Historically Inaccurate Movies [Archive]

Gregoshi

03-22-2008, 21:03

Yahoo Movies just posted the Ten Most Historically Inaccurate Movies (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/10mosthistoricallyinaccurate.html) - in their opinion. It is interesting (and not surprising) that Mel Gibson is responsible for 3 of the 10.:laugh4: However, I do take exception to 2001: A Space Odyssey being on that list. It was looking forward, not backwards in time, thus should not be on the list.

I've a list of historical movies the annoyed the crap out of me, but I can't very well say they were inaccurate. These mostly boil down to fictional characters added to add drama to the history - Henry Fonda's character in Battle of the Bulge, Charlton Heston's character in Midway, and every character in Pearl Harbor, to name a few.

Puzz3D

03-22-2008, 21:42

2001: A Space Odyssey was about the future when it was made in 1968, so I don't know how it can be historically inaccurate. I would put Kingdom of Heaven in its place.

Lemur

03-22-2008, 21:46

Kingdom of Heaven is a good substitute. And Gladiator should be #1, since the filmmakers admitted that they knew almost everything they were showing was bogus, and they didn't care.

Crazed Rabbit

03-22-2008, 21:59

I'm more inclined to go easy on movies like 10,000 BC and Apocalypto, than others, what with mostly using some ancient time as a backdrop and not claiming to represent any historical figures.

Kingdom of Heaven, as pointed out, should be in there.

CR

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2008, 00:18

Kingdom of Heaven is a good substitute. And Gladiator should be #1, since the filmmakers admitted that they knew almost everything they were showing was bogus, and they didn't care.

I heard the historical advisor was paid $3,000 dollars for two days to keep his mouth shut. I heard that in my proffesional circle.

seireikhaan

03-23-2008, 01:15

Hmm... I don't really think 10k BC is a good one for the list, since it doesn't really go after any historical event or anything specific. Anachronistic? Sure, but I think it was kinda supposed to be. Anyone with half a brain knows that wooly mammoths would perish in the Saharan desert. Not to mention, there was that whole 'magic' part too, which kinda cemented its not-so-totally-serious nature regarding accuracy.

Yah, Kingdom of Heaven is good for the list.

Also, I'm kinda surprised to see Last Samurai on the list. Technically, he did commit Harakiri. Sure, not exactly totally accurate, but anyone who pays attention to the movie knows that in the beginning, most credit for Japan's industrial revolution is given to Germany, France, and Holland. Granted, America's role was still overblown, but not as much as the article made it look.

As for other substitutions... Titanic, just because it sucked all around. I'm sure there's other films I'm just not thinking of that are a bit more deserving.

CountArach

03-23-2008, 01:42

Kingdom of Heaven is a good substitute. And Gladiator should be #1, since the filmmakers admitted that they knew almost everything they were showing was bogus, and they didn't care.
Gah! 300 should be first for the shameless butchery of history that it was.

Crazed Rabbit

03-23-2008, 02:35

300 was clearly stylistic, though. I don't think it should be first.

King Arthur should definitely be up there, though. Didn't the very movie make the claim it was telling the true story or something?

CR

Beefy187

03-23-2008, 03:08

Also, I'm kinda surprised to see Last Samurai on the list. Technically, he did commit Harakiri. Sure, not exactly totally accurate, but anyone who pays attention to the movie knows that in the beginning, most credit for Japan's industrial revolution is given to Germany, France, and Holland. Granted, America's role was still overblown, but not as much as the article made it look.

And hey.. Who cares about historical accuracy when you got samurais running around with their katanas...

I guess that list meant Last Samurai is not accurate because it didnt use historical figures.

CountArach

03-23-2008, 03:13

Puzz3D

03-23-2008, 03:20

As for other substitutions... Titanic, just because it sucked all around.
Titanic is very accurate in its depiction of the ship, the sinking and the rescue. The personal drama surrounding the main characters is fiction.

Crazed Rabbit

03-23-2008, 03:47

Also, First Knight with Connery and Gere is rubbish. A silly version of the King Arthur tale, along with ridiculous costumes and some sort of weird american-gladiatoresque obstacle course in a medieval town.

CR

Quirinus

03-23-2008, 04:07

Oh. Come on. In the defense of the movies mentioned, I'd like to direct your attentions to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7098433.stm) article.

Historical movies are movies first and and history later, just as science fiction is fiction first and science later.

300 was stylistic, and IIRC it never claimed to be inspired by history, but by a graphic novel. 10,000 BC doesn't attempt or pretend to be historical. Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Elizabeth and Kingdom of Heaven were, if not factually accurate, then (IMO) they pretty much captured the spirit of the age they were depicting. And begrudging Titanic because Jack and Rose never happened is like saying that Saving Private Ryan is ahistorical because there was never that particular mission to save a Private Ryan in real life.

Doesn't neccesarily mean that I like those movies: I was bored by 10000 BC, Gladiator and Memoirs of a Geisha, and I didn't like 300 as a whole. But there are flaws more worthy of criticism in those movies than historical accuracy.

KarlXII

03-23-2008, 04:11

Yes, I do recall something about that in the Intro.

It says how most historians agree that King Arthur was a Samartian cavalryman in the Roman Army, and he was left behind in Britain with his troop, or knights. I don't recall it saying it was the flat out truth.

ICantSpellDawg

03-23-2008, 04:46

It says how most historians agree that King Arthur was a Samartian cavalryman in the Roman Army, and he was left behind in Britain with his troop, or knights. I don't recall it saying it was the flat out truth.

