🔒 Locked

Americans rewriting history

Started by benjamin bunny Jun 10, 2002 at 10:12 PM 213 replies 9.6k views

Original Post

Jun 10, 2002 at 10:12 PM

Something which annoys me beyond belief is Americans rewriting history through Hollywood. I think the making of such pseudo historical flicks as U-571 should be made illegal. This blatent rewriting of history is no better than the propaganda films made by 3rd rate dictators. I don't mind if a story is blatently fantasy but set in the past, but when a true story is distorted to give the Americans the glory, it does great injustice to the people were really involved. More than that, it changes people's perceptions of the real facts. It's just wrong. Here's some examples of what I'm talking about: In Saving Private Ryan, the D-Day landing scenes ignore the fact that the American GIs were accompanied by both British and Canadian soldiers. In the film U-571, the Americans are given the credit for one of the most important events in WW2, when an enigma machine is captured from a German sub and the code is deciphered. In fact, it was the British who captured the Enigma machine and decyphered the code. They're remaking the 1955 film The Colditz Story, but changing it so that a group of Americans, rather than Brits, escape from the castle Colditz in one of the most daring escapes in the war, (ignoring the fact that there were no Americans in Colditz during the time of the escape.) You may say that it's just entertainment, but when people see a film based on a historical event, they assume it's largely fact, allowing for some minor dramatic license. Minor dramatic license does not IMO extend to writing a nation out of a war to show it entirely fought by Americans. For those interested, there's a Times story on this subject here I can't think of one subject which angers me more right now. I just had to get that off my chest. ____________________________________________________________ www.elf-stone.com [edited by - benjamin bunny on June 10, 2002 11:13:54 PM] [edited by - benjamin bunny on June 10, 2002 11:14:42 PM]

Hitchhiker90

Jun 10, 2002 at 10:23 PM

For someone living in England you sure do take a lot of interest in what goes on in the U.S.

Hitchhiker90
"There''s one bitch in the world, one bitch with many faces" -- Jay
"What are you people, on dope?" -- Mr. Hand

SpaceRook

Jun 10, 2002 at 10:33 PM

quote:
Original post by benjamin bunny
Here''s some examples of what I''m talking about:
In Saving Private Ryan, the D-Day landing scenes ignore the fact that the American GIs were accompanied by both British and Canadian soldiers.

In the film U-571, the Americans are given the credit for one of the most important events in WW2, when an enigma machine is captured from a German sub and the code is deciphered. In fact, it was the British who captured the Enigma machine and decyphered the code.

I agree with your point about U-571. But I disagree with what you said about Saving Private Ryan. SPR is obviously the story of one squad. The film never suggests that it is trying to tell the whole story of WW2. The entire philosophy of how the movie is directed is that you see exactly what these soldiers see (notice how many of the shots are at ground level).

Geocyte

Jun 10, 2002 at 10:36 PM

Hollywood pictures are distibuted worldwide, not just in the US.

benjamin bunny

Jun 10, 2002 at 10:37 PM

Hitchhiker90: That's a pretty moronic comment to make. As you well know, the US film industry is worldwide. Please don't bother with the usual "you're just jealous because the US is so big and successful" cop-out; it's unintelligent, irrelevant, and entirely predictable.

___________________________________________________________
www.elf-stone.com

[edited by - benjamin bunny on June 10, 2002 11:43:11 PM]

Lohrno

Jun 10, 2002 at 10:40 PM

What do you think is worse? The fact that hollywood does it, or the fact that the American public doesn''t seem to notice or care? =D It''s a little too bad this doesn''t get any media attention.

-=Lohrno

benjamin bunny

Jun 10, 2002 at 11:05 PM

SpaceRook: I was referring just to the shots of the beach at the beginning, in which you can see a long way, and a lot of soldiers, but you''re right, this isn''t really the same as U-571, because it''s just putting a skewed perspective on it rather than just changing the facts.

Lohrno: I''m not really surprised that the American public doesn''t care; the backlash over here wasn''t even that great: the PM publically spoke out against U-571, but apart from a few veterans, and film critics I don''t think anyone else noticed particularly. I think people should care though, because what hollywood is effectively doing is perverting people''s perceptions of the past. If any other nation did it, it would be propaganda. What amazes me the most is that hollywood has got so arrogant that it thinks it can justify this in the name of entertainment.

____________________________________________________________
www.elf-stone.com

OctDev

Jun 10, 2002 at 11:14 PM

Usaully I stay out of these, but I can't resist.

Yes Hollywood is worldwide. But the majority of these films are made by Americans catered to American audiences. If the world cared so much, why support them by going to see them.

You're sick of 'Americans rewriting history'? Its a ******* movie. Its not a history book. Anyone who thinks differently is an idiot, American or non-American. As I recall, U-571 was a good movie. But if I wanted to learn about WWII, I would not use this movie as a reference, or any non-documentary for that matter.

I'm sick of the constant America sucks bitching and flaming, and the counter flaming it always provokes. Especially flaming that has little merit what so ever. This is all about a movie? Repeat, a movie?

