Making History Even When We Didn't

I think most men out there will admit that they are fanatics when it comes to World War II. When most men tell you that they enjoy history, they will invariably mean military history. I can include myself in that bunch though I will admit that I study history beyond World War II as well though that's beside the point. There's some allure to World War II that has left it as one of the most written about conflicts in history. Obviously it was almost all-encompassing otherwise why would they call it a 'world war'. For those of us in America it was something that defined the course of our nation for many decades to come. There is a bit of in-built drama in it as well. The German rush across Europe. The gallant stand of the English during the Battle of Britain. The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and the war that ensued. It seems like some sort of movie though it was real enough.

The truth is sometimes more dramatic and more outlandish than even Hollywood would have us believe but it seems that in all their efforts to 'teach' us history, they tend to make it more of a spectacle than anything else. I mean take for example the movie "Pearl Harbor". When the announcement was initially made, I was curious about how they were going to handle a story set during the Japanese attack on the American naval base. I mean previous attempts to make movies on the subject such as the 1970's "Tora Tora Tora" had been met with mixed results. While critics praised it's attention to details and dramatic presentation and excellent special effects, most everyone who saw it felt that it was far too... sterile in it's depiction to have very much impact. So I was a bit skeptical when I heard that they were going to dramatize the events with a love triangle in the background. Again this could be the potential for success as seen in the film "From Here to Eternity".

Still, I later realized that I had every right to be skeptical. The film was part of the syndrome that appears to be the case in most every recent movie being released on World War II today and that's the impact that we Americans seem to have on.... everything. What do I mean? Well, in "Pearl Harbor" one of the main characters is shown to be flying in World War II during the Battle of Britain and then later with the Eagle Squadron which continued to fly sorties against the Luftwaffe. Then after being shot down and making a miraculous return to life (and thus setting up the love triangle) he is present at Pearl Harbor during the attack, flies planes and shoots down half of the Japanese planes then returns to the island to help in rescue efforts for the sailors trapped in sinking ships. I mean he even has time to donate blood! Then he's immediately drafted by the irrascable Jimmy Doolittle for the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo. Had the movie been allowed to go beyond three hours perhaps we would have seen him continue to fly in Europe and the Pacific before finally piloting the atomic bomb down on Hiroshima just before flying off to meet Kate Beckinsale on the farm. Throw in a slice of apple pie and it would have been perfect.

Now I don't for a minute wish to take away from the veterans who actually served in these theatres of combat or who laid down their lives for our country in a time of war. I think they have made much more of a sacrifice than many men can make in their entire lifetimes but still, why dramatize the facts. Okay, so "Pearl Harbor" was an American experience so we can forgive the depiction of an overly heroic American protagonist. But what about a film like "U-571"? It shows a fictional attack on a German U-Boat in an effort to gain possession of an Enigma encryption machine. With a crew of clean cut Americans (including no less than Jon Bon Jovi!) the mission is carried out with great tension and success and the Allies are then shown to have an Enigma machine which helped them break German codes. That was great and all until you realized that the first successful capture of an Enigma was done by the Brits. Needless to say they were a bit peeved by the film.

Part of the problem comes from the fact that we are a bit impatient when it comes to things like history. Sure we can read 500-page books on the subject and get the truth but a movie can show it to us in 2 hours. Which is more appealing? For me it's the reading portion more than the film portion but still, I enjoy the movies too! I just wish they were more accurate. What happens is that the majority of people out there who don't read or aren't familiar with the truth tend to take the movies as gospel. They will remember that Jon Bon Jovi and Matthew McConaghey captured the submarine and won the day and not that the truth was that the Royal Navy did it first. One can argue that it's a minor point but tell that to the people who made the sacrifice in the first place.

Tom Cruise is the latest Hollywood star to experience this backlash first hand. Recently he began filming on the movie tentatively titled "Valkyrie" which is a depiction of the plot to assassinate Hitler (which ultimately failed). In the film (directed by Bryan Singer of "X-Men", "Superman Returns" and "The Usual Suspects" fame)Cruise portrays Claus Von Stauffenberg who was one of the main conspirators and is considered to be a hero among Germans. Where the controversy in this case comes from the fact that the German people in general are a bit wary of Cruise and his views on Scientology. Though this shouldn't have any bearing on his acting ability, it is nonetheless a source of some tension for him. What worries me is that the film will stray from history and focus on more dramatized events leading up to the failed assassination than anything else. Though there's very little in which a decidedly German officer can be made to appear American, this is Hollywood so anything is possible.

I mean Cruise is already stirring controversy over this movie and he's started to brew a new pot on the side with the British over word of his next movie as well. In a movie tentatively titled "The Few" Cruise is set to star as an American pilot who illegally went to Britain along with several other Americans in order to enlist in the Royal Air Force (RAF) to fight the Luftwaffe. Now while the basic premise is true and while it is also true that the Americans did participate in the Battle of Britain, there is a great deal of discussion as to whether the American pilots made much of an impact to warrant a film on the events. What the British worry about is that the film will show again a very skewed version of the events. They are worried about "U-571" being applied to the Battle of Britain and history being changed to show that the Battle of Britain was won by a handful of Americans with Colgate quality smiles.

I have faith that history will stand to the truth despite what the movies show us and I think that those of us who are true students of history will seek out the films that are based on reality rather than star power. For example, I think the film "Downfall" which was made entirely in German is probably one of the most chilling and accurate accounts of the final ten days in Berlin before the suicide of Hitler. I think it was made all the more realistic given the fact that most of the actors are not major stars out of their respective countries and as such, there was a tendency (on my part at least) to view these events as reality more than conjecture and dramatization. While I hope that Cruise's depiction on von Stauffenberg will focus more on the facts than the dramatics, I am a bit wary. We should remember history for what it was and not what makes the best special effects and box office appeal.