Five Welsh Families, which promises to be tough but important viewing.
The legacy of war is all around us, stretching back sometimes hundreds of years. We live among grandfathers whose tough childhoods, at the hands of their traumatised fathers who went to the Trenches, remain with them, shaped their lives. My father-in-law is one of them. As such, it should remain incredibly important that we continue to tell tales not only from the last century, but before it. It is almost scandalous that the Battle of Britain hasn’t been dramatised in the same way as The Pacific, despite the wealthy of materials, both written and living, still available to us. The same goes for the Blitz.
But further back is important, too. When HBO sees fit to tell the story of John Adams, should we leave the Armada now that we have The Golden Age‘s scant account? What about Trafalgar and Waterloo, when Master and Commander, Sharpe, and even Flashman remain incredibly popular reads? Do we leave Agincourt to Shakespeare and Olivier?
And what about the ones we lost? If we can do Dunkirk so well, what about the Somme, given that Pat Barker’s Regeneration trilogy was such a bestseller? The defeat at Isandlwana was depicted in Zulu Dawn, to general indifference. But if the Americans can remake everything (even if they remake Tora! Tora! Tora! as Pearl Harbor), why can’t we, now that we can bring a new realism? The same goes Charge of the Light Brigade, which was last remade, for the fourth time, in 1968.
Depicting conflict isn’t about satisfying blood lust, although base emotions can often be excited by scenes of warfare, otherwise Arnold Schwarzenegger would never have made it past body building events. But what most of us want to know is how the characters of the participants involved in war cope with and are affected by what they experience in battle, or how their families and those around them deal with the effects of such violence.
It is partly because warfare is an extreme – perhaps the extreme – human experience. We want to see it dramatised because bringing a personal context to a historical episode remains a very powerful tool in helping us to empathise and ultimately understand both our culture and the world that we live in today, and how conflict has helped shape it. It is not because we want to glorify combat, or become repelled by its spectacle. It’s because our history is important to us. Even the unpleasant and unfashionable parts.
- The Pacific begins on April 5 on Sky Movies
Tags: Band of Brothers, The Pacific, war, Zulu
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
21 Comments
Some of the best WWII movies were made during WWII (or immediately afterwards). Of course, a lot of the reason for that was propaganda, but I think we, as audiences, needed them. I would question whether the same thing is true of the Hurt Locker, since these days we have 24/7 live news coverage from the frontline. War stories, great eulogies and epic battles have always been a part of us though. The earliest Welsh poem is a war story, after all.
Why don’t we make them? Ask the people trying to make a movie about Owain Glyndwr – the script is written, big actors have it, they have a director etc. Just need money, which isn’t forthcoming. Hollywood would rather fund a big-budget movie about a racehorse from Cefn Fforest then a Braveheart-ish movie that has the potential to be a political hot-potato. I would argue that it should be made for the same reason The Hurt Locker, Band Of Brothers etc were made, for the public to explore these themes, think them through. Of course, all Hollywood is concerned about is profit, return on its investment, and that’s fair enough. I say let’s make them. Forget Braveheart, let’s make Glyndwr. Forget 300 Spartans, lets make 300 Gododdin. The Merthyr Uprising. If I had won that £50 million lottery thing I would fund them myself, because they are the kind of movies that I would like to see, and the kind of stories that need to be kept alive.
We have the talent in Wales, writers, actors, directors, fx people, costume people, musicians, and even the scenery for it. How much would they cost, realistically? DV cameras are cheap, as are editing suites. As the person who made a prequel to Lord of the Rings (on a video camera) will tell you, it’s possible to compete with the big movies using the minimal of investment – just imagination.
So while it’s great that we make movies about the Cardiff rave scene and Tom Jones’ todger, there are bigger stories that need to be told.
(oops sorry, went off on a tangent there)
Great article Duncan. I can’t square your argument with the current rash of films about war that have been doing the rounds in current years. Indeed tonight will see two of them compete for best picture, Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Inglourious Basterds’ (admittedly not a war movie in a traditional sense) and Kathryn Bigelow’s ‘The Hurt Locker’.
