What dramatic movies have been historically accurate?

[el_bryanto]

This is inspired by the current controversy around Selma and to a much lesser extent American Sniper, but I look back at historical movies that I have enjoyed, and I am aware that in almost every case I could go read an article online about what the movie got wrong for either narrative or propaganda purposes.

Can movies get the details right? Or is that not the point to a movie?

One thing movies can do is put you in the middle of a situation, giving you a feel for the time period and giving you insight into the actual stakes of history. It's one thing to read about why this event happened, it's another to see people going through it.

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. "History supplies little more than a list of people who have helped themselves to the property of

"History supplies little more than a list of people who have helped themselves to the property of others." - Voltaire

I would add, usually under the pretense of "defense".

[el_bryanto]

4. That's an interesting turn. I think history does a little more than that, myself.

There are great crime that we should remember, sure. But there's a lot more there than that.

Bryant

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Or Bierce, in his Devil's Dictionary:

HISTORY, n.
An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

[braddy]

2. Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers, A Bridge Too Far, The Raid, did pretty well in accuracy.

[ND-Dem]

6. ...sure braddy.

In an interview with the BBC, the faction leader Osman Ali Atto said that many aspects of the film are factually incorrect. He took exception with the ostentatious character chosen to portray him; Ali Atto does not look like the actor who portrayed him, smoke cigars, or wear earrings,[26] facts which were later confirmed by SEAL Team Six sniper Howard E. Wasdin in his 2012 memoirs. Wasdin also indicated that while the character in the movie ridiculed his captors, Atto in reality seemed concerned that Wasdin and his men had been sent to kill rather than apprehend him.[27] Atto additionally stated that he was not consulted about the project or approached for permission, and that the film sequence re-enacting his arrest contained several inaccuracies:[26]

First of all when I was caught on 21 September, I was only travelling with one Fiat 124, not three vehicles as it shows in the film[...] And when the helicopter attacked, people were hurt, people were killed[...] The car we were travelling in, (and) I have got proof, it was hit at least 50 times. And my colleague Ahmed Ali was injured on both legs[...] I think it was not right, the way they portrayed both the individual and the action. It was not right.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_Down_(film)#Controversies_and_inaccuracies


yeah, gun-humper films are the most accurate evah.

[braddy]

11. LOL, that an enemy leader disliked his portrayal, doesn't condemn the overall accuracy of the

mission portrayed in the film. Mankind is incapable of making a perfect copy of any such event, and I don't think the OP is about absolute perfection.

[ND-Dem]

18. lol, you missed the more lengthier part about the SEAL sniper who thought it was a fraud.

maybe cause you didn't actually read it.

I thought you worshipped seal snipers; called them 'beloved' and all that

[braddy]

23. I don't know why you want to be so argumentative, no film, no documentary, no news article, no

history book, is going to be a 100% flawless copy of the actual event, Black Hawk Down was an excellent version of that mission portrayed on film, or as I described it, "it did pretty well in accuracy".

[ND-Dem]

35. maybe it's because i don't like the kind of folks whose mission is to get snipers accepted

as 'beloved'.

[braddy]

37. So you are a stalker and keep wanting to drag your personal grudges to this thread.

[ND-Dem]

46. political. not personal. i notice you keep responding.

[braddy]

48. I'm not supposed to respond to posts made to me? Why don't you try to get back to the thread topic.

[ND-Dem]

55. you mean inaccurate pro-war propaganda films like black hawk down?

[braddy]

56. If you think it is too horribly inaccurate to fit into this discussion, then you are sure entitled

to think that.

[tkmorris]

9. LOL no they didn't

[GGJohn]

92. Don't forget Band of Brothers.

It was, for the most part, very accurate.

[braddy]

98. I was Airborne myself and have a autographed photo of them parachuting in, from "Wild Bill" Guarnere

my dad fought the Germans in WWII and 40 years later I was jumping out of Luftwaffe airplanes, earning my German Paratrooper wings, weird.

[chrisa]

105. 'We Were Soldiers' was ruined by the ending. The ending of the movie never even happened.

The movie has the 7th Cavalry charging against the NVA, and a chopper massacring the remaining NVA troops. The NVA frantically retreats, saying that they have no troops left. The battle actually went on just as fierce the next day. Other than that, a good film.

[braddy]

107. You probably already know that Hal Moore and Joseph L. Galloway were advisers on the movie

and that Moore and Gibson became close.

