Hollywood and History

[strange]

Does anyone else hate the way Hollywood likes to change history in order to make good movies? As a historian it ticks me off slightly, especially with things like war films where it's all big American men, all of you are good looking fit and can read perfect German and French :S. It's the same with other films like Enemy at the Gates and even things like Vietnam films annoy me because of the way they show events and people.

I can understand why they do it, to appeal to a broad market and so everyones happy (especially the US as there always the heroes) it makes good films but isn't it wrong and no different to indoctrination creating false events and ideas? The problem is you might realise its not accurate but some people don't and believe it. Isn't that no different to re-writing history?

PS I don't mean any offense with this post and the reference to the way American's are shown (I respect anyone of any nation who's willing to die in the army for their country) e.g. that the american's did everything single handedly in WW2 because it's not right, its not true and its alternating history. I mean what does everyone else feel about it

[aptpupil]

Hi James

You have to remember that movie making is an industry, and like any other, it wants to thrive and make profit, so it's very much in the business of giving people what they want.

The real "big bucks" in the movie business come from US audiences, so yes, many movies will be slanted to create heroes that American movie-goers will approve of. But I think that history-based films serve a useful secondary purpose, in so far as that occasionally a historically-based film will encourage an observer to delve more deeply into the subject.

I have a personal soft spot for ancient historical epics such as Braveheart, Gladiator, Alexander, Troy, etc, and almost without fail, I've been inspired to go off and research the truth after watching them, so indirectly they're educating me even if they're embroidering the truth somewhat.

So anything that fires the imagination and leads to a desire to investigate the truth is serving a useful purpose.

[sam peebles]

I for one am aware that our involvement in the European theater did not single-handedly win the war. Germany had probably already lost when they decided to invade Russia, and I admire England's perserverance and iron will. I have not forgotten that both England and Canada were with us when we stormed the beaches of France (in Saving Private Ryan, the Rangers are depicted as landing with American piloted amphibian crafts, when it was actually English).

Do you have specific examples of other films? Are you talking about some old war flicks starring John Wayne? The crappy action film of John Woo, that awful piece of garbage called Wind Talkers?

And what Vietnam pics do you dislike? I have yet to watch one that romanticizes the experience of war. Oliver Stone was even really there, and heros are typically in short supply in most Vietnam movies.

If you want facts, watch a documentary. You are talking about Hollywood. What do you expect? I love Platoon and Saving Private Ryan, despite the latter's mistakes (although I think they were intentional, as Spielberg was striving to make a singley American depiction of the war in Europe).

Do you have a more accurate feature film that your country produced? I'd be interested in seeing it, as I love war flicks.

[sam peebles]

Oh, and even history distorts reality.

[strange]

Firstly I understand the dynamics of the movie industry and i know when a vein in hit the companies will make movie after movie until the cash dries up. I do like war films, I don't mean the John Wayne style of films although I know of "John Wayne Sydrome".

I like Vietnam feel and I know they don't create a heroic image of heroes or stuff but what bothers me is exagerations of certain aspects which dont want to go into where certain reason. Off top of my head I know enemy at the gates goes off of history and a project about the first American (something Spat) who joined the RAC in WWI and died. The plan is to make it seem as though he won the battle for the skies and even face the Red Baron. I can't think of the other main one I know atm.

I don't get Sam your comment on hstory disorts reality? History is simliar to Science (to an extent) but how can history disort reality? History is set but the only thing that disorts it is us e.g. propaganda films and things like the national Japanese textbook which only has two pages on WW2 (basically thought and it ended).

I love war films but it certain cases I just don't like there presentation so please dont talk anything the wrong way

[Tery]

Oh yes... yes I have noticed this. But what makes it worse is the people who believe the Hollywood version instead of reality.

An example.. my ex-Sis-in-Law thought that Braveheart was all TRUE!!!

Which reminds me of something the tour guide in Edinburgh said regarding that film; "William Wallaces sword was bigger than Mel Gibson!"

[sam peebles]

Oh, I didn't take any offense, and I certainly didn't mean any in turn. You can insult American war films. There are certainly some bad ones. Enemy at the Gates being one of them. The Patriot (where we rebel against the evil British Empire) is also another piece of crap. The one I definitely hate the most is Wind Talkers, though I admit I'm not familiar with the World War One (do you call it the Great War?) movie you referenced.

I also think there are some really great ones.

History can be distorted. It is written by men, and therefore subjective and malleable. If you looked up the Cold War in US textbooks, and then in a Russian, what do you think you are going to find? Iran doesn't even acknowledge the Holocaust. You gave an example of it with Japan. I just found out a little while ago that the Children's Crusade probably never happened! Even facts printed in textbooks must be questioned.

I think aptpupil has a point. If it kindles an interest with audiences enough for them to seek out their own information from more reliable sources than Hollywood (which is pretty much anything), then it can't be a bad thing.

And besides, how many countries would make a war flick in which they are the bad guys? It just doesn't make sense (although Eastwood did put out Letters from Iwo Jima a few years ago).

[Mr Nobody]

I read once, in a text written by a historian, that history isn't about the actual past. Something like that. Basically, the argument was that history was 'in flux'. That events happened and history was only an interpretation of those events.

But anyway...to be fair to movie makers, they tend to flag up that what you see may not be strictly true. A lot of folks can't, don't or won't give much import to the words 'based upon'. Look at films of SK books: 'Based upon' the book by SK something seems to have an unwritten 'Very Loosely...' in front of it.
American movies about WWII have tended to pee me off slightly, I have to admit. Britain had fought the Germans to a virtual standstill - they weren't coming, we could never have gone over: eventually, the stalemate would have ended in a truce, no matter how temporary (Hitler would have still worked on better weapons). Germany may even have lost just due to the Russian effort - though the war would not have ended in 1945 in that case. The US involvement was therefore key to wrapping it all up as quickly as it was because it allowed the Western allies to invade and force the Germans to actively fight on two fronts.
The innaccuracies are understandable in that these films are produced by American studios and they have a predominantly American market in mind - look at how many films and shows are seen as failures because of US, not worldwide, figures. Plenty of TV shows, especially, would never have been cancelled if global viewing figures were taken into account. We just contribute with our bits and bobs, and tbh that's fair enough because we'd be the same, British producers making British films for British people...and if anyone else chipped with some dough, so much the better.

On Eastwood...yeah, he put out Letter from Iwo Jima, but also did Flags of our Fathers. Seen together, for me, it make the point that it was two bunches of guys scared half to death, facing off. On both sides there were psychos and cowards, reluctant heroes and total poseurs.
You could say neither side came out bathed in glory...but nor did they come away with that sort of aftertaste that some films leave behind. You know, the sort of jingoistic 'we're good, they were evil' BS you often get. Even Saving Private Ryan painted the Germans as uniformly nasty, with one in particular being worse than the others.

[Neil W]

I get concerned when I have an online argument with an American teenager who hates me because I'm British because of the British atrocities - specifically burning down the church - in The Patriot, when that was actually an incident by the Germans in WWII.

[sam peebles]

I get concerned when I have an online argument with an American teenager who hates me because I'm British because of the British atrocities - specifically burning down the church - in The Patriot, when that was actually an incident by the Germans in WWII.

Yes, that concerns me as well. It's a shame if people are basing their world views on flicks like The Patriot, or Braveheart (or any war that happened two hunred and thirty years ago). There are idiots everywhere, and they're certainly not in short supply here in America. I personally wouldn't qualify the Revolutionary War as an attrocity, on either party, although I'm admittedly not as educated on the subject as I would like to (and probably should) be.