I don't believe most historians are solid on whether or not he existed, much less that he came from the other end of Europe.

Lemur

03-23-2008, 05:58

Also, First Knight with Connery and Gere is rubbish.
OMG, how did I forget that one? Worst Arthurian movie evar, by a long English mile. I think I must have repressed the memory, much like the bad touch the bad man gave me at the swimming pool.

Gah! First Knight! Gah!

I stand by Galdiator as the most willfully ahistorical big-budget film of all time.

-edit-

Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Elizabeth and Kingdom of Heaven were, if not factually accurate, then (IMO) they pretty much captured the spirit of the age they were depicting.
There's playing Devil's Advocate, and then there's being absurd. Gladiator did nothing to capture the spirit of the age -- in fact, it went above and beyond to pervert the entire meaning of gladiatorial games. There were a million things wrong with that film, both large and small. And even as a film qua film it failed, being nothing more than a mish-mash of other epic movies with nothing original to say.

Epic failure on all levels. That's what Gladiator achieved. Don't pretend it even rose to the level of mediocrity. At least Showgirls managed to be funny, which is more than you can say for Gladiator.

naut

03-23-2008, 06:36

GAH! What a list (10-2 that is). The sad thing is that I know people who believe those films are accurate and true to history!?!?

Raz

03-23-2008, 06:48

I don't like that list at all.
I believe that all those movies are there to entertain not inform. To be filled with drama not information. But that's just what I believe. :yes:

(With the exception of Space Odyssey, but that was, as you lot say, looking into the future, not the past)

Duke of Gloucester

03-23-2008, 08:14

Well it is a list of historically inaccurate films, not bad films. It is up to us to decide whether this is good or bad if a film does not follow history. The inclusion of 2001 indicates the list maker is being tongue in cheek.

If I was making such a list I would pick inaccurate films that the audience actually believed. I would not include 10 000 BC or Arthur (truely terrrible film that it is) but The Patriot and Braveheart would be pretty near the top as would U-571.

Quirinus

03-23-2008, 08:21

There's playing Devil's Advocate, and then there's being absurd. Gladiator did nothing to capture the spirit of the age -- in fact, it went above and beyond to pervert the entire meaning of gladiatorial games. There were a million things wrong with that film, both large and small. And even as a film qua film it failed, being nothing more than a mish-mash of other epic movies with nothing original to say.

Epic failure on all levels. That's what Gladiator achieved. Don't pretend it even rose to the level of mediocrity. At least Showgirls managed to be funny, which is more than you can say for Gladiator.
:shrug: I'm perplexed by how such a movie can generate such ardent response. I remember being bored by it, but that was the extent of my reaction to it. The mediocrity of the movie elicited mostly apathy from me.

But then again, I'm not that acquainted with Imperial Rome... the extent of my knowledge of that era was Gibbon's Decline and Fall and bits and pieces of trivia. :sweatdrop:

Fragony

03-23-2008, 09:48

300, these guys take theirselves too seriously.

Conradus

03-23-2008, 10:39

Come on, Gladiator was a most entertaining movie. Epic battles, great acting by Crowe and Phoenix.

And calling 300 or 10.000 BC historically inaccurate movies isn't very fair since these movies don't try to be historically accurate and make no such claims.

Geoffrey S

03-23-2008, 15:19

What was that submarine thing? U-571?

Justiciar

03-23-2008, 15:41

Heh. The Germanic tribesmen in the fist scene of Gladiator shouting uSuthu. Class. On that subject, I'd also nominate Zulu. Filled with errors, not least of all the overabundance of Welshmen.

Soulforged

03-23-2008, 15:44

Lemur

03-23-2008, 19:05

[First Knight] was written by a woman...
Not sure that's accurate info. IMDB lists three writers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113071/fullcredits#writers), all of whom sound like men. Not that it matters -- that level of complete suckage is beyond gender, race or nation. It just is.

Dîn-Heru

03-23-2008, 19:25

300 is based on a graphic novel based on the battle of Thermopylae. (by Frank Miller, same guy who made the Sin City comic)

So it should not be on the list simply because it is not meant to an accurate portrayal of the battle. It is meant to be blood, gore and action entertainment.

And like it has been said 2001 was based in the future when it was made, so it is a prediction that turned out to be wrong, not an inaccurate historical movie...

Kralizec

03-23-2008, 19:31

I think most Disney films are historically inaccurate :clown:

300 is based on a graphic novel based on the battle of Thermopylae. (by Frank Miller, same guy who made the Sin City comic)

So it should not be on the list simply because it is not meant to an accurate portrayal of the battle. It is meant to be blood, gore and action entertainment.

And like it has been said 2001 was based in the future when it was made, so it is a prediction that turned out to be wrong, not an inaccurate historical movie...

Soulforged

03-23-2008, 23:21

Not sure that's accurate info. IMDB lists three writers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113071/fullcredits#writers), all of whom sound like men. Not that it matters -- that level of complete suckage is beyond gender, race or nation. It just is.
My bad... The fashion change, the characters manners, my memory and just about everything else (Richard Gere) indicated a movie based on a story written by a woman.

I think the main problem with some responses in this thread is considering the qualificative "ahistorical" or "historically inaccurate" as something bad, it isn't, and these movies fall all on the second clasification.

