Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

Quote:

---

Would you still consider it racist if the "ignorant Mayans" were saved by Western Muslims? Or Eastern Christians?
That's always a good way of testing your own attitude.

---

If the film was being made by Western Muslims or Eastern Christians, then yes. If not, then perhaps not quite racist, but certainly offensive. -M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apazlinemjo

I don't know, I would gladly watch mass murderers and pedophiles fight to death against eachother.

---

That was an excuse Romans used, and an excuse for public executions in more recent times, it just doesn't work, and the theoretical justification wasn't always acceptable, and even in Roman times there were critics (i.e. Marcus Aurelius). Even so do you really think people attended public executions for the sake of justice? The Games really are the worst aspect of the Romans, although they did build some magnificent things because of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

That's really interesting. Thanks!

---

Your welcome, and technically speaking the official date of that law was 97 BC, although Human Sacrifice was extremely rare before that, and limited to mob responses to disasters like Arusio and Cannae. The Romans could understand the presence of Human Sacrifice, they could not understand it being done by the state with the force of law behind it and without an unwashed masses element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Did Jones mention Carthaginian child sacrifice in his documentary? He did not in the accompanying booklet. AFAIK the facts of the matter are this: no one disputes that the earlier Phoenician city states practised live child sacrifice. However, the only evidence for this practice during Roman times is a mention in a much later source and the presence of apparently healthy children in a special section of a Carthaginian graveyard. So the conclusion is that the Carthaginians probably did sacrifice children, but the evidence is not watertight.

And, as others have mentioned, live human sacrifice in one form or another was still a feature of most if not all Iron Age cultures. The Romans themselves sacrificed two couples after the disastrous defeats at Cannae and Aurausio. Gladiatorial fights also had a religious origin, although they ended up being entertainment (then again, from a modern perspective killing people for entertainment is as revolting, if not more, as killing them to appease the gods). I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?

---

The evidence seems pretty solid to me, there is more then one later source testifying about it, and those later sources are almost completely trusted on things they are farther away from, and there is archaeological evidence. Terry Jones doesn't explicitly say the Human Sacrifices was a lie, but he very highly implies it by stating that education is biased in favor of Rome, and warning the audience not to confuse Rome's propaganda and lies for history, and he does use that moralizing line on every enemy of Rome he goes over. The Roman Triumph didn't always involve killing the enemy leader, but it did involve showing that he was dead, Mithradates was beheaded despite his death and his body being far away from Rome. It didn't actually matter if an enemy leader was around at the Triumph unless he was a capable and dangerous man who the Romans wanted dead anyway. Tha Gladiator Games are simply revolting though, and the worst thing about the Romans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

That was an excuse Romans used, and an excuse for public executions in more recent times, it just doesn't work, and the theoretical justification wasn't always acceptable, and even in Roman times there were critics (i.e. Marcus Aurelius). Even so do you really think people attended public executions for the sake of justice? The Games really are the worst aspect of the Romans, although they did build some magnificent things because of them.

---

You missunderstood me, I was talking about the 21. century.

Edit: By the way, saying that that was their worst/bad aspect is a very modernist statement. The problem is that we can't imagine how they were thinking about the world and it's easier to say that they were brutal, because they let people to hurt eachother and fight to death. If we were living in that time, I'm sure most of us would watch the games, because it was probably the same as watching football nowadays. Also the moral code was different and the gladiators, prostitutes, slaves were properties, "not" humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

You missunderstood me, I was talking about the 21. century.

Edit: By the way, saying that that was their worst/bad aspect is a very modernist statement. The problem is that we can't imagine how they were thinking about the world and it's easier to say that they were brutal, because they let people to hurt eachother and fight to death. If we were living in that time, I'm sure most of us would watch the games, because it was probably the same as watching football nowadays. Also the moral code was different and the gladiators, prostitutes, slaves were properties, "not" humans.