Although Sgt. Maj. Basil Plumley didn't participate, either out of age, or illness, or meanness, it was said that the movie actually made him look more gentle than he really was.

Here is his wiki bio," Plumley enlisted in the US Army as a private on March 31, 1942. He was a member of the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, with which he made four combat jumps and was awarded multiple decorations. He was a member of the 320th Glider Field Artillery Bn. He confirms this during interviews conducted with author Phil Nordyke, who has written four books relating to the 82nd Airborne Division during World War II. Plumley went on to make one combat jump in Korea with the 187th Airborne Infantry Regiment. He retired as a Command Sergeant Major on December 31, 1974, having been awarded 28 different personal, unit, campaign and service awards and decorations (40 total) in almost 33 years of military service, spanning World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War."

[tabasco]

116. Which makes the disgusting propaganda piece even more despicable

Moore should be ashamed.

[chrisa]

121. In all fairness, these scenes were never in Moore's book. The writers added them for some reason

that I'm totally oblivious to. The final bayonet charge does not fit with the rest of the movie. Plus, it seems cartoony and out of place with what the movie is trying to say.

The US was a hair away from being overrun at Ia Drang. The movie didn't show how dire the situation really was. It tried, but could have been much better. The final scene was especially stupid because close combat was what the NVA wanted - they had a clear advantage there ("Grab them by their belt buckles" was what the NVA Colonel said). They should have also shown the ambush that happened later - the NVA wasn't decimated at all, which is what the movie tried to claim. They were able to mount attacks after the landing zone was cleared.

Even Moore himself called the battle a "draw." I think what happened is, clueless Hollywood writers went into "'Mericka!" mode, and had to make the US win, even though it never happened.

[tabasco]

122. The movie fails to cover Day 4 of the battle, which was a disaster

The book covered Day 4, when 2-7 Cav was ambushed and nearly wiped out. Inside the book cover, which I have, the names of all the dead from the entire battle are listed.

The disgusting movie totally omits Day 4 to make it look like a grand glorious victory for the fatherland. At the end of the movie, just the names of those killed on the FIRST THREE DAYS scroll across the screen. The movie IGNORES THE 150 Americans killed on the final day of Ia Drang.

Hal Moore should be ashamed and disgraced for having anything to do with that movie.

[pinboy3niner]

111. You're confusing 2 separate battles at 2 different places

After the 3-day battle at LZ X-Ray, Hal Moore's 1/7 Cav was extracted and other troops that had been brought in to X-Ray marched off that LZ, some of them (2/7 Cav) to LZ Albany where the second battle occurred when the column was hit by a hasty ambush.

The book covered both battles, but the film covered only the battle at LZ X-Ray.

[chrisa]

112. I'm referring to when the 7th Cav did a charge against the NVA and massacred them all. The scene

made no sense - probably because it never actually happened. Sgt. Maj Plumley says something like, "If you want to know how Custer felt, ask him (Col. Nguyen Huru An)." The movie incorrectly gives the impression of an absolute American victory at Ia Drang valley, with all of the NVA troops there being slaughtered due to a bayonet charge. I thought it was a pretty silly piece of historical fiction in an otherwise good movie.

[tabasco]

115. The movie left out the final day of the battle, you know, when everybody got killed

The ambush on 2d Battalion was in the book, but not the movie.

Disgusting propaganda.

[tabasco]

114. "We Were Soldiers" LOLOL

That movie was FAR from accurate.

[ND-Dem]

3. what's the benefit of 'seeing people going through it' if its not fact-based?

[el_bryanto]

5. There's a difference between getting some details wrong

and getting the whole thing wrong. It depends on the details.

Bryant

[ND-Dem]

12. yes. it depends on the details indeed.

I think insinuating that Johnson signed off on Hoover's surveillance is fairly egregious, especially when

1. Johnson was the driving force in getting landmark civil rights legislation passed, and
2. the recent smear campaign against Johnson claiming he was the mastermind for the Kennedy assassination.

If oprah's film did indeed do this, I'd wonder what her motives were.

I don't think cheap sentiment is good for anyone.

[el_bryanto]

16. That part bothers me as well

I am going to see it tomorrow; so we'll see.

On the other hand I think it's trying to portray it from the perspective of the people around Dr. King; showing them as actors on the stage of history; in which case, I think the Johnson stuff is sort of extraneous to the main value of the film. But we'll see.

