In literature, the word “hyperbole” is used to describe an extreme exaggeration. The tactic of using such excessive exaggerations for entertainment purposes is one often exercised by the “fame and fortune” hungry movie makers of Hollywood. Sometimes, historical accounts may need just a little (or a lot) more flare to bring them success on the big screen. Whether it come in the form of an especially evil villain or a strong female lead whose behavior would be considered inappropriate in the depicted time period, historical inaccuracies often replace fact to help roll in the big bucks. However, this does not justify using a movie as one’s main source of knowledge surrounding certain historical events. For example, watching the movie The Patriot
History can be learned through several different mediums, and it is arguable that the most popular methods are through film and literature. Each come with their own respective advantages and disadvantages, and can each have a different effect on how an event is both portrayed and conceptualized. When comparing the 1987 book Mutiny on the Amistad: The Saga of a Slave Revolt and its Impact on American Abolition, Law and Diplomacy by Howard Jones, and the 1997 film Amistad directed by Steven Spielberg, it is apparent that both the book and the film are able to effectively retell the story of the events that took place aboard the Amistad in 1839. Yet each shed a different light on the matter and have been received by people in a different way.
In the following paragraphs I am going to show how Hollywood portrays the Salem Witch Trails and the 1690’s compared with what actual happened in history and that in the film "The Crucible".
“This is true.” (O’Brien, 420) – with this simple statement which also represents a first, three-word introductory paragraph to Tim O’Brien’s short story, “How to Tell a True War Story”, the author reveals the main problem of what will follow. “Truth” – when looked up in a dictionary, we would probably find definitions similar to sincerity and honesty on the one hand, and correctness, accuracy or reality on the other hand. When looking at these definitions, one can make out two groups of meaning: While sincerity and honesty are very subjective, correctness or accuracy are supposed to be objective by nature. One can be sincere and still not report the truth, due to the simple fact that one does not know any better. Accuracy, however, is supposed to represent facts, bits and pieces of information that paint a picture of an event, untouched by opinion or attitude.
I chose this word because the tone of the first chapter seems rather dark. We hear stories of the hopes with which the Puritans arrived in the new world; however, these hopes quickly turned dark because the Purtains found that the first buildings they needed to create were a prison, which alludes to the sins they committed; and a cemetery, which contradicts the new life they hoped to create for themselves.
[1] Within the last few decades, we have generated a great number of “historical” films reaching the American public. With these “historical” films come the question of whether or not the film portrayed history in an accurate manner; if not, why were the facts manipulated the way that they were. Unfortunately, this question is usually answered in the negative, and the audience is left with a fictional account of a factual happening, thereby giving the viewing public mixed messages concerning the issues raised within the film. Film used in this manner can be a dangerous tool in the hands of powerful people with agendas and ulterior motives.
There is no secret that films in the genre of biopic can often stretch the truth. These types of movies are frequently mere depictions of myth that is loosely based on factual accounts rather than being accurate representations of history. Many ethical dilemmas arise from these circumstances. Among those are the damaging representations that may skew a viewer’s perception of how history may have actually played out. Should filmmakers warn viewers that certain historical details of their forthcoming motion picture have been changed for the purpose of film? What are the editorial ethics when important details pertaining to vital pieces of history are left on the proverbial cutting room floor? The brand new film “Cesar Chavez” does a lot of work to bring about the often untold story of the California migrant farmworkers labor activism and organizing, yet in the process, manages to erase the pertinent contributions of the Filipino who many consider as the pioneers of these movements.
I am first going to focus on the lack of historical accuracy in The Crucible by Arthur Miller. In The Crucible, Arthur Miller composes a note of historical accuracy before the
The poem “Mother, any distance greater than a single span” written by Simon Armitage discusses the distance of a mother and son relationship as the child enters adulthood. Armitage uses techniques of metaphors, symbolism and hyperbole to help convey that the distance between a parent and child will become distant and adulthood is a chance to thrive or fail, but adulthood can give you endless opportunities and independence.
