Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Hollywood Vrs History
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by uncledonitz (U2884279) on Monday, 27th February 2006
I saw the 'Patriot' last night on the box, Mel Gibson leads a group of rebel militia, against the British during the American revolution. There was a shocking scene when the British herded about 50 Women and Children into their village church, told them never to defy the British, locked them in and torched the church.
Being an absolutely disgusting scene, I checked the internet to see what event this scene was based on, and low and behold it is totally fictional. Now I know Hollywood likes to make things up, to make much more 'entertaining' movies, which does niggle me, but I don't mind. And I know the British Army must of caused quite a few atrocities in their time, but to make something as wicked as this up, has really annoyed me.
It's funny in this day and age of political correctness ( which I abhor ) and people not wanting to offend others, I am for once in my life, totally offended.
( It has just occurred to me how the Western press is criticising that Turkish film of American troops slaughtering civilians at an Iraqi wedding.... So what's the difference?) -
Message 2
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 27th February 2006
Uncle D,
The Patriot is just one of a long line of Hollywood "Historical" epics, where the truth isn't allowed to stand in the way of a script!
The truth behind the church-burning atrocity in the Patriot is that the only time something along these lines occurred, it was actually a force of US militia, who herded a group of pro-British Native Americans into a church, then burned it. Nothing like distorting the facts is there! So, transfer such an inaccuracy(or blatant lie if you like!) into another time frame, this could see the Germans making a film of the Normandy landings, in which the US army carry out the atrocities at Oradour-sur-Glane, rather than the Das Reich division! Hey, it is exactly the same thing!!
On another note, the worst offender has to be U-571, where the US Navy capture a U-boat and take its Enigma machine. The true version is that the Royal Navy catch a U boat on the service, a destroyer fatally damages it, then a group of British sailors go into the sinking U-boat, take out its Enigma machine and code books (and not all of them make it out of the sinking sub). Not a Yank in sight. Then, after a huge outcry on the lack of factual content, the film's producers add a little note at the end describing the true event. Disgraceful.
Can't wait for the US remake of the Dambusters! No doubt they'll be flying B17s, in broad daylight, and the Brits will bomb a convent instead of the dams in error!! -
Message 3
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 27th February 2006
UD,
All it comes down to is that it's a film, it's entertainment not fact. If you (Like myself and DL) get annoyed at historical inaccuracy then just remember it's not fact.
If many in the US wish to think that the Nasty Brits did all of these atrocities rather than the reality that most were carried out by so called 'Patriots' then so be it. -
Message 4
Posted by uncledonitz (U2884279) on Monday, 27th February 2006
The trouble is, films can influence people, just look at how 'Brave Heart' has changed Scottish politics.
-
Message 5
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 27th February 2006
UD,
All it comes down to is that it's a film, it's entertainment not fact. If you (Like myself and DL) get annoyed at historical inaccuracy then just remember it's not fact.
If many in the US wish to think that the Nasty Brits did all of these atrocities rather than the reality that most were carried out by so called 'Patriots' then so be it.
Μύ
Trouble is that the general public tends to buy into this kind of movie fiction, you know the numbers of people reading serios history books or even bothering to look things up on the net before accepting them as fact,are shrinking.
It's not about the fiction in the films per se, it's about the fact that it's presented as historical fact with fine print at the very end of the final credits which says it was all made up and which nobody ever gets to see. -
Message 6
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 27th February 2006
The trouble is, films can influence people, just look at how 'Brave Heart' has changed Scottish politics.Μύ
UD,
Most of my family are scots, and they look on Braveheart as a pathetic insult... Nothing more. It really is very stupid people who take it serious. -
Message 7
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 27th February 2006
Henry lee,
But was the Patriot meant to be presented as historical fact?
Braveheart has that many holes it in it's just not worth mentioning.
But I accept your point with, say, Gallipoli, where only those who know anything about the subject will spot fundamental floors. -
Message 8
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Monday, 27th February 2006
I'd love to see someone make a film showing the role of black slaves in the Revolution, ie kept in slavery by the Americans and fighting for the British in return for their freedom. But would it ever be shown?