300 is based on a graphic novel based on the battle of Thermopylae. (by Frank Miller, same guy who made the Sin City comic)

So it should not be on the list simply because it is not meant to an accurate portrayal of the battle. It is meant to be blood, gore and action entertainment.This is something that has been discussed before, but what you're saying isn't true. If the intention was to simply entertain by the course action, depict a graphic novel, then it begs the question of why the author of the novel, in the first place, chose a historical setting to do such thing? There's a profound historical burden carried on by the history of the 300 spartans and the battle of Thermopylae, part fact, part fantasy, but part of its interest is drawn from the fact that it actually occured, albeit not as told in the frames of the movie or the pages of the novel.

seireikhaan

03-23-2008, 23:29

I think most Disney films are historically inaccurate :clown:
:laugh4:

I think Disney could probably have populated that entire list if they'd considered them.

Ramses II CP

03-23-2008, 23:37

I don't think most of those movies were actually trying to present a realistic view of history. Certainly Gladiator, 300, Braveheart, 2001, Apocalypto, and 10k BC were just goofball movies made for fun and entertainment. I've never seen The Patriot or that Elizabeth movie.

Anyway, if you're looking for a serious work about history don't go to the movies. That's just common sense.

:egypt:

Gregoshi

03-24-2008, 05:11

Anyway, if you're looking for a serious work about history don't go to the movies. That's just common sense.

While true, why do directors/writers bother with a historical setting if that historical setting isn't exciting enough on its own for a movie? Why is history a la carte necessary to make a dramatic movie? And if historical figures aren't interesting enough, why not just make up a fictional character that is rather than slander real ones?

This is just a pet peeve of mine with movie makers when they feel they have to inject their own form of lame "drama" to spice up a story, be it from a novel or a history book.

Also, I'm in agreement that 300 and maybe 10000 BC are not worthy of the list.

Dîn-Heru

03-24-2008, 15:11

This is something that has been discussed before, but what you're saying isn't true. If the intention was to simply entertain by the course action, depict a graphic novel, then it begs the question of why the author of the novel, in the first place, chose a historical setting to do such thing? There's a profound historical burden carried on by the history of the 300 spartans and the battle of Thermopylae, part fact, part fantasy, but part of its interest is drawn from the fact that it actually occured, albeit not as told in the frames of the movie or the pages of the novel.

I mispoke when I said that Frank Miller based his comic on the battle. It was inspired by the movie The 300 Spartans (1963). (source wiki)

Should the comic (and subsequently the movie) be more historical accurate. Perhaps. But that depends on its intentions. Viewed as an accurate historical movie I would undoubtably say that it belongs on the lists. But it is not meant to be a documentary, it is meant to be an artistic rendering of an artistic rendering of the battle (with heavy emphasis on the artistic part).

Why Miller chose the battle as the subject for his comic? Perhaps because it makes for a great story, and I'll admit my knowlegde of Greek history is not the best, but the general backdrop of the story is fairly correct is it not? It is the visuals that are far out there, which makes 300 a historical fantasy and not a historical movie.

But what I am arguing is that the movie 300 should not be on the list because it has never claimed to be an accurate depiction of the battle or the real world for that matter, there are far more movies that do claim to be historically accurate that perhaps should have made the list rather than 300...

(The same rational could perhaps be used on 10000 BC, but I have not seen it or read much about it, so I don't know if they claim it is accurate in any way and not a fantasy movie set in a prehistoric age)

TinCow

03-24-2008, 16:00

I agree that movies that are intentionally ahistorical should not be judged on historical accuracy. That analysis should be reserved for those that claim to be historical. 300 intentionally focused on the mythical and legendary aspect of the battle, not the reality. This is blatantly obvious when the movie shows what is essentially an ogre with a blade for an arm. It is clearly an intentionally fictionalized version of the events which was never meant to be historical. It is unfair to judge it on an aspect that it was not trying to achieve in the first place.

Movies that should be criticized for historical inaccuracies are those that base their entire story on the notion that "this really happened." Braveheart, The Patriot, Kingdom of Heaven, etc. are all worthy nominations in this regard. In fact, so many "true story" movies butcher history so horrendously that it would probably be more useful simply to list the films that are historically accurate, and assume that everything that isn't on the list is ahistorical.

Vladimir

03-24-2008, 16:36

Yahoo? What a rubbish list. Are they trying to make it even easier for Microsoft to buy them out?

Puzz3D

03-24-2008, 18:26

Yahoo? What a rubbish list. Are they trying to make it even easier for Microsoft to buy them out?
I think that list is just veiled advertising to generate interest in those movies. It's supposed to strike you as somewhat off base, so that maybe you'll seek out those movies just to see for yourself if the criticism is justified or to see if you can find even more inaccuracies or maybe it's a bait and switch. If you notice you can jump to other lists from there such as In Theaters, Coming Soon and Top Box Office.

Don Corleone

03-24-2008, 21:57

Most of the candidates offered here certainly deserve a place on that list. But the most deserving of the #1 spot was one of the first films ever made...

D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_a_nation) I cannot begin to enumerate the number of ways it takes a path separate from recorded history, but suffice it to say, I think card-carrying Klansmen think it's a bit of a snowjob.

Not surprisingly, most films I've encountered that deal with the United States' War Between the States have been woefully lacking in objective historical rigor.