Loewen defines heroification as “a degenerative process (much like calcification) that makes people over into heroes” (Loewen 11). During this process, negative or controversial facts are often ignored or altered in regards to these heroes, which create “perfect creatures without conflicts, pain, credibility, or human interest (Loewen 11). When one changes or omits facts concerning figures in history for this type of glorification, we are left with an invented story of the event or person; in other words, history has become a myth. History textbooks are filled with these types of glorifications, especially older texts. The purpose of heroification is to present events or people in a favorable light and to give ideal role models in which to follow. In my own words, I call Loewen’s heroification an effective form of brainwashing. For example, I was always taught that the Civil War was fought to free slaves, but later learned this war was about states succeeding from the Union. Many people still believe the Emancipation Proclamation’s purpose was to free the slaves; however, it was actually the last resort Lincoln used to win the Civil War. Of course, this is not how these events were portrayed to most of us in History class. Heroification alters the purpose of these events so that we, as citizens, can feel proud that America did away with slavery because our forefathers felt it was morally wrong. Loewen also points out how heroification can lead to role models in the case of Helen Keller, “the blind and deaf girl who overcame her physical handicaps, as an inspiration to generations of schoolchildren” (Loewen 12). The problem with Keller being used as an exemplary model for American schoolchildren is that only her early life is portr...
Classic narrative cinema is what Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson (The classic Hollywood Cinema, Columbia University press 1985) 1, calls “an excessively obvious cinema”1 in which cinematic style serves to explain and not to obscure the narrative. In this way it is made up of motivated events that lead the spectator to its inevitable conclusion. It causes the spectator to have an emotional investment in this conclusion coming to pass which in turn makes the predictable the most desirable outcome. The films are structured to create an atmosphere of verisimilitude, which is to give a perception of reality. On closer inspection it they are often far from realistic in a social sense but possibly portray a realism desired by the patriarchal and family value orientated society of the time. I feel that it is often the black and white representation of good and evil that creates such an atmosphere of predic...
Fyne, Robert. The Hollywood propaganda of World War II. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1994. Print.
When watching a movie that is allegedly based on a true story, it may not occur to some viewers that the movie does not necessarily represent the complete and absolute truth. The movie Blood Diamond was inspired by the true story of how the illegal sale of smuggled diamonds helped fuel the 1991 to 2000 civil war in Sierra Leone (“Sierra Leone”). In an interview with Foreign Policy Magazine, Edward Zwick, director of Blood Diamond, admits that “my first goal was to make a good movie, one that fulfills the obligations of any story, which has to do with characters and drama.” It is true that Blood Diamond uses glamorized fiction to cover up and sweeten the horrible truths for its audience, but what matters is how effectively the movie makes an emotional connection with its viewers. Hollywood filmmakers know what the majority of their audience expects: glamour and excitement throughout the film and a dramatic and emotionally satisfying ending. If it is to satisfy the expectations of this audience, and the expectations of the filmmaker and his backers to make a lot of money, the movie—at least this particular movie—cannot be a totally accurate and graphic depiction of what really happens with blood diamonds and their role in Sierra Leone’s civil war, because what really happens would not sell as well as the fiction. In the case of Blood Diamond, while it is important to look at the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of the what the characters represent, what matters more is why the fiction is more effective than the truth when it comes to getting the audience emotionally involved.
In The Things They Carried, he writes, “ Stories are for eternity, when memory is erased, when there is nothing to remember except the story.” (O’Brien 38) Stories last throughout history, through deaths, wars, and centuries. Throughout The Things They Carried he writes it is “dedicated to the men of the Alpha Company” yet on the title page we read: “ This is a work of fiction.” Except for a few details regarding the author’s own life, all the incidents, names and characters are imaginary. The use of fabrication is necessary in order to add O’ Brien’s experience in a manner that is entertaining but still truthful. Sometimes the author has to fabricate to get the reader to really feel what is happening in the story. O’ Brien writes in The Things They Carried, “ I want you to feel what I felt. I want to know why story truth is truer sometimes than happening truth.” The attention he wants to gain from the writing process is an attempt to truthfully convey the lasting images of the war, while still having fictional elements. The effect of fictional elements add the feeling that the readers are present in the war, that even though they may be false stories they make stomachs drop and hearts
...al events. Some events that happened in the film, didn't actually happen in history. Especially the whole romantic theme, though the scenes with romance helped develop the plot of the film, and to elaborate on the film's themes and message. Although the film seems to be mostly inaccurate, it still held some historical accuracy.
Exaggeration is commonly used in everyday life to make a story an individual may use when telling another about an event that happened to them. The so called ‘narrator’ of the event may add in more details to the story than what actually happened to attract the ‘reader’ and keep them interested. Authors may use the same tactic to pull readers in and keep them excited to read the end of the story/novel/etc. Exaggeration for the background of the story or even a Shakespearean play gives the story a entirely different meaning in general.