Comments regarding the historical accuracy of Kon-Tiki

This is not a review! I just want to get a few points across about the issues regarding the historical accuracy of this movie.

First off: Explanations. Kon-Tiki (2012) is the dramatisation of the Kon-Tiki expedition by Thor Heyerdahl and his crew, where they drifted from Peru to a small island in the Pacific to prove the islanders had come from the east. It’s a very well-known expedition and Heyerdahl is considered one of the great Norwegian explorers. The movie was made with great Holloywood-esque effects and a big budget.

Second: The critique. Many people, the families of the expedition members included, have come out in the press to say how the movie simply ignores the facts. This is perfectly true; the real expedition went far more smoothly than- to us regular folks- seems believable. Also, the movie version of Heyerdahl’s second-in-command, Herman Watzinger, is a completely fictional creation. No one disputes this.

Third: My point(s). Having written a whole master thesis on whether or not movies can tell history, I have developed a compulsion to comment on issues like this. My main problem is the fact that some people seem so upset about it, and others have had to defend the film quite rigorously. So, I thought I might throw my two cents in.

The families do feel cheated, and I understand that. However, it is precisely because they comment and the press write about it, that a majority of the movie-goes are enlightened about the issues. No one involved in the movie is insisting they stuck to the facts. They weren’t trying to rewrite history, they were trying to make an entertaining movie. And thanks to the journalists, historians and families, the rest of us can go the cinema with a pinch of salt in our back-pocket and still enjoy an adventure.

Too often, writers deploring “bad history” on film give the audience too little credit. I constantly come across the movie Braveheart listed as one of the worst offenders, but I have yet to meet anyone who contends they know anything about Scottish history because they’ve watched Mel Gibson in a kilt.

I don’t want to give the audience too much credit, of course, as there is a very long way to go from 13th century Scotland to the Pacific Ocean in the 20th. The Kon-Tiki movie both suffers and is vindicated by this fact. Because the expedition happened relatively recently, we have all the facts, both in writing and on film, and we have family members to speak of the crew. Anyone can easily check these facts and so we can say the movie is wrong. At the same time this means the movie generates a lot of publicity and people are more aware of what type of history they are watching. We can read the articles, or the words of Heyerdahl himself, and enjoy the movie for what it is.

I, for one, am glad they didn’t spend all that money on two hours of guys sitting on a raft. It’s an incredible achievement, to be sure, but for that we have Heyerdahl’s own documentary. This was marketed as, and can not be taken for anything other than an adventure film. It could be argued they should have changed the names, but that’s too deep a discussion to get into now.

An Annoyed Droid.

The Amazing Reboot?

Everyone should be skeptical about “rebooting” a franchise that’s just ten years old. I was among them, but when I heard that Andrew Garfield was donning the skin-tight suit, I began to hope. I wasn’t expecting Avengers-level fireworks, but as someone who got a “meh” feeling from all the previous Spiders, I have to say that if nothing else, The Amazing Spider-Man manages to justify its existence.

Continue reading “The Amazing Reboot?”

Five Favourite Specific Film Genres

I love all kinds of movies – the good, the bad and even the just-good-looking, but there will always be more movies than I can watch, so how to pick which one? Usually, I catch whatever is at the cinema, or maybe a friend recommends a movie. On top of these standard ways of thinning the herd, there are a few specific “genres” that will always get me to watch a film, even though I know it’s probably going to be bad. I say genres, but every entry here can include everything from romance to action, so I guess you can say if a movie contains one of these five things, I’m watching it.

Continue reading “Five Favourite Specific Film Genres”

Hysterical

Movie: Hysteria (2011)

A movie about the invention of the vibrator. That sounds like a movie that will try desperately to be awkward-funny or too serious, and fail either way. Luckily, this movie is just genuinely funny while reminding us how far women have come, without stereotyping and mocking the “crazy, prudish feminist” type. It’s also, for me, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s best role (and yes, I mean including The Dark Knight). 

Continue reading “Hysterical”

God Bless Hollywood

Movie: God Bless America (2011)

I’m a big fan of movies where the characters take the law into their own hands. It satisfies that urge we all get at one point when dealing with stupidity. Films like Falling Down, which is an absolute classic, or my own personal favourite The Boondock Saints. They are linked with the superhero movie, or at least the amateur superhero movie, like Kick Ass. The level of enjoyment I find in these films is relative to how much I agree with the choice of victim. God Bless America makes me laugh, but there are a few problems with its tone.

Continue reading “God Bless Hollywood”

Prometheus (Finally!)

I finally got to see Prometheus, Ridley Scott’s prequel-but-not-really to Alien this weekend. Even though I had been looking forward to this movie for a long time, I tried to keep my expectations “open”, meaning I had high hopes, but tried to not let those hopes wander in a fixed direction. I think that philosophy served me well. Those who expected yet another “they end up in a closed space with chest-busting aliens and get picked off one by one” will be disappointed.

Since the movie has been out for quite some time, and the fans have already seen it, this review contains spoilers.

Continue reading “Prometheus (Finally!)”