Editing Pearl Harbor (film) (section)

==Historical accuracy==
Like many [[Historical drama film|historical dramas]], ''Pearl Harbor'' provoked debate about the artistic license taken by its producers and director. [[National Geographic Channel]] produced a [[Documentary film|documentary]] called ''Beyond the Movie: Pearl Harbor'' detailing some of the ways that "the film's final cut didn't reflect all the attacks' facts, or represent them all accurately".<ref>[http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/pearlharbor/ngbeyond/ "Beyond the Movie: Pearl Harbor."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060513041451/http://plasma.nationalgeographic.com/pearlharbor/ngbeyond/ |date=May 13, 2006 }} ''National Geographic Society'', 2001. Retrieved: March 26, 2009.</ref> The film was ranked number three on Careeraftermilitary.com's "10 Most Inaccurate Military Movies Ever Made," which also included ''[[The Patriot (2000 film)|The Patriot]]'', ''[[The Hurt Locker]]'', ''[[U-571 (film)|U-571]]'', ''[[The Green Berets (film)|The Green Berets]]'', ''[[Windtalkers]]'', ''[[Battle of the Bulge (1965 film)|Battle of the Bulge]]'', ''[[Red Tails]]'', ''[[Enemy at the Gates]]'' and ''[[Flyboys (film)|Flyboys]]'' on its list of falsified war movie productions.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.careeraftermilitary.com/10-most-inaccurate-military-movies-ever-made/|title=10 Most Inaccurate Military Movies Ever Made|last=Barker|first=Chris|language=en-US|access-date=December 16, 2018}}</ref>

Many Pearl Harbor survivors dismissed the film as grossly inaccurate and pure Hollywood. In an interview done by Frank Wetta, producer [[Jerry Bruckheimer]] was quoted saying: "We tried to be accurate, but it's certainly not meant to be a history lesson."<ref>{{Cite journal|jstor = 2677684|last1 = Wetta|first1 = Frank|last2 = Bay|first2 = Michael|last3 = Bruckheimer|first3 = Jerry|last4 = Wallace|first4 = Randall|title = Pearl Harbor|journal = The Journal of Military History|volume = 65|issue = 4|pages = 1138|doi = 10.2307/2677684|year = 2001}}</ref> Historian Lawrence Suid's review is particularly detailed as to the major factual misrepresentations of the film and the negative impact they have even on an entertainment film, as he notes that "the very name of the film implies that audiences will be witnessing a historic event, accurately rendered."<ref name="usni.org">{{cite web |last=Suid |first=Lawrence |url=http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles01/NHsuid8.html |title="Pearl Harbor: Bombed Again". |access-date=June 21, 2010 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010821171417/http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles01/NHsuid8.html |archive-date=August 21, 2001 }} ''Naval History'' (United States Naval institute), Vol. 15, No. 4, August 2001, p. 20.</ref>

The Battle of Britain had already ended in October 1940 whereas the film has it still happening in early 1941 with dogfights over the English Channel.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Boggs|first=Carl|author1-link=Carl Boggs|date=2006|title=Pearl Harbor: How Film Conquers History.|url=https://ocul-uwo.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_informaworld_taylorfrancis_310_1080_07393140601005246&context=PC&vid=01OCUL_UWO:UWO_DEFAULT&lang=en&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&adaptor=Primo%20Central&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,pearl%20harbor%20(film)&offset=0|journal=New Political Science|volume=28|issue=4|pages=451–466|doi=10.1080/07393140601005246|s2cid=145151000|via=EBSCOhost}}</ref>

