I understand why the filmmakers took some dramatic license to make this movie, but why did they lie in the epilogue about Charles Van Doren never teaching again? What purpose does that serve? Van Doren did continue teaching, contrary to the epilogue's statement. I can't think of any good reason for this falsehood.
shareI think at the time this was made that statement was still true, It appears only much later than 1994 did he teach again.
Ephemeron.
Perhaps. What brought this to my attention was a 2008 New Yorker article by Charles Van Doren, who says, "I understand that movies need to compress and conflate, but what bothered me most was the epilogue stating that I never taught again. I didn’t stop teaching, although it was a long time before I taught again in a college." Read it here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/28/all-the-answers
shareThanks for that link, I've read other stuff on this flick and that was a good one.
The way he states that, he must have been teaching before the movie, 1994.
It's actually interesting how Redford took what actually went down and was able to condense it into the movie timeline. I cannot think of one wasted line of scene in this movie. Once again I think this movie deserves reward for best script.
It certainly captured the feel of Van Doren.
And of course this movie is certainly not just about his story. This was a movie about the look and feel of America in 1959, and this new invention (and what was behind it) that changed our culture forever.
We'll just have to give that line to dramatic license, though it could have been just as dramatic to say "Van Doren never returned to teach at Cambridge." or something like that.
Ephemeron.
I agree with your sentiment, but Charles Van Doren never taught at Cambridge University. I did some more digging about his life since my original post here. Van Doren taught at Columbia University in NYC as an instructor (i.e., non-tenured professor) before he appeared on the quiz show Twenty One. After the Twenty One fiasco he joined the staff of Encyclopedia Britannica as, I believe, their editor-in-chief, but he says that he kept teaching humanities in some capacity, though the only specific mention of where he taught that I found is at the University of Connecticut at Torrington, where he is still an adjunct professor.
shareI meant Columbia.
Thanks
Ephemeron.