The US Right would hate it because it would show the Revolution as less than glorious
The US Left would hate it too because it would show the blacks as anti-American -
Message 9
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 27th February 2006
The fundamental purpose of a film is to make money for the producer / studio. A script has to play to what its intended audience wants and few American film makers will make a film which shows the US in a bad light. Fahrenheit 911 is a notable exception. Then again most films are made in America, so it is impossible to say this is a unique viewpoint.
-
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 27th February 2006
On another note, the worst offender has to be U-571, where the US Navy capture a U-boat and take its Enigma machine. The true version is that the Royal Navy catch a U boat on the service, a destroyer fatally damages it, then a group of British sailors go into the sinking U-boat, take out its Enigma machine and code books (and not all of them make it out of the sinking sub). Not a Yank in sight. Then, after a huge outcry on the lack of factual content, the film's producers add a little note at the end describing the true event. Disgraceful. Μύ
DL,
Depends on which U-boat capture you think the film is based on.
In 1944, the US navy did capture U505. They forced it to surface, boarded it and took control of the submarine before the Germans could scuttle. Not a Brit in sight. This was the first time a 4 rotor Enigma machine had been retrieved and they also captured an experimental printing version of Enigma too.
David Balme who led the boarding of U110 said he was happy with the final version of the film U571. I've never risked my life to board a U-boat in wartime (and I suspect you never have either), so its a bit rich to whinge about a film which is acceptable to a man who has.
As to the Patriot - complete rubbish.
Braveheart's also complete rubbish from a historical standpoint, but they do claim that it's based on a genuine C16th Scottish acount which is equally unhistorical. -
Message 11
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 27th February 2006
The fundamental purpose of a film is to make money for the producer / studio. A script has to play to what its intended audience wants and few American film makers will make a film which shows the US in a bad light. Fahrenheit 911 is a notable exception. Then again most films are made in America, so it is impossible to say this is a unique viewpoint. Μύ
Fahrenheit 911 very much plays to its intended audience. There is a large US based audience eager for films which slate G W Bush. Did you know that the films distributors have the same link to Osama Bin Laden as the Buh family? One could infer, if the facts were presented cleverly enough, that Michael Moore is financed by OBL. -
Message 12
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 27th February 2006
The fundamental purpose of a film is to make money for the producer / studio. A script has to play to what its intended audience wants and few American film makers will make a film which shows the US in a bad light. Fahrenheit 911 is a notable exception. Then again most films are made in America, so it is impossible to say this is a unique viewpoint. Μύ
TonyG: Actually there was an example of people who were herded into a church and then massacreed during the American Revolutionary War. It happened in my county in Ohio. The only difference was that it was peaceful Christian Indians who were massacreed and it was done by Soldiers on detached duty from General Washington's Army. but then it is our movie and we won the war so I guess we can say anything we want.
Please forgive my spelling: Basically the move "The Patriot" is a story of the American Revolutionary War from the Battle of Camden to the Battle of the Cowpens. During that time the Revolution was in pretty bad shape. A man by the name of Francis Marion (in the movie Francis Martin) led a band of irregulars and was given the name "The Swamp Fox." (in the movie ghost) His main opponent was a British Cornel by the name of Banstire Tarrliton. (In the move Banistire Tavington) Since in real life Marrion did not kill Tarrliton; the names were slightly changed; but essentially the story of their war against each other was fairly accurate. The attroticities committed by both sides where horrible for the day. However, they were nothing compared to the twentieth century. -
Message 13
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
Henry lee,
But was the Patriot meant to be presented as historical fact?
