The biggest "LIES" the movies ever told me.

[Worf101]

I was sitting in the reading room this morning (the Bathroom for you uninitiated) when I got to thinking about how many war/historical movies I love that bear absolutely NO resemblance to historical fact. Some wartime films can be excused as propaganda to help win the war, the rest... whew, have no excuse. Here's some films (some I love some I hate) that have a real slim grasp on history.

1. "They Died With Their Boots On" (1942) - Errr, a sober Custer who actually loved Indians and respected them all the while he was killing them. The real Custer was a brutal, ignorant, glory seeking, prima dona who felt the rules didn't apply to him. He often went AWOL to visit his wife and before the Little Big Horn was inches from being cashiered by the Army. It is her we have to thank for the enduring myths about this man and his death.

2. "Wake Island" (1942) - According to this film Geoffrey "Artillery" Caton and his men fought a last stand to equal the Spartans at Philipi (sp). In reality, after the Marines and civilians heorically beat off the first Japanese landing, Caton, who'd been hiding in his bunker, came out and ordered the entire garrison to surrender. To be fair he was facing a far superior force but if the lie has to be this big, better to tell nothing at all. Great performance by Brian Donlevy as Caton.

3. "The Battle of the Bulge" (1965) - First big screen technocolor movie I ever saw as a kid.. Great stuff yeah.... if you don't read any history books about it. Wrong units, wrong Generals, stereotypes of the worse stripe on all sides all topped off with the largest, most fictious tank battle ever put on film. There were some great performances though. Fonda was magnificent as was Robert Shaw as Herr Hessler. But my fave has to be Charles Bronson as Maj. Wolenski. He gives a speech about what they should do with Germany after the war that has been cut from the film over the years. The kind of speech a Pole would give about the Germans.

4. "The Charge of the Light Brigade" (1936) - Errol Flynn and Mike Curtiz at it again. This time they concoct the most outrageous backstory as to why 600 men rode to "certain death" on the Balaklava Heights. In this movie they charged for revenge, glory etc... In real life it was a blunder and despite what you were told, most of the men who made the charge, lived to continue the fight.

5. "Pearl Harbor" (2001) - How one film can foul up The Eagle Squadon's exploits in the Battle of Britain, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Dolittle Raid all in under three hours is absolutely amazing to me. The only "true" part of the film was the exploits of Dorey Miller played by Cuba Gooding. Miller did man a gun who's crew had been killed as was credited with downing 4 to 5 Zero's. The rest... is pure hollywood hogwash.

Well, that's my story....

Da Worfster

[kexodusc]

Great thread Worfster!!!

Pearl Harbor was pretty terrible. What a let down.
My only real beef with the movies is everything World War II related. I did my (first) Master's degree (not to sound like snob, because lord help me, I ain't smart) on the subject. Most historical evidence, and the generally accepted facts in the rest of the world, is that Hitler was on his way to losing before we got involved, we merely accelerated the process a bit. I was always taught in school that we were the deciding factor. I spent a summer in London, and most British people I met are very offended by claims that the good ol' USA won the war for the Allies. Can't say I blame them, really.
But, seriously, who isn't victim of a little self-glorification every now and then? Makes for good movies, as long as Ben Affleck isn't in them.

[mtrycraft]

Great thread Worfster!!!

Pearl Harbor was pretty terrible. What a let down.
My only real beef with the movies is everything World War II related. I did my (first) Master's degree (not to sound like snob, because lord help me, I ain't smart) on the subject. Most historical evidence, and the generally accepted facts in the rest of the world, is that Hitler was on his way to losing before we got involved, we merely accelerated the process a bit. I was always taught in school that we were the deciding factor. I spent a summer in London, and most British people I met are very offended by claims that the good ol' USA won the war for the Allies. Can't say I blame them, really.
But, seriously, who isn't victim of a little self-glorification every now and then? Makes for good movies, as long as Ben Affleck isn't in them.

I am no historian, far from it, but didn't we enter WWII after Dec 7 41? If I understand you, Germany was on its way out by then? Then why did it take so long to end it with an invasion in Normandy?

