# Hollywood Distorting History?



## Foxbat

An interesting article here:

LONDON (Reuters) - Hollywood film studios are guilty of a "grotesque distortion of history" which is destroying Britain's national identity, a newspaper has quoted historians as saying.

The chief executive of English Heritage, the government body responsible for the historic environment, told the Independent on Sunday film-makers' "sloppy" and "formulaic" approach to history had left a generation of children confused.

"One of my principal concerns is that the majority of children now leave school with the sketchiest of chronology about English history," Simon Thurley said, adding that they turned to films for knowledge.

Antony Beevor, the country's best-selling author of popular history, told the newspaper the Americanisation of British history was a particular problem.

"You can't turn every hero in the world into an American," he said.

The historians singled out "Saving Private Ryan", based on the Normandy World War Two landings, "U-571" about submariners, and "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" as prime offenders.

In "Saving Private Ryan" all mention of British or Allied troops was omitted, while the British submariners at the heart of the real action were replaced by Americans in the film "U-571".

"Robin Hood" was accused of distorting of Britain's medieval past.

Beevor described the trend as "shameless and totally irresponsible -- a grotesque distortion of history".

Classical historian Bettany Hughes said it was not just British history that had been misrepresented.

"Hollywood has committed some terrible crimes against history," she said, describing the Hollywood epic "Troy" as a "travesty of mismatched cultural references".

"Dead heroes in Greco-Roman dress were cremated with coins on their eyes -- before money had been invented," she said.



Whilst I agree with some of it, I don't find the omission of British and Commonwealth troops in Saving Private Particularly offensive. After all, it was made by an American from an American point of view.

Is the Americanisation of other cultures now distorting our view of the past? How much of a mix should there be in films between entertainment and factual accuracy?

My own opinion is that (apart from the odd film - U571  ) it's not too bad at the moment but shouldn't be allowed to get any worse.

If we are not careful, we will create a bunch of Ersatz Hollywood heroes that will become indistinguishible from the real thing.

Here's an interesting point: The Battle Of Stirling as portrayed in Braveheart (a not exactly accurate film itself - best description - a Porridge Western) was nothing like as imaginative as the real thing.  Wallace cut away at Stirling Bridge during the night, waited for the English cavalry to charge across in the morning and then pulled away the remaining supports - trapping the cavalry in the marsh on the Scots side. They were subsequently slaughtered. I think this would have made a far better set-piece on the Silver Screen. 

Perhaps history has something to teach Hollywood after all


----------



## Brian G Turner

Unfortunately, the Hollywoodising of history has been a constant theme - Gladiator butchered the actual history of Commodus in the 1990's - but so did "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" in the 1960's.

 I have no idea why they do it. Whilst there is always room to "jazz-up" history for the silver screen, as indicated, the real set pieces are often over-looked, even though they could have more impact on an audience.

 At the end of the day, it seems to be a lack of appreciation for history - and a lack of imagination as to how to use it. 

 It'll be interesting to see how the Alexander film turns out...


----------



## littlemissattitude

I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone looking for historical - or any other kind of - accuracy from Hollywood is barking up the wrong tree.  The film industry has been getting it wrong ever since there's been a film industry.  But, the reality is that Hollywood makes an easy, and therefore a popular, target.

The thing is, making a film based on historical events is a tricky thing.  History doesn't really have a plot, so for any event or set of events that becomes the subject of a film, a plot has to be imposed on it.  That brings distortion right there.  Also, the events being depicted took longer to occur, in most cases, than the two or three hours available to the filmmaker to tell the story (unless that filmmaker is trying to be Andy Warhol, in which case he or she won't have much of an audience, as the film would be hours or days long).  That makes even more distortion inevitable, because events have to be compressed in order to tell a coherent story.

I think Hollywood (and I'll use the term, although it is my opinion that filmmakers from other places don't do that much better a job at combining accuracy and interest) could do a better job at recreating history.  They could hire historical consultants who know their history.  They could depend on screenwriters who really know something about the period of history they're writing about.  They could try caring about something more than box office receipts (as if that's ever going to happen ).

I also think that the educators who have a concern that people, especially young people, are turning too much to films for their concept of history could actually turn those films to their advantage by using them as teaching tools.  Show the films in classes where appropriate, then point out where the films are less than accurate and use that as a jumping-off point to explain what actually happened in history.  Of course, that would take some effort on the part of the teachers...well, I won't go there, because there are good teachers, but also a lot of lazy teachers (goodness knows I've had some of the latter).

I guess I don't have much sympathy for those who complain about historically innacurate films but don't attempt to get more accurate films made and don't attempt to use the films they criticize as teaching moments.  Like they kept saying in the sixties, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."  Just criticizing and complaining isn't being part of the solution, IMO.


----------



## cleasterwood

Honestly, it's not Hollywood but the writers who aren't doing their homework good enough to get history right.  I notice a lot of things in movies that just tick me off because of how erroneous it is.  For instance: The Mummy- Imhotep was the architect of the Great Pyramid, never was he a part of Seti I personal circle.  Anksunamun was King Tut's wife/sister, and even their Egyptian was fake!  So they do it to everyone.  Personally for me I think that if you're going to do a movie, even a fictional story, you need to get some things right or at least be original about doing it.  It's all in the script writing.  I prefer to use some historical accuracies while I ignore others but I have to say if I ever had one of my stories made into a movie, I'd probably be the one wanting to write the script so they don't screw up the story like some of the books I've seen them turn into movies, which are just so badly chopped up it makes me sick.


----------



## Circus Cranium

I agree with Ivy that the historical thing is a tough call as far as films go, because there are some fluctuations in the actualy historical facts. Take King Arthur for instance, the new film; so many people were complaining about the accuracy. But nobody really knows if Arthur even EXISTED. He is a legend, a myth. It's like trying to do an accurate interpretation of folklore passed down orally from generations. 

On the flip side, good GOD, I agree, some film companies bastardize so much content when trying to make films about anything remotely 'real'. This isn't confined to historical films. I've seen movies about certain concepts or ideas that I've researched personally for one reason or another, and I cringe at the way they breeze over and simplify, or just plain get the details wrong. It makes me crazy that nobody bothered to do any real research; it's like a cookie cutter, assembly line, where all that matters is how much crap you blow up. 

But different film companies treat things differently; so I guess blaming 'Hollywood' is a bit like blaming Barnes & Noble for getting a bad book. 

I did see an hysterical episode of Saturday Night Live once, where they did a skit showing a man with long dark hair flowing to his waist, with a powdered wig just sitting on top of his head; wearing colonial garb and snorting lines of cocaine. Then the 'announcer' comes in: "NEW, FROM OLIVER STONE....WASHINGTON! STARRING ANTONIO BANDERAS."

I think that said it all.


----------



## Brian G Turner

cleasterwood said:
			
		

> For instance: The Mummy- Imhotep was the architect of the Great Pyramid



I thought Imhotep was the architect of the step-pyramid at Saqqara?


----------



## Lacedaemonian

'Americans have no respect for other peoples cultures or histories' (This is not really a quote.)

I do not expect an American to comprehend how upsetting it is to see your history screwed so badly. Perhaps if we started making films about their history, and really distorting it. Perhaps if we made Vietnam films from the Vietnamese perspective, made Cold War films where the Yanks were the baddies, made films where the baddies were christian fundamentalist terrorists.... The film industry is not a source for accurate history, but does it have to be so inaccurate. I hope that I live to see China rise to become the ultimate superpower. We might have a Chinese Sir Walter Raleigh committing piracy against Japanese ships in the Yellow sea.