Μύ
you know it's one thing to watch pseudo historical action film and conclude it can't have been intended to be presented as historical fact because of the sheer number of distortions, made up events and inconsitencies you spot in it, provided you have good enough knowledge of the actual historical events the film is supposed to based on. It's a totally different story if you happen to have no such knowledge and the film comes with minimal disclaimers and on top of that it mentions dates and real events. Yes, probably the Patriot is not that bad in this respect because far as I can recall practically all of the characeters in it are entirely fictional. Yet I suspect that quite a few US high school students do accept it as historical fact whether it was intended to be presented as such or not. -
Message 14
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
"as I can recall practically all of the characeters in it are entirely fictional" With the exception of Cornwallis from what I know, I'd agree with you.
"Yet I suspect that quite a few US high school students do accept it as historical fact whether it was intended to be presented as such or not." What can I say? Some people are stupid if they think a film's priority is accuracy over entertainment... -
Message 15
Posted by HoustonTexan (U1804541) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
I think the biggest difference is that you can recognize it for what it is, a movie. I don't think it (the movie)was made to make the average American hate the British. However, I think that is exactly what the Turkish film is designed to do. I'm wondering, do you think Mel Gibson's Australian roots came out with that movie? The Patriot nor Braveheart show the British/English in a positive light. Just curious.
-
Message 16
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
All: you seem to miss the point that "The Patriot" is inspired by a true chapter of the American Revolution. The fighting in the Carolinas from the Battle of Camden to the Battle of the Cowpens. I have already posted the differences between reality and the movie. But essentially there is a lot of truth in it. If you forget about the "Church Burning" scene.
-
Message 17
Posted by Local Hero (U3080508) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
But that is the most (or one of the most) emotive scenes in the film. It is what many will remember from the film, and this will make it easier for them to associate the British at the time with unspeakable acts of brutality when it is questionable if they committed them. This could lead to animosity towards modern day Brits.
Michael -
Message 18
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
Michael: And your point would be?
-
Message 19
Posted by Local Hero (U3080508) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
That the most memorable scene in the film is one that is historically inaccurate, and will lead to people having false opinions about the actions of British troops at the time.
It's another example of Hollywood departing from historical fatc to make movies exciting, which was the whole point of the thread.
Michael -
Message 20
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
Micheal,
Good Guys / Bad Guys, How accurate was the shoot out at the Okay corral? Billy the Kid legend, sherriff murphy? The penny dreadfuls coloured these scenes as they were happening.
Embellishment and inaccuracies have been part of the story-tellers art since Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr. If its historical accuracy you want you don't go to the seanchai, as they would say down the west.
Of course Hollywood departs from historical fact, it ain't the discovery channel. If people rely on myths and legends (for that is in essence what modern historical movies are) for their historical narratives they will always leave themselves open to cultural manipulation. So is the way of the world since earliest times.
Elistan -
Message 21
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
It true that films have twisted or ignored real history since they started, but what is worrying now is the way in which films are being used by people as 'real' history. For many US high school students, and UK ones I suspect as well, its enough to watch the film to learn all that they need to know abot the Revolutionary War, or indeed almost any historic event. Richard Holme was driven by the Patriot to make an excellent seires about the war, but I doubt very many will have seen it. The danger of films as reality is that it tends to simplify the truth to a point that it becomes meaningless. You may argue, for instance, about the reality of parts of a Bridge Too far, for instance, but on the whole, they did a good job. It is difficult to say the same about many other films - Pearl harbour for instance. We should hope that people will see a film as only entertainment, but when you see how much reporting has basically become entertainment (Fox news?), then its difficult to see that most people will look further than Mel Gibson for the truth. When even the version of the truth of Somalia in Black hawk Down has seemingly become the accepted version to many, its difficult to be optimistic.
