# Hollywood Doublethink



## Dave (Sep 20, 2003)

Doublethink is practised in the George Orwell novel _1984_. There is a slogan of the party that deals with the control of history, and goes right to the heart of Doublethink. It goes:

*He who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.*

In '1984', Winston Smith himself works at The Ministry of Truth in the Records Department, where it is his job to rewrite old newspapers to reconstruct the past.

An article in the UK Newspaper _Daily Mail_ today, made me realise that since few people actually read any more, Hollywood could practise Doublethink with ease.

In the _Saturday Essay_ by Stephen Glover, he says that Tom Cruise is to star in a new film about the Battle of Britain called _The Few_. This time, Hollywood has gone too far, writes Glover. There was an American businessman called Billy Fiske, who really did join the RAF, but he was one of only 12 Americans among 2,945 airmen. Though evidently brave, he recorded no official kills in 42 missions. He died after crashing his plane on landing.

The USA did not enter the war until Pearl Harbour. In 1940 only 8% of Americans favoured joining Britain in the war. As late as May 1941, according to a Gallup poll, 77% of Americans opposed fighting Germany or Japan unless their country was provoked. Neither America, nor with very few exceptions, Americans themselves made any contribution to the historic victory of the Battle of Britain.

If the RAF had been defeated, Hitler would have been able to invade Britain, and the whole of Europe would have been under his domination.

As Co-Producer and star of _The Few, Cruise will give the impression that one American in particular, and possibly America in general, were instrumental in overcoming German air power.

This comes on the back of U-571 in which American sailors were portrayed capturing a crucial Enigma codebook from a sinking U-boat. In reality, the Royal Navy accomplished this.

In Saving Private Ryan the Normandy invasion was accomplished without any reference to British and Canadian troops that made up 40% of the forces.

In the TV mini-series Band of Brothers, Americans won the war. It made no reference to allied forces other than Americans. There are no Hollywood films of the Russians on the Eastern front.

Even films such as Titanic rewrite history without any regard for the truth. Add 'Braveheart', 'The Patriot', etc to the list.

As Stephen Glover writes film is a powerful and persuasive medium, and it shapes the views and opinions of people who would never dream of reading a history book._


----------



## Tabitha (Sep 20, 2003)

That's an interesting piece Dave, but I just wonder how far these films are influencing the American (and other) public's opinions of what happened - I would imagine that the perception that Americans saved the day in every part of WW2 would be something that already exists in the American psyche of today, so rather than creating a new reality for people to believe, these kind of films are rather legitimising already-held beliefs.

It doesn't make it any less abhorrent though.  In the case of U571 it seemed to be hugely advertised all over the place that the film had changed major facts about what actually happened, and I recall a disclaimer at the end of the film giving a brief account of the real story (and who was involved).

I think the thing that we have to remember is that when these films come out, there are always journalists who look a bit deeper into the script and compare it to reality, so any glaring discrepancies should gain quite a lot of publicity.

As much as I worry about the dumbing-down of society in general, it seems that recently there are more and more writers and commentators crying foul when attempts at re-writing the past occur.  
Perhaps I am being a little too optimistic here, though


----------



## Dave (Sep 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Tabitha _
> *I think the thing that we have to remember is that when these films come out, there are always journalists who look a bit deeper into the script and compare it to reality, so any glaring discrepancies should gain quite a lot of publicity.*



There are, and in the UK there was certainly a lot of publicity at the time of the release of 'U-571', but I doubt it was the same in the US. It is the perceptions of younger generations watching these films in the future that I wonder about more. As a child I watched 'The Dam Busters', 'The Great Escape' and 'Escape from Colditz'. I'm certain that they used a little artistic license, and also what today would be termed 'spin', but they didn't corrupt the basic story; they didn't alter the facts. When my children watch these newer films, or my grandchildren should I have any, how will they know that this isn't what really happened.

As Orwell wrote, history does not exist in reality, it exists in people's minds. Hence, the old saying that 'the victors write the history'. But, we aren't discussing ancient history here, with some dusty scholars having alternative views, this is all documented recent history with contemporary newsreels and photographs. It is only because of the power of the medium of cinematic works of fiction that this problem exists.


