The most accurately portrayed Hollywood history films

I’m not confused…. just cynical. 😉

Totally unlike serious journalists and politicians, then? :rolleyes:

Journalists yes, politicians…no.
But since many counties have newspapers strongly identified with a political party…I can understand your confusion. :rolleyes:

The problem serious journalists have with people like Moore is they only tell you what they want to to hear…facts, opinions, that boost their arguments.

Totally unlike serious journalists and politicians, then? :rolleyes:

The number of VietNamese soldiers in the battle is not accurate, my cousin (Using Viet military sources) says that the number was inflated by America to show “victory

What victory!! The vietnamese tactics to lure,harras and kill americans were very succesfull and to that extent they won. The movie shows death death and more death . It shows US inteligence failure , failure on the high ranks etc etc , shows tactical brilliance on both sides ( Gibson and counterpart) and basically shows how the veitnamese officer goes about killing enemy . A great great clip . Wether the old veterans think the americans showed themselves wining the particular battle is something that i dont get when i watch the movie.

Michael Moore has proven himself to be one of the best documentary makers of our age because more people know what his films are about, and the issues behind them, than any other filmmaker attempting social change or thought.

Entertainment? No – a refreshing approach that keeps the viewer engaged!
History Lesson? Absolutley, but obviously lost on you.

Yes, he is effective in presenting HIS side of the story in an entertaining/engrossing way that gets attention. That’s a talent.
The problem serious journalists have with people like Moore is they only tell you what they want to to hear…facts, opinions, that boost their arguments.

Hardly objective stuff.
Not to mention the people he interviewed who maintain he took their comments out of context…a very easy thing to happen for any film maker…and a hard temptation to resist if you have a political adgenda you are trying to foster.
Americans who kknow what it’s like in America can take what he says with a pinch of salt. I worry about the poeple around the world without that background and context and see such films as the gospel truth.

Visiting Disney in Florida doesn’t make one an expert about America…”Yeah, I’ve BEEN there..” the chap in the pub says before starting a tirade on US politics, culture, films, foreign policy, aircraft, women, etc, etc.
Yes, you’ve been there but a holiday at a resort doesn’t give you the context to be an expert. The same goes for these films.
Judging America by Hollywood..or Moore…makes about as much sense as judging the Third Reich by only watching the films of Riefenstahl.

Thanks for the reply. No need for us to fgall out over this 😉

Actually, yes you have a point. You can gain from a film, ESP if it promps you to find out more. For exapmpe, take the rether good Micheal Cain film, The Eagle Has Landed. A fictional tale of a possible abduction of Churchill. Of couse we all know it never happened, thank goodness. The film was a big what if??

However, if it prompts even one person to find out more about that period in time, and about the possible planned invasion of Britain, and the actual invasion of the Channel Islands, then the film has done more than its job. It not only entertains but aslo encourages.

Buffpuff, apologies – I misconstrued your point on entertainment, it wasn’t put very clearly.

I am doing a degree course, and I do use books. Lots and lots of them. I don’t have an “attitude towards” books as you preceive. My point simply was books are just as fallible to have errors as any other media. Full stop.

With a website I can place screeds of info on it. If a year after the website went up someone points out I have made an error, I can instantly correct it. You can’t do that with a book, can you? You can’t email the author and ask them to change something in every copy he or she has sold around the world. That is the point I was making. For that matter, you cannot ask a filmmaker to change something in their film either.

I use book, as i say, but I do find errors or conflicts of recording, and thus have realised that you cannot always believe what you read – just as you can’t believe everything on TV.

As it happens I’m lucky in my course that I do also rely heavily on audio-visual and new media as awell as books, because I am studying these fields.

Your points are well made. You can gain a lot of information from a well made film, your Simon Schama example being a good one. Some film makers do a good job, some do not. And making the film entertaining doesn’t mean it lessens the facts if done right.

So, sorry if I misconstrued anything you said and you anything I said. This thread that i degan a long time ago is well off track now so I’ll leave it at that.

Oh, dear II…

So if you want to find out about the life and times of Winston Churchill, do you look at PRINTED facts, artifacts, dates, witnesses and records? Or do you watch a film which to be made ENTERTAINING, has to have a certain degee of artistic liscence?

If like myself you were doing a degeee course and had to look at facts and figures from various sources, and you looked at a documentary about Churchill and made notes to back up your other sources, then fine. However, if you were to look at a hollywood film and use that as the basis of your research, then don’t be suprised to be heavily marked down for poor reserch.

