• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Let's Get The Record Straight ..for Once!!

Go to CruxDreams.com

jonesygirl

Tribunica Potestas
Hi,
Last night we watched Argo and yet again another Hollywood blockbuster was spoiled for me because of the historical junk it contained. I don't wish this to become political but for once I would like to put the record straight. A senior CIA officer says “The Brits turned them away”...meaning the British Embassy staff refused to lift a finger to help the embassy staff from the US. That is rubbish. The British Embassy at the time was surrounded by an angry mob of Iranian students. The group's leader, Anders took his colleagues back to his flat and made several desperate phone calls. Eventually they received a call from the British Embassy offering the five refuge at the British residential centre known as Gulhak. They were to stay put and await an orange 1976 orange Austin Maxi to take them to safety. The car finally arrived and after a scary drive arrived at Gulhak where the Americans were well watered and fed. However the Iranian students were now fired up to push on to Gulhak and surrounded the residence. A Pakistani guard in his 50's called Iskander Khan stood firm and persuaded the students that the compound was empty.....a classic case of “These are not the Droids you are looking for.” However the following morning it was decided that the students could come back at any time and the game would be up. For a few days the five Americans were placed in an empty house belonging to an American official where they were joined by a sixth colleague. This group of six were eventually saved by the Canadians and the CIA. The British had played their part as best they could in helping the group.
Ben Affleck says that he was setting up a situation where the audience needed to get a sense that the six had nowhere else to go and he didn't mean to diminish anyone. What claptrap. We have seen this attitude far too many times in Hollywood films. They simply don't give a fig about people involved who are still alive..like the British captain who recovered the Enigma code from the German submarine, not the all American hero of U-571!!
It would have improved the film and added to the tension if the journey in the Austin Maxi car and the stand off with the Pakistani guard had been shown because that is what happened.
OK. Now please put up your hand if you have seen the film and actually believed the lie told that “The Brits turned them away.”.
 
Well as you point out this for is par for the course for hack writers and actors from tinsel and pout land. Still surely you realise this forum gives you the opportunity for a rather unique form of revenge? Why not write yourself a tale in which you discuss the failings of his latest offering with a certain mall refugee actor over a nice brazier of hot pincers?

Later on in your movie when the Mister whiney whine character protests "Why are you crucifying me over this?" why not simply have your interlocutor reply, "Because it is my thang babe"
 
The British are some of America's closest friends. I've not seen the movie, but wouldn't believe for a second they would turn them away.....
 
Sadly, you can't expect Hollywood to know anything about history - just look at the complete abortion they made of Braveheart...

The worst thing of all is that you have generations of people growing up who think that it represents true history :(
 
Sadly, you can't expect Hollywood to know anything about history - just look at the complete abortion they made of Braveheart...

The worst thing of all is that you have generations of people growing up who think that it represents true history :(

The curse of Mel Gibson!!!
 
Haven't seen and drank since I had. Do not expect Hollywood to get crap right (Yeah, I added fecal matter to this thread)
since in the movie 'Bullitt' the Charger with only four wheels loses 7 hubcaps in the chase scene and they pas the same blue VW a have dozen times...

Just focus on reality...
elf girl elmer.jpg

tree
 
Hi,
Last night we watched Argo and yet again another Hollywood blockbuster was spoiled for me because of the historical junk it contained. I don't wish this to become political but for once I would like to put the record straight. A senior CIA officer says “The Brits turned them away”...meaning the British Embassy staff refused to lift a finger to help the embassy staff from the US. That is rubbish. The British Embassy at the time was surrounded by an angry mob of Iranian students. The group's leader, Anders took his colleagues back to his flat and made several desperate phone calls. Eventually they received a call from the British Embassy offering the five refuge at the British residential centre known as Gulhak. They were to stay put and await an orange 1976 orange Austin Maxi to take them to safety. The car finally arrived and after a scary drive arrived at Gulhak where the Americans were well watered and fed. However the Iranian students were now fired up to push on to Gulhak and surrounded the residence. A Pakistani guard in his 50's called Iskander Khan stood firm and persuaded the students that the compound was empty.....a classic case of “These are not the Droids you are looking for.” However the following morning it was decided that the students could come back at any time and the game would be up. For a few days the five Americans were placed in an empty house belonging to an American official where they were joined by a sixth colleague. This group of six were eventually saved by the Canadians and the CIA. The British had played their part as best they could in helping the group.
Ben Affleck says that he was setting up a situation where the audience needed to get a sense that the six had nowhere else to go and he didn't mean to diminish anyone. What claptrap. We have seen this attitude far too many times in Hollywood films. They simply don't give a fig about people involved who are still alive..like the British captain who recovered the Enigma code from the German submarine, not the all American hero of U-571!!
It would have improved the film and added to the tension if the journey in the Austin Maxi car and the stand off with the Pakistani guard had been shown because that is what happened.
OK. Now please put up your hand if you have seen the film and actually believed the lie told that “The Brits turned them away.”.
Our President Emeritus Jimmy Carter, who was in the White House at the time saw the movie and on exiting commented that the historic inaccuracies disappointed him. He was embarrassed that the CIA was given the credit for what our Allies had done for us. If it's worth anything to you so am I; while I've been to Canada several times and have Canadian friends I've only known one Britt. The point being they are all very nice people and I am embarrassed.
Helmut
 
Our President Emeritus Jimmy Carter, who was in the White House at the time saw the movie and on exiting commented that the historic inaccuracies disappointed him. He was embarrassed that the CIA was given the credit for what our Allies had done for us. If it's worth anything to you so am I; while I've been to Canada several times and have Canadian friends I've only known one Britt. The point being they are all very nice people and I am embarrassed.
Helmut
why?............. it is not your fault.............though
 
I think I'd rather talk about fecal matter than politics. There again, what's the difference ?

:)
I get yelled at every time I put basic bodily functions in my threads.

...and the wife ain't happy when it's in my pants...

Tree

:eek:
 
Our President Emeritus Jimmy Carter, who was in the White House at the time saw the movie and on exiting commented that the historic inaccuracies disappointed him. He was embarrassed that the CIA was given the credit for what our Allies had done for us. If it's worth anything to you so am I; while I've been to Canada several times and have Canadian friends I've only known one Britt. The point being they are all very nice people and I am embarrassed.
Helmut

I've met many British, and you'd NOT be disappointed, I'm sure! ;)
Haven't seen and drank since I had. Do not expect Hollywood to get crap right (Yeah, I added fecal matter to this thread)
since in the movie 'Bullitt' the Charger with only four wheels loses 7 hubcaps in the chase scene and they pas the same blue VW a have dozen times...

Just focus on reality...
View attachment 67621

tree

I especially like in the "shoot 'em up" movies, how a 9 clip hand gun fires 100 rounds? NRA, that's just overboard!
 
The curse of Mel Gibson!!!

Those who saw his film "The Passion of the Cross" will know how he can mess things up. From a religious aspect, I saw it some years ago at the end of Lent, just before Passover. It was emotional and fitted appropriately well.

Looking objectively though, one sees JC carrying a cross, not a tie-bar, the two criminals stand on ledges (did you see one of them tweak his toes?) and sundry other minor inaccuracies abound.
It was said that he had a top-notch religious advisor, but then he should have had the same for historical aspects.

What should have been the definitive statement missed by a country mile in the end, spoiling the effect for everyone, religious or not.

The Gospels tell what the evangelist wants us to know (i.e. the truth); they are not newsreels, which Mel seems to think they are.

* * * *

Then again, how many modern portrayals (PoaG anyone?) do we see where a crown of thorns / barbed wire, etc., or the signboard "INRI" are involved? Like as not, that only ever happened the once.
The best of stories (e.g. Andy01, PollyP) never use these artifices and are all the better for it.
 
The same is true of cinematic versions of the so-called dark ages, the mediaeval period, the Inquisition, witch-trials etc., as I've just been saying on 'Linda's Rack' thread.

But (playing devil's advocate ;)) I'm not sure that I'm all that bothered about historical accuracy in films, plays, novels etc. I don't look to Shakespeare for reliable history - his original audiences probably believed his version more than we do now, though I guess many of them took it with a pinch of salt. But I look to Shakespeare for exciting stories in splendid words that tell me great truths about the experience of being human. Actually I take just the same view of the Bible - but let's not get into that argument :rolleyes:! I don't suppose for a moment this Argos film is in the Shakespeare league, I don't suppose it's even worth bothering with, but if I were to see it wouldn't judge it only - or even primarily - on its truth to (recent) history.

