Is Hollywood right to rewrite WW2 history? - Page 5




 
--
 
December 20th, 2004  
Locke
 
 
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
December 20th, 2004  
chewie_nz
 
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
December 20th, 2004  
Locke
 
 
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
--
December 20th, 2004  
beardo
 
U-571 for obvious reasons
December 21st, 2004  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: 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
December 21st, 2004  
USAFAUX2004
 
 

Topic: 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
December 21st, 2004  
Charge 7
 
 
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.
December 21st, 2004  
Guaripa
 
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.
December 21st, 2004  
redcoat
 
 
A few points about a couple of comments made
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
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

Quote:
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
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
December 21st, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
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.