Accurate Movies: Capturing the Essence of Time - Essay Sample

Introduction

Numerous movies depict real events and those movies that are accurate and captivating. However, historically, accurate movies have a big burden to meet, but movie directors and producers try as much as they can to capture the essence of time. Historical movies, in particular, have to ensure that there is historical accuracy such that they try to encompass almost everything that happened at the time. Nevertheless, this is not almost possible as some elements are prevalent in the movie but absent in the real-life event and vice versa. Thirteen Days is one of the films that try to give the viewer an account of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In any case, there are always some similarities and differences that are prevalent in movies and real-life events that they try to dramatize and Thirteen Days is no exception. The paper seeks to explore the similarities and differences between real people and events and their portrayal in the film.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In 1962, for thirteen days, the United States held its breath over the imminent nuclear attack from the Soviet Union, and this is what is regarded today as the Cuban missile crisis. From October 16, 1962, to October 28, the same year, there was an intensified struggle between the two nations that almost turned to be catastrophic. The movie "Thirteen Days" was released in 2000, starring Bruce Greenwood and Kevin Costner. The two and a half hour movie gives an account of proceedings of the crisis by dramatizing the events as they happened until the Soviet Union decide to withdraw its missiles from Cuba.

Similarities

One of the similarities that exist between the real crisis and the film is the magnitude of the situation. The crisis was dangerous, just as it is depicted in the film. On October 16, 1962, President Kennedy was notified that the Soviet Union had deployed medium-range missiles. Two days later, he was informed that his spies had discovered that Russia had other sites that had intermediate-range ballistic missiles (Zelikow, 2001). These missiles, as described by Robert Kennedy, were capable of reaching the United States, and this is a depiction of how the United States viewed the situation, although it held that it was far more superior in terms of the military than the Soviet Union. In the film, the severe magnitude of the crisis is depicted, letting the audience know that the situation could have resulted in a global war.

The film starts with United States' planes conducting surveillance on Soviet Union's missile sites in Cuba. After the examination of the pictures, it becomes conclusive that there were medium-range ballistic missiles in the area which could reach Washington, D.C in 17 minutes and could potentially kill more than 80 American citizens if they were fired to different cities (Zelikow, 2001). It showed how serious the situation was, setting the tone for the audience on what to expect, just as people waited in fear during the real crisis in 1962. A fundamental point here is that the movie production put accounts of events in an entertaining and remindful way that during the time politicians, military personnel and diplomats were wary of each other and the threat they posed to global peace.

The other similarity lies in the way characters, and particularly the Kennedys, are romanticized. Historically, the Kennedys are romanticized as legends and heroes of the United States. Their actions during the Cuban missile crisis have made Americans periodically revitalize them as legends of the nation (Russell, 2011). They are portrayed in the same manner in the film. In the movie, the Kennedys desire to secure maximum projection of U.S. influence around the world as well as maximize profitability through its industries. Consequently, they also end up as heroes in the film.

Differences

The most visible difference between the real situation and the dramatized one in the film lies in Kevin Costner, who acts as Kenneth O'Donnell. In the movie, Costner acts as the foil to inner deliberations of the Kennedys and this ultimately makes him the hero in this movie. In real life, O'Donnell was a friend and an aide to the Kennedy brothers and Robert F. Kennedy was the school's friend. Later, Robert brought O'Donnell to his brother's John F. Kennedy senatorial campaign. When the latter became the president, O'Donnell was appointed as the White house's appointments secretary and political adviser (Gibbons, 2001). In real life missile crisis, no one can argue that O'Donnell played a significant role. However, as Kennedy's aides such as Theodore Sorensen declared, he did not play any part in the Cuban missile crisis even if he was a member of Ex-Comm. The committee is credited with giving the president advice during the crisis, but O'Donnell was a minor figure in the committee.

O'Donnell's real character is contrary to his figure in the film, where he goes overboard with his responsibilities during this crisis. It is weird that the film has picked him as the central character during the crisis. It is undoubtedly clear that O'Donnell, as the central character in this film, gives the viewer a vantage point from which the audience can visualize the movie in that O'Donnell, as the central character, would evaluate the situation from the perspective of an ordinary citizen (Ringle, 2001). Inside the White House, O'Donnell is at the center stage, giving essential tasks that he never had in the actual crisis. For instance, in one fictitious scene, O'Donnell conspires with a navy pilot to lie to his admirals in case the Cubans or the Russians tried to shoot him down. In another scene, O'Donnell can be seen calling Stevenson to stiffen his spine before the latter could press a charge against the Soviet Union. These two roles are given to O'Donnell, although in the real sense, he did not have such mandate and responsibility during the accrual crisis.

