Should Hollywood teach history?

^Iirc the OP article is about Russel Crowe acting like an uneducated audience member and claiming this film presents the real history they haven't been told and other such excellent revelations. I don't mind audiences, but an actor should bother to be more serious, instead of here having Crowe trying to dilute his antics in the near past by proclaiming himself a historian of revelations ;)

Round the World :musical note:

I haven't seen the film or crowes full statements or views on the film, but just in the context of his being Australian, he may have some point in saying that giving a view from the turkish side on the whole situation might have some actual educational effect on those who have generally always seen their involvement only as heroic ANZACs throwing themselves into the meatgrinder at gallipoli, not considering at all viewing the other side as defending what they saw as their homeland in what was overall a messy situation on all sides.
 
That claim isn't supported by historical writing, though. I mean even if one just reads accounts written in 1920, (personally i read them in Kafka's notebooks), there were many german newspapers Openly naming the jewish people as the bane of Germany. Hitler did not invent his strategy there, he was very much based on the spirit of a large part of the german population at least two decades before he got to power.
Not all societies are the same. No one is claiming that all germans were freakishly bad at the time, yet it is also naive to argue that just some commanding officers had this dreadful mentality that led to epic massacres in most territories they occupied. It seems that a large part of the overall population were just expressed by the nazis, and that part went easily into the tens of millions.

Antisemitism certainly was a major force in Germany, but it was a major force across Europe. Look at what Orwell wrote about it in 1945:

To see this in perspective one must look back a few decades, to the days when Hitler was an out-of-work house-painter whom nobody had heard of. One would then find that though antisemitism is sufficiently in evidence now, it is probably less prevalent in England than it was thirty years ago. It is true that antisemitism as a fully thought-out racial or religious doctrine has never flourished in England. There has never been much feeling against inter-marriage, or against Jews taking a prominent part in public life. Nevertheless, thirty years ago it was accepted more or less as a law of nature that a Jew was a figure of fun and — though superior in intelligence — slightly deficient in “character”. In theory a Jew suffered from no legal disabilities, but in effect he was debarred from certain professions. He would probably not have been accepted as an officer in the navy, for instance, nor in what is called a “smart” regiment in the army. A Jewish boy at a public school almost invariably had a bad time. He could, of course, live down his Jewishness if he was exceptionally charming or athletic, but it was an initial disability comparable to a stammer or a birthmark. Wealthy Jews tended to disguise themselves under aristocratic English or Scottish names, and to the average person it seemed quite natural that they should do this, just as it seems natural for a criminal to change his identity if possible. About twenty years ago, in Rangoon, I was getting into a taxi with a friend when a small ragged boy of fair complexion rushed up to us and began a complicated story about having arrived from Colombo on a ship and wanting money to get back. His manner and appearance were difficult to “place”, and I said to him:
“You speak very good English. What nationality are you?”
He answered eagerly in his chi-chi accent: “I am a Joo, sir!”
And I remember turning to my companion and saying, only partly in joke, “He admits it openly.” All the Jews I had known till then were people who were ashamed of being Jews, or at any rate preferred not to talk about their ancestry, and if forced to do so tended to use the word “Hebrew”.
The working-class attitude was no better. The Jew who grew up in Whitechapel took it for granted that he would be assaulted, or at least hooted at, if he ventured into one of the Christian slums nearby, and the “Jew joke” of the music halls and the comic papers was almost consistently ill-natured. There was also literary Jew-baiting, which in the hands of Belloc, Chesterton and their followers reached an almost continental level of scurrility. Non-Catholic writers were sometimes guilty of the same thing in a milder form. There has been a perceptible antisemitic strain in English literature from Chaucer onwards, and without even getting up from this table to consult a book I can think of passages which if written now would be stigmatised as antisemitism, in the works of Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, T. S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and various others. Offhand, the only English writers I can think of who, before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade. And however little the average intellectual may have agreed with the opinions of Belloc and Chesterton, he did not acutely disapprove of them. Chesterton's endless tirades against Jews, which he thrust into stories and essays upon the flimsiest pretexts, never got him into trouble — indeed Chesterton was one of the most generally respected figures in English literary life. Anyone who wrote in that strain now would bring down a storm of abuse upon himself, or more probably would find it impossible to get his writings published.

More importantly, there's a huge leap between disliking the abstract idea of Jews, blaming the abstract idea of Jews for your problems, and firing upon physical, unarmed, begging human beings. At Auschwitz, there was a peep-hole into the gas chambers, and army regulations required somebody to watch to supervise every time they were used. You can't explain a willingness to do that through any volume of speeches, articles and racist cartoons.

