Originally Posted by Penman
With Argo, Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty
, and to a lesser extent, The Master
, the question of a feature film's historical accuracy was rightly front and center this year.
IMHO "It's just a movie!" is a disingenuous dodge by cake-eating cake havers.
If filmmakers didn't want the added appeal and cachet of "Based on a True Story" attached to their movies, they'd change all the identifying facts and keep the essence of whatever appealed to them about the story.
Which is precisely what PTA did with The Master
. He was interested in the psychology of and interaction between severely damaged leaders and followers; he could not, apparently, care less as to whether L. Ron Hubbard (I almost typed P. T. Barnum--why?) had affairs or drank or buried his best "scriptures" or whatever.Zero Dark Thirty
are much, much more problematic on this question of historical accuracy, and their creators take the cake-eating cake-having cake: Both Bigelow and Affleck say--even in the space of the same interview--"It's history, it's a true story" and "It's just a movie, it's a story." I like my Dodgeball
with Ben Stiller, thank you.
For better or worse (worse, come on
), in our ahistorical aholed-ridden country, movie history IS history, and so getting something wrong (Torture Got Bin Laden--YAY!) has consequences.