It Doesn't Have to Be Historically Accurate

Rating: 9/10 (31 March 2006)

To criticize movies for historical inaccuracy is to damn almost every work of historical fiction. First of all, the people who were there were not involved in the production. Secondly, if movies were truly historically accurate, they would be so dull, you couldn't watch them. To start with, this is based on a work of fiction. It is an idealized version of an event that took place some time in the past. It's characters are fictionalized. We don't know what they said or really did. Some were probably combinations of two or three different characters. Also, the criticism that people wouldn't make deals with the enemy is pretty naive. Sometime the deal making is what keeps you alive and gives you a chance to fight another day. It's easy to say that one would do or not do something, sitting on a couch in a living room. It doesn't reflect badly on soldiers in war time to be afraid, and, yes, seemingly traitorous.
The story is a wonderful one about courage and drive and sacrifice and pain. This is how we as human beings keep going. A man once told me that the one consistent trait that Holocaust survivors had was that they had determined a goal in their lives. The building of the bridge becomes something to live for, even if it is for the gratification of the enemy. Of course, the leader cracked and almost destroyed the mission. This does happen. It doesn't diminish the movie or the character. This is a wonderful, exciting film with great performances, even if history may not totally accept it.