----------



## Dave (Apr 9, 2005)

I wish I'd thought of this idea first, but there is a great antidote to this 'Hollywood Doublethink'. It's called 'Winston Churchill: The Hollywood Years' (2004) and comes from Peter Richardson. Somehow I missed it, but it is out this week on DVD.

The plot is that true American hero, Winston Churchill, (Christian Slater) has come to London, England to deliver the Enigma machine to the British Army and kick some Nazi ass. But, he discovers that the Brits are getting ready to side with Hitler. Invited to Buck Palace with Chris Jarman's black Eisenhower, he falls for Princess Elizabeth (Neve Campbell) It's up to him and his American comrades to save the day and get the girl, foiling a plot by Hitler (Anthony Sher) to marry her first. A fascinating, true and completely accurate historical record of events.

Unfortunately, it isn't either as clever or as funny as it ought to be and consequently it sunk without trace at the box office.


----------



## Dave (Jun 18, 2011)

*Reviving thread* as this idea of Hollywood and TV rewriting history is back in the news:

First, there was the 'bone of contention' over Stephen Fry's screenplay for the remake of _The Dambusters_, changing the dogs name to "digger". Not so vitally important, though it was also the codeword for the breaking of the Dams and we can only "sanitise" history so much.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ger-remake-iconic-film.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Second, there is a great backlash in the USA over the portrayal of the Kennedys in a new drama which has just begun in the UK on BBC2.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13794042

Does it seem that the Americans only concerned about this when it is there own history? 

It seems that little notice was taken of the Greek objections to _Alexander_ being portrayed as bisexual as well.


----------



## Starbeast (Jun 18, 2011)

Dave said:


> Doublethink is practised in the George Orwell novel _1984_. There is a slogan of the party that deals with the control of history, and goes right to the heart of Doublethink. It goes:
> 
> *He who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.*
> 
> ...


 
I completely understand what you're saying *Dave*, I live in the U.S. and I've noticed since the early 1990's how tv and movies can make an individual believe what they see. And what's really sad is that today's U.S. school kids aren't learning much of anything important about the history of the world. I've talk to young adults and most of them quote movies or what they see on tv, this stunned me. 

Heck, I remember not learning much about history in school, I was only taught brief moments about how great the U.S. is, I had to study about history myself to learn about what really happened in the world.

Anyway, it really bothers me to about how movies and tv show us the world and the way things are, to me it's all garbage. They always protray people obnoxious to each other, women (including young girls) wearing sexy clothes and too much make-up, meanwhile guys are stupid and ready to fight with anyone who doesn't agree with them. That's why I don't watch tv much.

*Here's something interesting most people aren't aware of:*

Mel Gibson was approached by a big movie company to make a movie about Israel, he was told to alter the facts about history to portray their government as great and wonderful heros. Plus they wanted Mel to put his "seal of approval" that everything in the movie is 100% true!

Mel said he wouldn't do such an outrageous thing, then they argued, Mel told them to go **** themselves, and they threatened him that they were going to make sure his career is ruined and no other movie company will ever work with him. Mel stormed out, got really drunk and ran into a cop on the road. Then it was all down hill from there for Mr Gibson.

I personally am proud of Mel for standing up to those movie executives.

Here's another item about the situation that most people aren't aware of either.

The movie company which asked Mr Gibson to lie about historic facts made a public apology to Mel about it. I was stunned when I heard it on the radio, the apology was only two to three sentences long, and nothing more was said about the matter.


----------



## dask (Jun 18, 2011)

Dave said:


> Does it seem that the Americans only concerned about this when it is there own history?


No. Blanket statements usually apply to other nations as well.


----------



## The Judge (Jun 18, 2011)

Dave said:


> Does it seem that the Americans only concerned about this when it is there own history?


Perhaps many of them are only aware of it when it is their own history, and recent history at that, which probably also applies to us.  How many English people watched _The Tudors_ wholly ignorant of the fact it was a complete travesty?



