Why does Hollywood rewrite history?

[gsdx]

I'm not talking about movies like Titanic or Pearl Harbor which use historical events as a backdrop for their fictional stories. I'm talking about movies which are relating real stories with real people.

Ben Affleck's new movie, Argo, about the rescue of 6 American diplomats who escaped the American embassy takeover in Tehran in November of 1979. I remember that incident, and I also remember the key role Canada and Canadians played in that rescue. In the movie, the Canadians' role was virtually non-existent.

Ken Taylor, the Canadian ambassador helped hide the Americans and conceived the rescue plan, convinced the Canadian government to create 6 fake Canadian passports and visas, and to work with the American government to carry out the rescue.

Ken is still alive. He wasn't contacted during the entire production and he wasn't even invited to watch a preview of the movie. Much of it, according to Ken, is fiction with some of the events portrayed being completely made up.

“My impression is that it’s very entertaining,” says Taylor. “I’m not feeling offended. It’s their movie. But it totally distorts the relationship between Canada and the U.S. with respect to the episode. I just think they didn’t want to be bothered with the facts. It’s a good story, which they stole.”

How fake was it? The entire climax is total fiction. (I won't spoil it by describing what happens.)

According to Taylor:

It’s standard practice in Hollywood to mess with facts for dramatic effect. But Argo’s magnification of the U.S. role is “absolute nonsense,” says Taylor. “The departure went very smoothly. I bought the airline tickets—I bought sets from three different airlines and paid cash. And I had the final veto. For every hour spent in Washington, there were two spent in Ottawa. Mendez [Affleck's CIA character and star of the movie] did not become involved until a month after we’d taken over. He spent two days there.”

Affleck's excuses?

Affleck was unavailable to comment on Taylor’s concerns at press time, but at a TIFF press conference after the premiere he discussed the film’s veracity. “Because we say it’s based on a true story, rather than this is a true story,” he said, “we’re allowed to take some dramatic licence. There’s a spirit of truth.” As for the fanciful airport climax, screenwriter Chris Terrio said, “There is a catharsis when the plane takes off. To create that in cinematic form requires a lot of amp-up and drama to replicate what the house guests might have felt at that moment.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/12/ben-affleck-rewrites-history/#more-292541

The event is over 30 years old, and most people who watch it undoubtedly have no idea what it's about, but they are going to walk away from the theatres with a completely distorted view of what actually happened.

What do you think? Is there really a 'spirit of truth' when much of what takes place in the movie is complete fiction?

 

[refujiunderground]

now that you mentioned it, they're trying to rewrite history with abraham lincoln and slavery. dude didn't care about slavery. it wasn't in his plans to get rid of it. he was only using the slaves as pawns to fight the war against the confederation and basically politics. when i saw those commercials about that lincoln movie showing him as this guy that was like "we must end slavery" and him acting like that was his main reason behind the civil war, i'm like wtf? steve spielberg is the producer of this film.

 

[Ram]

Well, it's a movie not a documentary so I can see why they fudge the facts up. I bet you there will be one exceedingly hot yet smart brunette/blonde Iranian-looking woman in the movie too. Possibly an explosion.

It's like the WW2 movies all over again. America saved the day. Britain, France and the Commonwealth nations were probably busy on that day.

 

[Kabluey]

U571 was a movie that pretty much change the heros from British to American and spiced it up a bit.
Damn you, Matthew McConaughey

 

[bobobo]

As a U.S. citizen, all I can say is once again jingoism reigns supreme. Thanks for the heads up--another movie I can miss.

 

[HunterM]

I thought I knew my U.S. history well until...I saw the movie of Abraham Lincoln slaying vampires. I don't know what to believe anymore. I'm so confused...back to therapy I go.

 

[pat grimshaw]

....i saw those commercials about that lincoln movie showing him as this guy that was like "we must end slavery" and him acting like that was his main reason behind the civil war, i'm like wtf? steve spielberg is the producer of this film.

Speilberg is the completer manipulator!! Distorted emotions means mega-millions to feed his family.

I want to see Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln but don't want to be emotionally manipulated by Speeelburg's endlesss lying.

I was puking up during that Colour Purple movie and boycotted the Auschwitz one

 

[HoodedRat]

I expect they do it purely for financial reasons. If Hollywood actually told the truth about history, or anything else for that matter, I doubt whether many Yanks would want to watch their films. Anyway, 'US History' appears to bear little or no resemblance to history as taught in the rest of the world. I am quite sure that eventually someone will re-write the tale of 11/9 to make it seem like a triumph for the US.

 

[Kabluey]

I thought I knew my U.S. history well until...I saw the movie of Abraham Lincoln slaying vampires. I don't know what to believe anymore. I'm so confused...back to therapy I go.

That happened.

 

[G-Lexington]

The same reason that Transformers movies have urination jokes and love sories in them - because that's what we want to see. Americans want to see a badass American saving the day, not an American guy aiding the work mainly done by Canadians.