----------



## Space Monkey

I personally don't see what the fuss is about. How can someone making an inaccurate film be described as 'upsetting'?

If people take Hollywood to mean factual then they need a slap up the side of the head. It's entertainment, that's all. If you want factual, it's all right there in books.
On the original subject of kids being more exposed to films than other forms of 'tuition', again, the kids should be told that this is theatre.
Besides - any kid old enough to be watching BraveHeart and Troy should be old enough to distinguish.


----------



## Circus Cranium

(I do not expect an American to comprehend how upsetting it is to see your history screwed so badly. Perhaps if we started making films about their history, and really distorting it.)

To quote the late Ronald Reagan, "There you go again."  Taking something like bad film making, which is the fault of the individual screen writer, producer, director, ( and I admit there's some crap being made), and then generalizing it to make it about all Americans? 'You don't expect AN American to comprehend someone getting your history wrong'? Well, ironically, it's a tad disconcerting when someone gets your entire culture wrong by using misguided prejudice.


----------



## polymorphikos

The Mummy was a good movie (as opposed to the sequel). It was wildly-inaccurate, but never purported accuracy. Provided that they don't go about proclaiming themselves as gospel, I have no problem (and I'm an annoying pedant).

However, when a film takes an actual event, or a well-known story, and guts it, I am irked. This is why I railed against Troy. Actually, if Troy had been any good as a film on its own merits I probably would have enjoyed it despite the inaccuracies. However, glossing and the like of actual events are not good things. Gladiator was also a good movie, even if it was laughable at points. King Arthur just pissed me off. Over a thousand years of legend in a reasonably-codefied form tossed out the window.


----------



## Space Monkey

polymorphikos said:
			
		

> King Arthur just pissed me off. Over a thousand years of legend in a reasonably-codefied form tossed out the window.


 
So every interpretation of the legend has to comply with the codeified form?
I thought this film was brilliant, a very good and way more acceptable interpretation of Arthur's story than the likes of Excalibur and the romance type portrayals. I always loved the Arthurian legends, and thought this was a total breath of fresh air.

Bottom line, which has been stated already - it's art, and down to the interpretation and telling of the writer. 
I'm always up for tossing form out of the window in favour of originality, any day of the week.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

When it comes to poltics, culture and history America has no leg with which to stand on.  A bad film is a bad film.  To rewrite history especially to glorify ones selves in the place of those deserving of legend, is a crime against memory.  I apologise for generalising, however it really is not your place to decide what it is that we Europeans get upset about.  The fact that you have no comprehension of why we get upset automatically places you into my original generalisation.  Europeans value their history, our societies and cultures were shaped over thousands of years.  In many instances our personality is shaped by this history.  This constant stream of slights is sometimes little near the knuckle.  My prejudice is born out of a thousand years of history.   

U571 - The true hero of this event was a man who lived in my neck of the woods.  He volunteered to enter the hatch of the submarine first.  The movie starred Jon Bon Jovi.  Surely the devil is at work here.


----------



## polymorphikos

And so we see why Britain should make more war movies. Nobody was making any about us, so we made Gallipoli and The Light Brigade.

Ah, the golden years when Australia had a film industry.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

I rate Bad Boy Bubby as being one of my favourite films.


----------



## Alexa

Space Monkey said:
			
		

> If people take Hollywood to mean factual then they need a slap up the side of the head. It's entertainment, that's all. If you want factual, it's all right there in books.


 
I completely agree with the slap. I have a girl at work who really believes all she can see into a movie is right and true. Shesusually drives me crazy, so I do my best to avoid her.

If you want to know about history, you have th find out about it from the history books and not from a Hollywood film. 

I cannot blame Hollywood for the distorsion of history. A movie has the main role to entertain and relax. I had to admit a lot of Hollywood movies had this effect on me.


----------



## Circus Cranium

(I apologise for generalising, however it really is not your place to decide what it is that we Europeans get upset about.)

I see. And I suppose you speak for all Europeans. Interesting. Not only are you generalizing about one entire nation that it's clear you know nothing about, you're generalizing about your own as well. I'm married to a European, and I've been to Europe many times for prolonged periods. And as with most educated Americans, I am interested in what goes on in the world outside my little microcosm. Which is why I suspect, American film makers take on these endeavors to begin with. They are broad spectrum, and adventurous, rather than narrow minded.


----------



## Space Monkey

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> When it comes to poltics, culture and history America has no leg with which to stand on. A bad film is a bad film. To rewrite history especially to glorify ones selves in the place of those deserving of legend, is a crime against memory. I apologise for generalising, however it really is not your place to decide what it is that we Europeans get upset about. The fact that you have no comprehension of why we get upset automatically places you into my original generalisation. Europeans value their history, our societies and cultures were shaped over thousands of years. In many instances our personality is shaped by this history. This constant stream of slights is sometimes little near the knuckle. My prejudice is born out of a thousand years of history.


 
To start with... You apologise for generalising, yet continue to do this throughout your reply. WE Europeans. AMERICA has no leg to stand on. WE EUROPEANS (again). YOU have no comprehension of why WE get upset. Europeans value OUR history...
I could go on all night, but please don't speak for all Europeans. I didn't vote for you as a diplomat, and I am very much a EUROPEAN, and have my own mind which evidently differs from yours on this.

Singular Hollywood interpretation doesn't represent America. Singular European opinion doesn't represent Europe. Hollywood films don't represent history as ultimate truth. Take a breath and think about this.
FILM COMPANIES ARE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS. THEY AREN'T HISTORICAL DIPLOMATS.
Like you aren't a Euro dip.
See?


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy

Mhm. If people think they can learn history from blockbuster films, they deserve to be misinformed. 

Personally, I think there's a sad loss in our ability to distinguish fact and fiction. And yes, it is worth blaming it on 'entertainers' who twist facts around to make a story that hits the plot points their marketing folks say will appeal the the Mass AUdience. It isn't confined to film either - check out that farrago of crank scholarship and plain bad research, The Da Vinci Code.


----------



## polymorphikos

To most of the people above - keep your politics out of my corporation-bashing.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

I think the problem stems from the fact that Hollywood film companies often want to tell an interesting story and that there's a few interesting real life stories out there to be told!

If a nasty thing like the truth gets involved, hey - let's call it "based on" 
Regarding U571, didn't they have a disclaimer at the beginning saying that it was the Royal Navy frigate Bulldog who actually captured it? I mean that *does* beg the question why change it, but most Hollywood films live or die on their performance at the box office in the states - if they are a hit abroad so much the better.

I prefer to think (in my naive way) that if a historical movie is good, even if fatally flawed (i.e. Gladiator) then it encourages people to delve more into that era in a thirst for knowledge!

On another note - yes corporation's bad! Grrr Bill Gates!!


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Yeah and I will continue to generalise. I haven't got the time to discuss all 260 million Americans different positions on this issue. You voted George Bush twice.... 

I speak for all Europeans who are upset by this issue.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

*And as with most educated Americans, I am interested in what goes on in the world outside my little microcosm. Which is why I suspect, American film makers take on these endeavors to begin with. They are broad spectrum, and adventurous, rather than narrow minded.*

Very naive.