Based upon your post, it seems obvious that you're just mad that your country didn't get credit for the actual historical event that the movie was loosely based upon. This is the same 'I don't like America let me hate it for every possible reason I can' that is so annoying. I don't preach about all the countries I don't like, and I don't want to hear it from others ALL the time. So instead of starting a flame war here, write to English producers to make their own movie, and stop seeing American films if it upsets you so.

I would expect a moderator not to post a blatant flame right off the bat. And I apologize for rising to the occasion and flaming back despite trying to remain coherent.

On that note, any good movies out? LOL

--OctDev

[edit] Didn't your mother ever teach you any maners? (and flaming is not appreciated either) [/edit]

[edited by - Andrew Russell on June 11, 2002 6:10:57 AM]

Lohrno

Jun 10, 2002 at 11:22 PM

You know, I agree with you partially Oct, but I don''t think Ben was flaming America, just criticizing hollywood. That''s fair. And while it is a movie, we should still make sure we remember how it really happened, because to forget the way history really happened I think is a crime. That''s second most heinous thing the Taliban did I think BTW. The first being hiding Bin Laden, and the second destroying their statues, and historic artifacts.

In short, while it''s just entertainment, we should remember our history too.

I think my one of my favorite quotes is "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

-=Lohrno

OctDev

Jun 10, 2002 at 11:29 PM

Lohrno--It is nice to get an outside perspective. Based on that, I will agree with you. If this is not an anti-America flame, then I can agree with the criticisms of Hollywood. Also, I recommend that everything Hollywood related be taken with a grain of salt, because it is NOT historical at all.

We should remember our history, and that movies are not history and should not be viewed as such.

I may very well have misinterpreted the original post.

--OctDev

invective

Jun 10, 2002 at 11:43 PM

quote:
Original post by OctDev
If any other nation did it, it would be propaganda.

No. If a government does it, its propaganda. If Hollywood does it its marketing. Don''t buy if you don''t like it. Thats how capitalism works. We don''t need to start legislating how much creative liscense you can take with a work of fiction. Everybody knows movies like Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbor are full of sentimental Hollywood crap. They''re as close to an accurate history of WW2 as the Scorpion King is to a history of Egypt. These things are being marketed as entertainment, not teaching material. Lets not start leaping to the conspiracy theories about how this is yet another attempt by the United States to take over the world by clandestinely rewriting history.

Strife

Jun 10, 2002 at 11:45 PM

Hollywood does not pass ANY of this off as history. I agree with you on U-571, but it was still a cool movie. As for Saving Priavte Ryan, the landings were done separately, as far as I know, with England, Canada, and the US having their own beaches.

Besides, I really dislike the title of your thread here. Just because some people in Hollywood make a fictional story (not passed off as true) that modifies the past (which, by the way, many people involved in Hollywood are not American), doesn''t mean that ALL Americans rewrite history.

Please, get your facts straight before insulting an entire country.

rm -rf /bin/laden

Hitchhiker90

Jun 11, 2002 at 12:00 AM

quote:
Original post by benjamin bunny
Hitchhiker90: That''s a pretty moronic comment to make. As you well know, the US film industry is worldwide. Please don''t bother with the usual "you''re just jealous because the US is so big and successful" cop-out; it''s unintelligent, irrelevant, and entirely predictable.

I didn''t and wasn''t going to mention anything about the U.S. being big and successful nor try to cop-out of anything. I''m telling you that you should worry about yourself and England first then worry about others. You don''t like it? Then do something better. Work on a way to improve it. Stop being a whiney little bitch.

benjamin bunny

Jun 11, 2002 at 12:01 AM

It''s intended as a critisism of Hollywood, and to a lesser extent, America, for its tolerance of such distorted patriotic drivel.

quote:
You''re sick of ''Americans rewriting history''? Its a fucking movie. Its not a history book. Anyone who thinks differently is an idiot, American or non-American. As I recall, U-571 was a good movie. But if I wanted to learn about WWII, I would not use this movie as a reference, or any non-documentary for that matter.

What you fail to see is some people will take it as fact, idiots or not, and therefore it''s rewriting history.

I looked up some viewer reviews to illustrate this:

McConaughey and Bon Jovi, known for their looks as much as their thespian talents, do their best in a claustrophobic, chaotic true story of some Yanks who want to crack Hitler''s coded messages to other German subs. It ain''t sunk, but this flick could''ve used a life raft.
from http://www.eonline.com/Reviews/Facts/Movies/Reviews/0,1052,75111,00.html

Pros: For history and adventure/action movie lovers, this is a look back in true history.
Cons: NONE
...
Pros: Great action, historically accurate
Cons: Maybe too intense for some people
...
Pros: Very, very historically accurate
Cons: some of the SFX were lacking
...
Pros: Depicts a very interesting and true story
Cons: Kind of bloody

from http://www.epinions.com/mvie_mu-1096711/display_~reviews/listype_~opr

etc etc.

quote:

Based upon your post, it seems obvious that you''re just mad that your country didn''t get credit for the actual historical event that the movie was loosely based upon

As a brit, yes, the sense of injustice is pretty accute, but not because of the lack of credit, because of the fact that people 10 years from now may not know the truth as a result. If Hollywood wants to make a historical film, they damn well should make a historical film. There has to be a clear distinction between fact and fiction so that a layman can tell the difference. You can''t just write about an event in history and totally change the players.