Lex

 

[bort138]

This is why I mostly steer clear of movies based on historical events. I would much rather watch a documentary on the Iran hostage crisis than the Hollywood version of what happened.

 

[blackbeltninja]

The same reason that Transformers movies have urination jokes and love sories in them - because that's what we want to see. Americans want to see a badass American saving the day, not an American guy aiding the work mainly done by Canadians.

Lex

Well, then, I'm just thinking aloud here... write Die Hard 5 as a fictional piece and don't mess with an actual true story?

On topic, I've read that the guy (Josh Hartnett's character Matt Eversman) who is the lead in the cinematic version of Black Hawk Down really was just used as a focal point to give the movie some sense of direction and wasn't quite as integral to the events as the film suggests, nor even responsible for all the stuff which was credited to him in the film. I appreciate the need to attempt to build the events into a cohesive narrative, but this sounded like bad use of artistic licence to me.

-d-

 

[Nishin]

I find this highly unethical, disrespectful to people involved, and damaging to the youth's right to access knowledge of factual History and culture.

 

[palbert]

Because it sells. They even got the Keanu Reeves The Day the Earth Stood Still wrong.

 

[HunterM]

I find this highly unethical, disrespectful to people involved, and damaging to the youth's right to access knowledge of factual History and culture.

How is it damaging the youth's right to access knowledge of actual history and culture? The youth still has access to the internet, libraries, books to research on history, don't they? Today's youth needs to understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction. They need to understand the difference between Hollywood fantasies and documented events, facts on historical newspapers, books and magazines. Yes, they need to do "work" on their own to find facts. That's what education is for. Being lazy not to do fact checking can only be blamed on oneself...not others.

 

[pat grimshaw]

I find this highly unethical, disrespectful to people involved, ….

Are you referring to Ken Taylor in the OPs example?

I understand that the movie makers have to get permission if they're going to be portray real people in a movie. A friend of mine was paid a five figure sum and got casting-veto rights when he was being portrayed in one.

 

[Nishin]

How is it damaging the youth's right to access knowledge of actual history and culture? The youth still has access to the internet, libraries, books to research on history, don't they? Today's youth needs to understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction. They need to understand the difference between Hollywood fantasies and documented events, facts on historical newspapers, books and magazines. Yes, they need to do "work" on their own to find facts. That's what education is for. Being lazy not to do fact checking can only be blamed on oneself...not others.

To try to illustrate my thoughts:

I supposedly learnt a shitloads of History back in my schooldays: dates, places, political contexts, etc etc, occasionally, in addition to the lesson, the teacher would play some documentary or movie to help make his lesson more concrete, they use these as pedagogic tools...

Of these specific lessons, years later, what I remember about what I learnt is not (precise) dates or places' names, but mostly what my eyes saw, illustrations in books, documentaries and movies, which gave me the general idea of the events.

In everyday life that is not a problem, however, little by little, with everyone, or a majority, remembering only partial or biased "facts", History gets rewritten and changed, mass manipulation of the people is allowed.

I believe the media in general have a great responsibility of educating people, thus when something's done for entertainment only it shouldn't be presented as historical... a vague "based on actual facts" disclaimer at the beginning of a movie is pure deceivability, if they are not going to precise what part is factual and what part isn't everybody will just assume the romance and special effects (only) are the added components.

Obviously in western societies access to libraries, History books and whatnot is easy if one actively cares ... but that's totally not true of many other parts of the world where access to culture is much more limited and the variety of sources for information scarcer. In these places, most of it comes from television and whatever is aired through it and passively absorbed by the audience who will not especially feel a need to double-check/doubt the data for it is not of immediate use to their everyday life, yet if will have imprinted their mind with false/inaccurate "knowledge".

oh my, sorry for the long reply...

 

[gsdx]

Ken Taylor is obviously pissed off (rightfully so) that they completely excluded him (and his character in the movie)

He wasn't excluded. He's in there, and portrayed by fellow-Canuck Victor Garber. It's just that the character's role in the movie was greatly diminished so Affleck could shine and take undeserved credit.

 

[Nishin]

Are you referring to Ken Taylor in the OPs example?

I understand that the movie makers have to get permission if they're going to be portray real people in a movie. A friend of mine was paid a five figure sum and got casting-veto rights when he was being portrayed in one.

I meant more generally but the OPs' example is good enough to illustrate my point when you read that Taylor guy's opinion of the movie...
Your anecdote also makes it clearer why Hollywood will rather write someone out of the story in order to avoid risking unwanted veto or paying royalties ... all for the sake of money making

Oh btw I incriminate Hollywood but I guess it's true of any country's movie making industry...

 

[Native Son]

The same reason that Transformers movies have urination jokes and love sories in them - because that's what we want to see. Americans want to see a badass American saving the day, not an American guy aiding the work mainly done by Canadians.

Lex

This.

I mean, you have to ask?