Six American embassy workers and their CIA handler flee revolutionary Iran in a white-knuckle airplane getaway as pursuing soldiers fire at them from the tarmac. Two Connecticut congressmen in 1865 Washington vote against passage of the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery. A CIA black-ops team softens up a suspected terrorist with waterboarding, beatings, and sleep deprivation until he gives them a crucial lead to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.
What do these three scenes have in common? First, none of them happened. (In the case of the third item, the CIA has publicly challenged the film’s depiction of events, which you can take with or without a grain of salt depending on your trust of secretive government bureaus.) Second, each occurs in a film that may win tonight’s Oscar for best picture of 2012. Should there be a connection? Should a movie be rewarded — or, conversely, punished — for fudging the truth?
Comments
Seriously?! Come on, anyone who looks to movies to learn about factual history is deluding themselves. Chiding Hollywood for stretching the truth factually is silly. They are called movies for a reason, because they entertain. Certainly, Hollywood should be chided if they engage in negatively stereotyping people, races, cultures, and religion, but on historical accurateness? let it go. If people want to learn history, log off twitter, disengage from Facebook, and all the other social media distractions, and pick up a history book from a reputable author or historian.
Overall I agree, but historical fiction writers shouldn't lie about definitive, recorded historical facts like what Kushner did with the Connecticut vote on the 13th amendment especiallysince, it seems, with a bit more thought he could have used fictional congressman sd to be from states that actually had votes against.
I agree with the original post. But may I use my Kindle instead of a print book?
Movies don't show us history but they do reflect upon how people feel during the time the movie was made. For example, Oliver Stone's movies are entertaining but hardly factual. Okay there was a President Kennedy and the US fought in Vietnam - from there it's art, not history.
With Lincoln, I thi reflects how America really wants a decisive leader in the White House, not the incumbent who just responds to polls. Argo shows how a few people can make a big difference if they plan and prepare, not just react. Also, there is no way a movie praising a CIA action would have been made while a Republican was in office - given the far left wing attitude of Hollywood.
This comment has been removed.