----------



## Circus Cranium

You think that's naive? Interesting. Because the basic flaw in your entire logic is this. You're complaining about 'Americans' distorting European history---not individual film companies. Sweetheart, majority of Americans are a mere 2 generations down from European ancestry. So there's a reason they're interested in it. It's their own history.


----------



## Leto

Since when movie industry is about facts ? 
It's about 1- propaganda (remember the cold war sci-fi movies ?) or/and 2- money. Researching to get the facts straight is too money-consuming, better invest in the CGI to attracts audience in full suspension of disbelief.

However, AJ, I'm not sure that much the American (or European for what it worth) spectators targeted by this industry are really interested by history (even their own). They want to see cool costumes, scantly dressed guys and gals, and action. That's all.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy

This really is annoying. Are you making some claim for the innate superiority of Europeans Peter? The token postcolonial begs to differ. Europe is just too old and tired to carry on doing what The US is - the torch has just been passed on. You've had your share of scary, disastrous leaders in Europe - Hitler, Mussolini...I could go on. Nuff sed. It's a totally pointless direction of argument. 

Strange as it may seem, the USA is not the root of evils.


----------



## polymorphikos

[whisper] I think he's trying to piss us off needlessly [/whisper]


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy

Who, Peter? Whatever gave you that idea!


----------



## Circus Cranium

(However, AJ, I'm not sure that much the American (or European for what it worth) spectators targeted by this industry are really interested by history (even their own). They want to see cool costumes, scantly dressed guys and gals, and action. That's all.)

You forgot priority one---blowing stuff up. Gotta have the explosions!


----------



## Leto

Circus Cranium said:
			
		

> (However, AJ, I'm not sure that much the American (or European for what it worth) spectators targeted by this industry are really interested by history (even their own). They want to see cool costumes, scantly dressed guys and gals, and action. That's all.)
> 
> You forgot priority one---blowing stuff up. Gotta have the explosions!



To sum-up : BOOM, BOOM, SHAKHA BOOM. Good plot, good scritp   Loads of banknotes.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

If you didn't buy it they wouldn't make it.  

Two generations??  Your mathematics is a touch out.   

I can't wait for the Chinese to start screwing your history.  It will break my heart.


----------



## Circus Cranium

Nah, my math's just fine.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Most immigrants arrived between 1820 and 1920.


----------



## Circus Cranium

Yeah, that was my point there, Slick. A generation is a life time, give or take. The flux of immigration from Europe has happened throughout the past 175 years. 


1830 -1890 was primarily Irish and British. 1890-1924 was Italians, Russian Jews, Greeks, Slavs, etc. Hence, most Americans walking and breathing at this moment have either grandparents or great grandparents that trucked their butts over from Europe.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Depends how you do the maths Chet.


----------



## WorldRuler

Foxbat said:
			
		

> Hollywood film studios are guilty of a "grotesque distortion of history"


 Umm... duh.  Watch Troy.  Read the Illiad.  Compare, contrast.  Realize the screen writer was either on pot or crack whil righting.  Meditate.  Write angry flame mail to Hollywood.  Rage.  Sleep.  Rinse and repeat with new movie.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

He is German.


----------



## Foxbat

Disclaimer time. Worldruler - you posted what looks like a quotation from myself but is, in fact, a quotation of a quotation. 
Not my words


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Top notch journalism.


----------



## cleasterwood

I-Brian,
Oops, brainfart on my part! Yes, you're right about Imhotep my mind wasn't functioning properly the other day. Heymenu was the GP's architect.  

Circus Cranium,
"But notbody really knows if Arthur ever existed." Well, they didn't think Troy existed either until they found the city! All mythology has some truth to it somewhere, we've simply forgotten where. 

Lacedaemonian,
First off, I guess you forgot America was settled by by Europeans in the first place! Therefore it's our legends too! I understand where you're coming from in a sense BUT I also think it's an unfair tunnelvision view of Americans you have. Not all of US distort history, some of us go painstakingly out of our way to get it right! Film makers are out to entertain, nothing more and I'm willing to bet that Europeans also distort their history in movies just for the entertainment factor. I'm of mixed decent, like a lot of Americans, so you're generalizations are not only wrong, but also demeaning and arrogant. Try to be more compassionate about others. That seems to be the problem these days; a lack of understanding and open-mindedness leads down the path of ignorance.


----------



## Foxbat

I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with adjusting the history slightly to suit the event – after all, we watch films to be entertained. But there has to be a line between ‘artistic licence’ and downright dishonesty. 


Here’s an example:
There was a family very upset by the portrayal of one of their ancestors aboard the Titanic. The portrayal was entirely fictitious and completely unfounded – and yet caused a great deal of emotional damage to the family. U571 has done the very same thing by angering many people with its entirely false representing of the facts. 


*Sad but True* – some people actually believe what they see on the screen/TV – that’s why soap villains get such a hard time when they go shopping  

Is it too much to ask that a film based on historical events actually has some kind of similarity with those events? 

And, yes, I’m sure the Europeans are just as bad as everybody else. We talk of ‘Hollywood’ because it’s the industry behemoth. When I talk of Hollywood, I mean the whole industry and not just California


----------



## Lacedaemonian

I blame Americans in the broadest, most general sense of the word 'Americans'.  

I do not consider Americans to have any connection with Europe - they have been indocrinated too much by TV and cinema as part of their assimilation into being 'American'.   Don't get me wrong, most of the differences between Americans and Europeans are positive.  Americans generally have a better outlook on life.  

U571 was a disgrace.


----------



## Space Monkey

> I blame Americans in the broadest, most general sense of the word 'Americans'.


What does this even mean? 



> I do not consider Americans to have any connection with Europe - they have been indocrinated too much by TV and cinema as part of their assimilation into being 'American'. Don't get me wrong, most of the differences between Americans and Europeans are positive. Americans generally have a better outlook on life.


 
In one breath you're accepting and claiming the grandeur of European history to be *your own*, (as though you've ever contributed to any of its accomplishments and are somehow more connected to it/entitled to it than anyone else) and then in the next breath you're stating that Americans are seperate from *their own* heritage.

It's either one or the other, Einstein. 
What connection do you have with the European eras of this discussion?
HERITAGE, dumbass, nothing more than good ole cousin Joe from Idaho.

Face it, bigot, you don't have a ornate, England's best Chesterfield carved wooden leg to stand on.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

It is my heritage. My society, culture and upbringing is shaped heavily by the achievements of my countrys past. You enjoy eating your potato stew, whilst watching Jeffrey Boycott beat up his wife on ITN news.   

My personal connection with this heritage... I am the direct descendent of this bloke: *http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAstephensonG.htm* My family grew up on the huge tract of land that he had bought in the 1800's. 

Please refrain from name calling, we Europeans are above that.


----------



## Space Monkey

If you weren't so busy kissing the mirror, you'd acknowledge that I said earlier in this thread I'M European too.  From Yorkshire, England to be precise.  My president is Tony Blair.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

So what's your problem?   

And Yorkshire really shouldn't be part of England. Your president is Queen Elizabeth II is by the way.

Sorry for the geographical slur...


----------



## Circus Cranium

I suspect his 'problem' is that he doesn't want to be represented by racists.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Ah the race card....  

You are playing a very dangerous card accusing me of racism. Sadly this seems to be a trend in America, and indeed is becoming more of a trend in England. I don't blame you Circus, you are a victim of your countrys media.


