Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Hollywood v. History
Over the years we have seen historical events dramatize in motion pictures and on many occasions, the movie sacrifices historical fact for audience thrills, or propaganda or whatever. I feel that the changes are not always necessary and in later adaptations of films the filmmakers tend to stick to the fiction rather than doing a faithful adaptation. In some cases, sticking to the facts may have made an entertaining film but the powers to be tend to disagree. Here are some examples:
Sink the Bismark (1960) directed by one of our later Bond directors, Lewis Gilbert. This tells the story of the hunt and sinking fo the feared German battleship, Bismark in 1941. In the film, Division Commander, Admiral Lutjens is portrayed as a fanatical Nazi when in actualily he was not political and actually dispised Hitler and the Nazis. In ceremonies, he preferred to wear the old Imperial German Navy sword, instead of the newer Kriegsmarine sword because the newer sword had swastikas on it.
Zulu (1963) This fine film tells the story of the successful defense of the British post at Roarks Drift in South Africa against an attacking Zulu army of over 4,000 in 1879. The Zulus had just annialated a British column prior to attacking Roarks Drift. The British group of just around 120 held against all odds. In the film, the Zulus are portrayed as the aggressor when in actuallity the British had invaded Zulu land. After destroying a large British column, and against orders from the King to attack British territory, a nephew of the king led the attack on the British at Roarks Drift.
In the film, a character, Pvt Hook is shown as a lazy, lowlife of a soldior who is trying to get out of work details. During the battle he distinguishes himself being one of many to win the Victoria Cross. In actuality, Hook was a very comptetent and dedicated soldier. Durign the premiere his two daughter (in their eighties) walked out of the theater being so upset at how their father was portrayed.
Dillinger (1973) and Public Enemies (2009) I am always surprised at how many films about the infamous Midwestern bank robber portrays him as the leader of the gang when actually the leader and brains behind the gang was Harry Pierpont. At the time, the head of the Indiana State Police hoped he could tear the gang apart from within and he leaked stories to the press naming John Dillinger as the leader. The plow had no effect on Dillinger and Pierpont's freindship and it actually brought them closer.
The films also are full of shootouts with police and bank guards. In fact this rarely if ever happened. It was a botched job if the gang got into a shootout. The top gangs of the day (The Barkers, Dillenger's gang) planned their heists to the last detail and made sure they did not have to shoot their way out of robberies. The Barrow gang was an exception however.
Can you think of any films when Hollywood just crap all over the facts for "artistic entertainment"/
Sink the Bismark (1960) directed by one of our later Bond directors, Lewis Gilbert. This tells the story of the hunt and sinking fo the feared German battleship, Bismark in 1941. In the film, Division Commander, Admiral Lutjens is portrayed as a fanatical Nazi when in actualily he was not political and actually dispised Hitler and the Nazis. In ceremonies, he preferred to wear the old Imperial German Navy sword, instead of the newer Kriegsmarine sword because the newer sword had swastikas on it.
Zulu (1963) This fine film tells the story of the successful defense of the British post at Roarks Drift in South Africa against an attacking Zulu army of over 4,000 in 1879. The Zulus had just annialated a British column prior to attacking Roarks Drift. The British group of just around 120 held against all odds. In the film, the Zulus are portrayed as the aggressor when in actuallity the British had invaded Zulu land. After destroying a large British column, and against orders from the King to attack British territory, a nephew of the king led the attack on the British at Roarks Drift.
In the film, a character, Pvt Hook is shown as a lazy, lowlife of a soldior who is trying to get out of work details. During the battle he distinguishes himself being one of many to win the Victoria Cross. In actuality, Hook was a very comptetent and dedicated soldier. Durign the premiere his two daughter (in their eighties) walked out of the theater being so upset at how their father was portrayed.
Dillinger (1973) and Public Enemies (2009) I am always surprised at how many films about the infamous Midwestern bank robber portrays him as the leader of the gang when actually the leader and brains behind the gang was Harry Pierpont. At the time, the head of the Indiana State Police hoped he could tear the gang apart from within and he leaked stories to the press naming John Dillinger as the leader. The plow had no effect on Dillinger and Pierpont's freindship and it actually brought them closer.
The films also are full of shootouts with police and bank guards. In fact this rarely if ever happened. It was a botched job if the gang got into a shootout. The top gangs of the day (The Barkers, Dillenger's gang) planned their heists to the last detail and made sure they did not have to shoot their way out of robberies. The Barrow gang was an exception however.
Can you think of any films when Hollywood just crap all over the facts for "artistic entertainment"/
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_(film)
I would imagine so; as a historian it does make me very angry though. And you can add Pearl Harbour (2001) to the list of historical inaccuracies. Why don't they just stick with fiction?
Pearl Harbor indeed is a terrible example.
Braveheart is filled with it. Edward Longchamp died during the rebellion of Robert de Bruce, for instance.