• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

History-based fiction movies that portray actual people falsely

I'm curious about Pirates of Silicon Valley. I've heard claims it's fairly accurate, with the usual embellishments.

Although, on a similar note, Jobs (not to be confused with Steve Jobs) is apparently a mess.

I don't know, if the comic has the same angle, but in the movie the story is told from a clear biased person to motivate others to go to war. So it's clearly propaganda in the context of the movie at least.

300 hundred is very faithful to the comic. Both are unfortunate. If you follow the Frank Miller's (300's author) trajectory...he, uh, goes places. It hit its peak with Holy Terror.

It's funny because the not-very-good movie sequel, based on an original script, is considerably better in both that area and how it treats female characters.
 

Joni

Member
I'm curious about Pirates of Silicon Valley. I've heard claims it's fairly accurate, with the usual embellishments.

Gates said it was reasonably accurate, Wozniak said many aspects of it were accurate with some exceptions like him quitting, Jobs refused to speak to the director after the movie released so he probably thought it was too accurate.
 
Gates said it was reasonably accurate, Wozniak said many aspects of it were accurate with some exceptions like him quitting, Jobs refused to speak to the director after the movie released so he probably thought it was too accurate.

Jobs was a fucking horrible film.

The real ridiculous thing is that it showcased every horrible thing Jobs ever did, and the movie very clearly portrayed them as shitty moves by Jobs, but it always was followed by a scene showing that he needed to do that in order to evolve.
 

DKehoe

Member
The Anastasia animated film has Rasputin starting the Russian Revolution because he wants to bring down the Romanovs.
 

DiscoJer

Member
I think you'd have a much shorter list of movies that actually portrayed history accurately.

Almost none of them even try to. Directors and writers want to tell their own story which gets in the way of history.

And if you do, you run the risk of being a flop. Tora Tora Tora was a fairly accurate movie about Pearl Harbor, done as a collaboration between Japanese and American filmmakers, but it flopped at the box office because it's kinda boring (and long). And even that condenses stuff.
 

Spectone

Member
large_v1WdKm9qQPBfhoHanBP5XxzIBDU.jpg


From TV Tropes:

A beautiful mind is a great movie but nothing like the real life of John Nash.
 

Skinpop

Member
Honestly the imitation game did a good enough job of messing with history for the sake of drama, despite the protagonist being Turing. I know screenwriters feel like they need to, but it always shits me off when I notice.

One of the most infuriating movies I've ever seen. I still can't believe it won a screen writing oscar. Even if the story portrayed in the movie was accurate and true(it's horribly wrong) the movie still would have been a piece of crap. One of the worst "high profile" films in recent years...

Together with sports movies, biopics is the worst movie genre, by far.
 

pigeon

Banned
I didn't know until I read about it afterwards that Washington DC during the time of the Lincoln movie was literally surrounded by camps of African-American abolitionist protestors, which is why DC is still so heavily African-American today.

In fact, both of the African-American servants we see in Lincoln's household were, in reality, outspoken abolitionists. But that would take away from Lincoln's victory!
 

Dervius

Member
It can be frustrating when movies do portray events entirely backwards, but it also depends on the point of the movie.

If it's loosely based on some well known historical event or figure I can normally get over it, if it's supposed to act as a dramatic retelling of an event I'm much less forgiving.

Some of the films mentioned here though, 300? Really? It's wrapped in so many layers of artistic license I don't really understand how you could have an issue with its portrayal of history, given how outlandish it already is.
 
Gates said it was reasonably accurate, Wozniak said many aspects of it were accurate with some exceptions like him quitting, Jobs refused to speak to the director after the movie released so he probably thought it was too accurate.

I think even Jobs couldn't ignore how accurate the movie was, though, it's funny how he still looks like is about to beat Noah Wyle senseless on stage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClAanU7Os
 

EGM1966

Member
Prety much all of them really. If you want nothing but hard facts look to documentarties: and even then don't expect everything to be exact.

The reality is out knowledge of our history is fragile and compromised on the details when it comes to individuals, their exact thinking and motivation and who they were. Incidents are of course relatively well documented in many cases but people are always an enigma (if you'll [ardon the pun).

Who was Turning really as a person, or Eistein, or Hitler, or Lewrence (of Arabia). We have some idea and some details but never the whole story.

That said I did find this flm particularly odd because it was a literal fiction with fictional characters clearly based on real characters and events which I do find particularly odd.
 