By the way, I mentioned Bowling for Columbine as an example of a “factual” documentary. I could have mentioned Super Size Me, by Morgon Spurlock. McDonalds for obvious reasons dislike the message behind this film. They have two major arguments:

1) People hgave been eating Meat, Bread and Potatoes for generations with no ill effects.

2) Of course if you did what Spurlock did and eat Big Macs every day for a whole month, then of course its not going to be very good for you. Once in a while is our (McDonnalds) message.

Spurlocks counter reply was that whilst most do not eat Big Macs every day, too many eat them too often and can still suffer the ill effects he did, albeit over a longer time frame.

Of course one mans fact is another mans exageration, see above poiont. Not everyone agrees with such facts and there are several sites in the US slagging of Micheal Moore, calling him unpatriotic and un-American.

I mentioned Micheal Moore and Morgan Spurlocks docs as the aim to inform THROUGH being entertaining. Yes, they were entertaining. Perhaps I did not make that point too clear. However, they were not historical stories which many films such as Pearl Harbour, Titanic and U-571 were.

Ever seen the BBC series A History of Britain?? Presented by Simon Schama, it is a history lesson in its purest form. No special effects, Just one man presenting a history of Britain from 3100bc to modern Briatin. A little heavy going at times but a better TV history lesson on Britain is hard to find.

Or what about The Worst Jobs in History presented by Tony Robinson?? Fact based again, but very entertaining as it shows Robinson tackling these jobs himself.

P.S. If you were doing the degee course I am with your attitude to books, you’d be heavily marked down and told not to rely on films and websites. Yes books can conflict with one another. However, with short run print on demand, books can be reprinted, even out ouf copy editions and ammended.

You’re far more likely to find conflicting websites as there are far more of them compared to books on any given subject. And have you never come across an out of date web site??? Or a website where the info is wrong but has not been corrected???

Do NOT rely on a film for accuracy. If you want historical fact, read a book, watch a good documentary or visit a reputable web site.

A film, unless a documentary based one such as the Munich 1972 documentary One Day in September voiced I think by Micheal Douglas, or a fact based film such as the Micheal More film such as Bowling for Columbine is for entertainment, not a history lesson.

And even fact based documentaries can contain what others see as glaring errors.

Oh dear. I can’t believe this old thread has been dredged up yet again.

Buffpuff, what makes you think that books are more historically correct than a film? I have seldom found a history book that does not have conflicting information compared with another on the subject. At least with a website any error can be fixed, and in that respect, they are superior to books.

And by the way, Bowling For Columbine was not made for entertainment!! Crikey. Sure it had some bits in it that were light-hearted but they also were highly charged with an important message. The message was an extremely serious issue. The facts presented were as real as any other documentary. It stirred up debate and made some people stop and think about the issues.

Michael Moore has proven himself to be one of the best documentary makers of our age because more people know what his films are about, and the issues behind them, than any other filmmaker attempting social change or thought.

How did he get to be so good? He approaches very serious subjects such as poverty, job lay-offs, gun toting nutters, criminal or incompetent presidents, etc from a different angle and makes it a lot more in your face. He does not make up the facts, he merely presents them differently. A lot of what he’s presented had already been written or presented on film or literature before.

Entertainment? No – a refreshing approach that keeps the viewer engaged!
History Lesson? Absolutley, but obviously lost on you.

If they didn’t merge that would be like complaining about Memphis Belle since you don’t see RAF aircraft…I sure some where flying in the ETO that day. :rolleyes:

Actually, at the time of the Belle’s last mission, her escort probably would have been RAF Spitfires (the Shuttleworth Collection’s MkVc is supposed to have flown one sortie escorting the Belle), but supposedly the reasoning for changing to Mustangs was so that people didn’t get confused? :confused:

Do NOT rely on a film for accuracy. If you want historical fact, read a book, watch a good documentary or visit a reputable web site.

A film, unless a documentary based one such as the Munich 1972 documentary One Day in September voiced I think by Micheal Douglas, or a fact based film such as the Micheal More film such as Bowling for Columbine is for entertainment, not a history lesson.

And even fact based documentaries can contain what others see as glaring errors.

That’s what I’m getting at, what is wrong with the film?

The number of VietNamese soldiers in the battle is not accurate, my cousin (Using Viet military sources) says that the number was inflated by America to show “victory”.

That’s what I’m getting at, what is wrong with the film?

