History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Historical Or Hysterical - 'Movie' History...
jimbrae
Visit this Community
Provincia de Lugo, Spain / España
Member Since: April 23, 2003
entire network: 12,927 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,060 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 04:17 AM UTC
Yesterday I watched the (recent) movie the 'Alamo' and I must say I was impressed. However, this is NOT an area that I am particularly conversant with so they could have messed around with the veracity of the actual events...

It did make me think though, just how good (or bad) is the portrayal of Historical events on the big screen.

My personal point of view, is that there are some truly apalling movies out there which purport to show (or simplify) history for the 'uninformed' I frequently get attacked SWMBO for criticising 'details'.

So what is it? Are movies useful for bringing history to life or are the majority designed for people with the i.q. of a boiled egg...

My personal, all time 'Turkey' is Pearl Harbor. My favorite is probably 'Glory'... Any thoughts?..Jim
AJLaFleche
Visit this Community
Massachusetts, United States
Member Since: May 05, 2002
entire network: 8,074 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,574 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 04:26 AM UTC
Movies are entertainment first and not documentaries. Even then, many of the History/Discovery/etc "documentaries" have sloppy video/film research, even when the script is good.
Movies and novels can inspire further research into a subject, but should not be seen as anything more than a diversion for a couple hours.
One of the cable channels used to run a good series called History vs Hollywood which looked at historically based movies with a view towards the real events and people portrayed therein.
BroAbrams
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: October 02, 2002
entire network: 1,546 Posts
KitMaker Network: 494 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 05:49 AM UTC
I really liked "Pearl Harbor." It was about the most accurate movie I have ever seen.
Halfyank
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 06:19 AM UTC
I really liked "Pearl Harbor." It was about the most accurate movie I have ever seen.

You're kidding right, or being sarcastic? I'd take Tora, Tora, Tora over Pearl Harbor any day. To me Pearl Harbor is to history, as the old Disney "Classics" like 20000 Leagues Under the Sea or Swiss Family Robinson are to great literature.

I know that great movies don't have to be historically accurate. I've heard more complaints about Braveheart being historical rubbish than I can think about, but it still won the Academy Award, and is generally considered a great movie.

Watching an "historical" movie is like reading Science Fiction or Fantasy, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief. I can accept them using mock up Tigers, like in Saving Private Ryan, or taking some historical liberties, like Enemy at the Gates. What I can't except it out and out falsehoods, like making it look like the Americans captured the decoding machine in U-570.
BroAbrams
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: October 02, 2002
entire network: 1,546 Posts
KitMaker Network: 494 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 06:29 AM UTC
Yes Rodger, I was just yanking your chain. :-)
thathaway3
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Member Since: September 10, 2004
entire network: 1,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 265 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 07:08 AM UTC
Having spent 30 years in uniform, one of my big pet peeves is glaring errors in uniforms. Especially those that can be avoided, such as when insignia are not properly placed.

You probably can't get REAL Tigers for a movie, but you sure can put the rank and branch in the right place! Between the military advisor and continuity editor, that's what they get paid for.

And yeah, "Pearl Harbor" had some real "issues"!

Tom
Grumpyoldman
Staff MemberConsigliere
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: October 17, 2003
entire network: 15,338 Posts
KitMaker Network: 5,072 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 07:41 AM UTC
When I was a young man there was a horror film that was suppose to be based on a true story. It's major selling point , to get you into the parting of your hard earned cash, and this dreadful movie was the line.... "Keep saying ...... 'It's only a Movie!' "
The older I get...... the more I say....... "It's only a movie".....!!! :-) :-) :-) :-)
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 10:39 AM UTC
As to the Alamo, I'm sure that there are quite a few liberties taken but compared to John Wayne's version (whcih I still watch and adore) it is THE GOSPEL !!!!!!!!!!!

As to Pearl Harbor....that's what DVD's are for....skip to the really good scenes. now those are worth the Price alone. Wish I could add all that into TORA TORA TORA for the absolutlely greatest never in doubt Pearl Harbor movie
sgirty
Visit this Community
Ohio, United States
Member Since: February 12, 2003
entire network: 1,315 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:30 AM UTC
Movies, like the TV, tend to give whatever subject matter they are showing a concept of believe-ablity simply because they are put in front of a 'captive ' audience and are somewhat 'bigger than life' in their format.

