Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
I felt they could have been a little more fair in their treatment of those who protect their right to express their views. 
i was in the military, the Army, at the tail end of Viet-Nam. i lived off-post and in a college town. i was in my early twenties at the time and i can attest that it was NOT an era where it seemed anybody respected you for being in the military. the cold hearted overt nastiness from civilians my own age, especially the college women was unbelievable and something i was very unprepared for. somehow the anger against the war was replaced by anger against those who served. i wish i had a buck for every "GI dog!" s i heard or for the "F*** Y** GIs that were yelled from passing cars. (i never was spat on or at, though and never knew anybody who was.) i have to admit that some of the things that went on in the GI town on the opposite side of the post provided much cause for some of the prejudice against the guys in green. compared to three years of that kind of daily treatment in the real world i could hardly find any offense in a TV show like MASH. lastly, no offense intended, but i am always puzzled by the comment i quoted above and its variations. whether a matter of speech, a film, a TV show, a book, or what have you, this "right" to speak your mind or hold a contrary opinion always seems to have an asterisk and a qualifier. I'm often reminded of a lyric from an old Steppenwolf song from their first album back in 1968:
"You're free to speak your mind my friend
As long as you agree with me
Don't criticize the father land
Or those who shape your destiny
'Cause if you do
You'll lose your job your mind and all the friends you knew
We'll send out all our boys in blue
They'll find a way to silence you"
i recently saw a documentary about the consequences of the anti-Bush comment one member of the Dixie Chicks made. people were threatening to kill her and hurt her family. coincidentally, over a hundred radio stations all owned by one media company stopped playing their songs and people were encouraged to stop buying their CDs. there was a quite open attempt to destroy their lives and their careers for doing something they had a legal and constitutionally protected right to do. on a personal basis, i can't logically make the leap between saying that my military service helped protect this Country, the greatness of which is based or rights we all have as citizens among other things, and then expect because i did so that anything anybody says about me or any portrayal of the service i was in is supposed to be uncritical or deferential .
i've also been a biker for most of my life. i never got upset over movies like Born Losers or Wild Hogs even though to me the latter is worse than the former IMHO. people can say and believe as they want. Oliver Stone can toy with history. Hogan's Heroes can portray German military as buffoons. it's all OK fine. it is what it is; some body's opinion or view. it's the USA, not the (former) USSR or China under Mao so it's perfectly OK and legal to have one. sometimes i think we forget what those places were like and risk becoming like them.
wow- sorry for the rant! too much coffee today. think I'm going to take a Valium and go lay down...
I've been interested in history, specifically WW1, WW2 and present conflicts since I was little and my parents have always been against it. I thought it was because my mother was against the idea of death because she is a vegetarian but a few years ago I asked if their hatred of the army came from growing up during Vietnam (they were in University then) and they realized that it was the reason. So you are right about the amount of disrespect and hate for the army that my parents generation has because it still carries on to this day.
I still would like to know when the attitude changed and why. i found it ironic that these same people who would speak up for equality and fair treatment of people of color and different ethnic origin, yet turned on us as a group, the antithesis of what they claimed to represent. Some have said the Mi Lai and Lt. Calley became representative of the Military and the people who served in it. I never bought that. Personally, i believe there is no stronger unifying force than a shared hatred. Every group needs their boogeyman as Hitler and every other dictator or despot have proven time and again throughout history. The other interesting thing about that era was I lived in the same town for some years after that and once I didn't look like a GI anymore, I was accepted and treated quite well. Even though it was commonly known that I was former military, it didn't matter at all. years class. Sorry this is off topic, but 33 years later this still bothers me. -:[]-
To return to the intent of this thread, I still wonder why some folks are so obsessed with historical accuracy when in some cases, as pointed out in other comments here, the correct vehicles/equipment are not available or the correct back drop is not achievable from budgetary or other constraints, etc. Realistically (pun intended) if there ate 150 people watching Memphis Belle, Pearl. or Flyboys, how many actually know what's right and what isn't? One or two? It's obvious that the films are mader for the other 148 or 149. How many will even remember the film or the details of the event portrayed a week or a month after? Probably one or two. IMHO the people who place a high value on accuracy seem to be looking more for an affirmation of their understanding of events. Or could this be an opportunity to criticize mistakes as a way to assert that they possess an eclectic knowledge that most people care not a whit about? And, truthfully, you have to admit that history does little for most people except bore them. I care a great deal about various historical eras, but I know no-one else who does. That's OK with me. I think that many miss the point of film in the first place which is simple to provide entertainment to the masses with the intent of making money for those involved in the film. That's why all films have the disclaimer of "Any resemblance to persons or events...is purely coincidental" or "based of real events" which can mean there's someone named Bob in the film and someone named Bob was really at the event. It's obvious that Historians as advisers are available and likely not that hard to find. Because again, the film is for mass consumption by a general audience who want to be entertained, not taught, Historians aren't used. While some details are certainly no big thing to get right such as the location of the last bombing mission in Memphis Belle, the film is not about the bombing missions, but the plane and the men who crewed her. As with the comment about the Mustangs, it may well be as another person commented, there's more of them still around, but also it was probably the most recognizable of the Allied fighters. With the advances in CG and other animation techniques like that used in Flyboys I would like to see more military movies made or remade with the military props being a bit more correct where applicable. That would make me happy regardless of the accuracy of anything else.
If I want true historical accuracy about the mechanics and details of an event, I will read books (emphasis on the plural!) about the event or subject, research it on the internet, and watch documentaries about it if they are available. Yet, even among historians, there can be disagreement.
Ultimately, I can't fault Hollywood for playing loose with the facts as long as I get my money's worth being entertained.