Saving Mr Banks is actually pretty faithful with some embilshments and artistic licenses to make things happen faster than what happened in real life.

But if you think the movie made by Disney changes stuff to make Walt a better person, actually most of the stuff it changes so the audience feels better for the character is for PL Travers, as she was a real bitch in real life.
She was a person that because she had a shitty childhood he wanted others to feel the same. For example she went to an orphanage, asked for all the twin brothers there, and she took one of them but not the other as she felt that would make the adopted child a stronger member of society. The two brother twin couldn't contact again until nealry Travers' death.

Disney never brings Travers to Disneyland, and Travers was not let entry at the preview of Mary Poppins, and while that was a crappy thing to do by Disney, it was done because she was crazy and to not disrupt the viewing that they knew it would happen if she was there.

The scene were she enjoys the movie "happens" more further in her lifetime when she actually says after doing a Moore and not watching it for so many years, that the movie was not as bad as she thought. So they are more embilshments to show the "sweeter" side of Travers faster than anything else.
 

derdriu

Member
Honestly the imitation game did a good enough job of messing with history for the sake of drama, despite the protagonist being Turing. I know screenwriters feel like they need to, but it always shits me off when I notice.

Yep, almost everything about Turning was completely false. IRL he was openly gay to his friends, he understood humour very well not to mention he was very humours himself, and that he didn't singlehandedly invent and built the machine that crack the enigma code. I just got frustrated with this film
 

lazygecko

Member
Pablo Escobar was a pedophile, though I guess that would have been a too damning quality for a protagonist in Narcos.
 

Thorgal

Member
300?

While I enjoyed the movie for what it is, the way the Persians are portrayed is historically complete nonsense.
 

Kain

Member
The Argo thing was extremely infuriating because I remember thinking the movie wasn't anything special, but then I read how most of the work was done by the Canadian embassy and the embassador appeared briefly in an unimportant role lol

Talk about straight manipulating facts
 

legend166

Member
Kingdom of Heaven. There's a lot of liberties taken, but the presentation of the Patriarch Heraclius is disgraceful. In the film, he's presented as a cowardly religious zealot. Literally the example of "bad christian religion". In actuality, the man did more than virtually anyone, including the principal character of the film, to save lives during the seige. The biggest insult is probably when the character in the movie says he should take a horse and flee the city, leaving the people to be slaughtered. In real life, he offered himself as a prisoner in exchange for sparing citizens.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Heraclius_of_Jerusalem

I really enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven but it's got a particular bias to it that's fairly obvious.
 

DeathyBoy

Banned
Jobs was a fucking horrible film.

The real ridiculous thing is that it showcased every horrible thing Jobs ever did, and the movie very clearly portrayed them as shitty moves by Jobs, but it always was followed by a scene showing that he needed to do that in order to evolve.

I loved Jobs as a film on its own merits, but I was well aware afterwards it was absolute bullshit truth wise. And I barely know/care about Steve Jobs - it was just glaringly obvious they used a sliver of truth then made an original film around it.

Which raises the question of why not just go full original to be honest.
 

Moongazer

Member
Rescue Dawn

More specially how it misrepresented the character of Gene DeBruin who was portrayed in the film as a real asshole and villian. The real life Gene DeBruin wasn't anything like the what was in the film apparently:

"The real Gene DeBruin (played in the movie by Jeremy Davies) was spoken of highly by Dengler: He described DeBruin as a strong leader and peacemaker when differences threatened their escape plan. Phisit Indradat - the last living survivor of the camp - called DeBruin "The finest man I have ever met."
Herzog's screenplay and Davies' performance made basically a 'movie villain' out of the real-life hero DeBruin, but still used his real name in a movie, that claims to be based on fact. Herzog apparently regretted this misrepresentation later."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462504/trivia
 
The opposite would be more surprising.
I think you'd have a much shorter list of movies that actually portrayed history accurately.

Almost none of them even try to. Directors and writers want to tell their own story which gets in the way of history.

"There is a popular belief that where history is concerned, Hollywood always gets it wrong - and sometimes it does. What is overlooked is the astonishing amount of history Hollywood has got right, and the immense, unacknowledged debt we owe to the commercial cinema as an illuminator of the story of mankind."
~ George MacDonald Frasier, The Hollywood History of the World

Granted, later in his career he began criticising movies for appealing to ignorance more so than they used to, especially Braveheart, so . . .
 