----------



## Circus Cranium

Actually, you know what? I believe perhaps YOU are a victim of my country's media. I've been to Europe, and I've seen how America is represented, and I've spoken with many locals who think that we are all the cast of 'Friends', or running through the street with guns, popping caps in asses. 

Definition of Racism: The notion that ones own ethnic stock is superior. 

(Websters New Riverside University Dictionary.)


----------



## Lacedaemonian

I have never once said anything to suggest that my ethnic stock is superior to any other nation on earth (well excluding Wales and North Yorkshire).  You accused me of racism without any evidential fact to suggest that I am.  To be proud of ones heritage does not equate to being racist.  In my opinion there are far superior nations/people than my own.  Of all the Americans that I have met in the flesh, I have disliked perhaps two of them.  The rest have all been warm, friendly and generous people.  I probably am a victim of my medias view on America.  However, like most people around the world, I think of America as this golden place across the Atlantic Ocean.  

The fact that you felt the need to supply a definition of the term racism is hillarious.  There is nothing to fear here, so what are you scared of?


----------



## Circus Cranium

I'm not scared of a thing, sweets. You generalized about an entire nation of people. I'll admit that perhaps racism wasn't the right word. But when you do generalize about an entire faction of people, it's being a bigot. Racism, sexism, globalism, hating gays, whatever. If there was an entire planet of purple people, and all but one of them were cruel, rotten bastards, then you couldn't say 'Those purple people are bastards!'

It's not the specifics of who you were discussing. I don't understand how you can't see why people found your comments offensive.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Oh I can see why my comments were found offensive.  However, my comments were never meant to offend at a personal level - nor were they aimed at the individual American.  People always hate the generalisation - we all do it though.  Is it more offensive to be included in a vague general swipe at your country/continent or to be branded a racist, a bigot, a dumbass, Einstein (with negative connotations implied) and various other personal levelled insults?  

You lost this argument the moment that you thought I cared...


----------



## Circus Cranium

lol I think it was always clear you didn't care. You need not worry about that.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

What if I told you I was a card carrying BNP member?


----------



## aurelio

You know, the dumbest thing about this whole thread to me is the bizarre expectatation that a piece of vapid entertainment is supposed to be accurate.  BBC News isn't even accurate.  Are we all from the same planet?  Hollywood makes movies.  With actors.  On sets.  Hello!!!  It's fake.

Also, I did an awful lot of research on genetics for my book, EVE, and the plain fact is nobody is "different" anywhere on the friggin' planet.  Genetically speaking, race is hogwash!  It is a bogus concept invented by people to separate people.

And now that all the "races" are mixed up virtually everywhere, people like you, Lace, are trying to re-separate people with "culture" or "religion" or you name it.  That is complete hogwash too.

The question you should ask yourself is why you feel more comfortable thinking that people elsewhere are intrinsically not like you? (Although there are probably several people in this thread that feel they are not like you for different reasons.)    

To quote Pogo, "We have found the enemy, and he is us."  Pogo is wise.  You should listen.


----------



## Foxbat

Ok Aurelio. If I've started such a dumb thread, you should have no problem answering this hypothetical question.

Let's say that somebody decides to make a biopic about you but decides to write a script where your book was not actually written by you but by somebody else - and you just grabbed the credit for it. How would you feel about that? 

Hollywood distorting history is easy to shrug off, unless you are the victim of such distortions.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Ah my haggis loving friend, you're so cool!


----------



## aurelio

First, I'm sorry for insulting your thread as I did Foxbat, and hope you will accept my apology.  I typed in haste and out of frustration, and didn't express myself clearly.  The article you referenced is a reasonable conversation starter, and I truly didn't mean you were stupid to post it.  I only meant that I thought the expectation the article points out is dumb; that these films are or should be an attempt to depict accurate histories.

And the answer to you question to me is fairly straightforward.  If a movie defames some individual, like me, or even an organization, etc. they can sue for defamation of character.  If your example came to pass, I would weigh how much it was worth to me to fight the slander (for example, does anyone take what the movie says seriously) and if I felt it necessary, I'd sue them.

But The article talks of movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves." (I never saw U571 and have no idea what it is even about.) How can anyone look at stuff like that as "history" or a depiction of anything "real" in any way, shape or form???

That some people think it is real history is odd, and sad, but there are also people who believe in space aliens, leprechauns, and The Force.  Is it the movies, books or stories that create these fantasies that are responsible for people reading more reality into them than was intended, or those shallow-thinking people themselves who are responsible?

Even if one goes so far as to say that a film is deliberately misleading, or actual propaganda, in the end it is still the individual viewer's responsibility to process it.


----------



## Space Monkey

> Hollywood distorting history is easy to shrug off, unless you are the victim of such distortions.


Who on this board is a victim of such distortions?
None of us.
The victims may be figures from our history, but the point is, history is *everybody's* history, including the people making the films.

However, this isn't the point any more.

Point is, what started as a reasonable topic for debate turned into a racial question of which *country* was to blame for errors in movies, because of generalising comments - which aren't acceptable. Tarring an entire nation of people with one brush IS offensive and wrong, however you look at it.



> People always hate the generalisation - we all do it though. Is it more offensive to be included in a vague general swipe at your country/continent or to be branded a racist, a bigot, a dumbass, Einstein (with negative connotations implied) and various other personal levelled insults?


Thing is, Lace, *my* comments were instigated by *my* reaction to *your* comments.
Generalization insults multitudes of people who have done nothing to warrant it or have no part in the 'crime' of which they're being accused.

The *principle* of saying 'Americans are (whatever) and deserve to have their history screwed up' is the same as saying that every Jew is scum by default and deserves to be gassed.

Before you jump on this, remember that I said Principle.


----------



## Circus Cranium

(Hollywood distorting history is easy to shrug off, unless you are the victim of such distortions.)

Unless???   I assure you Foxbat, Hollywood shares the love. The distortion does not corner the market on any one country, or exclude any one country, especially its own. Ever seen a civil war film? It even goes beyond the history thing; when it uses a setting in a state that's all wrong, dialect etc. Ever heard Dianne Lane try to do a Boston accent? yeeeesh. Now THAT made me cringe. 
__________________


----------



## Circus Cranium

(but there are also people who believe in space aliens, leprechauns, and The Force)

Yeah? And you got a problem with that?


----------



## aurelio

On Chronicles???  I daren't.


----------



## Foxbat

To Aurelio: No problem. We all type in haste now and then (I am one of the worst offenders) 



> The victims may be figures from our history, but the point is, history is *everybody's* history, including the people making the films



Aurelio made the correct point of defamation or libel being one recourse, but this does not apply to the dead.  The only defence their memories have is the integrity of the living. I cite once again as an example, the scottish family so greatly upset bythe portrayal of one of their ancestors in Titanic and I make no apology for that.

To Circus Cranium: Yes. You are quite correct. Hollywood (or one country) does not corner the market on this point and I am guilty of generalising.  



> However, this isn't the point any more


 
I am also guilty of trying to keep this thread on topic


----------



## Space Monkey

> I am also guilty of trying to keep this thread on topic


Granted, I apologize for pursuing it so far away from the original question.


----------



## Circus Cranium

(Yes. You are quite correct. Hollywood (or one country) does not corner the market on this point and I am guilty of generalising.)