---

I agree completely. You run into a problem when you start applying modern moral standards to the ancients. Many civilizations committed acts that today would be considered horrible attrocities. You have to remove yourself from the modern mindset and try to see things the way they did. It helps that it's more interesting that way too. -M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

Well decide, man! If "western people" (what ever that might be in a historical context) do that, the sentence "NOBODY IS LIKE THAT" is wrong. I think this cruelty can be found in every civilisation,more or less institutionalised. Otherwise this sounds like a very romantic view of "non-western" societies.

---

OK, when I said "nobody" I was being hyperbolic. You'll always (I must stop with the blanket statements) USUALLY be able to find people who love watching others get ripped apart, but they're unhealthy. Also, I failed to distinguish between the Mayans depicted in the movie watching helpless captives get cut open for the lulz, and Romans watching people fight in a sporting event. So, sorry. What I meant was that while nobody few people in real life enjoy watching captives cut up, the only people I can think of who enjoyed watching people brutally fight each other to the death for sport were the Romans. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

I find that "no" hard to believe. Even societies where hunting was a privilege of the noble class (such as early modern Germany) had their share of illegal hunting going on. Not to mention gathering.

---

While I'm sure there was some hunting and gathering, it was not on a significant source of food. Again, I was being hyperbolic. Sorry. I'll stop doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Typical Western self-centered attitude. You should perhaps visit some places in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East - they're no different in that respect.

---

I hold no illusions about other cultural groups, it's just that the Romans are the only civilization I know of that practiced gladiatorial combat to the death in the numbers they did. Also, don't hate on my civilization. The West is no different than any other society that has yet to have another kick down its door and force the realization that there are other of equal or greater power out there (not that that attitude is OK).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

Would you still consider it racist if the "ignorant Mayans" were saved by Western Muslims? Or Eastern Christians?
That's always a good way of testing your own attitude.

---

I would consider any equivalent portrayal as racist. For example, if there was a movie made about the Turkish conquest of Constantinople, I would consider it racist if the Romans/Byzantines were depicted as barbaric savages with the violence ceasing as the Turks arrived bearing the star and crescent.

Something I failed to mention that I think is pretty important is that at the beginning of Apocalypto, Will Durant's quote "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within" is shown. I think this is crucial to message of the movie, and I was dumb to forget about it. Sorry.

Yeah, that is a fair theme of the movie... but like everyone else I was surprised that it was about the Mayans and not hte Aztecs. Afterall the Yucatan civilizations suffered a major collapse after famine while the Aztecs suffered defeat at the hands of their vassals for kinda being big jerks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

OK, when I said "nobody" I was being hyperbolic. You'll always (I must stop with the blanket statements) USUALLY be able to find people who love watching others get ripped apart, but they're unhealthy. Also, I failed to distinguish between the Mayans depicted in the movie watching helpless captives get cut open for the lulz, and Romans watching people fight in a sporting event. So, sorry. What I meant was that while nobody few people in real life enjoy watching captives cut up, the only people I can think of who enjoyed watching people brutally fight each other to the death for sport were the Romans. I apologize for my lack of clarity.



While I'm sure there was some hunting and gathering, it was not on a significant source of food. Again, I was being hyperbolic. Sorry. I'll stop doing that.



I hold no illusions about other cultural groups, it's just that the Romans are the only civilization I know of that practiced gladiatorial combat to the death in the numbers they did. Also, don't hate on my civilization. The West is no different than any other society that has yet to have another kick down its door and force the realization that there are other of equal or greater power out there (not that that attitude is OK).



I would consider any equivalent portrayal as racist. For example, if there was a movie made about the Turkish conquest of Constantinople, I would consider it racist if the Romans/Byzantines were depicted as barbaric savages with the violence ceasing as the Turks arrived bearing the star and crescent.

Something I failed to mention that I think is pretty important is that at the beginning of Apocalypto, Will Durant's quote "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within" is shown. I think this is crucial to message of the movie, and I was dumb to forget about it. Sorry.

---

Fair enough.

I think what Gibson tried to do was to portray a civilization that had become (not started off as) decadent and fallen to vices like human sacrifice etc.. Which is actually an interesting project, and could hae become a thinly veiled "mirror" to our own society, with its current stages of decadence. Of course, being Mel Gibson, he didn't let historical accuracy any actual history get in the way of his storytelling, so he just re-labeled the Aztecs as Mayans etc..
With that in mind, the moie becomes somewhat easier to watch.