[skeptic]

kexodusc, I think your historical account and those of Europeans who say the same are dead wrong. Had the US not entered World War II, the Germans would have won in Europe. They occupied ALL of western and southern Europe from Iberia, through the Balkans, northern Africa, Eastern Europe, and Scandanavia except for Sweden which was neutral. Only the British Isles had held out by December 7, 1941 and then only barely and on American material being shipped to them. Even as late as the Battle of the Bulge, it was not clear that there would be an Allied victory. America was the main force on the western and southern front, and was the supplier of nearly one billion dollars of arms and other material to Stalin without which he would not have been able to fight nearly as effectively. America's entry into the war also took a lot of pressure off the eastern front where the Soviets were fighting. Without America's entry the Germans would have likely overrun them. BTW, that money sent to the USSR was never repaid. And who else was there to fight the Japanese? Did America win the war all by it self? NO. But it played THE major role, 22 million dead Russians notwithstanding. Would the Allies have won without American entry? It's highly doubtful. BTW, Montgommery was a highly overrated and mediocre general. (The French of course as an organized fighting force were useless and their armies collapsed in the blitzkreig very quickly. De Gaulle was a useless windbag. The resistance did contribute however.) As for the Soviets, they were led by the second most incompetent strategist in the entire war, Stalin. It was Stalin who left his country wide open to attack never believing his friend Adolf Hitler with whom he had a treaty would ever stab him in the back. He was lucky to have General Zukov or the Russians would have been defeated. Hitler was of course the absolute worst and the Germans would have done far better had he listened to his Generals who were professional soldiers.. Saddam Hussein made the same mistake in 1991.

[kexodusc]

Read up on the "Battle of Britain" in 1940, and its significance. Most historians consider this the beginning of the end, two years before the US mounted significant offence.
I'm not downplaying our role...just don't for one minute believe that Hitler hadn't spread himself too thin before we got involved.

On the other hand, we aren't given enough credit for our role in the Pacific.

[skeptic]

As I recall from about 10,000 programs about the Battle of Britain (more guys died in movies about World War II than died in the actual war itself) it seems to me that Hitler tried to break Britain by bombing it with V1 buzz bombs (early crude cruise missiles) and V2 rockets. These were crude terror weapons which could not be accurately targeted. They just blew up buildings at random. The British people showed their mettle by surviving this attack and demonstrating their will to fight on. What this has to do with the actual military progress of the war or how it could even conceivably be called a turning point is beyond me. Please explain what this had to do with Britain actually winning the military battles which eventually defeated Hitler. I'm sure you'd agree that Britain could not have pulled off the D-Day invasion without America. They hardly had much of an air force until America showed up. They were not only not winning the Battle of the Atlantic, but their lifeline was the shipping from America which kept them alive at all. Then how would they have defeated the Germans? We bailed them out just as we did in World War I and in the Cold War. At least they stood by us in Iraq. Well at least Tony Blair did. I don't think most of the rest of them were happy about it.

[datarush]

Gladiator is a great movie to watch and has some interesting historical details. The premise is totally wrong, however, in that Commodus only lasted 8-9 months as emperor. He was around for 12 years before they got rid of him. It'd be like having Clinton around for another term! It's weird that for all the 7-800 years of Roman history they can't come up with another story. Gladiator is a rehash of the old Fall of the Roman Empire movie, which had its own set of inaccuracies.

[Crunchyriff]

Truly, if the USA hadn't entered WWII, the entire European continent would be eating sauerkraut, speaking German, and shouting "Zieg Hiel!" to this very day.

[Crunchyriff]

Personally, I think (just as Moore does) all politicians are scumbags that are only in it for the $. Moore's films have always been about the fact that people that run our country and our country's industry (oh, same thing, sorry) only care about the money, not about their constituents.

Don't kid yourself. Moore's a shill, and he's a bigger part of the problem than the politicians themselves. BTW, you don't think Moore is making movies just to make a buck? Moore is in fact a politician himself, he just hides behind the moniker "film maker".

