Historical Films And Accuracy...The Best And The Worst (WWII, bomb, facts)

[Grandstander]

So, mofford, what was your opinion on the historical accuracy of Star Wars? How about "Planet of the Apes?" That was written by Pierre Boulle, the same guy who wrote "Bridge Over the River Kwai."

[mofford]

There are a few surviving veterans that participated in the Japanese bridge building program in Burma (some bridges still in use). They are quite vocal about their dislike for the film.

[Grandstander]

Another film which should have come with a warning label was "1776." It was a well made and well acted version of the Broadway show, but it wasn't well made history.

For the purposes of suspense, which I admit is needed, 1776 tires to make it seem like the Declaration of Independence was a near run thing, almost defeated in Congress but saved by an 11th hour political manipulation by Franklin.

Nothing like that happened at all. In fact, the resolution for independence was a foregone conclusion two months earlier. It had been King George's response to the colonies petition for redressing their gripes which had been the tipping point. Rather than agreeing to negotiate their differences, George had taken the absolutist stance, declared the colonies in rebellion, and began assembling a 32,000 man army to put down the rebellion. He was telling the colonies that they were being officially removed from his protection.

And that was really it, that was the tipping point. In response, that May, the Continental Congress passed a resolution to send advisory letters to all of the assemblies of the colonies, telling them that since the King had revoked their charters and declared them in rebellion, they had better start writing replacement charters to legitimize the new colony governments. Clearly Congress was already thinking of itself as having split with Great Britain. All that remained were the formalities.

In the movie, the writing of the Declaration was a stall tactic by Adams, suggested in the hopes of postponing a vote on the independence resolution which was going to lose. That was not the case at all. It was assumed that the resolution would pass easily and the idea of the declaration was an afterthought, something to make it all offcial and spell out the reasons why the rebellion was a necessity.

The actual story of America's decision to try for independence is a protracted one which would stretch from March of 1776 through July 4th when Congress adopted Jefferson's document. (Independence had actually been decided upon two days earlier when Richard Henry Lee's resolution passed without dissent.) In the film, all is compressed into a matter of a few days.

The film ends with the dramatic signing of the Declaration on July 4th, understandable for cinematic purposes, but of course the only person who actually signed the document that day was John Hancock. The actual signing by all delegates was a protracted process which wasn't completed until the end of the summer.

[Moth]

I would second "Tora, Tora, Tora". Indeed, it is the only one I have ever seen that gets it right.

"Saving Private Ryan" deserves credit for its brutal depiction of storming the Normandy beaches. Just compare it to the non-graphic depiction in the longest day. But then it veers from reality and that Spielberg/sentimental ending is just that.

[BlueWillowPlate]

Braveheart is riddled with inaccuracies, from clothing to the historical figures.
Link
I still like the spirit of the film, but do take its narrative with a grain of salt.

[Hasdrubal]

Braveheart was good but very fictional. Isabella of France was 12 when Wallace was executed!

[jtur88]

In 1998, there were two big war films---"Saving Private Ryan" and "The Thin Red Line". The latter was, in my view, a better movie. How would you compare them for historical accuracy?

[Moth]

Originally Posted by jtur88

In 1998, there were two big war films---"Saving Private Ryan" and "The Thin Red Line". The latter was, in my view, a better movie. How would you compare them for historical accuracy?

In the case of SPR, I have heard that its nearly improbable that an elite platoon like that would have been sent on such a mission. I also find it unlikely that a debate over executing that German soldier would have ensued. It is common practice to execute prisoners behind enemy lines when there is no way to detain them. I already commented on the typical Spielberg ending. Still, a good film.

The Thin Red Line is quite different. Its more of an intellectual film- a treatise on existence and dying if you will. The combat ops seemed accurate but I am sure there is something in there that is questionable. A very good film.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Moth

In the case of SPR, I have heard that its nearly improbable that an elite platoon like that would have been sent on such a mission. I also find it unlikely that a debate over executing that German soldier would have ensued. It is common practice to execute prisoners behind enemy lines when there is no way to detain them. I already commented on the typical Spielberg ending. Still, a good film.

The Thin Red Line is quite different. Its more of an intellectual film- a treatise on existence and dying if you will. The combat ops seemed accurate but I am sure there is something in there that is questionable. A very good film.

In SPR, I was left wondering why a captain was required to command six guys.

My take on Thin Red Line was that it was a noble failure. It was something of an experimental film in that the choice was made to have a deliberately slow paced movie without much action, all for the purpose of creating a mindset within the audience so that they would have a strong reaction to the quick violence when it finally took place. It worked to a degree in that I reacted as they hoped, but I would never sit through that film again because the build up is so slow and boring. The other problem was that the climax takes place while there is still twenty minutes of film left to go. They had nothing left to fill those 20 minutes.

The experience of Thin Red Line reminded me a great deal of the experience of driving up to Cape Kennedy to be on hand for the launch of the last moon mission in 1972. We battled a horrible traffic jam for six hours to get there and another six hour battle was required to get home, and it was all for a thrill which lasted about a minute.

[Moth]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

In SPR, I was left wondering why a captain was required to command six guys.

My take on Thin Red Line was that it was a noble failure. It was something of an experimental film in that the choice was made to have a deliberately slow paced movie without much action, all for the purpose of creating a mindset within the audience so that they would have a strong reaction to the quick violence when it finally took place. It worked to a degree in that I reacted as they hoped, but I would never sit through that film again because the build up is so slow and boring. The other problem was that the climax takes place while there is still twenty minutes of film left to go. They had nothing left to fill those 20 minutes.

The experience of Thin Red Line reminded me a great deal of the experience of driving up to Cape Kennedy to be on hand for the launch of the last moon mission in 1972. We battled a horrible traffic jam for six hours to get there and another six hour battle was required to get home, and it was all for a thrill which lasted about a minute.

Guess it was not your cup of tea. I found it somewhat lacking the first time. But the second time I was in the perfect mood for something like it and found it much better.