Just got through watching a movie called The Children of Huang Shi with my nephew on his last night in town before going back to New England. It was a well-made movie, and very entertaining, but I was disappointed to find out that the movie played a bit fast and loose with the history upon which it was supposed to be based. 
The movie was based on the experiences of George Hogg, an English adventurer who did great things in China during the Pacific War, which would eventually merge into WWII. Among the details left out of the movie:
* In addition to founding a school for orphaned boys, Hogg also aided Communist insurgents who were fighting against the Japanese.
* The movie completely ignores the work of New Zealand Communist Rewi Alley, who worked with Hogg and helped him establish his school, not to mention doing a great many other things for the Chinese over the course of 60 years of his life. If I recall correctly, his name wasn't even mentioned in the film.
* Another person who worked with Hogg, New Zealander Kathleen Hall, was retconned into an American named Lee Pearson, and turned into a love interest for Hogg.
I don't have a problem with movies that deal with the past in a creative way, and I can even understand when they get a few minor details wrong in a history-based movie, or fill in the gaps where history has nothing to say - as long as what they fill the gaps in with is consistent with the historical record. But I do have a huge problem with it when filmmakers leave out important facts or change them altogether for dramatic purposes. Oliver Stone in particular is really bad about this (see JFK), but it's a general and pervasive problem. The story of George Hogg would have been plently compelling enough if it had been told as it actually happened, without adding an unnecessary romantic angle and leaving out the equally compelling accomplishments of others simply because they're a little bit too Communist.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.
******************************
And now, for your entertainment, some music...
and dancing...
The movie was based on the experiences of George Hogg, an English adventurer who did great things in China during the Pacific War, which would eventually merge into WWII. Among the details left out of the movie:* In addition to founding a school for orphaned boys, Hogg also aided Communist insurgents who were fighting against the Japanese.
* The movie completely ignores the work of New Zealand Communist Rewi Alley, who worked with Hogg and helped him establish his school, not to mention doing a great many other things for the Chinese over the course of 60 years of his life. If I recall correctly, his name wasn't even mentioned in the film.
* Another person who worked with Hogg, New Zealander Kathleen Hall, was retconned into an American named Lee Pearson, and turned into a love interest for Hogg.
I don't have a problem with movies that deal with the past in a creative way, and I can even understand when they get a few minor details wrong in a history-based movie, or fill in the gaps where history has nothing to say - as long as what they fill the gaps in with is consistent with the historical record. But I do have a huge problem with it when filmmakers leave out important facts or change them altogether for dramatic purposes. Oliver Stone in particular is really bad about this (see JFK), but it's a general and pervasive problem. The story of George Hogg would have been plently compelling enough if it had been told as it actually happened, without adding an unnecessary romantic angle and leaving out the equally compelling accomplishments of others simply because they're a little bit too Communist.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.
******************************
And now, for your entertainment, some music...
and dancing...
VIEW 8 of 8 COMMENTS
signalnoise:
Yeah, I'm never sure how I feel about changes to "historical movies." I guess they're a bit like nonficiton novels. It seems like the *necessity* of the change is what really matters .... and in this case, it does sound like the changed were not needed.
signalnoise:
Those seem like legit, if exacting, standards for historical films. It does raise the question: are there any movies that you think *do* meet that standard? Just out of curiosity?