Historical movies where they change the facts (1 Viewer)

[The Military Workshop]

"Based on a true story" - is it OK to change events, create characters who did not exist, or portray people wrongly for cinematic effect etc ?

Jazzeum, in the Darkest Hour thread, posted a link showing some inaccuracies in the story of Churchill during early part of WW2. One scene apparently depicts him on the London underground and is described as "a perfectly fantastical scene in the film in which a doubtful Winston Churchill takes a ride on the Underground in order to commune with “the people.” A secretary who is named did not actually become his secretary until 1943.

Recently I posted about Manhunt - Unabomber where the consultant was FBI agent James Fitzgerald. Seems they used his real name but not that of the head of FBI Task Force. Another FBI agent has given interviews suggesting Fitzgerald only played a minor role.

One of the most well known examples is the portrayal of Private Hook in the movie Zulu where he was shown to be a rogue. His family boycotted the premiere because of the inaccurate portrayal.

The following is an example from American Sniper from History v Hollywood :

Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) engages in a film-long pursuit of an enemy Syrian sniper named Mustafa (Sammy Sheik), whom the American soldiers refer to as "Kaiser F—in' Söze." In Kyle's autobiography, the enemy Iraqi sniper Mustafa is only mentioned in passing in a single paragraph. He is described as "an Olympics marksman who was using his skills against Americans and Iraqi police and soldiers."

Did Chris really kill the enemy sniper Mustafa?
No. In reality, Chris Kyle never actually encountered the enemy Iraqi sniper Mustafa, who he believes was killed by other U.S. snipers. Chris does make a 2,100-yard shot in the book, but it was to take out a random combatant on a rooftop who was about to fire an RPG at an Army convoy.

Comments about Dunkirk from History v Hollywood :

Did Christopher Nolan attempt to adhere strictly to the facts when writing the Dunkirk script?
No. In discussing the movie, Christopher Nolan explained why it's sometimes better to not adhere fervently to the facts. He embraced director Werner Herzog's idea of "ecstatic truth" in fiction. "It's the idea that fiction can communicate something more truthful to audiences about actual events than documentary," said Nolan. "By using fiction, I was able to explain various aspects of what happened in Dunkirk more efficiently and with more emotional clarity than by just following strict facts." -DGA Quarterly

Are the main characters in the movie based on real people?
No. Much in the same vein as Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, director Christopher Nolan chose to create fictional characters for his film. Some were inspired in part by actual eyewitness stories but were not slavishly based on real people. Nolan explained that he had first worked out "a precise mathematical structure" for the story, which involved telling it from three perspectives: the land (soldiers on the beach), the sea (boats assisting in the evacuation), and the air (fighter planes). The best way to maintain that structure was to create fictional characters who could be utilized freely for the greatest benefit of the story.

I think there is a difference between American Sniper, which is based on Kyle, whereas SPR is a fictional story.

It does raise interesting problems for Directors, especially if some of the real participants are still alive. I dont have too much of a problem with it as long as the movie makers admit where they have used artistic licence.

Can anybody think of any good examples where movies got history wrong whilst attempting to tell a good story.

 

[King & Country]

"Based on a true story" - is it OK to change events, create characters who did not exist, or portray people wrongly for cinematic effect etc ?

Jazzeum, in the Darkest Hour thread, posted a link showing some inaccuracies in the story of Churchill during early part of WW2. One scene apparently depicts him on the London underground and is described as "a perfectly fantastical scene in the film in which a doubtful Winston Churchill takes a ride on the Underground in order to commune with “the people.” A secretary who is named did not actually become his secretary until 1943.

Recently I posted about Manhunt - Unabomber where the consultant was FBI agent James Fitzgerald. Seems they used his real name but not that of the head of FBI Task Force. Another FBI agent has given interviews suggesting Fitzgerald only played a minor role.

One of the most well known examples is the portrayal of Private Hook in the movie Zulu where he was shown to be a rogue. His family boycotted the premiere because of the inaccurate portrayal.

The following is an example from American Sniper from History v Hollywood :

Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) engages in a film-long pursuit of an enemy Syrian sniper named Mustafa (Sammy Sheik), whom the American soldiers refer to as "Kaiser F—in' Söze." In Kyle's autobiography, the enemy Iraqi sniper Mustafa is only mentioned in passing in a single paragraph. He is described as "an Olympics marksman who was using his skills against Americans and Iraqi police and soldiers."