The biggest joke about his new "documentary" movie is the uttter fabrications and severe twistings that he passes off as "facts"; and when recently confronted by a news agency about them, he said this: " yeah, I made most of that up. SO WHAT?"

What a gem.

As far as GW's alleged "freezing" for 7 minutes- I think he displayed proper composure in that setting. What on earth was dropping everything, running off and scaring a bunch of kids in the process going to accomplish? Both towers were already doomed.

The same people who complain about the alleged " GW freeezing at school" are the same ones who didn't have a problem with Clinton continuing his golf game when interrupted with serious news on the green; nor do they have a problem that Clinton lied his fanny off to save his bacon. At least the American Bar Association had enough courage and character to revoke his license to practice law.....

What I really wish is that all those leftist whackos (Streisand, Sheen, etc) that promised to leave the US if GW got elected, would have really meant what they said. We, as a nation, would be much better off without those of their ilk.

"now back to our regularly scheduled topic."

[skeptic]

How about Farenheit 9-11. The historians and pundits are already tearing this one to shreds as a pack of lies. Moore should stick to filmmaking and leave history to historians. I'm sure he'll make a pile of money though. Finally some garbage we can export to France for a change instead of always importing theirs.

[kexodusc]

How about Farenheit 9-11. The historians and pundits are already tearing this one to shreds as a pack of lies. Moore should stick to filmmaking and leave history to historians. I'm sure he'll make a pile of money though. Finally some garbage we can export to France for a change instead of always importing theirs.

I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but Farenheit 9-11 was just too much for me... It was just plain insulting to any intelligent human being.

Moore: Don't bore us with rediculous conspiracy theories based on loose facts that you've twisted and mangled beyond reality. Bush doesn't need your help to lose the election.

I'm really nervous that too many people will accept that movie as a documentary instead of a mockumentary. After all, if it's on TV, it's got to be real, right?

[Worf101]

I haven't seen it yet, so I've no opinion. As for Mr. Moore's work I loved "Roger & Me". I thought Bowling for Columbine was "so so". I did NOT like what he did to Mr. Heston at the end. I'm no right-wing, beer swilling, gun nut... but there's a thing called basic respect and there are things you don't do in another man's home. Simple as that.

I've no opinion on 911 cause I've not seen it. I didn't start this as a "political" thread about the current President or Moore's film... I was just making observations on films I'd seen is all.

Da Worfster

[kexodusc]

I haven't seen it yet, so I've no opinion. As for Mr. Moore's work I loved "Roger & Me". I thought Bowling for Columbine was "so so". I did NOT like what he did to Mr. Heston at the end. I'm no right-wing, beer swilling, gun nut... but there's a thing called basic respect and there are things you don't do in another man's home. Simple as that.

I've no opinion on 911 cause I've not seen it. I didn't start this as a "political" thread about the current President or Moore's film... I was just making observations on films I'd seen is all.

Da Worfster

(Not to hi-jack your great thread, Worf)
It's the respect part that bugs me the most about the 9-11. Whether I like it or not, Bush is my President. There are parts of the movie that really get you thinking, but in the end, I just didn't find it appropriate. It felt too much like I was watching anti-Bush propoganda, coming from a "holier-than-thou" film director with a personal agenda, instead of an artist or film-making american exercise free-speech or whatever.

Mostly, it was a theater full of young people that would rather take the film as gospel truth than think for themselves that bothered me, I think. I guess you could argue that's not Moore's fault, but he has a certain responsibility, I think.

From a purely entertainment point of view - I won't lie and say I wasn't glued to the movie.

I encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.

For the record, I consider my self a centralist, beer-swilling, Blues-nut.

[Lexmark3200]

I totally agree, Worf, regarding Pearl Harbor, thats for sure.....I have this on my want list but ONLY for the demo quality sound I keep hearing about regarding the DVD....otherwise, what a WASTE of nearly three hours (is that correct?)....the whole love triangle thing was stupid and complete nonesense......GOD FORBID Hollywood churns out a film based on HISTORICAL ACCURACIES without some god damnned love story attached to it like Titanic or Pearl Harbor....they are afraid that the majority of numskulls that pile into theaters today and stuff their fat asses with "THE TUB" of popcorn just wont sit through something without some sappy love story attached to it....so straight-up history films, holding respect to what ACTUALLY HAPPENED during these events, get thrown out the window....

