I know… but the OP was about hollywood n’est pas?
Shakespeare certainly knew how to stick the knife in.
If you want a major offender, try Braveheart. They somehow fail to mention that Wallace’s amour was about 12 years old.
But a major plot point of Saving Private Ryan is that the parachute drop was a screw up, spreading people far and wide and people fought alongside whatever allies they could find. Luckily all those allies were non-black Americans.
Even after they went on a big long walk, they still only found French, Germans and non-black Americans.
odinoneeye:
And the really annoying thing is, after I read “The Untouchables: The True Story” by Eliot Ness himself, I found myself wondering why anyone would abandon that riveting real story for the dramatic but completely inaccurate plot of the movie.
The OP mentions Hollywood only in the title, but I guess the question is still valid, in my opinion: Is the American film industry the only ones who play fast & loose with historical facts? What about Indian, European, or other Asian movies? I was under the impression that the oft-mentioned Braveheart was not an American movie, but I can’t find anything on IMDb supporting that claim, other than that it was written by Randall Wallace and was not intended to be a biography or documentary.
Oh wait… Guinastasia, were you talking about The Patriot or We Were Soldiers instead? 
Well, the troops were still segregated then, so the squads would have no blacks (unless it was an all black squad). I don’t know enough about how mixed squads worked to know if they would have taken blacks in (im sure in mid-under attack they’d take anyone who could shoot), but i don’t know of any black paratroopers.
Marley, Askia, re: my drive-by on Schindler’s List; sorry, meant to come back to this thread and then forgot.
To answer your question Marley, one of my MANY objections to SL is the same as my main objection to A Beautiful Mind: that the real story was far more interesting and fascinating than the cliched, formulaic product that Hollywood spewed out instead. But in addition to being more interesting, the truth is also more ambiguous, and neither Spielberg nor Howard is capable of dealing with ambiguity and so must reduce everything they find to cliche.
Askia, I don’t object to the use of fiction as a teaching tool; I object to the use of Schindler’s List as a teaching tool.
Actually, with very few exceptions, I don’t think there were any blacks in combat positions at all in WWII. Mostly, they were relegated to supply and support positions, and wouldn’t have shown up in Normandy until well after the beaches had been secured.
Well, I’ll second the comment about Spielberg, Lissener. I did understand what you meant - what were some specific things that were wrong? I’m curious.
Just that every time there was a detail of Schindler’s life that threatened ambiguity–I don’t remember the specific anecdotes; just they tended to be sexual in nature–Spielberg left it out in favor of cardboard “heroism.”
And now we have a bloated misrepresentation of WWII being taught as concrete fact to students.
Re: amanset’s comment/question
Miller and Tars Tarkas got my point about black soldiers in the US Army in Europe. They were strictly relegated to the supply function until rather late in the campaign. It wouldn’t surprise me if they numbered in the mere dozens in the Normandy beachhead until the Allied breakout. The same numbers would apply to women, limited to nursing and administrative roles.
As for the “scattering” – Paratroops landed on the extreme east and west flanks of the landing zone. It can safely be said that there wasn’t a British soldier within 25 miles (40km) of where any of the paratroopers landed, and that the Ranger squad would have been marching in the opposite direction of the British sector for the whole of the film.
Of course, there were no German SS troops facing the US in the timeframe of Saving Private Ryan either. The US fought some elite forces like German paratroops, and later the Panzer Lehr division, but the SS panzer divisions were initially concentrated on opposing the British push for the city of Caen. Their defense was largely successful, but there were thus unavailable to oppose the US “Operation: Cobra” breakout. Something else for our aggrieved allies to nitpick about
Re: lissener
The problem you’re pointing out re Schindler is as old as biography itself, and not necessarily limited to the movies. Plenty of biographies have omitted or embellished events in furtherance of the thematic/political/ideological priorities of the author. When it comes to biographical movies, there’s even less pretense about the intent being to document. The primary objective is almost always “entertainment”, which is even more in the eye of the beholder than “truth”.
I think teachers using entertainment media to “bring history to life” do have some obligation to point out the factual liberties taken. I should think that can often be a useful springboard for discussion. I don’t think it needs to be a choice between dry old history and teaching fictionalizations as “concrete fact”.
To me it depends strictly on how seriously the movie takes itself whether or not I mind the liberties with historical figures and characters. While Toulouse-Lautrec was neither a lisper nor gay (he in fact used to check into brothels like other men checked into hotels), MOULIN ROUGE takes itself so lightly that it’s hard to object. OTOH, Mel Gibson’s characterization of Cornwallis as a “military genius” in LETHAL MUSKET (and the fact that he uses three single shot weapons to wipe out a British army) or the liberties in BRAVEHEART and MAD MAX (very historically inaccurate; the post apocalyptic future will look nothing like that) did irritate me.
