Forums » Off-Topic
Most movies aren't entirely correct in the first place...
Anyway, Apoc Now, is actually hailed as the Greatest War Movie ever made by the SAG and a recent poll by MSN/MSNBC/NBC.
Anyway, the entire idea is about how war can totally change a man and dehumanize him and desenseitze him to the atrocties of war. Ask your father if he's ever heard of the 4/39th HARDCORE RECONDOS, under the command of Colonel David H. Hackworth.
Anyway, Apoc Now, is actually hailed as the Greatest War Movie ever made by the SAG and a recent poll by MSN/MSNBC/NBC.
Anyway, the entire idea is about how war can totally change a man and dehumanize him and desenseitze him to the atrocties of war. Ask your father if he's ever heard of the 4/39th HARDCORE RECONDOS, under the command of Colonel David H. Hackworth.
"Anyway, the entire idea is about how war can totally change a man and dehumanize him and desenseitze him to the atrocties of war."
-I must have said this at least 10 times by now.
-I must have said this at least 10 times by now.
"Part of it is supposed to be absurd (like the surfing bit) and part of it is supposed to be chilling. But none of it is meant to be historically accurate. It's a morality tale."
There is a serious problem with that. In order to know that it isn't historically accurate you have to know the history well enough to spot the inaccuracies. Most people can't. Therefore, since the setting of the movie is historical (there really was a Veitnam War) and the movie has a superficial resemblence to reality (the costumes and equipment look like those of real American soldiers), the average person seeing the movie is going to think it portrays real history and is going to learn his history from the movie.
This is a sad fact, but its true. How many people do you think upon watching 'Braveheart' think that they've seen a historical and largely accurate movie? How many people upon seeing 'Braveheart' think 'that's how it really happened'?
So, in effect, the movie has become anti-historical. It replaces the reality of what happened with the morality tale to the point that the morality tale becomes the history.
Movie makers that make historical epics that aren't based on history (that is to say a collection of historical texts) commit a deception. In effect, they steal bits of history - characters, settings, peoples emotional bagage - because it is easier to do that than to invent there own setting, and then they twist the history to serve their own purpose. Pretending that a movie is historical makes it easier to induce a powerful emotional responce in the audience than if you told straight out fiction.
As such, there are times when straight fiction is more truthful than something that is only partly true. At least its being honestly fictious. A historical epic - like Platoon, Braveheart, The Last Samurii, or Apocalypse Now, is typically being more dishonest than it pretends to be.
There is a serious problem with that. In order to know that it isn't historically accurate you have to know the history well enough to spot the inaccuracies. Most people can't. Therefore, since the setting of the movie is historical (there really was a Veitnam War) and the movie has a superficial resemblence to reality (the costumes and equipment look like those of real American soldiers), the average person seeing the movie is going to think it portrays real history and is going to learn his history from the movie.
This is a sad fact, but its true. How many people do you think upon watching 'Braveheart' think that they've seen a historical and largely accurate movie? How many people upon seeing 'Braveheart' think 'that's how it really happened'?
So, in effect, the movie has become anti-historical. It replaces the reality of what happened with the morality tale to the point that the morality tale becomes the history.
Movie makers that make historical epics that aren't based on history (that is to say a collection of historical texts) commit a deception. In effect, they steal bits of history - characters, settings, peoples emotional bagage - because it is easier to do that than to invent there own setting, and then they twist the history to serve their own purpose. Pretending that a movie is historical makes it easier to induce a powerful emotional responce in the audience than if you told straight out fiction.
As such, there are times when straight fiction is more truthful than something that is only partly true. At least its being honestly fictious. A historical epic - like Platoon, Braveheart, The Last Samurii, or Apocalypse Now, is typically being more dishonest than it pretends to be.
yes, but you can get the people's attention by setting it up in a historical context.
pure fiction is rarely attractive to the bigger part of the target group if you want to make a point of something. and no, Lord of the Rings does not count.
pure fiction is rarely attractive to the bigger part of the target group if you want to make a point of something. and no, Lord of the Rings does not count.