Did Chris really kill the enemy sniper Mustafa?
No. In reality, Chris Kyle never actually encountered the enemy Iraqi sniper Mustafa, who he believes was killed by other U.S. snipers. Chris does make a 2,100-yard shot in the book, but it was to take out a random combatant on a rooftop who was about to fire an RPG at an Army convoy.

Comments about Dunkirk from History v Hollywood :

Did Christopher Nolan attempt to adhere strictly to the facts when writing the Dunkirk script?
No. In discussing the movie, Christopher Nolan explained why it's sometimes better to not adhere fervently to the facts. He embraced director Werner Herzog's idea of "ecstatic truth" in fiction. "It's the idea that fiction can communicate something more truthful to audiences about actual events than documentary," said Nolan. "By using fiction, I was able to explain various aspects of what happened in Dunkirk more efficiently and with more emotional clarity than by just following strict facts." -DGA Quarterly

Are the main characters in the movie based on real people?
No. Much in the same vein as Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, director Christopher Nolan chose to create fictional characters for his film. Some were inspired in part by actual eyewitness stories but were not slavishly based on real people. Nolan explained that he had first worked out "a precise mathematical structure" for the story, which involved telling it from three perspectives: the land (soldiers on the beach), the sea (boats assisting in the evacuation), and the air (fighter planes). The best way to maintain that structure was to create fictional characters who could be utilized freely for the greatest benefit of the story.

I think there is a difference between American Sniper, which is based on Kyle, whereas SPR is a fictional story.

It does raise interesting problems for Directors, especially if some of the real participants are still alive. I dont have too much of a problem with it as long as the movie makers admit where they have used artistic licence.

Can anybody think of any good examples where movies got history wrong whilst attempting to tell a good story.

Elsewhere in the Forum I've talked about this subject and points related to it...
'Based on a True Story' or 'Based on Actual Events' is as true of toy soldiers as it is of Hollywood and the movies...What all of us makers do is interpret in our own individual ways soldiers and events in history as we understand them and see them.

Is 'Zulu' Any the worse for depicting the company of the 24th Foot at Rorke's Drift as primarily Welsh when, in fact, the majority were probably English and Irish..? And nobody ever sang 'Men of Harlech' at the closing stages of the movie either...or were 'uniformed' exactly as they were in the film.

Why not, some may ask..? Well because the film makers were making 'entertainment' not a documentary...Same goes for Toy soldiers...I got into this hobby because it was FUN and an escape from the cares and worries of everyday life...at least for a few hours.

I wanted to make the toy soldiers that I always wanted as a kid but my parents could never afford...or were simply not available...When you look at what is available today in what is still a very niche market it is truly staggering in its variety, scope and styles. There really is something for everyone...

Now some 'purists' will scoff at my reasoning...but that's my tuppence worth...
And as I like to say 'Based on Actual Experience' in the wonderful world of toy soldiers!
Best wishes,
Andy.

 

[jazzeum]

I have no issue with making a few changes here and there in a movie that’s supposed to be historical as long as full disclosure is made. It’s called truth in advertising. When I saw the movie yesterday, I wondered if the underground scene was true; I doubted it was and I was right. However, I don’t see why directors or screen writers need to do that when the absolute truth is just as compelling.

The same applies to toy soldiers :wink2: If you’re going to make something up because you think it will sell better as fiction, please so disclose.

 

[bradleyl30]

Braveheart and Kingdom of Heaven come to mind first. Vikings and Knightfall also come to mind.

 

[zblang]

I feel “based on a true story” is infact complete disclosure. They aren’t saying what you are watching is all true merely that it is based on events that actually happened.
Every Hollywood movie has some poetic license. If I want not just based, but actually true, that’s where documentaries come in. Documentarians, for me, should be held to a much higher standard.

 

[jazzeum]

I don’t think Darkest Hour has full disclosure although I wouldn’t guarantee that it doesn’t.

Here’s a very interesting review, how the facts differ from the reality presented in the movie, http://www.sandfordborins.com/2017/09/18/darkest-hour-not-even-remotely-based-on-a-true-story/

 

[jazzeum]

Here's a follow up to the above article, which, too, is food for thought, http://www.sandfordborins.com/2018/01/02/darkest-hour-and-alternative-facts/

The point which he makes (and which I have always believed) is that the truth is always more interesting than made up "facts."

