Author Topic: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books  (Read 109751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #240 on: April 05, 2008, 12:59:29 PM »
The fact that DOWNFALL was based upon Traudl Junge's memoirs of her life as Hitler's secretary is why there were sympathetic overtones in the depiction of Hitler. Junge said many times that the man she knew was not a monster --- that in some ways, she did not see that Hitler until she began taking down the dictation of his last political will and testament. There is an interesting documentary in which Junge is a talking head for ninety minutes, speaking of her experiences. That might sound boring, but think of her experiences! Anyway, after the war she passed a monument to Sophie Scholl and was struck by the fact that the two of them were the same age. And yet Scholl recognized the intrinsic evil of the Hitler regime enough to die opposing it. Junge said it was only then --- after the war --- that she realized that she could have known that which she did not know.


Ah Downfall, a brilliant film on so many levels! I don't have a problem with the "sympathetic" portrayal of Hitler and entourage; enough of their cold-bloodedness, warped thought processes and detachment from reality still came through to chill the soul. In any case, even the vilest, most evil man has some remnant of humanity within, Hitler's affection for Blondi, for example. (And no I'm not suggesting this redeems him in any way)!

My question: do you take Junge's memoirs at face value?

The short answer is "no" as far as Traudl Junge is concerned, but I have to say that I have not delved into it deeply. Call it a gut feeling, based upon Gitta Sereny's work with Albert Speer. She did her level best to pin him down to a real statement of personal responsibility for his actions, and even though I think she demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that his memoirs and subsequent interviews about his role were self-serving, Speer would never admit it. The overwhelming impression I get from people like Speer and Junge who is that they cannot confront in a meaningful way what they did. I suppose if they did confront it, suicide would be the only option? I don't know. I think that the makers of DOWNFALL were aware that Junge is a problematic source --- especially if they relied only upon her, which thankfully they didn't.

I really don't think film accomplishes much in this area, i.e. letting us know what was really happening. It diminishes it, because it imposes limitations upon what should not be limited --- and here I am speaking of huge events.The Shoah, American slavery, things like that. 

Simon

And yes, to the Annie/Helen picture. I have directed The Miracle Worker twice, and wish that the picture had been available when I did the shows. The whole relationship dynamic is in their pose and faces.
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #241 on: April 05, 2008, 01:41:47 PM »
Ah Downfall, a brilliant film on so many levels!

Yes!

I don't have a problem with the "sympathetic" portrayal of Hitler and entourage; enough of their cold-bloodedness, warped thought processes and detachment from reality still came through to chill the soul.

I feel the same way. In fact, I am not sure how sympathetic the portrayal was. It was obvious that the film took the perspective of this woman and it was her reality that was coming through the lens, so to speak. Which I think is what made it so brilliant.

My question: do you take Junge's memoirs at face value?

Of course not.

Has anyone watched it with director's comments? (this feature is available on DVD and is well worth watching).




helenazar

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #242 on: April 05, 2008, 02:11:28 PM »
Speaking as someone with no connection to Sept 11 other than as an American, I own the United 93 dvd and regard it as a masterpiece of docudrama.

Speaking as someone who has a lot of personal connection to 9/11, I saw this film and liked it, although it brought on a lot of unpleasant memories and thoughts. So I think we each have different "tolerance", if that's the right word, and perspective on these things. None of us can speak for anyone else, even if we have been in similar situations.

Puppylove

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #243 on: April 06, 2008, 10:17:59 AM »
Apologies for veering so far off topic, but it's worth it for those who haven't seen the Helen Keller photo:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23489779/

Simon I agree with you about books taking you places films cannot; but isn't it amazing how one photograph can somehow capture a world? Sarushka, your book is going on my reading list!
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 10:19:54 AM by Puppylove »

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #244 on: April 06, 2008, 10:34:03 AM »
I don't want to make it sound as though I don't like movies --- I do. But I usually like them for the pictures as opposed to the dialogue these days (old films are a different kettle of fish). Is anyone watching John Adams on HBO? Giamatti and Linney are sensational, the script is intelligent and doesn't take too many liberties with the truth, the sets and costumes brilliant . . . but I find myself going back to McCullough's book to try and understand him.

These kinds of movies (Flight 93 seem to fall into a different category than historical "fiction" in the minds of viewers, though, and I am not sure that they should. They aren't as egregious as The Other Boleyn Girl or The Tudors, but they still have the same impact. They become history for those who see them, and who go no further in their interest.

