Rescue Dawn and Hollywood's Adulteration of Truth

[Einsamer_Wolf]

I watched Rescue Dawn, directed by one of my personal favorites, Werner Herzog. On its own terms the movie, standing by itself, the movie was actually quite compelling. On a second viewing, I took a time out to try and find out how long he was in prison. Then I discovered that the plot, supposedly based on a real story, took real liberties with the truth:

http://www.rescuedawnthetruth.com/

Eugene DeBruin was portrayed as a Manson like coward, someone completely and totally destroyed mentally and phyiscally. Likewise, Dengler was credited with fabricating a key for the shackles, for devising and executing the escape plan. In fact, DeBruin had fabricated the key from a nail. He and Martin devised the escape plan, and only reluctantly told Dengler of the plan once they feel they could trust him. Apparently, his German accent made them wary of him.
More details are related on the site. I have to say this is really repugnant to me. The movie essentially defames the memory of an American pilot who died in captivity. It is even more befuddling because I think the story of a German national flying for the United States Armed forces being distrusted, and then soon bonding with his fellow captives would have made a much more moving story. Seeing how the captives work together, seeing how Dengler owes his freedom to this man, only to never see him again, pondering his fate would have been true to the story, and also quite compelling. In this way, there was no reason to defame the memory of someone like this.
The questions I want to raise to this forum is how could a director like herzong have done this? The entry on wikipedia indicates he did not know of these discrepancies until after production of the film. This is incredible to me. If he did not know he was reckless in not researching the story further. Further, if Hollywood (Herzog was directing under contract of MGM, part of the controlled media) butchers a story like this, how can I trust anything I see in the mainstream media? More importantly, how does this tendency to distort fact affect matters relating to the second world war, including the conduct or misconduct of the German Armed Forces, the reasons why Germany followed Hitler and the Nazis (indeed there are many very valid reasons that are only partly offset with the aid of hindsight) and the treatment of German POWs and civilians at the hands of the captors?
After seeing this movie, to be compelled by it, only to discover shortly thereafter that it is a lie defaming the memory of a soldier who died in captivity, I really feel that I cannot trust anything I see. These topics have been visited here before, and I look forward to a new discussion on these matters.

Einsamer Wolf

[Jason Pipes]

The important thing to keep in mind is that it's a movie. Movies can never be assumed to be an accurate representation of reality in any case, even when they try very hard to do so. Black Hawk Down is a film from not that long ago that is one of the best war movies ever made and the director worked hard to accurately depict events as they took place. In the context of a film though much had to be changed, revised, altered, or otherwise made to fit into a 2 hour film and still make sense to the average viewer. Don't take what you see in a film too seriously and you will be fine.

[phylo_roadking]

It's the old "Blake's Seven"-style Time Dilation Factor. As the years go by, and people's impressions of events change according to how THEIR minds interpret events, and thus what is needed to put bums on seats changes to match and feed those impressions/expectations.

The closer the recreation of a real-life event is to what happened in time the more exact they are - for they have to dovetail with the modern-world memories of television coverage...which in the case of Somalia was very "imbedded" with the fighting soldiers. The British pioneered this in the Falklands and Gulf War One, but it took the US channels until Somalia to catch up. And of course the recreation has to dovetail with the memories of the hundreds if not thousands of people that can be involved in such events, and the memories they pass on first-hand to their friends and families...and today those ripples don't take long to reach the edge of even a globe-sized pond.

In the good old days, people had to wait for the movie dramatisation, or the publishing or a memoir or biography to find out about histroical events, particularly wartime ones - for new reporting of even the most important events was just a few column-inches in the press or a radio news bulletein without socio-political-military commentary. Their imagination had to do the rest. But NOW our means of communication from one person to another are far more comprehensive and capable - so there's less room for dramatisation

[Einsamer_Wolf]

Well normally, I don't. If Hollywood wants to embellish the story of Erin Brokovich or Jan Schlichtmann for better or for worse, it is much less consequential to me; indeed I could really care less as I would not bother to watch either of those movies. But when something defames the memory of a POW who died in captivity, it offends me. If for no other reason that most of the lemmings out there believe everything they see without question. To me it is the same as if they pissed on the guy's grave. No matter what his nationalty, whether an American or German Luftwaffe pilot, it just bothers me.