The other difference is depicted in the portrayal of the real issue that started the crisis in 1962. Historically, the United States' aggression against Cuba started as early as 1959 during the Cuban revolution, which was led by Castro. Americans knew that the regime was obsessed with the idea of removing this leader from power, as he had already expropriated the American sugar firms and naturalized industries. Tensions increased even more, when Khrushchev, the Soviet Union's leader, purchased half of the sugar produced in this country and also provided the nation with low-cost loans amounting to $200 million (Russell, 2011). The United States saw this as a great there and even attempted to assassinate Castro, which made him turn to the Soviet Union for military protection. It is not the real issue that is developed in the film. Instead, the movie starts with tensions building with the United States regime viewing the presence of missile in Cuba as a direct threat to its security and politically, one might argue that is a political cover-up by the regime (Russell, 2011). Watching the movies without reading the actual occurrences of events during the crisis makes one tend to think that the United States was conducting counterinsurgency operations in Cuba, yet this is not the reality because the plot against Castro was running for years.

In another perspective, one can say the scope of the crisis, as depicted in the film, is different from the scope, as witnessed in the real crisis of 1962. If one watches the film without an account of the finer details of the crisis, one would be compelled to believe that the Soviet Union's reason for putting the missiles in Cuba was because they wanted to hurt the United States (Brenner, 2001). The scope of the crisis, as depicted in the film, is made in the way that it confines the story to 13 days in 1962. Consequently, this has made the elimination of Cuba and the Soviet Union from the movie inevitable. The film is about the Cuban missile crisis, but the United States is in the limelight. There are no scenes from the movie set either in Cuba or the Soviet Union. When watching the film, one realizes that Cuba is only restricted to a few pictures of palm trees. Consequently, this makes the movie lose its broader context because the film narrows the time frame (Ringle, 2001). One might argue that the movie is certainly one-sided because the characters in the film are Americans and therefore, they assume that they do not know what is happening in the Soviet Union. Additionally, they do not care what is happening in Cuba; thus, the movie brings wrong historical events in the eyes of the viewer.

The issues that occurred during the actual crisis appear from a broader perspective. The fact was that the United States was waging war against Cuba. It tried to assassinate the Cuban leader and sabotage industries in this country (Zelikow, 2001). It was a low-intensity invasion that boiled in over in October 1962, and this is what is shown in the movie. Nevertheless, the reality of the situation was that as the United States was strategizing and making decisions in regard to the crisis, both Cuba and the Soviet Union were also doing the same. There is no way that the two nations waited for an imminent attack from the United States without making any attempts like the U.S. was doing at the time of the crisis. In any case, looking at the whole situation lets one gain a broader perspective into what had transpired, an insight that one does not access just by watching the movie.

The extent to which the involved parties knew about what was happening in Cuba is also an element that differentiates the real and the dramatized Cuba missile crisis. It is depicted in the way parties in both cases know about tactical missiles that were deployed in Cuba. The film depicts President Kennedy as one who knew that the Soviet Union had deployed tactical nuclear missiles in Cuba. In reality, he did not know that the Soviet Union had deployed these missiles (Brenner, 2001). In the real sense, the film portrays the president as a thoughtful, informed and one who remained calm during the crisis. It is an ideal portrayal that was regarded as a hero by many Americans.

Conclusion

There are similarities and differences between real people and events and their portrayal in Thirteen Days film. Similarities between the two are depicted in the magnitude of the situation which occurred and are dramatized in the movie as well as romanticizing the Kennedys. Differences exist in the role played by Kevin Costner, who acts as Kenneth O'Donnell, the portrayal of the real issue in the crisis, scope as well as how much the characters, both in dramatized and real issues knew concerning the crisis. Films try to portray real events, but the fact is that they are manipulated in some way to bring political correctness. It is for this reason why as the viewer one should consider understanding the situation from the real historical perspective to get a proper overview of the history

References

Brenner, P. (2001). The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: The Photographs. Nsarchive2.gwu.edu. Retrieved from https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/brenner.htm.

Gibbons, F. (2001). How accurate is 13 Days - Hollywood's take on the Kennedys. the Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/mar/03/film.fiachragibbons.

Ringle, K. (2001). 'Thirteen Days' embellishes crisis roles | The Seattle Times. Archive.seattletimes.com. Retrieved from https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20010204&slug=odonnell.

Russell, N. (2011). The Cuban missile crisis in historical perspective: some thoughts on the film Thirteen Days. Wsws.org. Retrieved from https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/02/cuba-f07.html.

Zelikow, P. (2001). 'Thirteen Days' Is Accurate Where It Counts. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved https://www.latimes.com/archives/...