History on the Silver Screen

History via Hollywood has been an educational force in our country for years. It’s how they portray it that is so alarming.

Several biographies have come to the big screen lately that disturb Americans who want the truth as it was, not as liberal film directors wanted it to be.

Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is drawing many to theaters right now. Is it good or accurate? @#!%!! good if you like cursing. In it, Lincoln apparently swears like Gordon Ramsey pitching a fit on Hell’s Kitchen. Did he really talk like that? Historians have found at least 40 instances of anachronistic swearing in the movie, but, hey, what’s the big deal? Nothing, if you favor lies.

Historian David Barton says, “The historical record is clear that Lincoln definitely did not tolerate profanity around him,” he said. “There are records of him confronting military generals if he heard about them cursing. Furthermore, the F word used by Bilbo was virtually non-existent in that day and it definitely would not have been used around Lincoln. If Lincoln had heard it, it is certain that he would instantly have delivered a severe rebuke.”

It must be incomprehensible for the Hollywood elite to consider there were and are people who see it as a character flaw.

Another movie, this one about FDR, purports to show how that Oval Office occupant worked to get Americans behind WWII.
Lou Lumineck in the New York Post review of Hyde Park on the Hudson talks about the problems FDR faced. “The far weightier one is considerable sentiment against Great Britain by an American public that fears our World War I ally will drag the US into another costly worldwide conflict — one the president knows is absolutely necessary to stop Adolf Hitler.”

Funny, that’s not how history records it. FDR recognized the danger of the Nazis so little that he turned away the St. Louis, a ship filled with fleeing Jews, from our shores and sent the passengers back to certain death. What a hero!

The real nugget of the story is, not foreign affairs, but domestic ones. It deals with his sexual appetite, something that liberals in reality, like very much. Any chance they can, they take morality down another notch. Here’s another president misbehaving, but it’s OK, everyone does it.

A third biopic about Alfred Hitchcock tries to show him as antagonistic towards religion. Father Mark Henninger writes in the Wall St. Journal that he knows for a fact that Hitchcock died a devout Catholic.

He recounts going to visit the 81-year-old Hitchcock and “At the time, I was a graduate student in philosophy at UCLA, and I was (and remain) a Jesuit priest. A fellow priest, Tom Sullivan, who knew Hitchcock, said one Thursday that the next day he was going over to hear Hitchcock’s confession. Tom asked whether on Saturday afternoon I would accompany him to celebrate a Mass in Hitchcock’s house.”

They returned on successive Saturdays to say Mass until the director died.

Why would Hollywood twist the truth? They have an agenda. It is effective. I never realized how effective until a recent trip to my dentist took a bite out of perceptions of my fellow citizens.

I had almost two hours to listen to the dentist and assistant prattle on about their weekend as they worked on two crowns. Evidently going to the movies is mostly what they do as they showed a disturbing familiarity with current flicks.

Erin Brokavich surfaced in some film discussion. “She helped the people,” the dentist said. “I’d like that on my tomb stone.” He reveled in how she fought the system and big corporations. Um, really? Do you swallow everything they sugar coat, I wondered.

Evidently they do.

Michelle Malkin wrote of the film made about Brokavich:

Like many environmentalist crusaders before her, Brockovich catalogued a cornucopia of illnesses in a small town, and connected them to a single pollutant. Minute amounts of the heavy metal Chromium 6, she claimed, had caused everything from uterine and breast cancer to birth defects, nosebleeds, rashes, immune disorders and miscarriages. Under pressure from the bull-headed Brockovich and some out-of-town legal heavyweights who collaborated with Brockovich’s law firm, the accused polluter — Pacific Gas & Electric — shelled out over $300 million to settle the case. …

The question is whether the “victims” identified by Brockovich suffered from these various ailments at higher rates than the normal population, and whether the accused pollutant could have possibly been responsible for the entire range of maladies Brockovich recorded. In the only other skeptical piece about Erin Brockovich to appear in a major mainstream newspaper, New York Times science reporter Gina Kolata noted this week that “federal agencies whose scientists were not involved in the litigation said evidence was lacking that chromium (VI) in groundwater caused a myriad of health problems.”

The public has been all too willing to believe all this because it is titillating or satisfies some need to identify with the good guys.

ONe of the things we Republicans assume is that our fellow Americans care about the truth and that they are at least a little informed or willing to question.

The Hollywood types, TV producers and media dispensers have done their jobs quite well. They have tarnished the truth, varnished it and made it into history.

Since we build on history and use it as a cultural reference point they have successfully seized American culture. We saw on November 6 the fruits of their long labors.

... Leave a Reply