by Mary Jo
The 2012 movie Argo was a critical and commercial success and won three Oscars, including for the best picture of 2012. It’s based on the “Canadian Caper,” a real incident in which the Canadian Embassy in Tehran concealed six American fugitives who escaped when the American embassy was attacked and occupied in 1979 and most of the staff was taken hostage.
After three months of hiding the fugitives at great personal risk, the Canadian ambassador, Ken Taylor, and his people got them out of Iran to safety. In a dark time, this was a heart warming story, and Americans everywhere were saying, “Thank you, Canada!”
So it was good fodder for a movie, and ARGO was well made and very successful, Ben Affleck directed, co-produced, and starred as Tony Mendez, a CIA “exfiltration” expert who specialized in getting people out of dangerous places. (Mendez’s own book on his experiences was a major source for the script.)
It’s always tricky making a movie of a recent event where everyone knows the outcome, as with APOLLO 13, but good storytelling can have the audience biting their nails even though they know what happens. So I figured that the filmmakers probably exaggerated and shaped the events some to raise the tension level, and that’s okay.
But I hit the wall when we were watching the movie and it was said that the 
Americans had been turned away by the British and the New Zealanders before ending up with the Canadian ambassador. WAIT A MINUTE!!! That does NOT sound like the Brits and Kiwis I know. I frankly did not believe it.
And I was absolutely right. As soon as the movie was over, I went upstairs to my computer and did some quick research. This from Wikipedia:
"Upon its release in October 2012, the film was criticized for its claim that British and New Zealand Embassies had turned away the American refugees in Tehran. This claim was incorrect, as neither the British or New Zealand Embassies had turned the refugees away. In fact, the embassies of both of those countries helped them, along with the Canadians. The British had initially hosted the American refugees, but the location was deemed to not be safe, and all involved countries considered the Canadian ambassador's residence to be a safer location. New Zealand diplomatic ambassadors also put themselves at huge risk while assisting – by organising a place for the refugees to hide if they needed to change their location,[43] and by driving the Americans to the airport when they made their escape from Tehran.[44] British diplomats also assisted other American hostages beyond the escaped group of six.[45] Bob Anders, the U.S. consular agent played in the film by Tate Donovan, said, "They put their lives on the line for us. We were all at risk. I hope no one in Britain will be offended by what's said in the film. The British were good to us and we're forever grateful."[46]"
Even the Canadians were undervalued because the movie basically chose to be a 
hero story focusing on the CIA guy. President Jimmy Carter said that the Canadians did 90% of the heavy lifting. That included holding a secret session of the Canadian parliament to approve issue of six false Canadian passports for the fugitives, something that had never been done before. Talk about going above and beyond the call of duty!
I do understand the need to shape the material to make a gripping movie, but how much is too much? At the very least, the movie should have carried an apology 
to the Canadians, the British, and the New Zealanders. Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor himself listed a number of the film’s inaccuracies.
Affleck said (again this is from Wikipedia): “I struggled with this long and hard, because it casts Britain and New Zealand in a way that is not totally fair. But I was setting up a situation where you needed to get a sense that these six people had nowhere else to go. It does not mean to diminish anyone.”
Maybe not, but given the power of film, this warped version of the truth can end up changing the public perception of what happened. This troubles me. A LOT.
Authors often have to deal with similar questions in order to make a story work better. This is why we have authors’ notes, to explain which parts of a story are true and which part are invented. As a reader, I want to know that, so I figure many of my readers will feel the same.
How much license are we allowed in dealing with real history? And is one factor how recent the events were? It may be illogical, but I feel much more strongly about maintaining the truth of recent events.
As a somewhat related sidebar, we just rewatched the most recent version of Alexandre Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo. I read the book long, long ago, and 
it’s sprawling and complicated and full of poisonings and suicides and dark plots. The recent version is stripped down to a much simpler, historical romance version. I thoroughly enjoyed it—but there were a lot of changes from the original!
Even though the recent movie was Monte Cristo Lite, I was willing to give it a pass because I enjoyed it, it was based on a novel, which is already fiction, and it was old.
For Argo, I was willing to overlook a number of things the movie did to boost the tension, but I am offended by actions and words that damaged the honor of people and nations involved. As I said, at the least there should have been a much better disclaimer at the end.
So what about you? Are you bothered when movie makers distort the truth? Are there examples of movies you hate because of this? Are there other movies that largely got it right? And how much does it matter if the subject is recent or old?
Mary Jo, pondering
I can accept some poetic license in a movie (or a book), but some are so ridiculous they make me crazy. The first that comes to mind is The Patriot with Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger. The historical details that are wrong are too numerous to mention, but what put it over the top for me was the fact the children in this movie do not age over the 7 years of the film. It makes me absolutely crazy! I truly cannot get past this.
I can accept some poetic license in a movie (or a book), but some are so ridiculous they make me crazy. The first that comes to mind is The Patriot with Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger. The historical details that are wrong are too numerous to mention, but what put it over the top for me was the fact the children in this movie do not age over the 7 years of the film. It makes me absolutely crazy! I truly cannot get past this.
I can accept some poetic license in a movie (or a book), but some are so ridiculous they make me crazy. The first that comes to mind is The Patriot with Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger. The historical details that are wrong are too numerous to mention, but what put it over the top for me was the fact the children in this movie do not age over the 7 years of the film. It makes me absolutely crazy! I truly cannot get past this.
I can accept some poetic license in a movie (or a book), but some are so ridiculous they make me crazy. The first that comes to mind is The Patriot with Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger. The historical details that are wrong are too numerous to mention, but what put it over the top for me was the fact the children in this movie do not age over the 7 years of the film. It makes me absolutely crazy! I truly cannot get past this.
I can accept some poetic license in a movie (or a book), but some are so ridiculous they make me crazy. The first that comes to mind is The Patriot with Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger. The historical details that are wrong are too numerous to mention, but what put it over the top for me was the fact the children in this movie do not age over the 7 years of the film. It makes me absolutely crazy! I truly cannot get past this.
It does bother me! One film that really drove me nuts was “Mississippi Burning”. I felt that people without a lot of knowledge about the era would walk away with some really wrong impressions. Once you get earlier than the 20th Century, I’m not bothered so much, because I haven’t lived through it, or heard eye witness accounts from people I personally knew. But I guess it still would if it was a period of history I was especially interested in.
It does bother me! One film that really drove me nuts was “Mississippi Burning”. I felt that people without a lot of knowledge about the era would walk away with some really wrong impressions. Once you get earlier than the 20th Century, I’m not bothered so much, because I haven’t lived through it, or heard eye witness accounts from people I personally knew. But I guess it still would if it was a period of history I was especially interested in.
It does bother me! One film that really drove me nuts was “Mississippi Burning”. I felt that people without a lot of knowledge about the era would walk away with some really wrong impressions. Once you get earlier than the 20th Century, I’m not bothered so much, because I haven’t lived through it, or heard eye witness accounts from people I personally knew. But I guess it still would if it was a period of history I was especially interested in.
It does bother me! One film that really drove me nuts was “Mississippi Burning”. I felt that people without a lot of knowledge about the era would walk away with some really wrong impressions. Once you get earlier than the 20th Century, I’m not bothered so much, because I haven’t lived through it, or heard eye witness accounts from people I personally knew. But I guess it still would if it was a period of history I was especially interested in.
It does bother me! One film that really drove me nuts was “Mississippi Burning”. I felt that people without a lot of knowledge about the era would walk away with some really wrong impressions. Once you get earlier than the 20th Century, I’m not bothered so much, because I haven’t lived through it, or heard eye witness accounts from people I personally knew. But I guess it still would if it was a period of history I was especially interested in.
