As much as I enjoy that film -- and am not ashamed to watch it almost every Independence Day -- I have to shake my head at so much of the stuff it gets wrong. The fact that a South Carolina farmer well off enough to own as much land as he does only has free black workers to help him, rather than slaves, is just absolutely mind boggling.
-
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
- Thread starter blu
- Start date
As much as I enjoy that film -- and am not ashamed to watch it almost every Independence Day -- I have to shake my head at so much of the stuff it gets wrong. The fact that a South Carolina farmer well off enough to own as much land as he does only has free black workers to help him, rather than slaves, is just absolutely mind boggling.
arts&crafts
Member
The cloning device was actually built by Alexander Graham Bell in real life.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
I came into this thread to mention Rudy and The Hurricane. I see both were mentioned, but the latter took way too long to be mentioned.
A lot of freed slaves moved to DC following the Compensated Emancipation Act and many were employed in constructing the ring of fortresses that eventually surrounded the city. The tents as far as I know existed as camp towns so they'd have shelter.
You also have to realize that before the Civil War, the city was really just the population size of a town. In particular, no one lived their during the terribly humid summers.
A lot of freed slaves moved to DC following the Compensated Emancipation Act and many were employed in constructing the ring of fortresses that eventually surrounded the city. The tents as far as I know existed as camp towns so they'd have shelter.
You also have to realize that before the Civil War, the city was really just the population size of a town. In particular, no one lived their during the terribly humid summers.
As someone who has read into the last few hours of Hitler's life I would say that the film isn't too biased and is factual enough. There are far worse films (like Kingdom of Heaven) that come to mind.
The point the author is trying to make is reaching imo, I could see how one could interpret this film in that way but trying the discredit the film because of it gives quite a unique film a disservice.
Lincoln getting the votes wrong for the 13th Amendment is probably one of the worst examples of bad fiction in a historical movie, because it's literally a public record and doesn't change anything in the movie, and because the producers and crew spent so much time talking up the historical accuracy down to actually recording the sound of Lincoln's carriage for SFX... but couldn't read a book.
The big issue with History Buffs is the guy has a serious blindspot with regards to British history. Ripping into The Patriot should be easy enough but he spends the entire time mostly just being outraged that they highlight some of the nasty shit the British got up to, and demanding that more time have been spent on American war crimes.
If there's a reason to argue against the film, that article isn't a good example. It doesn't actually bring up a lot of history to directly argue against the film—mostly it just seems to say "Nazis were monsters, how dare they be shown to be human?"
The big issue with History Buffs is the guy has a serious blindspot with regards to British history. Ripping into The Patriot should be easy enough but he spends the entire time mostly just being outraged that they highlight some of the nasty shit the British got up to, and demanding that more time have been spent on American war crimes.
If there's a reason to argue against the film, that article isn't a good example. It doesn't actually bring up a lot of history to directly argue against the film—mostly it just seems to say "Nazis were monsters, how dare they be shown to be human?"
How many of the issues derive from film adaptation and how many from The Seven Pillars of Wisdom though? I'm not a modernist or historian of the middle east, but I happen to know some of the most famous scholars of that field and they generally find the movie to be an excellent adaptation of the Seven Pillars of Wisdom. The issue is Lawrence himself more than the movie.
I'll grant you the question is a pretty bad one epistemologically.
Absolute nonsense, by the way. The film portrays Hitler as a human, which is where most depictions diverge, they normally either stay hands off and don't portray any sort of character (like say Indiana Jones where he's only seen in one scene of the film and doesn't speak) or he's some kind of cartoon supervillain. In Downfall he's very much portrayed as a believable human.
But he's still portrayed as a terrible, reprehensible human who caused his own demise. Portraying him as a real human in many ways makes him much worse than if they'd shown him as a cartoon supervillain. There's nothing sympathetic about him in the film.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
The family of Titanic officer William McMaster Murdoch took exception to James Cameron portraying him as a bribe-accepting coward who shot down third class passengers desperate to get out, even though eyewitness reports say he was a hero. Cameron even apologized for it.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Er, what's our definitition of "historian" here?
If we aren't qualifying it with popular, then it's someone that is recognized by the expert community of historians, including institutions like the AHA and the like, as a historian. Generally this means people who are at least ABD status in PhD programs.
As a courtesy the title is generally given to figures that wrote narrative history, focused on processes instead of minutiae, before the nineteenth century as well.
This is true for academic disciplines generally. You probably wouldn't call someone that runs amateur experiments in their garage a scientist.
Rest
All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
I'm pretty sure they were trying to get another one, not the first one. That's how it seemed to me, anyway.Speaking of the Enigma machina, did you know it was recovered by brave Americans and not the British? God bless America! And God bless Jon Bon Jovi!
Also, I think that's probably more like period fiction, I don't remember the movie ever stating or implying that it was a true story.
Speaking of 'Jobs', and 'Steve Jobs', Wozniak apparently hated 'Jobs' but thought they did a good creative job in 'Steve Jobs'. Something about how even though it didn't go down exactly like in the movie (like Wozniak and Jobs arguing immediately after the Apple II reveal), he felt it was a good movie rendition of their and Apple's story.
