Is Hollywood right to rewrite WW2 history?

Fahrenheit 9/11 is the one that immediately springs to mind.

people went into it with so much hatred and anger and moore used this and fed it. it was amazing to see little old couples walking out of the movie criticising those "damn american meddlers"

im sure i could think of more but thats the one which immediately comes to mind
 
haha....i was guilty of that too though! went to the first screening at the regent theatre in dunedin...from memory about 3000 seats. sold out. i have never left a movie so angry...it really struck a chord.

but i know moore has his own bias, so its ok
 
tahts it, it was billed as a documentry.
to me a documentry is a factual film with no bias or agendas it is there purely to inform. now if people go to F9/11 expecting to be watching a doco, they are in for a suprise. they will be seeing a film whose sole focus is to undermine bush's credibility. moore should NOT have billed it as a docco at all
F9/11 was full of cheap tricks and character assasinations. it did not paint a while picture, instead it focuessed on the parts he wanted to emphasise and conveniently ignored others.
im no bush fan, but hmm im going OT so im stopping!!

oh and i hate it when little kids go to see movies by the latest pop tart and they are completely taken in by the under the surface message that "you have to be beautiful and then good things will happen to you. '
the minute hollywood makes a movie like crossroads, raise your voice, what a girl wants etc but with REAL characters, not underage "pinups" then they will get my respect.
that is why i like the bbc shows, and some aussie stuff, they dont have picture perfect actorsand often the characters are much more believeable because of it
 
hey

my garndad was a naval gunner in ww2 and my gran was a quaarn........................my mum's uncle was SAS and alot of the family were scot guards or blackwatch during ww2...................

As far as I can remember ww2 is what theses old folk always talked about at family "get togethers"

I think to get a good aspect on ww2 and the truth let these old fella's do the storyies not america.......................no offense to get a dead accurate view you need some one who was in the war from the begin from day one.................be them english/french/german/italian/american.


But i can say when i was in Russia and i was at the "blackwatch" memorial and my great uncle was there................he cried his eyes out for the men, his mates, his family..............the stories he told after that had meaning...................its not til you see these old fella's that sacrificed their lifes for the future generation that you actaully get to grip on the reality and the pain ww2 caused
 
Re: hey

That is so true, when you see these people tell the story you see the tear in their eyes and they are not tears of sorrow for their pain, they are tears for the bond they shared with those who are gone, a bond not met in any situation but war
 
Although it is very tiny and comes at the end of the movie, there is a disclaimer at the end of U-571 that gives the Brits their credit.

Also, while I agree that it isn't Hollywood's duty to teach history, I think it would be a good idea if they had a large disclaimer at the begining of every movie that at least points out that it is a work of fiction and doesn't represent the truth. Maybe even suggest some books that do show the truth.

Now speaking as a combat vet, I'm glad that movies don't show too much of the awful truth of war else I would never see another war film and I doubt many of the public would go see them except the few psycopaths out there who enjoy seeing people torn to bits. Two recent movies (well one was a mini-series) that have come closest to the truth of battle are "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers". The latter being the only one that comes anywhere close to what it's like to fight beside your friends. I loved that series but it gave me many hard memories and some sleepless nights. I stood beside Lt. Compton when he saw his pals blown to hell as if I was in battle all over again. Is that accurate enough for you? I hope to God it is. Anything more and nobody could watch it.

As to the preeminence of US action over British action well, Hollywood is in the US. Britain has its own film studios. They can make movies too. Is that correct? Probably not, but since when has life been fair? As for my own opinion, the entire western world should get down on its knees every morning they wake up and thank their maker for the courage and ability they showed when Britain stood alone against the tide of tyranny from May 1940 to June 1941 (Soviets joined them before the US did in December). If they hadn't, this forum would not exist, I and many others would never have been born and the rest of you would be speaking either German or Japanese and existing in slavery.
 
Hollywood will always be bias as its located in the US, if you have a chance to see movies made in Europa you will see the same. As someone said, Hollywood has no obligation to educate, schools have that obligation and seldom they do it with history.

In the case of Mr. Ambrose, he is not taken serious in history circles, for many reason including plagarizing.

