| Webmaster |
Hollywood, the Alamo and the Bottom Line
I was happy to post the story in the San Francisco Chronicle
about the new movie on the Alamo, which made a real effort to be accurate, especially
in being fair to both Mexicans and Americans, who were no longer depicted as
noble heroes slaughtered by dastardly Mexicans. My happiness lasted one day,
since the same newspaper (1/13/04) ran another story titled "'Alamo·
film could be disastrous for Disney". It described the meager receipts
compared with those from Mel Gibson's "The Passion". As usual, this
film was viewed as noteworthy not because of its depiction of Christ but because
it is raking in big bucks. Presumably the new 'Alamo' film was not a success
because it did not depict American heroes like John Wayne fighting off a crowd
of Mexican miscreants, which is what the public wants.
Tim Brown says: "At the Alamo itself there are lists one can read of the
names of those killed in its defense and the great majority of them are Hispanic.
I recommend to those world trotting WAISers who remain fearful of the wilds
of Texas to take the plunge and go see for themselves. What is said at the Alamo
itself and what is said in movies, novels and short stories about that event
are not even close to the same. But I find that not at all unusual. What is
unusual is when they get it right. Every historical event I have ever research
or that I actually participated in was reported by the popular press, reflected
in movies and even analyzed by academics based on "incontrovertible facts"
concerning things that never happened or happened in a very different way from
what they say they did. But isn't that true of many if not most historical events?"
RH: I think "the great majority" is an overstatement. The last Alamo
film made a great effort to be accurate. As for history, by constant examination
of the evidence, the truth or something close to it is finally established.
Learning Project
From the UK, John Heelan writes: "It appears that Hollywood latest attempt
to rewrite history will arrive with Tom Cruise's film, "The Few",
in which he wins the Battle of Britain. The film is reported to deal with the
role of the American, Billy Fiske in the famous 601 Squadron during the summer
of 1940. Contemporary sources are saying that although Fiske was a remarkable
character who did fly in the Battle of Britain, he has no recorded kills. As
Bill Bond of the Battle of Britain Historical Society is reported saying:"
It is going to be a farce if we have the Yanks shooting down everything in sight.
The battle was four weeks old when Billy was shot down. He made several sorties
but he didn't shoot anything down and his impact on the battle was negligible".
Fiske's Hurricane (not Spitfire) apparently caught fire in the air, whether
from enemy fire of plane malfunction is not known, and having managed to land
he died in hospital the following day. It will be interesting to see how Hollywood
portrays the exploits of this man, undoubtedly brave but perhaps no more so
than his English, Canadian and polish comrades-in-arms.
Historical accuracy and Hollywood rarely seem to coincide. Errol Flynn's "Objective Burma" (1945) had to be withdrawn after protests from those who actually fought in the campaign. Steve McQueen's "The Great Escape" (1963) somehow omitted to mention that there were no Americans in Stalag Luft III at the time of the escape. Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" supposedly fathered a son by a former Princess of Wales, who really gave birth some seven years after his execution- some pregnancy! Harvey Keitel's "U571" claimed American seaman rescuing the code machine Enigma from a sinking German submarine- in fact it was the crew of HMS Bulldog. Mel Gibson's "Patriot" showed him joining in the war after Brits herded women and children into a church and then set fire to it- apparently the event never happened in real life. Veterans who took part in the Battle of Bastogne tell me that it was nothing like that portrayed in "Band of Brothers".
RH: Such unjustified boasting provides fodder for those who accuse the Americans of arrogance. There is a constant fight to get Hollywood to report history accurately. One success has been the new film on the Alamo, which gives a fairer, more balanced and better documented account of that episode than previous films. However, I fear this does not mean that Hollywood has sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Each of these films is outstanding entertainment. It worries me that uncritical
audiences will accept their portrayal of events as truth. Is Hollywood rewriting
history?
Randy Black said "While Mr. Heelan seems to scorn Hollywood movies, they
remain a television staple in England to this day". John Heelan replies:
"Randy Black is correct. Hollywood movies and TV programmes are a staple
of the UK TV Industry and provide excellent entertainment. However they are
just that- entertainment- and not the quasi-historical documents they often
purport to be. The inexorable worldwide spread of US cultural hegemony is today
primarily by means of TV programmes. Often the choice and editorial content
of those programmes are decided by world-wide commercial organisations acting
as spokesmen for the views of the contemporary Administration (e.g. currently
Murdoch's News International with Fox News, NYP, major control satellite broadcasting
in the UK and US, major newspapers in the UK, Australia etc). It is therefore
important that the world not get sucked into accepting an implicit US view of
history as a by-product of entertainment".
Randy Black says "John Heelan is correct in his assertions that Hollywood
does not always portray historical truth. So what? We go to the movies for escape,
not for a history lesson.
