Marxist
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Posts
- 18,322
Cheyenne said:Please. You expect us to believe that you want only historically accurate movies? There is a difference between fiction and non-fiction. If a movie is fiction, I don't assume historical accuracy that isn't meant to be there. It isn't the entertainment industry's responsibility to "teach" the masses.
It's not possible to re-create anything moment by moment and put it on-screen. Not even documentaries are capable of this.
The better question one should ask one's self is found in a movie like "The Patriot." If the setting, costumes, accents (maybe not?), and war are as authentic as possible, why shouldn't one assume the tactics used were as well?
They weren't. They fudged. Big time. Most of what was shown was a continuation in the Grand Myth of Hollywood that has America winning the war as self-styled Indian fighters, hiding behind trees and rocks and picking off the stupid Brits who marched in line. This is a lie. The film-makers knew this but liked it better because it gave them a chance to showcase Mel Gibson running and shooting and taking revenge (a big mottif in his movie career).
Did you know this? Be honest.
Does it matter that they fudged? Maybe. Maybe not. But if 3/4 of a film are dead on perfect, who's to tell the ignorant what's what?