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.

[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.

[eisforelectronic]

All the sound effects in U-571 were recorded using the actual items to make those sounds. At least something was accurate in that movie. Also 8 chnl SDDS was originally chosen for the movie's audio because the 5 front chnls would provide greater total sound pressure for the depth charge scenes.

[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?

[IsmaVA]

Yeap, I would agree with both of you (Skeptic and Kexodusc) . . .however, Kex comment only proves that nobody can really cry "Lies, Lies, Lies!!!" either way . . .


In the end, it is just a matter of opinions . . .

[skeptic]

"In the end, it is just a matter of opinions"

NO!
Historians look at ALL of the facts and try to weave them into a complete tapestry with the advantage of hindsight and time to reflect on them and what they mean. They may have different interpretations of what different people were thinking, they may disagree on nuances, and sometimes the facts may be incomplete leading them to the admission if they are honest that unless and until further evidence is uncovered, it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions. Moore and those like him have done none of this. They have a political agenda for the here and now, make no bones about it, and try to present this biased view as factual history. This alone makes them a pack of liars.

[kexodusc]

This may not be quite the same, but I really get pissed off when movie directors re-write a super-hero's history to their own liking.
When did Spiderman get web making organs in his hands? What happened to the little web shooter devices?
And The Hulk...let's not go there.

My all time biggest let down was "Masters of the Universe". Other than the loose character likeness, and use of names and images, there was NOTHING He-Man about that movie. Dolf Lundgren...Pffff!!!!

[IsmaVA]

My friend, being a skeptic myself I don't want to get into a useless argument, but Historians are nothing more that the writers of the OFFICAL opinion . . .you would be amazed at the factual differences between "history" as chronicled by historians of different backgrounds.

Yes, Moore has a political agenda, just as everybody else . . . believing that any version of the "facts" is devoid of interpretation, perception and personal mythology is, IMHO, as naive as believing in the tooth fairy.

It is just a matter of choosing who and what to believe . . .

[IsmaVA]

This may not be quite the same, but I really get pissed off when movie directors re-write a super-hero's history to their own liking.
When did Spiderman get web making organs in his hands? What happened to the little web shooter devices?
And The Hulk...let's not go there.

My all time biggest let down was "Masters of the Universe". Other than the loose character likeness, and use of names and images, there was NOTHING He-Man about that movie. Dolf Lundgren...Pffff!!!!

Yeap, what about the Lara Croft movies (yeap, I know, not quite in the league of Sipdey)?

They completely change the character . . .her background, they way she was raised, the transformation into the tomb raider . . .

Nowadays, I just take it as a new superhero, not even a new version of the old ones. . . :-)

[skeptic]

Moore has appeared regularly on television lately and said many times publicly with no appologies that he would like to see George Bush defeated in the upcoming election and hopes that this film contributes to that defeat. (Personally I'm not sure who I'm voting for but I don't like people trying to manipulate me this way.)

As for professional historians, not only do they have the perspective of time, often decades or centuries to distance themselves from the emotions of the moment, but if they are worth anything at all, they do extensive research reading private correspondence, diaries, listening to what others who have researched the subject have to say, and put all of the facts in context. Yes sometimes they disagree but as more and more time elapses and the events lose their current edge in the haze of antiquity, they are seen though entirely different eyes. It is amazing how few Republicans now would dream of repealing Social Security or Medicare (although they might like to tinker with them) when just a few decades ago, they denounced them as Socialism. There are very few people left anymore who feel that somehow the United States could have stayed out of World War Two or get worked up over World War One or Prohibition or the Civil War. At the time, these were all hot button issues. The time between then and now distances us from those events and even the most extreme differences that still exist among historians are orders of magnitude less than they were at the time. The facts in most of them are generally accepted, the interpretations may differ. But the discussion is usually scholarly, not passionate. That's what separates historians from pundits and we shouldn't confuse the two. I'm sure most professional historians and even amateur historians would agree.

[Worf101]

I've only one thing to add on the whole "propaganda" side of my thread (is this my thread? I'm sure I left it here two days ago... ).

History is written by the victors (at least military history is) while time may boil down historical events to a basic set of bones, interpretation and deliberate ah... "downplaying" of facts can still lead to widely varied versions of "history". You cannot write the Carthaginian side of the Punic wars because the Romans slaughtered every one of them they could find. Ergo you may never have both sides of every story. My original idea with this thread was how wildly wrong Hollywood can be about some historical events.

Mr. Moore's movie is a sensitive issue because it's NOT about some old battle or war lost in the mists of time but about an event less than 4 years old that we're still dealing with the repercussions of today. I can see why it would raise passions. But as I said before.... I don't discuss movies I have not seen, but you folks that have seen it are free to "have at it". I'll just have some of this here popcorn.

Da Worfster

[Hairsonfire]

majority of numskulls that pile into theaters today and stuff their fat asses with "THE TUB" of popcorn

That's great! You elitist snob! I love it!

[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....?

[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.