Comments on: Semi-truth: “The Social Network”

By: John Douglas

John Douglas — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:45:25 +0000

I never look at a movie that is supposed to depict history as anything other than fiction and that includes documentaries. I still like documentaries, but take them with a big grain of salt. I’m rarely willing to watch history movies, particularly if it is a subject in which I am very interested. I’m probably the only person that has never watched Titanic and as soon as I see Oliver Stone associated with any movie, I discard it. People watch these movies and believe it to be a real depiction of history. Just as growing up I thought every court room case ended in a full blown confession by the perpetrator in front of the jury.

By: Sgt. Mom

Sgt. Mom — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:38:06 +0000

This has come up over and over among readers of historical fiction; exactly what degree of “making stuff up” is ethical in constructing a riveting plot? The answer among us is usually that it isn’t, because a fair number of us are actually trying to teach history through our books. The consensus seems to be that author’s notes in the back out to delineate what you made up, what was speculation and what sources you based it on, and assurances that things that seemed incredible actually really happened. Wish Hollywood did the same – sort of a note at the end of the movie. I know that a lot of real people who figured in stories dramatized for movies or television were left feeling very bruised and insulted by how they were portrayed. The navigator officer in the 1190 WWII movie Memphis Belle comes to mind – in the movie he was painted as a nerve-wracked coward, and in reality he was nothing of the sort. He was quite elderly when the movie came out, and IIRC, was quite devastated. In the 1964 movie Zulu, there was a character portrayed as a drunk and a slacker, when he had actually been a teetotaler and a model soldier. His descendants were guests at the premiere and were so outraged they walked out.

By: gs

gs — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:50:22 +0000

Tom Says: There is no such thing as “more impervious” in the strict sense, just as there is no such thing as a “more perfect” Union. I prefer words to have precise usage. Perfect and Impervious either are, or are not. 1. According to Webster, an obsolete secondary meaning of 'perfect' is 'contented, satisfied'. Afaik the Founders were well educated, even by the standards of their time. 2. Should 'impervious' be used only in an absolute sense? My immediate reaction is that there should be a degree of symmetry between antonyms, but the hour is too late for me to think the matter through.

By: JuliB

JuliB — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:16:08 +0000

The DaVinci Code comes to mind….

By: LAG

LAG — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:23:47 +0000

In light of your question, “What’s fiction and what’s truth? I have always been disturbed by the indiscriminate blending of the two, and the resultant confusion of one for the other,” neo, you might find this discussion of exactly that topic by a good historian to be interesting, http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/19/author-author-antony-beevor

By: Curtis

Curtis — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:53:36 +0000

Talking about artistic license, how about shows like Oprah or Letterman. I watched Rand Paul on the David Letterman show and was thoroughly disappointed. Mr. Paul was obviously intimidated and did not hold his own with Letterman. He was trying to be nice and sensible. Intelligent. And all Rand Paul needed to do was have a moral sense of outrage and object not only to Letterman’s badgering and blather but to point out the simple fact that in America what we call it when someone’s money is taken simply because they have it is theft. It was clear that Letterman was trying to make points off of Paul and the first thing Paul should have said, is “Will you shut up long enough for me to answer one of your leading questions.”

By: stan

stan — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 00:23:22 +0000

The movies that bother me the most are ones which are marketed as true stories and involve people who are still alive. See e.g. “Remember the Titans” and “Glory Road” where players who were teammates were viciously slandered as ignorant racists. That kind of nasty defamation is just reprehensible.

By: Curtis

Curtis — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:16:07 +0000

Redstate.com has an interesting and piquant post relevant to this issue. Accordingly, the TV show, “West Wing” helped cement the “nasty Republicans” myth regarding the 1994 government shutdown so that if there is a government shutdown in the near future the same thing will happen. What the myth gives to the liberals: Republicans will cave regarding the many issues in the spending bill. Gone will be the defunding of Planned Parenthood; of government abortions in the District of Columbia; the major spending cuts; virtually any fiscal discipline; and Republicans will not even attempt to defund Obamacare.

Surely, any rational person knows this is our last chance to forestall financial calamity. I don’t think so. I think we’re shot, but I don’t want to just give up. I could be wrong and would like to pursue that possibility. Anyway, fiscal responsibility is right of itself. That is truth and the value of truth is about to make itself felt.

By: Anne

Anne — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:48:49 +0000

“What I really wish is that history were taught in such a way as to make people more impervious to those who would play fast and loose with it.”

That’s *exactly* what I thought when I watched The King’s Speech. While there’s no disputing it’s an entertaining film, I couldn’t help thinking that a better educated audience would have found it distasteful that the film makers altered, omitted and added things to make a political point. I have tried in vain to find any direct evidence that the future King George was subjected to the humiliating, undignified swearing, dancing and jumping up and down scenes as part of his treatment. And the therapist Lionel Logue is said to have delighted in being deferential to the royals, and wouldn’t have insulted them by using first names. The film makers clearly think and want the audience to think, “You’re nothing special. The monarchy is a ridiculous institution.” That is to say nothing of the other inaccuracies, such as Winston Churchill’s role, the audience gathering at Buckingham Palace (to applaud a speech about the outbreak of war?! I think not – it never happened and was inserted to add some Hollywood schmaltz), and the fact that the awful (very liberal, anti-monarchist) Colin Firth looks, sounds and acts nothing like the man he portrays.

And yet ironically, the royals come out of the film rather well.

By: Curtis

Curtis — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 21:29:37 +0000

Here’s one thought worth having: With history presenting so many intriguing stories, why does Hollywood need to blend fiction and fact?

It’s a rather leading question, I know.