Students recall more Hollywood than History

[matthewota]

Just to show how the entertainment industry has done poorly in the enlightenment of today's students.....

http://www.livescience.com/culture/0...ie-memory.html

If they cannot distinguish between fictional drama and history, what does that say about bad science in the movies?

Remember, don't believe anything you see in the movies or on TV. They are produced to make money, not to dispense truth. Movies and TV shows are written by Hollywood scriptwriters. For scriptwriters, reality is basically a plot device.

[NEOWatcher]

Just to show how the entertainment industry has done poorly in the enlightenment of today's students.....

While I do think that the entertainment industry does do poorly, I don't think that they have any responsibility for enlightenment.

Now; passing something off as a true story, I can fault them for, but their purpose is to entertain.

It's the education system that seems to be failing. It's human nature that tends to remember the more exciting or more stimulating experiences. It's knowledge, that is needed to distinguish those from reality.
Comparing textbook information against a multimedia presentation is always going to lose. So; education is automatically behind the eightball from the start.

[matthewota]

Actually, their purpose is to make money, the truth be damned....

[Chacal]

It's not that Hollywood maliciously lies. It's not even entirely because of the money. It's mostly because Hollywood does not even know how to tell the truth without embellishing it and making it more palatable, acceptable or just more 'plausible'.

I the linked article, the movie U-571 is mentioned. Yes, historically it DID happen, i.e. a German sub was captured and an enigma machine was recovered. That's pretty much all that is accurate.

You know those people who are so caught up on their own ** to acknowledge or even realize it's **? That's Hollywood in a nutshell.

[matthewota]

I think people these days place way to much adulation on actors, actresses and other Hollywood people. Back in the 1920s and 30s, scientist were held in greater esteem, and rightly so.

I have little respect for thespians, all they can do is memorize and repeat lines.
I have even less respect for scriptwriters in general. IMHO most of television is just plain nonsense.

[Gillianren]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

There is a great deal more to acting than just learning lines. (And, in an interesting quirk, Ben Affleck pointed out to Michael Bay that the entire premise of Armageddon was simply nonsense. On the other hand, he still took the role.) Anyone who says that shows their ignorance of what acting is all about. Is it the most noble profession out there? No; that's teaching, if the teacher's doing it right. On the other hand, a good actor does a lot of work, and it's just snobbishness to claim otherwise.

Screenwriting? That's hard work, too. For one thing, there's an awful lot of pressure to make things "more entertaining" and "more accessible." There are some pretty horrifying stories out there about executive meddling.

And, yes, the film industry--calling all films "Hollywood," or even all bad films "Hollywood" is pretty ignorant--is an industry. Yes, its intention is to make money. And yes, things get changed an awful lot of the time, not just from science or history but from source material as well. (I'm looking at you, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and every film portrayal ever of Dracula or Frankenstein.) However, "don't believe anything you see in movies"? What nonsense! Take a look, for example, at the film Glory. Yes, there are some parts which got changed. However, practically all the main information is true. You can look it up. They even toned down a lot of the story, rather than embellished, because they didn't think people would believe the reality.

You also can't just blame movies, come to that. There's a lot of nonsense spread in books, even, sadly, in history books. How many of you learned about Washington cutting down the cherry tree? That was in textbooks for simply ages, but it was flat made up by a Washington biographer who did not in so many words do any research. I've had teachers (blessedly few of them) who contradicted the historical record because it didn't say what they thought it should.

Oh, sure. Everything that's wrong with everything is Hollywood's fault. It has nothing to do with an underfunded educational system, with parents who don't encourage their kids to read, with a society that puts more emphasis on popularity than intelligence. But Hollywood is much easier to blame.

Oh, and anyway, isn't a good story more important? Even people who should know better still argue that one.

[matthewota]

Looks like I p.o.ed a thespian....

[SolusLupus]

No, you "p.o.ed" a film buff.

And labeling someone does not make her points any less true. If all you can do is respond that you've "p.o.ed" her off, then it demonstrates how incapable you are of countering her arguments.