Bryant

[ND-Dem]

22. people around king like oprah? I think the OP acurately describes her as a conservative. I don't

think she was ever involved in the movement.


Winfrey landed a job in radio while still in high school and began co-anchoring the local evening news at the age of 19. Her emotional ad-lib delivery eventually got her transferred to the daytime-talk-show arena, and after boosting a third-rated local Chicago talk show to first place,[16] she launched her own production company and became internationally syndicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey

[el_bryanto]

25. I didn't claim that Oprah was around Dr. King - what did I say that implied that I thought that?

I am talking more about people like Dr. Kings wife.

I don't think Oprah is a character in the film.

Bryant

[ND-Dem]

29. You said:

On the other hand I think it's trying to portray it from the perspective of the people around Dr. King; showing them as actors on the stage of history; in which case, I think the Johnson stuff is sort of extraneous to the main value of the film.


She's the executive producer of Selma. The Johnson stuff is there for a reason, and she signed off on it, if nothing else.

Which people who were around King thought Johnson was the villain of the piece? I haven't heard about that. You're saying King's wife did?

[el_bryanto]

34. OK

Allow me to link you to another article by Brittney Cooper.

But how will we ever have any of those stories if we can’t trust a black woman to tell this story? We don’t trust black women to be our philosophers and theorists, our political strategists, or our film directors. Directing, like quarterbacking, we are told to believe is the province of white men. This is why the Oscar nomination “Selma” received for best picture feels hollow—the academy clearly does not respect DuVernay’s directorial vision. Save Steve McQueen, black folks, men included, are rarely deemed fitting of recognition in any kind of academy, except music. White women are not respected as directors either. It is precisely that intersection, that double jeopardy, of blackness and womanhood that gives so many black women the exceptional ability to artfully render black life, to see it in all its fullness, to move beyond the perspectival limits of whiteness and maleness. That same intersection often becomes a liability in the quest for institutional recognition of black female genius.

Ava DuVernay surely knows that. So she made the film she wanted to make. One that features Amelia Boynton and Coretta Scott King having a conversation about what it means to be prepared, as we hear Coretta talking about her desire for a more active role in the strategy and organizing side of the movement. One in which Diane Nash reassures the men, on their car ride into Selma, that this is the next big place for movement building. One in which Annie Lee Cooper slaps the policeman who manhandles her.

In this film, we see black women resisting, organizing, strategizing and cajoling. That we want to see even more of this tells us that “Selma” is akin to being gifted a few acres of our own after too many years gleaning cotton in fields that have not belonged to us.

The director of the film, by the way, is Ava DuVernay. Oprah was one of the producers.

Bryant

[ND-Dem]

38. Oprah is executive producer. I didn't claim she was director. The director is usually subservient

to the EP, however. At least financially. And the non-executive producers are subservient to the EP as well.


He who has the gold makes the rules. Oprah got a 'feminist' civil rights film that dissed Johnson. I imagine it was no accident. I could be wrong.

[el_bryanto]

59. Well yes - I guess Oprah should have made another movie in which the white guy saves the

black people. Presumably that would be something you would enjoy seeing?

Bryant

[ND-Dem]

80. yeah, that's it. that's what i want, a film where johnson in the hero and mlk is the bit player.

you got me pal

[JonLP24]

88. I'm sure this is what this whole entire project was all about

to diss Johnson. Clearly. Not the struggle, MLK, the Selma marches no to diss Johnson.

All that heart, emotion, & tears Oprah went through to explain the project wasn't all part of some big hoax to write an antagonist which makes LBJ look bad. If she wanted to do that, all she'd have to do is go back to when Harry Truman proposed civil rights legislation -- Look, maybe she made a mistake but is it not worth to cut her a break (she didn't write the screenplay, really did much if at all when it came to the art direction) but you somehow attribute a malicious intent.

Of all films that are incredible so far off the actual truth that this one Selma happens to be one of the more controversial ones. Also Hurricane was another film like that, slightly off but big controversy.

[ancianita]

93. Thank you. Well said. As a former teacher of film studies, I also see that if DuVernay is pretty new

Last edited Sat Jan 24, 2015, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

her vision gains directorial knowledge and support from a more experienced cast and crew (whether old, white, black or female or Oprah) in making this film.