> It seems that little notice was taken of the Greek objections to _Alexander_ being portrayed as bisexual as well.


Actually, there is some justification for thinking that Alexander had sexual relations with at least one man -- the attitude of the Ancient Greeks to what we now term homosexuality is very different from our own.  I suspect that any kerfuffle over this wasn't because of perceived historical inaccuracies so much as a modern-day macho culture equating male-male sex as effeminate and therefore derogatory to a hero.  If Alexander had been shown cutting a swathe through the admiring womenfolk and bedding every female in sight (very much inaccurate if the records are to be believed) then I don't imagine anyone would have murmured.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 18, 2011)

Hehe Greek objections to homosexuality is fun,the ancient greeks was much more openminded about that. 


Whats wrong with Tudors for us non-brits that only know the rep of Henry for killing his wives, being the father of Elizabeth?


----------



## The Judge (Jun 18, 2011)

I can't give chapter and verse on all the inaccuracies since I didn't watch _The Tudors_ myself -- the hype was enough to put me off together with an article I read involving one of the people behind it (?possibly the writer) which in effect said history didn't matter, it was entertainment.  The worst, though, was the fact that in their version Henry remains a handsome stud throughout, whereas in fact he ended up a bloated monster, whose probable venereal disease may well have been responsible for his wifes' failures to produce more than three living children amongst them.

But no historical film/TV production is immune.  I enjoyed _Elizabeth_ (the Blanchett film) but Dudley's treachery was a farrago of the truth and Cecil, Elizabeth's senior by only 12 years in reality, was 37 when she came to the throne, so was played by Richard Attenborough who was in his 70s.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jun 18, 2011)

Dave said:


> In _Saving Private Ryan_ the Normandy invasion was accomplished without any reference to British and Canadian troops that made up 40% of the forces.



Not quite true I remember Ted Danson had a small role as an American officer who mentioned Monty and stated he was over rated so the British did get a mention.


----------



## dask (Jun 18, 2011)

Dave said:


> _In Saving Private Ryan the Normandy invasion was accomplished without any reference to British and Canadian troops that made up 40% of the forces._
> 
> _In the TV mini-series Band of Brothers, Americans won the war. It made no reference to allied forces other than Americans. There are no Hollywood films of the Russians on the Eastern front._


 
I don't think there were British or Canadian troops at Omaha Beach. SPR concentrated on Omaha because that's where one of the Ryan brothers was killed, bringing to light the need to save Private Ryan. There was no attempt to dismiss the bravery of the British or Canadians on D-Day as far as I could tell. To suggest there was seems truly vile.

Band Of Brothers didn't win the war. This was a story about a specific Company and how they fought and died together. It wasn't an in depth study of the Allies.

Are there any Russian movies about the Americans at Omaha Beach (Red Dog Sector)?


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jun 18, 2011)

They're movies not documentaries. Wildly inaccurate movies , but hey which movies aren't? Braveheart , Gladiator , etc. are entertaining , and do the job more than adequately. Will it influence people's perceptions of history in the future? Perhaps - but then again I would guess that most people's perception of ancient Rome or Scotland probably WAS like those movies anyway , so no harm done! 

The historical inaccuracies used to rile me , but not any more. The Americans make American films mainly for American markets (as that's where all the cash is) ; does it really matter if it's the Americans who now capture the Enigma? We were all on the same side after all. Though I would be interested to see American's reaction if the Brits made a 'Pearl Harbour'  film , but changed Hawaii's naval base for London Docks!


----------



## dask (Jun 18, 2011)

There really is no excuse for the inaccuracy of U-571 with regard to Enigma unless it's intentional alternate history story telling. Otherwise it shows the people responsible have little more than garbage for brains and sewage for character.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jun 18, 2011)

dask said:


> There really is no excuse for the inaccuracy of U-571 with regard to Enigma unless it's intentional alternate history story telling. Otherwise it shows the people responsible have little more than garbage for brains and sewage for character.


 

They probably thought that replacing Americans with Brits would make them more money ; and they are probably right. U-571 reminds me of 'Comic Strip Presents' Strike ; the British miner's strike as perceived by Americans (with Al Pacino as Scargill no less!)


----------



## Dave (Jun 19, 2011)

dask said:


> No. Blanket statements usually apply to other nations as well.


It wasn't a "Blanket Statement". Hollywood makes more films than anyone else and a the US produces a lot of TV. The complaints about U571 and Battle of Britain at the time were all from the British press, only the Greeks complained about Alexander, but American complaints are only about The Kennedys.

I agree with you about Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers being focused on one specific company. I was relaying what I had read elsewhere, but maybe they are trying to exaggerate the problem.

Personally, of all these dramas I only have a real problem with U571. However, I do wonder about the 'control of history' when future generations might look upon these films as primary source of history.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jun 19, 2011)

Dave said:


> It wasn't a "Blanket Statement". Hollywood makes more films than anyone else and a the US produces a lot of TV. The complaints about U571 and Battle of Britain at the time were all from the British press, only the Greeks complained about Alexander, but American complaints are only about The Kennedys.
> 
> I agree with you about Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers being focused on one specific company. I was relaying what I had read elsewhere, but maybe they are trying to exaggerate the problem.
> 
> Personally, of all these dramas I only have a real problem with U571. However,* I do wonder about the 'control of history' when future generations might look upon these films as primary source of history.*


 

Well , look at the Battle Of Hastings. The only real information we have about the momentous events of that day is a tapestry created by the victors. With the history of Egypt some hieroglyphics on ancient walls and monuments.


----------



## The Judge (Jun 19, 2011)

Dave said:


> I do wonder about the 'control of history' when future generations might look upon these films as primary source of history.


I'm not sure how prevalent this is, but I recall reading an article by a history teacher in America following the production of a based-on-a-true-story historical US film which had a number of inaccuracies (I seem to think it might have been _Amistad_).  As part of the publicity, the film company sent out big info-packs to schools, so the teachers could discuss the issues surrounding it.  Unfortunately, the info-packs were riddled with misinformation and bogus ideas.  The teacher in question was complaining that he'd had to spend his leave finding out the truth so he could teach the topic properly, but how many others would have done the same?

Perhaps the fault lies not in the movie-makers but in the public for swallowing the distortions wholesale and failing to question the facts as presented.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jun 19, 2011)

The problem is that we are conditioned to believe what we are told and not to question it. Orwell's 1984 was this but in it's ultimate form ; that the public could be told two entirely contrasting facts and that both would be believed. The scary thing is that we are moving closer and closer to this situation occurring for real.


----------



## Metryq (Jun 19, 2011)

A lot of the _current_ generation look upon Hollywood films as "how it really was." _Good Night, and Good Luck_ is just one example of an overt re-write of history that had nothing to do with "dramatic license." For me, dramatic license is when the facts are essentially correct, but the exact details of events or what people said (unless the events were recorded) may have been "made up." 

_The Right Stuff_ is one of my favorite "docu-dramas." The events are essentially correct, but there is some distortion:

To compress events that took place over several years,
And to parody the "mind set" of the time and the space race.
For example, Chuck Yeager did not go up and break the sound barrier the very next day after being picked for the X-1 program. He spent months flying that plane, taking it up a little faster each time, working out the details with the engineers. In one hair-raising test the engines failed to light, and Yeager had to dump all his fuel before reaching the ground. (The weight would have crumpled his landing gear.) The whole movie was played for laughs. "We want a window!"

But one cannot generalize a whole country with statements like, "The Americans complained only when it was about the Kennedys." Not all of us are under the delusion of "Camelot," and some Americans may get bent over _U-571_ and other double-think. The same goes for the UK and any other country. Likewise, Hollywood is not the only culprit. Some news organizations have overt biases, while others covertly pretend to be objective by selectively omitting certain news. In truth, journalists have never been completely objective; the mere act of deciding which stories to carry in limited space is "editorial." It is only in recent years—with the ready access to other sources on the Internet—that partisanship has become increasingly shrill. (Even then, not all of us believe it just because it appeared on the Internet. "They couldn't print it if it wasn't true!")


