Should war movies stick to documented facts?

If they are meant to depict history the films should stick to the facts. Sometimes for plot continuity dialogue may have to be created. Such dialogue should be true to the nature of the historical characters portrayed. Even non-war films prtraying major historical events should follow these principles.
Some films, such as “Private Ryan” and “Kelly’s Heroes” portraying sideline events can take some liberties but the larger context shoud be realistic. A historian cringes when seeing wrong uniforms, vehicles, weapons, etc. Sometimes practical necessity has ruled, such as “Battle of Britain” where there simply were not enough Bf-109E’s in existance, so later models, including some made in Spain and Czechoslovakia after the war had to be used.

Agree with stranger_in_a_strange_land, and would like to add that in film, there are all kinds of ways to depict truth (or at least the writer/director’s vision of it) other than “reality.” Check out Stanley Kramer’s “Paths of Glory.” The battleground scenes are highly stylized, more nightmarish than real, and some of the most horrifying scenes showing the immorality of war take place in beautiful palace-like rooms. And then there’s M*A*S*H, which uses black humor, along with blood, to make the point that war is as hellish behind the lines as on them.

@Austinlad Excellent points. +GA Kramer could just as easily picked another battle though as his venue. Balclava, Somme, Verdun, Kursk all had that pointless stylized quality in real life. MASH and Catch-22 were both black comedies in a wartime setting.

I agree that documentaries, just like news programs, should stick to the facts – whether they’re about wars or anything else. However, there’s a whole genre of war fiction, alternate history, that sort of thing, that is exactly that: fiction. I don’t think that people go into a theatre to see a movie and expect everything on the screen to be true history. That’s why the ones based on true events have that tagline at the top, saying so.

@ hug of war Are you writing your condensed version of war & peace?

@laureth The “alternate history” genre is a whole different ball of wax. Like Harry Turtledove’s “Guns of the South”. But a good author has to make an accurate assessment of what a single change could do. e.g. What if Rommel made “one more push” at El-Alamein?, or as Turtledove posited, giving Lee’s forces weapons 80 years ahead of their time?

Sensitive soul!

i belive they should

Traditionally movies, except strictly documentary movies, have never bothered to stick to the facts. Why should war movies be an exception?

@pdworkin They shouldn’t. Just curious as to the general opinion of others that’s all.

@pdworkin Not just war movies. All movies that claim to represent historical facts. Of course I’m a nit-picking history buff who loves to spot any inconsistencies. Like the 1964 film “Zulu”; the South Wales Borderers were not named the 24th Regiment of Foot until the year after the Battle of Rourkes Drift.

If war movies stuck to historical fact then we might never have more than one movie, since people would be so damned disgusted with it. Instead of “big box office”, they’d probably picket to have it shut down.

On the other hand, we might not be so quick to have new wars, either.

Hey, a guy can dream…

@CyanoticWasp Having participated in two, I am much less a fan of the genre than I was 20 years ago.

In documentaries, yes, as best as the makers of the film are able to do so. But in fictional films, no. However, it is incumbent upon the audience to remember the difference between documentary films and fiction.

Only if it is “Starship Troopers”... ;)

@CorwinofAmber They murdered Heinleins book. I was rooting for the spider-things!