And I'm not a "thespian", but even I know that acting is more than just remembering lines.

[Chacal]

...And I'm not a "thespian", but even I know that acting is more than just remembering lines.

Yep, you need to go to the gaffer tape "X" on the floor without looking down


As to 'not believing everything you see in movies', yes, it is an exaggeration. However, as movie audiences who would deem a movie as a good source of factual information do not know the facts beforehand (if they did they would not consider the movies as their main source of info on the particular subject —*be it history, science, courtroom proceedings, military tradition...) they do not know WHICH PART of what they see is 100% factual and what is 'embellishment'. They don't know how much is 100% true and how much is not. They don't know if the character they see was a real, living human being or if he/she is a collage of real historical characters, made just for the sake of storytelling. They don't know what is real, they don't know where to begin to look for the truth. They don't even know how much they don't know.

[SpecialEd]

I am a thespian, & yes it all starts out looking simple and easy.

"Hey you walk out dere, you say dis stuff, you walk off. How hard can it be?"

So you do it for awhile, because, yes, acting can be done at that level. But you learn a few things. You get a little experience. You blow it & make an *** of yourself onstage at least once. Which motivates you to either find a new hobby or pay some serious attention to learning the craft. It's a craft a lot like sailing or flying or golf in that it's relatively easy to do but impossible to do perfectly. Eventually it occurs to you, "Geez I'm gonna die of old age before I ever get this right."

Over twenty years since I first trod the boards as they say & I,m still trying to get it right.

[Gillianren]

No, you "p.o.ed" a film buff.

It's not even just that, though of course that is part of it. It's just so childish. It's like the "it's not my fault" thread, really. Yes. I do think that even entertainment holds a certain obligation toward getting things right, though I don't mind a little tweaking, within reason, to improve a story. I mean, in most cases, we know all the dialogue's made up! How much tweaking also varies based on what kind of story it is. However, to blame a method of entertainment for the fact that people are ignorant about something is simplistic at best.

As to 'not believing everything you see in movies', yes, it is an exaggeration. However, as movie audiences who would deem a movie as a good source of factual information do not know the facts beforehand (if they did they would not consider the movies as their main source of info on the particular subject —*be it history, science, courtroom proceedings, military tradition...) they do not know WHICH PART of what they see is 100% factual and what is 'embellishment'. They don't know how much is 100% true and how much is not. They don't know if the character they see was a real, living human being or if he/she is a collage of real historical characters, made just for the sake of storytelling. They don't know what is real, they don't know where to begin to look for the truth. They don't even know how much they don't know.

True. Then again, I could make up all sorts of things about the areas of my own expertise, and because I know more about whatever-it-is, people will blindly trust me. I was even answering questions last weekend with, "It's more complicated than that, but you don't want to know." Because it was and they didn't. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether you know the facts beforehand or not. Any halfway-intelligent person should know that a movie isn't generally the place to look for information about something. Everyone over the age of about six should know that a movie isn't the place to learn about things. Even in documentaries, you should know that there are other places to get the information, and you should compare the two before you cite the movie as gospel.

The problem is not Hollywood (or Pinewood!), guys. It's people who won't take responsibility for their own education.

[vonmazur]

Guys: I was involved in a production here in Alabama, of a tie-in for the Valkyrie Flic....The local actors they hired were actually good, and I got paid for providing correct firearms and checking all the uniforms that the costume house shipped in, on the whole they did a good job....Also, no one else spoke German, so I got to do the corrections of the language, and made sure they got it right...

They even offered me a part, I declined....Would have to shave off the beard!!

Dale in Ala

[NEOWatcher]

I have little respect for thespians, all they can do is memorize and repeat lines.

Hah, that's what you think.
I'm directing a play now, and my actors can't even do that.

I have even less respect for scriptwriters in general. IMHO most of television is just plain nonsense.

I agree, although, it is a catch-22.

I do have great respect for many actors and screenwriters. Some are great at what they do.