[Einsamer_Wolf]

It's the old "Blake's Seven"-style Time Dilation Factor. As the years go by, and people's impressions of events changeaccording to how THEIR minds interpret events, and thus what is needed to put bums on seats changes to match and feed those impressions/expectations.

The closer a real-life event is to what happened in time the more exact they are - for they have to dovetail with the modern-world memories of television coverage...which in the case of Somalia was very "imbedded" with the fighting soldiers. The British pioneered this in the Falklands and Gulf War One, but it took the US channels until Somalia to catch up. And of course the recreation has to dovetail with the memories of the hundreds if not thousands of people that can be involved in such events, and the memories they pass on first-hand to their friends and families...and today those ripples don't take long to reach the edge of even a globe-sized pond.

Based on the website I submitted, there seems to be no basis whatsover for the portrayal of DeBruin in the film. The two survivors, Dengler and the Thai Ish-something have essentially the same accounts. Indeed it seems that DeBruin did not flounder aimlessly, wallowing "Where am I going to go?" but instead said "See you soon back in the States." This does not appear to be a matter of someone being regarded more favorably as time goes on--but rather a real butcher job on someone's name. Absolutely despicable.


EW
EW

[phylo_roadking]

Agreed - but that's exactly my point; this is 2007, the events were in...1966...

That's - FORTY-ONE YEARS.

How many WWII-era films were completely accurate to events in 1986? or 1976? or even 1956?

OUR expectations of what we expect to be see in a Vietnam War Era film are what drives the director....or else he is just an expensive turkey breeder LMAO

[Einsamer_Wolf]

Phylo

Quite frankly, your "point" is really baseless and contributes nothing. There are reams of written testimony showing the memory of this man was defamed. As for your rant about what is expected so many years after the fact, if you want to tell sell a fictional story fine, but do not use this guy's name to do so, but rather a fictional name. That is the real heart of the issue.
As for what drives sales, that does not make it right. Schlock like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton othr garbage sells. Revenue of pornography is some three-fold over conventional Hollywood films. Junk food like McDonald's also sells quite well--and yet all these these things should be smahsed under jackboot. I do not care about what sells, but rather what is right, and noble. Of course perhaps this is why authoritarian ideologies (such as national socialism) might just have a small kernel of truth about liberal democracy. Man may need a paternal authoritarian so that he does not have freedom per se, but rather only the freedom to do what is right.

EW.

[Michael Miller / ABR]

I agree that there is absolutely, positively no excuse for such "embellishment" and twisting of the facts, regardless of the constant cry (that I hear SO often in my own home) of "Michael, it's JUST A MOVIE!"); the one instance in film that horrifies me most is the church burning in "The Patriot"- My wife, back in those days anyway a rabid Mel Gibson fan, used the "I.J.A.M.!" excuse for that one, but it was particularly unforgivable as a genuine historical figure, Colonel and MP Banastre Tarleton, was depicted as an incredibly bloodthirsty war criminal despite their being no evidence to back it up (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_(2000_film) .

But this: "Man needs a paternal authoritarian so that he does not have freedom per se, but rather only the freedom to do what is right. " I'll pass on that. I can determine for myself what constitutes "right" and "noble". I don't need a Reichskulturkammer to "cleanse" the arts of "Jewish and Marxist influence" in the name of State security and a state- or church-imposed moral code.


~ Mike

[phylo_roadking]

Unfortunately EW - you're taking a position on history, Herzog took a position on filmmaking. And the two only overlap enough to make money. If the film had been made in 1967, say - the viewing public would have been clamouring to see the drama behind the limited information on events they were given by normal news media then. Now - 41 years later - their appetites whetted by herzog's 1999 documentary - they want the drama element. I'm afraid nowhere is there ANY compunction, legal or otherwise, for it to be either the whole truth, or even in any way accurate. It just needs to make a profit.

YOU may not like that - but movie company moguls think like that. If Herzog had made an expensive turkey - it wouldn't matter how good HE is as a filmmaker, he wouldn't get to do the same a second time

[phylo_roadking]

Mike, you're quite right - AND you prove my point at the same time. In the case of The Patriot - which I thoroughly enjoy - we're nearly 240 years' after events. Stories, history WILL be chopped and changed and moved about and be downright inaccurate - because it CAN be. But at the same time - you're right in that it's NOT just a movie...for they tend to mold our opinions, whether we like that or not especially if time has removed us from events SO far that we have NO other media that gets in our face so much.

