Hotel Rwanda

For the non-American historical film I chose Hotel Rwanda. The film is the true story of hotel owner Paul Rusesabagina, played by Don Cheadle, who sheltered and saved over 1,000 Tutsi refugees during the mass genocide that occurred during the Rwanda Civil War of 1994. The film opens the eyes of the public to the genocide as it explores both sides of human nature – good and evil.

In terms of it being a historical film, Hotel Rwanda portrays all the parties involved in one of history’s most intense genocides. The plausibility of the film is never questioned, and the film tells the true story of the horrific slaughter of 800,000 people.  From the participation, or lack-there-of, of the United Nations right down to the Paul bribing the Hutu leaders to leave his hotel alone actually happened.

Many people might argue that the film is not old enough to be considered a historical film. However, the mass genocides that took place in Rwanda during the 1990’s will forever be sketched into world history. And the movie brings to live the actual horrific true story of what happened in Rwanda. Audiences will learn firsthand what horrible acts took place in Rwanda but also the heroism of one man who stood up against evil by watching this movie.

Saving Private Ryan

A historical Steven Spielberg film I chose to watch outside of class was Saving Private Ryan. The film is a WWII war-drama that stars Tom Hanks and Matt Damon.  The film follows a group of soldiers travel across Europe in the middle of the war as they risk their lives during a rescue mission to bring Private Ryan home after his three brothers were killed. Although the mission is not based on a true story and the character of Private Ryan is fiction, Saving Private Ryan in many ways can still be considered a historical film because of the events portrayed in the movie and the depiction of the harsh reality of war.

The film opens with the portrayal of the Invasion of Normandy, one of the most historical moments in our history. The movie does an accurate job in showing the event. From the name of the first company to storm the beach to the amount of causalities shown, the scenes from the Invasion of Normandy were correct in showing the shore just as it was with all the blood and dead bodies.

However, what really makes this film a historical film is how it portrays the horrors of war. The brutal conditions and experiences the soldiers encountered were extremely accurate. Losing fellow soldiers was an everyday reality and the movie does not fault on showing this. The uniforms were also accurate and the scenes at the cemetery at Normandy showed in the movie are the actual cemetery in France. The battle scenes were very realistic and so was how the cities and towns looked like during the war.

Although the movie is a fictional story, I think the movies historical accuracy in portraying the certain events and the horrors of war make Saving Private Ryan a historical film.

Saving Private Ryan

A historical Steven Spielberg film I chose to watch outside of class was Saving Private Ryan. The film is a WWII war-drama that stars Tom Hanks and Matt Damon.  The film follows a group of soldiers travel across Europe in the middle of the war as they risk their lives during a rescue mission to bring Private Ryan home after his three brothers were killed. Although the mission is not based on a true story and the character of Private Ryan is fiction, Saving Private Ryan in many ways can still be considered a historical film because of the events portrayed in the movie and the depiction of the harsh reality of war.

The film opens with the portrayal of the Invasion of Normandy, one of the most historical moments in our history. The movie does an accurate job in showing the event. From the name of the first company to storm the beach to the amount of causalities shown, the scenes from the Invasion of Normandy were correct in showing the shore just as it was with all the blood and dead bodies.

However, what really makes this film a historical film is how it portrays the horrors of war. The brutal conditions and experiences the soldiers encountered were extremely accurate. Losing fellow soldiers was an everyday reality and the movie does not fault on showing this. The uniforms were also accurate and the scenes at the cemetery at Normandy showed in the movie are the actual cemetery in France. The battle scenes were very realistic and so was how the cities and towns looked like during the war.

Although the movie is a fictional story, I think the movies historical accuracy in portraying the certain events and the horrors of war make Saving Private Ryan a historical film.

Platoon

 

For the additional Oliver Stone movie, I chose the Vietnam classic Platoon. Filmed in comparable settings to that of Vietnam, the movie captures a clear picture of what fighting was like on the frontline during the war. Platoon takes a blow to its historical argument as unlike many traditional war movies there was no historical prelude to the battle shown.  It shows more of the war during the actual fighting and does not get into the historical background of the war. The movie does a good job of portraying the events on the front line and the daily challenges of survival in the jungles of Vietnam. The focus on the aftermath of each battle and large amount of casualties matches that of the historical understanding of the war. The setting perfectly fits the Vietnam War environment and is more of a soldier’s view on the war rather a political view.

Stone gives a vivid and clear portrayal of the battles and encounters during the Vietnam War and shows the unbearable living conditions of soldiers and their struggle to survive against not only their enemies but their surroundings. Platoon is one of the best war movies that shows the fatalities and destruction of war rather than the political history of a war. Platoon can be considered historically accurate because of the way it depicts the actual fighting of the war.

