Argo: Accurate or Nonsense?

Although many historical filmmakers alter some events and use fiction as a tool in providing an accurate historical representation, the makers of “The

Have you ever seen “The Patriot”? If you have do you know the truth behind it because some parts really happened and some parts didn’t. Meaning that “The Patriot” is somewhat historically accurate. The Patriot is somewhat historically accurate because the main character Benjamin Martin was not a real person he was based on Francis Marion, the Battle of Cowpens was exactly the same because the colonist had extra help to fight off the British, and the surrender of Colonel Cornwallis was somewhat alike because his army could not get around the French and the colonist in history and in the movie. So “The Patriot” has many differences and similarities to history.

History is used to teach many lessons. People learn history so they do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Movies try to recreate history in order to honor or teach people about the past. However, the history in movies show are not always accurate. Directors sometimes alter history in order to fit their own agenda. The movie, American Sniper, is a film adaptation of the life of Navy Seal, Chris Kyle and his struggles as a soldier, a movie that director Clint Eastwood had altered. This movie is only somewhat historically accurate because director Clint Eastwood altered the history, due to the director’s motive of sensationalizing Kyle as a hero in an action movie. He changed the characters, events, and the props in the movie to fit thi role,

As time goes on, history has a way of getting distorted from its most truthful form. Time causes people to drift away from accuracy and become more interested in what they want to remember. Hollywood has a reputation of creating films that cater more to the average viewer, rather than the history buff. Inglorious Basterds, by Quentin Taratino, take very liberal liberty with a history story, and creates a story that will sell to the crowd. This may seem dubious, but it is often not such a bad thing. Hollywood can take a story that may have one connotation, may it be serious or dreary, and turn it into something that evokes different emotions, will still addressing historical issues or topics. Taratino chooses to film a movie of this type

     However, to often in Hollywood the city of glamour and glitz, fortune and fame, movie producers have a tendency and even feel at liberty to rewrite American history. In my opinion this is all done out of greed. The movie industry, is all about money, therefore producers are obligated to do whatever it takes to keep it rolling into theatre box offices across the country. Producers know that people

Sometimes throughout history, events in real life happen that far exceed the story lines of novels and even some of the far-fetched movie plots. In order to keep from producing boring documentaries and to avoid confinement to a set script in history, screenwriters and directors often combine numerous true events into a new creation that only resembles or loosely portrays real life. These combined scenes can come from all different areas, countries, and even times. All in the name of entertainment and without having to be historically accurate. Early in 2000, the filmmakers out of Hollywood, California, created a film titled “The Patriot.” It was originally released as a fictional film for entertainment, but reiterated that it was loosely based on some historical events, but was still fictional, after attack from numerous historians. “The Patriot” portrays Benjamin Martin, a South Carolinian plantation owner, and his exploits for survival after the Revolutionary War forces its way into his family. His use of guerrilla warfare tactics closely resembles the real life fighting style of

Looking at the socially or culturally history of the United States, many historians use Hollywood films as a primary source. I also used many films such as Easy Rider (1969) or Dance, Girl, Dance (1941) to support my historical thesis paper and to make the topic more vivid by using the images of the film. Even though, some people think that films are accurate and authentic in its depiction, it is important to mention that films are still fictional. Directors and actors are responsible to make us believe their story, but this story does not have to be necessarily true. In that way, fictional films cannot be used as historical evidence in terms of how things looked like during that specific

I read the section about the battles that took place during WWII. It brought to my minds that in real life. There are more important things during a war than finding a private Ryan. War is a huge event and the little things like finding a person to keep the family name going is too small to include in war history. This is what separates the movies from the real life. Another difference is they don't show the actual planning it takes to start an attack or the inelegance that is needed to set up the perfect defense barrier to prevent the advancement of the enemy soldiers. A real battle can last days, weeks, months, or years, compared to movie war that lasts not even a day and has one guy or one platoon take on the entire other side. The casualties of real war is tremendous, rather than movies where you see almost the same characters in the whole movie accomplishing some of the most intense tasks with only one or two dying. Also, in movie war you don't see the other side's horror. You think all the opponents are bad horrible people that deserve to die, when they are just soldiers doing their job and the only reason we are fighting them is because of a bad leader or government. So in the movies every enemy deserves to die and should be shown no mercy, but the actual thing about that is that the enemy is just like any other soldier. And furthermore when the good guys lose a battle in a

Did you know people do not think if the story from history movie is a truly based on real history or filled with fiction? Almost every history movie contains some kind of fiction in it to make it a great story and to keep the audience's entertained. For example, the movie called “The Patriot” which was the American Revolution had happen. The movie has some historical accuracy but there are some historical inaccuracies also.

Many a time has Hollywood skewed the difference between reality and fantasy, exaggerating the truth and placing heavy importance on the myths. A recent historical movie was made about the Alamo. This movie though very historically accurate was different from the documentary; I will compare the two and show the differences. The movie was

When reading this book, you can tell by the words Mendez and Baglio use that the tone is dangerous and suspenseful. With all that was at stake, the Canadians and the CIA agents had to be very careful with what they said and did. One little slip up with what they said or did could cause them to all be taken away or even killed. When Mendez and the six diplomats arrived at the airport to leave they had to go through a lot of different check points. To go through these check points, they had to provide different types of identification to let the officers in the airport

Historic movies are often produced with the premise that they will tell an honest tale about the past, but how accurate are they really? The Patriot is a historical movie the shows the life of an ex-war hero, Benjamin Martin, and his life continuing on through the American Revolution. This includes his interaction with the soldiers and generals, his political stance, and his involvement through the towns. Because the Benjamin Martin is fictional The Patriot cannot be called 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean that other aspects shown were inaccurate. The Patriot demonstrates authentic knowledge of history militarily, socially, and politically.

The power and prestige of this film comes not from its controversial and serious subject matter, but from the unbiased way in which the story is

All of the critics were writing for the public sphere, which is characterized by Inch and Warnick as containing arguments that are "intended for public or general audiences" (52). In this case, the argument for the public sphere is directed toward movie-going audiences. The argument field is the evaluation of films during the 1990's, and could more specifically include historical films created in the 1990's. The argument field is an important point to my argument because historical film contains many debatable points, all of which will be discussed after the reviews are summarized.

The historical events that have occurred in the world have shaped the nation, and the culture. These events have been studied, and have been created into historical films. Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ is one historical film that has been created to depict the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus’ resurrection is a historical event that has been studied, and is studied by Christians all over the world.