Welcome to History Lesson, where we take a closer look at the movies that dare to tackle real-life events with varying levels of accuracy, drama, and WTF casting choices. These films promise to educate and entertain, but more often than not, they rewrite history with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. We’ll be your guide through the land of miscast biopics, dramatic embellishments, and historical liberties, breaking down whether these flicks are Golden Reel Award-worthy masterpieces or just a big-budget version of a Wikipedia page. Either way, it’s more fun than your high school history class—and there’s popcorn.
This time around we will take a look at Season 31's fact-based slate....
HISTORY LESSON: The Eye of History
The Eye of History tries to bring Margaret Bourke-White’s life to the big screen but ends up feeling like a black-and-white slideshow with occasional dialogue. Kirsten Dunst does her best as the iconic photographer, but the film spends so much time reverently staring at her photos that it forgets to make Margaret herself feel alive. Finn Cole plays an overeager journalist who might as well be holding a fanboy sign the whole time, and Oliver Jackson-Cohen sulks his way through as Erskine Caldwell, Margaret’s very serious boyfriend. Highlights include Margaret sneaking into a dam construction site dressed as a worker and spinning cotton with Gandhi (because who doesn’t love an awkward arts-and-crafts moment with a world leader?). While visually stunning, the movie feels like it was made for museum gift shop sales rather than audiences looking for a pulse.
For all its dramatic indulgences, the film sticks surprisingly close to historical facts. Yes, Bourke-White really did photograph Fort Peck Dam by sneaking onto the site, and yes, she worked with Gandhi while documenting India’s path to independence. However, the film downplays her intense ambition and glosses over some of her more complex personal relationships in favor of sentimental fluff. As for the spinning cotton scene with Gandhi—it happened, but it didn’t need to feel like a deleted scene from Eat Pray Love.
HISTORY LESSON: Repeal and Replace
Repeal and Replace turns Paul Ryan’s efforts to dismantle Obamacare into two hours of wonky political theater that somehow feels less exciting than the real thing. Jon Hamm plays a hilariously overdramatic version of Ryan, complete with chair-flipping tantrums and a palpable desire to quit his job by Act 2. Meanwhile, Michael Shannon’s bizarrely low-energy Trump feels like he’s sleepwalking through meetings, and Raul Esparza’s Ted Cruz could double as a cartoon supervillain. The movie’s big twist? The American Health Care Act fails, and Ryan ends up crying in bed about his legacy. It’s a like political thriller with zero thrills, but hey, if you love watching stressed-out people argue about Medicaid, this is the blockbuster for you!
As for historical accuracy, the film takes the legislative process and adds about ten cups of melodrama. Paul Ryan flipping chairs in a rage? Never happened. And Michael Shannon’s detached portrayal of Trump feels about as authentic as his wig (Shannon's in the film - we're definitely not suggesting the President-elect wears a piece). The movie also seems confused about Ryan’s actual personality—he’s famously methodical and reserved, not a high-strung emotional wreck. If nothing else, Repeal and Replace gets the basics of legislative failure right, but let’s just say the rest is about as accurate as a congressional campaign ad.
No comments:
Post a Comment