Ever since movies began to be made after historical events they always include inaccuracies in the ways they depict them. Film’s ability to offer visual representation of historical events sure beat reading a book due to the fact they fill the viewer up with information and entertainment. History films are a stand-in for reality, leading the viewer to witness wars, and events as if he/she is present during that time. Directors tend to see the injunction to present the past accurately in terms of plot and set design and do whatever it is possible to get these details right. The focus of some directors is to catch the viewers’ attention so that people will actually go see the film.
More times than not it is the editing that takes more time than actually shooting the film, but many would agree there is no more important aspect of a film than the editing, because it can make the film almost come alive in a sense. For many horror films they want you to feel like you are right there in the movie so they used the long shots with the dark lighting and might zoom in at certain spots scene, and the transition from once scene is faster than other genres because they do not want you to necessarily be able to catch your breath, or vice versa when you think you won’t be able to catch your breath they hit you with a calm scene, it is the keeping you on the edge of your seat aspect. You speed up a slowed down scene in Django it just might not be a number one movie anymore, you don’t zoom in, use a cross fade transition, then The Conjuring just gets thrown into a box with the other horror films not really standing out on its own two feet. Each film had to have its own atmosphere and mood. Nothing was more different then the sounds in both of these films.
The film industry, one of the most competitive markets out there. However, big name films such as "The Hangover," are being made to entertain viewers of certain ages. Hollywood tries to capture different lifestyles people wish they can live but unfortunately cannot. Sometimes the audience will try to mimic events in some movies. The outcome of these attempts makes you feel like these people are being victimized by Hollywood films.
Hollywood favors drama and conflict, so when an historical story lacks one of these elements, it is often simply added for the sake of appeal. This practice falls under great scrutiny by those with a serious interest in the events that these movies portray. Because the better part of American viewers expect and demand stories told with the Hollywood spin, those films that attempt to stick doggedly to the facts generally do poorly in the box-office.  Many historical films, however, have found success while staying true to the facts. These films oftentimes come from producers, directors, and actors with a genuine concern for the events they deal with.
With a movie to watch, Americans sought refuge in a fantasy world. Films during this time were a perfect distraction. Not only for audiences but also for the artist creating their work. It was extremely successful in accessing a world different from our own, but unfortunately because of the depression, movies were too expensive to pay for. Even the most successfully hollywood production companies weren't depression proof.
The new device created a large amount of controversy. Suddenly, people could record and copy television shows and movies and do with the content what they pleased. Film studios and television networks feared the consequences of the consumer-empowering VCRs. After a significant amount of debate and lawsuits about copyright and ethical issues surrounding VCRs, manufacturers and content-providers began to relax as consumers widely purchased the devices and in turn, began renting more videos.i In the end, everyone won as VCRs created a new movie rental market and also benefited consumers. These days, technology does not need to be revolutionary to scare people and cause controversy; it only needs to be evolutionary, in that large technological leaps are not as important.
Due to the nature of movies, there are some large disadvantages to using film as a medium for historical portrayal. Movies tend to play up certain character traits or moments in time to further the plotline. The destructiveness and greed of certain characters in this movie, like Aguirre, was certainly exaggerated. These exaggerations often over dramatize the situation, which as a filmmaker is not necessarily a bad thing. In a historical drama, as opposed to a documentary, you have the unsung responsibility to keep the audience interested and entertained.
As time goes on, history has a way of getting distorted from its most truthful form. Time causes people to drift away from accuracy and become more interested in what they want to remember. Hollywood has a reputation of creating films that cater more to the average viewer, rather than the history buff. Inglorious Basterds, by Quentin Taratino, take very liberal liberty with a history story, and creates a story that will sell to the crowd. This may seem dubious, but it is often not such a bad thing.
There were quite a few other books mentioned in “History by Hollywood”, but I felt that they were all portrayed and critiqued fairly. I found it reassuring that Toplin was more concerned about educating the reader that movies were a good thing for history, while they are not always completely accurate, they do expand the minds of the people viewing them. If it was not for “Pearl Harbor” or “Saving Private Ryan”, an entire generation could have forgotten about World War II. I would even go as far as to say that in 50 years there will be a movie such as “Pearl Harbor” about the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Movies are an important part of our lives, they can be used as a teaching tool, or as a means of remembrance, but they will always be used.
How historically reliable could a film of such reputation be? Films and reality are defiantly two different things. Films are made to be entertaining, exciting and emotive but life, and history, just happens and would be hard to recapture for the amusement of audiences. Many extremely entertaining historical films such as Pearl Harbour, Braveheart and JFK, all Oscar winners, have many historical inaccuracies which have managed to confuse the general public that have a reasonable grasp on the stories. I think that this could be quite relevant in the reliability of Schindler’s List.