I saw the movie not too long ago, and from what I remember it wouldn’t have been too hard to at least acknowledge that Britain and New Zealand were involved without taking away from the plot. I get why they did it, but I can also understand why it left a bad taste in some people’s mouths.
I saw the movie not too long ago, and from what I remember it wouldn’t have been too hard to at least acknowledge that Britain and New Zealand were involved without taking away from the plot. I get why they did it, but I can also understand why it left a bad taste in some people’s mouths.
I saw the movie not too long ago, and from what I remember it wouldn’t have been too hard to at least acknowledge that Britain and New Zealand were involved without taking away from the plot. I get why they did it, but I can also understand why it left a bad taste in some people’s mouths.
I saw the movie not too long ago, and from what I remember it wouldn’t have been too hard to at least acknowledge that Britain and New Zealand were involved without taking away from the plot. I get why they did it, but I can also understand why it left a bad taste in some people’s mouths.
I saw the movie not too long ago, and from what I remember it wouldn’t have been too hard to at least acknowledge that Britain and New Zealand were involved without taking away from the plot. I get why they did it, but I can also understand why it left a bad taste in some people’s mouths.
I haven’t seen the film, but based on what you say I think it goes too far. I don’t understand the explanation – that the viewers had to have a sense that the six people had nowhere to go. Why? Why wasn’t the real-life situation frightening enough? I don’t believe the explanation – I think there was a desire to make the heroes of the film OTT heroic.
Be that as it may – I agree with you that there are limits to the extent to which one should distort the truth for dramatic effect. If you base something on a true event, then, if you do more than use it as your starting point, you must be accurate. If much of the film or book is “true”, then it should all be true to the best of your ability. To deliberately lie is unacceptable.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it is this type of behaviour which results in the re-writing of history (such as the infamous blackening of Richard III by the Tudors). Film-makers and authors cannot and should not under-estimate the power of their work. Either write fiction or tell a true story accurately – but blending the two is dangerous without a very large disclaimer up-front! (I don’t think one in the titles at the end would suffice.)
But most definitely do not produce something which is accurate in most respects (thus leading the consumer to believe it is factual) but deliberately misleading in others.
I haven’t seen the film, but based on what you say I think it goes too far. I don’t understand the explanation – that the viewers had to have a sense that the six people had nowhere to go. Why? Why wasn’t the real-life situation frightening enough? I don’t believe the explanation – I think there was a desire to make the heroes of the film OTT heroic.
Be that as it may – I agree with you that there are limits to the extent to which one should distort the truth for dramatic effect. If you base something on a true event, then, if you do more than use it as your starting point, you must be accurate. If much of the film or book is “true”, then it should all be true to the best of your ability. To deliberately lie is unacceptable.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it is this type of behaviour which results in the re-writing of history (such as the infamous blackening of Richard III by the Tudors). Film-makers and authors cannot and should not under-estimate the power of their work. Either write fiction or tell a true story accurately – but blending the two is dangerous without a very large disclaimer up-front! (I don’t think one in the titles at the end would suffice.)
But most definitely do not produce something which is accurate in most respects (thus leading the consumer to believe it is factual) but deliberately misleading in others.
I haven’t seen the film, but based on what you say I think it goes too far. I don’t understand the explanation – that the viewers had to have a sense that the six people had nowhere to go. Why? Why wasn’t the real-life situation frightening enough? I don’t believe the explanation – I think there was a desire to make the heroes of the film OTT heroic.
Be that as it may – I agree with you that there are limits to the extent to which one should distort the truth for dramatic effect. If you base something on a true event, then, if you do more than use it as your starting point, you must be accurate. If much of the film or book is “true”, then it should all be true to the best of your ability. To deliberately lie is unacceptable.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it is this type of behaviour which results in the re-writing of history (such as the infamous blackening of Richard III by the Tudors). Film-makers and authors cannot and should not under-estimate the power of their work. Either write fiction or tell a true story accurately – but blending the two is dangerous without a very large disclaimer up-front! (I don’t think one in the titles at the end would suffice.)
But most definitely do not produce something which is accurate in most respects (thus leading the consumer to believe it is factual) but deliberately misleading in others.
I haven’t seen the film, but based on what you say I think it goes too far. I don’t understand the explanation – that the viewers had to have a sense that the six people had nowhere to go. Why? Why wasn’t the real-life situation frightening enough? I don’t believe the explanation – I think there was a desire to make the heroes of the film OTT heroic.
Be that as it may – I agree with you that there are limits to the extent to which one should distort the truth for dramatic effect. If you base something on a true event, then, if you do more than use it as your starting point, you must be accurate. If much of the film or book is “true”, then it should all be true to the best of your ability. To deliberately lie is unacceptable.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it is this type of behaviour which results in the re-writing of history (such as the infamous blackening of Richard III by the Tudors). Film-makers and authors cannot and should not under-estimate the power of their work. Either write fiction or tell a true story accurately – but blending the two is dangerous without a very large disclaimer up-front! (I don’t think one in the titles at the end would suffice.)
But most definitely do not produce something which is accurate in most respects (thus leading the consumer to believe it is factual) but deliberately misleading in others.
I haven’t seen the film, but based on what you say I think it goes too far. I don’t understand the explanation – that the viewers had to have a sense that the six people had nowhere to go. Why? Why wasn’t the real-life situation frightening enough? I don’t believe the explanation – I think there was a desire to make the heroes of the film OTT heroic.
Be that as it may – I agree with you that there are limits to the extent to which one should distort the truth for dramatic effect. If you base something on a true event, then, if you do more than use it as your starting point, you must be accurate. If much of the film or book is “true”, then it should all be true to the best of your ability. To deliberately lie is unacceptable.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it is this type of behaviour which results in the re-writing of history (such as the infamous blackening of Richard III by the Tudors). Film-makers and authors cannot and should not under-estimate the power of their work. Either write fiction or tell a true story accurately – but blending the two is dangerous without a very large disclaimer up-front! (I don’t think one in the titles at the end would suffice.)
But most definitely do not produce something which is accurate in most respects (thus leading the consumer to believe it is factual) but deliberately misleading in others.
As a Canadian, and one who hasn’t seen the film, I found myself being very curious when reading the reviews. I well remember seeing news reports about Ken Taylor and his staff, and the risks they ran, in newspapers and magazines at the time. Film-makers should be very careful when portraying an historic event, particularly a recent one, as their film can easily become perceived reality not only for viewers but for the public at large.
M. Aalto
As a Canadian, and one who hasn’t seen the film, I found myself being very curious when reading the reviews. I well remember seeing news reports about Ken Taylor and his staff, and the risks they ran, in newspapers and magazines at the time. Film-makers should be very careful when portraying an historic event, particularly a recent one, as their film can easily become perceived reality not only for viewers but for the public at large.
M. Aalto
As a Canadian, and one who hasn’t seen the film, I found myself being very curious when reading the reviews. I well remember seeing news reports about Ken Taylor and his staff, and the risks they ran, in newspapers and magazines at the time. Film-makers should be very careful when portraying an historic event, particularly a recent one, as their film can easily become perceived reality not only for viewers but for the public at large.
M. Aalto
As a Canadian, and one who hasn’t seen the film, I found myself being very curious when reading the reviews. I well remember seeing news reports about Ken Taylor and his staff, and the risks they ran, in newspapers and magazines at the time. Film-makers should be very careful when portraying an historic event, particularly a recent one, as their film can easily become perceived reality not only for viewers but for the public at large.