-
Message 22
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
All: you seem to miss the point that "The Patriot" is inspired by a true chapter of the American Revolution. The fighting in the Carolinas from the Battle of Camden to the Battle of the Cowpens. I have already posted the differences between reality and the movie. But essentially there is a lot of truth in it. If you forget about the "Church Burning" scene.Μύ
that's what makes it all the more damaging, you see you have a film in which, according to what you say, a lot of the events are based on historical fact and then they throw in one scene which directly contradicts the only historical event it could be said to be based on, namely the American militia are replaced with British troops and while British sympathizing indians become colonists. As someone else pointed out in this thread it's really like including in a WWII film an episode about US troops sluahgtering a bunch of German civilians suspected of helping some SS units that passed thru their village a few days before. You can't really forget the Church burning scene as it's one of the most intense episodes in the movie, you might as well forget the whole film. -
Message 23
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
Micheal,
Good Guys / Bad Guys, How accurate was the shoot out at the Okay corral? Billy the Kid legend, sherriff murphy? The penny dreadfuls coloured these scenes as they were happening.
Embellishment and inaccuracies have been part of the story-tellers art since Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr. If its historical accuracy you want you don't go to the seanchai, as they would say down the west.
Of course Hollywood departs from historical fact, it ain't the discovery channel. If people rely on myths and legends (for that is in essence what modern historical movies are) for their historical narratives they will always leave themselves open to cultural manipulation. So is the way of the world since earliest times.
ElistanΜύ
yeah and that's the way people have been manipulated for centuries, as doctor Goebels put it, if you want your lies to be believed, make them really outrageous. (or something to that effect, I don't remember the exact quote) -
Message 24
Posted by HoustonTexan (U1804541) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
There was great line in the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" - "When legend becomes fact print the legend."
-
Message 25
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
It true that films have twisted or ignored real history since they started, but what is worrying now is the way in which films are being used by people as 'real' history. Μύ
A problem exacerbated by the fact that some films - notely the recent 'King Arthur' and worse, the ghastly 'Kingdom of Heaven' are being promoted as historically accurate. -
Message 26
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
It true that films have twisted or ignored real history since they started, but what is worrying now is the way in which films are being used by people as 'real' history. Μύ
A problem exacerbated by the fact that some films - notely the recent 'King Arthur' and worse, the ghastly 'Kingdom of Heaven' are being promoted as historically accurate.Μύ
Ladies and Gentleman: GET A LIFE! I have always loved history. I found it vibrant and alive. I would be censered if I used some of the terms my children use to describe it. IMO the "History" movies tend to spark an interest in the event. I personally liked "The Kingdom of God." Granted there were multiple errors, (Not as bad as Alexander) but still many errors. But it did show the hyprocary (sp) of the Roman Chruch, the stupidity of the Templers, The arrogant stupidity of Guy and Reynald, and the absolute stupidity of going to the battle of Hattan. Balian was shown to be doing the best he could to defend Jerusalen. And Saladin and the Muslims were shown shown to be civilized people. Not the Butchers that originally took Jerusalem from the Muslims. IMO that alone is enough to justify the movie.
As for "The Patriot." The "Church Burning" scene was not, IMO, the defining moment in the movie. I think it also showed how horrible and cruel war, sepecially irregular war, is. Remember there is no nation whose armies haven't committed attroticities at one time or another.
I personally have always liked the idea of taking Indian prisoners from one of their many revolts against British rule, tying them to the front of a cannon, and then firing the cannon. Messy, but original. -
Message 27
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
I like to think that we are intelligent enough to see the smoke and mirrors.
Magicians don't really saw their assitants in half -
Message 28
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Elistan: I agree. IMO most people can pick out the basic truth the movie was trying to make. I think there are some people who just don't like the idea of seeing soldiers of their country portrayed in a bad light. The truth is that it is very difficult to make soldiers look good. Their job is to kill. Especially the bomber crews of WWII and their raids on cities.
-
Message 29
Posted by ScruffySlayer (U3363442) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
anyone who is silly enough to take a hollywood blockbuster at face value in terms of historical accuracy deserves what they get. I think most people even if they've no real interest in history have the cop on to know that movies can only be a certain length, can only fit certain amount in and most importantly have to pull in the cash to keep the studios happy. They're never going to provide a completely accurate portrayl because that would take too long, cost too much money and probably wouldn't be very entertaining..
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.