Most people, or at least it seems in this country anyway, would rather believe what is shown on the 'big screen' rather than taking the time to sit down and do some research and reading on their own on the subject matter just to see what is the real TRUTH of the matter. After all, history, for most, tends to be somewhat boring to say the least. Much better to know who is on top of the latest music charts, who is the head team in some sport, or what is the latest clothes fashion to be wearing, etc.

We Americans, in general, tend to be very, very ignorant of our nation's history, tending to believe the basic crap that is taught to us in the general history books we learned in school or what's presented on the 'big screen,' and for the most part never advancing any further than this. The exception here being historians, history writers, most modelers, or anybody else who has a fancy for things that have happened in the past.

But then again maybe I'm somewhat prejudice in my opinion here, as I tend to find most all the electronic programming on TV or the movies to be somewhat a waste of my time that I could be using to accomplish much more meaningful things in the real world.

Take care, Sgirty
Moezilla
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: June 01, 2004
entire network: 1,161 Posts
KitMaker Network: 533 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 04:58 AM UTC
Pearl Harbor was a good movie, in two areas only. The attack sequence was incredible, it really came out great IMO. The only other reason I watch Pearl Harbor is.... Kate Beckinsale.

Movies aren't very accurate, they always take liberties. Look at Braveheart, a movie I think everyone here will say they love. It is very historically incorrect but does that stop it from being a good movie?
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 06:22 AM UTC
I saw the movie "Glory mentioned. The biggest problem with it is it was "Politically correct" and made to show the black contribution during the civil war. I would say it was fairly accurate. BUT>>>>>>>mention of the beating the two following brigades took and their bravery....what about the bravery of the "evil southerners" all seemed to go by the wayside. My ex-wife is black, so I got a black perspective on the Civil War from her....needless to say if one goes beyond the school history book it is really inaccurate. She is well educated, and better educated now as she has a very open mind about History oh yea she also is a model builder...too bad she doesn't understand money or budgets, but she is a great lady and still my best friend..sorry a little off topic there , but that was just to point out how one group viewing a battle is different from another
Hohenstaufen
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 09:04 AM UTC
"Saving Private Ryan" was repeated on the television again the other night. Now while I think it is an excellent film, & unusually for Hollywood, appears to be a reasonable depiction of small unit actions (although when marching across country the patrol always appear too close together for me, & the Director can't resist the dramatic effect of soldiers walking over a skyline), it does highlight a facet of American war films generally, a marked reluctance to admit that there were several other nations fighting alongside them in WW2. The only intimation that anyone else is involved in "Private Ryan" is a disparaging remark made about Montgomery during a conversation between Miller & Harmon. In fact many of the landing craft crews were RN, even on Omaha. Someone else mentioned the liberties taken with history in U571.
Now I accept that Hollywood mainly makes films for an American audience, & that makes sense commercially, but these films obviously have a wider worldwide audience also, & in this country with the appalling decline in educational standards the only serious history a lot of children see is on the screen (TV or silver).
What highlights this somewhat is the pitiful output of the British Film Industry, who seem to be of the opinion that a film can't be a success unless it contains Hugh Grant in his usual floppy haired mode. Why can't we have a film about Trafalgar in the year of it's 200th anniversary? Why did it take a Russian to make a half decent film about Waterloo? How about a film about Merville on D-Day? I'm not holding my breath. A significant portion of British schoolchildren this week were convinced that Winston Churchill was a dog who sold motor insurance on TV...
4-Eyes71
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 08:46 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I really liked "Pearl Harbor." It was about the most accurate movie I have ever seen.



IMHO, Pearl Harbor was more of a love story than a historical movie.

Any movie that is going to be based on true to life events must be accurate though at times, film makers have some leeway to so what is called "artistic license."

But still, they should NOT deviate from reality...that does not do justice to the real participants of the said events.

-While it's true there were P-40's that took off and engaged the Japanese attackers, their names are not Rafe McAwley and Danny Walker...and I don't think those pilots (Welch and Taylor) took part in the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo.