Victors will always right their side of the story in a better light, regardless of whom !! good example is Gen. Vlasov, whom after 60 years is now a hero and his name was cleared, historians on WWII knew this for years.

Hollywood is good in telling a story, not accurate or factual but good.

PS

The Patriot was based on several real individuals, one of the few movies in Hollywood with substance, mainly because Mel is a history buff and a independent director.
 
A few points about a couple of comments made
Charge_7 said:
Although it is very tiny and comes at the end of the movie, there is a disclaimer at the end of U-571 that gives the Brits their credit.
This is only due to the fact that the man who led the actual raid on the U-boat from which the story is loosely based, led a PR campaign against the studio which forced them to do so :roll:

The Patriot was based on several real individuals, one of the few movies in Hollywood with substance, mainly because Mel is a history buff and a independent director.
And an Irish American with a very large chip on his shoulder about the English.
Both Braveheart and The Patriot are highly baised, and show an almost total disregard to historical fact.
examples,
The Patriot, at no point in the AWI did British troops burn a church down with civilians inside it :x
Braveheart, The battle of Sterling Bridge, In real life the Scots won because they ambushed the English army crossing a small bridge. In the film there's no bridge :shock:
 
Ahhhh for the good old days. You watched a movie if you wanted to be entertained. You read a book if you wanted to be educated.
 
Charge_7 said:
Also, while I agree that it isn't Hollywood's duty to teach history, I think it would be a good idea if they had a large disclaimer at the begining of every movie that at least points out that it is a work of fiction and doesn't represent the truth. Maybe even suggest some books that do show the truth.

Good idea
 
Hey Redcoat, it wasn't me who posted that bit about Mel Gibson. It was Guaripa.

Re: the Scots at Stirling Bridge. Well if you get your butt kicked I guess you can call it an "ambush". Actually it was just a change in tactics. All armies everywhere have the right to do that. You suggest that the Scots did something nefarious and as someone of 3/4 Scots lineage I take offense at that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though that you didn't intend that.
 
Hey RedCoat

Thats why I said several individuals not incidents. and Yes as I stated Hollywood is bais.

Jason Isaacs who palyed the Colonel Tavington, excellent portayal

Mel running towards the Reds with the flag, it never happend.

:horsie:
 
The great danger is that many people with little knowledge of WW2 will simply assume that the movie they are watching is based on true facts.

I agree completely!! Most recently this has been shown in my Police Science classes, where several of the students have gotten all their information on how Police Science is from CSI and the like.

It seems we have 3 options:
1) resign ourselves to the fact that their will be people that can not separate fact from fiction, like this guy
2) focus on teaching the difference between fact and fiction (maybe like in schools or, God forbid, parents teaching their children)
3) remove anything that is not 100% fact from society
 
Maybe the question should be :is Hollywood right to falsify (willingly or unwillingly ;);))WW II history ?:):D
 
Maybe the question should be :is Hollywood right to falsify (willingly or unwillingly ;);))WW II history ?:):D

I take it Inglourious Basterds, Valkyrie, Miracle at St. Anna, Pearl Harbor, Schindler's List, The Tuskegee Airmen, Hogan's Heroes, The Final Countdown, A Bridge Too Far, Patton, Catch-22, The Dirty Dozen, and more should all be gotten rid of because none of them are 100% accurate. For that matter, why stop at WWII? Why not get rid of M.A.S.H., there were a lot of inaccuracies in that. For Iraq you have The Kingdom, The Hurt Locker, The Marine, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Green Zone, Stop-Loss, Brothers. And why stop at Hollywood, what about Horatio Hornblower, Days of Glory, Yamato, The Last Drop, The Ninth Day, Attack on the Iron Coast, The Night of the Generals, The Sound of Music, and more?

how about instead of complaining that entertainment isn't history you let entertainment be just that, entertainment and history come from schools, libraries, museums, ect. But if we must make Hollywood produce nothing but 100% accurate movies it should apply to ALL entertainment, TV, Movies, Music, Games (dear lord we can't have the ruthless and vicious Ghandi enslaving the peaceful Mongols in Sid Meier's Civilization now can we?) For that matter, we can't have sci-fi because people will think there actually are Jedi's and Cylons and Romulans and that we really can travel to other stars in a matter of minutes.