How far would you have to drill down to find out the true story of Tarleton? How much of an effort would it require the average person to make? Whereas...in the cinema or at home he/she just has to Sit there and take it in...doesn't meant there's any obligation for it to be accurate LOL

[Einsamer_Wolf]

Phylo--are you slow? You keep obfuscating the ISSUE. THe issue is they used this man's name, portraying him in an unflattering light that is contrary to uncontroverted testimony. I really do not see how the real facts would be a "turkey." The real story would probably be more compelling. But even so, if you want to fictionalize fine--just do not use the guy's name.
Such crass disregard for the truth in name of profits really just underscores my point.

[phylo_roadking]

EW - not slow; just not a two-dimensional view on how the entertainment industry works. It's what they do. Nor is anyone forcing you to like their product. In fact - more people will probably score the DVD after Googling and finding their way to this thread LOL For not everyone is more interested in history than they are in being entertained. The latter category is far more numerous.

[Einsamer_Wolf]

No actuallly I believe you are slow. In condeming my comment as two-dimensional you mistake understanding for approval. I understand all too well how Hollywood works. As you say, things are profit driven. I would not be surprised if they had focus groups on different plot scenarios. That I understand it does not mean I abide by it. Normally I really do not care. I just cannot be bothered by it. But this time it touched a nerve defaming the memory of a POW who died in captibvity.

[phylo_roadking]

EW I didn't say your comment was two-dimensional, just the view Nor did I mistake it for approval LOL But you've just confirmed that you DO have the same idea of how Holywood operates...

So here's a question - why did you expect any better in this case?

[Einsamer_Wolf]

EW I didn't say your comment was two-dimensional, just the view Nor did I mistake it for approval LOL But you've just confirmed that you DO have the same idea of how Holywood operates...

So here's a question - why did you expect any better in this case?

I think you are splitting hairs about comment versus view, and are agian obfuscating things for the express purpose of irritating me. Maybe you are not slow after all, just terribly irksome.
As to why I expected better, I am fond of Herzog's work. Stroszek is a personal favorite of mine. As I have already stated, I am already keenly skeptical of things I see in the media. Virtually anything I have personal knowledge about has been adulterated in either journalism or in film. The Bridge over River Kwai, almost universally regarded as a classic, is a film I find loathsome because its portrayal of POW life is laughable. There are reasons for this. It was made in 1950s, and given its budget needed to be cast off as a family film. I still do not like it. I find it distasteful, and mildly offensive. Then there are movies like u-571 (which I refuse to see) that portray uboat men as bloodthirsty war criminals mowing down survivors with machine gunes. I have come to expect this given a certain clique that predominates Hollywood, and because films just routinely demonzie the other side. The demonization of the German soldier is somethiing I have come to expect, and can see through quite readily. And more often than not, I can hold my own in justifiying my position that the film is false history should i need to in a discussion.
The difference though is that Kwai or other Hollywood schlock does not defame a particular individual, let alone a POW who died in captivity. Not a kraut Luftwaffe pilot, but an American POW. In this way, this movie reaches a new low as it defames a particular individual who cannot defend himself beyond the grave. When I learned what that guy went through, what he sacrificed in the name of his country, it just really touched a nerve with me. This also explains why i have been peculiarly irritable at your provocations. In short, I realy am offended--personally--that someone would commit this sort of defamation. As I stated before, if you found the storyline of a broken down POW who has taken on a manson like personage, complicating the planning of escape more compelling, that is fine (I suppose)--just do not use this dead man's name when uncontroverted sworn testimony proves he acted quite differently. To analogize with the completely fictional Apocolypse Now, the difference is having a fictional Colonel Kurtz versus using a real true to life decorated colonel's name, and presenting the fictional story of Kurtz with that of someone who actually lived.
Actually, when I learned of this, the first thing that came to mind is why the DeBruin family has not sued for defamation. Bob Dylan said he would sue if his name was used in Factory Girl, attributing his actions to death of that poor little rich girl whose name I could not be bothered to remember. As far as I can tell, the DeBruin family certainly has a cause of action because they used this man's name in a defamatory matter.
I hope this explains why this movie is a new low to me, and why i am very irritable at the moment.

EW