Should Hollywood History Be Allowed?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Should films in which History gets 'The Hollywood Treatment' be allowed?

Braveheart and U-571 are the obvious classics of bending History to fit a good story. Obviously when discussing history there is always going to be an objective viewpoint but given the amount of historical inaccuraces in these films do they get people interested in history or is it being re-written completely?

P.S

I'm not exactly sure how many Americans it was that invaded Troy, I'll have to read over the illiad again

 

[Uiler]

"Hollywood history" has been happening since the time human beings could write and record history. Stories being distorted, exaggerated etc. is the norm. It's not something that Hollywood suddenly invented so you can't really blame them for this. Historians call this "story cycles" and in cases that are both well documented historically with many histories written from the time it happened to the modern day and are part of the popular entertainment as well you can actually trace the story cycles.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Actually, Uiler, while you are compltely correct of course, the current situation is absolutely new.
Until the end of the Cold War, there were at least two versions of history spread around. Today, Hollywood has a monopoly (Europe, some Asian countries as well as the Arabic world do produce their onw versions; but, those are no longer distributed outside their very own regions).

I think it is pretty funny that U-571 and Braveheart are mentioned as prime examples, btw.
Don't you think the Hollywood depiction of Chinese, Russians, American Indians, Germans, French...is BY FAR less accurate then the one of GB?

 

[pawpaw]

history is always bias--it's written by the winners.

 

[Reno]

history is always bias--it's written by the winners.

Too true.

Personally i've left many movies unwatched because of the "changes" made to history in the movies to fit the story.

 

[Serutan]

Well, Hollywood is at least consistent in this. Not only do they
twist history around to their own purposes, but they also
take a lot of liberties with the plots/characters of novels they
adapt, too.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Don't you think the Hollywood depiction of Chinese, Russians, American Indians, Germans, French...is BY FAR less accurate then the one of GB?

Unfortunately I'd disagree. Films like 'The Patriot' for example depict as truth actrocities which historians on both sides of the Atlantic say did not happen. The rest of the time GB is portrayed in the same stereotypical way as every other nation is.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

It should be encouraged in the masses, as it does lead some people to an interest to the subject. Also, the education system in the UK simply does not function as far as history teaching goes.
These Hollywood movies are the closest thing most people will come to learning something about past.

And as for the few, well it's always good fun (and an ego boost) to talk about how much smarter we are than the plebians/Hollywood.

 

[Hotpoint]

Unfortunately I'd disagree. Films like 'The Patriot' for example depict as truth actrocities which historians on both sides of the Atlantic say did not happen. The rest of the time GB is portrayed in the same stereotypical way as every other nation is.

Actually the much criticised burning of the Church with the townsfolk inside portrayed in the film The Patriot, did have a slight parallel with an actual event during the Revolutionary War. There were however two slight differences in reality:

(1) The building was a School not a Church
(2) It was the American "Patriots" that did the burning*


*It was the Moravian Missionary settlement of Gnadenhutten. Ninety-Six unarmed Native American Christians (men, women and children) who were of tribes considered allied to the British were massacred there in 1782.


.

 

[nonconformist]

Please sink U-571 and its evil occupants of wa4r criminal Germans who apparently gun down people in boats for thrils, while Harvey Keitel and John Bon Jovi save the war by screwing around in the submarine while being attacked by incompetant gemrans who have nothing better to do than shout random teutonic words, and torturing American sailors till they cry.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Hollywood sells entertainment not history and If you don't like the films then don't watch them. When someone watches the Patriot, of course they’ll know none of the events actually took place but just some action flick set in the past.

Even shows that are supposed teach the viewer about history like documentaries on the history channel are filled with absolute rubbish. They use too many Computer graphics and imagery with no meaning and repeat what they say several times as if the viewer is stupid. I feel if they set up a program it should be like a history lecture with more information and less flashy graphics to detract from the learning. But personally this is coming from someone who enjoys sitting through a history lecture.

 

[privatehudson]

I'm not sure how you can stop hollywood history, after all movie makers will now and always have made movies for a certain market. Zulu for example has a good share of innacuracies in it but wasn't a Hollywood production, and you can bet that the early British depictions of the Charge of the Light Brigade weren't exactly perfectly true to history either. The lesson here would probably be that bias and inaccuracy creeps into most movies, and who this favours depends on the origins of the movie. We see Hollywood as the prime cause of such awful movies mostly because it is the biggest source of the blockbuster movies for most of us.

