‘Dishonest’ Films

Braveheart gets away with it to a degree as it is based on historical events from such a long time ago. Little is really known about William Wallace beyond some basic facts and the 'legend' actually began back in the 15th century with 'Blind Harry's epic poem 'The Wallace' which sowed many of the myths which were then taken on in later years by Sir Walter Scott et al.
Of course the movie took these distortions even further to a point where even Blind Harry would have thought it was too ridiculous to print.

 

I had totally forgotten about Patriot and the church burning scene, yes it was a complete and unnecessary lie. It was like a scene out of WW2 on the eastern front, or like scobb posted above, Oradour in France. Mel Gibson tends to do this in all the movies he directs.

 

Thanks for this, was going to 'like' your post but somehow didn't seem appropriate... not sure why I thought it wasn't definitively proven.

To your original point though clearly for whatever reason the makers of The Patriot were influenced by this event and felt it necessary to apply it to the action of the regular British Army in a colonial war over 150 years prior.
Whilst one can quibble and complain about just about every historical film made and the liberties taken this is pretty much one of the most egregious examples I can think of which distorts the historical record so much given it is completely made up.

 

Mel didn't direct this one to be fair to him but he must have willingly gone along with this all the same.
He did direct Braveheart though which also takes some liberties with the historical record... however, the portrayal of English rule back then probably wasn't too far from the truth. There is a whole bunch of other stuff in there though that is complete and utter codswallop.

 

Indeed and neither is it proven that First Officer William Murdoch shot any passengers and then turned the gun on himself. Somebody, might have done it and again we are reliant on some eye witness accounts that differ. But why worry about besmirching a good man's name when he is already dead if it makes for a good tale...

 

There is so much stuff that is altered, made up that it would require a huge post to even attempt to document. However, what I will say is they got a lot of the Custer character right with Errol Flynn and his portrayal, particularly his relationship with Libbie Custer (Olivia de Havilland).
Pretty much all the other characters are either woefully historically misrepresented or completely made up though and as for the events leading up to the famous Last Stand itself these are firmly in the fictional category...
Custer did have an excellent Civil War career though, which is quite often overlooked nowadays as of course he is 'famous' for a resounding defeat.

 

Which is fine if we think of the film as a Robin Hood or King Arthur story because there is about that much truth in the film. Unfortunately, because there is some fact people believe the whole film to be true. Maybe it’s because Australia is so far removed from the uk, but I have heard several people talk about the film as historical fact.

 

I absolutely love 'The Right Stuff' and I don't know if it's in spite of all the liberties it takes with the truth or because of them.

The one part I really don't care for though, especially as a native Hoosier, is the treatment of Gus Grissom.

On the other hand, for a movie that's NOT represented as a true story or in any way factual, 'Slap Shot' is probably more accurate and depicts real events and people better than JFK or The Doors.

 

All "based on a true story" films necessarily take liberties to save time, but some deliberately pervert history in service of a narrative. JFK is the prime example.

 

I think the tone of "Right Stuff" makes it pretty clear that it presents a semi-fantasy view of the space program. I never had an issue with those factual liberties because I always thought it was clear the movie didn't intend to be viewed in that way!

 

Not much of a fantasy if you're the family of Gus Grissom. Like I said, I love the movie but the portrayal of the guy chosen to command Mercury 1 and Apollo 1 as a "pooch screwer" is pretty dishonest. Had he lived he also would've likely been the first man on the moon.

 

Hey ,the hatch just blew .
" No Jackie ?"

 

Fair enough, my point was how would anyone know that it was a WWII occurrence that was the template for that scene in The Patriot, there were enough atrocities around like in the Boer Wars and the "concentration camps" the British had to deny the farmers their supply, or in India the Amritsa Massacre or in Africa the Mau Mau Uprising etc. Look nobody has clean hands in history that is my point. So that scene doesn't seem totally out of the realm of possibility.

 

And the Colonial Vigilantes surely gave as good as they got, that is the nature of all wars .....

