# I just watched "The Untouchables" for the first time. A couple of observations, and a question. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 2, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387 "2019-05-02T20:36:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/21 "2019-05-03T13:26:27Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > But what if there are people in that jury who would have been eliminated during selection? What if it included the cousin of someone who worked for Capone, or the brother-in-law of a cop killed during the gang wars? > > And you have to start the trial over again anyway. The accountant had already testified, and the new jury didn’t hear that. Oh, sure, it’s impractical for a few reasons. I was just mentioning one of the potential benefits that hadn’t been brought up yet. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/22 "2019-05-03T14:11:53Z")
> [@nightshadea](#): > > a question I’ve always wanted to be answered is in the tv series pilot al’s in Florida partying hearitly and its 2 or 3 am > > It cuts to a neighbor who is woken up by this and hes pissed off and asks a butler type of guy " who the hells making all that noise" they tell him " its someone named al Capone" > guy says " who the hell is he and what does he do ? " other guy answers well rumor has it he’s a bootlegger in Chicago "bootlegger? don’t we have a justice department for that ? "yes sir we do " get them on the phone … guy dials a number and says “we need to check out this al Capone guy i wanna know who the hell he is " voice on the phone says " ill have them get on it right away” then it cuts to a shot of his desk and you see the name Herbert Hoover on those little signs they used to have alleging the only reason he was investigated in the first place was he personally pissed off hoover > > Was any of that remotely true? Hoover definitely was obsessed with capturing Capone. He had a weekly exercise with his cabinet and every week he’d ask of the Attorney General about their case against Capone. However, I don’t believe Hoover lived in Florida or stayed there during his presidency. He did have offices in Florida, but nowhere near where Capone lived. In reality, Eliot Ness had nothing to do with Capone’s arrest, and the Untouchables were nothing special. Later Oscar Fraley wrote an account of Ness’s time in Chicago – somewhat exaggerated – and put it out with Ness’s name as co-author. Ness’s only contribution was to read the galleys. Capone was convicted due to the work of Frank J. Wilson, who spent months going over Capone’s finances to prove he was underreporting his income. Now, which movie would you rather see? _The Untouchables_ as it was presented, or a movie showing Wilson and his aides poring over tax records and receipts? (“Look! On September 17, 1926, he spent $200 on champagne!” “Good work, Jenkins. We’ve got him now.”) Accuracy is the great bugaboo when judging movies today. But accuracy always has to give way to the story. It makes people feel superior if they can catch something that’s wrong in a historical movie, but it usually shows the flaws of the critic, and not the movie. Accuracy always should give way to a good story. _Inglourous Basterds_ was hardly accurate, but it was still a great movie. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/23 "2019-05-03T15:17:41Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > It makes people feel superior if they can catch something that’s wrong in a historical movie, but it usually shows the flaws of the critic, and not the movie. > > Accuracy always should give way to a good story. _Inglourous Basterds_ was hardly accurate, but it was still a great movie. Says the guy who fancies himself a critic. Having historical, easily verified inaccuracies, that don’t even affect the movie, doesn’t reveal the flaws in the critic. It reveals the flaws in the movie making system. Inglourious Basterds doesn’t pretend to be a historical movie any more than Star Trek pretends to be an accurate representation of space flight. But the only things The Untouchables have in common with reality, chuck, is it features characters named Ness, Capone, Nitti and Chicago. The rest is fiction. But it pretends to be historically accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/24 "2019-05-03T19:15:15Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Says the guy who fancies himself a critic. > > Having historical, easily verified inaccuracies, that don’t even affect the movie, doesn’t reveal the flaws in the critic. It reveals the flaws in the movie making system. > > Inglourious Basterds doesn’t pretend to be a historical movie any more than Star Trek pretends to be an accurate representation of space flight. But the only things The Untouchables have in common with reality, chuck, is it features characters named Ness, Capone, Nitti and Chicago. The rest is fiction. But it pretends to be historically accurate. Totally agree. If an historical event isn’t a good subject for an exciting movie, don’t screw with history - pick another subject. There is no excuse for changing history in major ways just to make a movie more exciting. And there are ways to make an historical movie fun, exciting, scary or dramatic without changing history. For example, you can make a movie around a fictitious character who was on the periphery of the actual events but who is plausibly lost to history. But I’m guessing there are now millions of people who believe that a jury was swapped, that Frank Nitti was thrown off a roof, etc. I love _The Untouchables_ as a movie. The shootout in the train station was a fantastic piece of filmmaking. It’s a great movie. But it does a terrible disservice to history. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/25 "2019-05-03T19:25:25Z")