Take for example, Gods And Generals. Too many, way too many innaccuracies (big and small) to list. But for starters, while it plays well in 2003 to soften the view of Confederates today, Stonewall Jackson would NEVER have gotten into deep theological discussions with a slave. He would have bashed his teeth in for having the gumption to speak in the presence of his betters. And I hate to break it to you American history buffs out there... Tribesman's and Banquo's great, great, great, great uncles were not calling to each other from across the stonewall battle lines of Fredericksburg to lay down their arms and join the true cause. I imagine they would have shot each other just as quickly as any other enemies that needed killin'.

Paradox

03-24-2008, 22:06

I still do have "Elizabeth", just never had the time to watch it. Titanic was also one of those slightly inaccurate movies, historical based movies wouldn't be all that fun without a little bit of fiction in the plot, which is why you shouldn't expect a history lesson when going to the movies. They should write "inspired" instead of "based" though.

Puzz3D

03-24-2008, 22:52

Titanic was also one of those slightly inaccurate movies,...
I read the transcript of the hearings into the RMS Titanic disaster, and I can't remember any inaccuracies in the film when compared to the transcript. The film even shows the ship breaking in half which no other film about the Titanic does. The main characters are fictional, but the characters who represent true historical people actually said and did the things they are shown saying and doing in the film.

Quirinus

03-25-2008, 10:43

First of all, even if they pretend to depict historical events or not, if they're biographical or not, doesn't matter, they're still hitorically inaccurate. And many of them, even when they do not intend to, also misinform. And Saving Private Ryan is ahistorical because there was never that particular mission to save a Private Ryan in real life.
I was trying to illustrate that perhaps it is only the scale of ahistoricalness (?). Who could say that Molly Brown or Patton or JFK truly did utter those words under those circumstances? In this light, pretty much every historical movie is ahistorical.

The complaint that they misinform...... Superman is depicted as being able to fly and punch through walls. Spiderman receives his power from being stung by a radioactive spider. Does that make the movies guilty for every retard who jumps off a buildings, punches a wall, or intentionally inviting poisonous stings?

The question here is if the intention of these movies are to educate the audience about history, or if the history merely provides a fascinating backdrop to which human dramas or moral anecdotes play out.

In the defense of Kingdom of Heaven, AFAIK, the movie does not claim that "this is the story of Balian of Ibelin". But then again, being a fanboy of that movie renders me unable to judge its merits and flaws fairly. :sweatdrop:

Geoffrey S

03-25-2008, 12:13

Don't forget, the classic Attila, flagello di dio!
Clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQrgJeuHtaE&feature=related)
Clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crIoYnc1QV0)

Puzz3D

03-25-2008, 13:00

Who could say that Molly Brown or Patton or JFK truly did utter those words under those circumstances?
The account of Molly Brown is a matter of sworn testimony. Of course, you can doubt that as well. In fact, you can never know what really happened in any historical situation unless the actual event was recorded.

The question here is if the intention of these movies are to educate the audience about history, or if the history merely provides a fascinating backdrop to which human dramas or moral anecdotes play out.
In the case of the movie Titanic it does accurately inform the viewer about why the disaster happened, how it happened and what happened to the people with the exception of the fictional drama. If you take out the fictional drama then you don't have a commercially viable film, and I thought that drama was representative of the women's movement towards equal rights that was ongoing at the time. And of course, it provided the opportunity to inject a romantic love story into the film, and yes it's far fetched that a third class passenger would have any contact with a first class passenger. That's the point, however, that it was taboo socially, and that comes across quite strongly in the film.

In the defense of Kingdom of Heaven, AFAIK, the movie does not claim that "this is the story of Balian of Ibelin". But then again, being a fanboy of that movie renders me unable to judge its merits and flaws fairly. :sweatdrop:
The problem I have with that film is that the true story surrounding the main characters is more compelling. Balian never went back to France with or without Sibylla, but they put that in the film so it could have a "happy" ending. He never had a relationship with Sibylla . In fact, he married her stepmother, Maria, and had some kids by her, and that's why he went back to Jerusalem after the Battle of Hattin to get them out. Balian stayed in the Holy Land, and died 6 years later. Sibylla went with her husband, Guy of Lusignan, and died, along with her two young daughters, from an epidemic that swept though Guy's encampment during his siege of Acre three years after the fall of Jerusalem.

Vladimir

03-25-2008, 15:22

I think that list is just veiled advertising to generate interest in those movies. It's supposed to strike you as somewhat off base, so that maybe you'll seek out those movies just to see for yourself if the criticism is justified or to see if you can find even more inaccuracies or maybe it's a bait and switch. If you notice you can jump to other lists from there such as In Theaters, Coming Soon and Top Box Office.

Good thinking! :2thumbsup: +rep

InsaneApache

03-25-2008, 15:29

John Wayne as Temüjin, how historically accurate was that? :laugh4:

doc_bean

03-25-2008, 19:40

I'm just glad Excalibur isn't on the list.

Kralizec

03-25-2008, 20:00

John Wayne as Temüjin, how historically accurate was that? :laugh4:

:jawdrop:

Lemur

03-25-2008, 21:59

Yup, John Wayne as the great conqueror, hilarious film. Best line: "Ya know, yer beautiful in yer wrath." Creepiest trivia: they filmed it on a nuclear testing site, and of the 220 people who worked on the film, 91 contracted cancer. What a goofy film to die for.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/The_Conqueror_DVD_cover.jpg

Soulforged

03-26-2008, 01:21

I was trying to illustrate that perhaps it is only the scale of ahistoricalness (?). Who could say that Molly Brown or Patton or JFK truly did utter those words under those circumstances? In this light, pretty much every historical movie is ahistorical.Not at all, the movie could stay inside the bounds established by current historical science. History is what people make of it really, through a system of course, but it only exists because someone is searching for it.