-James Doolittle is no martinet.
dogload
Visit this Community
England - North East, United Kingdom
Member Since: November 03, 2004
entire network: 585 Posts
KitMaker Network: 201 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 08:50 PM UTC

Quoted Text

What highlights this somewhat is the pitiful output of the British Film Industry, who seem to be of the opinion that a film can't be a success unless it contains Hugh Grant in his usual floppy haired mode. Why can't we have a film about Trafalgar in the year of it's 200th anniversary? Why did it take a Russian to make a half decent film about Waterloo? How about a film about Merville on D-Day? I'm not holding my breath. A significant portion of British schoolchildren this week were convinced that Winston Churchill was a dog who sold motor insurance on TV



I totally agree!
Sadly Hugh Grant films gross more cash if he is charming the ladies and so forth in a humourous manner than if he were bleeding in a trench, unfortunately. Look at Memphis Belle- David Puttnam wanted to make a film honouring Bomber Command, but the cash was unforthcoming unless it was an American plane... I would have loved to have seen a British version of BAnd of BRothers, but the nearest we came was BBC's dramumentary about the retreat to Dunkirk.
On another matter, an accurate re-telling of the Battle of the Bulge would be good (Saints or Soldiers notwithstanding).
BroAbrams
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: October 02, 2002
entire network: 1,546 Posts
KitMaker Network: 494 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:53 AM UTC
Okay did no one see the winking emoticon after my comment? It was just a joke people.
dogload
Visit this Community
England - North East, United Kingdom
Member Since: November 03, 2004
entire network: 585 Posts
KitMaker Network: 201 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:40 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Okay did no one see the winking emoticon after my comment? It was just a joke people



Hey Bro, just cos you were joking doesn't mean we can't hope to see Hugh Grant as cannon fodder! :-)
Moezilla
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: June 01, 2004
entire network: 1,161 Posts
KitMaker Network: 533 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 03:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text

"Saving Private Ryan" was repeated on the television again the other night. Now while I think it is an excellent film, & unusually for Hollywood, appears to be a reasonable depiction of small unit actions (although when marching across country the patrol always appear too close together for me, & the Director can't resist the dramatic effect of soldiers walking over a skyline), it does highlight a facet of American war films generally, a marked reluctance to admit that there were several other nations fighting alongside them in WW2. The only intimation that anyone else is involved in "Private Ryan" is a disparaging remark made about Montgomery during a conversation between Miller & Harmon. In fact many of the landing craft crews were RN, even on Omaha. Someone else mentioned the liberties taken with history in U571.
Now I accept that Hollywood mainly makes films for an American audience, & that makes sense commercially, but these films obviously have a wider worldwide audience also, & in this country with the appalling decline in educational standards the only serious history a lot of children see is on the screen (TV or silver).
What highlights this somewhat is the pitiful output of the British Film Industry, who seem to be of the opinion that a film can't be a success unless it contains Hugh Grant in his usual floppy haired mode. Why can't we have a film about Trafalgar in the year of it's 200th anniversary? Why did it take a Russian to make a half decent film about Waterloo? How about a film about Merville on D-Day? I'm not holding my breath. A significant portion of British schoolchildren this week were convinced that Winston Churchill was a dog who sold motor insurance on TV...




Here's a good example too of how Hollywood steals from films from across the pond. There's a GREAT horror movie (one of my faves) called Dog Soldiers, a British movie about British troops caught in the field on a training exercise that end up dealing with werewolves. Sounds a tad off maybe but it's AWESOME. No CGI, costumed werewolves instead which make them seem very real and a cast that is kick a$$.

The film was pretty popular over in the UK from what I understand and had limited release (if any) here but I caught it on DVD. It's become very popular so what happens to the movie? Oh, Hollywood sinks their teeth into it and wants to do a DS2 using an American military unit this time in a similar situation as a sequel. I'm afraid they'll do the usual Hollywood 'horror' crap now, throw in a well endowed chick that kicks the werewolves butts where the SF soldiers can't and of course they'll be CGI werewolves. lol

One thing America doesn't put out anymore are quality horror movies. Look at The Grudge to see how bad the Hollywood influence is on a foreign movie and how they can screw it up. Hollywood is too into formula's anymore.