JFK: Conspiracy over History

The movie JFK is Oliver Stone’s attempt to critique the official report of events put forward by the Warren Commission after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The commission showed that the assassination was the work of Lee Harvey Oswald. Instead, Stone argues that the President was killed by a huge conspiracy involving our own government. JFK should be more considered a conspiracy movie than a historical one, but considering the topic and the portrayal of actual events, I can see where one could call this a historical film.

The film focusses on Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner), the District Attorney for New Orleans, as he attempts to untangle the truth from the lies. He guides us through the unfolding mystery, pointing out the obvious inconsistencies with the Commission’s report. Garrison debates several notions such as could Oswald have shot so many shots in only six seconds or how did the one bullet manage to hit Kennedy where it did. The movie throws several theories at you that the audience begins to question if they have been told the whole truth.

The Kennedy assassination is one of the most researched historical events in American history. The combination of news footage and dramatic footage helps develop the significance of this event on film.  However, I personally think JFK is more of a conspiracy film than a historical film.

The Patriot: Historical, no. Entertaining, yes.

Mel Gibson’s The Patriot is a very entertaining film that attempts to be a historical portrayal of the Revolutionary War but falls short of being anything but just another enjoyable fictional story of America’s struggle for independence. Let’s be realistic, children that are expert snipers at ten years old, a priest that abandons his church to take up arms, a British colonel who is portrayed more like the Adolf Hitler of the 1770’s than an actual British solider, and a man who can take down twenty soldiers by himself and begins to lead a militia that turns the tide of the war in the favor of America… I don’t think so. Hollywood movies are known for manipulating and exaggerating facts of a true story to make it more interesting and entertaining, but the tale of Benjamin Martin and his militia are completely fictional and cannot be considered an accurate account of the Revolutionary War. Many scenes and costumes are time appropriate and the characters are loosely based off actual people but there are too many historical inaccuracies for me to call this a historical film. The Patriot is an action-war film that was produced for pure enjoyment.

Gettysburg: It Gives Glory a Run For Its Money

For the additional war movie I Chose Gettysburg. I wanted to stay in the time period since the last two movies we viewed were both Civil War era films. Gettysburg is considered by a large audience to be the best Civil War movie ever created. I would argue Glory has a slight edge; however, we’re not here to debate between the two, but to debate whether or not Gettysburg is a historical film and is historically accurate. Well the answer to that is… yes, and, yes. Almost everything in the film was true and extremely historically accurate. Based on some research it is evident that some of the events were out of order in the film and over exaggerated making those scenes seem unrealistic. Nonetheless, from the actual battle to the events leading up to it are all actual events.

Gettysburg is true story of the most famous battle of the Civil War. The Confederates viewed the battle as the end of the war, once they won of course.  However, a victory for the Union drastically shifted the course of the war in the North’s favor. And Gettysburg brings you into the heart of the long, hot, and violent four days of the battle. From Colonel Chamberlains infamous bayonet charge on little round top, to General James Longstreet’s objection to General Lee’s order to advance, you never have a real idea of what really happened at Gettysburg until you watch the film.

For me, the biggest and perhaps the only inaccuracy I can note is that Gettysburg is not as violent and bloody as most war movies. The action in the film does not seem as real, when in reality this battle was worst and bloodiest battle in the history of the United States. The film could have made the fighting more accurate to what it actually was probably like.

Cold Mountain: Worst Civil War Movie Ever Created… If it is Even One

I am having a tough time deciding if Could Mountain is a historical movie. Actually, I am having a tough time deciding if it is even a Civil War movie or a just a love story based during the Civil War era. It is a fictional tale so the events that took place, except for the battle in the beginning of the movie, are untrue. The story is loosely based on a deserter named W.P. Inman.

The film is the story of a Confederate soldier, W.P. Inman (played by Jude Law), who deserts from the army after he faces the reality of war and embarks on a long journey home to Cold Mountain in North Carolina to return to the love of his life, Ada (played by Nicole Kidman).  The entire time, Inman is on the run from the Confederate Home Guard, who were a group of soldiers who tracked down deserters and killed them. Inman battles severe weather, starvation, and several close encounters with death as he desperately tries and returns home.

The movie bounces back in forth between Inman’s story and that of Ada, who struggles to maintain the farm after her father dies. She has an increasing hopelessness as she longs for Inman to return home. She and the other women of the town must learn to adapt to life without men in a rugged working environment.