The complaint that they misinform...... Superman is depicted as being able to fly and punch through walls. Spiderman receives his power from being stung by a radioactive spider. Does that make the movies guilty for every retard who jumps off a buildings, punches a wall, or intentionally inviting poisonous stings?Not the same. I couldn't care less if some idiot takes a movie seriously in any aspect, historic, anatomic, biologic or physic. I'm just pointing out that movies with historical backdrops which misrepresent the historical events which constitute said backdrop are in fact misinforming the public, just as many other sources of misinformation. I'm not saying that as something absolutly bad, sometimes it's bad (look at how the "ex-persians" reacted to 300), sometimes is just art.

The question here is if the intention of these movies are to educate the audience about history, or if the history merely provides a fascinating backdrop to which human dramas or moral anecdotes play out. A fair point but wheter a movie is ahistorical or not is the result of a simple objective comparition between said movie and history. And, in my opinion, if a director takes an historical background to make his art more interesting and sell with it, he has the responsability to represent such story with the greatest degree of historical authenticity. If he doesn't... well I suppose he will pay for his mistake by entering some infamous list, being loathed at certain circles, looking silly or receiving an Oscar for the "Best Movie"...

In the defense of Kingdom of Heaven, AFAIK, the movie does not claim that "this is the story of Balian of Ibelin". But then again, being a fanboy of that movie renders me unable to judge its merits and flaws fairly. :sweatdrop:
I don't remember the movie claiming any attachment to history whatsoever. I enjoyed the movie for those incredibly artistic moments that Scott knows how to unleash and I rolled my eyes at the incredible silliness of many other moments.

King Arthur however... I hate that movie in so many levels that it causes me physical pain.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-26-2008, 02:16

King Arthur :laugh4: ... :laugh4:

Thats a movie that does claim to tell the 'true' story. In its defence (briefly) it is likely that Arthur (Artorius Castus) was a Roman soldier who fought the Saxons. Also, considering the Romans and British weren't exactly reknowned for their prowess as cavalry (and Knights are obviously Cavalry) it is possible that his shock force were from some other part of the Roman Empire (maybe Sarmatia).

On the other hand... :laugh4: I don't believe that storyline for a second!!!

Gladiator is a completely ahistorical movie, but I still liked it. Joaquin Phoenix and Russell Crowe were both superb in it. Yes I know that absolutely nothing in that movie was true, (except that a Roman Emporer called Marcus Aurelius existed and had a son called Commodus), but I still think that as a movie and as entertainment, it was well-done.

Kingdom of Heaven makes no attempt to claim its a true story, I think the fact that Balian is a blacksmith at the films beginning is enough to illustrate that point. Again its a completely ahistorical story, albeit it is at least based (extremely loosely) on a real event, the defence of Jerusalem by Balien of Ibelin against Saladin, and the surrender etc. etc. I agree with Puzz3d that the real story is interesting enough, but maybe the timescale of that was an issue?

300 is an artistic interpretation of the battle of Thermopylae, and should n't targeted.

10,00BC is pretty much fantasy so shouldn't be included, same for 2001: A Space Odyessy.

The Patriot and Braveheart are worthy contenders as is Elizabeth. (BTW does Mel Gibson have something against the English? :laugh4:)

So thats my (extremely long) two cents!

Quirinus

03-26-2008, 12:29

Don't forget, the classic Attila, flagello di dio!
Clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQrgJeuHtaE&feature=related)
Clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crIoYnc1QV0)
:laugh4: Nice. It looks like the Italian version of Monty Python. Pity there aren't any subtitles.

The problem I have with that film is that the true story surrounding the main characters is more compelling. Balian never went back to France with or without Sibylla, but they put that in the film so it could have a "happy" ending. He never had a relationship with Sibylla . In fact, he married her stepmother, Maria, and had some kids by her, and that's why he went back to Jerusalem after the Battle of Hattin to get them out. Balian stayed in the Holy Land, and died 6 years later. Sibylla went with her husband, Guy of Lusignan, and died, along with her two young daughters, from an epidemic that swept though Guy's encampment during his siege of Acre three years after the fall of Jerusalem.
Yeah, I know, but IIRC, the true story is one of frustration, injustice and anticlimax. Guy de Lusignan went on to rule Cyprus, and his dynasty survived for a few centuries. The noble Raymond of Tripoli, who I assume the Tiberias in the film was based on, was manipulated by Saladin, disgraced, and died of a lung infection. Balian of Ibelin himself fled the Battle of Hattin ignominously and was mistrusted by Baldwin the Leper. Etc, etc. While they may have made interesting characters in a TV series, IMO the full complexities of that particular chapter in history (and the people who populate it) cannot be effectively depicted in a 150-minute movie.

Geoffrey S

03-26-2008, 13:27

Yeah, I know, but IIRC, the true story is one of frustration, injustice and anticlimax.
A very recent Oscar winner had precisely those themes and in my opinion was all the better for it. Though I guess you're right, since the majority of people I've spoken to about the movie cite it being an excellent film with plenty of great moments, but the resolution didn't do it for them - needless to say, I disagree.

Paradox

03-26-2008, 14:02

Just to clarify something, 300 was based on a comic book, not history.

