Thanks hrishim.
These are movies. They aren't documentaries. Poetic license is totally fine. Story is more important than detail in historical fiction. Herzog is the greatest filmmaker who mixes fact and fiction to get at a deeper truth. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the factual flaws for the purpose of making sure the audience isn't confused, but don't let it impugn the film.
When does poetic license become propaganda? Does a film being propaganda change its worth as a film?
It's certainly possible, but the criticisms of these films are mostly on their factual inaccuracies. That I have a problem with. Criticize them for their propaganda all you want. But I don't think its relevant which senator voted yay or nay for this or that legislation to determine if Lincoln is a good film.
When you get history wrong the question is why. In zerodark30 torture gets them results in real life not so much. Why choose to get that wrong?
That's one specific example, and its still irrelevant to the question of whether events should be 'true' in movies. Maybe it is propaganda, or maybe Kathryn Bigelow just likes the action sequences. It's not as if one can't make a propaganda documentary. Triumph of the Will was a documentary. Does it show any kind of truth? Fictional films would be boring if they were honest attempts at capturing facts.
On a personal note, I saw the film and thought it was pretty great at moments but extremely cheesy most of the time. I saw it right before beginning Ken Burns' the Civil War documentary and I wish it had brought the era to life in a more gritty and real way. I felt like I was watching a movie the whole time and was never completely submersed in the film.But I don't think its relevant which senator voted yay or nay for this or that legislation to determine if Lincoln is a good film.
I would agree with this. But..some people I've spoken with take issue with it because it touts itself as being historically accurate. It is supposed to be based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography, "A Team of Rivals", which was heralded for it's fresh perspective of Lincoln. If you say, "hey, look how accurate I am," and then it turns out you aren't, people have the right to call you out on it. Does it make it any less entertaining? No.
I'm not really really defending Lincoln, per se. I'm defending the practice of taking liberties with facts. I didn't read Spielberg talking about how historical his movie is. If he sis that, then he should be shamed. Otherwise, I don't really think it adds anything to a movie to be "historically accurate". Am I supposed to look down on The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, because dynamite wasn't invented during the Civil War. Makes for a better move, so be it.
I'm with you. Am I supposed to look down on the Three Amigos for... well, most everything in the Three Amigos? Hell no. Best movie ever.
I'm almost 100 percent sure that this movie, which was after all entitled Lincoln, in fact turned the story of a heroic white man into a partial history of African-American freedom. At the very least a dramatic retelling. What a ridiculous criticism.but the deeper objection to “Lincoln” has to do with the way it turns the history of African-American freedom into the story of a heroic white man.
Why is Django Unchained even in this discussion? It's just Tarantino rewriting history like he did with Inglorious Basterds