That said, there's a lot of bull about Native Americans of all kinds out there. Usually bad and cliché-laden storytelling (your average early Western) or just ass-pull "research" combined with stupid esoteric attitudes (like oh so many productions, even Star Trek). This situation though could be made less miserable if these (American Indian) people took the initiative themselves, instead of having other people portray them either as "magical minority" or as savages.

I agree that we can't judge ancient civilizations by modern standards, but in the case of the Romans the stated ideals of their Gladiator Games really do sound suspiciously like an excuse, especially since there are plenty of cases where that excuse couldn't possibly apply, and even if it was their genuine feeling it is still the least appealing aspect of a civilization with the cultural, political, and military accomplishments of Rome. That said I'm not a moralist, and I know the gladiator death toll was much lower than what Hollywood thinks, a Gladiator was way too expensive to train to have one gone per game.

Athanaric you forgot to say which category Avatar falls under didn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TancredTheNorman

I agree that we can't judge ancient civilizations by modern standards, but in the case of the Romans the stated ideals of their Gladiator Games really do sound suspiciously like an excuse, especially since there are plenty of cases where that excuse couldn't possibly apply, and even if it was their genuine feeling it is still the least appealing aspect of a civilization with the cultural, political, and military accomplishments of Rome. That said I'm not a moralist, and I know the gladiator death toll was much lower than what Hollywood thinks, a Gladiator was way too expensive to train to have one gone per game.

---

This whole gladiatorial business looks like an excuse for debauched fun, not unlike the chariot races (or in our times, Formula 1 and all that crap). Apparently every society in history needs its dark side.
The real problem arises when these things become excessive, like the cult that surrounds certain sports or popular "arts".

Quote:

---

Athanaric you forgot to say which category Avatar falls under didn't you?

---

Well I've never seen "Avatar". Though I heard everyone say it was Disney's "Pocahontas" IN SPACE!!, so I can imagine how it is. I've always detested Disney, as well as simple morality stories. Not a great incentive to watch that film...

Dances in wolves in space.

"Dances With Wolves with Smurfs" I believe.

If we're talking future histories, here's one:

1984.

Boy that film was just soooo wrong.

I mean, as if we live in a world dominated by a handful of powerblocs (run by souless aparatchiks) enslaved to insane hypocritical ideologies that crush individuality as a matter of course.

Wut? Oh wait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

If we're talking future histories, here's one:

1984.

Boy that film was just soooo wrong.

I mean, as if we live in a world dominated by a handful of powerblocs (run by souless aparatchiks) enslaved to insane hypocritical ideologies that crush individuality as a matter of course.

Wut? Oh wait...

---

Yeah but the book is cool.

I heard a movie based on Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" was planned. I even heared some whispers that George Clooney was to play King Leonidas...Well he looks greek enough I guess, but , damn, I can almost see him wearing a tuxedo and holding a martini, while yelling "Molon Labe!" to the Persians...:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klearchos

I even heared some whispers that George Clooney was to play King Leonidas...Well he looks greek enough I guess, but , damn, I can almost see him wearing a tuxedo and holding a martini, while yelling "Molon Labe!" to the Persians...:clown:

---

Heared. I heared that if I had space I would so sig that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klearchos

I heard a movie based on Pressfield's "Gates of Fire" was planned. I even heared some whispers that George Clooney was to play King Leonidas...Well he looks greek enough I guess, but , damn, I can almost see him wearing a tuxedo and holding a martini, while yelling "Molon Labe!" to the Persians...:clown:

---

As much as I'd be a fan of seeing a historical depiction of Thermopylae, I think 300 has already so eblazoned itself on people's minds that most people would view another version of it as a ripoff of 300. -M

So you want 300 to be the defacto view of Thermopylae? :-p

This looks really cool: click.

It was kinda meh as a drama and I have no idea how accurate it is TBH.:-\

Anything that cost a few thousand and eventually makes millions is worth it, no matter how inaccurate. Cash = success.

