US REPRESENTATIVE Joe Courtney, a Connecticut Democrat, has historical truth on his side when he complains that “Lincoln,” the Steven Spielberg movie about the adoption of the 13th Amendment, distorts the Nutmeg State’s role in the congressional vote to make slavery unconstitutional. Whether Courtney also has dramatic truth on his side isn’t so clear, as Hollywood insists that strict factual accuracy must sometimes be submerged when crafting a larger narrative that feels realistic in broad terms.
It’s a matter of interest not only on Presidents’ Day but also at next Sunday’s Academy Awards, with three Best Picture nominees, including “Lincoln,” facing charges of playing fast and loose with facts. Hollywood shouldn’t be held to the same standards as Harvard, and viewers should approach historical dramas with a bit of skepticism. For their part, filmmakers should make good on their own vows to be faithful to the overall arc of the story. By those measures, “Lincoln,” at least, gets a pass.
Comments
But if in fact the vote on the 13th amendment was so close why didn't Hollywood depict the actual vote. Why alter Connecticut's role. Just using the accurate history of the vote would have proven dramatic enough.
I have not yet seen the movie, but I am guessing that the characters of the two Representatives who's records were lied about had already developed in the movie, and showing the votes of two other characters whom the audience did not know or care about would not have been so dramatic. Blantantly and directly lying about clear facts, such as how someone voted, is not the same as sticking chase seen into the events shown on a movie (as in Argo), or even exaggerating how harshly prisoners were actually questioned (as it Zero Dark Thirty).
It does seem odd that the film would fictionalize something that was able be told factually, and not take way from the story's drama. But seriously, I am more worried about the way history is taught at universities than I am about Hollywood's interpretation. The liberal slant from academia is extreme. They are certainly now stating the falsehoold told here, that waterboarding produced none of the intelligence that led to Bin Laden. We know it to be one part of the story in "Zero dark thirty" which is true. But it goes against political correctness to say so.
Men and women have died for the right to vote. A vote as important as the vote to abolish slavery should not be tampered with for dramatic effect. If someone portrayed the way I vote in American elections ( and I make considerable effort to vote from abroad) incorrectly, I would be furious. Men wearing kilts or not in Braveheart, or Ben Affleck adding a car chase for effect pale in comparison to changing the history of something as important as a vote for or against the abolition of slavery. Fix the film. GMcN
If you want a documentary, watch PBS. These are movies people. Enjoy them for their entertainment value.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, Lincoln is in other ways a wonderful film and at least has people talking about, reading about, and thinking about that exciting but difficult time in our country's past. Also, fair play to you Rep. Joe Courtney for standing up for the memory of those men whose vote was important to them and the people they represented.
Senators Feinstein and McCain don’t agree on a lot, but both agree that the distortions on the efficacy of torture in general, and in the pursuit of Osama specifically in Zero DarkThirty, were untrue and misleading. The Army complained directly to the producers of the TV series 24 because they thought the series made it appear that somehow the US Army condones torture. And they were right to do so.
The absolutely verifiable history of Connecticut in the Civil War was besmirched and complaints are clearly justified. Kushner’s response was completely inadequate.
And my guess is that Richstan knows very little about the academic teaching of history. He writes as if all historians and all universities were united in some liberal plot. That’s absurd. Historical judgment is notoriously difficult as the current controversy around Jefferson only reminds us (McCullough, Meacham and Wiencek).
You got that rubbish out of me saying it it only a movie sport? You need to find a hobby.
This comment has been removed.
Two of the most thrilling nights of my life were spent in a theater watching "Angels in America, parts I & II" I have enormous admiration for Tony Kushner's talent. However, that respect has been somewhat diminished by his self-serving and non-sensical reply regarding this issue.
high school isn't great either........ask any high school kid who was the first president, you'll be surprised when they don't know.
This comment has been removed.
It seems reasonable to expect some fidelity to the historic record even in the light of the right of artists to take some license to create dramatic tension. Besides misrepresenting the vote of the Connecticut delegation, changing individual names to blunt the impact of the misrepresentation, the film recounts the vote of an apparently fictitious Congressman Washburn as “Nay”, when, in fact, there were two Members of Congress named Washburn (brothers William and Elihu) who were abolitionists, supporters of the President, and who both voted in favor of the amendment. http://www.sethkaller.com/item/809-Congressional-Copy-of-The-13th-Amendment-Signed-by-Abraham-Lincoln-(SOLD) -