Sure, but even the other way around, I was trying to say that Hollywood has no qualms about bashing its own history along with the rest. lol


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

I thing I'll say in "Hollywood's" defense.
It's made some pretty damn fine movies in the past and you can't judge a barrel by a few bad apples! 

I love cliches!


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Space Monkey said:
			
		

> Who on this board is a victim of such distortions?
> None of us.
> The victims may be figures from our history, but the point is, history is *everybody's* history, including the people making the films.
> 
> However, this isn't the point any more.
> 
> Point is, what started as a reasonable topic for debate turned into a racial question of which *country* was to blame for errors in movies, because of generalising comments - which aren't acceptable. Tarring an entire nation of people with one brush IS offensive and wrong, however you look at it.
> 
> 
> Thing is, Lace, *my* comments were instigated by *my* reaction to *your* comments.
> Generalization insults multitudes of people who have done nothing to warrant it or have no part in the 'crime' of which they're being accused.
> 
> The *principle* of saying 'Americans are (whatever) and deserve to have their history screwed up' is the same as saying that every Jew is scum by default and deserves to be gassed.
> 
> Before you jump on this, remember that I said Principle.


 
You're words are so empty.  It is virtually impossible to racially slur America.  In fact it is impossible.  I would say that the use of generalisation shows  slight ignorance on my part, but not bigotry and certainly not racism.  Why you feel so passionate about this issue is beyond me, as you are from Yorkshire.  I think the fact that I openly admitted generalisation from the off, was enough to ensure that no offense was intended.  Space Monkey, you may want to drag this argument out but I most certainly do not.  

It is impossible to discuss global political issues without generalising to some decree.  I was merely a little flippant about my use.  You are loathesome.  Your use of the anti semite card right at the last was disgusting.  Jump on this???  You said Principle.  However, if I said that somebody had a face like a box of frogs, but then asked them to take no offense - would this somehow reduce the malice of my first statement?  

I forgive you as I suspect you are child.  Stick in at school and keep your head down.


----------



## Leto

*off-topic rant*
Racist ? Maybe not. Stupidly provoking other people and letting degenerate an otherwise interesting thread ? Definitly yes. Boring troll attitude ? yes again.
*end of off-topic rant*

Can we go back to movie industry now ?


----------



## Circus Cranium

You're right Leto, let it move on. Normally I let everything slide, I just have a pet peeve about boistrous, blatant ignorance. But hell, it's all around us, right? Can't fight em all. 


Carry on.


----------



## Hypes

People in glass houses...


----------



## polymorphikos

Can we all remember that the point of this thread is (or was) that the film industry in general (as well as novelists and the like) have an unpleasant habit of taking either a genuine, well-documented historical fact that really did happen, or a story so engrained into our culture and interwoven with our history that it may aswell have happened, and warping them. History is only of use to us because it provides a solid reference upon which to judge humanity, much like one immense diary or psych profile. This said, it is important to realise that the warping of history is tantamount to lying about someone's past when they are still alive, well, and being snickered-at by people who have listened to the rumours.

Now obviously anyone with half a brain will know that these stories aren't true, that bits have been changed and that if they really want to know what went on they should do some independent research. From this perspective there is no problem with changing history in films. However, many people do not have half a brain, and whilst they will not necessarily take the film as gospel, they will walk away with a distinctly-wrong impression of events. This can lead to the people being made a fool of, or incorrect facts being woven into common knowledge. Anyone who thinks hard enough can name a few such false facts that they've grown up with about history or science or the like.

So, whilst films and books can edit history, they should tell people they're doing it. Perhaps simply changing 'based on' to 'adapted from' would be enough. Especially if they are editing history to push an ideology, which is something that has been done often in the name of political correctness.

Next, there is the fact that a certain respect is held for history, by many people if perhaps not everyone. Whilst it probably didn't hurt anyone that Troy was grossly-inaccurate in some respects, it was intensely-disrespectful towards something which is possessed of such staying-power that it has continued on across almost three thousand years of history. Now, modifications and cut-and-paste and taking elelments from one story to create a new one are all well and good, and some excellent bits of entertainment are produced that way, but when a film goes about proclaiming itself the true story behind the Illiad or the Arthurian legends it goes too far. Especially if this 'true story' is, in and of itself as a film, grossly inaccurate in relation to history itself. 

So basically, what I'm trying to say is that history and tales and such, unlike a lot of the aspects of our culture, should not be so readily mutable, and if you are going to warp them, it should be made clear that there has been a hefty some of warping done. At least in relation to toying-about with the culture pillars of countless civilisations. Because people, unfotunately, can be very, very stupid.


----------



## Foxbat

Good post Poly and I generally agree (without generalising) with points you make 

My final words on the subject (well...not mine but you know what I mean)
*He Who Controls The Past Controls* *The Future*


----------



## Lacedaemonian

I agree with Thomas absolutely.  

Most people are stupid - I am sure we all agree on this.


----------



## Space Monkey

Fair comments, Poly, although I don't personally have any kind of problem with the way film makers 'represent' history.
I'm off this thread after this post, because all has been said that needs to.

Lace, let me explain.
I don't think you're a racist. Nor do I think you have racist principles. This was grossly misinterpreted.
The principles I spoke of in this instance were in reference to the statement - i.e. being based on the same way of thinking. Me, you or Adolf all judging a nation/people as a whole and deciding about 'them' in one swipe.
It was a radical and extreme analogy.
I know that you didn't mean offense, and nor did I - I get hot-headed sometimes, and if the names caused you any discomfort, then I apologise for that, sincerely. Hands-up, I concede on that. I also acknowledge that you aren't Adolf - I certainly didn't mean it like that, and if you're unsure, then check again. It was the furthest thing from my mind.
But I won't apologise for the argument I presented.

Being from Yorkshire doesn't make any difference either; call me a liberal tree hugger if ya want, but I don't ever want to be on the offensive or defensive side in discussions of this nature.
I have Americans in my closest family.
I was born and raised in Barnsley.
I'd have been the same way if someone started on the Brits, or the Ethiopians or Kossovans, Geordies, Scousers etc. It's not about the 'team'.

I'll take the child thing as a compliment, however it was intended. I've examined my logic and know it is sound and very far from being empty. I don't pick fights for the hell of it, and I certainly don't jump into fights that I feel are unimportant.
I'm all done here.

Just one question for Hypes...
Who was in a glass house there? I didn't quite understand.
PM me if ya want, rather than re-instigate the riots.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

No problems Space Monkey.  I assume that Hypes was directing his post at several people on this thread.  I would like to think that he was targetting those people who were playing the race card, yourself, Circus, Leto, Aurelio and I suppose me.


----------



## Circus Cranium

I agree Poly. It can be cringeworthy for certain. That's reality, but even in unreality---just imagine how a novelist feels to see their created worlds bastardized on screen. And for whoever needs it, here's a swat. Now go play nice.


----------



## aurelio

Since I don't even personally believe the concept of race, which was my point, I'm not sure how I "played the race card," Lace (you listed me).  Is encouraging others not to use race to divide people "using the race card"???  Eeek.  

I'm just glad to see this thread finally back on topic.

The only thing I would add at this point is that this process of people pointing out the historical flaws in certain movies claiming some historical accuracy becomes in itself a way to combat the problem.  I still find it a silly expectation, however.  To me it is a little like complaining that a butcher shop doesn't serve enough fresh vegetables.  Hollywood is not a history text.