There doesn't appear to be a simple horse or arrow in the trailer that isn't being used by the Romans.
A scene with actual steppe tactics would be so impressive that it would have to be featured in the trailer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Anything that cost a few thousand and eventually makes millions is worth it, no matter how inaccurate. Cash = success.

---

Not the point of this thread.

Actually I thought it was cool that he made the film basically by himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

So you want 300 to be the defacto view of Thermopylae? :-p

---

Obviously. :-p - don't you remember that passage from Herodotus about how Xerxes was an 8-foot tall bald hermaphrodite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

How about "The Divine Weapon", which is a movie about the Korean hwacha. I don't know that much about Korean history, so I can't say anything about its historical accuracy, but how can you not admire this:
http://www.hwacha.net/img/hwacha/hwa...ring_photo.jpg

---

From what I saw in the preview and read from reviews, the Divine Weapon is extremely inaccurate. The movie talks about a war between Ming-China and Korea. I'm pretty sure that is bogus since Korea and the Ming were on very good terms (Korea was a tributary of the Ming), and the Ming sent troops to Korea to help
them fight off two Japanese invasions.

And ironically, I think the movie also has Koreans wearing the Ming-Chinese clothing (Ming era hanfu), and the Ming-Chinese themselves wearing Manchurian Qing era clothing.

Fire arrow rocket launchers and their cart-launching systems were invented during the Song Dynasty and also used during the Ming. The Koreans didn't invent them and used them against the Ming in any battles because they were allies. The Koreans did independently create gunpowder (due to a ban on exporting gunpowder) and created the hwacha, which is basically a larger version of Chinese fire arrows/launcher.

Unusually Accurate (for movies):
Tora Tora Tora, Rome miniseries, Alexander (I loved the phalangites)

Somewhat Accurate:
Kingdom of Heaven, Lawerence of Arabia, The 300 Spartans (I'm disappointed they still left out the other 7000+ Greek hoplites)


Not Accurate:
Troy, Gladiator, Pearl Harbor, Dances With Wolves, Red Cliff, Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, The Last Samurai, Elizabeth, Braveheart, Apocalypto, The Patriot (The last 3 are Mel Gibson's, cuz he fails)

Batshit insanely not accurate:
300, 10,000 B.C.

Saying Curse of the Golden Flower is inaccurate is like saying that RAN or Hamlet is inaccurate. It is but that's not the point since the film is supposed to just be loosely based on actual events. :-\

I find 10,000 BC can be quite enjoyable if I watch it through the same eyes as I would read a Robert E. Howard story with. I would of course prefer it were an attempt to portray life in the paleolithic, but I don' think the world will ever be that nerdy.

I'd even put 300 a small bit above 10.000 bc(yes I write that way) still both below anythign that can be called accurate. apart from this silly panoply and some ideals you could claim it's the way he tells it with all due exagerations.(I cought a fish that was THIS big...) whereas 10.000 is absolutely absurd in quite about every way, I would not have been supprised if those stargate egyptians woulde used lasers. the ending somewhat supprised me, as it was even more cheesy than I would've imagined. it's one thing if soldiers use a perverted mix peleponesian and classical equipment and old men exxagerate the number of foes. putting egyptian pyramids, horse archers, mammoth hunters, Terror birds, funny ships, spice craving blue eyes in one movie and calling it 10.000 bc is something different. true it was fun to complain about it with my pals(don't get me wrong, it did not work with 300, that only ispired questions like:" did they really fight bare chested?" or "arrent elephans smaller?"). in general iwould'e preffered having it called " the first hero" or "the mammoth hunter" not because these names sound better(they don't) but because they don't include the claim to be at least semi historical. i mean "300" that sounds like brainless buchering already "10.000 bc" sounds like: hear the story that HAS HAPPEND 12000 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Saying Curse of the Golden Flower is inaccurate is like saying that RAN or Hamlet is inaccurate. It is but that's not the point since the film is supposed to just be loosely based on actual events. :-\

---

I loved Hero, but CotGF made me absolutely hate Zhang Yimo. That movie was ridiculously cheesy to an extreme.