There is a small brouhaha going around over the tremendous likelihood that the allegedly true story of Frank Hopkins, as depicted in “Hidalgo,” is BS (or, more appropriately, HS). People are shocked–shocked–to discover the historical Hopkins exaggerated his exploits a little. A lot. A whole hëll of a lot.
Well, I took Ariel to see it before I’d heard anything about the brou or the ha ha. And I’m watching thisl film and thinking, “An annual horse race of 3000 miles? The width of the United States? Across scorching desert? On a single horse? No frickin’ way. I’m not even sure there’s that much Arab desert *to* ride across. And by the way, he makes a side trip to rescue an Arab princess? Aw, c’mon.”
I pretty much came to the conclusion while watching that anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together should think of “Hidalgo” as nothing more than a live action version of those old wild west pulp magazines, and that all claims to the facts being unvarnished–as those magazines likewise claimed–should be given equal credence. Certainly the extreme flexibility of “truth” vis a vis the old west is integrated into the movie’s own story, ranging from the Wild Bill show depicting the slaughter of 300 surrendering Lakota at Wounded Knee as a brave victory for the white man, or an Arab’s perception of the west coming entirely from what he’s read in the greatly exaggerated wild west magazines. A deconstruction of the film’s own veracity, as it were. It’s annoying that Disney didn’t market it that way: It could just be billed as “Based on the tales of Frank Hopkins” and that would be perfectly fair.
Taken on that basis, “Hidalgo” is a rousing film with a nice kid-friendly message about not losing touch with your roots. It features a portrayal of Arabs that depicts them as fairly arrogant at first to the upstart cowboy but, ultimately, is pretty flattering (which is a nice change from the Arabs=terrorists mindset we currently have.) Plus there’s no twenty minute sequence of some poor Jew getting flayed and, hey, y’know, there’s horsies.
PAD
• 
But there was no Gran Torino either.
Of COURSE there was a Gran Torino.
Starsky and Hutch drove one.
🙂
I think they actually did say “based” but I agree….trying to claim this movie was a true story is like saying Star Trek is based on the life of Gene Roddenberry. 🙂
There’s a short story out there claiming that Star Trek is based on the life of Gene Roddenberry.
This is hardly the first Disney film to shred history, just the first that isn’t about a princess from the past who resembles barbie. Disney movies will continue to shred history, because people hate history.
An example. Let’s compare “The Passion” to the Gospels.
There are four Gospels. They each tell a slightly diffrent version of the same events, with emphasis on diffrent things. They can be difficult to understand, and there are about a dozen different published versions of each, just in English. Like all histories, it requires thought and interpretation to understand the Gospels.
“The Passion” is a single storyline that acknowledges no question about what might have happenend. It establishes a difinitive version (and therefor by definition erroneous) of events. It is dogmatic. It requires no thought.
People prefer dogma. It’s less work.
My thing is wondering why anyone cares enough to make such a big stink over it. It’s not a Disney thing to shred history in movies. It’s a movie thing. In the entire history of Hollywood, you can count on one hand the number of films that were “based on a true story” that didn’t completely shred historical fact. Why pick on this movie? It’s a popcorn flick. Just sit back and enjoy it.
Jerry
Oddly enough, I used the same “pulp western novel” example on someone who was being very condescending about how bad the movie was.
That’s ok, this same person likes to read Harlequin Romance novels, so I tend to consider the source.
J’myle,
Your reasoning could be used as a critique of every New testament movie, or for that matter, any historical movie. Did Schindler’s List get this much grief?
200 million dollar in the box office and the only violent anti semitism I’m seeing is from the same folks who were doing it before the movie opened. Where’s the pogram?
As for Hildago, I remember hearing a bunch of stuff about this from some horse enthusiasts a while back. Why anyone would give a rat’s ášš about the veracity of this film is beyond me.
Now if you want controversy, how about the fact that the new DAWN OF THE DEAD remake has zombies running around like fricken track stars when, as you know, most zombies are shambling slow moving creatures. They’re dead, they’re…all messed up. And I hear there are zombie dogs and I think “oh great, first Hulk dogs, now zombie dogs, it’s like when they stuck Ms Lion into every episode of Spiderman and His Amazing Friends because someone said ‘Every cartoon has to have a dog!'”
Nevertheless, come opening day, I’m there. Zombies rule.
Anybody else remember the Wasteland? Del Close penned a couple of supposedly-semi-autobiographical pieces and at the end of one these stories he wrote these immortal lines: This story is 100% true except the parts I changed to make it a better story and therefore truer. As a writer I’ve always like that philosophy. However I do think Disneys marketing department flubbed this one.
J’myle writes:
“This is hardly the first Disney film to shred history, just the first that isn’t about a princess from the past who resembles barbie.”