Ok, enough off the beaten path...
Moezilla
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: June 01, 2004
entire network: 1,161 Posts
KitMaker Network: 533 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 03:31 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

What highlights this somewhat is the pitiful output of the British Film Industry, who seem to be of the opinion that a film can't be a success unless it contains Hugh Grant in his usual floppy haired mode. Why can't we have a film about Trafalgar in the year of it's 200th anniversary? Why did it take a Russian to make a half decent film about Waterloo? How about a film about Merville on D-Day? I'm not holding my breath. A significant portion of British schoolchildren this week were convinced that Winston Churchill was a dog who sold motor insurance on TV



I totally agree!
Sadly Hugh Grant films gross more cash if he is charming the ladies and so forth in a humourous manner than if he were bleeding in a trench, unfortunately. Look at Memphis Belle- David Puttnam wanted to make a film honouring Bomber Command, but the cash was unforthcoming unless it was an American plane... I would have loved to have seen a British version of BAnd of BRothers, but the nearest we came was BBC's dramumentary about the retreat to Dunkirk.
On another matter, an accurate re-telling of the Battle of the Bulge would be good (Saints or Soldiers notwithstanding).



Are all British war movies now just TV productions? It sounds like it is and when I rented Bravo Two Zero I was surprised to find it to be a TV movie rather than a feature film. I still enjoyed it though.
BSPRU
Visit this Community
United States
Member Since: March 13, 2002
entire network: 152 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:00 PM UTC
What about "Master and Commander" ? A British ship fighting alone against a french ship larger then herself. A 'Lucky" commander fighting someone just as good as himself. A triumph of British Naval power.
brian
Hohenstaufen
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:29 PM UTC

Quoted Text

What about "Master and Commander" ? A British ship fighting alone against a french ship larger then herself. A 'Lucky" commander fighting someone just as good as himself. A triumph of British Naval power.
brian



Good call sir & all credit to Russell Crowe for starring in it! I've just bought the DVD for my Dad for his birthday. The fact that I paid £5.99 for it only a year after it came out may my answer my question, it don't draw the crowds, methinks.
dogload
Visit this Community
England - North East, United Kingdom
Member Since: November 03, 2004
entire network: 585 Posts
KitMaker Network: 201 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 07:11 PM UTC

Quoted Text

What about "Master and Commander" ?



This is true, and very good it is too, but it is an Aussie/US production, I think.
andy007
Visit this Community
Wellington, New Zealand
Member Since: May 01, 2002
entire network: 2,088 Posts
KitMaker Network: 471 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 09:30 PM UTC
I face these issue every time I see a military Movie.................My friends usually end up complaining to me to shut up lol :-)
I think I very good movie that has missed out on the Hollywood hype is Chunuk Bair an Aussie/NZ movie about the taking of Chunuk Bair at ANZAC Cove and from what i have heard it is pretty accurate.
peacekeeper
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: May 07, 2004
entire network: 715 Posts
KitMaker Network: 401 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 18, 2005 - 06:16 AM UTC
There was a Canadian made-for-TV movie (can't remember the name right now, but I think it was Peacekeepers) about the early days in Yugoslavia which was quite excellent. Due to the firearms regulations in Canada, actual troops were used which added to the realism.
Hoovie
Visit this Community
California, United States
Member Since: March 14, 2004
entire network: 505 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 02:23 AM UTC
My Faxorite movies are "a bridge to far" and "Gettysburg"!!
Old movie "Battle of Britan" and "Sink the Bismark!
And yes in Peral harbour "Kate" is quite beautifull!
Ron
Hohenstaufen
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 21, 2005 - 12:36 AM UTC
How it used to be done...
Has anyone seen "The True Glory" (or it may be "Theirs the Glory")? It was made in 1945, & recounted the Arnhem story, using wait for it... the Airborne soldiers actually involved! I don't know what it did for their combat stress, going back to the actual locations & reenacting scenes that already gave them nightmares! Maybe it was good therapy! But it is an excellent film.