I'd agree with Reisstiu also that TV documentaries aren't much better either. One shown on a UK history channel but made by a US company was on battleships and talked about Tirpitz. Not only did it fail to make a single mention of the British efforts which crippled and eventually sank her, it implied that Iowa had fought Tirpitz in an engagement and Iowa had come off the better. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of Tirpitz would know this is rubbish, the two ships never fought and Tirpitz only fired her guns on one occasion in anger during a shore bombardment. One gets the impression that the documentary may have been intended for a US audience originally...

Personally I'm just waiting for a rewrite of Henry V with Will Smith in the title role, his gallant men of the 101st Airborne fighting the evil English empire and evoking memories of 9/11, freedom and democracy.

Surely not even movie makers would go that far?

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Well said, Private Hudson.

I know a lot of American documentaries can be bad but can the same be said across the pond? I've seen a series of British documentaries called "Battle of Britain" which reflects on major attempts to conquer Britain by past European powers. It seems rather well done but it overuses computer simulations at the expense of conveying actual information to the viewer. I've noticed a small bias. For example, they set up mock interviews with the invading force and they are always filmed in some sort of prison. One episode was a German pilot in a British POW camp; another was a Spanish Armada sailor in a dungeon, etc. Overall it seems more informative than the average documentary on the History Channel

Personally I'm just waiting for a rewrite of Henry V with Will Smith in the title role, his gallant men of the 101st Airborne fighting the evil English empire and evoking memories of 9/11, freedom and democracy.

Surely not even movie makers would go that far?

After the travesty known as "I' Robot", I wouldn't be surprised actually. Will Smith could’ve just as well saved his money and just urinated on the grave of Isaac Asimov.

 

[privatehudson]

I know a lot of American documentaries can be bad but can the same be said across the pond?

I generally don't watch too many when I can help it. Family do tend to buy me VHS documentaries and there is usually at least 1/2 a dozen factual errors inside the hour or so they last. Example "The tiger tank was one of the most feared tanks in the Wermacht's armoury". Nothing wrong there, just a shame they show pictures of Panthers as the Tiger is being discussed....

The few I do watch I tend to pick out from known historians like Michael Wood. His series on Alexander the Great and the later one on the Conquistadores was phenomenal frankly. He tends away from detail and more towards character analysis and has a slight tendency to believe myth rather than truth, but his works are excellent. At one place somwhere near India he was talking about the moment when Alexander lead an assault up a siege ladder onto the city walls. Any other guy probably would have stood on the walls to deliver the piece, Wood actually got a rickety old ladder and delivered it as he climbed the walls himself! He has a tendency to go to pretty extreme legnths to convey his love of subjects, and it's this passion which makes his documentaries worth watching.

 

[Plotinus]

Michael Wood's series on Alexander was the best documentary that I have ever seen. Everything about it was pretty much perfect. And not a computer graphic in sight.

I agree that you can't blame Hollywood alone for this. They aren't nearly as bad as, say, Sir Walter Scott! And it's not just "historical fiction" either. Pretty much anything you get on a screen that is intended for a mass audience is entertainment first and information second. Just look at any news channel. Yesterday was my final day of work at a major and for the moment unnamed major 24-hour news channel, where I worked for nearly three years, and I can assure you that what Hollywood does to history, journalists do to current affairs. Not in the same way (they don't, as a rule, actually lie) but to the same effect (selective reporting).

 

[allhailIndia]

Hollywood history would be hard-pressed to come anywhere near the historical "inaccuracies", portrayed in most "period" Bollywood movies. Add hoarse jingoism and you've got yourself the end of history as we know it

 

[Uiler]

Hollywood history would be hard-pressed to come anywhere near the historical "inaccuracies", portrayed in most "period" Bollywood movies. Add hoarse jingoism and you've got yourself the end of history as we know it

The Chinese and HK TV versions of Chinese history are...interesting as well Great entertainment, but on a historical accuracy level, well...

 

[CruddyLeper]

Well, Hollywood History is just as valid as other classic sources; Goebbels, Pravda in the Stalin era, Chairman Mao's red book, etc etc.

 

[privatehudson]

Michael Wood's series on Alexander was the best documentary that I have ever seen. Everything about it was pretty much perfect. And not a computer graphic in sight.

Oh come now be fair, he did use a computer of sorts on that flight over Iraq to describe one of the ancient battles there

Did you happen to catch his series on the Conquistadores by any chance?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Well, Hollywood is at least consistent in this. Not only do they
twist history around to their own purposes, but they also
take a lot of liberties with the plots/characters of novels they
adapt, too.

War of the Worlds for example