Dowd on accuracy in "historical" films

I wanted to get the board's thoughts on this because it's an interesting question.

Joe Courtney, Democrat congressman from Connecticut, has a problem with the accuracy of the movie Lincoln. He is upset because the movie shows the two representatives voting "nay" on the 13th Amendment when, in truth, they voted for it. He wants Steven Spielberg to either correct the scene or mention the inaccuracy on the DVD.

Normally I would think this was a little too much, that it's just a movie. However, seeing as though Spielberg is offering a free copy of the movie to any school that requests one, I can understand why Courtney would like the changes made. If this movie is going to be used as some kind of accurate historical representation the truth about the Connecticut votes should be told.

Just wondering what other people thought, and I am not sure if this post should be here or on the journalism board. Anyway, here is Dowd's column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-oscar-for-best-fabrication.html?_r=0

 

I recommend Freedom by William Saffire as one of the greatest examples of Historical Fiction. This is also an Abraham Lincoln novel. Saffire has close to 140 pages of footnoted sources in his book.

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Novel-Abraham-Lincoln-Civil/dp/038515903X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1361120236&sr=8-3&keywords=william+saffire

SS needs to correct his movie, it's secular blasphemy to name 2 men who actually voted for the 13th Amendment to state they voted against it.

 

I never know why they change crap like that. It just doesn't make the story any better.

 

+1

 

I keep waiting for Harlan Ellison to sue, claiming the movie was based on one of his short stories.

 

+2

 

Agreed, Ben. And with Rep. Courtney, as well.

 

Interesting Dowd wrote about accuracy.

 

Damn this is a coincidence. I have Lincoln on now and I too am fascinated by the vote. It inspired me to surf for more information on the 13th amendment. I don't think Spielberg will make any changes but I understand Joe Courtney's concern.

 

I don't remember from watching the movie who voted for and who voted against, but the real vote was far from unanimous. The real vote was 119-56 in the House, barely more than the 2/3 majority to pass (68 percent; a margin of about 3 votes). So why would any film maker feel compelled to fabricate who actually did and didn't vote a certain way? If they were to change that, then they should point out Mrs. Lincoln wasn't in the audience tallying the vote or any number of other "artistic liberties" taken in the film.

 

History can get in the way of a good tale. Does the fact most of the public will take the movie as truth really matter, though?

 

Oliver Stone ... cough ... JFK ... cough, cough.