But, I think the best way to protest, if that is one's desire, is not to not go to these movies.  Money talks, and if these lame "historical" dramas fail at the box office, they'll stop making them before you can bat an eye.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

For them to fail, the American public will have to stop watching them.  This being my fundamental argument for accusing the American public for the creation of these movies.  A harsh assessment, I know. 

Aurelio I can not vouch for who Hypes was directing his 'glass houses' statement.  It could simply be me he is referring to, and it would not be the first time that he has crossed swords with me.  However, I doubt it.  Aurelio you were one of the people throwing stones no matter how hard you tried to disguise it.  Your comments about people all being the same was absolute dog dirt.  Genetics only tell a small fraction of what makes up a human being.  What shapes our personalities, is more important than whether we have big noses, brown skin, or are tall, small or overweight.  Social implications have a much bigger effect on personality than some silly scientific puzzle.  

At the end of the day, you played the race card by questioning my reasoning for believing people elsewhere were intrinsically not like me.


----------



## Circus Cranium

Huh. I thought Hypes was a chick all this time.


----------



## Buddhajeb

One thing I feel that is missing from this topic is the fact that history books, once seen as the Holy Grail of facts, are increasingly becoming less-factually based.  The use of "history books" to spread one's idealogical viewpoint (on both sides of the aisle) is and has distorted history already.

Just something to consider......


----------



## Space Monkey

Is that avatar the JESUS ACTION FIGURE?

That is the coolest thing I've ever seen.


----------



## Circus Cranium

I think that's the Jesus from that movie Dogma. lol


----------



## Lacedaemonian

It looks like the Jesus from Dogma.  Buddahjeb your point about history books is valid to a point.  History books are one persons version of the truth.  Some Hollywood movies make no attempt to give audiences the truth.  The most extreme example of this is U571, where the heroes of the tale are given the full American makeover.  This is perhaps the most extreme example, most of the historical movies only suffer the odd change of fact.


----------



## Hypes

Peter's the kind of fellow who would throw stones _at_ people in glass houses.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> It looks like the Jesus from Dogma. Buddahjeb your point about history books is valid to a point. History books are one persons version of the truth. Some Hollywood movies make no attempt to give audiences the truth. The most extreme example of this is U571, where the heroes of the tale are given the full American makeover. This is perhaps the most extreme example, most of the historical movies only suffer the odd change of fact.


 
As I said earlier, U571 was fronted by a disclaimer stating the true historical events i.e. the fact it was HMS Bulldog which the events were taken from (protests played a part I'm sure). Still, as much as I agree that the "Americanisation" of certain events can be upsetting, I'd much rather that they at least openly admitted their change of history! 
As said earlier in the thread, there's no accounting for stupidity and those who choose to believe that movies are a good source for historical events are the type of people who also believe _"the man down the pub told me..."_ so if Hollywood doesn't do it then they'll just believe it from somewhere else. 

At best with Hollywood "historical" movies, we only see one side of events in movies anyway ("Black Hawk Down" comes to mind) or the other side is so cartoonly bad (enter stage left: evil villain out to take over the world for no particular reason) that it becomes a biased telling of events as well.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Thank you Andreas.


----------



## Circus Cranium

Ah, the man down the pub. The oracle.


----------



## aurelio

> For them to fail, the American public will have to stop watching them. This being my fundamental argument for accusing the American public for the creation of these movies. A harsh assessment, I know.



And an ignorant one as well, Lace.  American movies generally make more money overseas now than they do domestically, blowing your American-bashing all to hell.

Those darned facts seem to keep getting in your way, bud!   



> At the end of the day, you played the race card by questioning my reasoning for believing people elsewhere were intrinsically not like me.



 -------- Say wha...???

LOL - That's one of the funniest pieces of inverted logic I've ever seen.  Wow!  What's next?  Saying "Don't kill" means one advocates murder?

Maybe if I say, "You make the most sense of anyone here," you'll get my meaning.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> Thank you Andreas.


 
I don't understand?


----------



## Hypes

Andreas is me, and I just defined Peter spot-on, if I may say so myself. That's what he does.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

aurelio said:
			
		

> And an ignorant one as well, Lace. American movies generally make more money overseas now than they do domestically, blowing your American-bashing all to hell.
> 
> Those darned facts seem to keep getting in your way, bud!
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Say wha...???
> 
> LOL - That's one of the funniest pieces of inverted logic I've ever seen. Wow! What's next? Saying "Don't kill" means one advocates murder?
> 
> Maybe if I say, "You make the most sense of anyone here," you'll get my meaning.


 
You're not a very nice person, I am sure your poor sarcasm wins you many friends. Do you really think that Hollywood would still make a film if it was not going to do well in America? I have no stats or facts to back this up, but then you provided none either. 

I do not understand how my logic is inverted. Please explain. When I said that you played the race card I implied that you were accusing me of being racist or something that constitutes racism. 

Is it you that was involved in making cartoons/animations in Hollywood?

Why do you insist on saying that I am ignorant? I firmly believed that Hollywood was mainly supported by the American market. Whether I am right or wrong in this matter does not equate to ignorance. Your general attitude stinks. I have no issue with the American people, but in this matter I believe that Hollywood and the American people are intangibly to blame. 

I have no wish to make this personal, but you have already crossed that line.  Your last statement is plain rude. I hope that perhaps you life is filled with misery from this point on.


----------



## Hypes

I'd like to point out that my initial comment was not directed at Peter. The second one was, and is a bit of a compliment.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Thank you Andreas.  I was losing sleep over this.


----------



## aurelio

Okay, Lace.  Let's try to sort this out.

First, you started bashing American film makers and then American audiences for being either soley or primarily responsible for distorting history.  Bashing a whole group of people is not a very nice thing, so if you feel that type of rhetoric is something a nice person does, then I'll have to disagree.

What I originally said to you was:


> And now that all the "races" are mixed up virtually everywhere, people like you, Lace, are trying to re-separate people with "culture" or "religion" or you name it. That is complete hogwash too.
> 
> The question you should ask yourself is why you feel more comfortable thinking that people elsewhere are intrinsically not like you?


What I was suggesting to you was not that you were being racist, but using the same logic and replacing race with culture.  It was a metaphor.

Then, I assume based on my statement above, you lumped me into a list of people who were "playing the race card," which I did not accept.  So I said:


> Is encouraging others not to use race to divide people "using the race card"???


Your response to that point was:


> At the end of the day, you played the race card by questioning my reasoning for believing people elsewhere were intrinsically not like me.


I have to say Lace, this statement is not only another innacurate interpretation of what I said but, well... pretty darned weird.  That you didn't see the irony present in what you said was frankly humorous.  But also maddening, because you still insisted on accusing me of racism. Which is inaccurate.  And not nice.  And not fair.  And not what nice people do.

So, having tried twice before to get you to truly understand what I was saying, I tried again, buy using sarcasm.  Sarcasm is not nice, I'll admit, especially when directed at another person, but neither is being repeatedly accused of saying or doing something I didn't.  But I also think you have thrown a lot stones, done some name calling and used provocative rhetoric with many people here, so I figured if you could dish it out, you could take it.