M. Aalto
As a Canadian, and one who hasn’t seen the film, I found myself being very curious when reading the reviews. I well remember seeing news reports about Ken Taylor and his staff, and the risks they ran, in newspapers and magazines at the time. Film-makers should be very careful when portraying an historic event, particularly a recent one, as their film can easily become perceived reality not only for viewers but for the public at large.
M. Aalto
I will not see the film for the very reasons you outline above – it veers too far from the truth and puts good people (Brits and NZ) in a bad light. Surely Ben Affleck could have increased the tension by having these factual players also contribute, putting themselves in danger too? It sounds even more exciting to read the refugees went from place to place. It’s an insult to say to everyone, “Yes, we know the Brits and NZ-ers did actually help but, hey, it’s all about movie-making!” No thanks. I don’t need ‘Hollywood history.’ That’s how you get invasions of oil-rich countries on the premise they may have WMD stashed away somewhere. But then again, they may not. Who cares? It’s all about perception.
I will not see the film for the very reasons you outline above – it veers too far from the truth and puts good people (Brits and NZ) in a bad light. Surely Ben Affleck could have increased the tension by having these factual players also contribute, putting themselves in danger too? It sounds even more exciting to read the refugees went from place to place. It’s an insult to say to everyone, “Yes, we know the Brits and NZ-ers did actually help but, hey, it’s all about movie-making!” No thanks. I don’t need ‘Hollywood history.’ That’s how you get invasions of oil-rich countries on the premise they may have WMD stashed away somewhere. But then again, they may not. Who cares? It’s all about perception.
I will not see the film for the very reasons you outline above – it veers too far from the truth and puts good people (Brits and NZ) in a bad light. Surely Ben Affleck could have increased the tension by having these factual players also contribute, putting themselves in danger too? It sounds even more exciting to read the refugees went from place to place. It’s an insult to say to everyone, “Yes, we know the Brits and NZ-ers did actually help but, hey, it’s all about movie-making!” No thanks. I don’t need ‘Hollywood history.’ That’s how you get invasions of oil-rich countries on the premise they may have WMD stashed away somewhere. But then again, they may not. Who cares? It’s all about perception.
I will not see the film for the very reasons you outline above – it veers too far from the truth and puts good people (Brits and NZ) in a bad light. Surely Ben Affleck could have increased the tension by having these factual players also contribute, putting themselves in danger too? It sounds even more exciting to read the refugees went from place to place. It’s an insult to say to everyone, “Yes, we know the Brits and NZ-ers did actually help but, hey, it’s all about movie-making!” No thanks. I don’t need ‘Hollywood history.’ That’s how you get invasions of oil-rich countries on the premise they may have WMD stashed away somewhere. But then again, they may not. Who cares? It’s all about perception.
I will not see the film for the very reasons you outline above – it veers too far from the truth and puts good people (Brits and NZ) in a bad light. Surely Ben Affleck could have increased the tension by having these factual players also contribute, putting themselves in danger too? It sounds even more exciting to read the refugees went from place to place. It’s an insult to say to everyone, “Yes, we know the Brits and NZ-ers did actually help but, hey, it’s all about movie-making!” No thanks. I don’t need ‘Hollywood history.’ That’s how you get invasions of oil-rich countries on the premise they may have WMD stashed away somewhere. But then again, they may not. Who cares? It’s all about perception.
I hold that dramatic books and dramatic events do not need to be tweaked as much as films do– so many tweak books and events to distortion. Hwever, I am routinely shouted down by the statement that a film is an art form and follwos its own rules.
I do no like it. If a book or event is dramatic enough to warrant t being made into a movie or play, it doesn’t need to be changed.
Our whole family was outraged at the changes made to Chitty- Chitty Bang Bang–
The only movie that mproved on a book — that Ihave seen– is From Here to Eternity.
When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.
People retain memories of movies far longer than they do of books or news stories so movies should do more to try to be faithful to books and events– or use only original material.
I hold that dramatic books and dramatic events do not need to be tweaked as much as films do– so many tweak books and events to distortion. Hwever, I am routinely shouted down by the statement that a film is an art form and follwos its own rules.
I do no like it. If a book or event is dramatic enough to warrant t being made into a movie or play, it doesn’t need to be changed.
Our whole family was outraged at the changes made to Chitty- Chitty Bang Bang–
The only movie that mproved on a book — that Ihave seen– is From Here to Eternity.
When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.
People retain memories of movies far longer than they do of books or news stories so movies should do more to try to be faithful to books and events– or use only original material.
I hold that dramatic books and dramatic events do not need to be tweaked as much as films do– so many tweak books and events to distortion. Hwever, I am routinely shouted down by the statement that a film is an art form and follwos its own rules.
I do no like it. If a book or event is dramatic enough to warrant t being made into a movie or play, it doesn’t need to be changed.
Our whole family was outraged at the changes made to Chitty- Chitty Bang Bang–
The only movie that mproved on a book — that Ihave seen– is From Here to Eternity.
When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.
People retain memories of movies far longer than they do of books or news stories so movies should do more to try to be faithful to books and events– or use only original material.
I hold that dramatic books and dramatic events do not need to be tweaked as much as films do– so many tweak books and events to distortion. Hwever, I am routinely shouted down by the statement that a film is an art form and follwos its own rules.
I do no like it. If a book or event is dramatic enough to warrant t being made into a movie or play, it doesn’t need to be changed.
Our whole family was outraged at the changes made to Chitty- Chitty Bang Bang–
The only movie that mproved on a book — that Ihave seen– is From Here to Eternity.
When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.
People retain memories of movies far longer than they do of books or news stories so movies should do more to try to be faithful to books and events– or use only original material.
I hold that dramatic books and dramatic events do not need to be tweaked as much as films do– so many tweak books and events to distortion. Hwever, I am routinely shouted down by the statement that a film is an art form and follwos its own rules.
I do no like it. If a book or event is dramatic enough to warrant t being made into a movie or play, it doesn’t need to be changed.
Our whole family was outraged at the changes made to Chitty- Chitty Bang Bang–
The only movie that mproved on a book — that Ihave seen– is From Here to Eternity.
When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.
People retain memories of movies far longer than they do of books or news stories so movies should do more to try to be faithful to books and events– or use only original material.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
I saw Argo and was on the edge of my seat the whole time even though I knew there was a relatively happy ending–say what you will, that adorable Ben Affleck knows how to make a movie. But I agree it would have been easy to run a disclaimer at the end.
I don’t expect truth from Hollywood, whether it’s adherence to fiction or facts. I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.
Karin–
I remember when MISSISSIPI BURNING was released, for the only time in memory the very good local newspaper movie critic gave it two ratines–4 stars for its power as a movie, 0 stars for its historicity. More distant history is less visceral, but civil rights are still a burning issue in this country,
Karin–
I remember when MISSISSIPI BURNING was released, for the only time in memory the very good local newspaper movie critic gave it two ratines–4 stars for its power as a movie, 0 stars for its historicity. More distant history is less visceral, but civil rights are still a burning issue in this country,
Karin–
I remember when MISSISSIPI BURNING was released, for the only time in memory the very good local newspaper movie critic gave it two ratines–4 stars for its power as a movie, 0 stars for its historicity. More distant history is less visceral, but civil rights are still a burning issue in this country,
Karin–
I remember when MISSISSIPI BURNING was released, for the only time in memory the very good local newspaper movie critic gave it two ratines–4 stars for its power as a movie, 0 stars for its historicity. More distant history is less visceral, but civil rights are still a burning issue in this country,
Karin–
I remember when MISSISSIPI BURNING was released, for the only time in memory the very good local newspaper movie critic gave it two ratines–4 stars for its power as a movie, 0 stars for its historicity. More distant history is less visceral, but civil rights are still a burning issue in this country,
Jessica–
I agree–they could have included the contributions of the Brits and New Zealanders without reducing the power of the movie. And they should have.
