batman

It's been a long day ......

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

batman

.... but not 'The Longest Day'

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

Steve Crook

There were many things that happened in that operation that are hard to believe. They were also chastised for the sequence with James Caan saving his youg lieutenant and pulling a gun on the surgeon. But that happened. Most of what is in the film is documented fact and all of the major characters are based quite accurately on real people. The only made-up character is that played by Elliot Gould and he's the amalgam of two or three different real people.

The other thing that always strikes me about that film is the remarkable likeness of many of the actors to the people they are portraying.

Steve

Ted Holmes

I think there's a basic issue of respect here. If you make a film about actual people and real events you have a responsibility to those people. It is disrespectful to do otherwise. Cinema is more than just entertainment simply because it affects people's thinking. As has been noted by every dictator in the last century, it is a very powerful propaganda weapon. The most powerful, according to Lenin. This does not only apply to political or nationalistic films. It's very pervasive. We see the Roman Empire in a certain light because they are the ones who actually wrote the history down. It's the same with cinema. The argument ''s only a film' or 'why should I expect truth from a film' are not worthy.

Steve Crook

It's not necessary for you to expect it, even when it's promoted as such. And by "promoted" I did mean when the film-makers promote it as being based on real events, not just when that's what the posters or trailers say.

But the sad truth is that many people do take their view of historical events from the movies. Even in this country where they still teach some history in schools :

I like to think that most people on this forum are reasonably intelligent and can make up their own minds or find out the facts for themselves. But because we're above average that means that there are a lot of people that are below average. But that's why sites like the IMDb have their Goofs page for each title.

There's always the problem of events being portrayed via the winner's view of history. But that still usually lets people find out the basic facts of what happened. And you're right, the film-makers bias must be taken into account.

Films always used to rely on the disclaimer about the film not being based on real people or events. But nowadays there are so many titles and credits that any such disclaimer gets lost in the mass of information. That's when it is used at all. Often it's not used if there is the faintest connection to real people or events.

Steve

DB7

To answer the thread title; no. War is undoubtedly horrific and few films capture the senselessness of it all in a neutral manner. My personal favourite is Cross of Iron which is deeply cynical and brings together in a squalid flooded trench a diverse collection of characters all with different motivations; but bonded by a sense of survival rather than glory.

As good as the opening is to Saving Private Ryan, it's the camerawork and editing that impresses you, unlike the ending of Blackadder which punches you straight between the eyes and brings the futility of it all home.

batman

I couldn't have put it better myself.

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

ChristineCB

I certainly agree with the 'respect' issue. It's difficult for a filmmaker to give ME the respect as a member of their target audience, and I know better than to expect filmmakers who respect me when I am outside of their target audience.

I try to give them the same. Their work is for all to see and judge them by, and my boos and hisses are seldom heard by them (although I did volunteer to pay for Robert Duvall's shirt-cleaning bill once. Once. The other two times, well...he should have known better than trying to hog the hot-sauce! But that's another story...)

It's also difficult to believe that film-makers can have little to do with the marketing hype, but we all know this is probably more true than not, so audience expectations can be wildly manipulated by trailers and hype, regardless of the film's content.

On a side-note about LAST KING OF SCOTLAND... if someone would have marketed this as an ALMOST FAMOUS-like experience of the young Scottish doctor who flew a bit too close to the Amin Sun, my expectations would have been more appropriate. The marketing people correctly realized this probably wouldn't sell too many tickets so I think they got a lot of first-viewing ticket sales and probably very few repeats. The vastness of the tale begs for the book, however.

silverwhistle

Titanic could hardly be called a docu-drama: merely a genre romance/disaster movie, with fictional leads, that used the Titanic disaster as a backdrop. The plot could have been cut-and-pasted on to any disaster scenario. In contrast, A Night to Remember aimed to dramatise more of the real story.

"Trust me, I'm a doctor...!"

ChristineCB

Steve, this is where I slip in with Silver's fears/complaints about historical portrayals. As you've mentioned, films and TV are such easy spoon-feeders. I mean, I REALLY hate turning those oh-so-heavy pages! Lifting that whole book - jeez - SUCH a pain!

And honestly, it IS.

It is SO much easier for me to be spoonfed my history. And because I don't know what I don't know, films (like LAST KING OF SCOTLAND) have to tweak my curiosity sufficiently to read more observations on the subject. (That film made me curious, but not curious enough... I've read enough about Stalin and Hitler to have 'gotten my fill' of purges for another decade or two.)

With the vast time-distance of Robin Hood and Sheriffs who may or may not wear little green tights and elaborately sewn robes, the arguments of bias also includes outright inability to EVER know the truth.

The "I don't know what I don't know" is one issue - the "I'll never know the truth" is something else. I love seeing so many books, TV and film covering events but that RESPECT ISSUE crops up again - can the filmmakers express their respect within a budget? Do they even care to?

silverwhistle

Ted, I'm with you entirely. In Adult Education, and socially, I've often had to unravel the misconceptions many people have about various historical events and characters because they've taken them from films and novels which purported to be "based on fact". All too often, I've seen novelists and film-makers trash the reputations of people I have researched in depth, on no evidence whatsoever, just for cheap sensationalism, or "because some earlier novelist did it, therefore it must be OK". If anyone's interested, I've an article on line on this kind of thing in the Bollettino del Marchesato (in English), which touches on a couple of films.

"Trust me, I'm a doctor...!"

Steve Crook

Talking of Robert Duvall...
He was in what I consider to be one of the better and more realistic war films (and it is a war they were portraying), Colors (1988) with Sean Penn, directed by Dennis Hopper, about the LA Gangs. I think it's a great film because it does show it all as bleak and hopeless without offering any easy solutions. It also shows the periods of boredom and normal life amidst the mayhem and how that is then punctuated by sudden bursts of random, if pointless, violence.

Steve

Moor Larkin

The American story Story of G.I. Joe (1945) was supposed to have been quite realistic. I've never seen it (that I recall).

The Story of G.I. Joe - Trailer - Showtimes - Cast - Movies - New York Times. I have read there was huge conflict between the studio and the writer (who, ironically was killed in the real war) about Mitchum's lead character's fate. I wonder if the biggest problem with even the best war movies is that you kind of know who's gonna die and who's gonna live........

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

orpheum

I would suggest that with regard to Operation Burma it would be useful to go the IWM website,section War In Burma 1942-45.There were US troops in Burma under the command of general Stillwell,who took command of the chindits after the death of General wingate.As a result of the protest at the absence of any mention of the British involvement this film was withdrawn from distribution for some years in the UK.

Harleybloke

I'd never really thought what I expect from a War film. I guess I should have done.

I've only watched 'Saving Private Ryan' once, too graphic!

My Grandfather fought in the Great War, he said the smell alone was more than most people could bear, let alone the blood and gore. Not very many WW1 films compared to WW2, why is that?

In WW2 he worked as a civvy on an 8th AF base in England. He saw young lads hosed out of the aircraft after they landed, not enough left to pick up.

Do we need that much realism? I thought 'A Bridge Too Far' got it about right. So did 'Band of Brothers'.

Let's just thank god, those of us of the 'Lucky age', that we were too young to go through it.

.....You couldn't hear it, if they were shooting at me with howitzers!