The minus and plus of a movie like this is that viewers who don't know any better will think that how the events are depicted is what actually took place when they did not. The plus is that they will become aware of a period of history and a man who guided his people through that period, however imperfectly presented.

 

[theBaron]

...The minus and plus of a movie like this is that viewers who don't know any better will think that how the events are depicted is what actually took place when they did not. The plus is that they will become aware of a period of history and a man who guided his people through that period, however imperfectly presented.

You've hit it right on the head. And for anyone interested in this particular piece of British and WWII history, I recommend, "Five Days in London: May 1940" by John Lukacs. Also, I believe that the screenplay for "Darkest Hour" was derived from the book of the same title by Anthony McCarten, for those interested in reading more.

Prost!
Brad

 

[bradleyl30]

I feel “based on a true story” is infact complete disclosure. They aren’t saying what you are watching is all true merely that it is based on events that actually happened.
Every Hollywood movie has some poetic license. If I want not just based, but actually true, that’s where documentaries come in. Documentarians, for me, should be held to a much higher standard.

I do not agree it is enough. Kingdom of Heaven is a polemic against organized religion. It is based on true events but distorts them do make its points.

To me “based” implies you are trying to tell that story. KoH fails at this in my opinion, while Braveheart succeeds. There is a difference between making it more dramatic and turning it on its head.

 

[Vicknor]

Here's a follow up to the above article, which, too, is food for thought, http://www.sandfordborins.com/2018/01/02/darkest-hour-and-alternative-facts/

The point which he makes (and which I have always believed) is that the truth is always more interesting than made up "facts."

The minus and plus of a movie like this is that viewers who don't know any better will think that how the events are depicted is what actually took place when they did not. The plus is that they will become aware of a period of history and a man who guided his people through that period, however imperfectly presented.

I’ve got to say I do rather enjoy his reviews and analysis, but he’s rabidly subjective on many topics and feel he feels a need to proselytise.

 

[King & Country]

Here's a follow up to the above article, which, too, is food for thought, http://www.sandfordborins.com/2018/01/02/darkest-hour-and-alternative-facts/

The point which he makes (and which I have always believed) is that the truth is always more interesting than made up "facts."

The minus and plus of a movie like this is that viewers who don't know any better will think that how the events are depicted is what actually took place when they did not. The plus is that they will become aware of a period of history and a man who guided his people through that period, however imperfectly presented.

Thanks for that interesting link Brad...I can understand both points of view...
On the subject of 'Darkest Hour' and the scene in the underground...

I have not seen the film as I am still in Bangkok where it does not open till the 11th of this month...However I have seen the trailers and it does look great with a bravura performance by Gary Oldman in the lead role.

I did see the director's previous film 'Atonement' which had an amazing 'Dunkirk' beach scene in it and many other fine attributes...Alas for reasons of his own he also had a scene set in, I think 1936, when he had a heavy, four-engined Lancaster fly high over our hero's head!!! Nothing wrong with that...except the first Lancs did not appear till 1942.

Later in the 'Dunkirk' scenes the Hero is joined by two other 'Squaddies' also heading for the beach and hopefully Blighty...One of them happens to be black...not totally impossible but statistically highly unlikely in a British Expeditionary Force that was amazingly 'white' in its composition...And this is not about being 'racist' either...It's just a couple of scenes that didn't reflect the time.

Although every artist has the right to present their vision in their own work the upcoming 'Underground' talking to the people has more than a whiff of historic as well as poetic license...

Anyway, I still want to see the movie!
Happy viewing.
Andy.

 

[waynepoo]

I believe if you make a movie of a historical event it must be correct and accurate without any 'artistic licence'. There is a big gulf between fact and fiction, a lot of unknowing people will watch a given movie and believe it to be historical fact and it is not, the Battle of the Bulge is an example, this is a bad thing.

 

[jazzeum]

Thanks for that interesting link Brad...I can understand both points of view...
On the subject of 'Darkest Hour' and the scene in the underground...

I have not seen the film as I am still in Bangkok where it does not open till the 11th of this month...However I have seen the trailers and it does look great with a bravura performance by Gary Oldman in the lead role.