I'm probably just being picky. I find it almost impossible to imagine Sir Thomas More without referencing Paul Scofield's image and performance. Movies have more potency than the written word. Is that a good thing?

Simon
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Sarushka

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #245 on: April 06, 2008, 11:18:46 AM »
Is anyone watching John Adams on HBO? Giamatti and Linney are sensational, the script is intelligent and doesn't take too many liberties with the truth, the sets and costumes brilliant . . . but I find myself going back to McCullough's book to try and understand him.

I'm so bummed I missed the first part of this series; I refuse to start in the middle. I'm hoping HBO will re-air it, or my library will pick it up on DVD. I LOVED McCullough's book.

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #246 on: April 06, 2008, 11:33:17 AM »
Yuh, I missed the first episode as well. Most of the subsequent episodes have seemed pretty self-contained, though, so you can dip into it without spoiling the overall effect. But yes, I will also be buying the DVD. I'm curious. How do you rate the film of The Miracle Worker as accurately conveying the truth of the Keller/Sullivan relationship?
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Annie

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #247 on: April 06, 2008, 03:18:43 PM »
On the topic of historical 'fiction'- not real fiction, but fictionalization (via dramatization) of actual people and events is another category to discuss. When does it cross the line to become real fiction? Will we ever know? Laura Ingalls Wilder's books, though based on real people and events in her own life, are listed in the library as fiction, probably because it wasn't totally accurate and some things were added or subtracted to make it more interesting. The show of course took far greater liberties with the characters and their lives until Rodger MacBride, who was given the rights to Laura's stories, refused to be associated with it anymore. The same thing with the Waltons, they were real, but most of the episodes were not fact based. The creator who was 'John Boy' in real life didn't even write most of the episodes, and as years went by it became less and less what happened to the real family. These, of course, were for the benefit of the network.

What about Alex Haley's Roots? Haley spent years researching his family and writing the book and it was, like Laura's, based on real people and events. However, most of the people were dead, and all Alex really had to go on were a few names, records and old family stories. Does this make a whole thick book and two long miniseries, or were they, like "Little House" and "Waltons", dramatized and exaggerated to make them more interesting? How much of what he wrote was real, and how much was 'fill in the blanks?'  I heard once years ago that some people wanted Haley's book moved to nonfiction for this reason. He really didn't know everything that happened, so surely most of what we read and saw in the show was only assumed and written more like a novel. Do we really know that Dr. Reynolds' wife slept with his brother, or was this made up? Some of the details he even tried to make accurate turned out to be wrong. Much is made of Kunta Kinte being a Muslim, praying to Allah and refusing to eat 'pig meat', yet in reality, the Mandinka tribe was not converted to Islam until the 1850's, and Kunta was taken to America in the 1760's. So he would have been a member of a tribal religion instead. Could this influence have come from Haley's own experience with Malcolm X, whose bio he penned? The fact remains, it was inaccurate yet presented as truth. The list could go on and on, but my question is, when does a true story become historical fiction based on the amount of 'added info' along the way?

*for the record, I am a HUGE fan of Roots, Little House, and the Waltons so I am NOT bashing!
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 03:20:22 PM by Annie »

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #248 on: April 06, 2008, 03:31:37 PM »
I think that most viewers accept the fact that some dramatic license has to be taken in order to give dramatic shape to a movie or television series. The problem is that if they are successful --- as were all three of the shows you mention --- then they tend to replace the books upon which they were based in the public mind. It's a problem with plays too, of course --- Shakespeare's Richard III is not history's Richard III, for example.

I don't know if there is an answer to this question, although if the film/show is designed as pure entertainment, I think it lets the creators mostly off the hook. I tended to think of the Little House on the Prairie series --- which I didn't like --- as a completely separate thing from the books, which I did.

Did Haley specifically hang Roots around his own family, or did he intend it as a paradigm for the black experience in America? I read it so long ago I don't remember.

I suppose in the end it is up to the individual reader/viewer if it is a problem.
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Annie

  • Guest
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #249 on: April 06, 2008, 04:10:31 PM »
I think that most viewers accept the fact that some dramatic license has to be taken in order to give dramatic shape to a movie or television series. The problem is that if they are successful --- as were all three of the shows you mention --- then they tend to replace the books upon which they were based in the public mind. It's a problem with plays too, of course --- Shakespeare's Richard III is not history's Richard III, for example.

