gring0
Joined Jun 2005
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews50
gring0's rating
I'm showing the film now to my history seniors so felt obliged to comment on it. Whilst the film is undeniably gripping as a political thriller, it takes considerable liberties with historical facts, thereby compromising its value as an educational resource on this critical period in Cold War history.
One of the most glaring inaccuracies in the film is the exaggerated role of Kenneth O'Donnell, played by Kevin Costner. O'Donnell, who was a special assistant to President Kennedy, is portrayed as an influential figure in the crisis, often present in high-level meetings and even influencing the President's decisions. In reality, O'Donnell was not a key player in the crisis management and was largely uninvolved in the ExComm meetings, which were attended by experts in foreign policy and military strategy. The film's focus on O'Donnell seems to be a deliberate attempt to create a relatable character for the audience, but it distorts the historical record and minimises the roles of pivotal figures like Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk.
Another point of contention is the film's portrayal of President Kennedy, played by Bruce Greenwood. While the film does capture Kennedy's calm and rational demeanor, it fails to delve into the complexities of his decision-making process. The President is shown as almost unilaterally steering the United States away from military action, whereas, in reality, he was under immense pressure from his military advisors to authorize an airstrike against Soviet missile sites in Cuba. The film simplifies the intricate discussions and debates that took place among the ExComm members, reducing them to a binary choice between war and peace.
Furthermore, the Soviet perspective is conspicuously absent from the narrative. The film does not delve into the motivations of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev or explore the geopolitical considerations that led the Soviet Union to place missiles in Cuba. This omission perpetuates a one-sided view of the crisis and fails to provide a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay of factors that averted a nuclear catastrophe.
The film also glosses over the role of backchannel communications between the United States and the Soviet Union, which were crucial in resolving the crisis. The secret correspondence between Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin played a significant role in reaching a peaceful resolution, yet this is scarcely mentioned in the film.
So whilst "Thirteen Days" succeeds as a suspenseful dramatisation of a critical moment in history, it falls short as an accurate representation of the events it depicts. The film takes liberties with historical facts, exaggerates the roles of certain individuals, and omits key aspects of the crisis, thereby providing a skewed understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis. As such, it should be viewed as a piece of historical fiction rather than a reliable educational resource.
My site- Tracesofevil com.
One of the most glaring inaccuracies in the film is the exaggerated role of Kenneth O'Donnell, played by Kevin Costner. O'Donnell, who was a special assistant to President Kennedy, is portrayed as an influential figure in the crisis, often present in high-level meetings and even influencing the President's decisions. In reality, O'Donnell was not a key player in the crisis management and was largely uninvolved in the ExComm meetings, which were attended by experts in foreign policy and military strategy. The film's focus on O'Donnell seems to be a deliberate attempt to create a relatable character for the audience, but it distorts the historical record and minimises the roles of pivotal figures like Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk.
Another point of contention is the film's portrayal of President Kennedy, played by Bruce Greenwood. While the film does capture Kennedy's calm and rational demeanor, it fails to delve into the complexities of his decision-making process. The President is shown as almost unilaterally steering the United States away from military action, whereas, in reality, he was under immense pressure from his military advisors to authorize an airstrike against Soviet missile sites in Cuba. The film simplifies the intricate discussions and debates that took place among the ExComm members, reducing them to a binary choice between war and peace.
Furthermore, the Soviet perspective is conspicuously absent from the narrative. The film does not delve into the motivations of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev or explore the geopolitical considerations that led the Soviet Union to place missiles in Cuba. This omission perpetuates a one-sided view of the crisis and fails to provide a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay of factors that averted a nuclear catastrophe.
The film also glosses over the role of backchannel communications between the United States and the Soviet Union, which were crucial in resolving the crisis. The secret correspondence between Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin played a significant role in reaching a peaceful resolution, yet this is scarcely mentioned in the film.
So whilst "Thirteen Days" succeeds as a suspenseful dramatisation of a critical moment in history, it falls short as an accurate representation of the events it depicts. The film takes liberties with historical facts, exaggerates the roles of certain individuals, and omits key aspects of the crisis, thereby providing a skewed understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis. As such, it should be viewed as a piece of historical fiction rather than a reliable educational resource.
My site- Tracesofevil com.
So glad to have found a copy of this. I teach history and would love for my students to devote an hour to really understand the man beyond the key dates. Truman: Plain Speaking is a 1976 American television film that delves into the life and presidency of Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the United States. The film, directed by Anthony Page, is based on Merle Miller's biography of the same name. Ed Flanders takes on the role of Truman, delivering a performance that is both compelling and nuanced. The film aims to provide an intimate look into Truman's life, his political decisions, and the challenges he faced during his presidency, including the end of World War II, the beginning of the Cold War, and the Korean War.
As an historical source, the film offers a wealth of information and perspectives that are invaluable for anyone interested in American history, presidential studies, or the specific era it represents. However, it is essential to approach it with a critical eye, understanding that any biographical film will inevitably contain a degree of artistic license. The film does an excellent job of incorporating archival footage and historical documents to lend authenticity to its narrative. These elements serve to enhance the film's credibility as an historical source, providing a multi-layered understanding of Truman's presidency. Nevertheless, one must be cautious in taking the film as an entirely accurate historical record. While it does strive for accuracy, the medium itself necessitates certain compromises for the sake of storytelling. For instance, some events are condensed, and dialogues are created to represent what might have been said, but for which no verifiable record exists.
Ed Flanders' portrayal of Truman is another highlight of the film. Flanders captures the essence of Truman's character-his straightforwardness, his unpretentiousness, and his unwavering commitment to what he believed was right for the American people. The actor's performance is not merely an imitation but an interpretation that brings Truman to life in a way that is both believable and relatable. Flanders manages to convey the weight of the office and the toll it takes on Truman, particularly during critical moments of his presidency. The film does not shy away from showing Truman's flaws and mistakes, making it a more rounded and realistic portrayal. This adds another layer of complexity to the film as an historical source, as it does not merely serve as a hagiography but attempts to present a balanced view of its subject.
The film's treatment of key historical events during Truman's presidency is another aspect that merits attention. For example, the film delves into Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a choice that remains the subject of ethical and historical debate. The film does not attempt to simplify the complexities surrounding this decision but presents it as a dilemma that Truman grappled with seriously. This nuanced approach enhances the film's value as an historical source, as it encourages viewers to engage critically with the material and form their own interpretations.
Moreover, the film explores Truman's role in the early years of the Cold War, including the Truman Doctrine, which aimed to contain the spread of communism. It provides insights into the geopolitical considerations and domestic pressures that influenced Truman's foreign policy decisions. While the film cannot replace scholarly articles or primary source documents for academic rigour, it serves as an accessible entry point for those interested in this period. It stimulates curiosity and can act as a catalyst for further research, making it a useful educational tool.
However, it is crucial to note that the film, like any other historical drama, is a product of its time. Made in the 1970s, it reflects the concerns and interpretations prevalent during that era. For instance, the film's portrayal of the Cold War is influenced by the detente period, a time when tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union had temporarily eased. As such, the film may not fully capture the sense of urgency and existential threat that characterised the early years of the Cold War. This temporal context is essential to bear in mind when evaluating the film's historical accuracy and its utility as a source for understanding the past.
My website: 'Traces of Evil"
As an historical source, the film offers a wealth of information and perspectives that are invaluable for anyone interested in American history, presidential studies, or the specific era it represents. However, it is essential to approach it with a critical eye, understanding that any biographical film will inevitably contain a degree of artistic license. The film does an excellent job of incorporating archival footage and historical documents to lend authenticity to its narrative. These elements serve to enhance the film's credibility as an historical source, providing a multi-layered understanding of Truman's presidency. Nevertheless, one must be cautious in taking the film as an entirely accurate historical record. While it does strive for accuracy, the medium itself necessitates certain compromises for the sake of storytelling. For instance, some events are condensed, and dialogues are created to represent what might have been said, but for which no verifiable record exists.
Ed Flanders' portrayal of Truman is another highlight of the film. Flanders captures the essence of Truman's character-his straightforwardness, his unpretentiousness, and his unwavering commitment to what he believed was right for the American people. The actor's performance is not merely an imitation but an interpretation that brings Truman to life in a way that is both believable and relatable. Flanders manages to convey the weight of the office and the toll it takes on Truman, particularly during critical moments of his presidency. The film does not shy away from showing Truman's flaws and mistakes, making it a more rounded and realistic portrayal. This adds another layer of complexity to the film as an historical source, as it does not merely serve as a hagiography but attempts to present a balanced view of its subject.
The film's treatment of key historical events during Truman's presidency is another aspect that merits attention. For example, the film delves into Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a choice that remains the subject of ethical and historical debate. The film does not attempt to simplify the complexities surrounding this decision but presents it as a dilemma that Truman grappled with seriously. This nuanced approach enhances the film's value as an historical source, as it encourages viewers to engage critically with the material and form their own interpretations.
Moreover, the film explores Truman's role in the early years of the Cold War, including the Truman Doctrine, which aimed to contain the spread of communism. It provides insights into the geopolitical considerations and domestic pressures that influenced Truman's foreign policy decisions. While the film cannot replace scholarly articles or primary source documents for academic rigour, it serves as an accessible entry point for those interested in this period. It stimulates curiosity and can act as a catalyst for further research, making it a useful educational tool.
However, it is crucial to note that the film, like any other historical drama, is a product of its time. Made in the 1970s, it reflects the concerns and interpretations prevalent during that era. For instance, the film's portrayal of the Cold War is influenced by the detente period, a time when tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union had temporarily eased. As such, the film may not fully capture the sense of urgency and existential threat that characterised the early years of the Cold War. This temporal context is essential to bear in mind when evaluating the film's historical accuracy and its utility as a source for understanding the past.
My website: 'Traces of Evil"