I did see the director's previous film 'Atonement' which had an amazing 'Dunkirk' beach scene in it and many other fine attributes...Alas for reasons of his own he also had a scene set in, I think 1936, when he had a heavy, four-engined Lancaster fly high over our hero's head!!! Nothing wrong with that...except the first Lancs did not appear till 1942.

Later in the 'Dunkirk' scenes the Hero is joined by two other 'Squaddies' also heading for the beach and hopefully Blighty...One of them happens to be black...not totally impossible but statistically highly unlikely in a British Expeditionary Force that was amazingly 'white' in its composition...And this is not about being 'racist' either...It's just a couple of scenes that didn't reflect the time.

Although every artist has the right to present their vision in their own work the upcoming 'Underground' talking to the people has more than a whiff of historic as well as poetic license...

Anyway, I still want to see the movie!
Happy viewing.
Andy.

Andy, it’s still an interesting movie, even with all the factual inconsistencies and Oldman is just terrific as Churchill. Even though the underground scene is fantasy it’s still a great scene although you can say Wright is playing to the cheap seats by doing it. Interestingly, one of the stars of the underground scene is also a black person. I’m not going to say there weren’t black people who didn’t ride the underground seemed a little gratuitous.

Brad

 

[King & Country]

Andy, it’s still an interesting movie, even with all the factual inconsistencies and Oldman is just terrific as Churchill. Even though the underground scene is fantasy it’s still a great scene although you can say Wright is playing to the cheap seats by doing it. Interestingly, one of the stars of the underground scene is also a black person. I’m not going to say there weren’t black people who didn’t ride the underground seemed a little gratuitous.

Brad

Totally agree Brad...I've seen, as I'm sure you've seen, hundreds of images of London during the Blitz (before and after as well)...I have never, ever seen a black person there!

Now, I'm sure there must have been some black folks living and working in London ...certainly some well-known entertainers and others but statistically our great capitol was 99.9 percent 'white' in those days. I think the director just wanted to make sure that there would be no cries of 'where are the people of colour..?' Remember that happened with 'DUNKIRK'.

Best wishes, Andy.

 

[jazzeum]

Andy, speaking of Dunkirk, I received the Blue Ray for Christmas and watching it on TV is not the same as seeing it on the big screen.

I always hope that people will become interested in history after seeing movies like Dunkirk and Darkest Hour.

Brad

 

[Panzer ace]

I can understand certain liberties that directors/producers take.

For example in Black Hawk Down:

The characters wore personalized helmets.

The film features soldiers wearing helmets with their last names on them. Although this was not accurate, director Ridley Scott used this device to help the audience distinguish between the characters because “they all look the same once the uniforms are on.”

 

[bradleyl30]

I can understand certain liberties that directors/producers take.

For example in Black Hawk Down:

The characters wore personalized helmets.

The film features soldiers wearing helmets with their last names on them. Although this was not accurate, director Ridley Scott used this device to help the audience distinguish between the characters because “they all look the same once the uniforms are on.”

Yep, I understand that one.

 

[larso]

"The film features soldiers wearing helmets with their last names on them. Although this was not accurate, director Ridley Scott used this device to help the audience distinguish between the characters because “they all look the same once the uniforms are on.”"

Yep, I remember Hamburger Hill's crewcuts had the same effect. Also, the face/head coverings in Stalingrad - I never knew who was who in that. So, I'm happy for directors to tweak a few things sometimes.

 

[Desertkiwi]

I believe if you make a movie of a historical event it must be correct and accurate without any 'artistic licence'. There is a big gulf between fact and fiction, a lot of unknowing people will watch a given movie and believe it to be historical fact and it is not, the Battle of the Bulge is an example, this is a bad thing.

Great seeing you posting again Wayne, welcome back mate! Hope to see some more of your stunning dio's featuring again soon too.:salute::

 

[OzDigger]

I believe if you make a movie of a historical event it must be correct and accurate without any 'artistic licence'. There is a big gulf between fact and fiction, a lot of unknowing people will watch a given movie and believe it to be historical fact and it is not, the Battle of the Bulge is an example, this is a bad thing.

I agree, however I fear we will see less and less Realism in films as Political Correctness and audience Bias and Expectation becomes increasingly prevalent.