I recently saw the movie Anastasia. It was fantastically departed from the real story of the Romanov family. That made me think of all of these other movies, animated ones in particular. Pocohontas, Hercules, ah....I can't think of any others. If a movie is purportedly based on history, then it should be based on history. Otherwise, they should make it clear that it is a fantasy, or some sort of alternative history. Movies that are based on a story have some leeway in artistic interpretation and such things. But movies based on historical events should stay true to those historical events as much as possible. You cannot rewrite history simply to make it fit your story better. A tweak here and there, perhaps an anachronism or two are acceptable if they really do make things flow better. But making shit up...no no no.

I am a history student. That might colour my view of things. I think history is important. Apparently my way of thinking is not in vogue in these movie studios. Why is it important to portray history accurately? Well, I think that these movie studios sort of have to realize their social responsibility. Kids watch movie, and in large part, probably believe what they see. I mean, you aren't going to question things when you're a little kid, for the most part. So you accept it as reality. If you don't learn better, maybe you go through your whole life thinking that the version of the overthrow of the czar in Anastasia is the correct one.

This is bad. This is bad because history in part defines who we are and what the issues are in the world around us. The fall of the Romanov dynasty was one of the events that made possible the existence of Communist Russia for the next seventy years or so, and in large part defined the world as we know it. Now if everybody thought that it was all caused by the ghost of a fraudulent madman, that'd just be stupid, wouldn't it?

hey, Cal? how many 3-10 year olds do you know who realize that there *actually* was an Anastasia? kids don't know that the movie was based on history, however distorted it may be. most of 'em don't care, either. they learn that stuff later. the "target audience" in most disney films can't tie their own shoes, let alone discern the difference between history and fantasy.

me

That's exactly my point. They can't tell the difference between history and fantasy, so why is Disney presenting fantasy AS history? I'm not worried about myself, I know exactly how much of the movie is reality and how much is bullshit. But the kids don't. They don't care? They also probably wouldn't much care if Disney was pornographic or something. When I was 3-10, I wouldn't have minded a bit. Are you saying that we should show that stuff in Disney films too? They can always learn later that porn is...not wholesome. It's flat out lying to kids because it's inconvenient for you to tell the truth. That's not how I plan to raise my kids.

Calvin

who's the me imposter :P anyhow, does Disney really promote that their films ARE history or just BASED on history? basing a film on history is a totally different story..like those films that say: This film is based on a true story. How much of Erin Brokovich (sp?) is indeed true?

Well, there are no films that really ARE history except for actual footage taken at the actual time or something like that, right? Everything else is just a simulation of some sort. The question is where the line is between historically based, and pure fantasy. For example, I could make a movie called Mulroney, for example, and this movie might be like a Van Damme action flick. The actor could look like Brian Mulroney. And the situation, for example, is the introduction of the GST. Mulroney is running around in a bulletproof vest shooting down everybody he sees. Something like that. Clearly, Mulroney is a historical character, and there are some elements of true history in it. But just as clearly, it is not historically based! It's based in pure fantasy, with some characters borrowed from real history. The audience that the film is geared towards would know it and acknowledge it. But Disney is not the same. For one thing, it is not immediately clear to me whether the film is historically based or pure fantasy. From knowing the real facts, I know it to be pure fantasy, but if I didn't, I would have a hard time figuring it out. In order for a film to be historically based, it has to be in the same spirit as history. Not all of the details must be the same, I don't argue that the director must have some sort of creative stuff going on. But the spirit of it....I don't know anything about Erin Brockovich. But for a movie for example, like Pearl Harbour, even though I know some of it is bullshit, it remains true to the spirit of the event. You see?

Calvin

what about Titanic? one survivor refused to see it b/c of the pain it caused and the other saw it and said that it was way not history. i never saw disney to be history based even as a child to see bambi, the little mermaid, beauty and the beast, well not only is the movie animated to dispell ideas of truth, but wait, why are we suddenly attacking Disney when Anatasia was done by WB or Fox if I remember correctly??

I don't know about Titanic. I don't see the survivor who refused to see it as relevant to our discussion. The other guy, well, what was it about the movie that he found objectionable? Perhaps you can provide a few concrete details to better illustrate your point, because I don't really know what to say about that. I'm not an expert on what happened on the Titanic, but there was nothing like the level of glaring historical crap as there was in Anastasia.

Bambi, Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast are not historically based. I never said they were. They are fantasy, made up stories. Anastasia was a real person. And how is it that a movie being animated means that it does not tell the truth? I don't follow that point at all.

I don't know who made Anastasia, but please note that in my original entry, I made sure not to villify Disney. I didn't even mention the name Disney. In subsequent comments, I was merely responding to points made by others.

Calvin

Your name:

Please post any comments you have.


Back to main. 1