Whay are so many people so stupid???

Question

Seriously... Is it genetic or what?? It seems that every time a movie about a certain period or group of people comes out the majority take it as gospel and never look into the reality. It happened with Gladiator, with The Last Samurai, and now we see it with 300!! Hate to be the one to break it to you but the Germanic people's fought nekkid with only wooden spears and in the battle the movie shows they won and left only 3 men alive to return to Rome with a message not to return. The samurai did use firearms, the white guy that fought with the samurai in the Satsuma rebellion was French, and the ideal of Bushido is a very far cry from what the samurai really were. As for "300" and the Spartans I've seen someone on here post that they didn't use the phalanx and that they didn't wear armour. Yes they DID wear armour and did use the phalanx. Why can't people see movies and be inspired to investigate the reality? Why do so many blindly & stupidly take what Hollywood says as gospel?

For the record I am not against Hollywood historical movies... I don't even mind inaccuracies as I understand that they are just entertainment. What does annoy me is the individuals who watch these movies and take them as gospel truth, never bothering to look into the real history and then passing what they've learned from Hollywood on to others as if they knew what they were talking about.

Answer 1

You asked the question I wonder about. I have friends, who seem intelligent, who go to a movie then think it actually happened. Some here say that these people will go and look for more information, not really. What can also happen is those same people take the movie as truth, and never do anymore research. These people pass it on to their kids, who pass it one to each other until the real truth is muddled in the background.

Answer 2

That's a great question! I've never really understood it either. Especially since so many historical accounts are fantastic stories in their true form, without Hollywood's "embellishments". I can see the need to take a little liberty with some things - like Robin Hood, for example, where there is very little actual recorded history, and even some debate about the actual existence.

Unfortunately, its all about the money...

Answer 3

I'd suggest that you are simply seeing the same process at work in cinema as you see at work in any analysis of history or reporting of current events - that is that the 'story' is told by people who 'a personal' rather than a completely 'objective' interest in the 'story'.

Let me explain, before I get all of the serious historians 'off side'. If I am a historian who is obsessed with my reputation for 'being right' all the time, I will be very cautious about my comments on some historical events, and might consciously avoid any speculation - even if couched in careful terms - in order to avoid being seen as 'un-serious'. If on the other hand I want to present 'all sides of the story' I might run the risk of seeming 'uncertain' or being a 'fence sitter' or simply 'having no original ideas'. So even when we are 'being objective' we are 'being objective' potentially in different ways. The point - as a careful student of history - is to appreciate that history (and current events) are told 'from points of view', and to use that knowledge to seek out a range of points of views, and to make efforts to understand how those points of view may have affected the 'story'.

Now back to the movies... The cinema is simply doing what oral histories (and I am thinking of Norse legends, and the traditions of Welsh Bards) have done for a long time, that is 'told history' as entertainment. In that we owe a huge debt to those traditions for our knowledge of the early history of Northern Europe, I can only say that it's a bit harsh to condemn Hollywood for what we thank others for.

I'd also suggest that the reality is that most folk will meet history 'through' Hollywood. Best thing to do then is to 'work with it' rather than rail against it (futilely). So if a library - or bookshop - chose to bring out it's books on Rome when Gladiator was showing at the local cinema then 'power to them'. Similarly if 'serious' history websites referred to movie titles, the search engines such as Yahoo would 'pull' people to them where they could read the true or expanded real story.

I like to think that stupidity (well unless it's really willfull..) is not a curse, or a thing to be cursed, but simply an opportunity for learning that hasn't happened yet; and that a person with knowledge is privileged to have had the opportunity to receive it, and is honor bound to share it (but not use it to condemn others).

Answer 4

I've wondered for years why Hollywood can't get their facts right before doing a film. I mean i have seen many movies involving Native Americans and very little is correct.

Answer 5

Part of the problem is education. We don't learn about these historical events the way we used to. Instead, we get a movie. And in the absence of better information it gets taken as fact.

Answer 6

Yay, another intelligent person on the planet. People need to stop and think logically about films....yes, they may have used historical resources, but that doesn't mean they followed them to the T.
Movies are entertainment, and rarely are they educational.

Answer 7

I actually refuse to watch biopics any more. I admit I watched Ray because of the great music, but I read up on him first and MADE myself ignore all the "life stories" and just enjoy the music and the acting.

Answer 8

You only have to see what the film makers do when they try to interpret a really good novel!

Answer 9

It must be something in the genes.

Answer 10

good question ..... why are they?