GAMEPROFF

Banned

Yet this fabrication goes to the heart of the film's mission, which is to depict the German people as the last victims of Nazism whose true defenders were a band of brave German soldiers, including SS men, who fought until overwhelmed by the Bolshevik hordes.

This is no accident. The film's agenda echoes the Historikerstreit controversy in the late 1980s over interpretations of the Third Reich, and parallels the efforts of former Chancellor Kohl to allow Germans to feel comfortable with their past.

Although Kohl has gone, his legacy informs this film. His precipitate union of West and East Germany in 1990 left a deeply divided nation. He understood that in the search for a national identity one thing all Germans could share is a history of suffering under allied aerial bombardment and the onslaught of the Red Army on eastern Germany.

The popularity of Downfall capitalises on the success of recent publications about the bombing of German cities and the dreadful experience of civilians overrun by the Red Army. These horrors are undeniable, but the use of memoirs intended to distance their authors from Nazism by depicting Hitler's clique as contemptible reinforces the sense of Germans as guileless victims. Is the belligerent self-pity fostered by Downfall becoming a new form of German nationalism?

What a strange thing to get out of this movie.
 

GAMEPROFF

Banned
Yeah I was about to say, that was not my take away from the film at all.

I really dont understand how someone can interprete the movie that way... And just to give context for Gaffers, who dont live in germany we indeed remember also the civil victims of the allied bombings, but its only far right weirdos who act like the Dresden Bombing (the context we remember those civil victims) was a war crime and that the allies were the actual bad guys.
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Honestly the imitation game did a good enough job of messing with history for the sake of drama, despite the protagonist being Turing. I know screenwriters feel like they need to, but it always shits me off when I notice.

They basically squeezed Turing's life into an Adam Sandler plot + sad ending.
 

Tubobutts

Member
Some of the films mentioned here though, 300? Really? It's wrapped in so many layers of artistic license I don't really understand how you could have an issue with its portrayal of history, given how outlandish it already is.
I think the movie would have been better if they had put the Spartans in historical armor when they showed Plataea at the end to drive home that Faramir was basically bullshitting his story in order to inspire his troops.
 

Roufianos

Member
300.

Yes, it's a silly action movie, but the narratives it builds is incredibly rich with racist undertones, and even if we remove all the silly LOTR stuff it's still an incredibly biased view of the real story.

Yea I'd be really offended by 300 if I was Iranian.

Even worse, I remember at uni we watched an old tv series on Alexander. It begins showing some dirt and the narrator says something like "Persia, an eastern wasteland" then if switches to an Aryan Alexander on horseback and he says "But from the West, from Greece, comes civilisation".
 

What the hell. It's hard to make it past the first three paragraphs already:

The film Downfall has received terrific reviews in this country and has already been seen by four and a half million Germans. It has clearly struck a chord with the popular mood in Germany and feelings about the Nazi past.

This should come as no surprise. The brilliant portrayal of Hitler by Bruno Ganz exposes him as a repellent human being devoid of concern about the misery into which he led his people. The film thus panders to the tendency of Germans to see themselves as victims of Nazism and war rather than perpetrators.

A self-pitying attitude has always been present in German attempts at "coming to terms" with the Nazi past, but it has been expressed with increasing stridency over the last two decades. It provides the key for understanding how history is massaged by Downfall's makers.

This couldn't be further from the truth? Every high school student here will tell you that this isn't the narrative being taught whatsoever.
 

rjc571

Banned
Cobb, which was based on the Ty Cobb biography written by noted con man Al Stump. The book and movie portrayed Cobb as a violent psychopathic racist and complete and utter scumbag. However, it is now believed that most of the book was fabricated by Stump, and that Cobb in reality was fairly progressive for his era and made charitable donations and did other philanthropic work which helped serve the black community. Unfortunately, the majority of the public is still unaware of this and thinks of Cobb as how he was falsely portrayed by Stump.
 

GAMEPROFF

Banned
That's quite the reading of the film. Though I shouldn't be surprised, I've heard people claim that Der Untergang somehow made Hitler into a tragic, sympathetic character.

Well, he screams and rants all the time and has at some point a meltdown, for me he came of more as a lunatic as anything else. After that meltdown he is really broken down, but I really had no sympathies at any point.