There seems to be no absence of war films, either about past conflicts or current ones. In the UK the BBC TV drama ‘Occupation’ about the Iraq conflict pulled no punches and was a ratings hit. This year we’ll also see the British director Paul Greengrass take on the Iraq conflict with his war thriller ‘Green Zone’.
Bruno Dumont’s ‘Flanders’ is an excellent example of a historical war film. And Nick Broomfields’ (another British director) ‘Battle for Haditha’ is another excellent recent example.
Channel 4, don’t forget, also made the brilliant and disturbing BAFTA award winning ‘Mark of Cain’.
All this along with ‘The Pacific’ and, as you mention, the Spielberg and Eastwood films of recent years demonstrates quite clearly that there is an apetitie for both making and watching films about war (as there always has been). There is no shying away from the fact that there are as many films about war as ever and they are more explicit, gruesome and realistic than they’ve ever been.
If you’re asking purely in terms of the UK film industry I would imagine it’s a financial concern as there seems to be no lack of directors (even liberal lefties like Greengrass) willing to take on war projects. The more pertinent question could perhaps be – why we don’t have a proper film industry anymore?
The best ‘war’ film of recent years was British anyway and didn’t have any shocking violence (excluding Malcolm Tucker of course) – ‘In The Loop’!
The argument is very much that WE don’t make decent war films or dramas any more, about our conflicts, historical or otherwise. Everyone else continues to do so, with our film maker’s help. Battle for Haditha concerned an alleged war crimes incident involving US troops, and The Green Zone – well, the Green Zone’s in Baghdad, outside of the British area. Like The Hurt Locker (and The Pacific), they are American experiences.
Occupation is a good example of what I’m driving at. British forces have been engaged in conflict for the past 15 years (if you include peacekeeping in the Balkans) and – please correct me if I’m wrong – Occupation and the excellent Warriors seems a pretty paltry dramatic return. Unlike the US (which has included complex themes such as suicide bombing, which arose out of the Afghanistan and Iraq experiences, shows like in Battestar Galactica), what concerns me is the lack of dialogue we are having with ourselves as to how society is being affected – perhaps even shaped – by warfare. Film makers, like playwrights, have a role to fulfil in facilitating this debate.
The Hurt Locker makes the brave argument that some soldiers like war. That’s certainly what I’m hearing from former comrades. I wonder how many dramatists here would be brave enough to say something similar?
Depends whether they used to be married to James Cameron or not
Seriously though, I think it took a woman to make that movie – men would tend to glamorise it more (re Inglorious). Even Apocalypse Now, one of the greatest war movies ever, is a beautiful poetic thing. So without being sexist, I think it takes a woman to say “hold on, it’s two groups of men blowing each other up, and it’s the bystanders that suffer”. War is like a football match in that respect (or a football match is like war).
If the argument is that there is a specifically British or Welsh mindset stopping film-makers from making war films it’s fallacious. I can see no evidence that there is anything particular the in psyche of British film-makers preventing them from making war films.
Indeed, the fact that top British directors make them for American productions, seems to settle this argument. It’s purely about the decline of the British film-industry rather than a shadowy liberal conspiracy to prevent us from seeing our fill of blood and gore.
By the way it’s also worth noting that the director of Zulu was American as was the distributing company and the executive producer. It’s also a film famous for a roll-call of historical inaccuracies – perhaps not what we should be aspiring too.
It’s interesting that you mention theatre in your response as your article makes little reference to it but does refer to dramatists, a word that by definition usually refers to playwrights rather than film-makers. I’m not sure they are interchangeable words.
It seems to be the case with theatre that British playwrights were engaged by the Iraq war rather than afraid of it.
Interesting stuff though.
It’s less an argument and more of a question, Rob. I get your point about the to-ing and fro-ing of British and American film makers, but I’m more interested in why we’re not mining our own history more. As I say in the piece, there is plenty of appetite for conflict among documentary makers and audiences, and if it is just cost, then how can millions be spent on Cranford, Pride and Prejudice and all the other costume dramas?