As I said, the historians are divided on exactly how it all worked, but most of them don't see the majority of Nazis as particularly politically committed - they just didn't have strong opinions, one way or the other, and were content to see evil as just part of the job, to set it within an entirely normal frame of work, with recognition and promotion for doing well and meeting their targets, and to turn a blind eye to exactly what they were helping to do. If this looks unbelievable, look at what we find when modern companies are uncovered doing terrible things. Monsanto sold Agent Orange (a defoliant, supposed to clear jungle) to the military despite knowing that it was deadly to human beings - and half a million Vietnamese civilians died from it, along with hundreds of thousands born with birth defects and thousands of American servicemen given cancer. Those numbers would make Agent Orange the fourth most deadly Nazi concentration camp. People sold thalidomide in the United States despite knowing that it had been taken off the German market for causing birth defects - and 17 Americans were born disabled because of it. Bayer sold a drug that was supposed to treat haemophilia, but was found to be giving its patients AIDS - so they stopped selling it in Europe and the United States, but sent that stock to be sold in Asia and Latin America at an even lower prices. 20,000 people there died. Perhaps most damningly, IBM Germany, with the approval of HQ in New York, custom-designed a machine for the Nazis to keep the records of the death count of the Holocaust. You simply cannot say that the leaders of IBM in America did nothing because they were indoctrinated by the Nazis, or were the passive recipients of German anti-Semitism.

It's not just companies. There are plenty of stories of 'enhanced interrogation' from Iraq, Afghanistan and military prisons around the world that we can quite clearly see, from our detached position, clearly amount to torture. Until 1973, the CIA were experimenting with mind-controlling drugs on unwilling participants - something explicitly ruled illegal at, of all places, Nuremberg. Until 2006, British and American soldiers were running 'corrections' in an Iraqi prison which included torture, rape and sodomy of prisoners. Some of these, illegal under the Geneva Conventions, were authorised by the senior US officer in Iraq, and by the Pentagon.

These things don't happen because irredeemably evil people just happen to end up at all levels of a corporate or governmental hierarchy. They happen because people turn off their moral awareness and choose not to see, because they are in a system which rewards them for a sort of 'success' which is totally morally blind. On cold reflection, they know what they did, but they do not coldly reflect because they have people all around them, people they know and admire, congratulating them for exceeding their monthly targets, or for finding a way to make the train run more efficiently, or for securing that big contract with the German government. This sort of thing is happening right now, and we are fools to delude ourselves that only other people can do it.

EDIT: That was a bit heavier than I intended. I'm happy to split this off into its own thread if people would rather keep this one for the much lighter discussion of cinema!
 
^I wouldn't ever be doing such a thing. I would doubt you would either, but in any case i doubt that most people are ok with such attitude.
Anyway, to speak for myself, who i know at least, no, i would never be part of such inhuman behavior, and i do not deem it as merely a 'if others were in their position they would do the same'. No.

That said, obviously a couple tens of millions of germans weren't the majority in the 1930s. They had a bit over 60 million people at the time (if google is to be trusted). And surely it would be more eyebrow raising if a majority of those were hideous, but i am not seeing it just be a few top-tier party members and their periphery, and then just a communal shutting down of ethics they supposedly had in the first place. Germany did create culture, even up to the time Hitler took power (many famous scientists lived just before that era in Germany there), but it also had a very sinister undercurrent of population with the vilest of sentiment and disregard of others-- to the point they convinced themselves in the 20th century that they are superior and other such collective dreams (and mass killed the inferior peoples, of course).
 
^I wouldn't ever be doing such a thing. I would doubt you would either, but in any case i doubt that most people are ok with such attitude.
Anyway, to speak for myself, who i know at least, no, i would never be part of such inhuman behavior, and i do not deem it as merely a 'if others were in their position they would do the same'. No.

That said, obviously a couple tens of millions of germans weren't the majority in the 1930s. They had a bit over 60 million people at the time (if google is to be trusted). And surely it would be more eyebrow raising if a majority of those were hideous, but i am not seeing it just be a few top-tier party members and their periphery, and then just a communal shutting down of ethics they supposedly had in the first place. Germany did create culture, even up to the time Hitler took power (many famous scientists lived just before that era in Germany there), but it also had a very sinister undercurrent of population with the vilest of sentiment and disregard of others-- to the point they convinced themselves in the 20th century that they are superior and other such collective dreams (and mass killed the inferior peoples, of course).