Worst offender: George Lucas’s venture into TV, “The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles”, in which he stopped just short of having young Indie traveling around in a van with 17 year old Gandhi, 18 year old Nellie Bly, 19 year old Harry Houdini and 20 year old Eric von Richtofen solving crimes. Lucas, his dyslexia having evidently gotten a stranglehold on his logic, made the comment “This is how I think history should be taught”. (Yeah- as really fun comic book stuff with no complexity and no thought to accuracy.)
A few years ago the movies ELIZABETH and SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE came out within a few weeks of each other. ELIZABETH is probably the worst piece of ordure I’ve ever seen in terms of historical accuracy (it makes John Wayne’s THE GREEN BERETS look like a Ph.D. thesis in military history), while SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is a fantasia that’s not supposed to be based on the actual man’s life. However, I used SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE in my classes because it gave a very real depiction of what theater would have looked like open-air and in daytime with men playing the female roles, so actually served a historical purpose moreso than the biopic of Betty 1. Also, while documentaries give the actual stats and figures and valid history of a piece, movies give the emotions: SHOAH will tell you how many Jews died in the liquidation of the ghettos, but SCHINDLER’S LIST (or certain episodes of WAR AND REMEMBRANCE [one of the most horrifying depictions of the Holocaust ever filmed, yet strangely ignored]), for all of its flaws* makes you see the people as individuals and better grasp the horror of being unloaded at night by angry men with dogs (or more terrifyingly the soft spoken doctor).
(among other things Spielberg changed were that there was no farewell- I could have done more" speech- Schindler, a wanted fugitive with a price on his head, hit the door moving fast for understandable reasons; accompanying him were both his wife and his favorite girlfriend)
One of the worst offenders was
This past spring, I took a graduate course on literature by and about Elizabeth I – you know, excerpts from her letters and poetry, royal pageantry, pamphlets written on the French marriage scandal, literary representations of the Queen (think Spenser) and so forth. So of course there was a lot of historical research alongside the literary discussion.
The professor who taught the course (and is the president of the Elizabeth I Society) offered a section of it, as I understand it, not long after the movie came out. On the final exam, one of the questions he gave the students was “What did the movie Elizabeth get wrong?”
I find this profoundly unfair, unless it was a really long exam period…
Of course, my point exactly; although some subjects should be properly off limits as mere “entertainment” fodder. Right now we’re in a period where September 11 has this status; subjects like rape, slavery, child abuse and, of course, the Holocaust, will always have that status, and Schindler’s list’s greatest offense is that it took the Holocaust and softened; made it palatable and uplifting; treated it on a par with a saturday morning adventure serial. When the audience walks out after seeing SL, they walk out reassured, and comforted, and entertained. If the Holocaust happened for any reason, as some people believe everything happens for a reason, it wasn’t for that.
And The Patriot/LETHAL MUSKET was, of course, another of that recent flurry of action films that pissed off the British, by depicting them as guilty of full-out, church-burning, civilian-murdering atrocities during the Revolution. At least they gave a fictitious name to their faux-Bannister Tarleton – Perhaps in fear of some sort of suit by his heirs?
Certainly doesn’t bode well for Mel’s upcoming biblical pic, does it?
“Young Indiana Jones” was one of the first things I thought of when I originally saw this thread. Thinking of such things as “teaching history” is Hollywood Hubris at its worst, though I think even that show could have legitimate value in fostering curiosity – encouraging people to actually study history – rather than representing itself as a replacement for that boring old reading stuff. I think they used to do “if you want to learn more, try these books” segments at the end of “Young Indy”. It seems like it’d have been a simple enough and responsible thing to preface those statements with “You know… we twisted a lot of facts for the sake of entertainment in this show…”
Which brings to mind my adolescent dismay when I did some follow-up reading after seeing Time After Time, and found out what a philandering jerk H.G. Wells was – “Damn Him! Poor Amy left everything to go back with him and then he dumped her?!”
Hey! Leave my girlfriend alone!
Well, “future girlfriend”, anyway.
It did? H’uh. Gee, I guess between the kids hiding in privies and forcing people to run around naked and all the death and violence, I forgot to feel uplifted.
Yep. Me too. There must be something wrong with us. I mean, with all the bleakness in that film, I really should have been happier at the end.
Someone with a better grasp of eighteenth century world history will have to jump in here and fill in the details I can’t remember; but I do know that while Lord Cornwallis wasn’t a military genius, he also wasn’t the complete blunderer that Americans typically think he was. After his service in the Revolution, he was sent to India, where he won at least one notable battle - the location and the opponent being what I cannot recall; one of the Mahratta princes, I would guess - and served with some success as the Governor of that colony. Or Governor-General, or Viceroy - his exact title being another thing I can’t remember.
As far as the “cardboardization” of historical figures such as Oskar Schindler, well, that’s not just Spielberg. That’s us. Americans tend to want to paint history and its characters in black and white. Martin Luther King was unfaithful to his wife? Abraham Lincoln firmly believed African-Americans to be inferior to whites? No no no, can’t be. They’re the good guys; they’re not allowed to have dark sides or ugly secrets.