But that only goes until the point where they start trying to impose morals upon us. When they start spouting what we as a society should do, when they have no clue what reality is, then forget it. If they start posing as an authority on something (other than entertainment) then forget it.

Everybody needs to know the difference between entertainment and reality. The general public can't even see that reality TV isnt.

[Fazor]

Hah, that's what you think.
I'm directing a play now, and my actors can't even do that.

That's what you get for not casting me. I'm a wonderful actor--after all, I sell insurance, and convince people to buy it!

[Chacal]

...and I got paid for providing correct firearms and checking all the uniforms that the costume house shipped in, on the whole they did a good job....Also, no one else spoke German, so I got to do the corrections of the language, and made sure they got it right...

Good thing that the production staff went to all that trouble, and I assume you performed your job perfectly.

But what if you hadn't done so? Better yet, what if they hired someone else who knew less than you do? What if they hired a 'resumé padder' who said he knew all that but didn't really?

Would the guys in the production staff know it was all wrong?

[Gillianren]

Is it their fault if they don't? Not everyone can know everything, after all.

[vonmazur]

Gillian and Guys: I know what you mean, when I watch movies and shows about which I am "expert", I cringe at the errors.....like the Maury Island incident UFO program, in which they passed a Soviet Badger Bomber off as a US B 25!! I now know how the Scientists feel when they see similar gaffs.....

The production that I participated in will air on the Military Channel in the US on Aug 26 at 8pm, but check the listings!! They change stuff around easily these days....

As for hiring someone who does not know what they are about, I guess it happens, but the director of this production is a Professor of History, and wanted it correct....IF it was the usual Hollywood type, then anything can happen..Like the current "Inglorious *******s" hallucination they are promoting..

Dale in Ala

[Lord Jubjub]

As for hiring someone who does not know what they are about, I guess it happens, but the director of this production is a Professor of History, and wanted it correct....IF it was the usual Hollywood type, then anything can happen..Like the current "Inglorious *******s" hallucination they are promoting..

Dale in Ala

I assumed that IB was an "Airplane" style satire. Am I wrong?

[vonmazur]

Lord Jubjub: No, it is some kind of wierd movie about a group of American misfits trying to kill Good ol' Dolfi Schicklegueber....Quentin Tarantino, former movie store clerk, is producer and director.....I am troubled as a Historian by this sort of crapola....I wonder if the Brits had killed Hitler in 1941 what would have happened.....Competant Military leadership?? What if after Juin 1940, they killed Hitler, and the German General Staff actually follows the British to Dunquerque and captures them, and then does not invade the USSR??

See what I mean about the fast and loose History???

Dale in AL

[SkepticJ]

That's being rather harsh. It's an alternate history film. Is there anything wrong with that, a "what if" scenario? It's certainly prevalent in written speculative/science fiction.

It's not the film industry's fault if people didn't pay enough attention in history class to know that the war actually ended in '45, and under quite different circumstances.

I didn't enjoy U-571, not because it's fictional history (though very, very loosely based on real history), but because the stupid clichés just kept piling up.

Inglourious B. is actually a really fun film--saw it last night.

[Gillianren]

I saw Ponyo. I'll take Miyazaki over Tarnatino any day.

[Chacal]

...if the Brits had killed Hitler in 194...Competant Military leadership?? What if after Juin 1940, they killed Hitler, and the German General Staff actually follows the British to Dunquerque and captures them, and then does not invade the USSR??

See what I mean about the fast and loose History???

Dale in AL

My personal theory is that we do live in the best of all possible worlds. Change a bit and you're only going to get things worse. But hey, you know what they say about optimists and pessimists: Optimists think we live in the best of all possible worlds. Pessimists KNOW we do.

[SolusLupus]

No matter what, it's ad hoc reasoning. We might have had the "best" possible outcome. We might not.

Either way, it sounds a lot like the fox debating whether or not the grapes it cannot reach are sweet or not.

[Chacal]

Definitely Sour.

[SolusLupus]

Saying that the past was sour because it's the best possible outcome would have sounded weird.

[mike alexander]

Thank you, Dr. Pangloss.