I'm more bothered about what we're fed as factual 'news': I think our BBC is still best of the bunch for trustworthiness (especially the website, where you find a lot of interesting stuff that doesn't get onto the main broadcast bulletins), but even they're not free from pressures of external and internal politics (as recent events have shown), and as for the Murdoch-owned channels and press, and indeed most of our newspapers, after the Leveson inquiry, words fail me :eek: .

As to Brits being nice people - we could be worse :D, thanks for the compliments. We've got lots of wonderful people here on CF, American, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Russian, Burmese and lots, lots more. I wouldn't hold anyone accountable for the antics of their governments or whatever garbage is put out by their mass media or entertainment industry!
 
The same is true of cinematic versions of the so-called dark ages, the mediaeval period, the Inquisition, witch-trials etc., as I've just been saying on 'Linda's Rack' thread.

But (playing devil's advocate ;)) I'm not sure that I'm all that bothered about historical accuracy in films, plays, novels etc.

Fine for a personal viewpoint, but Eul, you are not simply one of the crowd on this site, so your opinion can carry more weight than you perhaps realise.

Shakespeare andf the Bible writers wanted to get a message across, so we don't look for simple historical exactitude in either place.

Gibson's crucifixion movie was not a biblical epic, but an attempt (failed in my view) to show us all about the time following the Last Supper in all its gory detail with everything true to life. This was his stated intent, not my interpretation of it. There are enough previous attempts at it, none as pretentious in its aims as Mel's.
There are interesting facets within it that are excellent embellishments, but if he can't get the main theme right . . . why bother?

If one knows enough about history, then accuracy matters or the whole plot goes down the tubes. If fiction is the sole purpose, then Mickey Mouse going to the moon is OK by me. The Apollo 13 movie did not, for example, have any women on the crew, for 'love interest', glamour or any other reason. They made a serious attempt at historical accuracy with that one!

So it should be on this site too, I suggest. Much effort goes into the stories, especially the animated ones, that to 'spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar' is a waste of time and effort. We suspend some sense of reality of course, but if it ain't right, considering that enough is known about the essential details to get it right, I say again, why bother?

In crux drawings, nailing through the palm is sometimes seen, but we know that method of fixing would not last a minute on an upright frame. That cannot represent the type of historical inaccuracy you mean.
The lack may be because of insufficient knowledge, or not. Maybe it's because of laziness to acquire same or a lack of respect for the readers, neither being adequate reasons in my view.

Aspiration for quality should be the rule, unless outright slapstick inaccuracy is the intent, in which case go right ahead.

I recommend "do it right, or don't do it". I rest my case, or am I challenging the standards applicable here and opening up a series of posts on them?
 
Tree doesn't believe some one on 'Guillagan's Island' wasn't having sex with someone else. He doesn't believe Ward and June Cleaver slept in separate twin beds in 'Leave it to Beaver' yet it was shown on TV so it had to be true.

It's the scenes that were cut that tell the whole story. An example is when June asks "Ward, have you seen the Beaver lately?"

On TV Ward is reading his newspaper and smoking his pipe (INDOORS ON A FAMILY SHOW:eek:) and replies "No honey, I haven't."

June replies something like "I wonder when he could be at this time?"

What was cut from the first take was Ward saying "No I haven't, June, But if you hike that dress up I's be happy to lick it!"

Tree

...Was this helpful at all??? Oh, the Beav was in the rectory sucking the pastor's... DAMN ULRIKA, QUIT HITTING ME!!!
 
;)
 
Fine for a personal viewpoint, but Eul, you are not simply one of the crowd on this site, so your opinion can carry more weight than you perhaps realise.

Views expressed are not necessarily those of the management!​
They're not even necessarily my own as a private slavebard​
(not sure that she can have any!)​
It's part of my nature - and of the day-job -​
to pose provocative positions and get a debate going​
(or pose in provocative positions and get a masturbate going)​
and I do sometimes - quite often, come to think of it -​
get into trouble when people think those reflect what I really believe.​
I certainly agree the issue's a complex one, especially with so-called "faction",​
I'd only want to emphasise psychological truth, truth to human experience, as the priority in a good story,​
but that's not an excuse for lazy use of ready-made stereotypes in the historical context.​
What you say GDO scares me a bit,​
I'm only here for the fun, like everyone else,​
I certainly don't want to be regarded as an authority figure in that kind of way!​
 
Back
Top Bottom