Yes, that is a shame, and has even happened to Tolkien's books because of the movies (though they are of course not true) I was also worried that the Pocahontas and Anastasia cartoons would do the same, but at least in the case of Anastasia it seems to have had the opposite reaction. A lot of the posters we have here now who like OTMA got interested because of the cartoon and explored more and found out the truth, which got them interested in the real thing.

Quote
I don't know if there is an answer to this question, although if the film/show is designed as pure entertainment, I think it lets the creators mostly off the hook.

In that way it may, though if some of the relatives were alive and had been portrayed wrong they may have been upset, unless they were paid well (j/k)

Quote
I tended to think of the Little House on the Prairie series --- which I didn't like --- as a completely separate thing from the books, which I did.

Well now here I agree with you on something! I watched the show, but never liked it nearly as much as the books. The early seasons were tolerable because they were similar to the books, but the later seasons were unbearable! I cringed once they started taking in all those extra orphans. Nelly's resturaunt, Ma taking it over, that was awful! They completely changed and ruined Laura and Almanzo's courtship. Oh and the Mary going blind part and the nonexistent husband and the blind school, whatever! Not moving them to De Smet, the chamber of commerce was furious! I could rant on this for a long time but I won't.

When I was reading the books (in the fourth-fifth grades) I got a certain image of the characters, their looks, personalities and surroundings in my mind, and I got so close to it that it took on a certain feeling- one I never got from the show. The way the actors portrayed the parts were not what I had imagined or the message I got from the book. Most off was "Pa", and later Laura. What a bitch she became on "A New Beginning", not like the real girl at all! I hated her! Even now when I read the books, I can still see them the way the book explained them to me originally, and I don't see the show characters or set at all.(My son said the same thing about LOTR movies and the Tolkien books, he'd read them in fourth grade several years before the movies came out)

Quote
Did Haley specifically hang Roots around his own family, or did he intend it as a paradigm for the black experience in America? I read it so long ago I don't remember.

I suppose in the end it is up to the individual reader/viewer if it is a problem.

I really don't know if that was his goal or not. I guess my main question was, on the topic of 'author's obligation', should his book be in the nonfiction section, used as reference and quoted in school papers,  if the story inside was indeed fictionalized and dramatized as much as "Little House" and "The Waltons" ?

Offline Sarushka

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #250 on: April 06, 2008, 07:12:17 PM »
I'm curious. How do you rate the film of The Miracle Worker as accurately conveying the truth of the Keller/Sullivan relationship?

Speaking specifically about the 1962 version starring Bancroft and Duke, which I believe is the ONLY version worth looking at....

I think the film version of The Miracle Worker does an excellent job of conveying the intensity of those first few weeks. The portrayal of those initial interactions are very accurate. Emotionally, there are a few beats missing. Annie's fire and drive are certainly there, but IMO her vulnerability and neediness are somewhat lacking. Annie was a tremendously wounded person, and I don't think that comes through clearly. I think in the end we feel more for Helen than for Annie, whereas in reality that moment at the pump was every bit as much of a turning point for Annie as it was for Helen.  Also, in the film Annie's love for Helen develops gradually, almost reluctantly. In reality, I believe Annie almost immediately felt a strong desire for Helen to love her.

My only actual beef with the film is that Annie would NEVER have told the Kellers she grew up in an asylum. She was far too proud and ashamed to admit to that. Even Helen Keller didn't know the truth about Annie's past until the 1920's.


Another point that's relevant to the topic:
Gibson made what seems like a small reversal in the facts: in the play Helen speaks for the first time in the famous water pump scene, when in reality she'd been saying "wah-wah" every time she touched water since she lost her sight and hearing. Sounds like no big deal, right? It sure increases the dramatic impact of the scene, and helps anyone sitting in row V understand what's going on even if they can't see Helen fingerspelling under the flowing water. Trouble is, it inadvertently encourages society's prejudice that spoken language is superior to signed language.

To avoid perpetuating that notion in Miss Spitfire, I had to let Helen say “wah-wah” every time she touched it (which is a massive pain in the tush when you're trying to convince your readers that Helen doesn't understand the concept of words). When she finally understands the meaning of the letters w-a-t-e-r at the pump in chapter 29, she cuts off her “wah-wah” mid-syllable and begins to spell the word instead of saying it. As in reality, signed language overtakes spoken. I hope that simple reversal will help to show that the form language takes doesn’t matter.