As I also say in the piece, there is a budget there, so my question really is whether the cost really is prohibitive, or whether decisions of taste are being taken on our behalf. In all honesty, I don’t know what is right here, which is why I have presented two possible explanations for discussions.
A further point to throw into the mix, particularly if our film industry is in trouble and we believe this leads to issues of creative roadblocking, is that the scripts are already written for historical battles. No issues of implausibility of suspension of belief there. Just the variance to argue over.
I’m aware, but not knowledgeable of, the fact that playwrights have tackled recent conflicts. But that’s not much good for reach of audience and national debate – sadly.
As for Zulu (setting aside your blasphemy), who made it is less important than the subject matter, although I’ll concede it hardly plays into any modern discussion. Nice commentary on soldiering during the age of empire, mind.
I have a dramatist as anyone who writes creatively and for pay. It’s also an easier way of saying ‘programme makers and film makers’…
Great article!
Why are there not more “British” oriented war movies? I would suggest that there is little international market for them, unless specifically produced within Britain for a domestic UK audience. This is in part because of the population of the US, which dominates the film industry. Filmmakers produce first for the US market, and secondly for the international market. Moreover, while there are UK forces engaged in various operations over the past generation, they do not receive the same high profile coverage as US forces do, because the US is engage in more operations and there is more material that is available. There simply isn’t the market for UK war movies.
The US also generally has a certain mystique about them too, a kind of knightly heroism that they are supposed to uphold, the “cowboy” if you will. Hollywood conflicts usually juxtapose American idealised heroism against the realities of war.
It might be interesting to see a film on the loss of the RAD Sir Galahad during the Falkland Islands. The ship had a particularly Welsh association, also carrying the Welsh Guards into the conflict. But the truth is, “British” conflicts have usually been ones of imperial colonialism, and there are few conflicts which one could sympathise with. One can’t help but recognize the irony of the setting.
@Al: I did not know of the Owain Glyndwr project, I‘d have to look that up.
Personally, I would prefer to see projects on Gruffydd ap Cynan whose biography is absolutely amazing! He grew up in an Irish exile, escape from the dungeons of the Earl of Chester to reclaim Gwynedd, fighting off the Normans from ravaging N. Wales. Also, his son Owain ap Gruffydd, who fought Henry II and twice defeated him, becoming the first “Prince of the Welsh”. Also, Gruffydd’s daughter Gwenllain who married Gruffydd the Prince of Deheubarth. Gwenllain and Gruffydd fought the Normans in West Wales, and as a pair of Robin Hoods of Wales, according to historian Phillip Warner, they took goods from the Norman and Flemish colonists and redistributed it amongst the dispossessed Welsh of West Wales. And who could leave out Owain ap Gruffydd’s grandson Llywelyn the Great!!! Wow! Talk about a Breaveheart like hero!
I would love Sharon Kay Penman’s “Here Be Dragons” , “Falls the Shadow”, and “The Reckoning” be converted into a film or television project given the Breaveheart treatment- but more accurate please.
Re: Battlestar Galactica: love the series initially (first two and a half seasons) but ended up not liking the Cylon-centric storyline or false earth ending. That requires its own article!
Braveheart was going to be filmed in Scotland. Then the Irish Minister of Culture phoned up Mel Gibson’s people and said “Hey, if you film it in Ireland it’ll be tax free, and we’ll throw in the Irish armed forces as free extras”.
There could be a clue in there somewhere.
Great article Duncan. A timely one too. Not sure how good your cinematic memory is though, mate. I think you’ve missed or forgotten a few.
Ken Loach’s The Wind that Shakes the Barley and Land and Freedom both showed the human impact of very different conflicts.
John Boorman’s Hope and Glory was a touching semi-autobiographical retelling of the Blitz.