Oh, not even… The Disney movie COOL RUNNINGS was hardly a historically accurate account of the Jamcain Olympic bobsled team, after all…
The British series “As Time Goes By” offers an amusing look at the American filmmaking process for “Based on a True Story” movies. The show stars Judi Dench (the current “M” in the Bond movies).
davidh
“My thing is wondering why anyone cares enough to make such a big stink over it.”
The people making a big stink are endurance horse racing fans.
Now that I have seen the movie, I agree with Peter that the movie itself is so obviously not true that everyone should get it, and the complainers don’t really have a case.
BUT the complainers began complaining MONTHS ago. As far as they knew, the movie was trying to be a docudrama in tone (instead of action movie, which is what it is). Before the tone of the movie was known, they had a case. Now that the movie is out and it is clear that the movie isn’t trying to teach anything (about history), I hope they will dry up and go away.
Isn’t the jab at the “20 minute sequence of some poor Jew” a little gratuitous? Do we need to work criticism of “The Passion” into every thread? If anything, the “backlash” in response to “Passion” might be a little therapeutic. Q.v. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/03/08/synagogue.graffiti.ap/index.html What’s more typical for the United States, anti-Semitic graffiti or the reaction against anti-Semitism? I’d argue the latter.
It’s not as though Gibson filmed a remake of “Triumph of the Will.” MUST we continue to beat a dead horse?
PS: How does one do italics and bold face with the new blog setup?
hey – since this seems to be about the Passion once again, go read the best review on the web, by Orson Scott Card, here:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-29-1.html
as for Hildago – looks like a fun movie. When I see “based on (or inspired by) a true story” – I take that to mean that in regards to the movie’s story, someone lived at approximately the same time who shared a similar name and had vaugely related experiences. That’s about it.
Slightly off-topic about “Dawn of the Dead” —
Don’t know if I have any real plans to see it (just not heavily into horror violence that graphic), but I have to say that the trailer for this new DotD film is really, really effective. I was just watching it on a laptop and got creeped out by the end of the trailer — forget a darkened theater.
TWL
Someone once said, “It’s true! I saw it on the news!”
To this a friend of mine responded (with high irony), “Yeah… They wouldn’t put it on TV if it weren’t true.”
I’ve always felt that this applies as well to movies and even news in print.
It sometimes seems to me that the human affinity for oxygen is overshadowed by it’s nearly super-human ability to embelish.
Sort of related: I just saw a comercial for a movie that was ‘Inspired by a True Story.’ Apparently we humans also have a genetic predisposition for disclaimers.
Not to be rude, but don’t take this the wrong way and, with all due respect, I’m just saying…
Have a Nice Day.
(Nice Day subject to change)
Salutations,
Mitch
The arab=terrorists mindset YOU currently have. Don’t include me in there with a “we”
I could care less if it’s historical or not. Not a big deal to me.
But the funny thing about this is that Disney got the ball rolling. They wanted the History Channel to do a program on Hidalgo and in doing so, it was “discovered” that this story was pretty much make believe.
If they didn’t do that, no one would be making such a big fuss about it right now.
While films that distort history do irk me, Disney is hardly the pioneer of this practice.
Yes, “Pocahontas” is certainly a good example, but the number of movies that mutilate the truth probably outnumber Disney’s. “Murder in the First”, “Monster”, “Amistad” and just about every movie that depicts Columbus’ voyages to the Americas are on my list of movies whose treatment of actual events are the most offensive, and none of those movies were by Disney.
actually when i saw it it said based on the life of frank hopkins which i think is a little different from saying its based on a true story
i think it gives them wiggle room
i didnt think it was true but i liked the film
it was fun
“Isn’t the jab at the “20 minute sequence of some poor Jew” a little gratuitous? Do we need to work criticism of “The Passion” into every thread?”
I hardly think a passing reference to an actual sequence constitutes “criticism.” In any event, the reason I mentioned it was that I was cross-referencing an ostensibly historically-based film receiving criticism on its facts with another ostensibly historically-based film receiving criticims on its facts and basically saying, if I had a choice of two ostensibly historically-based films receiving criticism on their facts, I’ll go see the one where a Jew isn’t being whomped on for twenty minutes.
Hardly what I would call a major critique.
PAD
I think every movie that claims to be “based on a true story” has at least some elements that are given up to poetic license. It’s not really limited to Disney, although they are an egregious example of it.
However, I seriously doubt many adults took their kids to see Pocahontas expecting to see an historical documentary. I was a freaking cartoon with talking trees!
I can’t remember the name of the movie, but a few years ago, there was a movie based on a TV reporter that was killed during a prison riot and Hollyweird changed the ending so that she survived. I think that was the worst example of shredding the truth.
