Earlier today, as I was busy with other things, I had the TV on in the background. Playing on it was the movie They Died With Their Boots On, a very fictionalized account of George Armstrong Custer's ill-fated military career. I won't go into details about the many historical inaccuracies, except to say that the movie made Custer into a selfless sacrificial lamb, instead of an arrogant incompetent too quick to rush into a bad situation.
Being interested in both history and movies has led me to several instances where the two have collided, with very mixed results. Some have tended to get the overall ideas mostly right, while fudging much of the details (i.e. Glory). Others have still missed details, while very accurately mimicking the style of the written, if not spoken, words of an era (Gods and Generals)*. Others still forget historical accuracy entirely to stick close to a graphic novel (300 and Watchmen**). In the end, don't expect to be well versed in what really happened if you get your history from a movie ***.
Other than documentaries (which should be as accurate as possible), it is understandable that not every single fact is correct. Movies have their own structure, their own way of conveying information. Transferring a true story from historical accounts to a film version is little different than transferring a fictional book. Certain conceits will have to be made to make the film watchable, and a certain creative license should be expected. Obviously the important facts should not be ignored (for instance, who won what battle in a movie), but it is ok to composite characters and streamline certain events, especially if failing to do so could make the movie interminably long. Just as long as there are no Tyrannosaurs in F-14s flying over Cemetery Ridge during Pickett's Charge.****
*This picture also was a very accurate rendition of early 20th century Lost Cause romanticism, which mucked up a much better film about our nation's biggest tragedy. No, I am not bitter that The Last Full Measure won't ever be made. Not at all.
**Nixon was elected to only four terms before being killed by John Hinckley, and Dr. Manhattan was more of an aquamarine than full blue.
***Except for Highlander. That stuff is a real-time documentary, I swear.
****Unless this is alt-history. Then it is totally awesome.
3 comments:
I still maintain that 300 (at least the film, never read the GN) was a re-telling of events to boost morale, as told by the one eyed guy that David Wenham played. Other than that, I totally believe that Persians had furry rhino monsters.
As for t-rexs flying in planes...channeling a bit of Calvin and Hobbes are we?
Well, maybe so. It would make more sense that way. I'm pretty certain the Persians weren't a mixture of genetic freaks and non-human monsters, but pumping them as so would be a standard tactic of building "us vs. them" momentum. In a way, the purpose of the story in 300 would have been somewhat similar to The Died With Their Boots On, as that was clearly a propaganda film to pump up troops for the upcoming wars in the Pacific and Europe. In the end, other than the creepy easterners = sub-human freaks and monsters stuff, the events that happened at Thermopylae were pretty similar to the movie.
As for the flying T-Rexs, I thank Mr. Watterson for coming up with that awesome combination. Surely nobody can deny the inherent awesomeness of an alt-history story where ace T-Rex pilots change the course of the battle of Gettysburg. It would be like "Guns of the South", only with jet fighters and anti-human dinosaurs, instead of machine guns and white supremacists. Of course in both stories, Robert E. Lee screws the time travelers over.
that should be the creepy "Easterners = sub-human freaks and monsters" stuff. I didn't mean that Easterners were creepy.
Post a Comment