----------



## dask (Jun 19, 2011)

This post has been modified for being snotty, ill-thought, and not worthy of either the person to whom it was intended or the dork who wrote it.


----------



## clovis-man (Jun 20, 2011)

Dave said:


> There was an American businessman called Billy Fiske, who really did join the RAF, but he was one of only 12 Americans among 2,945 airmen. Though evidently brave, he recorded no official kills in 42 missions. He died after crashing his plane on landing.


 
Nobody's disputing that the U.S. didn't enter the war until 12-7-41. However, there were some volunteers, not only in Britain, but elsewhere as well. The American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) in China come to mind. They were not totally ineffectual.

http://www.acesofww2.com/Eagle_Sq/eagleSq.htm

But I admit that Tom Cruise can screw up a one man rock fight. Don't get him anywhere near history.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jun 20, 2011)

This is nothing new after all there were complaints about Objective Burma (1945), where Errol Flynn leads a team of US paratroopers to destroy a Japanese radar station. The story was based on Operation Loincloth a mission carried out by British Chindits.


			
				IMDb said:
			
		

> The movie was pulled from release in Britain after just one week. It was banned there after heated protest from British veterans groups and the military establishment. As the Burma campaign was a predominantly British and Australian operation, the picture was taken as a national insult due to the movie's Americanization of the Burma operation. The resentment that many felt was seen as yet another example of Americans believing they had won the war single-handedly. It was not shown in Britain again until 1952/1953 and then with an apology disclaimer.


----------



## Dave (Jun 20, 2011)

dask said:


> This post has been modified for being snotty, ill-thought, and not worthy of either the person to whom it was intended or the dork who wrote it.


Actually dask, I read you post via an email notification, and I agree, I have rather proved your point, in that every country has complained about the depiction of their own history.


----------



## The Ace (Jun 20, 2011)

paranoid marvin said:


> They're movies not documentaries. Wildly inaccurate movies , but hey which movies aren't? Braveheart , Gladiator , etc. are entertaining , and do the job more than adequately. Will it influence people's perceptions of history in the future? Perhaps - but then again I would guess that most people's perception of ancient Rome or Scotland probably WAS like those movies anyway , so no harm done!
> 
> The historical inaccuracies used to rile me , but not any more. The Americans make American films mainly for American markets (as that's where all the cash is) ;* does it really matter if it's the Americans who now capture the Enigma? We were all on the same side after all. Though I *would be interested to see American's reaction if the Brits made a 'Pearl Harbour'  film , but changed Hawaii's naval base for London Docks!



Actually, it does.  The RN captured their first enigma machine in 1941.  The US captured their first (and only) U-boat in 1944.  Without the information gained by ULTRA, the Battle of the Atlantic would've been lost long before the events described in the film had a chance to happen.

While the courage of the three, 'Eagle,' squadrons is beyond question, their part in the BoB was minor compared to..... well, the Poles (mind you, so was just about everyone else's).


----------



## dask (Jun 21, 2011)

Dave said:


> Actually dask, I read you post via an email notification, and I agree, I have rather proved your point, in that every country has complained about the depiction of their own history.


Well, I should have given it more thought and expressed myself better. Next time.


----------



## Diggler (Jun 21, 2011)

Dave said:


> In _Saving Private Ryan_ the Normandy invasion was accomplished without any reference to British and Canadian troops that made up 40% of the forces.
> 
> In the TV mini-series _Band of Brothers_, Americans won the war. It made no reference to allied forces other than Americans. There are no Hollywood films of the Russians on the Eastern front.



Australians were also involved in the War in Europe, though we are virtually never mentioned in either *Saving Private Ryan* or *Band of Brothers*. Nor are Australians mentioned (or in a very minor part) in practically every American produced film, and series detailing the Pacific, Vietnam or Korean wars. Movies and shows like *The Pacific*, *Good Morning Vietnam*, *Platoon*, *MASH*, *Full Metal Jacket*, *Apocalypse Now*, *The Thin Red Line*, *Tour of Duty* and a slew of others, seemed to have forgotten that Australia and New Zealand existed.


----------