This might be a stretch, but I daresay Common and Legend join her in getting helpful recognition from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association for liberal and market values: in order to market this movie and its producers to worldwide distributors and audiences, who themselves need to see the American past and present take on race, women's equality and the importance of liberal vs. conservative politics. We in the West are in competition with other world views, and I think the current attention this film gets is intended to promote the film arts' communications about inclusion and peaceful politics.

Sure, Oprah cries during the awards, and not as a business woman, but because she and I totally agree with you about the double jeopardy of intersectionality that black women artists suffer, when they are in a distinctly powerful place to see black life's fullness and make it accessible to the younger, larger world. No one gets to where black film makers are without enduring and transcending a lot of personal and systemic-induced pain.

Alexander Pope's "Essay On Criticism," laid out fair criticism rules, one of which was that a major flaw of criticism in his day was to fault the whole of a work for a fault of a part; in this case, historic details important to whites and males. I think his standard applies here.

Not at my best today, so please be gentle.

[JonLP24]

87. Executive Producer is mainly the financing & legal (copyrights) role of the project

I don't get why you seem so interested it pinning all this on Oprah when it is clear her motivations & intentions for the project is clearly the struggle, not to make Johnson look bad. Your beef is with Paul Webb and Ava DuVernay.

[JonLP24]

86. Oprah likely had help

Her motivation was clearly to portray the struggle, it is clear based on interviews, tears, etc when describing this film. Much like "Money Ball" they created a antagonist who really wasn't an antagonist.

[VScott]

24. Reminds me of the controversy surrounding 'Braveheart' and its inaccuracies.

But, as a consequence, it motivated the Scottish people to actually take an interest in their own history
and research the facts for themselves.

[Whiskeytide]

7. Idiocracy was spot on. I think it happened in '87...

... but movies are movies. They should always be seen only as such, IMO. Otherwise they're a documentary.

But to answer your question, Lion in Winter - about Henry II - which I have not seen in a long, long time, struck me as historically accurate - at least at the time.

[el_bryanto]

8. That is a great movie - i think it's Aaron Sorkin's favorite. I just loved how dirty it all looked

And the dialogue was great, of course.

Bryant

[Whiskeytide]

26. Your post has inspired me to try to ...

... watch it on line. I saw it in an English Lit class in '80 maybe. I remember thinking it was really well acted - but that's relative since up to that time my favorite movie was Animal House.

Another movie that supposedly was historically accurate was "Quest for Fire. I remember a few years ago reading some article or post that said, with minor details excepted, they got it right on most of the big picture stuff. But maybe that's more "realistic context" rather than "historical accuracy", since it was a fictional story.

Interesting post. Thanks.

[ND-Dem]

14. then it was a documentary, right? by your own standard.

not that documentaries represent unbiased truth either

[Whiskeytide]

30. Well, I can't argue with that...

... I guess what I was trying to say is that a movie's first goal is to entertain us, not at all to educate us. If it does happen to educate us as well, it is most likely a by-product of the primary purpose. A documentary, on the other hand, should be first trying to educate us, and hopefully will be entertaining in the process.

But in either case, there is no guarantee that are trying to entertain us or educate us with the truth.

[ND-Dem]

43. The goal of propaganda films is to entertain too; makes it slide down easier. What I'm saying

is that if a film purports to be about history, it should attempt to be accurate. Or at least not to practice blatant factual distortion. There's no conflict between that and entertaining the public.

Unless the mission is not just to entertain, but to promulgate fake history. IOW, to make people dumb and placid.

[ChosenUnWisely]

20. Idiocracy is a Documentary of a Future America

Mike Judge will be declared a genius who was ignored when people in the future recover a DVD of Idiocracy from the rubble that was once America and they will wonder why the people did not pay attention to this cinematic genius and futurist.

Those that survive will shake their head in wonder and ask, why were people so f-ing stupid back then, they were even warned yet it Idiocracy still happened.



Go away! 'Batin'!

[Whiskeytide]

28. But, almost by definition, the people...

... of the future will not be able to tell Judge was a genius, because they will be idiots.

Now. I have to go. Ow My Balls is coming on.

[MindPilot]

61. Ow My Balls is a great show!

Especially now that the new host is Tom Brady

[Whiskeytide]

65. Instant Classic...

... I tip my hat to brilliance!!!!!

[frylock]

72. I'm deflatin'!

[MindPilot]

99. You win! A round of Brawndo for everyone!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. I think Voltaire was talking about the way history is taught.

With it's focus on "great men", wars, and power.

