Today, I have been considering how perceptions of history have been distorted by the film world. Obviously, Hollywood has been the recent major Western culprit, albeit not in the same class as Eisenstein or Riefenstahl. However, the aim has been the same. To provide a political message in an entertaining setting that doesn’t ask too many questions of the viewer. As such, the viewer’s idea of history will be shaped by the filmmaker.
I’ve long been interested why history has been distorted, and as I’ve gotten older, tend to believe that this is not to allow a more enjoyable film but rather to ‘educate’ the viewer who will then unconsciously adopt the same viewpoint as the filmmaker.
John Wayne’s ‘Green Berets’ was the only major mainstream film to support the US troops in Vietnam, and was funded by himself in attempt to balance all the negativity emanating from Hollywood. More recently, we have seen Mel Gibson take part and finance projects for, what many consider, ‘vehicles’ by which he was able to express his anti-British and anti-Semitic views. Even more recently, we have seen two films (King Arthur and The Kingdom of Heaven), which I actually enjoyed by the way, distort social history by suggesting that Christians were generally venal and that the other side were generally justified and noble freedom fighters.
So, what has brought this particular post on? An interesting article in USA Today, on the new Hollywood historical drama 'September Dawn', as it happens. The link is:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/hollywoods-terr.html
The article expresses many of the concerns that I generally feel, and also raises a number of unanswered questions. Fortunately, the images portrayed by this latest Hollywood offering are for US citizens to ponder upon, as we have enough to worry about over here, without visiting the possible 'sins of the father' on Mitt Romney and his Presidential campaign. It is unlikely to prove a box office success over here!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Mark
With a few exceptions such as John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin etc etc, Hollywood is peopled by a pack of far left liberal socialists exampled by the likes of Hanoi Jane Fonda. It is no wonder that the messages sent out often slant in that direction.
In interviews Jon Voight reveals he seems to have thought that people would recognize that the real message of the movie was how Islamic radicalism is "like this." And that people wouldn't view modern Mormons any differently after seeing the movie. Clearly he wasn't thinking.
I can't quite believe that it is a coincidence that we have a Mormon as a candidate for President and now this movie. Who exactly got motivated to drag up this old massacre, though, I don't know.
OK, Voight et al, you want to make a movie about Moslem extremists, you have plenty of historical material. Let's don't think we have to substitute some other group [not that I don't otherwise think that the history of the early Mormons can't get a good hard look. They were a bit nuts.]
Carl, I must admit that I was a little surprised with Jon Voight. I hadn't considered that he was one of the trendy Hollywood politicos, but there you go.
I also think, whatever, the article says, that this is no coincidence with the Republican primaries just around the corner.
I agree that the early Mormons were candidates for extras in 'One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest', but there are many more relevant and less obscure examples.
Post a Comment