‘Dishonest’ Films

The Doors was a pretty good movie and if the Sugarman book is accurate, then it more or less stuck to the "facts". Of course, it had a lot of surreal stuff inserted, but I thought that was Stone just trying to capture the essence of Morrison or at least how Morrison perceived himself. The man veered between behaving like some kind of New Age poet and a destructive drunk one might see in a Scorcese film.

JFK is actually a good movie in that it is well-made, well acted for the most part, and is very entertaining. It is also over the top and chock full of outright fabrications.

 

I've heard JFK referred to as 'Dances With Facts.'

 

I can't imagine anyone took Red Dawn seriously. It came out in 1984, when ludicrous, over-the-top action movies were in fashion. E.g., First Blood (1982), Uncommon Valor (1983), Commando (1985), Raw Deal (1986), Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), Missing in Action (1984), Invasion USA (1985), etc. It was part of the wave. It was definitely a popcorn flick, and viewed as such at the time, if I recall correctly.

 

It's a brilliant movie, everything about it in terms of the acting, cinematography, editing, sound etc. It is all fantastic. It is a film I enjoy watching over and over as there is just so much to enjoy. At times it is difficult to tell what is real footage and what was filmed for the movie, which was of course Oliver Stone's intention. Confuse everyone as much as possible and therefore make it easier to sell the story.

However, it is very much a work of fiction that is very (emphasis on the very) loosely based on historical events which in turn have been twisted to support the narrative. A narrative which at best was based on a flawed and flimsy set of theories and at worst was a deliberate attempt to manipulate and indeed make up the historical record to achieve the film makers goals.

When I first saw JFK I left the cinema with my head reeling from all the 'facts' which had been presented that to me indicated there HAS to be a conspiracy. It kick started an interest in the assassination that abides to this day, in varying degrees of interest. I very quickly discovered after I started reading on the subject that JFK was deeply flawed, as indeed was Jim Garrison's investigation. Over time I also moved from the pro-conspiracy camp over to the 'lone nut' brigade and have remained there ever since.

Still a fantastic film though, if taken as work of fiction.

 

I thought "The Doors" was pretty good too, as far as bio-pics go.

 

I view it as a comedy, cause there's no other way to get throught it. Harry Dean Stanton screaming "Avenge me!" through the prison fence of a re-purposed drive in movie theatre is one of the greatest comedy moments of the 80s.

Maybe most people really did take this as a simple over-the-top action film, but what makes the whole thing so bizarre is the film seems to take itself deadly seriously.

 

Let's not forget this notorious example. The KKK were never the heroes anywhere at any time!

Birth of a Nation (1915)

 

Not to mention naming your combat unit after your high school's mascot. Wolverines!

 

The same exact thing happened to me.

 

"The Natural" (1984)

Even though it's based on a fictional book by Bernard Malamud. The filmmakers completely changed the ending.

Spoiler Alert!
(Don't read any further if you haven't seen "The Natural" and intend to watch it in the future)

In the novel Roy Hobbs strikes out and the Knights lose the World Series. The filmmakers have Hobbs hit a game -- and World Series -- winning home run. The ending is changed from Hobbs sadly failing in the moment of truth to Hobbs heroically triumphing -- a complete 180 degree revision of Malamud's resolution.

Still, I think it's a great movie.

 

Not really on topic for this thread, but .....

Why did that woman (played by Barbara Hershey) take a shot at Hobbs? Never understood that.

 

Saving Private Ryan

The surface is well done but the subtext is problematic at best

 

Eddie Waitkus - Wikipedia

 

"soldiers went thru these horrors for you, viewer' is the well done surface

the implication that greatest generation of Americans saved the world from fascism is one part of the problematic subtext

 

Regardless of intent, it wouldn’t work well as satire if it’d been played tongue in cheek. See also Starship Troopers.

 

And this, in essence, is the problem with the film. By portraying Stroud as sympathetic throughout, you’re left to wonder why he never got parole. The answer is straightforward; the character portrayed in the film wasn’t as sympathetic in real life.

 

Oh come on! It was just a matter of time before the Nazis started sending submarines to Long Island.

Operation Pastorius - Wikipedia

 

Appreciate your providing the reference. I thought I was pretty well-versed on MLB history, but I've never heard of this player or this incident before. Also, never realized "The Natural" (book and film) was "loosely based" on a real historical figure. Thanks.

 

Oswald did it !!!!! a mean little bastard......
Read Reclaiming History. it covers the ground pretty well... also the big book on the Tippet murder is also really good....
Oswald did it... the evidence points RIGHT TO HIM......
It is hard to disprove a conspiracy....

I need to rewatch JFK, haven't seen it in a really long time...

 

My experience has been that almost of the "based on the true story" get something major wrong, because you are trying to tell a long sequence of facts and cram it into two short hours AND fill the seats at the same time.
I can't remember a lot wrong with Apollo 13.....

 

I've read Reclaiming History and for me that is the definitive last word (all 1600 + pages of them) on the subject. His section on Oswald does indeed show just what a maladjusted individual he was and should be required reading for anybody who wants to understand what LHO was really like.

You are right though it is hard to completely disprove a conspiracy, mostly because they can't be proven either. Bugliosi has a pretty good go at dismantling most of them in Reclaiming History though.

 

I enjoyed the Ridley Scott Moses film, Exodus: Gods and Kings, but I think you could call it "dishonest" because it purports to present a more realistic/historical version of the exodus story in the Bible, but the end result is no less fantastical than what you see in The Ten Commandments, just in different ways. A much more historically-aware version of the story, based on what little archaeological evidence exists, would be pretty interesting, albeit on a smaller scale. Scott ended up offending a lot of religious people with his revisionist version of the tale, but from a scholarly perspective the movie is a mess too, and not just because of the ethnicities of the actors. You almost think he would have been better off either telling the story as it appears in the Bible, OR attempting a genuine historical reconstruction rather than the "gritty reboot" of the Bible story that we effectively got. It was just a fiction that was neither one nor the other.

In that way it was quite different from Darren Aronofsky's Noah film which was both much more contemporary in its perspective and much more in the mythic vein of the original story.

 

Patch Adams


[According to Doug Walker in his NOSTALGIA CRITIC..the "girl" was a guy, and Patch looks different..hus mustache that Robin Williams DOES NOT have..]