That doesn't sit well with the evidence I just laid out. How do you explain, then, the lack of a holocaust in the United Kingdom, despite a definite 'sinister undercurrent with the vilest of sentiment and disregard of others'? How do you explain the involvement of corporations and governments today in illegal and morally repulsive things? Do you just think that we're unlucky to have made complete chains of command out of psychopaths?

EDIT: You've also taken 'convincing themselves that they are superior' as if it leads naturally into mass murder with no further explanation. I'd think about that again, if I were you.

EDIT 2: Even worse - creating culture has nothing to do with evil acts. Indeed, it was a pretty standard defence of a liberal education that it brought a better moral sensibility - until we marched into Germany and found concentration camp commandants listening to Beethoven. I know you don't mean it this way, but there's not a lot of distance between 'Germany wasn't all bad - just look at the culture and science they did!' and 'people who produce science and culture are inherently good'. That's exactly the sort of reasoning that ends up at 'he can't be a rapist/murderer/paedophile - look how much joy he's brought to people!'
 
^It would be nice if we were discussing, instead of using middlemen made of straw, no?

Anyway, i can accept this talk going nowhere, and it is not the specific topic of the thread, so i'll show myself out of the arbeit camp :)
 
^Indirectly that has been done and is being done all the time. Eg "very very VERY few bad germans=nazis, the rest of the army were just ok and did no wrong". Not really. The number of massacres of civilian population the germans committed in ww2 should not be forgotten nor should they be attributed to a few 'monsters'. It was an entire mentality at work.

And this is what I mean. I don't care how good your WW2 film is, if it makes out that the greatest war crime of WW2 was the Allies dropping bombs on German cities then I'm going to call it out for being Nazi propaganda.
 
Antisemitism certainly was a major force in Germany, but it was a major force across Europe. Look at what Orwell wrote about it in 1945:



More importantly, there's a huge leap between disliking the abstract idea of Jews, blaming the abstract idea of Jews for your problems, and firing upon physical, unarmed, begging human beings. At Auschwitz, there was a peep-hole into the gas chambers, and army regulations required somebody to watch to supervise every time they were used. You can't explain a willingness to do that through any volume of speeches, articles and racist cartoons.

As I said, the historians are divided on exactly how it all worked, but most of them don't see the majority of Nazis as particularly politically committed - they just didn't have strong opinions, one way or the other, and were content to see evil as just part of the job, to set it within an entirely normal frame of work, with recognition and promotion for doing well and meeting their targets, and to turn a blind eye to exactly what they were helping to do. If this looks unbelievable, look at what we find when modern companies are uncovered doing terrible things. Monsanto sold Agent Orange (a defoliant, supposed to clear jungle) to the military despite knowing that it was deadly to human beings - and half a million Vietnamese civilians died from it, along with hundreds of thousands born with birth defects and thousands of American servicemen given cancer. Those numbers would make Agent Orange the fourth most deadly Nazi concentration camp. People sold thalidomide in the United States despite knowing that it had been taken off the German market for causing birth defects - and 17 Americans were born disabled because of it. Bayer sold a drug that was supposed to treat haemophilia, but was found to be giving its patients AIDS - so they stopped selling it in Europe and the United States, but sent that stock to be sold in Asia and Latin America at an even lower prices. 20,000 people there died. Perhaps most damningly, IBM Germany, with the approval of HQ in New York, custom-designed a machine for the Nazis to keep the records of the death count of the Holocaust. You simply cannot say that the leaders of IBM in America did nothing because they were indoctrinated by the Nazis, or were the passive recipients of German anti-Semitism.

It's not just companies. There are plenty of stories of 'enhanced interrogation' from Iraq, Afghanistan and military prisons around the world that we can quite clearly see, from our detached position, clearly amount to torture. Until 1973, the CIA were experimenting with mind-controlling drugs on unwilling participants - something explicitly ruled illegal at, of all places, Nuremberg. Until 2006, British and American soldiers were running 'corrections' in an Iraqi prison which included torture, rape and sodomy of prisoners. Some of these, illegal under the Geneva Conventions, were authorised by the senior US officer in Iraq, and by the Pentagon.

These things don't happen because irredeemably evil people just happen to end up at all levels of a corporate or governmental hierarchy. They happen because people turn off their moral awareness and choose not to see, because they are in a system which rewards them for a sort of 'success' which is totally morally blind. On cold reflection, they know what they did, but they do not coldly reflect because they have people all around them, people they know and admire, congratulating them for exceeding their monthly targets, or for finding a way to make the train run more efficiently, or for securing that big contract with the German government. This sort of thing is happening right now, and we are fools to delude ourselves that only other people can do it.