/me wonders why LotR does not count.
The Matrix, Star Wars, Star Trek, LotR, Harry Potter--they're all very popular works of fiction created from scratch that all have a message (possibly excepting Star Trek).
I'll agree with Celebrim, when a director borrows a story from history, unless he's telling that story, he does a disservice to those who were in the story and to history itself by telling a different one.
What Lucas did was create an entirely different universe for telling his story. While the movies themselves are not the best, notice the different forces at work in Ep1: Deadlocked parliaments, indecisive bureaucrats, hostile unions and taking a stand for what you believe in. All of these themes play out in real life. But suppose Lucas chose a different setting, perhaps the Iran-Contra crisis. All of a sudden, his film would be politically charged and disliked by some. However, the Star Wars universe has a universal appeal (no pun intended), because no one's sensibilities are offended by the way he portrays certain factions in his movies.
The Matrix, Star Wars, Star Trek, LotR, Harry Potter--they're all very popular works of fiction created from scratch that all have a message (possibly excepting Star Trek).
I'll agree with Celebrim, when a director borrows a story from history, unless he's telling that story, he does a disservice to those who were in the story and to history itself by telling a different one.
What Lucas did was create an entirely different universe for telling his story. While the movies themselves are not the best, notice the different forces at work in Ep1: Deadlocked parliaments, indecisive bureaucrats, hostile unions and taking a stand for what you believe in. All of these themes play out in real life. But suppose Lucas chose a different setting, perhaps the Iran-Contra crisis. All of a sudden, his film would be politically charged and disliked by some. However, the Star Wars universe has a universal appeal (no pun intended), because no one's sensibilities are offended by the way he portrays certain factions in his movies.
SirCamps:
First Topic: It's more than just a question of offending or not offending peoples sensibilities.
While there is an advantage of telling a fictious story because people will be more emotionally distanced from your themes and less likely to fall into their own preexisting biases, that is not the only reason to tell a fictious story.
Another good reason is you don't fall victem to your own biases. If someone was to set a movie during the Iran-Contra affair, the internal workings and character portrayals would be a matter of some opinion. Documents that might shed light on the matter might be classified. People who might give testimony to the inner workings of the affair might be biased. Major figures are no longer able to state thier own side of the story.
An arrogant author supposes that he knows the 'truth' and so it never occurs to them that thier own protrayal is shallow and one sided. A truly megalomaniacly author makes movies in which he is so convinced of his version of the story that when the facts don't agree with his vision, he makes up facts that do. Rather than making the truth fit the facts, he makes the facts fit the truth. He's even likely to call his fiction 'a true story' or even a 'documentary' because as far as he is concerned he knew the truth to begin with so of course his movie is true even if the facts are made up.
Few story tellers - and even fewer movie makers - go into a story with the goal of letting the audience make up thier minds based on the facts. They have an idea that they want to communicate and the story is just a vehical for that idea. If you begin by admitting to your audience that your whole story is fiction, and therefore these are basically your opinions, your philosophy, and your construct - the agreement you make with your audience is more honest. If the audience knows it is watching pure fiction, when it thinks about your meaning its doing so with an open mind. If on the other hand you cloak your fictious story with the illusion of 'historical truth' and 'facts', then you are basically browbeating your audience into believing as you do. You aren't opening the topic up for debate. You are thrusting 'the facts' into the audiences face, and the sad fact is the few people have either the knowledge or the aptitude for good critical thinking.
The result is propaganda. And if your 'facts' are just made up stories, it is a particularly pernicious and vile form of propaganda. Your twisted version of history becomes the justification for peoples attitudes about the present. What does 'The Last Samurii' teach us? That military castes with ancient traditions are basically good and noble. What does the 'Braveheart' teach us? That oppressed peoples are more noble than thier oppressors. What does 'Dances with Wolves' teach us? That primitive cultures are far more moral and honorable than European ones. Or on the other hand, what do all those 40's and 50's Westerns teach us? That native americans are faceless barbarians that deserved to die. Same difference in my mind, because in all those cases the truth is a more complex thing than that. Perhaps in the cases of those movies, the moral and cultural damage they cause is minimal, but the cumulative effect of teaching bad history can be very dangerous.