I got my degree in history and have always been fascinated by it. Over the years, I've learned to appreciate the diaries and letters of the people who lived through a period far more than what "historians" think about that period.

[el_bryanto]

19. I'm interested in all of it myself;

I guess not so much military or economic history. I don't usually do biographies as well. As far as historians, there are all sorts of historians - some of which are very much involved in maintaining the status quo, but others of which are telling people's stories. I enjoy looking at first hand accounts and diaries at times, but I also enjoy a well put together secondary source.

Bryant

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Here's a couple that taught me a lot.

A Diary from Dixie by Mary Boykin Chesnut

From the very beginning to the very end of the Civil War by a woman (a Southern Belle) married to someone high up in the Confederate government. She was very intelligent, a very good writer, and knew just about every politician and general in the confederacy. She expresses her distaste for slavery, the plight of women, thinks the decision to go to war stupid. But, she supports the confederacy throughout. She also brings the personalities to life, and describes the life of the elite in detail. It is almost day by day.

I Will Bear Witness by Victor Klemperer

He was the cousin of Otto Klemperer the conductor. He was a professor of French Literature in Dresden who was married to an Aryan woman which saved him from the "transports" but little else. His day by day description of the life of an intellectual Jew in Germany from 1933 - 1945 is incredible in its honesty. He was a Secular Jew who had fought in WWI. The slow degradation of life after Hitler came to power is even more powerful that the many books about the holocaust because it shows how the gradual acceptance of the regime came to be. He, at first, believed that Hitler was a flash-in-the-pan demagogue who would be thrown out at the first opportunity. He, was a "moderate" who usually voted for the centrist parties and was contemptuous of the Communists and Zionists. He doesn't spare himself for his foolishness in that regard. He also doesn't spare himself in his personal life. At one point he steals some of his wife's food for no other reason than he's hungry.

He and his wife escape Dresden not because of the Nazis but because of the bombing. At that point, he removes the star reluctantly because of the fear of being caught without it. It's not an act of defiance but of survival. He is not noble, heroic, or even brave. His one brave act is keeping the diary which was difficult and dangerous. But, his first person portrait of Germany before and during the war is truly chilling and brings to mind "The Banlity of Evil" as Hannah Arendt described it. Most of the Aryan Germans just went along with the Nazis even when they despised them. It's in 2 volumes.

[ChosenUnWisely]

13. None, some can be close but that is about it

[Capt. Obvious]

15. Fever Pitch

[KamaAina]

36. Fun fact about the U.S. version

Up until that year, the screenwriters, like everyone else on the planet, had every reason to believe that the Sox would blow it. So that was how the script originally read. Needless to say, it got rewritten over and over again that summer and fall.

[VScott]

17. Apollo 13... maybe?

[Ryano42]

31. There were liberties taken to increase drama about Jack Swigert

And about the midcourse correction they did but what is said is taken directly from the transcripts.

It's rah rah and patriotic without veering greatly from the truth.

[zipplewrath]

63. Yes, but

I heard a lecture by Lovell around 1980 in which he told the story. A whole lotta what was in that movie was dead on. The alignment maneuver for re-entry was a handful and they were within something like a half degree or so of being on the wrong trajectory.

But no one doubted Swigert's abilities. And there was no dust up in the LEM between the three of them. But Lovell did pull off his medical monitors.

[Ryano42]

70. My Father was an illustrator making Skylab manuals during Apollo 13...

He loved the movie and said it's tone was perfect, though being in a upcoming program he never for to go into Mission Control.

One thing he wished they had showed was the Splashdown party for 13...he said most everyone was passed out from drinking and exhaustion!

[cherokeeprogressive]

100. Gone with the Wind.

Rhett really didn't give a damn.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. A friend of mine, now deceased, was part of NASA when that happened

He said the movie was right on, except it didn't capture the utter certainty of virtually everyone at NASA that the astronauts would die.

Of course, they worked the thing anyway, and the rest is (wonderful) history.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. That was my first answer, too.

It was pretty spot on, given the fact that it was a Hollywood movie. But the actual story was pretty amazing.

[KingCharlemagne]

21. I re-watched "Glory" last night on GRIT TV (channel 46-4 in Los Angeles) and was

again blown away by it, esp. by Morgan Freeman's and Matthew Broderick's performances. I think the film captured accurately the spirit of the time and the cross-currents behind the formation of an African-American regiment.

[JustAnotherGen]

42. I would agree

I think Glory was frighteningly accurate.