EDIT: That was a bit heavier than I intended. I'm happy to split this off into its own thread if people would rather keep this one for the much lighter discussion of cinema!
This post says a lot of what I've been thinking--it's so easy for ordinary people to do evil things. And it's been touched on in a few OT threads. Perhaps its own thread woukd be warranted.
 
300 and Saving Private Ryan are clearly aiming at different targets, and if the latter had put the US Rangers on Juno Beach or using an M60 instead of a BAR, I'd have been grinding my teeth a little.


This is what made Pearl Harbor such a terrible movie for me. They spent a vast amount of money on CGI to make most of it at least look authentic, and then blew it in a few scenes with clearly out of place ships. And then the fighter air combat sequences were the opposite of historically accurate.
 
Cutlass said:
This is what made Pearl Harbor such a terrible movie for me. They spent a vast amount of money on CGI to make most of it at least look authentic, and then blew it in a few scenes with clearly out of place ships. And then the fighter air combat sequences were the opposite of historically accurate.

Ben Affleck piloting a fighter just shatters my suspense of disbelief. He does better in something like Extract.
 
Not even concerned with the choice of actors. The story sucked! If you dogfight a P-40 against a Japanese Zero, you die. The P-40 will lose every time.
 
I don't say that it will encourage everyone who sees it to research the history around the battle, most people wouldn't care to look up a historical event after watching a film about it anyway. But I do think that the intelligence of most people is at least at a level to tell that what they see is not history but rather Hollywood nonsense, and if a few have at least even a very limited knowledge of ancient Greek history, it may encourage them to look up the real facts about what they saw.
I really got interested in Imperial Rome after watching the I, Claudius series back in the late 1970s. And while they took some historical liberties, it wasn't anything close to the egregious mess that the Rome TV series was. I read rumors of a 3rd season for that, and I couldn't figure out how it would be possible... since they completely eliminated the one character who was needed in order for two of the post-Tiberius Julio-Claudian emperors to exist (Claudius would have existed but Caligula and Nero wouldn't have).

I heard similar complaints about the Tudors TV series, in that one of the sisters of Henry VIII was omitted. Without both of his sisters, quite a lot of real historical events just can't happen, as certain people would never have been born.

I don't think that film-makers have a duty to treat their work as educational materials- at least not until we take Shakespeare to task for his shoddy treatment of 11th century Scottish court-politics. But if their work is taken as such, and it often will be, they certainly have a responsibility to be aware of that and to address it as far as possible. But what that actually means varies from film to film, far more widely than we could account for in abstract. So, ultimately, I think, we have to have faith in audiences. Or if that's a stretch, engineer a culture in which audiences are well-educated enough to deserve our faith. Because, let's be frank, if audiences are at risk of being seriously mislead by the talkies, we were stuffed before we started.
I tend to not judge Shakespeare too harshly, given the times in which he was living. This was an era in which artists in various media had to please their patrons, and if the local aristocrat, never mind the local monarch, took offense to the artist's output, said artist could end up executed for treason, heresy, or several other reasons.

But modern artists (at least on this continent) don't have that problem. It's one thing to take a few liberties in order to tighten up the story or make it more understandable. It's a whole different thing to assume the audience is too stupid to know the difference. That's what I find offensive about movies such as Gladiator, and TV series such as Rome. Even Classic Doctor Who had a whopping mistake that had nothing to do with time travelers changing history, and everything to do with a lazy writing staff who didn't bother doing basic research. The Mayans did NOT live in South America, c. 6000 BC! :mad:
 
What was wrong with the Rome TV series? It looked and felt a lot closer to the 'real thing' than anything else I've seen on screen.
 
What was wrong with the Rome TV series? It looked and felt a lot closer to the 'real thing' than anything else I've seen on screen.
I'm not as familiar with the late Republic as I am with the 1st century AD, but there were apparently a lot of things that were changed.

One thing I do know, however, is that Augustus' first wife was Scribonia. Not Livia. Eliminate Scribonia, and you also eliminate Augustus' daughter, Julia. Considering that Julia's daughter Agrippina was the mother of Caligula and the grandmother of Nero, deleting Scribonia will bring the story either to a crashing halt, or take it into alt-history territory. You can't just fudge it and say, "Okay, just have Livia be Julia's mother." Uh-uh. That doesn't work, when you consider that Julia and Livia's son Tiberius were married. The Romans had no problem with cousin marriages, and there were even uncle-niece marriages. But sibling marriages were not okay.