 

If a film purports to tell the truth, then it has an obligation to do so. One particularly irritating journalistic technique is to have a predetermined outcome and twist and edit and present the facts to support that outcome and none other.

In 2004, Dan Rather reported on GW Bush's getting a coveted spot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. This reporting was based on some documents which were later proven to be highly questionable at best (they were printed in Times New Roman, which was not available on typewriters at the time). This ultimately resulted in Rather losing his position as anchor for the CBS Evening News.

The Robert Redford movie based on this episode tries its damnedest to show that really, no s***, those documents represented reality. The unintentionally ironic name for this movie? "Truth."

 

Charlotte Zwerin credited as editor(?)/co-director.The last time I saw Gimme Shelter was on a double bill in a theatre with The Last Waltz. I saw Zwerin's Thelonious Monk documentary,Straight,No Chaser,via TCM ,which she is listed as director. Editing is a form of point of view;what is selected and what is discarded plays a part in the whole. The Monk film certainly has a positive POV for Monk while still alive and interviews with Monk Jr. and others(Charlie Rouse,in particular) give insights into what was going on with footage of Monk on and offstage.

 

I don't mean to be "that guy", but for this instance I will be.

Let It Be (the film) was NEVER intended to be a film at all - at ANY point while filming. The idea was a 60 minute television show where The Beatles would perform their new album in its entirety. That would last like 40 to 45 minutes. So the idea was, let's film the rehearsals so we can show how the songs are written/developed. That should generate another 10-15 minutes worth of footage, right? Well, they filmed every day of rehearsal. When it became apparent that the band couldn't agree on a place to actually "play" these new songs to be filmed (a Roman amphitheater, an empty Royal Albert Hall, and a cruise ship were all considered), they decided to just go up to the roof at Apple because they were lazy and couldn't be bothered. At this point, post roof top concert, the idea was to STILL make the existing footage into a 60 minute television programme, however, someone in the band realized that the group STILL owed United Artists a theatrical release film on their contract, so why not cobble together a 90 minute film and be done with it?

Let It Be the film sucks because The Beatles were too lazy to control their image anymore at this point and put out their dirty laundry for contractual obligation's sake.

 

Regardless of a lack of any claim to be based on a "true story", The English Patient is a fictionalized version of a true story, and as such, it presents a glamorization of a historical figure that does not DESERVE to be glamorized.

Unless you think Nazis are redeemable in some way. I don't.

 

I like ' Let It Be ' and I am a Beates fan but I agree with your points.
They were lazy ( and high ) and talking a lot of b.s. about where to perform. The ideas they came up with were all inane. They could barely organize themselves enough to get to the roof. A telling moment is when they arrive there and Ringo has to ask Mal where to go. You're on a rooftop , Ringo. Take a look around , not too many options.
Can you imagine them on an ocean liner ?
John would be with Yoko huddled up in their cabin paranoid. Paul would be telling the captain what to do. George would be chanting in his cabin not wanting to mingle with the passengers. Ringo would be seasick and demanding Heinz baked beans instead if the ship's fare.
Anyway...I don't see how anyone other than a fan could enjoy 'Let It Be ' . It's disjointed and lacks any kind of flow.

 

Hopefully this qualifies - every Rocky movie. Just one or two of those punches Rocky absorbs would amount to a lot of damage in real life. A real person would have been dead by the end of any of the climactic fights in those movies.

 

Pretty much every movie that depicts something historical goes off the rails pretty quickly. The poster boy for this is obviously Stone's "JFK, but pretty much all of them take liberties, often in abundance.

I watch The Crown and the distortions are amazing. Or the aforementioned Bohemian Rhapsody. They are entertaining (hey, so was JFK), but they really ought to be classified as Historical Fiction.

A few do a decent job. Tora Tora Tora largely gets it right, but even it could not resist a bit of artistic license.

 

I carried the ball against that team. They played dirty; punching, pinching and gouging in the bottom of the pile. Yeah, I remember them.

 

Apollo Creed died...

 

How about "He Won't Get Far on Foot", the biopic about John Callahan? I'm guessing that was fairly accurate.