It's sad to me that we have come to verbal blows here over something that from my point of view was a misunderstanding on your part of what I actually said.  I feel you do it again by bristling at my use of the word ignorant, which I didn't mean as an insult.  To be ignorant of something only means you don't know about it.  I am ignorant of all sorts of things.  It's not a crime.  It's very human.  Here is a link:

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/intl.htm

If you check it out it will see that your argument was based on erroneous assumptions, which was my point.  Igonorance is cured by knowledge.

I am sorry that you wish me misery, Lace, and I am also sorry that our conversation here came to this low point of "you said this and then I said that."  And I'll also apologize for my use of sarcasm in response to you, which was admittedly mean-spirited.  

My only wish for you is that you try to listen to others here a bit more clearly, and be less anxious to do battle, as I will also try to do.


----------



## polymorphikos

Any further posts on this particular aspect of the conversation will be interspersed by pictures of fluffy kittens.


----------



## Leto

Great idea. she's really cute. Where did you find it ?

No sarcasm in the sentence above, I'm just a cat craze girl.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

I think that I just vented three months of working 60+ hour weeks in this thread.  As in the cartoons, the steam is blasting out of my ears.  Peace out!


----------



## erickad71

Can I contribute? Poly, you come up with the most wonderful ideas.


----------



## BAYLOR

Breaveheart  has a few inaccuracies.


----------



## Vladd67

BAYLOR said:


> Breaveheart  has a few inaccuracies.


And the Pope is Catholic.


----------



## BAYLOR

Vladd67 said:


> And the Pope is Catholic.



They showed this on the SciFi Channel.


----------



## Vladd67

The most annoying thing about the inaccuracies in Braveheart was the way the SNP used it as blatant propaganda having recruiting stands outside some showings. But then the Gibson school of history is always a little free with the facts when it comes to the most evil force in history the English.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Are there any movies (outside of WWII films) were the English are seen as the good guys. Even (probably) our most famous export James Bond is a womanising alcoholic gambler!

For all it's inaccuracies, Braveheart does have some great baddies, and Patrick McGoohan was awesome as Longshanks. The battle scenes were some of the most brutalistic and (probably) realistic depictations of a medieval period.

Shockingly inaccurate in many other respects though, and (quite unfairly) it shows Wallace as the hero when in reality the one who freed the Scots was Robert the Bruce.


----------



## BAYLOR

paranoid marvin said:


> Are there any movies (outside of WWII films) were the English are seen as the good guys. Even (probably) our most famous export James Bond is a womanising alcoholic gambler!
> 
> For all it's inaccuracies, Braveheart does have some great baddies, and Patrick McGoohan was awesome as Longshanks. The battle scenes were some of the most brutalistic and (probably) realistic depictations of a medieval period.
> 
> Shockingly inaccurate in many other respects though, and (quite unfairly) it shows Wallace as the hero when in reality the one who freed the Scots was Robert the Bruce.




Longshank's son Edward as portrayed in that film was not even close to reality.


----------



## Foxbat

Braveheart = Porridge Western

James Bond (according to Ian Fleming) was half Scottish, half Swiss.


----------



## Valtharius

Wait so you're saying _Braveheart _wasn't a documentary?
Next you'll be telling me _Star Wars_ didn't really take place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away.


----------



## BAYLOR

Valtharius said:


> Wait so you're saying _Braveheart _wasn't a documentary?
> Next you'll be telling me _Star Wars_ didn't really take place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away.



Star wars make believe ? That's  Rubbish . There are  pictographs in un-named  parts of the world that proves it was all real.

Sorry, im being silly.


----------



## BigBadBob141

Hollywood getting history wrong, hmmm do you mean Robin Hood Prince of Thieves didn't have a telescope and gun powder?
Hollywood has been getting history wrong for the last century, so no surprises there!
P.S. The bit where armoured knights are seated on their chargers using a crane is also made up, so is a ships captain having the right to marry people!


----------



## Vladd67

BigBadBob141 said:


> P.S. The bit where armoured knights are seated on their chargers using a crane is also made up, so is a ships captain having the right to marry people!


As a shipboard marriage has major ramifications in Tai Pan I was disappointed in James Clavell's research there.


----------



## BAYLOR

BigBadBob141 said:


> Hollywood getting history wrong, hmmm do you mean Robin Hood Prince of Thieves didn't have a telescope and gun powder?
> Hollywood has been getting history wrong for the last century, so no surprises there!
> P.S. The bit where armoured knights are seated on their chargers using a crane is also made up, so is a ships captain having the right to marry people!




Seeing that Robin Hood is set in the 12th century, it be a little too a little too early  for gunpowder which , didn't  came into use in England until about the  mid 13th century and telescopes  didn't  start to show in in England till about the  14th Century .   Kevin Costner  as Robin Hood was a very poor choice because he just wasn't believable in that  role. The filmmaker should  have cast  Kevin Branagh in that role.


----------



## alexvss

In *Men of Honor (2000)*, a movie about the first black master diver in the American navy, all but one of the aspirants leave the dormitory, refusing to sleep under the same roof as the black man. In the movie, the guy that remains--and becomes friends with the protagonist--is American, but in real life, it was a Brazilian.

It's an American movie, so it's only natural that they would praise Americans, as it has been discussed thorougly in this thread.


----------



## Parson

Sigh! I don't think the problem really lies with the movie or TV drama makers. The problem lies in the viewers. If something is a work of fiction, than there is nothing guaranteed to be true, even in "documentaries." A TV documentary entitled *A Thousand Heroes: The Rescue of Flight 232 *is an example. This event occurred in Sioux City, Iowa, a small city close to me, where a passenger jet crash landed and an amazing amount of passengers were rescued in part because of the incredible skill of the pilot and because of the incredible amount of EMTs (emergency medical technician) who were on the ground ready to spring into action when the plane crashed. The documentary features a lot of carping back and forth between the EMTs from all the little towns around here about who should do what and the officials at the Sioux City airport. While the truth is, there was none of that. A lot of little towns able to get to the airport left immediately upon hearing the call. They dropped everything and "flew" to Sioux City to help. No Questions asked. They were all wanting to do "whatever we can to help." But having the carping was added for dramatic effect. --- And yes, there were something like 1000 EMTs (including ambulance crews) waiting to help. I doubt a major metro area could have done as well. But the documentary left a sour taste in a lot of small town volunteer ambulance services.


----------



## CupofJoe

At best a film may get me interested in a historical period but no more. Recently *Ironclad* [2011] got me interested in the siege of Rochester Castle and the general period that is rarely taught as part of English history. But I never assumed that it was historically accurate.


----------



## paranoid marvin

CupofJoe said:


> At best a film may get me interested in a historical period but no more. Recently *Ironclad* [2011] got me interested in the siege of Rochester Castle and the general period that is rarely taught as part of English history. But I never assumed that it was historically accurate.




Rochester is a very interesting castle , and it's siege quite an interesting one. Definitely worth a visit if you're passing.


----------



## paranoid marvin

BAYLOR said:


> Seeing that Robin Hood is set in the 12th century, it be a little too a little too early  for gunpowder which , didn't  came into use in England until about the  mid 13th century and telescopes  didn't  start to show in in England till about the  14th Century .   Kevin Costner  as Robin Hood was a very poor choice because he just wasn't believable in that  role. The filmmaker should  have cast  Kevin Branagh in that role.




Or the chap who played Robin in 'Men in Tights'. Interestingly there was a second Robin Hood film that came out at almost the same time as Prince of Thieves with Patrick Bergin - a much more down to earth movie. But then again it doesn't have Alan Rickman, and he is the absolute star of the show.