____________________________________________________________
www.elf-stone.com

Shannon Barber

Jun 11, 2002 at 12:20 AM

Shall we compare to the preimeium quality BBC material?

I completely understand what you mean about U-571 though (assuming the brits really did decypher the code

I know little about WW2 history).

Imagine if the Canadians made a movie where they dropped the atomic bombs on Japan?

Shannon Barber

Jun 11, 2002 at 12:24 AM

quote:

You can''t just write about an event in history and totally change the players.

Of common now, like *any* historical event is accurately recorded, and accurately rememebered hundred years in the future by the public en masse.
Movie or history book, they both rewrite it.

intrest86

Jun 11, 2002 at 12:32 AM

[Regarding Hiroshima] I would say go right ahead, I am not proud of that moment in any sort of way (Even if I do think it was necessary).

Now, on to the topic of the post. This has happened all throughout history, it didn't just start yesterday. Most people have a very cheery view of Christopher Columbus, for example, even though people are aghast at what he did once they know. Those in a position of power reserve the right to rewrite history, and there is not much that America can do about it without taking the Constitution and setting it to flames.

The way to prevent this is NOT to stop the movie, there will always be more movies. The only way is to educate the public, and make sure that it goes down the right way in the history books.

EDIT: Note to self, refresh large posts before replying and finding out what you are replying to is buried ;-)

[edited by - intrest86 on June 11, 2002 1:35:03 AM]

benjamin bunny

Jun 11, 2002 at 1:04 AM

quote:
Hollywood does not pass ANY of this off as history. I agree with you on U-571, but it was still a cool movie. As for Saving Priavte Ryan, the landings were done separately, as far as I know, with England, Canada, and the US having their own beaches.

SPR is a perspective thing rather than historical inaccuracy, but I guess you're right on that point; you would have been unlikely to see British soldiers on Omaha beach, and generally speaking SPR is technically very accurate.

quote:

No. If a government does it, its propaganda. If Hollywood does it its marketing.

Where exactly do you draw the line?

GWB actively pushed for Black Hawk down - which portrays US troops' actions in Somalia in 1992 in far a more positive light than history records - to be released early following Sept 11.

Ridley Scott (the British director) said:
"I think the [US] army wanted this film to be made because of the misconception that it [the military campaign] was a fiasco,"

The film managed to anger the Malaysians because of it's skewed pro-american perspective.

Malaysia complaints

There have already been complaints from Malaysia, some of whose troops were also involved in rescuing US troops in Somalia.

The commander of Malaysian forces there at the time, retired Brigadier-General Abdul Latif Ahmad, was quoted by the AFP news agency saying that the record needs to be set straight.

Critics accuse the film of belittling non-US characters

Otherwise, he said, "Malaysian movie-goers will be under the wrong impression that the real battle was fought by the Americans alone, while we were mere bus drivers to ferry them out."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/africa/newsid_1773000/1773466.stm

Further:

But it is the Somalis who might feel they have the right to be most aggrieved, as they are largely caricatures in the film, mostly depicted as fanatical followers of the warlord Farah Aideed.

"They were not characterised, they were not telling their story," said Yusuf Hassan of the BBC's Somali service.

"At that time, I was covering the conflict as a journalist, and I know that the people who were fighting were not only supporters of Aideed.

"Many of them were just people in the neighbourhood who got caught up in this fire and were trying to defend their homes, as they thought they were under attack," he said.

____________________________________________________________
www.elf-stone.com

[edited by - benjamin bunny on June 11, 2002 4:44:06 AM]

benjamin bunny

Jun 11, 2002 at 3:53 AM

quote:

Of common now, like *any* historical event is accurately recorded, and accurately rememebered hundred years in the future by the public en masse.
Movie or history book, they both rewrite it.

It''s a valid point. Its certainly true that many movies and books put a different perspective on history, and the facts get distorted by time, but just recently there''s been a trend towards completely rewriting whole episodes to suit the American filmwatching public, which is something else entirely IMO.

Braveheart anyone?

____________________________________________________________
www.elf-stone.com

KalvinB

Jun 11, 2002 at 4:11 AM

I don''t go to movies for a history lesson. I go to be entertained. Although I think movies that are "based" on historial events shouldn''t even hint that they may be accurate.

But I kind of see it like a book turned into a movie. There''s "Braveheart" the movie and "William Wallace." I think it''s just important to just reiterate to people that Hollywood can''t even adapt a non-fiction book right.

It''s not really our place to regulate Hollywood but using their horrid attempts at telling a historical story to get people interested in reading the real story isn''t a bad idea. I think it''s kind of silly to get pissed off because Hollywood botched a story. How many movies can you name that accuractly told the historical events? Why should anyone expect their story to be accurate when hollywood gets a hold of it?

I think it''d be cool to have a web-site dedicated to telling the real story behind hollywood versions.

Ben

IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting ]

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.