How about these for inaccurate historical documentation, as well? (granted, I have both of these in my collection for their action value and DVD presentations): The Patriot and U-571. I have read that both of these are horribly inaccurate in the events they portray.

[IsmaVA]

I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but Farenheit 9-11 was just too much for me... It was just plain insulting to any intelligent human being.

Moore: Don't bore us with rediculous conspiracy theories based on loose facts that you've twisted and mangled beyond reality. Bush doesn't need your help to lose the election.

I'm really nervous that too many people will accept that movie as a documentary instead of a mockumentary. After all, if it's on TV, it's got to be real, right?

About F 9/11 . . . Moore opinions are definitively on the propaganda side and his movie maybe 90% opinion and a mere 10% fact . . .however, there is a $10K for anybody who can point out one factual error . . .so far no takers . . .

[skeptic]

Sometimes lies can be propagated not by what is said but by what is omitted or by taking facts out of context to trick the viewer into drawing the opposite conclusion than he otherwise would. Moviemakers and other storytellers are excellent at that technique. That's why we leave history to professional historians and not to partisans wanting to influence current political debate by trying to disguise opinion as history.

[kexodusc]

Sometimes lies can be propagated not by what is said but by what is omitted or by taking facts out of context to trick the viewer into drawing the opposite conclusion than he otherwise would. Moviemakers and other storytellers are excellent at that technique. That's why we leave history to professional historians and not to partisans wanting to influence current political debate by trying to disguise opinion as history.

I would just add that there is an infamous sick-o Nazi sympathizer organization in Europe that has indisputable proof that the Holocaust did not occur, with a similar cash prize for disproving their factual evidence. It's been around since the 50's or 60's.
Just goes to show the power of manipulation, and how dangerous ignorance can be.

Hey, we all believed Oswald killed JFK, too. Funny, didn't a movie change that opinion and even prompt the government to accelerate the de-classifcation of those files by some 20 - 30 years?

[Swerd]

Let's forget the politics of the moment and go back to Worf's original thread. The fact that he has seen and remembers so much about those so called military history movies is impressive.

I'd like to add U-571 to that list. The premise that American agents captured an Enigma coding machine from a sinking German sub is not only a complete fabrication, but it misrepresents the true story. The British, with some critical help from Polish and French secret agents before the war, and after some great efforts of their own, were able to crack the encrypted radio messages that the Germans sent during the war. It was the primary factor in defeating the German submarine effort in the Atlantic. It also played a major role in the success of the Normady invasion. I have heard that British audiences were greatly offended by this movie. It's too bad because the real story would have also made a good movie.

Many of the John Wayne war movies could be added to this list. I don't remember which movie it was, but you can see him now on top of some hill in Korea, surrounded by his bleeding and dying buddies, holding a BAR slung against his hip hollering "I don't care if I'm surrounded by 10,000 blood crazed Chinese! They'll never get away this time!"

The only movie about the military that I ever thought told what military life was really like was The Last Detail (1973). It was not a war movie. Jack Nicholson and Otis Young played two lifers who had to escort a young Randy Quaid from Norfolk to a military prison in New Hampshire. It was sold as a comedy, but left me feeling angry and depressed.

[92135011]

What about any Steven Segal movies?
Why did a Navy maine SEAL change into a career being a cook for a train? WTF?
How does someone who moves so slow end up breaking everyone's neck?

In LOTR, why doesnt Aragorn and his friends get hurt while everyone dies?
Why doesnt Gandalf use any spells in battle if he is THAT good of a wizard?

[kexodusc]

The only lie about Steven Segal movies is the one that suggest he's an actor.

[eqm]

i think it's the "green berets" where john wayne looks out to the sunset with the little boy, and it's on the wrong side of the beach....?