Well, thanks a lot RabidWolfe! You wrote
> hey – since this seems to be about the Passion
> once again, go read the best review on the
> web, by Orson Scott Card, here:
> http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-
> 29-1.html
so I did. I love some of OSC’s books but I was unfamiliar with his extreme political views. Now I will be reading his books (and hopefully enjoying them) with a piece of my mind analyzing everything.
Don’t get me wrong – I try not to let a creator’s personality influence how I enjoy their work, and I can respect a differing opinion, but it was a surprise to see how, well, rabid some of Card’s views are. In his column on gay marriage in particular, it seemed his personal views had to be backed up by some extreme illogical arguements – the sort of thing that any reasonable person has to go “Hey, wait a minute! Where did THAT come from?” to.
I’m just kidding about blaming you RW. I’m a firm believer in “it’s better to know, than not know”. Still, Speaker For the Dead is one of my favorite books of all time and I’d have never guessed that the person who wrote that could write something like the column I just read! Funny old world, innit?
“I was a freaking cartoon with talking trees!”
Now, Den, what have we told you about going to see Disney films while you’re on acid?
BIglehart-
Well – I was referencing his review of the Passion, which I thought was great review – not the other essays, which are at best a mixed lot.
“Yes, “Pocahontas” is certainly a good example, but the number of movies that mutilate the truth probably outnumber Disney’s.”
I have NEVER understood people who complain about the un-historicalness of “Pocahontas”. Yes, there was a real person named Pocahontas, and the Disney movie is not about her. But there is also a “legendary Pocahontas”, and those legends are almost as old as the realPocahontas (in fact, they may have been started by the real John Smith), and the movie is clearly based on the legends. So what’s the problem?
Why don’t all the people who complain about “Pocahontas” also complain about Disney’s “Sword in the Stone” being based on the legendary King Arthur instead of the real historical King Arthur?
“Why don’t all the people who complain about “Pocahontas” also complain about Disney’s “Sword in the Stone” being based on the legendary King Arthur instead of the real historical King Arthur?”
Can we at least complain that they lifted the plot of that movie directly from T. H. White without giving him credit?
“Can we at least complain that [Disney] lifted the plot of [“Sword in the Stone”] directly from T. H. White without giving him credit?”
Huh? I thought White was fully credited, and it was no secret that the movie was based on his book.
I didn’t say it was a major critique, I said it was a gratuitous jab. Arguably there’s an implied critique in reducing “The Passion” to “a film where a Jew gets whomped” (call it the “Pørņø for Nazis theory”), but it wasn’t obvious reading the blog that you were deliberately comparing two allegedly historically-based films.
But let’s get on to my major point: How does the italicizing and boldface work on the new blog?
Den: “Why don’t all the people who complain about “Pocahontas” also complain about Disney’s “Sword in the Stone” being based on the legendary King Arthur instead of the real historical King Arthur?”
Luigi Novi: I think because most people aren
All I know is, i’m pretty critical about movies I see, but I saw a preview this one a month or so back and I quite enjoyed it. I figured it was at best “loosely” based on fact, but probably not even that, but I still thought it was a good film. Finding out it was HS, as Peter says, doesn’t really ruin that for me.
Den: “Why don’t all the people who complain about “Pocahontas” also complain about Disney’s “Sword in the Stone” being based on the legendary King Arthur instead of the real historical King Arthur?”
Luigi Novi: I think because most people aren
“I have NEVER understood people who complain about the un-historicalness of “Pocahontas””
Because the legend of POCAHONTAS and the like is all there is about Native Americans and other minority groups. King Arthur’s story is iterated many times in Western culture; it’s a bit irksome when the major story is the ahistorical one.
Moreover, it’s a story primarily written by those outside the group it’s supposed to be about. History is written by the victors and all that, but when the main source of information about a people and a group is written by outsiders (and it overwrites the stories from the insiders), then I really think there’s a problem.
“Because the legend of POCAHONTAS and the like is all there is about Native Americans and other minority groups. King Arthur’s story is iterated many times in Western culture; it’s a bit irksome when the major story is the ahistorical one.
“Moreover, it’s a story primarily written by those outside the group it’s supposed to be about. History is written by the victors and all that, but when the main source of information about a people and a group is written by outsiders (and it overwrites the stories from the insiders), then I really think there’s a problem.”
OK, I understand your objection. Well articulated.
However, I don’t think any of the other “Pocahontas” detractors I’ve heard from before (mostly on animation boards, news groups, etc.) were coming from the same place. They all seemed to be trying to blame Disney for dumbing down America by making stuff up — as if Disney had made up the Pocahontas legend for the movie. If their objections were the same as yours, they wern’t expressed well.