How is Lone Survivor affected by Hollywood VS. History? Starred by Marcus Wahlberg, Lone Survivor attempts to give us a look into Operation Red Wings. However, with every movie there is something added into the movie to make it better. This has become to be known as “Hollywood”, which is taking out some “History” from the movie. Lone Survivor is a great example for “Hollywood VS. History”. More often than not a majority of the scenes were affected by the Hollywood producers, and it affected Lone Survivor’s truth to the story.
First, without a doubt “Hollywood” embellished several events in this movie. To start, while out in the mountains the unit was spotted by the goat herders. In the movie, Mike Murphy decided the plan of attack, while
…show more content…
in real life the whole group decided what to do (Kessler). Also, as the men were taking heavy fire, Luttrell and Axe realized the helicopters flying by. However, it has been told that Axe was dead and Luttrell had no clue about the helicopter crashes (Klein). Also, in the movie Peter Berg adds in Luttrell entering cardiac arrest, although Luttrell’s heart never stopped beating (Klein). “Hollywood” added many key scenes to make the movie more suspenseful and action packed, thus leaving the movie in a bad spot to be believable. Next, “Hollywood” is very good at adding things that are believable.
Thus, making it harder to decide what is fake and what is true. Although for a movie like this it is a bit easier. With Marcus Luttrell being the lone survivor, he can recall a majority of this story. In this case, Luttrell is the primary source of all information in this story. For example, Luttrell explains the scene where the troops are all falling down the mountain (Kessler). Also, in the end of the movie “Hollywood” takes over and adds the scene of Luttrell dying and coming back to life (Busch). This scene is very intense and is very believable, but Luttrell does not say his heart stopped. These scenes had a purpose in the movie but would lead the movie to be more “Hollywood” than “History”. Now, this is how Hollywood makes a lot of money and the movies are more than likely not always true, but that doesn't stop the viewers from …show more content…
watching. Continuing on, “Hollywood” has a reason for adding in events even if they are not historically correct.
In this movie, it was good to add in these certain events to make it more suspenseful. The ending has the most events that are not historically correct, like when Luttrell dies and comes back to life. With the ending given to us from Luttrell the ending would be very boring. To have him taken to Mohammad Gulab’s village, the man who saved him in the forest, and rescued by the marines without a big battle would make the ending not interesting at all. In certain movies it is great to add things even if they are not historically accurate. However, certain movies should not be changed and if they are it could mess up the whole movie. In this case, “Hollywood” made a good decision in adding some key events to make the movie
better. Lastly, “Hollywood” made this movie better with these added in scenes. With scenes in battle and the pure struggle of survival it makes the movie worth watching. It is true that all of it’s not accurate, but Hollywood is the best in the business and that is why the make great movies. Also, it gives off multiple things to think of if you watch closely. For example, there is video footage of the deaths from each Seal, in the movie it makes all of the deaths suspenseful and tragic. Although, in the war it was not actually that steady of a death (Busch). These deaths were key into making Luttrell alone as he would be the rest of the movie. However, Lone Survivor is a very controversial movie. For example, everyone’s opinion will be different in the way they see the movie. Peter Berg did not purposely do this for he thought it was for the better of the movie. The scenes added a great sense of what it’s like in war when all odds are against you. “Hollywood” absolutely tried to connect the viewers and created a good vision as to what war is like, but with Luttrell’s knowledge it shows it’s not all true. To conclude, Lone Survivor was a great movie that fits right into the category of “Hollywood VS. History”. “Hollywood” made the right decision to add events to make the movie more interesting. These events definitely helped the movie, without some of these key events this movie would have not been released it would have been very uninteresting. “Hollywood” embellished a good amount of the movie, but with Marcus Luttrell being alive and the lone survivor, it is a little easier to pick out the “Hollywood” parts. Lone Survivor gives us a good look of parts of the war in Afghanistan but it’s something we shouldn’t trust as a primary source. Lastly, it gives viewers the reason to be thankful for all the soldiers do for us, and Marcus Luttrell is for sure a true American hero.
They tied the men to trees to, to later decide to let them go, and make their way towards their evacuation point. In less than an hour the team had undergo heavy fire from the Taliban fighters. All the men were killed, except for Marcus Luttrell, because Michael Murphy had given his life to make a call back to base to tell them their location. Michael exposed himself on a cliff to make the call, and seconds after the call he was shot dead by the Taliban. After the fight Marcus had managed to walk seven miles with fractured bones, a broken back, and multiple gunshot wounds. To a nearby village, where they cared, fed, bathed, and protected Luttrell. Then after six days, Marines were given a specific location on where Luttrell was at, and they arrived and rescued
...ce again they were pinned down from three sides and the only way to not be shot was to jump down the mountain side again, which they did. However, once Luttrell stopped falling down the mountain he realized that he had lost sight of Axelson. Sadly, Axelson was found by the Taliban and shot and killed, leaving Luttrell all alone. After just two hours of fighting Luttrell was the only American left in the fight. At this time in the battle it was almost night time, so Luttrell tucked himself under a rock to hide from the Taliban for the night. When he woke up, he started to walk down the hill and found a stream of water. This was a huge relief for Luttrell for not having water a good amount of water for the past day. When he reached the stream he jumped right in. However, when he got out he was standing face to face with a man. This man’s name was Mohammad Gulab.
In “The Thematic Paradigm,” University of Florida professor of film studies, Robert Ray, defines two types of heroes pervading American films, the outlaw hero and the official hero. Often the two types are merged in a reconciliatory pattern, he argues. In fact, this
In the article “The Thematic Paradigm” exerted from his book, A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema, Robert Ray provides a description of the two types of heroes depicted in American film: the outlaw hero and the official hero. Although the outlaw hero is more risky and lonely, he cherishes liberty and sovereignty. The official hero on the other hand, generally poses the role of an average ordinary person, claiming an image of a “civilized person.” While the outlaw hero creates an image of a rough-cut person likely to commit a crime, the official hero has a legend perception. In this essay, I will reflect on Ray’s work, along with demonstrating where I observe ideologies and themes.
In late October of 1965, troops of the 1st Brigade were sent into the battle. After the enemy was repulsed, the 3rd Brigade replaced the 1st Brigade in early November (X-Ray). After three days of patrolling without any contact, Hal Moore's 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry was ordered to air assault into the Ia Drang Valley on Nov 14. Moore's plan was to move Bravo and Alpha northwest past the creek bed, and Charlie south toward the mountain. Delta Company, which comprised special weapons forces including mortar, recon, and machine gun units, was to be used as the battlefield reserve. In the center of the LZ was a large termite hill that which was to become Moore's command post.
In today's day and age, it's rare to see famous historical events and societal disasters not be picked apart by film directors and then transformed into a box office hit. What these films do is put a visual perspective on these events, sometimes leaving viewers speculating if whatever was depicted is in fact entirely true. I have never felt that feeling more than after I finished watching Oliver Stone’s JFK.
The truth to any war does not lie in the depths of storytelling but rather it’s embedded in every person involved. According to O’Brien, “A true war story does not depend on that kind of truth. Absolute occurrence is irrelevant. A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (pg. 80). Truths of any war story in my own opinion cannot be fully conveyed or explained through the use of words. Any and all war stories provide specific or certain facts about war but each of them do not and cannot allow the audience to fully grasp the tru...
The truth behind stories is not always what happened, with each person’s perspective is where their truth lies. At the beginning of the novel, you start to think that it is going to be the same old war stories you read in the past, but it changes direction early. It is not about how the hero saves the day, but how each experience is different and how it stays with you. From his story about Martha, to how he killed a man, each one is so different, but has its own meaning that makes people who have not been in war, understand what it is like. Tim O’Brien can tell a fake story and make you believe it with no doubt in your mind.
The film may have edited out one of the drastic details that made the novel’s success, explaining the film’s failure.
Marine corporal E.C. Mightingale was aboard “The Arizona” and was there that infamous morning. He was there, he lived it and could feel the pain and see his fellow marines die. He does have bias. He was there so he was a primary source. This event was described very formal because he was a solider and in the military. He keeps it very natural even though it was a negative event in his opinion (Mightingale 1). He doesn’t emphasize and parts other there the parts when he is wow! Which is the first wave or attacks. He leaves out the pre planning of the event due to the fact that he is a American solider. This account was somewhat different being of his formal tone and his passion in it (Mightingale 3)
Mark Wahlberg is one of the most impressive men in the world. Starting as a fresh faced teen into a well formed acting career. Most recently, Mark is known for branching out in many different fields, such as an actor, singer, and male model. However, Mark’s life hasn’t always been easy. The purpose of this paper is to share with you the journey of Mark Wahlberg, a child living in poverty on the Streets of Boston, to a man with a multi-million dollar paycheck.
While hundreds, even thousands of excellent movies have been made over the years since motion pictures were invented, there are some movies that stand out among the best. There are various reasons for these standouts, sometimes incredible acting, sometimes impeccable story lines, but in many cases, it is the issues addressed by the movie. Most of the greatest movies contain commentaries or analyses of certain issues, be they moral, social, or otherwise. John McTiernan directed one of these films, The Hunt for Red October, based on the similarly titled best-selling novel by Tom Clancy. The Hunt for Red October, a product of the anti-communist attitudes of the 1980’s, is above all a commentary on morality. It follows a critical moral decision made by one man, Soviet Captain Marko Ramius, portrayed by Sean Connery, and follows the consequences of that moral decision to their conclusion. While this is not the only instance of morality being questioned in this movie, it is the most important, as it is the decision upon which the story is based. Other characters, like Alec Baldwin’s character of Jack Ryan, and Scott Glenn’s character Captain Bart Mancuso also have to make moral decisions that will have important effects on Ramius’ decision.
Fyne, Robert. The Hollywood propaganda of World War II. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1994. Print.
...ctual roles, or adding in exciting events that revise the storyline. These changes are beneficial to producers because they engage a large audience and generate massive profits. In contrast, they do not always have a positive effect on viewers. Although they are entertaining which is an important aspect of theatre culture, they also are often misguiding. Many spectators take movies at face value, without considering that they may not exactly qualify as primary source material. Even when an historical event is fabricated to teach or enhance a moral message, it still doesn’t compensate for bending the truth. Moviegoer’s may have a positive experience and gain some skewed historical perspective, perhaps better than what they knew before the movie, but they loose out on the truth and therefore, a genuine understanding of the historical event, and its significance.
Based on a true story, the movie ‘Lone Survivor’ features four Navy SEALs that set out on a mission to Afghanistan with orders to capture and kill Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. The Navy SEALS are detected by villagers and the mission was compromised. Ultimately, the mission had been discovered and the men found themselves surrounded by dozens of Taliban soldiers. One of the Navy SEAL soldiers managed to dispatch to base and retrieve assistance but the Taliban shoot down the helicopter. During battle, three of the Navy SEAL soldiers were killed leaving one still alive.