Inaccurate Historical Films ( mixing fact and fiction )

[htirwin]

I just saw "The Imitation game", which I though was a great movie. It got me interested in the details, so I read a few Wikipedia articles about Alan Turing, and British code breaking efforts during world war 2. It so happens that, as usual, the movie, while based on a true story, is chock full of fiction and worse, distortions of real events. It's main appeal to was it's portrayal of what I was duped into thinking really had happened. It's really quite a horrible thing to do as most people will be mislead, and our passing of history, and what we think we know of it, will be forever corrupted.

While the film is good in the sense that it's entertaining, and that it brings to light Turing and some of his accomplishments ( albeit with a good mix of distorted history ), and in that sense honors Turing and brings to light something that many people knew nothing about, I can't help but be upset about the fiction and revision of history that is used so liberally. It's as if, the fact it's based in reality is just something being capitalized on to help generate interest of potential customers. They take that, exploit it, write a movie that incorporates some of it, if they have the slightest instinct to change history to make a more formulaic and hopefully profitable movie, they do it without hesitation.

What's your opinion? Should this be a crime? Should they be required to add a disclaimer that the film, while based on real events and using some real historical figures, is a work of fiction. Maybe they should be forced to add a detailed description of historical revisions, and fictional components.

[cire]

It isn't billed as a documentary. It doesn't purport to tell a historical story with perfect accuracy.

So... why would you expect it to?

[htirwin]

I would argue it would be very misleading to call it a historical film. And if it is appearing to portray historical events, but isn't, there should be a disclaimer.

I mean, I could make a Historical film about myself winning a Nobel prize and inventing the light bulb. Maybe the historical part is where I went to grade school. I could say it's based on a true story. Maybe this is my right, but at the very least it should be negatively received. And it shouldn't be branded as a historical film.

In the particular film I talked about, I believe there was no need to change history and invent fictional aspects. I think that a film depicting real events would have made for a better film. Some of the changes they made and fiction they added are so arbitrary and ridiculous. It's hard to think why they did it at all some of the time. It's like the only things they are careful not to change are things most people would realize are wrong. But they have a formula they need to implement. They need a series of conflicts, of particular types, in order to mold it into a form of drama that is tried and trued. They are only lying where they think we are ignorant or stupid enough that we fall for it. I think it's just exploitation, of both the audience and the real people and events.

Not to mention it's disrespectful to real life people they characterized as villains, along with the relevant fictional events, just to aid in developing a particular aspect of a fictional plot.

[cire]

I would argue it would be very misleading to call it a historical film.

It's a film. Film takes liberties. Anyone with an ounce of common sense doesn't need a disclaimer to know that a non-educational film in the historical genre is going to contain inaccuracies and fabrication. That's the nature of the beast. For those without an ounce of common sense, I doubt a disclaimer would make much difference.

[htirwin]

Should we assume it's all fiction? Certainly we can't decide what is and what isn't except for what we already have prior knowledge of. Then we cannot learn anything new from the film at all. And we necessarily must resist any notion or attempt to do so. So then what is the point of a historical film? Is it just a gimmick? Can't we do better than that? Can't we ever see historical events brought to life, entertain us, and learn something.

I have a theory that the property that follows from this logic, historical films are necessarily not-educational, contradicts the principle reasons they are appealing and interesting to us.

[cire]

So then what is the point of a historical film?

Are films required to have a point? If the point was to have the occasional viewer care enough to research the subject, it seems to have been well served.

I have a theory that the property that follows from this logic, historical films are necessarily not-educational, contradicts the principle reasons they are appealing and interesting to us.

The reasons people find films interesting, in the historical genre and otherwise, are quite varied. I, for instance, don't find historical films interesting because I think they may be replacements for history books. Rather, they're interesting because they depict the way another person or persons thinks of events that I have some passing familiarity with, and it doesn't bother me at all that those depictions are not entirely accurate.

[htirwin]

The reasons people find films interesting, in the historical genre and otherwise, are quite varied. I, for instance, don't find historical films interesting because I think they may be replacements for history books. Rather, they're interesting because they depict the way another person or persons thinks of events that I have some passing familiarity with, and it doesn't bother me at all that those depictions are not entirely accurate.

Fair enough. I think most people including myself are drawn to films historical and otherwise for these reasons.

However, for me, there can sometimes be an additional appeal and satisfaction gained from feeling I have gained a better understanding of history, particularly when it's some topic I have some interest in. After seeing "The Imitation Game", I had this feeling of satisfaction, having been enlightened about some very interesting historical events which I had not known of. But this satisfaction was spoiled when I later learned how much of the film was fiction. Sure it got me to look up the facts, but part of the appeal of a factual movie is that it brings the events to life so that you can better imagine it and appreciate it.