Jessica–
I agree–they could have included the contributions of the Brits and New Zealanders without reducing the power of the movie. And they should have.
Jessica–
I agree–they could have included the contributions of the Brits and New Zealanders without reducing the power of the movie. And they should have.
Jessica–
I agree–they could have included the contributions of the Brits and New Zealanders without reducing the power of the movie. And they should have.
Jessica–
I agree–they could have included the contributions of the Brits and New Zealanders without reducing the power of the movie. And they should have.
HJ–
I agree. The film makers did a brilliant job of creating a sense of terrifying menace–they didn’t have to slander the heroic actions of people who were there to get their impact. And they shouldn’t have done it.
HJ–
I agree. The film makers did a brilliant job of creating a sense of terrifying menace–they didn’t have to slander the heroic actions of people who were there to get their impact. And they shouldn’t have done it.
HJ–
I agree. The film makers did a brilliant job of creating a sense of terrifying menace–they didn’t have to slander the heroic actions of people who were there to get their impact. And they shouldn’t have done it.
HJ–
I agree. The film makers did a brilliant job of creating a sense of terrifying menace–they didn’t have to slander the heroic actions of people who were there to get their impact. And they shouldn’t have done it.
HJ–
I agree. The film makers did a brilliant job of creating a sense of terrifying menace–they didn’t have to slander the heroic actions of people who were there to get their impact. And they shouldn’t have done it.
Fiona–
I agree–having the fugitives flee from the British embassy just ahead of the bad guys to a safer place with the Canadian ambassador would have been exciting. Having it said that the New Zealanders had prepared a back up bolt hole but no idea how long that would be safe would have worked.
As a writer, I think that most of the time, you can use the truth with no more than a bit of tweaking. Not doing so was lazy and wrong.
Fiona–
I agree–having the fugitives flee from the British embassy just ahead of the bad guys to a safer place with the Canadian ambassador would have been exciting. Having it said that the New Zealanders had prepared a back up bolt hole but no idea how long that would be safe would have worked.
As a writer, I think that most of the time, you can use the truth with no more than a bit of tweaking. Not doing so was lazy and wrong.
Fiona–
I agree–having the fugitives flee from the British embassy just ahead of the bad guys to a safer place with the Canadian ambassador would have been exciting. Having it said that the New Zealanders had prepared a back up bolt hole but no idea how long that would be safe would have worked.
As a writer, I think that most of the time, you can use the truth with no more than a bit of tweaking. Not doing so was lazy and wrong.
Fiona–
I agree–having the fugitives flee from the British embassy just ahead of the bad guys to a safer place with the Canadian ambassador would have been exciting. Having it said that the New Zealanders had prepared a back up bolt hole but no idea how long that would be safe would have worked.
As a writer, I think that most of the time, you can use the truth with no more than a bit of tweaking. Not doing so was lazy and wrong.
Fiona–
I agree–having the fugitives flee from the British embassy just ahead of the bad guys to a safer place with the Canadian ambassador would have been exciting. Having it said that the New Zealanders had prepared a back up bolt hole but no idea how long that would be safe would have worked.
As a writer, I think that most of the time, you can use the truth with no more than a bit of tweaking. Not doing so was lazy and wrong.
***When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.***
Exactly so, Nancy.
***When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.***
Exactly so, Nancy.
***When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.***
Exactly so, Nancy.
***When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.***
Exactly so, Nancy.
***When movies are made of real life events sometimes things do need to be streamlined and some participants omitted. However, the movie should not be guilty of deliberate falsehood. That is dishonest.***
Exactly so, Nancy.
***I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.***
That could actually have been the case, Maggie–no TV there to make people feel unfsshionable. *G* But there’s a BIG difference between Georgian and Regency! And then there’s the famous Pride and Prejudice (with Olivier, I think), where they were all wearing Victorian dresses. Sigh.
***I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.***
That could actually have been the case, Maggie–no TV there to make people feel unfsshionable. *G* But there’s a BIG difference between Georgian and Regency! And then there’s the famous Pride and Prejudice (with Olivier, I think), where they were all wearing Victorian dresses. Sigh.
***I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.***
That could actually have been the case, Maggie–no TV there to make people feel unfsshionable. *G* But there’s a BIG difference between Georgian and Regency! And then there’s the famous Pride and Prejudice (with Olivier, I think), where they were all wearing Victorian dresses. Sigh.
***I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.***
That could actually have been the case, Maggie–no TV there to make people feel unfsshionable. *G* But there’s a BIG difference between Georgian and Regency! And then there’s the famous Pride and Prejudice (with Olivier, I think), where they were all wearing Victorian dresses. Sigh.
***I started watching a movie set in 1813 the other day and the women were all wearing Georgian dresses. Maybe they were just very unfashionable, LOL.***
That could actually have been the case, Maggie–no TV there to make people feel unfsshionable. *G* But there’s a BIG difference between Georgian and Regency! And then there’s the famous Pride and Prejudice (with Olivier, I think), where they were all wearing Victorian dresses. Sigh.
I haven’t seen Argo, but I think the distortion was irresponsible in the first place and failing to include a full disclaimer once the filmmakers chose to distort is reprehensible. I think it was Cleanth Brooks who said, “History is a fiction often retold.” Unfortunately, this movie created a fiction that will likely be retold as history.
I haven’t seen Argo, but I think the distortion was irresponsible in the first place and failing to include a full disclaimer once the filmmakers chose to distort is reprehensible. I think it was Cleanth Brooks who said, “History is a fiction often retold.” Unfortunately, this movie created a fiction that will likely be retold as history.
I haven’t seen Argo, but I think the distortion was irresponsible in the first place and failing to include a full disclaimer once the filmmakers chose to distort is reprehensible. I think it was Cleanth Brooks who said, “History is a fiction often retold.” Unfortunately, this movie created a fiction that will likely be retold as history.
I haven’t seen Argo, but I think the distortion was irresponsible in the first place and failing to include a full disclaimer once the filmmakers chose to distort is reprehensible. I think it was Cleanth Brooks who said, “History is a fiction often retold.” Unfortunately, this movie created a fiction that will likely be retold as history.
I haven’t seen Argo, but I think the distortion was irresponsible in the first place and failing to include a full disclaimer once the filmmakers chose to distort is reprehensible. I think it was Cleanth Brooks who said, “History is a fiction often retold.” Unfortunately, this movie created a fiction that will likely be retold as history.
I loved Argo, in part because I thought Alan Arkin was a hoot — and, if I remember correctly, his character did not exist as shown but was a composite. Was on the edge of my seat and frankly did not remember that they said anything at all about the Brits or NZ so it did not even enter my consciousness to wonder whether it was right or wrong. Saw the movie with a friend and afterward we both did some research and found that the drama at the end was far overstated. Nonetheless, still enjoyed it immensely.
I should say, however, that I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here.
I loved Argo, in part because I thought Alan Arkin was a hoot — and, if I remember correctly, his character did not exist as shown but was a composite. Was on the edge of my seat and frankly did not remember that they said anything at all about the Brits or NZ so it did not even enter my consciousness to wonder whether it was right or wrong. Saw the movie with a friend and afterward we both did some research and found that the drama at the end was far overstated. Nonetheless, still enjoyed it immensely.
I should say, however, that I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here.
I loved Argo, in part because I thought Alan Arkin was a hoot — and, if I remember correctly, his character did not exist as shown but was a composite. Was on the edge of my seat and frankly did not remember that they said anything at all about the Brits or NZ so it did not even enter my consciousness to wonder whether it was right or wrong. Saw the movie with a friend and afterward we both did some research and found that the drama at the end was far overstated. Nonetheless, still enjoyed it immensely.
I should say, however, that I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here.
I loved Argo, in part because I thought Alan Arkin was a hoot — and, if I remember correctly, his character did not exist as shown but was a composite. Was on the edge of my seat and frankly did not remember that they said anything at all about the Brits or NZ so it did not even enter my consciousness to wonder whether it was right or wrong. Saw the movie with a friend and afterward we both did some research and found that the drama at the end was far overstated. Nonetheless, still enjoyed it immensely.
I should say, however, that I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here.
I loved Argo, in part because I thought Alan Arkin was a hoot — and, if I remember correctly, his character did not exist as shown but was a composite. Was on the edge of my seat and frankly did not remember that they said anything at all about the Brits or NZ so it did not even enter my consciousness to wonder whether it was right or wrong. Saw the movie with a friend and afterward we both did some research and found that the drama at the end was far overstated. Nonetheless, still enjoyed it immensely.
I should say, however, that I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here.
**I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here. **
Well, the Hollywood stuff was very entertaining. *G* I didn’t mind the heightened tension at the end so much–I can see that leaving unimpeded at 5:00 am isn’t terribly dramatic–but that doesn’t really slander anyone. Since you missed the line about being turned away by the Brits and Kiwis, that lost some of its oomph. It was a very enjoyable movie–I just wish they’d stayed a little closer to the truth.
**I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here. **
Well, the Hollywood stuff was very entertaining. *G* I didn’t mind the heightened tension at the end so much–I can see that leaving unimpeded at 5:00 am isn’t terribly dramatic–but that doesn’t really slander anyone. Since you missed the line about being turned away by the Brits and Kiwis, that lost some of its oomph. It was a very enjoyable movie–I just wish they’d stayed a little closer to the truth.
**I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here. **
Well, the Hollywood stuff was very entertaining. *G* I didn’t mind the heightened tension at the end so much–I can see that leaving unimpeded at 5:00 am isn’t terribly dramatic–but that doesn’t really slander anyone. Since you missed the line about being turned away by the Brits and Kiwis, that lost some of its oomph. It was a very enjoyable movie–I just wish they’d stayed a little closer to the truth.
**I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here. **
Well, the Hollywood stuff was very entertaining. *G* I didn’t mind the heightened tension at the end so much–I can see that leaving unimpeded at 5:00 am isn’t terribly dramatic–but that doesn’t really slander anyone. Since you missed the line about being turned away by the Brits and Kiwis, that lost some of its oomph. It was a very enjoyable movie–I just wish they’d stayed a little closer to the truth.
**I am often bothered by exactly this kind of inaccuracy so am not sure why it did not bother me here. **
Well, the Hollywood stuff was very entertaining. *G* I didn’t mind the heightened tension at the end so much–I can see that leaving unimpeded at 5:00 am isn’t terribly dramatic–but that doesn’t really slander anyone. Since you missed the line about being turned away by the Brits and Kiwis, that lost some of its oomph. It was a very enjoyable movie–I just wish they’d stayed a little closer to the truth.
I find it sad that the movie slandered two countries which had been supportive of our citizens. I remember the taking of the embassy and the drama from the actual event was enormous. We were not certain whether everyone would ever be coming home. We were not certain whether people would be murdered for being American. For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf. And the explanation given really sounds like a lot of double speak.
I find it sad that the movie slandered two countries which had been supportive of our citizens. I remember the taking of the embassy and the drama from the actual event was enormous. We were not certain whether everyone would ever be coming home. We were not certain whether people would be murdered for being American. For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf. And the explanation given really sounds like a lot of double speak.
I find it sad that the movie slandered two countries which had been supportive of our citizens. I remember the taking of the embassy and the drama from the actual event was enormous. We were not certain whether everyone would ever be coming home. We were not certain whether people would be murdered for being American. For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf. And the explanation given really sounds like a lot of double speak.
I find it sad that the movie slandered two countries which had been supportive of our citizens. I remember the taking of the embassy and the drama from the actual event was enormous. We were not certain whether everyone would ever be coming home. We were not certain whether people would be murdered for being American. For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf. And the explanation given really sounds like a lot of double speak.
I find it sad that the movie slandered two countries which had been supportive of our citizens. I remember the taking of the embassy and the drama from the actual event was enormous. We were not certain whether everyone would ever be coming home. We were not certain whether people would be murdered for being American. For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf. And the explanation given really sounds like a lot of double speak.
***For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf.***
More than that–it was HUGELY dangerous. The Americans were almost caught at the British embassy (or somewhere British), and were only able to escape because a local Iranian embassy guard lied to the guys who had come looking, saying no one was home. (A version of that was used in the movie.) As one of the Brits involved said in that charming manner of British understatement, they would all have “been for the high jump” if they’d been caught. As in, taken prisoner or maybe shot out of hand. You do NOT diss people and countries who have put their lives on the line for you. That’s just wrong.
***For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf.***
More than that–it was HUGELY dangerous. The Americans were almost caught at the British embassy (or somewhere British), and were only able to escape because a local Iranian embassy guard lied to the guys who had come looking, saying no one was home. (A version of that was used in the movie.) As one of the Brits involved said in that charming manner of British understatement, they would all have “been for the high jump” if they’d been caught. As in, taken prisoner or maybe shot out of hand. You do NOT diss people and countries who have put their lives on the line for you. That’s just wrong.
***For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf.***
More than that–it was HUGELY dangerous. The Americans were almost caught at the British embassy (or somewhere British), and were only able to escape because a local Iranian embassy guard lied to the guys who had come looking, saying no one was home. (A version of that was used in the movie.) As one of the Brits involved said in that charming manner of British understatement, they would all have “been for the high jump” if they’d been caught. As in, taken prisoner or maybe shot out of hand. You do NOT diss people and countries who have put their lives on the line for you. That’s just wrong.
***For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf.***
More than that–it was HUGELY dangerous. The Americans were almost caught at the British embassy (or somewhere British), and were only able to escape because a local Iranian embassy guard lied to the guys who had come looking, saying no one was home. (A version of that was used in the movie.) As one of the Brits involved said in that charming manner of British understatement, they would all have “been for the high jump” if they’d been caught. As in, taken prisoner or maybe shot out of hand. You do NOT diss people and countries who have put their lives on the line for you. That’s just wrong.
***For any country to try to help was a big step up on our behalf.***
More than that–it was HUGELY dangerous. The Americans were almost caught at the British embassy (or somewhere British), and were only able to escape because a local Iranian embassy guard lied to the guys who had come looking, saying no one was home. (A version of that was used in the movie.) As one of the Brits involved said in that charming manner of British understatement, they would all have “been for the high jump” if they’d been caught. As in, taken prisoner or maybe shot out of hand. You do NOT diss people and countries who have put their lives on the line for you. That’s just wrong.
I haven’t seen the movie, mainly for this very reason of skewing the truth. This is also why I usually avoid novels that deal with true people and/or events, like the one about Mary Boleyn. I feel these do an injustice, no matter how long ago the events.
I find history fascinating enough without alteration.
I haven’t seen the movie, mainly for this very reason of skewing the truth. This is also why I usually avoid novels that deal with true people and/or events, like the one about Mary Boleyn. I feel these do an injustice, no matter how long ago the events.
I find history fascinating enough without alteration.
I haven’t seen the movie, mainly for this very reason of skewing the truth. This is also why I usually avoid novels that deal with true people and/or events, like the one about Mary Boleyn. I feel these do an injustice, no matter how long ago the events.