Quirinus

03-26-2008, 14:13

A very recent Oscar winner had precisely those themes and in my opinion was all the better for it. Though I guess you're right, since the majority of people I've spoken to about the movie cite it being an excellent film with plenty of great moments, but the resolution didn't do it for them - needless to say, I disagree.
Though these movies tend to be introspective, character-driven pieces, no? I doubt that the movie would have been as good had it been written like that-- it would certainly have lost the epic feel.

IMO.

Lemur

03-26-2008, 14:49

Though these movies tend to be introspective, character-driven pieces, no? I doubt that the movie would have been as good had it been written like that-- it would certainly have lost the epic feel.
Epic is as epic does. Seen Lawrence of Arabia lately? Now there's a tale of injustice and anticlimax. Doesn't prevent it from being a sweeping, sprawling mass of a film. And No Country for Old Men is hardly a character study, certainly not in the conventional sense, and it's all about failure, injustice and things not working out like they should.

Conventional Hollywood thinking does not equate with a satisfying film. The three-act structure where the protagonist makes important discoveries while growing and changing is not the only way to tell a good story. The way I look at it, say you're playing poker, and the Hollywood guys are chanting that the only winning hand is three of a kind. And they won't shut up. And I'm thinking, "Yes, three of a kind is a good hand, but it's not the only hand, you idiots."

Puzz3D

03-26-2008, 20:01

Though these movies tend to be introspective, character-driven pieces, no? I doubt that the movie would have been as good had it been written like that-- it would certainly have lost the epic feel.
Are you aware that it was the Fox studio that imposed the happy ending of Kingdom of Heaven on the writer? The writer had a different ending, and it wasn't a happy one, although, it was still not historically correct. After all, the writer couldn't have Sibylla reunited with Guy de Lusignan because he was portrayed as a bad guy, and you can't have the bad guy ending up with the good girl.

I actually like the movie and bought the 4 disk director's cut after I bought the theatrical cut. What threw me off with Kingdom of Heaven is that I didn't know Balian was never a blacksmith, and that the beginning of the movie is false. If I had known that, I would have realized that the rest of the film was going to be heavily fictionalized.

Puzz3D

03-26-2008, 20:17

King Arthur :laugh4: ... :laugh4:
Hey, I liked that film because Keira Knightley is in it. If you want to see something even worse rent Pathfinder.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-27-2008, 01:24

One girl doesn't make a good movie. (Although... ) Nah what put me off it was the whole Clive Owen not being able to say anything in a non-'I'm a Hero, but I'm going to attempt to sound modest so no-one can say I'm arrogant' voice. Ray Winstone is also hilarious which kind of saves it from total mediocrity, and that guy with the pet hawk just looks trippy!

But I repeat... King Arthur :laugh4:... :laugh4:

Quirinus

03-27-2008, 13:41

Are you aware that it was the Fox studio that imposed the happy ending of Kingdom of Heaven on the writer? The writer had a different ending, and it wasn't a happy one, although, it was still not historically correct. After all, the writer couldn't have Sibylla reunited with Guy de Lusignan because he was portrayed as a bad guy, and you can't have the bad guy ending up with the good girl.
Oh! I didn't know that, I gave up on the commentary about when Balian kills his half-brother and just watched the film without it.

I actually like the movie and bought the 4 disk director's cut after I bought the theatrical cut. What threw me off with Kingdom of Heaven is that I didn't know Balian was never a blacksmith, and that the beginning of the movie is false. If I had known that, I would have realized that the rest of the film was going to be heavily fictionalized.
I knew that the characters were going to be --I won't even say hevily fictionalised-- not their historical selves before I watched the film, but that didn't put me off. I enjoyed the film for what it is.

Epic is as epic does. Seen Lawrence of Arabia lately? Now there's a tale of injustice and anticlimax. Doesn't prevent it from being a sweeping, sprawling mass of a film. And No Country for Old Men is hardly a character study, certainly not in the conventional sense, and it's all about failure, injustice and things not working out like they should.
Haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia, or No Country For Old Men, though I probably should. The latter is definitely on my to-buy list.

Hey, I liked that film because Keira Knightley is in it.
Amen, brother. :yes: :yes: And I'm a fan of Clive Owen too, so that movie wasn't so bad for me.

Puzz3D

03-27-2008, 15:56

I watched Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) last night, and despite the many historical inaccuracies it's a very well made film. It stays focused on Elizabeth's character which is overly romanticized, but carried off extremely well by Cate Blanchet with an emotionally moving performance. It's basically a romance, and that's made clear from the beginning. The Battle of Gravelines is not presented properly, and the mandatory heroic deed that Sir Walter Raleigh, played by Clive Owen, is given in the film is so far fetched that it's laughable. The film is definitely a good candidate for the historically inaccurate list.

Tachikaze

03-27-2008, 18:29

Just to clarify something, 300 was based on a comic book, not history.
This gets at the true heart of the problem for me. If these movies are going to alter history to a great degree to make them "entertaining", they should set them in completely fictional situations, like Princess Bride and Inherit the Wind. They should just create a fictional land, cultures, events, etc. They can make it as realistic as they wish, just not historical.

300 did not have to be Greeks and Persians. It hardly resembled history at all, so using those names and events was misleading. They could have created the same story, but used new names and places to avoid the controversy.

This is true of most of the films mentioned here. The King Arthur legends should never be placed in a completely historical context, because, like Robin Hood, they are folk tales.

