is it possible to make a fact based movie without taking liberty? (1 Viewer)

[Chad R]

They do when on the posters, advertising whatnot it says "based on a true story." That implies that some liberties were taken otherwise it would say "This IS a true story."

Right up front in "Braveheart" Robert LaBruce says that historians will call him a liar, since history is written by those that would hang heroes, implying this is the legend of William Wallace, or the facts as told by the people.

 

[andrew markworthy]

There are sociologists, Eng Lit and social psychology researchers who make a living out of pointing out that almost any media artifact is biased (except, curiously, their own analyses ...) by the stance of the person responsible for the said artifact. E.g. historians have vacillated enormously in their judgements about whether a particular historical figure was good or bad (see e.g. the varying treatments of JF Kennedy or Lincoln), yet all of them are factually 'correct' (it depends on which aspects of the truth you highlight for scrutiny or interpretation).

What I'm trying to say is that documentaries can be as misleading as fiction, and indeed are arguably more dangerous, because they are interpreted as 'fact'.

 

[Max Leung]

There were, as I thought, no actual Japanese aircraft used in "Tora, Tora, Tora".

If I remember right, this is true, from viewing the extras on the DVD. Simply, there weren't any Zeros or any other WW2 Japanese aircraft left. They were all ordered destroyed by the US government, as part of the US occupation of Japan and the demilitarization program.

 

[TheLongshot]

As others have said, making a movie "historicly accurate" is impossible, both from the entertainment aspects of it, to the "what really happened" aspect of it. The problem I have is when you stray too far away from history as it is known with no sources to back you up. I have friends who refuse to watch Braveheart because it mangles history so much. (Princess Isabelle was still a teen at that time, and never met Wallace. Battles were out of order. Robert The Bruce wasn't portrayed accurately. Wallace's motivations in the first place. All of this were told to me and isn't my position.) My girfriend has a problem with the portrayal of Elisabeth I in "Elisabeth", saying that she couldn't be that weak minded at that time. She wouldn't have survived.

The problem is, having knowlege of history can hurt your enjoyment of some of these films. When you know from all of your reading that something is true, and the movie gets it wrong, it takes you out of it. It is a wonder why Hollywood still trys it. Maybe it is because enough people are ignorant of history to let it pass. The problem I have with that is that some people will believe that's the way it happened, when there isn't any research behind it. Hell, people still think Richard III is the character that Shakespeare created, hunchback and usurper, when that isn't reflected in history. Basically, it was Tudor propaganda, but that's the image that people still have of Richard III.

Jason

 

[SvenS]

Jason,

It sounds like you think anyone who enjoys a film that is not dead on accurate is ignorant! That of course is a load of BS if you think so! Braveheart is a outstanding film and does what is was made to do "Entertain"! If I or anyone else want a history lesson then we will go and watch a documentary NOT a film. At no time has Hollywood ever made the clain that they are teachers of history.

Anyone who refuses to watch a film because it isn't historically correct is not a film lover and is missing out a countless great films because of it! People need to watch films for what they are and not sit there doing a scene by scene pick apart! That is a total waste of time!

 

[Jeremy Illingworth]

As long as its not a blatant lie, like U571, I don't think its that bad. Me musn't forget the masses who look to Hollywood for their educations. The Longest Day (or whatever film) may have some factual errors, but the overall education it can give to the masses is also important.

jeremy

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

the overall education it can give to the masses is also important.

Absolutely. If a "nonfactual" Hollywood film can make people interested in those historic events and they go off and dig up the information behind them, all the better. But, by the same token, Hollywood should strive to make the film as close to factual, within reason, because there are alot of people who do regard what is on film as fact and don't bother looking further. I think they've done a good job in that regard. Are things like combining the characteristics of several people into one character such a bad thing, ala Blackhawk Down? Sure, it's not accurate because you didn't portray it correctly. But, that's where the element of artistic license comes in. You have to do it to keep the films from becoming too cold and clinical-one person with 4 personalities is far more colorful than 4 guys with only one personality each.

Bruce

 

[Keith Paynter]

You can't really make a documentary without some kind of manipulation of the storyline in editing.
A few examples:
Let It Be
Legend has it that the busting of the Beatles' rooftop performance was done by an Apple insider tipping off London police. The rooftop concert was a last minute change because the Beatles did not want to perform in public. Two McCartney songs (Let It Be and Long & Winding Road) were filmed the day following the concert and edited into the film before the final concert sequence, and the presentation of these two numbers are done in such a fashion as to focus on McCartney, whereas the entire remainder of the film is essentially a group shoot.
Triumph Of The Will
Propaganda as art. The film is a document of the Nuremberg rally, but not a documentary - prime examples include Hitler's motorcade, as you see shots in front of Hitler to show a forward facing leader, but you also get rear angle shots (supposedly of the same parade) taken within the limo, but why don't you see a camera operator in Hitler's car as part of the frontal shot?
Any nature documentary
How can nature documentaries with dangerous animals not be fiction? Example ' "This lion and her cubs have not eaten for several days...", etc. - Hey, there's a perfectly edible camera crew a couple hundred feet from them - they move pretty slowly, they'd make perfect lunch!

 

[Jay_Leonard]

Is important to know who got to Concord, in 1775? or that Someone got to Concord in 1775.



If I watch Pearl Harbor/Braveheart, I at least learn that there was such a thing and some of the issues surrounding it. If I am interested in the story maybe I will be lead to the history and I can research further.



A: Dr. Samuel Prescott.


J

 

[Shane_M]

"Based on Actual Events"

Those 4 words say it all. Most movies have that at the beginning that are based off of historical events not historical fact.

As for Black Hawk Down I have friends who were on the ranger squad that were in the middle of that battle and they say it’s really close to what happened. Sure the dialog probably wasn’t close at all but for the fighting it was apparently really close.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The father of documentaries, Robert Flaherty staged scenes for Nanook of the North. Some of these scenes depicted traditions that had been abandoned by 1922. Personally I don’t think that this recreation fo reality makes the film less valid.

 

[felix_suwarno]

so...

if the characters in enemy of the gates speak russian...would the movie be a better movie, do you think?

i like enemy of the gates very much. but the fact that nobody speaks russian...