soapbox.gif
 
At one time they used to put on the film credits, "that any incidents involving real life people was purely coincidental". Now they could now say "that any thing resembling the truth or history of these events is an error on our part"
 
That is the problem with society today. No one can think for themselves and need warning labels and disclaimers on everything. You can sue McDonald's for having hot coffee and win, making them have to label the cups with "Caution: Hot" but if they sold you a cold cup of coffee you would complain. On a screw driver set there is this warning label (caution: warning label may be found to be offensive to some). So I have decided we can just make one catch all warning label stating "Warning: Do not perform any stupid or dangerous acts in association with this product." I say all this to say, if we need disclaimers in the credits of all entertainment stating "any thing resembling history, science, life lessons, political truths, geography, proper grammar, math, technology, medicine, law, or intelligence of humans (I'm sure I have missed quite a few things) is completely fabricated and should not be taken as fact" then the human race is beyond help and we might as well kill ourselves now.

The longer I live the more I have to agree with Cole's Axiom which is a sad commentary on the state of the world.


Also, while I agree that it isn't Hollywood's duty to teach history, I think it would be a good idea if they had a large disclaimer at the begining of every movie that at least points out that it is a work of fiction and doesn't represent the truth. Maybe even suggest some books that do show the truth.

Should such disclaimers be on titles such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Avatar, Godzilla, X-men, District 9, 2012, ect? If not, why do they get a free pass with that and not history? Are people really that retarded?
 
Last edited:
This highlights the failure of the school system in general & history specificly. Then there's The History Channel running fictional drivel like "Dancing with wolves". HC ran a show about the real Braveheart. It opened up withthe director saying he didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story, so now people think William Wallace fathered a King of England.
 
Not Hollywood, but an imprssive movie: "The Bridge" ("Die Brücke", 1959; telling quite accurately the situation my father lived when a 17 yrs old kid officer in the last year of war); Hollywood: "Rules of Engagement", anyone?

Hollywood and not, but both both entertaining and educating (from my POV):

I have had more than one discussion about RoE´s with my wife (who is a gung ho hothead perfectly prepared to go guerilla whenever Spain should be threatened by anybody, Franco education... :) ) and kids (as there is no obligatory mil since a few years they did not have to go and won´t think about it for too little money, they are actually shaking their heads when hearing about me or my dad, or my wife´s dad striving to go at one time; probably rightly so, I won´t interfere, just tell my part when asked; they almost cannot imagine the situation the guys in the film encounter themselves in, despite the fact that we (Spain) have so many guys in A´stan atm, some friends of them...);

Where my wife and sons are all getting really worked up when the Colonel (?) gets indicted, I feel (and argue, rather futile) it shows more or less the way a situation like the one described in the movie should be dealt with (not all hushed down, trust justice - more the European than the US in this respect, sorry... :) ), fairly realistically at least in this respect for me (and that the ambassador or the National Security Advisor would let him hang out to dry is also not too far away from reality, my guess).

That most of the scenes in recent (after ´75´s) war movies have nothing to do with reality, one thing. But then, you have (like my kids) folks that have just a rough idea on how things work in the military as they never had to or have to go (they relate to stuff mostly from what I or my father told them, the other GF was dead before they saw the planet, the GMs are all about the ´36 civil war in Spain which is a story all by itself as it was dividing families into friends and enemies), then it becomes questions about "what would you do if you were there" refering to the situation displayed, and hence a valid question that requests a valid answer.

My take always has been (when my kids were young: My youngest was born in ´89, how can I explain to her "The Wall" when even for me it was just a kind of "allegorical expression" until I saw it in an - obligatory in the late 60s - school excursion and realized it was actually a real and true wall, and it was of concrete) to explain what is Hollywood, what with respect to it is just the equivalent to a fairy tale, and what is (of cause only from my POV) the things they will have to worry about if ever in combat like situations from whatever angle or aspect.

LL: You gotta relativate movies by integrating them into your experiences, whatever others later make of them, their problem.

This latter part is commonly referred to as "education", and it is where may of us fail: Many of us adults want our kids to think as we do, we do not teach them to doubt everything anymore, as did our parents that lived a few wars.

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Back
Top