History According to Hollywood

It did not happen.

Hey, Brandon, Craven is right, but I don't recall Travolta making that statement in the movie.

I got my post graduate degree from UVA, and it was a basic requirement to know and like TJ. According to my sister, Thomas Jefferson co-signed a note for a friend and lost everything, even Monticello. Soooo, it seems that he, too, had his flaws.

You are quite right about the movies rewriting history, however. I suppose they must in order to catch the imagination of the public.

Rewriting history? Turning a book into a movie, they even rewrite fiction!

Re: History According to Hollywood

I think the screenwriters were confusing Jefferson with one of his successors, Franklin Pierce, who, in an unusual incident, shot a traitor to death on the White House lawn. Strangely, this occurred in 1858, more than a year after Pierce left the White House. Furthermore, the man he shot wasn't a traitor, but a barrel-maker named Tarnation E. Jones. It was suspected that alcohol may have played a part in the affair.



But seriously folks...

but seriously, folks..heh heh. We do know that Jefferson may have been the instigator in the Alex Hamilton/Burr duel. Ah, Alex. Now there's a man who had a vision. While Jefferson viewed the future of America as agricultural, Hamilton view us as industrial.

That's okay, Tom. Loves you anyway.

Whereas Aaron Burr viewed America as a commodity, for sale to the highest bidder.

Now that is the true visionary.

Here's some other historical anomolies in the movies:

-'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" has gunpowder explosions way before anyone bought it back from China
-In 'Braveheart' Wallace and Edward I die very close together, in reality Wallace died in 1304 and Edward I in 1307
-In 'Braveheart' again, the flaming Edward II is shown as being married and his bride has Wallace's child, in reality they weren't married till 1308 and the first child born in 1312

Actually, TJ had a lifelong problem with living beyond his means. If I'm not mistaken, at the time he died, there was something in the works to take up a collection nationally to pay his debts.

Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton both took part in the abortive assault on Quebec in December 1775. They were a part of the force under the command of General Montgomery, which was cooperating with a force lead by Benedict Arnold. Arnold's force had arrived after a truly epic and heroic march through the wilds of Maine (i've driven it, i wouldn't want to break down there). The assault failed, Montgomery was killed and Arnold was badly wounded. Burr and Hamilton both immediately leveled recriminations at one another for failures in judgment. (The Americans might have taken the city with a little more luck, but it was too complex a plan executed at nightfall in a snow storm--they basically "screwed" their own opportunity.) By the time the duel took place, almost 30 years later, both men had cordially hated one another for a generation, and were political opponents and rivals.

Neither of them needed anyone else's help or intervention to lead them to the dueling ground.

I believe that our friend, Alex, had a life long habit of challenging people to duels. In most cases, the person he challenged would simply back down and apologize.

Hamilton certainly was very touchy. Washington employed him for a long time as his informal chief of staff, because he had the energy and talents. Hamilton resented that he had never been given a combat command by Washington, and got very petty and childish with him. At Yorktown, Washington gave him command of the assault on the British redout, and the Americans performed to a much higher standard than their French allies. Hamilton certainly had the leadership skills, but Washington had found him more useful in the staff position. That probably accounts for why Washington chose him for his first cabinet. Even a casual reading of Hamilton's life suggests that he didn't play well with others. Burr was simply a morose type who seems always to have felt that life had cheated him. The outcome should surprise no one familiar with either man.

What an interesting collection of personalities and intellects our Founding Fathers were!

You said a mouthful!

Mr Stillwater: "Braveheart" is chock full of historical errors -- which wouldn't be particularly troubling, except that Mel Gibson, I believe, actually thought that he was being accurate. Yet his depictions of the battles of Stirling Bridge (awful) and Falkirk (godawful) are not just bad history, I don't think they're particularly good cinema either. Better depictions of medieval combat can be found in Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V."

In general, however, movies don't do a very good job of depicting combat, especially pre-World War II combat. Granted, back in the "golden age of Hollywood," there wasn't much of an attempt at accuracy (although the late 20s and early 30s saw some good World War I films), but now there's much less excuse. Yet I continue to see one thing that always bothers me:

Exploding cannonballs.

