How Hollywood fabricates history

I just recently saw "Valkyrie" again starring Tom Cruise as von Stauffenberg who as most of us here know was one of the main masterminds behind the July 20, 1944 bomb plot against Hitler. What really struck me after this recent viewing is that the film portrays the motives of the conspirators to be based entirely on moral/ethical grounds. In other words "Hitler's regime is evil and horrible and we have to get rid of him".


The reality was quite different. In fact, vastly different.


Here is an excerpt I read today which largely contradicts how the film portrayed the conspirators:

"Motivation and goals of the plot
While the main goal of the plotters was to remove Hitler from power, they did so for various reasons. The majority of the group behind the 20 July plot were conservative nationalists and did not necessarily believe in democratic ideas.[11][12] Martin Borschat writes that the plot was mainly done by conservative elites who were initially integrated by the Nazi government but during the war lost their influence and were concerned about regaining it.[13]

Territorial demands towards the Allies
Among demands issued by the plotters towards the Allies were such points as re-establishment of Germany's 1914 boundaries with Belgium, France and Poland and no reparations. Plotters demands meant annexation to pre-1939 Germany of 70,000 square kilometers of non-German territory, especially the disputed Polish areas;as such the proposals couldn't have been agreed to.[14][page needed] Like most of the rest of German resistance, the July 20th plotters believed in the idea of Greater Germany and as condition for peace demanded that western allies recognize at minimum the Nazi annexations of Austria, Alsace- Sudetenland, and Polish territories, with even restoration of some of the overseas colonies. They believed that Europe should be controlled under German hegemony[15].

The overall goals towards Poland were mixed within the plotters. Most of the plotters found it desirable to restore the old German borders from 1914, while others pointed out that the demands were unrealistic and amendments had to be made.[16] Some like Friedrich-Werner Graf von der Schulenburg even saw all of Poland annexed to Germany.[17]"


So in a nutshell, most of the conspirators wanted to get rid of Hitler because they saw him as incompetent and causing Germany to lose the war and they wanted to save a sinking ship and return it to glory. They did not want to get rid of him for ethical/moral reasons such as of course implementing the Final Solution and establishing a brutal totalitarian system.

No surprise there PM most of us here have an understanding of history but the average citizen wants to see the likes of Tom Cruise....Just watched Memphis Belle yesterday and at least the photography was good

Yes, "Memphis Belle" also has its own set of inaccuracies but its not nearly as bad as "Valkyrie" in my opinion.

Hollywood has been telling it's own version of historical events for as long as there has been a Hollywood. How about "Birth of a Nation" for a rearranging of history!?

Or the "Inglorious Basterds" version of Hitler's death?

v6,
boNes

. That film doesn’t count since it was meant as a pulp comic book version of WW II.


"Captain America" also wasn't very accurate with its WWII historical facts.

The truth is stranger than fiction, but it doesn't sell a lot of movie tickets and DVD's.

Trying to kill Hitler = good.

Trying to kill Hitler because he's not winning the war = bad.

Nuance does not fit well within a two hour movie.

You are absolutely right! I just think it's sad how many people don't even notice the inaccuracies in these movies and even worse, just accept it all at face value as accurate history.

Even old masters like Shakespeare rewrote stuff to make it more dramatic and viewable.

It's been happening since the dawn of historytelling.
Nothing new about Hollywood doing it.

True but the Hollywood system makes billions and billions off of it.

I think that if you add up how much Shakespeares "historical" plays have made in 500 years of playing, it's a #%&*$# of money too.

Yeah watch any "historical" movie and sit with a pad a write the wrong stuff down It's just a matter of degrees ..but in the end it just might encourage some to go out and read something on the subject ....i know because as a kid the movie "The Longest Day" got me started on WW II history and that back handed me to the Civil War and a life time of learning wiish I had another life time to learn more,,I watched TLD back when you bought a ticket and could sit through multiple showings and I did all day

Going off on a slight tangent, I'm not convinced that TV news is any better. And that's not based on recent events, that's been forever. I first got a taste of that back in the early '90s when I was interviewed about the Michelangelo virus. They cut together the footage they shot of me and had me saying almost the complete opposite of what I actually said. They had a story in mind when they got there, asked me specific questions to get the sound bites they wanted, and went with that. I think TV news stories should have the same statement applied to them as the Hollywood movies - "Based on actual events."