Richard Eyre’s Tumbledown, although a made for TV movie, was central to the issues over the Falklands conflict. Welcome to Sarajevo.
Michael Winterbottom’s adaptation of journalist Michael Henderson’s experiences in the former Yugoslavia brought home the true cost of a terrible series of circumstances.
Can we also add in The English Patient, Enigma, Charlotte Gray, The Painist, Michael Collins, Rob Roy, Bravo Two Zero.
Rather than “we don’t make em like we used to”, I think part of the issue is we actually DO make em EXACTLY why we used to which may be part of the problem. Keep up the good work.
Zulu may have had American money, but it was Stanley Bakers baby (didn’t his production company make it? I know he personally changed the script quite a bit to emphasise the Welshness). Didn’t his company make The Italian Job too?
Goes to show, it isn’t about waiting for Hollywood to do it, it’s about getting off your arse and doing it yourself. (starting to sound like a Tory now, stop me!)
Simon Dyda – rubbish! Braveheart was filmed in Ireland because there is always a good amount of available extras who can ride horseback. Save costs. Most of the English on horseback in the film were in fact Irishmen!
Duncan, we do not get great film’s portraying Britains glorious past any more because of one thing – political correctness.
Everybody will probably remember Tarzan on TV whilst a child, not the motion picture version but a serial. We do not see it now because of one thing – political correctness.
Simon Dyda – rubbish! Braveheart was filmed in Ireland because there is always a good amount of available extras who can ride horseback. Save costs. Most of the English on horseback in the film were in fact Irishmen!
Not at all. I have that from those who were involved. Filmakers, just like musicians or novelists or any other artist in the Republic get major taxbreaks on their work. Which means making a sizeably larger profit than they would in the UK.
I’m sure the horse riders came in handy though,
My fiancé’s great great grandfather was Pvt. Robert Jones, a Welsh recipient of the Victoria Cross for his role inside the hospital at Rorke’s Drift. (He is portrayed by the actor Denys Graham in Cy Endfield’s ‘Zulu.’) It was Robert Jones, not Henry Hook (as portrayed in the film), who rescued Sgt Maxwell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jones_(VC)
@MichaelJones makes the point very clearly that historical inaccuracies really matter….
David Llewellyn writes:
“Why are there not more “British” oriented war movies? I would suggest that there is little international market for them, unless specifically produced within Britain for a domestic UK audience. This is in part because of the population of the US, which dominates the film industry.”
The uprising at Qala-i-Jangi, one of the bloodiest and most protracted engagements of the war in Afghanistan, would make a great British war movie… and it would cater to an American audience. The Special Boat Service, along with U.S. Special Forces, fought for eight grueling days against well-armed Taliban prisoners on the verge of breaking out from the Qala-i-Jangi fortress. Incredibly, you can watch footage of the SBS using GPMG’s to beat back attempts by the prisoners to overrun the Northern Alliance’s positions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm0gBx1NAko
The uprising was sparked when CIA personnel threatened to kill prisoners while they were interrogating them.
An interesting post! What was the last blockbusting British war movie? I think it was perhaps A Bridge to Far? I would not expect Hollywood to make a film about British battles (except the ones that we lost). The war according to Steven Spielberg was won by the Screaming Eagles in Europe and the good old USMC in the Pacific. I find it quite sad that the Bicentenary of Trafalgar went past without nothing not even a TV show (Sharpe etc). It could be that it is not quite PC to make them. Perhaps this could be something that “ValleyWood” could work on.
Al has a good idea about Owain Glyndwr. Personally I believe that the second coming will happen before Owain becomes a subject for Hollywood.
So why not make a people’s movie about the great man? This could be done – something that the college at Newport could work on. If we are celebrate our own heroes in film, then we might as well do it ourselves.
Meanwhile I found this interesting dispatch about an engagement which involved the Royal Welsh Fusileers and the US Marines during the Boxer rebellion.
“TIENTSIN, CHINA, July 10, 1900.