Prior to the invention of shrapnel in the early nineteenth century, most field artillery pieces fired roundshot, which was simply a solid iron ball. Solid iron balls don't explode -- instead, they work just like bowling balls, flying, bouncing, and rolling, but not exploding . And if you happened to get in the way of one, you might end up like this:



(That's a steel cuirass worn by a French carabinier killed by a cannonball at the battle of Waterloo)

Nevertheless, movies depicting combat in the pre-mechanized era routinely show exploding cannonballs (another Mel Gibson effort, "The Patriot," actually shows roundshot accurately in some of the early scenes, but then reverts to the traditional exploding cannonballs later in the film). I suppose that exploding cannonballs are just more visually -- and aurally -- appealing. But it ain't history.

The study of History is not entertainment, though it certainly can be entertaining. However, I doubt that many people would queue up to pay over ten dollars to experience the joy one can find in an obscure reference that suddenly explains what had earlier been a minor mystery. Serious students know that even the finest historical writing has to be taken with caution. Did the writer truly do good research and analysis, or did they rush their book into print by cutting corners? A great historian in one place and period, may be an absolute duffus about the events and trends that existed in a different time and place. The writer will bring to his work his own prejudices, desires, and expectations. That can really hurt credibility.

It is impossible to completely know and understand what happened with even the best documented event. Lets take a single well-known event that was exceptionally well-documented as an example. President Reagan crosses a sidewalk to get into his limo. A man steps out of the crowd and fires a small caliber handgun. Reagan is wounded as are other bystanders, as the Secret Service whip into action. Reagan is rushed off to the hospital, the wounded are taken for treatment, and the assailant is arrested. I could, with just a little research give the day, date, time and even the weather. With a careful analysis of the videotape we might reconstruct what happened during those few moments. We could add chapters of detail on the biographies of each of the participants, and produce verbatim their reports of what they saw and did. What did each of the participants feel emotionally as the event unfolded? That sort of information is rarely reported. In fact, all of the reports were filed after the event, and after each of the witnesses composed themselves and sorted out a coherent "story" that makes sense from their own perspective. Some perhaps feeling guilt, will offer a version that exculpates, and others whose story is designed to promote their heroism will choose a different means of reporting the event. The would-be assassin probably has never entirely come to terms with his motives and whatever it was that drove him to the act. Even if he were perfectly sane and coldly calculated every step of his actions, his edited version will be lacking in the full details of what happened. We could investigate, analyze, and end up writing a thick book on those few minutes, and in the end not even come close to the "Full Truth" of it. Historians know this, and allow for it, but most people think that "seeing is believing", that a written report by a trusted witness is the Truth. Photographs may not exactly lie, but they are often terribly misleading.

The further we go back into history, the more interpreters there are between us and the event, the greater the probable error. No one now living has a truly definitive understanding of what life was really like in 5th century Athens, but there are some experts whose opinion is worth more than others. There are some historian's whose understanding of what happened during the final days of WWII is more valuable than the first hand accounts of people who actually lived through those times. Good historians don't have THE TRUTH of events, but they often are able to see the Big Picture better, and with more trained objectivity than the non-historian.

On the other hand, movies, television and novels are entrainment, and should not be expected to accurately portray an historical event. People buy their tickets not to learn, but to spend an hour or so being thrilled, romanced, or humored. One of the great movie moguls once pointed out that the operative term for "show-business", is business. What will attract the most customers? If there is a mass audience for pie-in-the-face and drooping drawers, then that is what will find its way onto the screen. No rational person believes that a human being can outrun the effects of an explosion, but in Hollywood that's done every day and the money just keeps rolling in. I doubt that any serious student of history is likely to be misled by the very best of the "historical" stories served up. Screen writers are not historians, but experts in delivering mass audiences. Unfortunately, most folks don't know squat about history and so they believe the most blatant falsehoods because they cater to popular fancy and/or emotions.

Thank you for your most interesting analysis, Asherman.

Asherman, your post reminded me of S.L.A. Marshall. He was an Army historian during the Second World War and the Korean conflict. He travelled across Europe, and in the Pacific, and "de-briefed" G.I.'s as soon after an action as possible. The view from the foxhole gives quite a different picture than one gets from "standard" histories. The immediacy of the interviews he conducted is important as well. He has commented on the surprise that G.I.'s from the same squad would express at how other soldiers described the same combat experience.

Thanks for that asherman... i being film student compleley agree with the term show bussiness as it's all about the money not baout teaching the audience and besides 'Braveheart" did have a message although maybe not historically correct, it said some things are worht dying for.

Thanks for that asherman... i being film student compleley agree with the term show bussiness as it's all about the money not baout teaching the audience and besides 'Braveheart" did have a message although maybe not historically correct, it said some things are worht dying for.