Careful, this might get moved to PWEC

Is history even taught in grade school anymore?

For the record, I wasn't trying to get political, I just meant that TV news, like Hollywood, is more interested in telling an exciting story than reporting facts, and that is for everything, not just politics.

yup, doesnt matter what country its in, the media as a whole exsists to sell itself, so they'll make/write/say what sells in the current opinions of likely buyers, regardless of history or facts. As the saying goes "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!"

but back to the original topic ... U-1571 is a prime example of trying to rewrite history to suit the market!

I'm firmly of the opinion that eveyone has their own agenda, whether it be financial trying to produce a box office hit or trying to influence and/or shape opinion in some way. It is not necessarily malicious it is just beholden on the viewer to question things. This is not recent, you only have to watch many of the old Pathe newsreal from WW2 that would have been on general release at the time. They were not really news more, understandably, about maintaining morale or propoganda. Similarly, when I read an historical book, I can't help but question what is the author's agenda. Two historians can relay the same apparent history, but by placing emphasis on different aspects can, seemingly, portray completely different versions of events. But then again, maybe I've just grown into a cynical old git!

Not as such, no...

Thanks for the replies so far. This is why I love SimHQ!

I think because of how much I enjoyed the movie, I was very disappointed to find out how historically inaccurate Amadeus was. It's not really Hollywood's fault in this case, as they based it on a play, that itself was based on another play from 1830. I loved F. Murray Abraham's performance, and the structure of the story, so a bit of a let-down that they didn't actually have that kind of relationship.

I don't mind all of this, sometimes, because when the film is well done and enjoyable it doesn't seem that big a deal. There was some b.s. in "Patton," for instance, but the movie was so damn good.
The only thing that bothers me about it is that some people aren't smart enough to realize that it's Hollywood and just enjoy it as entertainment. These movies are where they get their knowledge of history from. So, you can't argue with them about the fact that the U.S. Army Air Corps did NOT send pilots over to England to fight in the RAF because, "I saw it in that movie, Pearl Harbor!"

I can forgive the artistic license taken with "Amadeus" because it is such an amazingly brilliant film.

And besides, we're talking something pretty innocuous here (changing the nature of the relationship between two musical composers). This isn't like a movie filled with inaccuracies about the Vietnam War or WW II which are still very passionate/controversial topics today.

+1


I guess portraying those US pilots as merely private citizens who went to the UK by their own volition and funding makes for much less interesting drama!

I think most people go into a historical movie knowing that it's going to be sensationalized by Hollywood and it's for entertainment and not for documentary purposes. So a movie like U-571 can get away with saying it was "inspired" by a true story. But the one movie that pisses me off is Argo, just because of the lengths that Ben Affleck went to, to say they meticulously researched the subject to make it as accurate as possible. That movie to me is a steaming pile of $&!#. On the other end of the scale is Apollo 13 which I think was really close to the real events.

Wizard

I understand that things need to be adjusted to make a more compelling story, and to fit within the confines of a movie, but making historical figures act in completely different ways than they actually did is taking it a bit far to me. I think it's worse if it's a relatively recent event, and when most of the people involved are still alive and can answer questions. I've heard Apollo 13 was largely accurate, but the astronauts all said that they never went through the blaming of each other, etc. If I were one of those guys, and saw myself being portrayed that way, I'd be pretty annoyed.

On the other end of the spectrum, Gene Kranz never said "Failure is not an option," but liked it so much he used that as a title for a book.

I definitely would be upset if I was one of the astronauts because it would be smearing my reputation. Of course, I totally understand why the script had the astronauts blaming each other.

Reading the "Lost Moon" book you get the quote from Lovell that is the remark that Tom Hanks uses to calm down the blaming scene: "We're not gonna go bouncing off the walls for the next ten minutes, because we're just gonna end up right back here with the same problems!". Lovell used it to describe the test pilot attitude of being too busy going though steps 1 - 1017 to figure out how to get a handle on the situation and get out of it. Wasting time panicking is counterproductive. So I think the script-writers added that scene to get that remark into the movie.