Quirinus

03-28-2008, 10:50

But isn't that's like saying that Walter Scott and Bram Stoker shouldn't have written Ivanhoe and Dracula respectively? Or that medieval bards shouldn't have romanticised Robin Hood and Richard the Lionheart?

It could be extended to any number of movies and literary works-- Gone With The Wind, Othello, War and Peace... even The Iliad and Odyssey.

Raz

03-28-2008, 12:28

Meh, if you're going to be pointing out ahistorical movies - you might as well include every western film ever produced.

Motep

03-30-2008, 06:50

Meh...you have already voiced my opinion.

(Galdiator was a very dull movie. I saw the first 25 minutes, and the last two minutes of the credits. I slept through the rest of it.)

aimlesswanderer

03-30-2008, 13:14

Unfortunately nearly all the people who watch a "historical" (to use the term loosely) movie often don't know anything else about the events depicted, and so think that what they saw in the movie was what actually happened.... most people have only a vague idea of what has happened in the world recently, let alone a few thousand years ago. After seeing movies they get all sorts of strange ideas which are totally historically inaccurate.

Banquo's Ghost

03-30-2008, 13:21

You're right Tachikaze. Unfortunately nearly all the people who watch a "historical" (to use the term loosely) movie often don't know anything else about the events depicted, and so think that what they watched in the movie was what actually happened.... most people have only a vague idea of what has happened in the world recently, let alone a few thousand years ago.

The other issue to reflect on is that even those well-versed in history may have a pretty divergent view of the "actual" events. There's very few historical events that, presented to a group of eminent historians, wouldn't generate a lively discussion as to what really happened.

So it's not very useful to quibble about inaccuracy in movies. Movies are stories, not documentaries. Fiction has always taken liberties with its milieu for the sake of a good story. History is the greatest backdrop of them all.

(This of course, from a notorious mutterer of black curses every time he watches a "column of mob" fighting an ancient battle...)

aimlesswanderer

03-30-2008, 13:28

The other issue to reflect on is that even those well-versed in history may have a pretty divergent view of the "actual" events. There's very few historical events that, presented to a group of eminent historians, wouldn't generate a lively discussion as to what really happened.

So it's not very useful to quibble about inaccuracy in movies. Movies are stories, not documentaries. Fiction has always taken liberties with its milieu for the sake of a good story. History is the greatest backdrop of them all.

(This of course, from a notorious mutterer of black curses every time he watches a "column of mob" fighting an ancient battle...)

True, but many of the events in movies are not just a different interpretation but are completely made up and utterly bizzare. There's a big difference between "they were victorious and killed 50k of their foes" and "they got massacred to the last man and the whole country depopulated".

Martok

03-30-2008, 18:37

True, but many of the events in movies are not just a different interpretation but are completely made up and utterly bizzare. There's a big difference between "they were victorious and killed 50k of their foes" and "they got massacred to the last man and the whole country depopulated".
Exactly. It's one thing for historians to disagree over certain aspects of an historical event; it's another thing entirely for the facts to be wildly distorted all out of proportion to reality.

Lemur

03-31-2008, 00:06

It's like when I was deeply irritated about the use of stirrups in Gladiator, and my friends were (understandably) laughing at me: "Well, what if you were seeing a film about the Crusades, and all of the knights had machine guns? Or a film about Vietnam where the soldiers carry lightsabers?"

Some historical violations really take you out of the movie, destroy your willing suspension of disbelief, and generally ruin the mood.

Papewaio

03-31-2008, 00:22

Star Wars IV, V & VI are all historically inaccurate due to I, II & III :laugh4:

Adrian II

03-31-2008, 01:42

Star Wars IV, V & VI are all historically inaccurate due to I, II & III :laugh4:Pape is onto something. :laugh4:

In a way all movies are inaccurate, certainly all historical movies are inaccurate to the expert eye... The essential question is the one mentioned in the BBC article that was referred to above: does a movie capture the spirit of an event or episode, or doesn't it?

I have seen Sophokles' Elektra played on stage in a 'Vietnam setting', complete with machine guns and helicopters, and it was great in the latter sense.

The Lemur is right that annoyance is often in the details, such as the stirrups in Gladiator. In my experience, the same goes for satisfaction, for instance in Stone's Alexander where the Macedonians spoke with Scottish accents, suggestive of an independent warrior race from the mountains, which I thought was a brilliant solution to the whole Greek-Macedonian dilemma.

Louis VI the Fat

03-31-2008, 04:53

I watched two historical movies recently:

Napoléon. Video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0NRDtUIWKg&feature=related)

A six hour movie, painstakingly historically accurate. A visual feast for sure, for those into Napoleonic warfare or period costumes. And with some splendid Empire furniture (:jumping:).
However, the movie feels like simply a filmed version of Napoleon's Wikipedia entry. It's all rather bland. All that is achieved by it, is a dramatised documentary about his military campaigns and love life. Albeit with a lavish budget. It doesn't add anything to what everybody already knows.
(Should you ever stumble upon it: it's not great. It's not bad either. The elaborate art direction saves it. It's worth checking out if you are into Napoléon and his age.)

Marie-Antoinette. Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLJ1vuUWprA)

It's a highly stylised historical interpretation. Paris Hilton meets Sex in the City, with a loud eighties punk music soundtrack. At first, I was shocked. I want my serious costume drama! Then, the movie turned into such an eye-opener to me. Of course Marie-Antoinette was just a bored teenager. :wall:
Rebellious, bored, too pampered. More concerned about her new pink shoes than about macro-economics. The very anachronisms Coppolla used gave me that historical sensation.