I find history fascinating enough without alteration.
I haven’t seen the movie, mainly for this very reason of skewing the truth. This is also why I usually avoid novels that deal with true people and/or events, like the one about Mary Boleyn. I feel these do an injustice, no matter how long ago the events.
I find history fascinating enough without alteration.
I haven’t seen the movie, mainly for this very reason of skewing the truth. This is also why I usually avoid novels that deal with true people and/or events, like the one about Mary Boleyn. I feel these do an injustice, no matter how long ago the events.
I find history fascinating enough without alteration.
Perpetrating what amounts to slander, all for so-called “dramatic effect,” is dishonorable and disgusting. Nor does it argue any great brilliance of imagination.
I came to grips with this issue some time ago in creating a short film piece on Richard III, and ended at the conclusion that it does not matter if a man has been dead six years, or six hundred: he deserves justice and a true story, given the best information an author has at the time.
We may fictionalize history, but I do not believe that we can rid ourselves of the responsibility to tell the truth in fiction.
Thank you again to Britain, New Zealand, and Canada. I think it’s telling to note that the real heroes have never gone in for self-promotion.
Perpetrating what amounts to slander, all for so-called “dramatic effect,” is dishonorable and disgusting. Nor does it argue any great brilliance of imagination.
I came to grips with this issue some time ago in creating a short film piece on Richard III, and ended at the conclusion that it does not matter if a man has been dead six years, or six hundred: he deserves justice and a true story, given the best information an author has at the time.
We may fictionalize history, but I do not believe that we can rid ourselves of the responsibility to tell the truth in fiction.
Thank you again to Britain, New Zealand, and Canada. I think it’s telling to note that the real heroes have never gone in for self-promotion.
Perpetrating what amounts to slander, all for so-called “dramatic effect,” is dishonorable and disgusting. Nor does it argue any great brilliance of imagination.
I came to grips with this issue some time ago in creating a short film piece on Richard III, and ended at the conclusion that it does not matter if a man has been dead six years, or six hundred: he deserves justice and a true story, given the best information an author has at the time.
We may fictionalize history, but I do not believe that we can rid ourselves of the responsibility to tell the truth in fiction.
Thank you again to Britain, New Zealand, and Canada. I think it’s telling to note that the real heroes have never gone in for self-promotion.
Perpetrating what amounts to slander, all for so-called “dramatic effect,” is dishonorable and disgusting. Nor does it argue any great brilliance of imagination.
I came to grips with this issue some time ago in creating a short film piece on Richard III, and ended at the conclusion that it does not matter if a man has been dead six years, or six hundred: he deserves justice and a true story, given the best information an author has at the time.
We may fictionalize history, but I do not believe that we can rid ourselves of the responsibility to tell the truth in fiction.
Thank you again to Britain, New Zealand, and Canada. I think it’s telling to note that the real heroes have never gone in for self-promotion.
Perpetrating what amounts to slander, all for so-called “dramatic effect,” is dishonorable and disgusting. Nor does it argue any great brilliance of imagination.
I came to grips with this issue some time ago in creating a short film piece on Richard III, and ended at the conclusion that it does not matter if a man has been dead six years, or six hundred: he deserves justice and a true story, given the best information an author has at the time.
We may fictionalize history, but I do not believe that we can rid ourselves of the responsibility to tell the truth in fiction.
Thank you again to Britain, New Zealand, and Canada. I think it’s telling to note that the real heroes have never gone in for self-promotion.
“I am offended by actions and words that damaged the honor of people and nations involved.”
I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.
“I am offended by actions and words that damaged the honor of people and nations involved.”
I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.
“I am offended by actions and words that damaged the honor of people and nations involved.”
I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.
“I am offended by actions and words that damaged the honor of people and nations involved.”
I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.
“I am offended by actions and words that damaged the honor of people and nations involved.”
I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.
Alison–
History is fascinating for sure! A really good fictionalized biography can bring new insights to people of the past, but there’s usually no way of knowing how much is the truth. Me, I stick to fiction so I don’t have to worry about that.
Alison–
History is fascinating for sure! A really good fictionalized biography can bring new insights to people of the past, but there’s usually no way of knowing how much is the truth. Me, I stick to fiction so I don’t have to worry about that.
Alison–
History is fascinating for sure! A really good fictionalized biography can bring new insights to people of the past, but there’s usually no way of knowing how much is the truth. Me, I stick to fiction so I don’t have to worry about that.
Alison–
History is fascinating for sure! A really good fictionalized biography can bring new insights to people of the past, but there’s usually no way of knowing how much is the truth. Me, I stick to fiction so I don’t have to worry about that.
Alison–
History is fascinating for sure! A really good fictionalized biography can bring new insights to people of the past, but there’s usually no way of knowing how much is the truth. Me, I stick to fiction so I don’t have to worry about that.
Lucy–
I suspect that Ben Affleck and his colleagues are movie-makers first and historians second. I can understand that–but it’s not what I would do.
Lucy–
I suspect that Ben Affleck and his colleagues are movie-makers first and historians second. I can understand that–but it’s not what I would do.
Lucy–
I suspect that Ben Affleck and his colleagues are movie-makers first and historians second. I can understand that–but it’s not what I would do.
Lucy–
I suspect that Ben Affleck and his colleagues are movie-makers first and historians second. I can understand that–but it’s not what I would do.
Lucy–
I suspect that Ben Affleck and his colleagues are movie-makers first and historians second. I can understand that–but it’s not what I would do.
*** I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.***
It shouldn’t be, but sadly, it often is. I suppose calling this particular incident out is my way of honoring those who deserve it.
*** I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.***
It shouldn’t be, but sadly, it often is. I suppose calling this particular incident out is my way of honoring those who deserve it.
*** I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.***
It shouldn’t be, but sadly, it often is. I suppose calling this particular incident out is my way of honoring those who deserve it.
*** I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.***
It shouldn’t be, but sadly, it often is. I suppose calling this particular incident out is my way of honoring those who deserve it.
*** I think your statement above says it best. Once you impugn honor, you’ve crossed a line that should never be crossed. Ever.***
It shouldn’t be, but sadly, it often is. I suppose calling this particular incident out is my way of honoring those who deserve it.
Fascinating post, Mary Jo. I haven’t seen the movie.
I do understand the impulse to adjust the facts to make the story better/more dramatic — but not if it knowingly causes damage to others’ reputations, and especially not if it portrays heroes who took real risks, as cowards.
Fascinating post, Mary Jo. I haven’t seen the movie.
I do understand the impulse to adjust the facts to make the story better/more dramatic — but not if it knowingly causes damage to others’ reputations, and especially not if it portrays heroes who took real risks, as cowards.
Fascinating post, Mary Jo. I haven’t seen the movie.
I do understand the impulse to adjust the facts to make the story better/more dramatic — but not if it knowingly causes damage to others’ reputations, and especially not if it portrays heroes who took real risks, as cowards.
Fascinating post, Mary Jo. I haven’t seen the movie.
I do understand the impulse to adjust the facts to make the story better/more dramatic — but not if it knowingly causes damage to others’ reputations, and especially not if it portrays heroes who took real risks, as cowards.
Fascinating post, Mary Jo. I haven’t seen the movie.
I do understand the impulse to adjust the facts to make the story better/more dramatic — but not if it knowingly causes damage to others’ reputations, and especially not if it portrays heroes who took real risks, as cowards.
I haven’t seen the movie but I am afraid Hollywood History has always made me mad .John Wayne apparrently won the second and several other wars single handedly for instance but to knowing alter a true story when those invovled are probably still alive and able to remember is I think beyond the pale.Added to which a large proportion of those watching the film will take what is said as gospel – Hollywood said it it must be true ? All for the sake of maybe two minutes screen time!