I'm going to also say All The President's men. I think it was fairly accurate - right down to the details of the newsroom set.

[TuxedoKat]

110. Grapes of Wrath

It's fictional, but I think it was supposed to depict the tenor of the times accurately.

[Adrahil]

123. I was an extra in that movie! n/t

[LanternWaste]

32. 13 Days and Road to War both come to mind.

13 Days and Road to War both come to mind.

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. Probably none. History is boring.

Movies can't be.

Ever see the Battle of the Bulge? They made it seem like a two-day battle.

Ever see The Informant? They made a pretty dry story about price-fixing seem exciting.

[SheilaT]

40. I've long noticed that movies often get things wrong.

Sometimes they're relatively trivial details, but often they are things that matter. If the movie is already intended purely as fiction, it's one thing, but when presented as historical, it's quite another. The trouble is that a lot of people assume if something is in a movie then it must be true. Which is why a lot of people think that the DaVinci Code is real history, when it's not, it's pure fiction, the author made it up.

Someone said history is boring. It's not, it's really quite fascinating, but the history classes you had to take in high school were probably badly taught. Sometimes the history class is taught by the football coach, who is probably a nice person, but probably knows nothing outside what he reads in the text.

I've often thought history could well be taught as a series of biographies, with an emphasis on scandal and gossip, which might hold the students' interest.

Me, I've always loved history and have read a fair amount in that field, both as historical fiction and as straight history. It's one of the reasons I'm made crazy by the Phillipa Gregory books about the Tudors and the Boleyns. She gets certain fundamental facts wrong, but the people who read those books never read anything else, so they haven't a clue.

Actually, my biggest problem overall with historical fiction is that all too often the characters are modern people dressed in funny clothes. People's attitudes and behaviors change significantly over time, which is why reading a novel set in the present of when it was written is usually very interesting, as it gives you insight into what people really thought and how they behaved. One of the reasons the novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is so compelling is that when it was written the author clearly had no expectation that slavery would end in her lifetime. Essentially every novel written since 1865 but set before the Civil War has foreknowledge of the end of slavery, and it makes a difference.

[Marr]

54. Your last paragraph is exactly what I was going to mention.

Robinson Crusoe, for instance, is only interesting to me because it gives you a glimpse of the world through the eyes of a person in the 1700's.

I'd love to see something like a movie set in, say, medieval Europe with characters who actually reflect prevailing attitudes of the time. All we seem to get are people with very modern sensibilities in funny clothes, as you said.

[underpants]

41. Sharknado but they got loose with the facts on Sharknado 2

[frylock]

73. did you even bother to read the annotated tie-in?

[JustAnotherGen]

44. All The Presidents Men

Having read the journalists' book and taking a deep dive into the event this past summer - I was blown away at how accurate that movie was to events. It's also interesting to see some of those players still on the stage in various ways today - back then.

[Ron Green]

45. "The Great Escape"

[NuclearDem]

47. Off the top of my head:

Downfall (also just a fantastic fucking movie in general), Das Boot, Name of the Rose, and Tora Tora Tora.

[ND-Dem]

50. name of the rose was a fiction based in a historical setting. a fiction written to explore the

author's intellectual hobbyhorses.


Eco, being a semiotician, is hailed by semiotics students who like to use his novel to explain their discipline. The techniques of telling stories within stories, partial fictionalization, and purposeful linguistic ambiguity are all apparent. The solution to the central murder mystery hinges on the contents of Aristotle's book on Comedy, of which no copy survives; Eco nevertheless plausibly describes it and has his characters react to it appropriately in their medieval setting – which, though realistically described, is partly based on Eco's scholarly guesses and imagination. It is virtually impossible to untangle fact / history from fiction / conjecture in the novel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose

[exboyfil]

76. The actor who played Hitler

in Downfall - truly extraordinary. I simply loved that movie especially when the bastard kills himself.

[Nye Bevan]

49. Inglourious Basterds.

[4Q2u2]

51. Some are

The best years of our lives.

Johnny get your gun.

[bananas]

52. Mel Brooks "History of the World" and Bill Moyers "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth"

[KamaAina]

53. Fahrenheit 9/11

[pinboy3niner]

58. Don't forget the documentary on the inventors of Post-its

[closeupready]

57. Battle of Algiers, I think, was one that got much of history correct.

I mean, there is always going to be dramatic license taken, and so, to a greater or lesser extent, no film can ever get it 100% correct.

