History According to Hollywood

And by certain aspects I do mean events that happened last
year.

I find it disturbing to learn the finer details of more recent
global occurrences e.g how the CIA located Osama bin Laden, from a film.
Especially when I read the details of the Geronimo/Neptune Spear operation with
interest when it was first pulled off last year, but sadly I only really transfer
CIA ops to the long-term memory portion of my subconscious if Jessica Chastain
demonstrates an unrelenting passion towards them.

I also thought I knew a few of the finer details of the American Civil War. Like why the fighting stopped. But after watching Lincoln it turns
out I had no idea. I had several muddled ideas.

And I can’t even pretend with Argo. I had no idea about the
events surrounding the hostage situation in Iran. I was the guy who read the
subtitles and went “huh, you would think I would know more about this.” 

I am quite the ignoramous.

But in fairness, the nitty gritty details of how the CIA got
six Americans out of Iran during the seizure of the American embassy were not revealed
until the events were declassified in 1997. Not that that is an excuse of why I
didn’t know how they got out of the country. I wasn’t like,  “but did they really
escape because of a Canadian effort?  I just don’t buy it.”

Learning about the sacrifice and bravery of real life men
and women from the movies is a brilliant, yet ultimately depressing way of
making us (or ME) aware of our own history. Entertaining and informing is a
surefire way of presenting chapters of history that, whilst fascinating, can
sound drier on paper.

Abraham Lincoln’s bid to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution involves
a lot of backroom conversation and political manoeuvring which you were less
likely to learn about in the British education system. Much like Americans do
not know all the finer details of the Magna Carta signing, but are well
informed on how many wives Henry VIII killed, the more razzle dazzle parts of
history are the bits that stick. Yet these films, which basically deal with a
lot of people in high-ranking governmental organisations trying to argue for
the lives of other people, are fascinating.

Obviously Zero Dark Thirty is a film, not a documentary, built to
entertain rather then retell and I am sure the actual details of how the CIA
put together all the intel which helped them locate Bin Laden is far more
complicated and dull then can be portrayed in 120 minutes, but it goes some way
to demonstrating the relentless hard work of men and women who will never get
to wear a shiny dress to a movie premiere, or have a calorie counted meal
delivered to their door.

Same for Tony Mendez, the CIA operative who concocted and
pulled off the absurd Hollywood plan to get the US embassy workers out in Argo.
He pretended they were part of a film crew involved in making a science fiction
film in order to fly them safely home. That’s mental. He was rewarded with
a shiny CIA Intelligence Star, but it was not publicly acknowledged until thirteen
years ago, and now he has gotten his dues
again. Being played by Ben Affleck probably gets more people interested in
his actions then when his plan became public knowledge. 

Plus he got to be
played by Ben Affleck. So handsome.

However Argo, with its presentation
of the CIA as being the real heroes who let Canada take the limelight
for political retaliation reasons, has troubled some people. Like
Canadians. The film was also under fire for its condemnation
of the New Zealand and British Embassies for not taking in the US six
straight
away. In truth the Brits looked after them first before giving them to
Canada
for safe keeping. SO THERE AFFLECK. The limeys made them scones and
pudding
before the Canadians took them in.

But again. Film. Poetic license. It’s allowed when people
are going to Wiki the film straight after asking themselves “did that really
happen?” Then the real history lesson begins.

I am (hopefully) not stupid enough to take it all
as read. Even
when watching Argo, I was aware the intense chase scene at the airport
might have
been elaborated upon. Or as it turns out, completely made up. With this
in mind I was a bit confused by the configuration of the end credits
which place images from the film next to historical photos to show the
aesthetic similarity. This seems out of place in a movie which deviates
from the truth so much. That seemed sneaky, or at least self
congratulatory of you Affleck. 

With Lincoln I not only learnt about the workings of
American politics in days of yore, and how depressingly little has changed
(there are still a few modern day self serving Lee Pace‘s about), but also about
why Lincoln is regarded as such a keen political mind.

A obvious and accepted sentiment, yes, but
appreciated more
when Daniel Day-Lewis is showing me exactly why he was ace, not only as a
leader but also as a lawyer, with his well timed tales and persuasive
skills. I took for granted he did some remarkable things because it is
the accepted thinking, but understanding how he
managed to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, with a few sneaky tricks and
bribes, is important, depressing and kind of realistic. Sure, poetic license had Lincon-Lewis talking
in parables all the time, which got a tad worthy by the end, but it was a
demonstration of how democratic and thoughtful this very tall man was.

So things are looking up Hollywood, you made me realise how
it takes a few great and determined people to save the world and you added in
extra car chases. 

Love,

Ellen xo