In my opinion, it's just a huge waste of potential to twist perfectly awesome historical events into a work of fiction, just so that you can package them as some cliche drama film. What's wrong with the real story? I guess I just don't get it. Part of the beauty of history is that sometimes real events are more complex and unusual than most fiction. They are events that people would have a harder time making up. Unfortunately it seams that they feel it necessary to strip all of the real life complexity and most of the fact along with it.

And in this film, the inaccuracies were pretty bad.

For example, in the film, only 4 people in Britain are working on breaking the Germans code. In reality there were thousands. Of the particular 4 people they chose in the film, all real people, only 2 of them actually worked on the project. One of those people in the film is a Russian Spy who blackmails Turing ( who finds out he is a spy ) into not revealing this. In reality, there was a Russian spy, but he didn't work with Turing, and in fact Turing probably never once even came into contact with him. Another substantial part of the film, that was heavily emphasized, was the idea that a particular guy who was sort of overseeing the code breaking project was out to get Turing, angry about their lack of success and excess spending, and was constantly trying to, and nearly did, fire Turing. The guy was sort of made into the villain role. In reality there were no such events. Real people, but who they actually were, and what they actually did, was changed. The project Turing worked on was highly critical and never doubted. He was their most brilliant cryptologist and highly respected. They wouldn't have dreamed about firing him and the funding was not in contention at all. Another thing they made up was this idea that Turing and his 3 friends, after cracking the code, kept it secret and only communicated with some specific guy in charge of military intelligence, and then the 4 spent the rest of the war doing statistics in order to intelligently direct which intercepts should be acted on and not in order to avoid suspicion. In reality this didn't happen. They finished the machine that cracks the code, didn't keep it a secret from their superiors, never had direct contact with the head of military intelligence and didn't participate at all in deciding which intercepts to act on. Also, Turing was said to have a sense of humor. In the film, they made a deliberate attempt to make Turing to have no, or be almost incapable of, humor, or even understanding humor. I guess it fits the genius cliche.

An exaggerated, but similar offense would be to depict the Manhattan project ( specifically the efforts to build the first atomic bomb ) as involving only 3 people, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Bill Nye the Science Guy. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan is threatening to shut them down. In the end, it's Bill Nye who makes the call to use the Bomb on Japan and president Regan is kept in the dark.

The problem with this story is it's not believable. What Turing's story has going for it is that most people don't know it so they have more leeway.

[z05DSL3A]

htirwin, may be interesting to you...

Turing's Enigma Problem (Part 1) - Computerphile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2NWPG2gB_A

Tackling Enigma (Turing's Enigma Problem Part 2) - Computerphile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj_7Jc1mS9k

Enigma, TypeX and Dad - Computerphile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvKdOEHkrJc

[Disch]

Movies are clearly fiction. Even those that are "based on a true story". All that means is that the writers got inspiration from something that happened in real life. It does not mean the movie is in any way a recreation of those events.

So no, it should not be illegal. People should just be less gullible.



Unless you're watching a documentary that was arranged by actual biographers/historians with interviews with people actually involved in the incident -- then it's fake. It's that simple. Dramatic recreations are never accurate.

[ResidentBiscuit]

So what you're saying is Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is not an accurate portrayal of historical events?

[Ispil]

...you were expecting a 100% accurate depiction of events from a movie? The point of movies is to entertain- they can take any liberty they want to do so. They aren't held to the standards of historical accuracy since that would limit their artistic creativity.

Also, did you seriously suggest that making fiction should be illegal? I feel that there's a kneejerk reaction going on here.

[htirwin]

you were expecting a 100% accurate depiction of events from a movie? The point of movies is to entertain- they can take any liberty they want to do so. They aren't held to the standards of historical accuracy since that would limit their artistic creativity.

Also, did you seriously suggest that making fiction should be illegal? I feel that there's a kneejerk reaction going on here.

I would never expect complete accuracy. I would expect added characters, fairly unimportant fictional events added. What I would hope to be the case is that they don't change who actual people were and huge details about major underlying events, unless its intended to be obvious and not a serious film eg. Abe Vampire.

I didn't suggest it should be illegal, I asked a question intended to invoke a little controversy in order to stimulate debate as and to encourage responses that address the question if there is some level where it becomes unacceptable or at least shameful, or possibly illegal to misrepresent history in such a way that it is very unclear what is based on real events and what is not. And I didn't ask if fiction should be illegal, I asked if it should be required to also give information along with the film sufficient that people are notified when its fiction in the event its very unclear.

I did suggest that its in bad taste, disrespectful and exploitive within some contexts.

[Disch]

unless its intended to be obvious and not a serious film eg. Abe Vampire.

I guess this is a matter of perspective, because it's all obviously fake to me.

if there is some level where it becomes unacceptable or at least shameful

Hollywood have shame? Haw.

or possibly illegal to misrepresent history in such a way that it is very unclear what is based on real events and what is not.