It sticks to the facts alright. Somewhat. But facts are for Wikipedia and amateur historians. Interpretation and narration are real history. And in this respect, Marie-Antoinette totally owns Napoléon. The historical leeway that the director Sofie Coppola allowed herself gave her movie it's historical value. And it's better history because of it.

(Of course, the above is no excuse for historical ignorance or plain stupidity)

lars573

03-31-2008, 05:59

Napoléon. Video. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0NRDtUIWKg&feature=related)

A six hour movie, painstakingly historically accurate. A visual feast for sure, for those into Napoleonic warfare or period costumes. And with some splendid Empire furniture (:jumping:).
However, the movie feels like simply a filmed version of Napoleon's Wikipedia entry. It's all rather bland. All that is achieved by it, is a dramatised documentary about his military campaigns and love life. Albeit with a lavish budget. It doesn't add anything to what everybody already knows.
(Should you ever stumble upon it: it's not great. It's not bad either. The elaborate art direction saves it. It's worth checking out if you are into Napoléon and his age.)
I've seen that. Twas an A&E production (or co-production with some Euro company). I really enjoyed it, but I am into that period. Like you said. :sweatdrop:

Now on 300 Frank Millier gave himself one massive easy out for all the stuff that does on in the actual battle. Dillios is telling the story to inspire the troops at Platea. So all of the crazy stuff can be taken as Dillios embelishing the story.

Adrian II

03-31-2008, 12:29

Now on 300 Frank Miller gave himself one massive easy out for all the stuff that does on in the actual battle. Dillios is telling the story to inspire the troops at Platea. So all of the crazy stuff can be taken as Dillios embelishing the story."300" was meant as a morality tale and a historically correct version of events at the same time. You can't have it both ways, or three ways actually: you can't have Chuck Noris meet Herodotus and present the result (dubbed "bronze-age fascism" by the inimitable Lemur) as a wake-up call for today's western civilization.

Quirinus

03-31-2008, 15:44

Geoffrey S

03-31-2008, 16:29

The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy. A lot of people are like, "You're debauching history!" I'm like, "Have you read it?" I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is.
That, and whether it's exaggerated events or not: the makers, and particularly the pretty much fascist Miller, seem to believe that they are in fact capturing the spirit of the time, the Spartan warrior ethos. Less so the movie directors, more Miller projecting his own idealized society back onto ancient Sparta, and that repels me.

Adrian II

03-31-2008, 17:04

Wait, 300 was supposed to be historically correct? AFAIK it was an adaptation (the graphic novel) of an adaptation (300 Spartans), of what was probably adapted from second- or third-hand accounts (Herodotus).

:laugh4:Do you recall what I wrote above about historical veracity as an attempt to capture the spirit of an episode, not the exact costume, landscape or sequence of action?

In this sense, Snyder, Miller and Victor Davis Hanson, the classicist who 'advised' them during the making of the movie, seem to think it is historically accurate. Here is what Hanson wrote in the acompanying booklet:

Again, purists must remember that 300 seeks to bring a comic book, not Herodotus, to the screen. Yet, despite the need to adhere to the conventions of Frank Miller’s graphics and plot — every bit as formalized as the protocols of classical Athenian drama or Japanese Kabuki theater — the main story from our ancient Greek historians is still there. [..] But most importantly, 300 preserves the spirit of the Thermopylae story.

Geoffrey S

03-31-2008, 17:22

Ah, Hanson. The chap who sees an inherent Western culture dating back to the Greeks as essential to Western military dominance, playing on some of the most common of cultural stereotypes in promoting ideas of justified US hegemony. I can see where his attraction to Miller's work comes from...

The Stranger

04-05-2008, 19:20

add pathfinder to that list... jesus that was a horrible movie!

vikings wear plate armour and cowhorn helmets, native americans speak AMERICAN???!?!??!?! and that list goes on and on and on...

The Foolish Horseman

04-05-2008, 21:58

Im gonna get Lynched for this, But Saving Private Ryan should be there. Sure it was a fantastic movie, probably my favourite, but its not strictly historically accurate, and some physics isuues are wrong. For example When CPT Miller is showing SFC Horvath the location of the German machine gun nest with the mirror on his bayonet the angle they are looking from would not be showing them the machine gun nest as it is far too "obtuse." The machine gun nest is around the corner almost 90 degrees. Historical errors include the fact that when Pvt. Jackson is in the tower at Neuville he fires seven or more shots without reloading. His rifle, the Springlfield 1903, only holds five rounds. The first Springfield that held more than 5 rounds was not produced until Vietnam

Edit: another one inculde the fact that when they are on the beach you see more than four tanks but on 6 June 1944, only two tanks out of 29 made land.

The Stranger

04-05-2008, 22:59

but should it be in the top 10 for that?

Lemur

04-06-2008, 02:05

If Saving Private Ryan were ahistorical on the scale of, say, Gladiator, the entire Omaha Beach scene would have occurred in outer space. And instead of Nazis, they would have been fighting Octosquids. And half of the soldiers would have been kill-droids programmed to explode on contact with the enemy. The final battle would have been resolved with a combination of samurai swords and revolutionary nano-bots.

No, Saving Private Ryan does not get to join the club because of a few minor gaffes. Sorry.