[Tom Ripley]

109. ^^^This^^^

[Beaverhausen]

60. Dramatic non-fiction films are not documentaries

There will always be some inaccuracies.

[alarimer]

62. Almost none, I would bet.

We should not be learning history from Hollywood movies.

[LanternWaste]

64. many people's interest in particular historical topics are borne from dramatic films.

I would guess though, that many people's interest in particular historical topics are borne from dramatic films. I'm not however, aware of anyone pushing the agenda to learn history from Hollywood movies.

[CanonRay]

66. Check out "One Man's Hero"

It won some award for historical accuracy, and was good to boot.

[edhopper]

67. There are historic movies that

get little things wrong or compress a story for the sake of brevity.
And there are movies that completely miss the reality they are trying to portray.
The Longest Day was a fairly accurate dramatization of the D-Day invasion.
The Green Berets was far from depicting anything in Viet Nam.

The sniper movie, which i presume this post is about, seems to have gotten our Iraq war wrong.

[el_bryanto]

68. That and Selma - it sounds like the Sniper Movie got a lot wrong

I don't want to see it though so will never know.

Bryant

[edhopper]

69. Selma

looks like it got positive reviews from the people who were there.

Except for Califano.

[JustAnotherGen]

102. Re The Green Berets

My dad was one of the first - and he detested that movie. He would have agreed - that's not "what" we were and it didn't show the dead eyes they all had in pictures. My dad had dead eyes in all his pictures up until the time he met my mom in 1969.

[edhopper]

103. They filmed it in Georgia

so they even got the direction of the coast wrong.

[JustAnotherGen]

104. I never knew that

Thanks you for that piece of film trivia! Now I know!

[jmowreader]

71. The Battle of Britain was as historically accurate as they could get

It helps when you have two things going for you: producers intent on historical accuracy and veterans of the actual battle on the crew.

[WestCoastLib]

74. Not Many. But, we don't have many "historically accurate" accounts of anything.

Honestly, we can probably get a little closer to the truth the closer we are to the present day, but an individual's, or even group of individuals' perception of an event does not necessarily equal "reality" and once the majority of people that experienced an event are no longer with us, even that bit may be lost to us.

I get that this isn't necessarily your point and most movies, and stories, take great liberties with the "truth" to make for a better dramatic picture.

But I'd say the term "historically accurate" itself is a misnomer, and dangerously close to an oxymoron.

[Trailrider1951]

75. Hmm, I can think of two that portrayed

times I lived through fairly accurately: the movie, "The Right Stuff", and the TV Mini-series, "The Missiles of October".

[Quixote1818]

78. Movies are free speech but that doesn't mean we can't criticize them

and movies that cover historical events should most certainly be scrutinized by the press and the public to keep folks aware of the facts. If you are going to do a movie about the founding Fathers and make them out as not having owned slaves, would that be the right thing to do? Would that not piss half the country off big time? Some parts of the story are less important and so directors have plenty of artistic license to make the movie good and to keep the audience engaged but you should not completely change someone's morals, someone who is a part of history and not expect to take criticism.

[el_bryanto]

79. Movies are free speech of course. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. "Lincoln" was consistent with my understanding of history.

The limitation of that endorsement should be immediately apparent.

[Stuart G]

83. I agree with luberjack_jeff..Lincon is very special in this regard.

As far as I know, in this film, the producers and directors took a lot of time to get as much of it correct as possible.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. "Lincoln" was researched and written over 6 years by a Pulizter Prize winning playwright Tony

Kushner. First draft was 500 pages. There are in fact several small inaccuracies, including one done intentionally for dramatic timing which they were aware of when they made the film.
The amount of time, talent and care given to that screenplay is rare beyond measure.

[Archae]

82. "Sink The Bismarck" and "The Battle Of Britain" were pretty accurate.

Now in the opposite direction, was Oliver Stone's "JFK."
Two facts they did get right.
Kennedy was killed, and Clay Shaw was put on trial.

The rest was pure bullshit.

[whistler162]

101. Anything done by Oliver Stone

that purports to be "historical" is usually so filled with historical inaccuracies it makes one cringe.

[MadrasT]

84. Gettysburg was pretty accurate.

As were Glory and Lincoln, both mentioned above.

The Civil War is the only period of history I know enough about to be able to have an opinion.

Lincoln and Gettysburg took some dramatic licens, but nothing that aggregiously offended me. It has been so long since I saw Glory I don't remember as much about it.

