Why does Hollywood rewrite history?

[Telstra]

.
They should put a big sign saying "fiction" at the end of the movie.

 

[T-Rexx]

You speak as though Canada were a separate country or something, gsdx.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Hollywood is in the business of entertainment. Criticizing it for fabrication is like criticizing a thief for stealing.

Rigorous histories should be sought from other quarters.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

sofa cheese

thankyou

 

[Swellegant]

I also despair of the idiocy of fictionalizing history for entertainment purposes. It's even easier to write a whole brand new story set in a historical time without having to fuck around with actual history. In this sense, Hollywood is trying to have it both ways: they want to capitalize on the authenticity of real-life situations and fictionalize what they want to create compelling movies (and by "compelling" I mean "compelling people to spend money in a theater").

That's stupid. You can create a fantastic movie without taking on facts. Look at an historical saga like Gone With the Wind: they didn't have to change anything about the Civil War or the Reconstruction in order to create an incredibly compelling storyline. It simply stayed out of the way of documented history and worked with the emotions and situations that were there. Or Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, which was based on a solid piece of historical research; though it took liberties with some of the basics, they didn't bear directly on the actual historical events (things like the colors of gowns, or how young people looked, or people having all sorts of different accents, or having Adam Ant and Bow Wow Wow playing in the background).

If you look at an historical situation and see some possibilities for drama, but the facts themselves are not dramatic, write a whole new story around the dramatic possibilities you saw in the historical situation. Or, if you want to jazz up a story so that it plays better on the screen, find a way to do so without actually changing the facts: yes, an airplane taking off at the end of a massive chase scene is more interesting than a bunch of Canadians walking quietly through an airport, but that wasn't the only possible way of creating dramatic tension... it was just the easiest.

That, I think, is the problem with our culture today: we aren't interested in the best, we're interested in the easiest. And hey, I'm just as bone-lazy as the next guy, if not moreso; but I wouldn't see a Hollywood film "based on a real story" if you paid me, any more than I'd watch a History Channel documentary. If I want history, I'll get it out of a book... the kind with footnotes.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

That, I think, is the problem with our culture today: .

is no cutlrues taday but lot a crap pile up of eons sellin itself world ova wit has nice day fa da worlds sofa cheese roll ova ans go YAWN

no giv hollowood all credit
lot cultures historyys full a it fa eons
ans papa wot inky doodoo fa da sofa cheese a eons
* ooh is gonna faint *
% here go it wet %
* ooh splash *
but no say nothin or lot folk dress up a in professions look so cretin stoopid
ans no wanna upset a da free money

thankyou

there go bit fa wall ha

not worry next 4 year is alway awsum gonna adjust fa land poor saps live on

ha

 

[gsdx]

I just saw a preview of the movie on television. Its tagline was, "An incredible true story."

 

[zoltanspawn]

I suppose some folks attend the circus to learn about elephants.

 

[levenshulme31]

It does seem curious the way historical events can be sliced and diced to suit a movie format. Either tell the story accurately or write a fictional story. To produce a half true account does have the potential to grossly misinform the viewing public (who, lets be honest, are barely likely to look up the truth).

Now I think about it, Spielberg is a prime example of this. Empire of the Sun - loads changed from the book (which I later found out had been itself greatly changed from the reality by JG Ballard) - even little details like swapping the name of the internment camp Jim was held in. Saving Private Ryan - I know it is a fictionalised account , but how many (particularly younger American) viewers would come away from that believing that D-Day involved just American troops? And Munich, completely overlooking the killing of an innocent Morrocan in Norway. It makes one wonder how accurate Schindlers List might be. (I have not read the book so cannot comment - but for such an important topic, there should be no room for artistic licence - lest it open a crack for the deniers to knock in their wedge).

Where the danger lies is that movies are a very powerful medium and many people will take supposedly true stories as being accurate and their knowledge of history will be tainted.