The movie does a terrific job of showing different viewpoints of how the Civil War affected various people of the South. Not just Inman and Ida, but the different people Inman meet on his journey. But does this make it a historical film? Or a Civil War film at all? After viewing Glory in class, I would argue no. It is drama filled love story that takes place in the Civil War era. And even though some events might be true and it is an illustration of the life many people lived during the Civil War and brut reality of what war did to be people both physically and mentally, it is a fictional story that cannot be considered historical.

Glory: Best Civil War Movie Ever Created

Glory is, without question, one of the best movies ever made about the Civil War. It is one of the most historically accurate war movies produced as it tells the true tale of the first all-black regiment in the history of the U.S. Army. Glory is the combination of historical tapestry and superb acting that makes the film both inspirational and educational.

Glory tells the story of the 54th Regiment of the Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry for black soldiers. Commanded by Colonel Robert Shaw (played by Matthew Broderick), the regiment was comprised entirely of African Americans – some of whom were ex-slaves –who were willing to fight for the North. The U.S. government was undecided about how to use black soldiers. At first, the army intended to use them only for manual labor, but, later in the war, they finally saw combat.

The historical backdrop against which Glory transpires is mostly historically accurate. It was clear that a great deal of effort went into getting the details correct. The main events shown in the film happened much as they are depicted; some of the key characters (Shaw, Frederick Douglas, etc.) existed. Many of the secondary characters are entirely fictionalized, but they are intended to represent the types of men who joined the Massachusetts 54th.

Glory opens with a brief showing of the battle at Antietum, one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War, where Shaw suffers a minor injury and passes out. Throughout the movie we watch as Shaw himself grows as both a person and a solider and his confidence grow during battle. After returning home, Shaw accepts the command of the first black regiment and convinces his good friend, Major Forbes (played by Cary Elwes), to join him, and shortly after we are introduced to the other main characters that drive the movie. There is Trip (played by Denzel Washington), who is an angry and resentful ex-slave; Major Rawlins (played by Morgan Freeman), who is the elder of the group and becomes the voice of reason and inspiration for the men; and Thomas Searles (Played by Andre Braugher) who is an educated African-American who grew up with both Shaw and Forbes.

This movie depicts the realistic and historically accurate training of the Massachusetts 54^th. Some of it was brutal, but it was the lack of supplies and clothing that made it so realistic. Supplies were scarce during the Civil War and an all-black unit was not going to be the first on the list of getting any. Even though slavery was abolished in the north, there was still plenty of racism and discrimination towards African-Americans. This was evident in the film as high ranking officers refused to give them the proper supplies and cracked jokes about how the all-black regiment will never see action, instead be used for manual labor because that is “all they are good for.” Glory emphasizes this point throughout the film, especially when it points out how black soldiers would only be paid $10 compared to the $13 white soldiers made.

Some of the story is narrated and seen through Shaw’s eyes. Much of his narration was taken directly from the real-life historical documents written by the Colonel.  But most of the story is centered on the three black soldiers who form a bond as they overcome many obstacles.

The movie climax’s at the battle for Fort Wagner. It is here that we not only see the Massachusetts 54^th fully come together with respect for every member of the regiment, especially between Shaw, Forbes, and all the African-American soldiers, but also the respect the regiment earned from the entire Union Army. The greatest achievement of the 54^th was to prove to the army that black soldiers could be relied upon to fight with the same patriotism as white soldiers.

In my opinion, Glory is most historically accurate film created about the Civil War. Almost all research to prove otherwise comes up short. The film is very faithful to the true story of the Massachusetts 54^th regiment.

Pleasantville

Pleasantville was another period piece film we watched in class that used the time-travel phenomenon as the method to depict the past. I definitely don’t think that is a historical film; however, there are some similarities to what life was like during the 1950’s. As two 1990 teenagers are transported by a magical remote into a sitcom called Pleasantville, which is a TV-show that shows how “good” life was during the 1950’s, we are brought into a world of no individualism or modern ideas of more liberal thinking. This all changes once David and Jennifer arrive in Pleasantville and introduce “non-material sex, rock ‘n’ roll, modernist art and rebellious literature,” (Grainge 205), and we see the perfect black and white world of Pleasantville begins to rapidly change.

The film does touch on several misconceptions of life during the 1950’s such as fire fighters pulling cats out of trees and the closest thing to sex was holding hands. It also depicts the role of women during the time period was still to be stay at home housewives and men work all day expecting to come home to dinner just ready to be served. The clothing style and language used is also probably historically accurate, I just can’t call this movie historical.