YMMV but they worked for me.

[JonLP24]

85. I have to really think on this one

I guess the most recent example is Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight though I wonder if all the worrying about setting precedent was the cause for the technical decision when the official version gives us it was a 4-4 which is why they went with the technicality.

I'll have to come back as I try to remember a better example but American cinema is often very inaccurate which is baffling when the true story is even more interesting than the changes the film made.

I think David Simon & Ed Burns are the only ones that appear to have the capabilities of telling true stories that accurately portray the look & feel, including the good & bad honesty. Journalism transformed into art is the best way which it is described.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. All narrative or dramatic films should not be seen as history but as a story someone told you about

history. Cinema has forms intended to accurately convey information in a direct way, such as documentary and cinema verite, but a dramatized, narrative film is always a story being told and not a reporting of facts. Always.
The story will be curated, edited, crafted for emphasis, dynamics, emotional impact. The story is told with a point of view, with a beginning, middle and end, the story is designed to show character as well as facts, motives as well as actions, historically unimportant features of a historical figure become more important when that figure is being depicted by a living actor.
Narrative films are always stories being told by a storyteller or two. Expecting them to be or treating them as if they are something else is not all that 'accurate' nor helpful to discussions about films.
I see reviews of 'Selma' and 'American Sniper' that cheese me off because they are not reviewing the films but the facts, not reporting on cinema but on real events in relation to the cinema, and because they are really talking not about the films, but about the films they saw but about the films they wish were made instead. That's really not criticism of the films, it's a pitch for a different film.
Don't confuse a story being told with historical testimony.

[GGJohn]

91. Band of Brothers.

It was for the most part, historically accurate and a riveting series to watch.

[el_bryanto]

94. Saw Selma this morning; think the complaints about Johnson are overplayed.

It is true that an objective history outside of the proceedings would have painted him in a better light. But the perspective of the movie is Martin Luther King and the people around him, and from their perspective he was dragging his heels.

The scene with J. Edgar Hoover is problematic, but mostly because I am not sure modern audiences realize how much power Hoover had. The guy was one of the most powerful people in Washington, mainly because he had used his resources to gather dirt on pretty much everybody. He makes a veiled threat at one point - something about how "even powerful men can be dealt with." I honestly don't know if that's a threat against MLK or against LBJ, as it can be taken both ways (and the actor plays it just right). A later scene is more problematic but he just orders his assistant to get Hoover on the phone. It sort of implies something, but doesn't state it outright.

But the LBJ stuff is a sideline to the meat and potatoes of the movie, which is the black civil rights struggle; it's very inspiring to see this group of black people (largely men) strategize and debate how best to make their moves. I really enjoyed it, and more to the point, found it very inspiring. I think it's an important movie, and I think people should see it if they get the opportunity.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

95. LBJ will be the subject of a very well written HBO film starring Brayn Cranston based on the plays

'All The Way' and 'Great Society' about Johnson by Robert Schenkkan, who is very good and will be adapting the screenplay....I've seen the plays and they are great, Cranston is of course great in the role.

[arely staircase]

96. JFK

I say in my best Octofish.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. JFK is a legal thriller about the experiences of Jim Garrison, it's not a story about JFK and it is

pretty accurate about the subject matter, which is Jim Garrison a DA who tried to make a case against Clay Shaw for an alleged part in the conspiracy to kill JFK. Not sure what is not accurate about the telling of Garrison's story, which happened much as it does in the film.
Still, it's Stone's retelling of Garrison's story so it is only a story but the films with the most 'accuracy' about real events are films like that one which are about a smaller historical story and which are based directly on source materials from the central character.
JFK is a perfect example of films that people criticize as if they were another film. It's not a documentary about Oliver Stone's theory of the assassination, it is a legal thriller about Jim Garrison and his pursuit of his theories about the assassination. To say the film is incorrect, you have to show me what it got wrong about Garrison. Because that's what the film is about.

[MohRokTah]

106. The Longest Day was very historically accurate. eom

[MicaelS]

108. Tora, Tora, Tora. n/t.

[Zorra]

113. They Live.

[Orrex]

117. The Star Wars prequel trilogy

[Warren DeMontague]

120. When fascism comes to America, it will come dressed as a Gungan

[Warren DeMontague]

119. fear and loathing in las vegas.

And "Electric Apricot: Quest for Festeroo"