MovieChat Forums > The Hurricane (2000) Discussion > When does 'altering history' go to far.....

When does 'altering history' go to far....

posted 10 years ago by crakatoot
8 replies | jump to latest

I did a report on this in College. Where I talked about Historical movies and how they have to alter facts to fit the story. I talked about movies like 300, JFK, Birth of a Nation, Braveheart and To Hell And Back ( where Audie Murphy played himself) I talked about how the facts get altered and how a lot of times it's necessary and how there is a certain amount of responsibility on the audience to realize that the story isn't a 100 % true and if the audience wants to learn the real story they have too go find out them selves. But watching this film got me thinking, when does altering the facts go to far. I liked this film till I found out how much of it was B.S. That Ruben probably was guilty, that all the celebrities backed off supporting him not because it was "to hard" like the movie implies but because Ruben was a violent psycho. That even if he wasn't guilty of this crime he still committed several other violent crimes. In one of the scenes he is in a bar and he makes a point of saying he is drinking Club Soda despite the fact that the real Rebuen was a drunk. Also in the movie they show the Hurricane beating the boxer Joey Giardello in a fight but that Joey ended up winning on points anyway cause of you know.... Racism. Apparently that never happened either and Giardello sued the producers because he wanted people to know that he really did win the fight. So that makes me wonder did this film go to far altering the history. I mean this film follows a pretty recent historical event, stuff people actually are alive to Remember. It's not like its a movie about Caesar or Joan of Ark. And it's not the only movie I didn't like cause of changes. I'm a big 2Pac and Biggie fan and I was appalled by the movie Notorious and all the changes that that film made. So that makes me wonder when does a film go to far altering the history. What do u think?

[–] paxtonaddleman 10 years ago

I think if you make a movie about a real person, using that person's real name, you have an obligation to stick to the facts.

But this is why I love living in the age of post-2004 internet. There is no way this movie gets away with its fictions if it is released today. Half the audience at the previews would be all over the internet, first researching the facts and then posting their findings on IMDB, facebook, twitter, reddit, and every other platform they can reach. Worst case scenario: By the first week of wide release, people might still line up to see it, but they know that they are walking into a *movie*, not a documentary. Best case scenario: The movie gets laughed out of the theaters before opening weekend.

[–] TheGutterMonkey (302) 3 years ago

This is giving people far too much credit, I think.

Yes, some will utilize the limitless information of the internet to find the true story, but the vast majority won't. As always, they'll simply believe the story they want to believe and use the limitless information of the internet to find a comfortable echo chamber that'll gift them with all the confirmation bias necessary to continue holding onto the "truth" they've chosen.

[–] Black_Lies_Matter 10 years ago

If you're using real names, real place, real incidents, etc., then you need to be accurate with the facts. Especially, if it's recent and involves people still living.
That's what makes this film worse than some of the others you mentioned.

[–] willjohn 10 years ago

When Fox News gets hold of it.

[–] Black_Lies_Matter 9 years ago

You're not making any sense.

[–] by1989 9 years ago

Crakatoot,

I think that you raise an interesting question. I suspect that the answer is based on upon the emotions and feelings felt by the movie viewer.

For example "The Bridge over the River Kwai" won a number of Academy Awards in spite of the "heroic" parts of the movie being almost completely fictional. The Japanese had no need of any British "expertise" to build their bridge nor did the exciting finale actually happen the way it was depicted. Unfortunately, the British POWs were simple slave labor like the Asian captives. That being said, the movie is a stunning in its scope, cinematography, acting, etc.

In "The Birdman of Alcatraz" Burt Lancaster was nominated for a Best Actor Academy Award as Denzel Washington was for "The Hurricane". I remember seeing this movie when I was young and being impressed and moved by Burt Lancaster's portrayal of Robert Stroud. However, many people have been highly critical of the movie's portrayal of Stroud as a mild-mannered birdman versus a vicious killer who did not even do his bird research at Alcatraz!

However, I still recommend that people see both of these movies because they are good films with excellent acting, in spite of their inaccuracies.

The question becomes, should actors be denied an Academy Award if the movie strays too far from reality? Not sure if that has ever been a criterion for judging an actor's performance.

When does a movie altering history go too far? That is still a good question.

BTW - Cool screen name. - Did you own a pet bird?

BY1989

[–] crakatoot 9 years ago

im glad u like my name, and no it has nothing to do with birds. Crakatoot is a piece of south bronx slang. while im actually from Jeresy, i heard it once and just liked the way it sounded.

i told you not to stop the boat. Now lets go. Apocaylpse Now

[–] BeaSouth (3561) 3 years ago

Even the Daily Beast couldn’t exonerate the guy

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hurricane-carter-was-wrongly-convicted-but-he-wasnt-innocent