I am certain that British studios take equal license with their efforts. I wonder:
Pertaining to one of Mr. Heelan’s comments about “The Patriot,”
while there is no evidence that a church full of civilians were burned alive,
the facts show that (British) Colonel Tarleton was brutal. He recalled in his
memoirs the pleasure he took in shooting fleeing rebels in the back, and there
was an incident in which burned bodies of militiamen were found at a battle
scene.
Regarding Mr Heelan’s comment, “Steve McQueen’s “The
Great Escape” …omitted to mention that there were no Americans in
Stalag Luft III, also ignores some interesting facts about the film, which was
filmed NOT in Hollywood, but entirely in Germany, and mostly at Bavaria Studios.
Further, the author the book was an Aussie, as was the screen play writer. Several
of the cast members were former POWs from WWII. Donald Pleasance, the blind
forger was a POW in Germany, Hannes Messener, a POW in Russia, Til Kise and
Hans Reiser here German POWs held by the USA.
And while Mr. Heelan seems to scorn the Hollywood movie, it remains a television
staple in England to this day".
RH: I disagree profoundly with Randy's first statement. The whole point of
the learning history project is that the misrepresentation of history is a cause
of international hatred and wars. The old movies about the Alamo were highly
offensive to Mexicans. Would Randy enjoy a Nazi film full of hatred for the
Jews who were being exterminated? The Nazis enjoyed them, and they undoubtedly
contributed to the Holocaust. The Romans enjoyed the spectacle of innocent people
being killed by lions in the Colosseum. There is a general realization that
the distortion of history by movie makers of different countries poisons international
relations.
Joshua Greene echoes John Heelan's remarks about historical movies: "Given
the miserable track record of human behavior, it is understandable that the
impulse to glorify history surfaces periodically. But with every new cinematic
interpolation, we stray farther and farther from the truth, each time blurring
slightly more the line between reality and illusion, between history as it was
and history as we would have preferred it to be. Particularly with regard to
my area, Holocaust historiography, the consequence of this behavior is an insidious
mind-set that says, “We learned so much and we’re so much better
prepared now. The courage of those who resisted is truly inspiring. Those who
survived dramatically demonstrate the will to live, they are heroes…”—and
on and on, surrendering eloquently to the temptation to trivialize the enormity
of the event and to distance ourselves with vaulted sentiment from the truth
of what occurred.
"Those who do not learn from history," Santayana prophesied, "are condemned to repeat it." Judging by the war crimes that continue every day worldwide, we have learned nothing; and a bottom-line-driven film industry will continue to perpetuate the tragic illusion that we have. Some day, film schools may require a course on ethics and social responsibility. Until then, movies will continue to serve up history neatly packaged for popular consumption".
RH: I heartily support this denunciation of the film industry. Whether it will
ever have a moral conscience remains to be seen.
Geographer John Allen agrees with geographer Martin Lewis: "I second Martin
Lewis's geographical high dudgeon at the inaccuracies that are foisted upon
an already geographically-illiterate population by the entertainment industry.
My personal favorite was a miniseries (ABC) on John C. Fremont a number of years
ago (starring--who else?--tall, blond Richard Chamberlain as short, dark J.
C. Fremont). One of the opening shots had Fremont in camp with Joseph Nicollet
during the survey of the upper Mississippi in 1838. In the background were the
Tetons. We even find massive inaccuracies in things produced by--of all organizations--National
Geographic. In its recent IMAX film of the Lewis and Clark expedition, most
of the location shots were taken somewhere other than the real locations. For
example, Idaho Falls (on the Snake River) was substituted for the Great Falls
of the Missouri in Montana, etc. I had begun as a consultant to the film, but
it got so ridiculous, I insisted that they take my name off the credits. They
claimed that they couldn't get good film of the right places. I also consulted
on the Ken Burns PBS documentary on Lewis and Clark and, therefore, knew better.
That production was both geographically correct and visually stunning".
Geographer Martin Lewis says: "Hollywood's various historical errors and
outright misrepresentations are well-known. I second the denunciations: they
both poison international relations and mislead the public. Less offensive but
still unjustifiable are the geographical inaccuracies found in many (and perhaps
most) films. This kind of nonsense comes in many forms. The substitution of
inappropriate places is more common than not: "let's pretend that the Amazon
basin looks like Hawaii and shoot our film there -- viewers won't notice the
difference." And then there is the geographical equivalent of anachronisms,
what I call the "anachorism": the portrayal of distant places as if
they were side-by-side. I don't know how many times I have seen actors supposedly
looking at a waterfall when it was obvious that they were nowhere near it. In
another variation, actors are portrayed as covering hundreds of miles in a few
minutes. In the now-classic E.T., a young child rides a bicycle from the arid
scrublands of southern California to a verdant redwood forest without breaking
a sweat. I suppose that it works for most people -- but it just makes me want
to laugh or cry". RH: I am a fan of travel literature, but as a small boy
I read accounts which described the Amazon and the Magdalena as though they
were like Hawaii. Many years later I traveled up them. They are really pretty
dull.
| Webmaster |