Fishcake Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Where were you guys when inglorious basterds came out? ******SPOILER ALERT******Stop reading if you haven't seen that film and don't want it spoiled. Why weren't you up in arms about them changing history and having the entirety of the Nazi leadership get murdered by jewish-american soldiers? Great film though. When I was about ten years old my neighbours had a dog, which they rather stupidly named "******" as the dog was all black. They received complaints from many people on the street (strangely not the only black family on the street) and changed it to "Darky" and seriously thought it was a better choice! Anyway the film is so loosely based on fact that it really makes no difference. It is entertainment after all and not meant to be historically accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yes but that's an artistic point. The first film was fictional entertainment, and this one will be too. If Jackson had been making a documentary about Operation Chastise, then the name of the dog could not have been changed. But, according to some posters, if you base your fictional entertainment on a real story, you are not permitted to alter, embellish or redact "the truth". I'm not one who sees the necessity to alter or change historical facts. I dont understand why film producers feel the necessity to do this. The truth is often more interesting than what Hollywood choose to add as embelishment. One war film that was not messed up was the 1967 film "Battle of Britain" starring Robert Shaw and Michael Caine and although the characters were fictitious the events shown in the film were straight historical fact. That was a rarity though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yes but that's an artistic point. The first film was fictional entertainment, and this one will be too. The original film was about a raid on some German dams by RAF 617 Squadron, an actual squadron and not fictional entertainment, it went to great lenghts to depict accurately how and why the raid originated with shots of the original training site over the Derwent dams. When the original film came out many of the survivors of the raid were still alive although Guy Gibson VC had died later in the war on another raid. To call it "fictional entertainment" is offensive and so typical of todays low values and standards.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm not one who sees the necessity to alter or change historical facts. I dont understand why film producers feel the necessity to do this. The truth is often more interesting than what Hollywood choose to add as embelishment. One war film that was not messed up was the 1967 film "Battle of Britain" starring Robert Shaw and Michael Caine and although the characters were fictitious the events shown in the film were straight historical fact. That was a rarity though My last camp before Demob was 'North Weald' where some of the film was shot that year and also I believe where Douglas Bader flew from. There was still signs of war damage on the hangar doors from the Luftwaffe armour piercing bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm not one who sees the necessity to alter or change historical facts. I dont understand why film producers feel the necessity to do this. The truth is often more interesting than what Hollywood choose to add as embelishment. I agree 100% to missrepresent history to make money and please idiots isn't on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I agree 100% to missrepresent history to make money and please idiots isn't on. Yeah that's right -all those crappy films that misrepresent history.... Every film not set in the future must therefore be a documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yeah that's right -all those crappy films that misrepresent history.... Every film not set in the future must therefore be a documentary. Don't be silly; grow up, you're missing the point, which is, anything that claims to be someting should be about that something and not just hijacking the name to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 My last camp before Demob was 'North Weald' where some of the film was shot that year and also I believe where Douglas Bader flew from. There was still signs of war damage on the hangar doors from the Luftwaffe armour piercing bullets. I wonder if any of the squadron are still alive? They are the ones who could advise the film producers and directors what's bu**sh*t and what isnt. I remember when the original first appeared in 1955. The public kicked up a hell of a racket because someone had slipped in a shot of an American USAAF B-17 flying alongside the RAF Lancs. That clip was shortly afterwards removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Great film though. When I was about ten years old my neighbours had a dog, which they rather stupidly named "******" as the dog was all black. They received complaints from many people on the street (strangely not the only black family on the street) and changed it to "Darky" and seriously thought it was a better choice! Anyway the film is so loosely based on fact that it really makes no difference. It is entertainment after all and not meant to be historically accurate. Well it's subject implies that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Don't be silly; grow up, you're missing the point, which is, anything that claims to be someting should be about that something and not just hijacking the name to make money. I'm not missing the point. Historical texts (including films) about the past, recent or ancient, purport to be historically rigourous and use established methodologies and theories to support their conclusions, an very rarely have any kind of love interest or heartwarming/tragic animal characters. Entertainment films do not [purport to be historically rigourous] and often have a love interest and a cute animal character. A film with a strong narrative and a strong plot can do nothing but misrepresent history intentionally or otherwise. They are not there as a secondary or even tertiary sources for anyone researching the history of any given period or theme, they are entertainment products designed to make money. Eisenstein was mentioned elsewhere on the forum recently. His films gratuitously misrepresented the recent past, yet are hailed (rightly so) as pioneering masterpieces of cinema. Spotting historical inaccuracies and anachronisms in films has been a long running game for film goers. It's part of the fun to see what they got wrong - and indeed what they have changed. Films like this are of course excellent primary resources for any study of representations of the past, but under those circumstances they are going to be deconstructed by people with a much greater understanding of history than the people who made the film. If you try learning to read a film, I think you'll see all this for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.