SpacePirate Ridley
Member
I love that the guy that said nonsense and posted an article of nonsense of der untergang only appears again in this thread when another guy also thinks the article is the truth to say "exactly" lol
All the people explaining why the article is wrong and he doesnt give a flying fuck. Its clear he doesnt want to see his views challenged and probably thought everyone was going to say how right he was.
Its like that ending dialogue flew above his an The Guardians heads.
All the people explaining why the article is wrong and he doesnt give a flying fuck. Its clear he doesnt want to see his views challenged and probably thought everyone was going to say how right he was.
Its like that ending dialogue flew above his an The Guardians heads.
TheRedSnifit
Member
What if actual (BA (Hons) in Modern European Languages — University of Durham ; MRes in European Cultures — University of Exeter ; PhD in Interdisciplinary Research (Film and History) — University of Exeter)
historians (British archaeologist, has taught post graduate courses at UCL Institute of Archaeology and University of Kent in Greece) cite the aforementioned book in their own books and papers? Is it good enough for me to quote on a video game forum?
My apologies, for some reason I thought you had called him a historian, but it looks like you didn't. That must have been a mistake on my part.
I don't care about whether or not you quote him, though I do think he's really really off on this. I've listed my own thoughts on the matter at length in a few thread.
TheRedSnifit
Member
No worries. I feel like I got a bit snippy myself there, so sorry about that.
The book is absolutely worth a read though, even if you ultimately don't agree with some of his conclusions.
the quintessential culture-porn fantasy.
I have an opposite example. But Im pretty surprised at how much of the Founder was real. The freaking Mcdonalds founder was an asshole.
When it happened in the movie I thought lol, writers probably made that up.
Bought the land that the original mcdonalds brothers were leasing. Forced them to take their name off their restaurant(mcdonalds). And then forced them out of business by opening a mcdonalds co. restaurant a block away. Also had a longtime affair with one of his franchisees wife.
TheRedSnifit
Member
One other thing that bugs me about this movie is that it gets the game show puzzle wrong. In a movie supposedly about math.
Wow, I had no idea. That guy sounds like a total dick.
Pirates of Sillicon Valley on the other hand was great.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
DiipuSurotu
Banned
Louis XIV in The Man in the Iron Mask
IdreamofHIME
Member
No, it was changed to "drive the movie for an American audience".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5263164.stm
That seems about right.
History Buffs is a great channel, been following it for a long time.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I'm a fan, but I think he had a real blindspot for his shittalking of Kingdom of Heaven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTjUu1Bt29o
Do you feel this is fair? I really enjoy his video, but the one on this didn't sit well with me. It's not because I personally love the movie (the DC cut) or because I think he is nitpicking about things that are more intregal to make the film work as fiction in the narrative of a historical action film.
It's the insinuation that Kingdom of Heaven is a political statement made by Scott in the aftermath of the Iraq war to depict the Crusaders unfairly. I don't think this is correct. On a personal level it makes me uncomfortable, because very often when we see or hear about European nationalism the same tone deafness is brought up. I remember when I went to middle school (in the 90s) we read some very very questionable biased books about how awesome, strong, bad ass and incredible chilvarous the Crusaders where.
It makes me wonder if many nationalists in Europe (and perhaps also in the states) who grew up during the 50s, 60s and 70s, where exposed to even more biased romanticiszed depictions of Crusaders being these good guys, and the bad things that happened was just a few rogue crusader apples, in a sea of bad muslims who were equally bad.
What I like about KoH is that I got a strong sense of the film not taking a side, and not even saying that all religion is cancer, or that it was anti-war (like the comments suggests)- It just displayed the religious insanity and fevor on both sides. And Scott, to his credit, did not play off Saladin as an antagonist. Balian ends up being your handsome white guy who rides off the girl, but in the larger scheme of things, the thing I took out from the film was just that it wanted to show the insanity of it. I don't think KoH was too hard on the Crusaders, and it's a damn shame that so many people are so in love with the stories about the Crusaders that they grew up with as kids.
And it irrks me also because we have guys like Anders Brekviak who sees themselves as literal Crusaders. I suspect that nationals have a harder time giving up their infatuations and misconceptions and bias about the Crusaders because of their cool-ness factors. A mythos that simply doesn't exist for other European forms of historical revisionism. There is not the same lavish indulgence in the colonial exploreres escapades. The Crusades are a unique blindspot in Europe.
It's a subject that is difficult to talk about. I wonder if that is why Carlin has not covered it on HH. People still argue about the basis for the very first crusade today. Is the idea that this was for protecting pilgrims just a cover up, for a pope who needed a loophole to let christians spill blood in the name of god? or was Saracens who intruded in Europe actually a threat that warranted a retaking of Jerusalem. I have my doubts. I have doubts that the people who lived in Europe 1000 years ago even saw themselves as Europeans. The world was a lot bigger and isolated, and it was normal to live your entire life in a village doing nothing but farming. A lot of what I was told growing up just doesn't make sense with regards to the Crusades.
Similar threads
- Locked