But give it a watch. Its really worth it for Bruno Ganz and the woman who played Goebels wife. Even when it may lose a bit from its charm when you watch it with subtitles or dubs.

This couldn't be further from the truth? Every high school student here will tell you that this isn't the narrative being taught whatsoever.

Its completly and 100% wrong. In the context of the rememberance of the bombings, its alsways a bit "We had it coming"
It may indeed have been a bit different back then when Kohl was in power, but it doesnt resemble whats going on today or even ten years ago.
 

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Honestly the imitation game did a good enough job of messing with history for the sake of drama, despite the protagonist being Turing. I know screenwriters feel like they need to, but it always shits me off when I notice.

I thought the added invented drama seriously messed up the movie. In fact, my suspension of disbelief wasn't able to stomach characters behaving like idiots (like the management who were hellbent on stopping the lonely genius) or the genius (who single-handedly designed and built the Enigma machine in the movie). The movie completely falsified the way these first computers were built: by huge teams of people (managers, engineers, builders, suppliers), not by one man fighting the system.

Here are just a few things that are wrong with this movie:

Naming the Enigma-breaking machine "Christopher" after Turing's childhood friend and suggesting that Turing was the only cryptographer working on it, with others either not helping or outright opposed.

In actuality, this electromechanical machine was called "Victory" and it was a collaborative, not individual, effort. It was a British Bombe machine, which was partly inspired by a design by the Polish cryptanalyst Marian Rejewski. Rejewski designed a machine in 1938 called bomba kryptologiczna which exploited a weakness in German operating procedures that was corrected in 1940. A new machine with a different strategy was designed by Turing (with a major contribution from mathematician Gordon Welchman, who goes unmentioned in the film, with the contribution attributed to Hugh Alexander instead) in 1940.

Suggesting that only this one machine was built, with Turing playing a large role in its construction.

More than 200 British Bombes were built under the supervision of chief engineer Harold Keen of the British Tabulating Machine Company. None of them were built at Bletchley Park.[93]

Turing's rebuilt bombe machine, called Christopher in the film, on display at Bletchley Park Museum

Suggesting that the work at Bletchley Park was the effort of a small group of cryptographers who were stymied for the first few years of the war until a sudden breakthrough that allowed them to break Enigma.

Progress was actually made before the beginning of the war in 1939 and thousands of men and women were working on the project by the time the war ended in 1945. The computing advances did not obviate the need for human labor, as the many teams of largely female operators certainly knew. Throughout the war, there were breakthroughs and setbacks when the design or use of the German Enigma machines was changed and the Bletchley Park code breakers had to adapt.[90][93]
Moreover, the breakthrough depicted in the film provides the impression that first the Bombe was developed, then only became effective after it was later realised that deciphering could be made easier by looking for known or speculated items contained in an intercepted message, a practice known in cryptanalysis as employing a crib. However, in reality, the opposite is true; the use of cribs was the central attack model upon which the Bombe's principal design was based, rather than being an afterthought to the design.

Suggesting that Enigma was the only German cipher broken at Bletchley Park.

The breaking of the Lorenz cipher, codenamed "Tunny", was arguably just as important as the breaking of Enigma in terms of contributing to the value of Ultra intelligence, and the code-breaking effort was in many ways more difficult. Neither the Tunny effort nor its main contributors, mathematician W. T. "Bill" Tutte and electrical engineer Tommy Flowers, are mentioned in the film. The Colossus computer they built goes unmentioned by name in the film, although there is an implicit suggestion that Turing was responsible for it, which he was not.[93]

Showing a scene where the Hut 8 team decides not to use broken codes to stop a German raid on a convoy that the brother of one of the code breakers (Peter Hilton) is serving on, to hide the fact they have broken the code.

In reality, Hilton had no such brother, and decisions about when and whether to use data from Ultra intelligence were made at much higher administrative levels.[91]

Showing Turing writing a letter to Churchill to gain control over Enigma breaking and obtain funding for the decryption machine.

Turing was actually not alone in making a different request with a number of colleagues, including Hugh Alexander, writing a letter to Churchill (who had earlier visited there) in an effort to get more administrative resources sent to Bletchley Park, which Churchill immediately did.[91]

The depiction of the recruitment of Joan Clarke as a result of an examination after solving a crossword puzzle in a newspaper.

In reality, Joan Clarke was recruited by her former academic supervisor, Gordon Welchman, to the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS).
 
Top Bottom