SIR: I have the honor to report that there will be an attack made on the east and north of Tientsin City (Chinese) to-morrow morning. The expedition starts at 1 o’clock a.m. I have command of the marines and will parade with and direct the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, occupying the head of the column and the right of the firing line.
These dispositions may, of course, be changed by the arrival of Colonel Meade with the rest of the battalion.
I have arranged to relieve the Centurion men and marines in charge of the railroad station to-morrow. This place is a very hot corner, and I shall use only the men I now have, as they are thoroughly accustomed to the shelling and “sniping.”
My report of yesterday was sent to the second in command, as I was not aware of the arrival of the commander in chief.
I take the liberty of sending you the copies of two letters received by me concerning the part taken by my men in yesterday’s fight. I hope, sir, that these men may be mentioned to our Government. They have done magnificent work since the 20th of June. To-day there is not a man on the sick list except the wounded. Yesterday their fire discipline was the admiration of all nations, and their admirable fire directed against the enemy kept down the Chinese rifleman so that all the trains, artillery and baggage, were permitted to pass over an exposed bridge without one casualty.
If the shelling from the Chinese guns continues as bad as yesterday I shall be obliged to move my men. My barracks have been hit three times, and the compounds on either side are plowed up with shells. The quarters I have reserved for the Ninth Infantry are out of the line of fire.
We expect to have the four 4-inch guns from the Terrible in position to-day. These guns use the lydite shells.
Very respectfully,”
Micheal Jones re: Qala-i-Jangi Uprising
-Yes, I agree. This would appeal to both the US and UK markets, and others as well. I would enjoy seeing this.
I have myself been looking through YouTube for footage of the Welsh Guards and other Welsh military units. Gotta love YouTube!
This weekend’s Observer has a piece on the making of a Lord of the Rings prequel ‘Born of Hope’ with a 70 minute running time at a bargain price of £25,000 – lots of amatuers helping out and an internet based fundraising campaign. Money isn’t everything – although I am not vouching for the quality.
I love the idea of a film of the Merthyr Rising – one of the (several) great moments in Merthyr history. Who’s up for a whip round?
“This weekend’s Observer has a piece on the making of a Lord of the Rings prequel ‘Born of Hope’ with a 70 minute running time at a bargain price of £25,000 – lots of amatuers helping out and an internet based fundraising campaign. Money isn’t everything – although I am not vouching for the quality.
“I love the idea of a film of the Merthyr Rising – one of the (several) great moments in Merthyr history. Who’s up for a whip round?”
Which was the point I was making. Just matter of someone coordinating it. It can be done. But as my dear old Mam says: “You just have to take your ae in hand and get on with it”. With right people and some help from that media school in Newport it could be done.
Just think of it an epic launched here on Wales Home.org! If Ross Perot could do it on Larry King Live when he launched his presidential career…
We may not have a functioning Valleywood, but the one thing we DO have is a close-knit creative community. Everyone knows someone who will know a cameraman, an animator, a makeup artist, a scriptwriter, an actor. Making something wouldn’t be a problem, but it needs backing – not necessarily monetary backing though.
Get Tony Hopkins over here, announce he wants to make a movie about the Merthyr Rising and needs volunteers to help him make it. Watch it get made quick-smart, for very little budget. And just because it’s made on location with a load of unemployed Dowlais people, doesn’t mean it can’t be commercially viable or *shock* a GOOD movie.
(and if anyone reading this from the entertainment industry wants to help make the Glyndwr movie happen, get in touch with Gaz over on this Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=63101744523
Poor bloke has worked really hard, but Hollywood keeps turning it down. Time to DIY)
“and if anyone reading this from the entertainment industry wants to help make the Glyndwr movie happen, get in touch with Gaz over on this Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=63101744523
Poor bloke has worked really hard, but Hollywood keeps turning it down. Time to DIY)”
The question is why has Hollywood turned it down. One of the best movies of the 1990s was “Gettysburg” which was a reenactors dream was not made by Hollywood. either he is not really serious, or he just barking up the wrong tree!