The casualty ratio was about 5 to 1, the actual troop strengths were about 450 US soldiers from 1/7 Cav, and similar numbers from 2/7 and 1/5 Cav, facing three NVA battalions and one VC regiment totalling between 1600 and 2000 men. What’s your problem this time?

I have no problem, but VietNamese veterans from that battle felt that “We were soldiers” was a distortion of history.

Saving Private Ryan?????????????????????????????????????

The beach that Captain John Miller and co landed upon on D Day had a large number of British Tommies landing on it too. When you watch the film however you see hardly any British Tommies at all. 😡

As I recall the scene in the film, a lot of it was done from the cameras POV.
I doubt if the Americans and the Brits co-mingled on the beach…that would explain why the tommies weren’t seen.
It would be interesting to know if they did merge on the beach much. Does anyone know the facts (before accusing Americans of being insensitive to their allies)?
If they didn’t merge that would be like complaining about Memphis Belle since you don’t see RAF aircraft…I sure some where flying in the ETO that day. :rolleyes:

And Patton was accurate in it’s portrayal of Monty is as much as Patton really didn’t like him. You may disagree with Patton’s opinion…but it was historically accurate. It’s a biography and you see things from Patton’s point of view. Besides the screenplay was based on a highly regarded Patton bio as well as Omar Bradley’s own autobiography.

JFK is about as accurate history as the strories of MI 5 killing Diana at the request of the queen.

A great US civil war film, and at least as accurate as Glory, perhaps more so…is Gettysurg.

Well if we’re not gonna count plane types and markings being accurate, ‘Midway’s story is pretty true to the real deal, as I understand it…

I dig ‘Dances with Wolves’…very accurate and true (as far as what actually happened to the Indians)…a great flick..

Anyone remember ‘Glory’ with Morgan Freeman and Matthew Broderick? A VERY accurate representation of the 54th Massachusetts, as told by Edward Zwick…just added THAT to my collection the other day, thank god…GREAT flick…

M

The American claimed to have been outnumbered 5 to 1 in the Battle of Ia Drang, yeah right. A fine example of history been turn and twisted into a lie.

The casualty ratio was about 5 to 1, the actual troop strengths were about 450 US soldiers from 1/7 Cav, and similar numbers from 2/7 and 1/5 Cav, facing three NVA battalions and one VC regiment totalling between 1600 and 2000 men. What’s your problem this time?

Anyway, if you want a good historical film, watch Alexander. The Tuskegee Airmen is pretty good too.

Saving Private Ryan?????????????????????????????????????

How on earth can anybody say that SPR is historically accurate? :confused:

The beach that Captain John Miller and co landed upon on D Day had a large number of British Tommies landing on it too. When you watch the film however you see hardly any British Tommies at all. 😡

On the other hand the number of Americans you see all through the film makes me wonder if the Brits played any part in the liberation of Europe at all! 🙁

Dave

Saving Private Ryan was NOT historically accuate – except in the generic – ie. yes there was an Allied invasion of Normandy, yes lots of the invaders got themselves killed.

The storyline of the film is loosely based on two true stories … see:
http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=1366

In his book, Band of Brothers, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992) Stephen E. Ambrose includes the history of a paratrooper with the 101st Airborne, Fritz Niland, in France shortly after the invasion of Normandy. One day after learning that one of his brothers, a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne, had been killed on D-day, he learned that another brother had been killed on Utah Beach on D-Day. When Fritz returned to his own unit, he was informed that a third brother had been killed a week earlier in the China-Burma-India war zone. As the sole surviving son, Fritz Niland was sent home.
[my edit – he walked out, no Tiger tank, no brave rescue, etc., etc.] [PLUS]
On January 2, 1942, the five Sullivan brothers from Waterloo, Iowa—George, Francis, Joseph, Madison, and Albert—joined the Navy, with the hopes that they be allowed to serve together. A friend of theirs had been killed on the U.S.S. Arizona on December 7, 1941. They trained together at the Great Lakes Training Center, near Chicago, and were assigned to the cruiser, U.S.S. Juneau. Only a few months later, the Juneau was sunk by a Japanese submarine on November 13, 1942 during the Battle of the Solomons. Of the 676 men on board, only 11 survived; all five Sullivans were among the dead.

IMHO, Saving Private Ryan was/is about as historically accurate as Apocalypse Now ~ in much the same way ~ fictional (go get someone) storyline set in a reasonably accurate depiction of the battlefield.