I haven’t seen the movie but I am afraid Hollywood History has always made me mad .John Wayne apparrently won the second and several other wars single handedly for instance but to knowing alter a true story when those invovled are probably still alive and able to remember is I think beyond the pale.Added to which a large proportion of those watching the film will take what is said as gospel – Hollywood said it it must be true ? All for the sake of maybe two minutes screen time!
I haven’t seen the movie but I am afraid Hollywood History has always made me mad .John Wayne apparrently won the second and several other wars single handedly for instance but to knowing alter a true story when those invovled are probably still alive and able to remember is I think beyond the pale.Added to which a large proportion of those watching the film will take what is said as gospel – Hollywood said it it must be true ? All for the sake of maybe two minutes screen time!
I haven’t seen the movie but I am afraid Hollywood History has always made me mad .John Wayne apparrently won the second and several other wars single handedly for instance but to knowing alter a true story when those invovled are probably still alive and able to remember is I think beyond the pale.Added to which a large proportion of those watching the film will take what is said as gospel – Hollywood said it it must be true ? All for the sake of maybe two minutes screen time!
I haven’t seen the movie but I am afraid Hollywood History has always made me mad .John Wayne apparrently won the second and several other wars single handedly for instance but to knowing alter a true story when those invovled are probably still alive and able to remember is I think beyond the pale.Added to which a large proportion of those watching the film will take what is said as gospel – Hollywood said it it must be true ? All for the sake of maybe two minutes screen time!
I appreciate a disclaimer, even for older events. Today, many people do not discern as well the difference between history and historical fiction. Time of the event doesn’t make a difference due to the decrease in the amount of time people spending reading history these days. Science and Math are big in the schools which means history gets a brief run through.
I appreciate a disclaimer, even for older events. Today, many people do not discern as well the difference between history and historical fiction. Time of the event doesn’t make a difference due to the decrease in the amount of time people spending reading history these days. Science and Math are big in the schools which means history gets a brief run through.
I appreciate a disclaimer, even for older events. Today, many people do not discern as well the difference between history and historical fiction. Time of the event doesn’t make a difference due to the decrease in the amount of time people spending reading history these days. Science and Math are big in the schools which means history gets a brief run through.
I appreciate a disclaimer, even for older events. Today, many people do not discern as well the difference between history and historical fiction. Time of the event doesn’t make a difference due to the decrease in the amount of time people spending reading history these days. Science and Math are big in the schools which means history gets a brief run through.
I appreciate a disclaimer, even for older events. Today, many people do not discern as well the difference between history and historical fiction. Time of the event doesn’t make a difference due to the decrease in the amount of time people spending reading history these days. Science and Math are big in the schools which means history gets a brief run through.
Anne–
It was a bit surprising the Aussies didn’t get slandered, too, but maybe their embassy was too far away to be a factor. *G*
Anne–
It was a bit surprising the Aussies didn’t get slandered, too, but maybe their embassy was too far away to be a factor. *G*
Anne–
It was a bit surprising the Aussies didn’t get slandered, too, but maybe their embassy was too far away to be a factor. *G*
Anne–
It was a bit surprising the Aussies didn’t get slandered, too, but maybe their embassy was too far away to be a factor. *G*
Anne–
It was a bit surprising the Aussies didn’t get slandered, too, but maybe their embassy was too far away to be a factor. *G*
Argo doesn’t sound like good movie-making, but that should come as no surprise. Distorting facts to create tension is sloppy, unimaginative thinking.
Argo doesn’t sound like good movie-making, but that should come as no surprise. Distorting facts to create tension is sloppy, unimaginative thinking.
Argo doesn’t sound like good movie-making, but that should come as no surprise. Distorting facts to create tension is sloppy, unimaginative thinking.
Argo doesn’t sound like good movie-making, but that should come as no surprise. Distorting facts to create tension is sloppy, unimaginative thinking.
Argo doesn’t sound like good movie-making, but that should come as no surprise. Distorting facts to create tension is sloppy, unimaginative thinking.
I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough. Takes about the same amount of time and words. It was a very jarring moment in the film since I knew it wasn’t true (and I hate distortions like this that uninformed people will take as real; my just about exploded listening to a conversation about how much a group of women had learned from the film Elizabeth).
I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough. Takes about the same amount of time and words. It was a very jarring moment in the film since I knew it wasn’t true (and I hate distortions like this that uninformed people will take as real; my just about exploded listening to a conversation about how much a group of women had learned from the film Elizabeth).
I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough. Takes about the same amount of time and words. It was a very jarring moment in the film since I knew it wasn’t true (and I hate distortions like this that uninformed people will take as real; my just about exploded listening to a conversation about how much a group of women had learned from the film Elizabeth).
I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough. Takes about the same amount of time and words. It was a very jarring moment in the film since I knew it wasn’t true (and I hate distortions like this that uninformed people will take as real; my just about exploded listening to a conversation about how much a group of women had learned from the film Elizabeth).
I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough. Takes about the same amount of time and words. It was a very jarring moment in the film since I knew it wasn’t true (and I hate distortions like this that uninformed people will take as real; my just about exploded listening to a conversation about how much a group of women had learned from the film Elizabeth).
Liz–ARGO was good movie making in the sense that it was tight and exciting and very watchable. I’d say it was bad scriptwriting, though, done by people with insufficient respect for the difference between fiction and reality.
Liz–ARGO was good movie making in the sense that it was tight and exciting and very watchable. I’d say it was bad scriptwriting, though, done by people with insufficient respect for the difference between fiction and reality.
Liz–ARGO was good movie making in the sense that it was tight and exciting and very watchable. I’d say it was bad scriptwriting, though, done by people with insufficient respect for the difference between fiction and reality.
Liz–ARGO was good movie making in the sense that it was tight and exciting and very watchable. I’d say it was bad scriptwriting, though, done by people with insufficient respect for the difference between fiction and reality.
Liz–ARGO was good movie making in the sense that it was tight and exciting and very watchable. I’d say it was bad scriptwriting, though, done by people with insufficient respect for the difference between fiction and reality.
***I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough.***
That was my thought, Isobel. Another piece of silliness was having Ken Taylor say they were probably going to close the embassy, so time was running out. That was pure fabrication. I think the movie makers underestimated what a good job they did creating an atmosphere of menace. They didn’t need the slander at all.
***I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough.***
That was my thought, Isobel. Another piece of silliness was having Ken Taylor say they were probably going to close the embassy, so time was running out. That was pure fabrication. I think the movie makers underestimated what a good job they did creating an atmosphere of menace. They didn’t need the slander at all.
***I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough.***
That was my thought, Isobel. Another piece of silliness was having Ken Taylor say they were probably going to close the embassy, so time was running out. That was pure fabrication. I think the movie makers underestimated what a good job they did creating an atmosphere of menace. They didn’t need the slander at all.
***I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough.***
That was my thought, Isobel. Another piece of silliness was having Ken Taylor say they were probably going to close the embassy, so time was running out. That was pure fabrication. I think the movie makers underestimated what a good job they did creating an atmosphere of menace. They didn’t need the slander at all.
***I liked the film, but I didn’t understand why it was easier or more dramatic to say the Brits and Kiwis didn’t help than it would have been to truthfully say their locations weren’t secure enough.***
That was my thought, Isobel. Another piece of silliness was having Ken Taylor say they were probably going to close the embassy, so time was running out. That was pure fabrication. I think the movie makers underestimated what a good job they did creating an atmosphere of menace. They didn’t need the slander at all.
