Hollywood is at it again. That anyone is surprised at the idea that Hollywood continues to take liberties with actual historic events, is fairly ludicrous. Ms. Dowd of the Gray Lady seems to have had her head summarily in the sand and not as they say ” in the game.” Of course she was at the movies with ” Jerry Rafshoon, who was a top aide to President Carter during the Iranian hostage crisis,” watching a movie about 6 hostages who escaped and were hidden by Canadian diplomats, so right there one wonders about her grasp of reality and history. After all Carter did not cover himself or his administration with glory over that debacle. It seems that the film makers took liberty with the historical events to make the movie more dramatic as if the real life event of escaping murderous militant extremists wasn’t exciting enough.
She goes on to complain about Lincoln, which apparently filled with historical inaccuracies, a la Steven (never met a history event he couldn’t fundamentally change) Speilberg. He like his favorite bud Barak Obama choses to rewrite history in his own image the difference between the two is Speilberg is interested in the bottom line, Obama is interested in “fundamentally changing” ie destroying the United States and he will use whatever nimrod entertainment “star” he can bamboozle.
Where were these people when Disney declared war on history in 1995? The same year they announced plans for a History theme park in the state of Virginia, which thanks in great part to the citizens of Virginia went down in flames. Disney gave the story of Pocahontas (or as it is referred to in my home Pocohauntus) the Speilberg treatment’ keeping only the names of the characters and the fact that the 12 year old Pocahontas saved the life of the 40ish John Smith by laying her head on his when her father was going to have him killed. There was NO romance between the two. There was no jealous boyfriend. There may have been members of the colony interested in gold, everyone was and most people today are as well but that is as far as the two are related in any way shape or form.
Here is an interesting question. Before Peter Jackson, Emma Thompson, Kenneth Branagh and JK Rowling (who had creative control over her films) Hollywood was notorious for taking a book that was very popular and gutting it, turning the movie into a pale imitation of the book, why? The book was obviously good enough for people to read, buy, borrow or download. Why was it necessary to change something that was already a success into something that wasn’t even a bad imitation? It’s one of the many reasons that authors were and are paranoid about turning their books over to screen writers. It is one of the many reasons Clive Cussler after one horrific experience with the Hollywood food processor was reluctant to allow another of his books to be bastardized. The movie “Sahara” while entertaining bore little resemblance to it’s hardback edition.
So the idea that someone of Ms. Dowd’s supposed reputation as a leader in her field, is surprised or disappointed in what is obviously a tenet of Hollywood film producing, strikes me as mendacious and patronizing. I may live in the hinterland ma’am but I am not a rube. We get the sea breezes off the gutter here too. My suggestion is stay away from “historical movies” and pick up a book instead. Of course these days one has to be careful about what one reads.