Hollywood's rewiring of history

Remove all ads!

Firstly before I air my views and put them up for debate, I do not intend or wish to see this turn into a Europe/USA who owes who debate or anything similar. This is about what I think is a worrying thing with education in certain periods of history being glossed over and with the medium of television and movies becoming a more common teaching tool in class.

I sanyone else worried about how no matter what history says and what the facts are hollywood and associated guilty parties are using fiction in the history and rewriting it? While it may be for entertainment and no matter how well it is done, or how good it is, does it not concern anyone that too many people are tking these films away as facts?
Classic example:
An American tourist in Stirling comments "Gee what a great monument you guys built to Mel" about the Wallace Monument that has stood there for quite a wee bit longer than Bravehearts been around. The fact this guy thought that either A) William Wallace was a fictional character and the monument was built around the film or that B) he thought Mel Gibson WAS Wiliiam Wallace really scares me. :s
Any thoughts?

[ July 07, 2004, 23:57: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Agreed. People will be ignorant of history regardless of Hollywood's best efforts.

It is probably 6 of one and half a dozen of another between the information that Hollywood provides (e.g. learning the names of a few dinosaurs by watching Jurassic Park) and the misinformation it propogates (e.g. all the things that people have been complaining about on these Boards).

Parents and teachers have a far greater responsibility for educating their kids than Hollywood does.

 

Actually, from a teacher's point of view, sometimes it can be a good thing when Hollywood distorts history. A great tool for getting students excited about a subject is to present them with something they find cool and have an interest in (movies). Then you combine that with a little bit of educational psychology that shows students are even more interested when they learn that something they thought was true, is actually not. This is called cognitive dissonance, and nothing gets even the most uninterested student actually interested in the material quite like it.

 

Good point. I used 'Finding Nemo' as a starting point to teach some previously disinterested kids about clown fish and their symbiotic relationship with anenomes. There's now way they would have bothered to listen if they hadn't seen Nemo first.

 

It's kinda disturbing though how lots of people actually believe some historical "facts" in Hollywood productions. The story of U-571 is widely taken for granted for instance. The movie tells the story of a crew of the US Navy, capturing a German enigma machine, and cracking the German code which meant the end for the Nazi wolfpacks in the Atlantic.

The German U-boat that was captured by U.S. Navy was actually the U-505. The actual capturing of an enigma machine occurred three years earlier when the British took control of the U-110. The British were also responsible for breaking the enigma code when mathematician Alan Turing broke it at Britain’s Bletchley Park facility.

Now i know it's all fiction, but why couldn't they make a movie about the British naval forces, and actually get some facts straight ? Does it sell better if we the people believe that the enigma was captured by Americans instead of Brits ?

 

Now dont get me wrong but it seems that there hasnt been a lot of histroicly accurate films <within 15% of the truth> coming from the US but has anyone seen films Ned Kelly? the recent version is quite accurate with only one or two small facts that were altered for the film so i think that says something about the Australians in that they can get some things right.

 

They did they same with Gallipoli but I fail to see how they could have got much wrong considering they didn't mention many things.

However, inaccurate or not Braveheart and Gladiator sold and sold big.

 

Abomination hit it on the head. Movies are produced to make money. The purpose beyond that is entertainment. There is nothing in a movie that has to hold a shread of historical authenticity - in fact 90% of movies are entirely fictional. So while I agree that it is unfortunate that many people believe all the movies to be factually acurate (when depicting an actual time period in history) I find that more of a personal failure on the people who believe such a thing. I don't fault the movie producers at all.

 

I think I should point out that the people in influential positions in our country (USA) seem to think that nobody needs or even wants facts. The most influential people to me do appear to be the movie producers, newspaper/magazine editors, and our most trusted political figures, in that order. Movies influence everything they can get their grubby little mitts on and twists them into some kind of evil mobias strip of ignorance. I know I'm guilty of it, I love movies too much to not believe that a man can turn into a huge fish because that's what he is (I loved that movie, Burton's masterpiece.) Real life does need to be beefed up some, but I am truly fed up with historical inaccuracies in films, esp. with this rash of Historic Sword Epics (Troy, King Arthur, Alexander.) I rant too much. So that's it: American's all have very severe ADD and that's why producer's lie to us, we wouldn't be interested long enough to voice an objection.

 

Just wondering, this wasn't exactly a movie but it was definately big. Band of Brothers, was this historically accurate?

If so it goes to show that you can be accurate and produce brilliance.

 

Yes, but I have no desire to see Band of Brothers. Infer amongst yourselves.

 

Band of brothers was based upon the stories of veterans from E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne, so if it's historically correct depends on their stories, but i believe it is.