[T]his film is full of major historical errors, falsified scenes and a blatant rewriting of history[.]
?
The big facts are undisputed and accurately portrayed. The Soviets tried to establish nuclear-missile sites in Cuba. The U.S. discovered the plot. Kennedy and his team confronted the Soviets. For several days, the two sides engaged in diplomatic and military brinkmanship at the most horrific level. Nuclear war seemed a very real possibility. Kennedy and his team won. And in my opinion, they won big. In the end, there were no missiles in Cuba, and there was no war, nuclear or otherwise.
As far as the linked article, there is very little of what I would characterize as fact-checking. One scene is cited as being entirely made up. Accepting that claim as true, it seems fairly unimportant. The scene represents events that are not pivotal.
Beyond that, the author mostly criticizes the movie for presenting Kenny O'Donnell as much more important than he really was and for presenting the Joint Chiefs of Staff as more determined to go to war than they actually were.
As for the former, I think that is a universal criticism among those who actually have some idea about what really went on, and even those who don't. No argument here. It was a story-telling technique meant to cash in on the star power of Kevin Costner. And it is misleading. But I don't think it matters all that much.
As for the latter, the author offers no facts in support of his claim that the JCS are unfairly portrayed. He just claims that they are. If the author is right, then I would regard that as the movie's worst sin. But in the absence of facts cited in support, it's hard to gauge whether the JCS were unfairly portrayed, or to what degree.
Somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.
reply
share
pe81171
13 years ago
Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.
I think that in the real history of the Crisis that the JCS was quite hawkish.
Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.
reply
share