Critics decried the use of fictional replacements for real people, declaring that ''Pearl Harbor'' was an "abuse of [[artistic license]]."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Padilla |first1=Lyle F. |first2=Raymond J. |last2=Castagnaro |url=http://www.voicenet.com/~lpadilla/pearl.html |title=Medal of Honor Recipients/Nominees Portrayed On Film: Hollywood Abominations, Pearl Harbor (2001) |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060317042437/http://www.voicenet.com/~lpadilla/pearl.html |archive-date=March 17, 2006 |work=History, Legend and Myth: Hollywood and the Medal of Honor |year=2009 |access-date=March 26, 2009}}</ref> The roles the two male leads have in the attack sequence are analogous to the real historical deeds of [[United States Army Air Forces]] [[Second Lieutenant]]s [[George Welch (pilot)|George Welch]] and [[Kenneth M. Taylor]], who took to the skies in [[P-40 Warhawk]] aircraft during the Japanese attack and, together, claimed six Japanese aircraft and a few probables. Taylor called the film "a piece of trash... over-sensationalized and distorted."<ref>Sullivan, Patricia. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120201162.html "Kenneth Taylor; Flew Against Pearl Harbor Raiders."] ''Washington Post'', December 12, 2006. Retrieved: March 26, 2009.</ref><ref name=white>{{cite news|url=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6738785.ece|title=The 10 most historically inaccurate movies|last=White|first=Caroline|newspaper=The Sunday Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615070116/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6738785.ece|archive-date=June 15, 2011|access-date=November 15, 2013}}</ref>

The scene following the attack on Pearl Harbor, where President Roosevelt demands an immediate retaliatory strike on the soil of Japan, did not happen as portrayed in the film. [[Admiral Chester Nimitz]] and General George Marshall are seen denying the possibility of an aerial attack on Japan, but in real life they actually advocated such a strike. Another inconsistency in this scene is when President Roosevelt (who was at this time in his life, stricken and confined to a wheelchair due to his disease, [[Guillain–Barré syndrome]] or [[Polio]]) is able to stand up to challenge his staff's distrust in a strike on Japan, which never really happened.<ref name="sfgate.com">{{Cite web|url=https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Hollywood-vs-history-Historians-say-Pearl-2915944.php|title=Hollywood vs. history / Historians say 'Pearl Harbor's' version of the World War II attack is off the mark|first=Mick|last=LaSalle|date=May 29, 2001|website=SFGate}}</ref>

The portrayal of the planning of the [[Doolittle Raid]], the air raid itself, and the raid's aftermath, is considered one of the most historically inaccurate portions of the film. In the film, [[Jimmy Doolittle]] and the rest of the Doolittle raiders had to launch from USS ''Hornet'' 624 miles off the Japanese coast and after being spotted by a few Japanese patrol boats. In actuality, the Doolittle raiders had to launch 650 miles off the Japanese coast and after being spotted by only one Japanese patrol boat.  The film shows all the bombers arriving in formation over Japan, despite the real concerns over fuel when the planes have to take off prematurely. It actually took one hour to launch the 16 planes, each setting out on its own course, and at no time did the planes fly together before, during, or after the attack.<ref name="usni.org">{{cite web |last=Suid |first=Lawrence |url=http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles01/NHsuid8.html |title="Pearl Harbor: Bombed Again". |access-date=June 21, 2010 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010821171417/http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles01/NHsuid8.html |archive-date=August 21, 2001 }} ''Naval History'' (United States Naval institute), Vol. 15, No. 4, August 2001, p. 20.</ref> In the film, the only raiders shown in the raid are depicted as dropping their bombs on Tokyo, with some of the bomb blasts obliterating entire buildings. In actuality, the Doolittle raiders did bomb Tokyo but also targeted three other industrial cities, and the damage inflicted was minimal. Prior to the raid a chalkboard containing plans for the raid does accurately reflect other destination cities, but this is mostly obscured from view and never discussed in the dialogue.<ref>Gutthman, Edward. [http://www.mysanantonio.com/performance/article/Pearl-Hyped-Yet-Promising-Movie-to-honor-3302399.php "'Pearl' - Hyped, yet promising / Movie to honor vets, nation's wartime spirit."] ''MyUSA'', December 7, 2000.</ref><ref>Heines, Vivienne. [http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent/?file=NL_pearlharbor_heines "Bringing 'Pearl Harbor' To Corpus Christi."] ''military.com'', August 1, 2000.</ref> The firefight with Japanese soldiers after the raiders crash-land in China is entirely fictionalized, whereas the actual smuggling of the pilots back to the United States was omitted.<ref name="usni.org">{{cite web |last=Suid |first=Lawrence |url=http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles01/NHsuid8.html |title="Pearl Harbor: Bombed Again". |access-date=June 21, 2010 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010821171417/http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles01/NHsuid8.html |archive-date=August 21, 2001 }} ''Naval History'' (United States Naval institute), Vol. 15, No. 4, August 2001, p. 20.</ref>