RealityChuck: > [@](#): > > In reality, Eliot Ness had nothing to do with Capone’s arrest, and the Untouchables were nothing special. Later Oscar Fraley wrote an account of Ness’s time in Chicago – somewhat exaggerated – and put it out with Ness’s name as co-author. Ness’s only contribution was to read the galleys. > > Capone was convicted due to the work of Frank J. Wilson, who spent months going over Capone’s finances to prove he was underreporting his income. Of course the main evidence came from the accounting side, but how did the accountants get any evidence of Capone’s income? Ness’s team disrupted the brewery business enough so Capone couldn’t afford his bribes, which is what made the local authorities look away and/or warn him if honest ones were getting too close. Fraley of course concentrated on the more interesting side of the story, but he lays out just what Ness’s team’s role in the process was. To pretend Ness and the Untouchables were nothing special is not true. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/26 "2019-05-03T19:30:26Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Accuracy is the great bugaboo when judging movies today. But accuracy always has to give way to the story. It makes people feel superior if they can catch something that’s wrong in a historical movie, but it usually shows the flaws of the critic, and not the movie. There’s nothing wrong with the Untouchables except that it uses the names of real people and pretends to be telling a story that really happened. What’s the point of using the real names if you are not going to tell something approximating the real story? “Accuracy” is one thing, “massive fabrication” is another. > [@](#): > > Accuracy always should give way to a good story. _Inglourous Basterds_ was hardly accurate, but it was still a great movie. An absurd comparison. _Inglourious Basterds_ was an obvious fantasy and counterfactual from the beginning. No one could suppose it was based on true events. > [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Having historical, easily verified inaccuracies, that don’t even affect the movie, doesn’t reveal the flaws in the critic. It reveals the flaws in the movie making system. I don’t mind minor inaccuracies, or that shortcuts might be taken to tell the story, or that minor characters might be combined, or that some dramatic liberties might be taken. I do mind fabrications that subvert the actual original story. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/27 "2019-05-03T20:13:56Z")
Call me odd, but I expect a movie supposedly based on an autobiographical work to bear at least some resemblance to the book. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/28 "2019-05-03T20:19:38Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And there are ways to make an historical movie fun, exciting, scary or dramatic without changing history. For example, you can make a movie around a fictitious character who was on the periphery of the actual events but who is plausibly lost to history. They could, but then there would be tons of “the director could have focused on real people making real decisions - why did they make a fake story” arguments. I know, I’ve argued your position here many a time. cf, _Titanic_. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2019, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/29 "2019-05-04T20:41:32Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Because Hollywood thinks audiences can only handle simple things. > > That, and they have to change something in every true story, otherwise…I don’t know, but they sure do. > > Like the fact no “untouchables” were killed. And that Frank Nitti wasn’t either. And the fact that it wasn’t Eliot Ness that brought down Capone. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/30 "2019-05-05T20:36:43Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > And the fact that it wasn’t Eliot Ness that brought down Capone. Well, there IS that… ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2019, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/31 "2019-05-06T03:55:09Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Totally agree. If an historical event isn’t a good subject for an exciting movie, I love _The Untouchables_ as a movie. The shootout in the train station was a fantastic piece of filmmaking. It’s a great movie. But it does a terrible disservice to history. Same here. I treat it as pure fiction that happens to riff on some historical figures and just enjoy it for what it is. BTW, if one has a spare 25 minutes or so, a guy named Nick Hodges [does a pretty good job of summarizing the movie’s many deviations from history](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=argZPb1kVUo), following on from a lengthy recap of Prohibition for his (presumably international) audience. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2019, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/32 "2019-05-06T04:12:34Z")
Sorry, I intended just to quote the last line of **Sam’s** post. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2019, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/33 "2019-05-06T06:28:51Z")
according to the a&e biography, the only reason we really know who ness was is his boss thanked him by name when Capone was convicted because he did help stem the tide of a lot of rotgut and dangerous booze in Chicago and assisted in various investigations and wanted to give him some credit … and the papers puffed him and the squad up … ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2019, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387/34 "2019-05-06T07:56:17Z")
> [@nightshadea](#): > > according to the a&e biography, the only reason we really know who ness was is his boss thanked him by name when Capone was convicted because he did help stem the tide of a lot of rotgut and dangerous booze in Chicago and assisted in various investigations and wanted to give him some credit … and the papers puffed him and the squad up … Have you read the book _ **The Untouchables** _? > **[Behind The Untouchables: The Making of the Memoir That Reclaimed a...](https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/12/the-untouchables-the-making-of-the-memoir-prohibition-era-legend)** > > Eliot Ness, the man who brought down Al Capone, had been all but forgotten by the time he began writing his autobiography, with sportswriter Oscar Fraley, in 1956. The book, celebrating its 60th anniversary, would make Ness a national icon—though he... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-just-watched-the-untouchables-for-the-first-time-a-couple-of-observations-and-a-question/833387.md?page=1)