The thing you seem to be missing is that anything can be based on real events. That doesn't make any of it real.

Remember... it's fiction first and foremost. "Based on real events" just means "We heard about this real thing -- and it inspired us to create this completely separate piece of fiction".

I did suggest that its in bad taste, disrespectful and exploitive within some contexts.

Oh gawd... like the Patch Adams movie? That movie made him look like a criminal and a hack. The actual doctor its based on hated that movie.

You'd think he'd be able to sue for libel or something -- but maybe he signed away his rights before the movie was created? Who knows.

[Ispil]

...I think you're getting really bent out of shape over something that isn't that much of an issue. "Based on real events" is exactly that- based on them, not following them to the T. They can change whatever they want- it's their movie. Last I checked, the Paranormal Activity movies also claim that they are "based on a true story", but it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be.

[Duthomhas]

I actually agree with htirwin here about the effects of such films on people. Popular cinema teaches people stuff all the time. And when watching a movie billed as "based on a true story", the wise among us may say that some small percentage of that true story is actually in the film, but most of us remember the film over real life anyway.

Why? Because it is teaching us through (1) sight, (2) sound, and (3) emotion. The more senses used in conveyance of a story the better it is learned and remembered.

And we wind-up wandering around with distorted ideas of what actually happened in history.


I won't go so far as to say it should be criminal, though.


I, for one, actually like the movie U-571. Pure fiction. No American force had any major role in capturing an Enigma machine.

Here's some other fun reading I googled up:
http://www.cracked.com/article_17326_6-movies-based-true-story-that-are-also-full-shit.html
http://www.moviefanatic.com/2014/09/13-movies-that-get-history-wrong-hollywood-not-so-true-stories/
http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/chainsaw.asp (I will never watch this darkness, but I know a lot of people have -- "true" horror stories are a staple of this kind of 'fake historical fiction' -- if you will)
meh, that's all for now.
(Sorry for the "N movies that Qed" websites.)

[Disch]

@Duoas: I completely agree with your first two paragraphs. But here is where you lose me:

Duoas wrote:

And we wind-up wandering around with distorted ideas of what actually happened in history.

I won't deny that movies can be and frequently are easier to remember than real life events. You tend to remember things that interest you, and movies are usually more interesting than hum-drum reality.

But how well you remember something doesn't really have anything to do with confusing fantasy with reality. Any sensible person should be able to easily distinguish between the two. I think (or rather, I hope) you and htirwin are selling people short on their ability to separate them.

[htirwin]

I really don't care much that a movie like The Gladiator wasn't accurate. In fact, I didn't even know it was based on a true story.

But in regards to Alan Turing's life, and his and others work in breaking Enigma, the story is just so historically important. Aside from that, the way Alan was treated, his tragic death, and the fact that he and others didn't get much recognition for their work ( because it remained classified for many many years, and which arguable could have made the difference between whether Nazi Germany won WW2 or not, and certainly resulted in millions of lives being spared, including a very large percentage of what was left of the Holocaust victims ), all screams that this was an important story to tell the world, particularly for educational purposes and to honor real people.

Maybe the fact it did bring attention to this all is better than nothing. Still all of these factors should be even stronger reason for the importance of staying at least somewhat true to what actually happened.

[Disch]

all screams that this was an important story to tell the world, particularly for educational purposes and to honor real people.

It's a commercial movie production, so it's motivation is profit. It's trying to entertain people so they'll buy tickets. You seem to think Hollywood is more altruistic than it actually is. They're not trying to tell a story for the benefit of others -- they're trying to profit off of it.

You should know that going in. And if you don't agree with it, then don't see the movie.

[ResidentBiscuit]

Disch wrote:

It's a commercial movie production, so it's motivation is profit. It's trying to entertain people so they'll buy tickets. You seem to think Hollywood is more altruistic than it actually is. They're not trying to tell a story for the benefit of others -- they're trying to profit off of it.

You should know that going in. And if you don't agree with it, then don't see the movie.

^This pretty much sums up how I feel. It's a Hollywood movie, not billed as a documentary. Going in expecting anything less than total fiction is borderline delusional.
I suggest accepting this fact of life, it will make seeing movies much more enjoyable :)

[chrisname]

Disch wrote:

You seem to think Hollywood is more altruistic than it actually is. They're not trying to tell a story for the benefit of others -- they're trying to profit off of it.

Hollywood is not one person or collective. It's a conglomerate of several kinds of people. Directors and screenwriters are making visual art (well, some of them). Producers are making money. Of course, everyone involved wants to get paid, but the director and the writer usually have an artistic vision and a message they want to disseminate. Not everybody is just in it for the money, if they were, they would all be making comic book movies. You just have to find the gems.

If you want recommendations, make an account on movielens.org. It's a recommendation engine that has pointed me to a lot of good films. It's also a university-run project so you're helping research (although into what, I'm unsure).