You'll note that I'm not talking about the "look" or the "feel" of the series. I'm talking about the characters themselves.
 
Ah, fair enough. I have much less of a problem with that - that's just storytelling, to me, as long as it doesn't dramatically change the substance of what happened - that is, I'd have raised an eyebrow if they took out Caesar!
 
I really got interested in Imperial Rome after watching the I, Claudius series back in the late 1970s. And while they took some historical liberties, it wasn't anything close to the egregious mess that the Rome TV series was. I read rumors of a 3rd season for that, and I couldn't figure out how it would be possible... since they completely eliminated the one character who was needed in order for two of the post-Tiberius Julio-Claudian emperors to exist (Claudius would have existed but Caligula and Nero wouldn't have).

The I, Claudius series is based off of Suetonius' account of the Augustine family, which is notorious for its salaciousness rather than its factuality. The Tudors series is really not a terrible comparison.
 
As I recall, the historical side of the Twelve Caesars tails off towards the end, indicating that he was no longer in favour and was probably just reporting gossip.
 
The I, Claudius series is based off of Suetonius' account of the Augustine family, which is notorious for its salaciousness rather than its factuality. The Tudors series is really not a terrible comparison.
Yes, I've read Suetonius.

I repeat: My objections to the Rome series are because an important part of the Julio-Claudian family tree - Augustus' first wife, Scribonia - was omitted.

No Scribonia means:

No Julia. No Julia means:
No Agrippina.
No Agrippina means:
No Caligula.
No Agrippina the Younger.
No Agrippina the Younger means:
No Nero.

So all the talk about them wanting to continue the series beyond the point where it left off is just ridiculous. They wrote themselves into a corner with no exit by omitting Augustus' first marriage.

I did not say anything about the nasty things Livia allegedly did throughout her long life, and in fact, I have sometimes referred to I, Claudius as "my Roman soap opera". But Livia wasn't Augustus' first wife, she was not the mother of his daughter, and the people who wrote and produced that show should not have made out as though she was. They should have realized that at least part of their audience would be familiar with the Imperial family tree and not assumed we wouldn't know the difference.

And for what it's worth, this is also why I loathe everything in the Xena: Warrior Princess series that deals with the Romans. All that crap about Xena's daughter Eve taking the name Livia and marrying Octavian just made me utterly disgusted. No, that show isn't the least bit historical, but they, like the Rome producers, made the mistake of assuming that their viewers were stupid.
 
What makes you think that the Rome producers assumed that their viewers were stupid? Unimportant people (i.e. those not in the narrative) are frequently sidelined, merged with someone else or outright removed.

As I recall the writer saying at the time, the show was supposed to last three seasons, with the Battle of Philippi being the climax of season two and Augustus' triumph as the climax of season three.
 
What makes you think that the Rome producers assumed that their viewers were stupid? Unimportant people (i.e. those not in the narrative) are frequently sidelined, merged with someone else or outright removed.

As I recall the writer saying at the time, the show was supposed to last three seasons, with the Battle of Philippi being the climax of season two and Augustus' triumph as the climax of season three.
If you're going to do historical drama, it's not a good idea to omit or merge people who are historically critical.

Is Scribonia a household name? No. Do most people even know she existed? Likely not. But without her, two of the more well-known Roman Emperors would never have been born. There is no way to fudge this by having Livia be the mother of Julia, because that would have resulted in a half-sibling marriage between Julia and Tiberius... and that's something the Romans absolutely did not do. It isn't even possible to fudge it by saying that Julia was Octavia's daughter - because Julia's first husband was her cousin - who was Octavia's son, Marcellus. Again, that would have been a sibling marriage, and therefore forbidden.

If they'd included a few lines about Octavian having divorced his first wife in order to marry Livia, and a brief mention of his daughter, that's all it would have taken to make it right. But that's not what they did. Anyone watching that series who isn't familiar with the family tree of the Julio-Claudians would think that everything was correct.

So yes, I do think the producers assumed the audience was stupid in this regard.

Even if they never intended to go very far into Augustus' reign, they still made this assumption.
 
I think that there's a sizeable difference between ignorance and stupidity in this case. Scribonia was not important to the story nor would she be, given the cut-off point, so the conservation of detail probably made the final chop. What you're saying would have been better historically, certainly, but I was far more bothered by Vorenus' children never ageing throughout the life of the show. That final shot of his children being rescued from captivity was a total immersion-breaker for me.
 
Top Bottom