By Fred Thompson
Monday, February 25, 2013
Last week I received a call from a Hollywood reporter
asking me if I thought that the political criticism that the movie Zero Dark
Thirty had received would hurt its chances at the Oscars. Not having a lot of
experience with Academy Awards, I replied that I had no idea. However, I
couldn’t help but offer something, so I added that I wouldn’t be surprised if
it did, since liberal criticism of movies often seems to resonate more than
criticism from the right, which is usually ignored. (“Moo,” right? Master of
the obvious.)
The reporter was referring to the “word” going around
Hollywood that ZDT had fallen out of favor after (mostly) liberal politicians
in Washington criticized the movie for showing enhanced-interrogation
techniques as an important and effective tool in the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Three senators called for an investigation into what information the CIA had
offered the filmmakers, and asked the studio to state that torture was not an
effective technique. Specifically, the movie suggested that enhanced
interrogation had produced some information that, along with other
intelligence, revealed Osama bin Laden’s courier, which in turn led to bin
Laden himself. Liberals on both coasts were outraged. Never mind that this is
precisely what several people involved in the pursuit, including Obama’s former
CIA director Leon Panetta, said happened. How dare a Hollywood movie throw a
bone to a George W. Bush policy!
Perhaps my reporter friend was on to something. Last
night, Zero Dark Thirty didn’t fare too well at the Oscars, despite having
received more critical praise than the other nominees and garnering the most
pre-Academy awards. Kathryn Bigelow, the highly acclaimed director of the
movie, didn’t even get nominated for best director. The Carter-era Iranian-rescue
movie Argo (with the phony final runway-chase scene) won Best Picture, which
was announced by Michelle Obama.
I’m not saying it’s all about politics — not Washington
politics, anyway. It’s more about hypocrisy and political correctness. The criticism
of Zero is based, wrongly, in my opinion, on its supposed historical
inaccuracy. Meanwhile Lincoln is receiving almost universal adulation, although
the most important dramatic premise of that movie is not historically accurate.
The tense and exciting fight against the clock as Lincoln
tried to get the 13th Amendment passed was made up. The South was not going to
be allowed to hold it up, particularly with General Sherman’s successful
military campaign far below the Mason-Dixon Line. Further, Lincoln had made it clear that he’d
call a special session of Congress in March 1865 if needed, at which time he
would be assured of having enough Republican votes for passage of the
amendment. Lincoln’s greatness needs no
embellishment, but that didn’t stop the writer of the screenplay from
embellishing. Abe Lincoln was an extraordinary politician but a politician
nonetheless — he opposed slavery vehemently but, as late as 1862, had no
intention of eradicating it if the Union could be preserved without doing so.
He didn’t even support the 13th Amendment when the idea was first introduced.
None of this is extremely important in the broad scope of history, but
moviemakers would have gone a little lighter on Lincoln as saint if they had
prized historical accuracy.
Frost-Nixon was an award-winning Broadway play and movie
based on a real-life TV interview of the former president by David Frost. The
final scene shows Frost aggressively going after Nixon and finally wearing him
down, getting him to admit that he was in on the cover-up of Watergate. But the
confession never happened in the real interview. In the mainstream media, only
writer Elizabeth Drew pointed this out and chided those responsible for the
misrepresentation.
You’ve probably never read the transcript of the Scopes
monkey trial, on which the movie Inherit the Wind is based. If you did,
however, you would not find the befuddled, confused, and embarrassed William
Jennings Bryan who is depicted in the movie, where he defends a literal
interpretation of the Bible. Regardless of one’s view on the matter, the historical record shows Bryan more than
held his own under cross-examination by Clarence Darrow and that the unfair
portrayal just might have had something to do with Hollywood’s opinion on the
issue.
Altering history or making up “facts” in a movie or play
is not that big of a deal. Every historical drama ever written has contained
heavy doses of fiction, either for dramatic effect or to make a point. Just ask
Richard II. What is of concern is that fictionalized accounts that are
factually wrong but politically correct tend to become accepted history. Others
that are less convenient, such as Zero Dark Thirty, get a congressional
investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment