Do love triangles and serious history movies mix? I do not think so. What are your thoughts?

Question

I would like to know what you history buff thoughts are on History movies, that take themselves seriously and they add love triangles. Does this mix? I just finished watching the movie: Enemy at the Gates and found myself frustrated and disappointed. The first 30 minutes I was saying to myself, I am buying this movie and by the time I was half way through it I was fast-forwarding the DVD player (and glad I did not buy it) to get through the love story. They did the very same thing with the movie, Pearl Harbor and it distracts from the seriousness of the history content of the movie. Lets look at some other great classic war movies as well: Patton, Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Apocalypse Now (this movie had Playboy bunnies but no love triangle), Full Metal Jacket, Dirty Dozen, The Deer Hunter, The Bridge over the River Kwai, all these classics had no love triangle and most of them won academy awards.

My question is, am I the only one that finds annoyance in this?

Edit update: The reason I wanted to point out those other war movies with no love triangles is they were for the most part, hits. That point being made, Hollywood does not need to add the love story to make the war movie a hit. Jack if it is only about demographics then why were the other movies I mentioned with no love triangles hits? Personally, I think it is a few (not all thank goodness) miss-guided studios that think they must have a love story to make a war movie work. For example, one could argue that Dr. Zhivago is a war movie with a love triangle but lets face it we all knew that it was a love story when we went to see it. By using Dr. Zhivago the movie industry should see that there could be a clear dividing line between love stories and a good historical war movie. Personally, I have enjoyed a few good love story movies and I understand the need for telling them, however, not when you are telling an important part of history as it distracts form the story.

Serving Jesus, I totally disagree with you. You do not need a love story to show that we need to make the characters more real. Could you image the loss of respect movies like Patton, Platoon, Saving Privet Ryan would have had to endured if the directors had decided to put in a love story right in the middle of those movies. These three movies are major academy award winners and speak for themselves. Enemy at the Gates was another one of those war movies that had no business getting a love story thrown in right in the middle of the story. It was as if the director threw the love story in to slow down the pace and that ended up making the movie to long. Ron Pearlman saved the movie with his performance for about 10 minutes then he was shoot and we where right back to the love slop again. What a disappointment.

Answer 1

Hi Shellback,

EDIT PER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

You ask a good follow-up. The fact is, all of the movies you point out (but one) were made 30 to 40 years ago when a totally different demographic was in play. Look at your list -- the only modern film you have in there is Pvt. Ryan, and that's easy to explain -- Steven Spielberg. When your name is Spielberg you get to write your own ticket -- remember, the guy has his own studio "Dreamworks."

But in general, it has to be said, yeah, of course, every once in a blue moon Hollywood will produce a genuinely historical drama and leave out the sentimentality -- but those films are very rare. So when I speak of the power of demograhics, The best I can do is make a general statement about the way most people behave most of the time. Obviously there are going to be exceptions that pop up from time to time; but as you well know, the trend isn't toward greater accuracy, but to taking greater liberties with the subject matter.

I haven't seen the film yet, but there's a new film coming out about the "Zodiac Killer." And from what I've read, the real meat of this film doesn't deal with the murders or even the killer, but with the marital problems of the reporter focusing on this case. Go figure!

And also -- please note -- when I say these things, I'm not disagreeing with you. I actually DO agree. I think there always has been, and always will be a big market for quality, historically accurate films that have the confidence in their material to tell a story without adding any romantic fluff. But I don't work in Hollywood.

Unfortunately, the people who work out there are slaves to the demographics, and because of the great cost of making films, tend not to want to rock the boat. There can be no doubt but that the powers-that-be out there continually underestimate the intelligence and taste of movie goers. So they continually go with "Formula Plots." And whether you and I like it, "romance" is now considered an integral part of the formula.

P.S. As I said above, most of the films you mentioned were made 30 to 40 years ago. Did you notice that that's when the C&W singers I mentioned were all doing their thing as well. The demographics back then were different for everything.

========================================


I know what you mean, I payed good money to see "Pearl Harbor," and was so turned off by the gushing sentimentality that I walked out halfway through the thing. Honestly, I did. The same with "Titanic," a certified piece of god-awful dreck that girls of all ages turned into a box-office bonanza.

As one who knows something about the science of demographics, I can tell you for sure, it's all driven by statistical analysis.

Many aspects of the entertainment world are driven by demography, and nothing more so than movies. Detailed analysis of consumer tendencies reveals that the biggest determiners of movies are teenage boys and women. Slasher films, and ridiculous pseudo-historical monstronsities like "300" are made for teenage boys, and a great deal of the rest of films are made because of women.

Outside of the lucrative "Teen Market," the boyfriend or husband defers to the woman's choice of what films to see. This gives women a disproportionate power in what kinds of films get made. And as a previous answerer stated, most (but by no means all) women are turned off by straight historical film-making.

You didn't ask this, but I'll throw it out for free anyway. The same phenomenon is true in Country music. Many years ago, I used to be a fan of Country Music. These were the days of Kristofferson, Cash, Paycheck, Jennings, Haggard and Jones.

At THAT time, Country Music used to be known as "White Soul," and it was a period when men were the majority listeners. But NOW, women make up the majority listeners to C & W, and you can hear it in the cheap, sentimental, smarmy crap that gets that put out by singers today.

There was a time when Country was biting, and cutting edge; and now it's about love-sick cow-pokes moaning about how much they love and miss their wives. Sorry to seem so misogynistic, but I hate to see a great art form ruined.

I'm sure your answerers will give me pleanty of "thumbs downs" for this, but the "Feminization" of the arts (movies included) makes me sick.

In any event -- cheers, mate.

Answer 2

While it CAN be annoying, I do feel they can mix. Why? Because love triangles DO happen! The whole point of adding such stories is to make the characters more real. There is nothing wrong with making the characters more real. Whether or not the love triangle accomplishes this in any given movie is another question altogether.

Also, don't forget, these movies are ENTERTAINMENT made for the sole purpose of MAKING MONEY. These movies are not meant to be history textbooks. If the love triangle means that the movie will make more money than it absolutely belongs.

Do such stories help the movie sell more tickets? Usually. Most women (I know, this is a generalization, but I believe it is an accurate one) are not interested in a "serious history movie," but they are interested in a love story. Most men don't care much about the love story, but if the war story is good, they don't mind the love story. So, if you can make a movie that both men and women alike will enjoy, you should go ahead and do so.

***EDIT***

I am not saying that I personally enjoy the love stories, nor am I saying that they always make the movie better. I AM saying that I think it makes the movie more appealing towards women. I have seen neither Enemy at the Gates, nor Pearl Harbor, so I cannot comment on whether they were good movies or not. However, I can say that I know of very few women that enjoyed Platoon, Patton, or Full Metal Jacket. However, I know of many women that enjoyed Pearl Harbor. Not all movies are made for the same reason, nor for the same audience. Some movies are meant to be masterpieces, but many movies are just meant to make money. There is nothing wrong with that. Pearl Harbor certainly a movie that was made to make money, not to win awards. Did they make money? Yes. Mission accomplished. Did they make a good movie, judging from others have said, including yourself, I think they probably made a decent movie. Most people I know of that watched Pearl Harbor did not say it was a horrible movie, just not the best they have ever seen. Just because a movie is historically based does not mean that the intended audience is history buffs such as yourself. Many people hated Disney's Pocahontas because of its historical inaccuracies. Well, if they had made it historically accurate they would have had a pretty lousy animated kid's movie!

The same kinds of debates happen in other genres, as well. For example, some sci-fi fans don't care for Star Wars that much because it just isn't "scientifically based" enough for them. Others don't like Star Trek because they worry about the science too much. Does that mean that either Franchise isn't good science fiction? Of course not. Love story/triangle or no love story is just a decision to be made when making a historical movie, and both decisions can be good one.

On a final note, Gone With the Wind, the second biggest award winning movie of all time, was essentially a war movie where the war took second place to the love story. The biggest award winning movie of all time was Titanic, another historical movie where the love triangle took precedence over the rest of the story. I did not find the love stories in either movie an annoyance, nor did the academy.

Answer 3

I think anyone who takes history seriously is often appalled by the "Hollywoodizing" of it.

To gratuitously insert love interests into what is intended to be taken for history is just one of the things I find off putting in films that claim to be historically based; take, for example, the alleged love affair between Wallace and the English princess in "Braveheart." I think it's supposed to add human interest, but frequently does so at the expense of historical accuracy.

Of course, there were indeed love triangles in history--the Anne Boleyn-Henry VIII-Catherine of Aragon one is probably the most famous--and a case can be made for how these things impacted history. Unfortunately, if the filmmakers can inject a subplot of a love story (as they frequently do), it can prove distracting and very often does.

I think the best movie I ever saw on Pearl Harbor is "Tora! Tora! Tora!"--it's almost documentary in its approach.

I could go on for reams about the inaccuracies in so-called historical films (my particular pet peeve has long been "Gladiator," though I'll admit Joaquin Phoenix played a really good nutso emperor, and Russell Crowe's performance left nothing to be desired), so I'll stop here.

Answer 4

Enemy at the Gates and Pear Harbour were just poorly made films compared to the others- not particularly historically accurate if you ask me. I bet some producer made them write in an implausable love story just to try to sell tickets. It depends on the film- there are several good ones with women and love triangles -- for example From Here to Eternity is an amazing film with a love story, set in WWII, probably one of the best US flicks on the topic. Personally I am a woman and get frustrated that we aren't depicted very well in a lot of historic pics. In my opinion we just need better scripts!

Answer 5

I see your point. I like war movies and have no problem with an element of romance as long as it doesn't derail the movie. My favorite non-romanticized movies are THE LONGEST DAY, PATTON, and WE WERE SOLDIERS. I love movies where the historical presentation is the point, not some simpering female who wants to know if the hero thinks the war is more important than her. YES it IS! get over yourself! That's why I hated PEARL HARBOR, in addition to its historical inaccuracies.

Answer 6

no youre definitely not the only one
pearl harbor would have actually been a good movie if it weren't for the love triangle that they added

Answer 7

Go to this site : http://www.yamour.us/
and click "online movies" under the site's name