ProVideo Coalition.com: Bruce's Blog by Bruce A. Johnson

I’m using this holiday weekend to do some movie-watching catch-up (even with astoundingly nice weather). Last night it was time to load up “Charlie Wilson’s War,” produced by and starring the man I’ve come to call America’s History Teacher: Tom Hanks.

Just go to imdb.com and look at Hanks’ filmography. Either as an actor or as producer through his company PlayTone, Hanks has seemingly made it his cause to educate the American populace in the most entertaining way possible. As an actor alone, the list includes “Saving Private Ryan,” “Apollo 13” and “Charlie Wilson’s War” along with smaller roles in many historical epics. As a producer, however, the list balloons to include the mini-series “John Adams,” Band of Brothers” and “From The Earth To The Moon,” and the upcoming Vietnam War history “They Marched Into Sunlight.” Even his directorial debut “That Thing You Do!”, while not historic specifically, did a great job of bringing back the hysterical times of the early 1960’s and the emergence of rock & roll and youth culture.

It is a rare skill to be able to make history entertaining enough to sustain a movie, let alone a miniseries, and it does require a good subject and script. It seems that Tom Hanks has claimed this as his niche’, and good on him.

(And slight apologies for the Simpsons reference in the subhead. “Embiggen” is a perfectly cromulent word. Look it up.)

You must be registered to comment. This is an effort to reduce spam. Please REGISTER HERE.

Hey I love the PVC blog but Hanks’ take on history is bogus and preoccupied with militarism. Most historians cringe when they see his Hollywood myth making. Given the constraints of the Hollywood story arc, that isn’t all Hanks’ fault by any means. But he’s no more America’s History Teacher than Col. Sanders is America’s Gourmet Chef.

If you want to learn history read a book. Peace.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/01 at 03:08 PM

Thanks for the suggestion, but I do read books. Problem is, most people don’t. If the only way people can learn about the life and times of John Adams is through Tom Hanks, that’s enough to validate his career right there.

Hmmm…KFC for dinner? Maybe…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/01 at 06:08 PM

I don’t think Hanks needs to validate his career. I think his success speaks for itself.

And I don’t doubt you read books. My point is if people rely on Hollywood movies to learn history, then in most cases they’re learning an inaccurate one. Maybe no history is better than a Hollywood distortion.

And now - off to KFC!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/01 at 07:13 PM

Depends on what you consider a distortion, of course. I call it the “Amadeus Effect” - where was Salieri when Mozart died? About 250 miles away, but that’s not what the movie (or source play) posited. But people believe it. The other movie that falls squarely into that category (for me) is Oliver Stone’s “JFK” - I especially liked the scene with Kevin Bacon painted up all silver and dressed as Mercury. Must have happened!!!

I’m sure Mr. Hanks fact-checkers keep his stuff much closer to reality than either of these examples.

BAJ

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/01 at 07:34 PM

Given that all of Hanks’ miniseries projects have been closely based on books by acclaimed historians, I think it’s a stretch to claim that other historians cringe when they see them coming. They are not perfect, of course, but definitely the exception to the rule of Hollywood revisionism. And I think that Fraz does have another point; no history is better than false history. Hollywood retellings probably innoculate more viewers against real history than they inform, which is why Hanks is such a good teacher. Also, his miniseries projects have probably sold more good books than any other television programming.

Posted by Isaac on 09/03 at 04:55 PM

Both Tom’s work in Band of Bros and SPR was based on historical source material from Stephen Ambrose’s books. While Hollywood often gets it wrong, I personally found BoB very faithful to the book. In many cases, good historical movies have often inspired further research. The movie’s accuracies are hardly the point. Plenty of movies have been made that have been historically inaccurate and yet I’ve had hell of a good time watching them. Just think Braveheart. What I object to is the politically charged label “militaristic” which is both unfair and inaccurate.

Posted by steve martin on 09/03 at 04:59 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

A Salute To America’s History Teacher