As an sf fan, I found it interesting that the schlocky script used in the scam was based on a well-thought of novel of the 70s called Lord of Light, by the very talented and sorely missed Roger Zelazny. It probably was an awful adaptation that missed everything Zelazny was about, but in the context of this discussion, it’s just another bit of missed history.
I also think that anybody who sees a movie expecting a strict adherence to history as reported (let alone as it actually happened) is asking for it 🙂
As an sf fan, I found it interesting that the schlocky script used in the scam was based on a well-thought of novel of the 70s called Lord of Light, by the very talented and sorely missed Roger Zelazny. It probably was an awful adaptation that missed everything Zelazny was about, but in the context of this discussion, it’s just another bit of missed history.
I also think that anybody who sees a movie expecting a strict adherence to history as reported (let alone as it actually happened) is asking for it 🙂
As an sf fan, I found it interesting that the schlocky script used in the scam was based on a well-thought of novel of the 70s called Lord of Light, by the very talented and sorely missed Roger Zelazny. It probably was an awful adaptation that missed everything Zelazny was about, but in the context of this discussion, it’s just another bit of missed history.
I also think that anybody who sees a movie expecting a strict adherence to history as reported (let alone as it actually happened) is asking for it 🙂
As an sf fan, I found it interesting that the schlocky script used in the scam was based on a well-thought of novel of the 70s called Lord of Light, by the very talented and sorely missed Roger Zelazny. It probably was an awful adaptation that missed everything Zelazny was about, but in the context of this discussion, it’s just another bit of missed history.
I also think that anybody who sees a movie expecting a strict adherence to history as reported (let alone as it actually happened) is asking for it 🙂
As an sf fan, I found it interesting that the schlocky script used in the scam was based on a well-thought of novel of the 70s called Lord of Light, by the very talented and sorely missed Roger Zelazny. It probably was an awful adaptation that missed everything Zelazny was about, but in the context of this discussion, it’s just another bit of missed history.
I also think that anybody who sees a movie expecting a strict adherence to history as reported (let alone as it actually happened) is asking for it 🙂
Janice–
Good grief! Their fake movie was based on Lord of Light! I had no idea!
You’re right that Hollywood isn’t terribly wedded to historical accuracy, but I do think that some distortions are worse than others. Sigh.
Janice–
Good grief! Their fake movie was based on Lord of Light! I had no idea!
You’re right that Hollywood isn’t terribly wedded to historical accuracy, but I do think that some distortions are worse than others. Sigh.
Janice–
Good grief! Their fake movie was based on Lord of Light! I had no idea!
You’re right that Hollywood isn’t terribly wedded to historical accuracy, but I do think that some distortions are worse than others. Sigh.
Janice–
Good grief! Their fake movie was based on Lord of Light! I had no idea!
You’re right that Hollywood isn’t terribly wedded to historical accuracy, but I do think that some distortions are worse than others. Sigh.
Janice–
Good grief! Their fake movie was based on Lord of Light! I had no idea!
You’re right that Hollywood isn’t terribly wedded to historical accuracy, but I do think that some distortions are worse than others. Sigh.
I haven’t seen Argo but I figured it wasn’t totally accurate.
As for the Count, I don’t think they could make the original story into an interesting movie. There’s so much political stuff. Jim Cavizel is great as the Count and though I liked the book, I loved the movie version.
I haven’t seen Argo but I figured it wasn’t totally accurate.
As for the Count, I don’t think they could make the original story into an interesting movie. There’s so much political stuff. Jim Cavizel is great as the Count and though I liked the book, I loved the movie version.
I haven’t seen Argo but I figured it wasn’t totally accurate.
As for the Count, I don’t think they could make the original story into an interesting movie. There’s so much political stuff. Jim Cavizel is great as the Count and though I liked the book, I loved the movie version.
I haven’t seen Argo but I figured it wasn’t totally accurate.
As for the Count, I don’t think they could make the original story into an interesting movie. There’s so much political stuff. Jim Cavizel is great as the Count and though I liked the book, I loved the movie version.
I haven’t seen Argo but I figured it wasn’t totally accurate.
As for the Count, I don’t think they could make the original story into an interesting movie. There’s so much political stuff. Jim Cavizel is great as the Count and though I liked the book, I loved the movie version.
Susan–
I agree that the recent Monte Cristo movie worked a lot better onscreen than a more literal transcription of the book, which would take a miniseries at the least. *G* I thought Guy Pearce was also very good. It was very entertaining for sure.
Susan–
I agree that the recent Monte Cristo movie worked a lot better onscreen than a more literal transcription of the book, which would take a miniseries at the least. *G* I thought Guy Pearce was also very good. It was very entertaining for sure.
Susan–
I agree that the recent Monte Cristo movie worked a lot better onscreen than a more literal transcription of the book, which would take a miniseries at the least. *G* I thought Guy Pearce was also very good. It was very entertaining for sure.
Susan–
I agree that the recent Monte Cristo movie worked a lot better onscreen than a more literal transcription of the book, which would take a miniseries at the least. *G* I thought Guy Pearce was also very good. It was very entertaining for sure.
Susan–
I agree that the recent Monte Cristo movie worked a lot better onscreen than a more literal transcription of the book, which would take a miniseries at the least. *G* I thought Guy Pearce was also very good. It was very entertaining for sure.
The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember.
Years ago my husband’s boss Bob told him that he had just seen a remarkable documentary. When Gary asked what it was, Bob replied, “All the President’s Men”. While it was an interesting movie, I hardly think it was a documentary.
The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember.
Years ago my husband’s boss Bob told him that he had just seen a remarkable documentary. When Gary asked what it was, Bob replied, “All the President’s Men”. While it was an interesting movie, I hardly think it was a documentary.
The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember.
Years ago my husband’s boss Bob told him that he had just seen a remarkable documentary. When Gary asked what it was, Bob replied, “All the President’s Men”. While it was an interesting movie, I hardly think it was a documentary.
The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember.
Years ago my husband’s boss Bob told him that he had just seen a remarkable documentary. When Gary asked what it was, Bob replied, “All the President’s Men”. While it was an interesting movie, I hardly think it was a documentary.
The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember.
Years ago my husband’s boss Bob told him that he had just seen a remarkable documentary. When Gary asked what it was, Bob replied, “All the President’s Men”. While it was an interesting movie, I hardly think it was a documentary.
***The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember. ***
Donna, that’s exactly what bothers me. Visual imagery is so powerful, and movies are so slick, that the images can kick the less interesting details out of the stadium. As an amateur historian, I think coming as close to the truth as possible matters.
***The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember. ***
Donna, that’s exactly what bothers me. Visual imagery is so powerful, and movies are so slick, that the images can kick the less interesting details out of the stadium. As an amateur historian, I think coming as close to the truth as possible matters.
***The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember. ***
Donna, that’s exactly what bothers me. Visual imagery is so powerful, and movies are so slick, that the images can kick the less interesting details out of the stadium. As an amateur historian, I think coming as close to the truth as possible matters.
***The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember. ***
Donna, that’s exactly what bothers me. Visual imagery is so powerful, and movies are so slick, that the images can kick the less interesting details out of the stadium. As an amateur historian, I think coming as close to the truth as possible matters.
***The sad thing about all this discussion about the movie Argo is that for many people, even the ones old enough to remember the event, is that movie becomes the history they remember. ***
Donna, that’s exactly what bothers me. Visual imagery is so powerful, and movies are so slick, that the images can kick the less interesting details out of the stadium. As an amateur historian, I think coming as close to the truth as possible matters.