Movie Scene
Shrugging off 'Pearl Harbor' inaccuracy

By Daniel Martinez
Special to The Advertiser

Editor's note: Daniel Martinez is the historian for the National Park Service's USS Arizona Memorial. He served as an adviser to the makers of the new film, "Pearl Harbor." We asked him to share his responses to this fictional telling of a story the truth of which he knows so well.

Producer Jerry Bruckheimer, left, and director/producer Michael Bay on location for their epic drama. Touchstone Pictures Related stories: • Movie review: 'Pearl Harbor' brings the battle home • 'Pearl Harbor' fails to hit critical targets • Movie Showtimes Rate "Pearl Harbor" in our online poll.

I serve as a steward and caretaker of the history of the Pearl Harbor attack. The long year of consulting, advising and hoping that the movie "Pearl Harbor" would realize its potential was now over. As I entered the theater, I was confronted with the first showing. There was no turning back; I simply settled in and waited for the lights to come down.

In those waning moments, I thought back to the days prior to filming in Hawai'i, to my initial contact with representatives from Walt Disney Pictures, Jerry Bruckheimer's production team and director Michael Bay's staff. The initial discussion was polite, attentive and concerned about the production of the film. A short computer-generated image of what the attack on Pearl Harbor would look like was proudly shown to us via videotape. It was bold, imaginative, aggressive, and for the most part, historically inaccurate. I thought to myself, "My God, what are these people going to create?"

I pointed out right off the bat my concerns with their conceptual illustrations, and that's when the dialog began. Some have asked whether the producer and director simply placated me or had they been genuinely concerned. I can tell you that every conversation with Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer was frank and honest. They listened, discussed and then mitigated some of the concerns I had.

Before the production team arrived in Hawai'i, a copy of the script was forwarded to me for review. For a week I labored to review the script for its historical accuracy. I made meticulous notes and sensed that the errors could be corrected by backing up my objections with historical research intended to assist the screenwriters in making what I felt were necessary changes.

The script was then turned over to Bruce Hendricks from Disney. I suspect that they were quite shocked by my remarks and citations. I believe that early on, they trusted that writer Randall Wallace's script was going to be historically accurate. As other historians and veterans also looked at the script, our consensus was that historical flaws definitely existed. This prompted the series of discussions that I alluded to earlier. Out of all of that came an agreement forwarded by Bay and Bruckheimer that "Pearl Harbor" was not going to be a documentary in the fashion of "Tora! Tora! Tora!" but rather it was going to be a film about fictional characters that uses a historical backdrop to tell the epic love story. In that fictional depiction, historical accuracy was going to be used subjectively, and the story line between the characters was going to take precedence over strict historical fact.

Michael Bay perhaps has said it best, that he was after the essence of Pearl Harbor, and in pursuit of that goal, he would tell a story that would give a feeling of tragedy, excitement, fear and love. And that is what "Pearl Harbor" is all about.

As I sat in the theater full of foreign press and film critics last week, I waited for the lights to come down and the journey to begin. I must tell you that as the film progressed, I felt like I was being run over by a celluloid locomotive. The images of "Pearl Harbor," from the Battle of Britain to the attack itself and finally the Doolittle raid, come at you in a furious and aggressive montage. When it was all over, I left the theater exhausted and curiously numb. Reporters from the local press asked what I thought, and at that moment I was lost for description.

All the work on the film concerning the script, my hope and aspirations for what "Pearl Harbor" might be, were now spinning in my mind, and I was simply unable to collate my thoughts. I was just too close to the film to share any perspective. Troubled, I drove home alone.

The next day, as if a reprieve of execution had been given, I was allowed a second chance to view the film. The experience was quite different, as if a self-imposed responsibility for "Pearl Harbor" had been lifted from my shoulders. I sat down with friends and watched the movie as an ordinary theatergoer, and it was amazing how different the experience was. The images were clear, the music more crisp and the visual shock lessened.

I began to enjoy Michael Bay's vision. Certain segments of the film touched me emotionally, and all those oral history interviews of Pearl Harbor survivors came back to me. I could see their faces; I could hear their words and remembered their pain. I could let go of those historical responsibilities for a moment and understand what Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer had alluded to a year before. The fictional story with a loosely interpreted historical backdrop was now understandable and acceptable to this beleaguered historian.

The perspective that I sought in vain the first time I watched "Pearl Harbor" was now present. "Pearl Harbor" provides us, as professional historians and educators, a wonderful opportunity. The synergy of the film has created an audience that is anxious to learn.

In anticipation of what we hope will be a hunger for more information about Pearl Harbor, more than 20 documentaries have been readied for this 60th anniversary year. Nine major books have been produced, and Web sites abound.

For those history buffs who might embark on what I consider the self-indulgent process of nitpicking the film, I have this caution: To do so would be missing the point that "Pearl Harbor" provides an opportunity to teach. Engage in it and bask in the light provided by the film. The winners in all of this are the youth of our country, who are going to discover history in a theater. The challenge is to provide them with the real story of Pearl Harbor, its lessons, its history and its importance in America's past.

Sunday night, at the USS Arizona Memorial, National Geographic premiered the documentary "National Geographic: Beyond the Movie." It offers a historical supplement to the film. It responds to the questionable historical images in the film and provides the real history of the actual events.

So as you sit in the theater waiting for the lights to come down, I hope you will approach the film with a new perspective of fiction aided by fact, and not fact aiding fiction. And I hope that when you leave the theater, you will be inspired to look further into America's past. Pearl Harbor is an object lesson in history that can never be washed out of the American fabric. It will be with us as long as America lives. It gives us lessons and warnings. But those lessons and warnings are carried within your own heart.

As you view "Pearl Harbor" you may feel like I did, awed by its scope and dumbfounded by the experience. Or you may feel as did Mitsuo Fushido, who led the attack on Pearl Harbor, who remarked as he approached the target: "What a majestic sight! Almost unbelievable!"

Daniel Martinez did not receive a consultant fee from Disney; it was within his job description. The National Park Service chose to work with Disney to protect the interests of survivors and the USS Arizona Memorial.