Second Topic: Star Trek has a message. It's major themes are:
1) Technology is sufficient for solving almost all of man's problems.
2) The basis of a utopian society is a nuturing government with a politically correct education.
3) Humanity is basically good and once technology and a good education free him from his pains and prejudices his inner nobility will be revealed.
4) Humanity is a uniquely ambitious, aggressive, capable and moral species destined to boldly go out and conquer the stars.
What's particularly interesting is watching what is politically correct change between the original series and the next generation.
First Topic: It's more than just a question of offending or not offending peoples sensibilities.
While there is an advantage of telling a fictious story because people will be more emotionally distanced from your themes and less likely to fall into their own preexisting biases, that is not the only reason to tell a fictious story.
Another good reason is you don't fall victem to your own biases. If someone was to set a movie during the Iran-Contra affair, the internal workings and character portrayals would be a matter of some opinion. Documents that might shed light on the matter might be classified. People who might give testimony to the inner workings of the affair might be biased. Major figures are no longer able to state thier own side of the story.
An arrogant author supposes that he knows the 'truth' and so it never occurs to them that thier own protrayal is shallow and one sided. A truly megalomaniacly author makes movies in which he is so convinced of his version of the story that when the facts don't agree with his vision, he makes up facts that do. Rather than making the truth fit the facts, he makes the facts fit the truth. He's even likely to call his fiction 'a true story' or even a 'documentary' because as far as he is concerned he knew the truth to begin with so of course his movie is true even if the facts are made up.
Few story tellers - and even fewer movie makers - go into a story with the goal of letting the audience make up thier minds based on the facts. They have an idea that they want to communicate and the story is just a vehical for that idea. If you begin by admitting to your audience that your whole story is fiction, and therefore these are basically your opinions, your philosophy, and your construct - the agreement you make with your audience is more honest. If the audience knows it is watching pure fiction, when it thinks about your meaning its doing so with an open mind. If on the other hand you cloak your fictious story with the illusion of 'historical truth' and 'facts', then you are basically browbeating your audience into believing as you do. You aren't opening the topic up for debate. You are thrusting 'the facts' into the audiences face, and the sad fact is the few people have either the knowledge or the aptitude for good critical thinking.
The result is propaganda. And if your 'facts' are just made up stories, it is a particularly pernicious and vile form of propaganda. Your twisted version of history becomes the justification for peoples attitudes about the present. What does 'The Last Samurii' teach us? That military castes with ancient traditions are basically good and noble. What does the 'Braveheart' teach us? That oppressed peoples are more noble than thier oppressors. What does 'Dances with Wolves' teach us? That primitive cultures are far more moral and honorable than European ones. Or on the other hand, what do all those 40's and 50's Westerns teach us? That native americans are faceless barbarians that deserved to die. Same difference in my mind, because in all those cases the truth is a more complex thing than that. Perhaps in the cases of those movies, the moral and cultural damage they cause is minimal, but the cumulative effect of teaching bad history can be very dangerous.
Second Topic: Star Trek has a message. It's major themes are:
1) Technology is sufficient for solving almost all of man's problems.
2) The basis of a utopian society is a nuturing government with a politically correct education.
3) Humanity is basically good and once technology and a good education free him from his pains and prejudices his inner nobility will be revealed.
4) Humanity is a uniquely ambitious, aggressive, capable and moral species destined to boldly go out and conquer the stars.
What's particularly interesting is watching what is politically correct change between the original series and the next generation.
Yeah, that's the main thing that I don't like about Star Trek (yes, I'm a Trekkie)... I want a dystopia, dammit! :P