Dowd on accuracy in "historical" films

How does putting the Connecticut delegation on the wrong side of history -- and incorrectly, at that -- make the tale better? I saw the movie and when that moment came up, it definitely left the impression that CT was as back-ass and racist as Mississippi.

 

"Killing Lincoln" based on O'Reilly's book is on Nat Geo right now. Narrated/hosted by Tom Hanks. Good so far.

 

Was Kushner trying to give the South a little cover -- Look, Northerners were kinda racist too -- so that the movie would play better in the South?

Seems like the only reason for the change, to soften the reality, make it seem more philosophical than regional.

 

Can I sue on the grounds that it was the worst movie I've seen in the last 5 years? Dreadful.

 

I left the movie feeling down about the fact that I lived in a racist state. Now I feel better.

 

The reality was the vote to pass in the house was 119-56 all among NORTHERN congressmen. The idea that abolition was some great universal cause is viewed through 21st century eyes. Lincoln wasn't the "great emancipator" of martyr legend. In his own 1861 inaugural address he said "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so" and later in a letter to Horace Greeley he wrote "My paramount object in the struggle is to save the union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery." That's not to say Lincoln was FOR slavery, just pointing out that what has become myth isn't exactly a clear view through the looking glass. Lincoln himself was once in favor of shipping the freed slaves to Central America or back to Africa (despite by the fact that by the 1860s all slaves in the U.S. were native born and not imported.)

In 1864 it wasn't assured that he'd receive the Republican nomination to even run again. Some members of the party put up Gen. John C. Fremont as the Republican candidate, and the election itself was against former head of the Union army General George McClellan, who wanted to end the war.

People to need to be careful when applying modern terms and morals to historical context.

 

This is a bunch of crap. Movies with historical subjects have taken license with actual events since the silent version of "Birth of a Nation." Just off the top of my head, the following movies played fast and loose with the truth in the interests of artistic expression"

1. JFK: Enough said. All it did was present the alternative theories about what might have happened or what could have happened.

2. All the Presidents Men: Took numerous dramatic takes on rather mundane incidents. The phrase follow the money was never in the book.

3. Sands of Iwo Jima: Went with the legend on the timing of the flag going up. The reality was different. Another flag actually went up before the one the photographer got.

4. Patton: He never wore all of his medals at once. Didn't have George C. Scott's deep voice. It was actually high-pitched.

5. Several versions of the Gunfight at the OK Corral. None of them were remotely accurate.

Point being, this is nothing new from the movie industry. So why the hand-wringing now?

 

Forest Gump never played for Alabama

 

Is it really lost on you? That people from a state might take issue with the fact that their forebears are erroneously portrayed as condoning slavery?

 

Because, as I stated, this is being passed off by Spielberg as some kind of "historical document" for lack of a better term. What, is he offering the movie free to schools simply for entertainment? And "follow the money," although not SPECIFICALLY in the book, was implied in the conversations Deep Throat had. That is not even close to being the same as changing the votes of a state's delegation regarding the 13th amendment.

 

Without regard to the historical accuracy of the film portrayals or the importance of historical truth vis a vis entertainment value, my problem here is on a different vector:


In my mind, Maureen Dowd has lost the moral high ground whenever she opines on any subject regarding truth-telling, accuracy and the reality of historical events.


With regard to what happened in the film as opposed to what happened on the record historically, there needs to be an addendum of explanation from the film-makers for future viewers IF the film-makers want to have any claim to historicity.

 

Well-said on both counts.