Last week, Congressman Joe Courtney wrote to Stephen Spielberg to complain about how Connecticut is portrayed in the movie, Lincoln. In the movie, the Nutmeg State’s delegation votes against the 13th Amendment, which abolishes slavery. In reality, the Connecticut delegation voted unanimously in favor of the 13th Amendment.
All in all, it’s a minor point in the movie. The scene is that the vote on the amendment is very close, and nobody knows if it will pass. But Congressman Courtney is right: the movie didn’t simply fill in some gaps with some invented dialog or made mountains out of molehills in order to increase drama. The movie quite simply changed facts for no good reason that I can see.
The screenwriter responds. And he comes across like a bitchy 15 year old who got caught cheating on his math test:
I don’t think that Spielberg needs to go back and change the film. But this entitled Hollywood screenwriter (who knew such a thing existed?) wants to blame Courtney for catching him in a verifiable lie. Accusing this congressman of being “flamboyant” in a press release when you just made shit up in a movie to make the movie more flamboyant? Excuse me?
The play (and later movie) 1776 did not, as far as I know, change votes, but it did change who said certain things and played fast and loose with characterization and motivations.*
Not that I’m complaining – the play was better than most, and well-researched. Peter Stone just made changes for the sake of drama. But look into the background – Joseph Wilson of Pennsylvania was far from the nonentitity the play makes him. And Charles Thomson, the Congressional secretary, was far from the recording machine the play makes him – he was a truly fascinating character, who was adopted by the Delaware Indians, among other things.
I’m not surprised about the scripter for Lincoln doing a bit of dramatic re-arranging, but changing votes like that was bound to get the state riled up. Couldn’t he have found a case of a real dramatic situation – some other state votes changed, or another dire situation – that wouldn’t have been so clearly unhistoric?
*I’ve noted before that David McCullough seems to have the play in his sights. He points out just about every instance of a misattribution, without ever mentioning the play by name.
This is the sort of fence-jumping argument used by people like Limbaugh - the audience is supposed to take the material seriously, but when it’s called on accuracy or bias, they lamely claim that “they’re just an entertainer” or “it’s just a movie.” Kushner wants it both ways - what a surprise from someone in the industry.
Connecticut is used to being a punchline. Other than snow, leaf-peeping and the shortest distance between NYC and Bawstun, it’s not good for much else.
Try it. Tell the lamest joke you can manage and make the punchline “Connecticut.” For extra oomph, deliver it in a Niles Crane voice. You’ll get that laugh every time.
I’m not bothered by the fact that Hollywood gets something wrong. It’s the “How DARE you question our artistic intent when we knowingly fabricate something!?!?” attitude that gets me.
Its not a lie. There isn’t any expectation that a film “based” on a historical event be accurate. Anyone who feels mislead by assuming so has only themselves to blame.
Pretty funny that there was a puff piece on 60 Minutes last night that spent a considerable amount of time blowing smoke up Spielberg’s ass about how historically accurate the movie is. (“I even recorded the ticking of Lincoln’s actual watch!!!1”)
Misrepresenting an easily verifiable fact is lazy at best, sleazy at worst.
The criticism was on target.
*would it have been OK if the movie identified Andrew Johnson as the man who issued the Emancipation Proclamation? After all, it’s “only a story”. :dubious:
I did have a problem with the scene where Mary Todd puts Abe’s stovepipe hat on the ground so she can stand on it to kiss him. Never demand suspension-of-disbelief unless you have to – it’s almost easier to believe in vampirism – what’s that hat made of, an actual stovepipe?!
That said, it wasn’t a critical plot point…or even particularly important…that Connecticut’s delegates voted the way they did in the movie.
Therefore I would reject the idea that it was done for the sake of effect or art. I think it was simply an oversight, an error, by the scriptwriter. Seems like the sort of thing you’d sic your fact checkers on and clear up before it hit the theaters.
So yeah, I think it was laziness at least, and roll my eyes at the writer’s impassioned defense.
Its not being misrepresented. There isn’t any expectation that a historically based film be factual, and so its impossible for it to misrepresent things.
Sure. I mean there’s a movie that shows Abraham Lincoln as motivated by a hatred of Vampires. That’s not exactly following history 100% either, but I don’t have any problem with it.
One can argue that changing CT’s vote was a bad choice, but its not a “lie” or “misrepresentation”.
Try being German and watching movies like Inglorious Bastards… and what not… or any other NAZI related movie… and people quoting it to you later as history facts
Did “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Killer” give a writing credit to Doris Kearns Goodwin? Did “Inglourious Basterds” credit Stephen Ambrose? Well, “Lincoln” did give a writing credit to Goodwin, and therefore should have artistic license to fill in where necessary without fabricating things that can apparently be fact checked by a busy congressman with presumably better things to do.
Ironically, Primadonna Kushner was driving in Connecticut when he got the call that his script was being greenlighted. Perhaps he did not enjoy his visit to the Constitution State.
Funnily enough, Spielberg (in the same cite) credits Mr. Butthurt as producing a script that “became a hybrid of historical research and Tony’s remarkable artistry with language.” Sure, Tony DID research. He just didn’t feel bound by it, and how dare anyone point that out. :rolleyes:
I disagree. Perhaps we don’t need the film to be painstakingly 100% accurate, but to state that there is NO expectation of accuracy is false.
These things are important. The current discussion and fight for gay rights often has legislators voting against their own interest based on the notion of being on the right side of history. Connecticut was on the right side of history, but that was incorrectly depicted in the film. If someone depicted you as against abolition, wouldn’t you want to correct it?
If we can subvert history so easily, then what motivation do we have to do what is right now? Hollywood can simply fake it later.
There are plenty of sources for historical information where there is a high expectation of historical accuracy. The fact that movies don’t have such an expectation doesn’t somehow destroy those other sources.
(and even amongst movies, we have an entire genre that does bill itself as being factual: the documentary. If you find a conscious inaccuracy in a Ken Burns movie, you’d be accurate to say that its a lie. Spielburg could’ve billed Lincoln as a documentary if he wanted to. He didn’t, and so he can’t be characterized as lying.)
If it were done in the vampire hunter movie or some other pastiche or parody, it wouldn’t be. In a film that made much of its historicity and authenticity, it’s both. All three. Especially as there is no justifiable reason for making the change except the scriptwriter’s whim.
I can tolerate historical inaccuracy when there is a solid storytelling reason to do so, and the makers will acknowledge the change. This is just an example of lazy, sloppy writing in what presents itself as a near-documentary. Spielberg et al. certainly bask in the glow of all that “authenticity” and are awful quick to dismiss deliberate fluffs like this.