----------



## sknox

I agree that films get this or that fact wrong. We can also disagree about emphasis or perspective or interpretation. But the basic proposition that movies get history wrong carries the implication that there is a "right" version of history out there somewhere. 

History is a discipline. It is, as Herodotus said, an "inquiry". What most people mean when they use the word is really "the past." All of everything that has ever happened anywhere. The past is the raw material of the historian.

So, do movies get the past right? Given that eye witnesses can't even agree on present events, the notion that there is a "correct" version of the past that is accessible to us is pretty tenuous. 

Zippers on medieval dresses? OK, that's factually wrong, but neither is it significant. That goofy mask in _The Kingdom of Heaven_? Obviously mere artistic license, not likely to be exactly "correct." How about _King Richard and the Crusaders_? (1954). Just plain silly.

Then there are movies that take liberties with the past but get to a truth anyway. I'm thinking of something like _Donnie Brasco_. The range of art, plus the range of the historian, results is such a wide field I'm not sure any generalization is going to hold up for long. 

For myself, I ask of movies the same thing I ask of books: tell me a good story. Go ahead and take liberties, but I reserve the right to storm out when your 1924 thieves make their escape in a Ford Mustang.


----------



## Parson

sknox said:


> For myself, I ask of movies the same thing I ask of books: tell me a good story. Go ahead and take liberties, but I reserve the right to storm out when your 1924 thieves make their escape in a Ford Mustang.



I completely agree with this, but the bone I pick is that there are so many people who believe it's just like the movie. i.e. For a long time people thought that Moses must have looked like Charlton Heston in *The Ten Commandments. *

I'm not sure that movies have an obligation to get the history at least mostly right. But the old History Teacher in me cringes at some of the glaring historical license that is taken in supposedly historical movies, which the uneducated masses take as gospel.


----------



## CupofJoe

paranoid marvin said:


> Rochester is a very interesting castle , and it's siege quite an interesting one. Definitely worth a visit if you're passing.


On my post-lockdown to-go-to list.


----------



## sknox

>...the bone I pick is that there are so many people who believe it's just like the movie...
A movie, like an idea, is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

Where I object is when the makers of the movie (or book, or any other work of art) start making claims of historicity and then fail. _Braveheart_ falls into that category, among its other failings. Dan Brown's _Da Vinci Code_ was reprehensible but he continued to claim he'd done good research. By contrast, Umberto Eco took any number of liberties, but he generally stays true to both time and place in _The Name of the Rose_. 

That last is a good example of another aspect of this. The details in that book were so specific, down to the conflict within the Franciscans at the time, that the author didn't need to claim any sort of historical accuracy. The book itself stakes the claim with its specificity. Many other books play fast and loose with the past and it's obvious they're doing it and we're invited along for the story ride, not a history tour. With movies one can look at _Troy_ or the even sillier _300_ as examples. If a viewer takes either at face value, well they get what they've invested. Hope they didn't pay too much for the popcorn.


----------



## M. Robert Gibson

I wonder if the people of the late 16th century were bemoaning this very thing after seeing a production of _Shakespeare's_ *Richard III* 









						Richard III (play) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Vladd67

sknox said:


> >...the bone I pick is that there are so many people who believe it's just like the movie...
> A movie, like an idea, is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
> 
> Where I object is when the makers of the movie (or book, or any other work of art) start making claims of historicity and then fail. _Braveheart_ falls into that category, among its other failings. Dan Brown's _Da Vinci Code_ was reprehensible but he continued to claim he'd done good research. By contrast, Umberto Eco took any number of liberties, but he generally stays true to both time and place in _The Name of the Rose_.
> 
> That last is a good example of another aspect of this. The details in that book were so specific, down to the conflict within the Franciscans at the time, that the author didn't need to claim any sort of historical accuracy. The book itself stakes the claim with its specificity. Many other books play fast and loose with the past and it's obvious they're doing it and we're invited along for the story ride, not a history tour. With movies one can look at _Troy_ or the even sillier _300_ as examples. If a viewer takes either at face value, well they get what they've invested. Hope they didn't pay too much for the popcorn.


Dan Brown's research seemed to consist of reading Holy Blood Holy Grail, and he didn't actually say it was historically true but that all the conspiracies were genuine, and they were indeed already existing conspiracy theories. In fact, his book was so close to Holy Blood Holy Grail the authors tried to sue him for plagiarism but lost.


----------



## CupofJoe

sknox said:


> A movie, like an idea, is not responsible for the people who believe in it.


This is a statement that alone, I feel I have to disagree with. Or rather, the movie is an object, but those that created it may have had very real objectives. There have been times when films [books, painting, architecture, statues, stain-glass windows, etc] were made with the explicit intention of changing the mood and mindset of people. During the 30s and 40s Soviet and Nazi regimes cinema was used to create a culture and mindset that suited those in charge. British and American cinema did the same for that matter but we don't seem to notice that as much...


sknox said:


> Where I object is when the makers of the movie (or book, or any other work of art) start making claims of historicity and then fail. _Braveheart_ falls into that category, among its other failings. Dan Brown's _Da Vinci Code_ was reprehensible but he continued to claim he'd done good research. By contrast, Umberto Eco took any number of liberties, but he generally stays true to both time and place in _The Name of the Rose_.


Right with you here.
I remember there being an issue with *JFK* when it came out, that Oliver Stone "recreated" the Zapruder film to show what he wanted and not what the original film showed.


sknox said:


> That last is a good example of another aspect of this. The details in that book were so specific, down to the conflict within the Franciscans at the time, that the author didn't need to claim any sort of historical accuracy. The book itself stakes the claim with its specificity. Many other books play fast and loose with the past and it's obvious they're doing it and we're invited along for the story ride, not a history tour. With movies one can look at _Troy_ or the even sillier _300_ as examples. If a viewer takes either at face value, well they get what they've invested. Hope they didn't pay too much for the popcorn.


I like a good but silly film...


----------



## paranoid marvin

It's far more important for a work of fiction to be entertaining than it is to be historically accurate. Of course there are those whom historical inaccuracy will lessen their enjoyment, but for the vast majority it won't. 

A good piece of fiction will encourage the reader/viewer to go out and learn more about the thing itself. At that stage they will realise that most of what they have read or watched is a best supposition and at worst bunkum, but at least they will have been both entertained _and _educated. The danger is though that many _won't _go out and learn more about the subject and then believe it to be true. Eventually it enters the public consciousness as 'fact'. if enough people believe a thing to be true, then just like in 1984 it develops a kind of truthfulness of it's own.


----------



## sknox

My favorite example of this, which I may well have posted somewhere here previously, comes from a blog written by a typeface designer. He freely and with good humor admitted this was a personal problem, but his beef was with fonts in movies. He'd be watching a movie set in, say, the 1930s and there would be a movie marquee in the background done in Helvetica. 

Took him right out of the movie.

We all have our pet peeves. Some are even favorites, like my father-in-law who loved things like spotting a wristwatch on one of the extras in _Spartacus_. But he enjoyed every aspect of movies, even the bad ones. I sometimes envy the generation for whom movies were just plain fun and everyone had a good time at them and that was all that was expected.


----------



## BigBadBob141

Time traveller watching "War Of The Worlds" in the cinema,  then turns to the man sitting next to him and says, "that's not how it happened"!


----------

