![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.58.26.4
'); } // End --> |
One criticism of these movies that pops up frequently is that they are not true to history. As this truth-stretching will most likely continue in future big budget Hollywood "sort-of-documentaries" - what are your expectations going into one of these movies? Being entertained via a well told story? A history lesson? Both?Personally, I feel that big budget movies are foremost entertainment, and if the director feels it necessary to omit, alter or compress events, characters, etc. then so be it. Certainly, at its most extreme, this truth-stretching can detract from the movie as the historical inaccuracies become the primary focus of a knowledgeable audience. However, given that the director's primary goal is entertaining viewers, (entertain in the sense of retaining their attention) is it realistic to expect both 100% accuracy and entertainment from a big budget Hollywwod movie?
FWIW I thought both Munich and Ray were very good movies. I didn't like Cash nearly as much, mostly because was predictable & felt spoon-fed. As far as the historical accuracy of these three movies - I wouldn't suggest them as viable replacments for reading a few books on each subject. And I don't think the directors have that intention either.
![]()
Follow Ups:
~AH
![]()
A prime example of truth-stretching came in Ray---the scene where he encounters a protest in Augusta, GA is totally fabricated. He left town after recieving a telegram from local college students who were upset about the segregation at the concert. There was no physical "protest" outside the venue. (He also was not banned from playing in Georgia.)Of course, there's not much dramatic conflict in receiving a telegram, so you can see why they embellished the facts ;)
![]()
think you're post begins on a wrong foot.
They are fictionalized accounts of "true" events and personalities but, in a way, so are just about all dramas. So, unless you'd blur the lines between drama and documentaries, you're confused (is Spartacus sort-of-documentary, or El Cid?).
Now, your last sentence is the interesting part: is it legitimate for a director to twist factual events to suit either narrative aesthetics or a personal agenda?
I'd argue the first is ok as long as no significant facts are misrepresented.
![]()
"...so I think you're post begins on a wrong foot."> > > > > > > Ok Tin, but your post begins with a grammatical error :-)
"Now, your last sentence is the interesting part: is it legitimate for a director to twist factual events to suit either narrative aesthetics or a personal agenda? I'd argue the first is ok as long as no significant facts are misrepresented."
> > > > > > What if there is a diff of opinon between some of the audience and the director in regards to the depth of significance? Isn't that the issue?
I'd say significant colorations are easily known, just as is commonly said about pornography.
For instance, the scene in Munich when the Israeli assassins are concerned with the "collateral damage." As one now knows, there is no such Israeli compunction.
Of course, there also is the incredible oversight (I'm being kind) which Spielberg occasioned by omitting the depiction of the assassination attempt which severely injured the Swedish tourist: An almost lethal case of false identification. Several years ago, I read the small book which detailed that shocking little episode.
![]()
t
![]()
Perhaps docu-dramas but definitely not documentaries (don't mean to split hairs but it's a pretty obvious call).
eb
![]()
"They ain't documentaries." No shit - that was the crux of the post.
...start a thread with some vague, dopey writing and then attack us when we don't get exactly what you're after.
Sorry about that - I was on the rag this morning when I posted. That's what I get for posting b4 coffee :-)
...thanks for explaining...it's appreciated.
eb
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: