Color movies are great, but so are black-and-white movies

Why one should consider watching classic black-and-white movies

This might seem a strange way to start this post, but there is a decades-long international interest in World War II. People in many nations are fascinated by the greatest shooting war of the twentieth century – and, arguably, of all time. Thus, there’s a strong subculture that’s interested in the real footage of the war. Some of that footage is in color, but much of it is instead in black-and-white. Nonetheless, people watch it anyway, because they want to see some of what the real thing looked like. It’s one of the few historical subjects that is not stigmatized as “nerdy,” because it continues to enjoy such a great following. This shows that there is still some interest in black-and-white photography, both of the moving and non-moving (or “still”) kinds. But the younger generation often has no interest in old movies, particularly when they are in black-and-white. They’ve been raised in a culture of color movies, many of which really are quite good. But I believe that there are a lot of old movies that are worth watching, too. This post will try to explain some of the reasons why.

Clark Gable and Doris Day together in “Teacher’s Pet” (1958)

Has Hollywood history always been so bad?

“Drama is life with the dull bits cut out.”

– Alfred Hitchcock

Even the worst Hollywood history movies often get people interested in the history …

In 2001, Hollywood released a movie called “Pearl Harbor.” It starred Ben Affleck, and it butchered the history involved. For example, the B-25 bomber planes of the later Doolittle Raids did not fly like fighter planes. The idea that they would be flown by fighter pilots was sheer nonsense. I suppose that many people were misinformed by the movie, but I noticed a very interesting thing happening after the movie came out. People became more interested in the earlier movie “Tora! Tora! Tora!” from 1970, which also depicted the attack on Pearl Harbor. The movie “Tora! Tora! Tora!” has a few goofs of its own, but it is generally quite good on the historical accuracy front. At the very least, it is far more historically accurate than the Ben Affleck disaster. Many Hollywood movies have had a similar effect, making people more curious about what really happened in the history. In my opinion, the movie “Pearl Harbor” still deserves to be called out for its inaccuracies, but people can learn from their mistakes, if they do their own research about what really happened – which is what the learning process is all about.

History movies have the potential to reach a wider audience than history books

Other Hollywood movies are much better, and have done a great service to the history. For example, the Steven Spielberg movies “Lincoln” and “Bridge of Spies” both did fantastic storytelling, which brought the history to life. Their historical accuracy is not perfect, but in my opinion, it is good enough. Many that refuse to read a book will happily watch a history movie. Thus, movies have the potential to reach a wider audience than your average book can reach. Some will be inspired to read the book itself afterwards, and delve further into its story. Either way, they can add much to the audience’s history education. In general, I believe that books still have a higher batting average than movies do for getting the history right. But it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and dismiss everything that Hollywood has done in this area.

6 great ideas for possible history movies

I sometimes wish that I had the money to make a Hollywood movies about history – or even several of them. I have all kinds of ideas about historical movies that would be great for this. Some of them might even make money – at least, if they were done right. But since I don't think I'll be able to do this myself, I'll put these ideas out there, and hope that some Hollywood producer will take some of my best ideas. (They wouldn't even have to give me screen credits for them … )

A review of PBS's “Walt Disney” movie

“We're not trying to entertain the critics … I'll take my chances with the public.”

– Walter Elias Disney

It's not often that you see art and commerce combined into one person. For whatever reason, most artists are lousy businessmen, and never really get the hang of the game of business. But Walter Elias Disney was an exception to this rule. He was a brilliant artist and a brilliant businessman. And by “art,” I don't just mean the visual arts, although Walt Disney had some helpful experience in hand-drawn animations that would be useful to him later on. All of movie-making is an art, it would seem, and Walt Disney excelled at this art. Although he started out drawing some of the animations himself, he quickly realized that there were others around him who were much better at this than he was, and he made sure to hire them. But his real talent was for producing, and he made one movie after another from very early on in his adulthood.

A review of “12 Angry Men” (1957 movie)

“You've listened to a long and complex case, murder in the first degree. Premeditated murder is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony, you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case. It's now your duty to sit down and try to separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead, another man's life is at stake. If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused – uh, a reasonable doubt – then you must bring me a verdict of ‘Not Guilty.’ If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused ‘Guilty.’ However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused ‘Guilty,’ the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You're faced with a grave responsibility.”

– The judge in “12 Angry Men” (1957), in one of the earliest scenes of the movie

Some comments on this movie, and how I personally prefer it to the 1997 remake …

In 1954, the screenwriter Reginald Rose wrote a teleplay that was to debut on CBS. The teleplay was “Twelve Angry Men,” and it would soon become a classic. It aired on September 20th, 1954, and was soon adapted for the stage in 1955. But the most famous adaptation of the play was the 1957 movie, starring Henry Fonda in the lead role. There was another movie that updated it somewhat in 1997, forty years after the original film came out. The remake has many positive virtues, including a more ethnically diverse cast. The original film has an all-white cast, although both films had an all-male cast (at least for the twelve jurors). Both films have superb acting, and I think the acting quality is just about neck-and-neck for these two movies. But in some ways, I still tend to prefer the earlier version, because it had much less profanity. The 1957 version had maybe two swear words in the entire movie. The 1997 version is filled with profanity, and earned a PG-13 rating for this reason. This is not really my cup of tea, and makes me want to avoid the remake for the most part.

A brief overview of the plot (warning: may contain spoilers) ….

Every version of this story seems to work well as a drama – at least, for those versions that I have seen. But the movie is also philosophically interesting in many ways. It is not just about twelve characters who happen to be thrown together for a few hours of intense debate – the movie also tries to profile our jury system as a whole. The movie is an interesting character study, because the characters bounce off of each other throughout the movie, debating the complex details of this particular case. But the movie also shows that what can seem “cut-and-dried” at first is seldom quite as straightforward as it seems. (I must give a spoiler alert for this next part, for those who have not seen this film.) Testimony that seemed credible at first is thrown into serious question later on, and witnesses that seemed reliable no longer seem to be such in the end. At first, eleven of the jurors think that the boy really is guilty, and only one of them initially votes “not guilty.” But eventually, this lone juror converts all of the others to his point of view, and convinces them to vote for the defendant’s acquittal. Before the movie finishes, issues of prejudice, incompetent legal counsel, and the default presumption of innocence all come into play. The movie makes the point that the jury system was supposed to be impartial, and is not supposed to be based on charm or demographics – or any other ultimately irrelevant factor.

A review of “Tora! Tora! Tora!” (1970 movie)

“Thus, the earnest hope of the Japanese Government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost. The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.”

– Closing lines of the “Japanese Note to the United States,” on 7 December 1941 (which was delivered an hour after the Pearl Harbor attack, and did not contain an actual declaration of war anyway)

Pearl Harbor was part of a series of attacks throughout the Pacific …

On a warm Sunday morning in Hawaii, Japanese carrier planes attacked the United States fleet in Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. But contrary to popular perception, this was not the only place that they attacked that day. The attack was actually simultaneous with moves elsewhere in the Pacific on places like British Malaya, British Singapore, and British Hong Kong. Prior to these attacks, neither the United States nor Britain had been at war with Japan; so these two countries were thus drawn into the Pacific theater of World War II at almost the same time. Other American possessions that were attacked at around this time were Guam, Wake Island, Midway Island, and the Philippines.

"Battleship Row" at Pearl Harbor (photograph taken from a Japanese torpedo plane, 1941)

Japanese American soldiers in World War II

"Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion."

- "Executive Order No. 9066," issued by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on 19 February 1942

Japanese American children pledging allegiance to the United States in 1942, shortly before the internment started

Japanese American soldiers served with great distinction in World War II

Most Americans today have heard the story of Japanese American internment in World War II (at least in outline form), which was unquestionably one of the sadder episodes in this country's history (at least in the last century). But most Americans have not heard of the story of the Japanese American soldiers in World War II, who served with great distinction in the war. This is a part of the story that our schools have not told as well, and so I thought I'd venture to offer some coverage of it on my blog here. (This necessarily involves some background about the story of Japanese internment, I should note here; but I intend to focus this post on the military contributions of the Japanese American soldiers.)

"Instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry," under Executive Order 9066

The Nuremberg trials: A comparison of two movies

Warning: This post contains some disturbing pictures related to the Holocaust. One of these, in particular, is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

JFK and RFK: A few movies about their lives

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

- Inaugural Address of John F. Kennedy (20 January 1961)

The Kennedy brothers are among the most fascinating people in American history. When I say this, I'm not talking about Ted Kennedy (the Democratic Senator), or eldest brother Joe Kennedy, Jr. (who was killed in World War II); but rather, JFK and RFK. I'm not a big fan of Teddy Kennedy, as he represented everything that's wrong with today's Democrats; but the Kennedy president and his brother Robert (who served as attorney general) were actually quite good.

(from left ro right)

Bobby Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy

Joe Kennedy, Jr.

JFK has the distinction of being the last good Democrat president. With the chain of incompetents the Democrats have produced since these times, it's hard to fathom that there was once actual competence in the Democratic Party. But in these days, they had FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. FDR was incompetent on economic policy, but he compensated for it in his handling of World War II. Moreover, Truman and Kennedy were great on both foreign and domestic policy. I won't spend too much time evaluating the Kennedy presidency, as this blog post is about the different Kennedy media; but suffice it to say here that he was quite good.

Cromwell: The movie that brings the English Civil War to life

The English Civil War was a war over ideas, much like the American Revolution ...

The British historian Simon Schama once said that the American Declaration of Independence was "like a chapter from a British history book." He compared the American Revolution to the English Civil War of a century before, even going so far as to say that the American Revolution was really "round two" of the British civil wars. There is truth in this statement, and the events of the English Civil War are eerily familiar to students of the American Revolution. They both were political wars, they both were wars over ideas, and they both began as wars over taxes; which soon transformed into conflicts about much broader issues.

Battle of Naseby, 1645 (during English Civil War)

George Washington: The man and the movies

"Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

- George Washington's "Newburgh Address," the speech where he first refused to be king

He is a celebrated American general, who lost more battles than he won. Like America itself, he allied with the British to fight the French, and then allied with the French to fight the British. And he wanted to be a political leader, but turned down the chance to be a king.

George Washington before the Revolution

Winston Churchill: A comparison of two movies

On both sides of the Atlantic (particularly in the English-speaking world), there is still a great deal of interest in Winston Churchill. He is considered an inspirational figure by many (including myself), who is often compared to Lincoln in both his wartime leadership and - to a large degree - his extraordinary way with words. Both had the ability to win public support for their war with powerful rhetorical language and persuasive speaking, and Winston Churchill won the Nobel Prize in Literature for his memoirs.

His gift with words is undoubtedly a big part of his memoirs' popularity, but there is also the fact that his life story itself is unusually interesting; especially the most visible accomplishment of his being the British prime minister during World War II. But there's more to his story than the high-profile portion of his life. If you're interested in hearing some other important parts, there are some movies available from which to get some info. I should give a disclaimer that I'm only aware of two movies - I have not read Mr. Churchill's memoirs, and I do not claim to be anything approaching an expert about his life. But I have some important information to offer about these two movies, and hope that this will help anyone interested in Mr. Churchill.

John Adams movies

What's the best movie about John Adams?

Young John Adams

My answer would be that it depends on what you're looking for. All the ones I've seen have things that they do better than the other ones. Thus, I'll compare and contrast the ones I've seen, to show where each one is strongest. The ones I've seen are a two-hour PBS documentary (which also talks about Abigail), an eight-hour HBO miniseries (with Paul Giamatti), and an old thirteen-hour miniseries called "The Adams Chronicles."

Eisenhower movies: A comparison of some films

There's something about war heroes and statesmen that holds the fascination of many; and so there have been a number of movies about the life of Dwight Eisenhower. He fits both categories, of course; being both a victorious Allied general in World War II; and a President of the United States during the 1950's. Thus, there have been a number of films about him since his time.

The Cuban Missile Crisis: A comparison of two movies

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."

- John F. Kennedy, in his Address on the Cuban Missile Crisis (22 October 1962)

I have watched two movies about the Cuban Missile Crisis, in addition to the episode about it in CNN's Cold War series. I've also seen it treated in some documentaries about the Kennedys, so I feel like I have some basic knowledge about it. I'm thus in a position to compare the different media about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and say what the advantages and disadvantages of each one are.

U-2 reconnaissance plane (during refueling)

How the crisis began

But before I do this, I should probably explain what the Cuban Missile Crisis was, for those who don't know. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the time in world history when the world came closest to nuclear war. The Soviets began to put nuclear missiles in Cuba, which were discovered by an American U-2 reconnaissance flight. The plane brought photographic evidence of them back to the United States, which alarmed the few authorized to see them. President Kennedy and his advisers knew that these missiles were well within range of a significant portion of the United States, and would have allowed the Soviets to nuke much of the country with little or no warning. This would have given them a first-strike capability.

Actual U-2 reconnaissance photograph of Soviet missiles in Cuba (visible when magnified)

Ben-Hur: My favorite Hollywood movie of all time

"And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."

- The New Testament, "The Gospel According to St. Luke," Chapter 23, Verse 38 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

It's well-known to my friends that I post a lot about documentaries, particularly about history. Thus, someone reading my blog posts might conclude that I don't like Hollywood movies as much, because I don't write about them very often. (I had only written two movie reviews at the time that this post was first published, but I have since written some others.) Actually, I'm a great fan of many Hollywood movies, and the main reason that I spend more time reviewing documentaries is because there are more history documentaries than history movies. (I may start reviewing some classic history movies, from Hollywood as well as the documentary world. More on that later.)

Fictional story with a historical setting ...

But my favorite Hollywood movie is actually not a history movie; because although it depicts real events, most of the characters are fictional; as this is based on a work of literature. Besides that, it depicts Bible events like Jesus's miracles, which lend themselves less to verifiable fact than other kinds of history - like certain areas of military history, where we can have verifiable data like numbers of troops, their positions during any given battle, and the tactical results of the engagement. I wish to make it clear that I believe in the reality of Jesus's miracles, but any media depicting them is not, in the strictest sense, a history. Rather, this is a work of cinematic literature, based on a literary work from the world of books. The movie is the 1959 classic "Ben-Hur," which was nominated for 11 Academy Awards. For me, this is the movie that most brings the New Testament to life.

A review of Steven Spielberg's “Lincoln”

" ... that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom ... "

- Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address (1863)

So I recently watched the Steven Spielberg movie "Lincoln," with Daniel-Day Lewis in the title role. I've seen a fair amount of media about Lincoln's life, from the Henry Fonda film "Young Mr. Lincoln" to the Sam Waterston TV movie called "Lincoln" (the brief and appealing nature of that title makes it a popular one). This is my personal favorite of the Hollywood movies about Lincoln's presidency, even though it focuses on just one part of his presidency. It sets the record straight on some important things about his administration.

The president is not directly involved in the constitutional amendment process ...

For those unfamiliar with this movie, Steven Spielberg's movie focuses on the last part of Lincoln's presidency, with much attention given to his role in getting the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress, the amendment that banned slavery. At that time, slavery was protected by the Constitution through the Three-Fifths Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and some other notorious clauses. Thus, getting rid of slavery in the United States required a constitutional amendment; and this is the one that did it. People often point out that under the Constitution, the president is not directly involved in the constitutional amendment process; as this is done by Congress and state legislatures. But the president's indirect influence upon it is enormous, as he can offer Congress things they want in exchange for their cooperation, and he was thus able to influence the passage of this amendment.

A review of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (1939 film)

"Your friend Mr. Lincoln had his Taylors and Paines. So did every other man who ever tried to lift his thought up off the ground. Odds against them didn't stop those men - they were fools that way. All the good that ever came into this world came from fools with faith like that. You know that, Jeff. You can't quit now - not you! They aren't all Taylors and Paines in Washington. That kind just throw big shadows, that's all. You didn't just have faith in Paine or any other living man. You had faith in something bigger than that. You had plain, decent, everyday, common rightness; and this country could use some of that. Yeah, so could the whole cockeyed world - a lot of it!"

- Clarissa Saunders, a character in the movie

So I was recently watching the movie "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" with my family. This is my second-favorite Hollywood movie, after the Christian classic "Ben-Hur." I love the patriotism of this movie, because patriotism is like a religion for me.