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #251 on: April 06, 2008, 07:34:31 PM »
Hunh. If I had ever heard that she said "wah-wah" prior to the pump I had forgotten it. I get why Gibson did it, but it could have been carried off if he had left the reality intact. In fact, I think the fact that she had been sending these inadvertent messages in a bottle to the outside world would have been just as poignant --- Annie is finally the person who can tell Helen what she is saying when even she no longer remembers the connection to a time before the illness.

I like your solution in Miss Spitfire.

I know the thread is about the responsibility of the author to the reader/viewer, but I think it is the audience itself that frequently shapes the work, so they have some "responsibility" here as well. Each generation projects its own experiences and values onto the works of, say, William Shakespeare --- look at the difference between the Branagh and Olivier Henry V movies. On a more simplistic level, I think this is one explanation for why the television show Little House on the Prairie (the television series) too the shape it did. Landon consciously shaped it in a way that Wilder didn't --- the show was a fountain of emotion, while the books are far more understated. Again, they were playing to their base audience with the television show, and the base audience for a television show in the 70s and 80s weren't looking for anything too complex.

Simon
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Joanna

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Winter Palace Research
    • View Profile
    • Winter Palace Research
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #252 on: April 06, 2008, 09:01:23 PM »
When finding Marfa Mouchanov’s ‘My Empress’ in the reference library (I do not remember year of publication) that gave an intimate view of Alexandra’s life in the early years of her marriage, I was enthralled. It was only in the last ten years either through Paul Minet’s Royalty Digest’s articles or an internet site, that I understood that Marfa Mouchanov was not a member of  the Empress’ household and it is unknown who the author was. It makes for a disregard of the information unless a second original source confirms the event/description. If an author replicates references to Moucha’s work, I tend to question or ignore.

The same has occurred with Catherine Radziwill’s work although some volumes were published under the name of Paul Vassili when she returned to St. Petersburg c1910s and under the eyes of the Section IV. Do we disregard the whole if parts are farfetched i.e. references to Orlov’s death. And yet we know she had access to insider information through her friendships but there is the sensational aspect and in her later writings she published by memory under monetary need. One piece of information that I came across in her recent biography by Leda Farrant was that Empress Marie Feodorovna did not attend the French ball held the day of the Klodynka tragedy. Is that true? Are there other sources to confirm. It becomes a maze trying to search for facts!

Simon, It was sad to read in March of the death of Paul Scofield. I had not seen of him for a long time and my memory retains his performance in A Man For All Seasons.

Joanna

Offline Sarushka

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #253 on: April 06, 2008, 10:21:13 PM »
When finding Marfa Mouchanov’s ‘My Empress’ in the reference library (I do not remember year of publication) that gave an intimate view of Alexandra’s life in the early years of her marriage, I was enthralled. It was only in the last ten years either through Paul Minet’s Royalty Digest’s articles or an internet site, that I understood that Marfa Mouchanov was not a member of  the Empress’ household and it is unknown who the author was. It makes for a disregard of the information unless a second original source confirms the event/description. If an author replicates references to Moucha’s work, I tend to question or ignore.

Precisely why I don't care for Carolly Erickson's biography of Alexandra. Erickson uses Mouchanow as a source, but in the absence of footnotes it's difficult to know which information is realiable. Greg King also used Mouchanow occasionally, but it's very simple to verify the source of any questionable info through his footnotes. I much prefer his Last Empress to Erickson's work.

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13039
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: historical accuracy/ethics question regarding writing books
« Reply #254 on: April 07, 2008, 09:36:30 AM »
Is anyone watching John Adams on HBO? Giamatti and Linney are sensational, the script is intelligent and doesn't take too many liberties with the truth, the sets and costumes brilliant . . . but I find myself going back to McCullough's book to try and understand him.

I'm so bummed I missed the first part of this series; I refuse to start in the middle. I'm hoping HBO will re-air it, or my library will pick it up on DVD. I LOVED McCullough's book.

If your cable service has the free 'on demand' service, all 4 parts are available until 5/19. Of course, the HBO on demands are only 'free' if you're already an HBO subscriber--not meaning to raise any non-subscribers's hopes.  :)
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/