Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

[Hax]

Frankly, my reply would be that the best antidote is the TRUTH. Or at least, as close to the truth as it's possible to get. But I guess that's just my ethos. -M

Define "truth".

[athanaric]

Define "truth".[/INDENT]

Sometimes I just want to shoot all postmodernists.

[Hax]

This is not necessarily post-modernist. The concept of relative truth is something that has been laid out for over 2,000 years, especially in the Indian subcontinent.

[Cyclops]

Sometimes I just want to shoot all postmodernists.

Pontius Pilate was a post-modernist?

"What is truth?" he asks Jesus, before sending him to his death, but the Galillean does not answer.

[Ibrahim]

Sometimes I just want to shoot all postmodernists.

truth has always been viewed as subjective.

just ask Moussilini

[Badass Buddha]

My problem with historically inaccurate movies in general is that they are the only source of knowledge most people have about history (especially in the the US). Because no movie is without a couple of inaccuracies, usually made because the plot demands it, I divide them into more accurate and less accurate. Comedies, such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Black Adder, are not listed.

More Accurate:

Henry The Vth: Both versions are excellent, but for that one scene in the first one where the knights are lowered onto their horses with cranes.

Dat Boot: But for the crew messing with the reporter, good.

Downfall: But for a couple minor nitpicks, good.

Gettysburg: I can't think of anything wrong.

Master And Commander: I can't think of anything wrong.

Platoon: I can't think of anything wrong.

The Warlord: The costumes are a little off, but Charlton Heston's attitude is spot on.

Tora! Tora! Tora!: I can't think anything wrong.

Waterloo: The lengths they went through to make it accurate are amazing. They dug pipe systems under the battlefield to simulate the wet conditions.

Zulu: This movie is about 50-50, but I like it, so I'm putting it up here.

Less Accurate:
Anything touched by Mel Gibson or Disney.

300: 300 is special because not only does it manage to be batshit over the top ridiculous in its inaccuracy (I mean, one can't even begin to list all the things wrong with that movie), it manages to be almost stupefyingly racist as well. Also, I wish they could have dropped Gorgo's name in there somewhere, like during the sex scene.

Leonidas: "Oh, Gorgo!"
Audience: "Wait, what?"

Alexander: Same as 300, but not nearly as bad.

Gladiator: The inaccuracies are legion. Along with a large variety of nitpicks, the major ones that stand out are everything in the beginning battle from the languages spoken to the way it is fought, the way Commodus is an insane, insecure, puny, dark haired guy, the depictions of gladiator fights as a Thunderdome style free-for-all, and the "Rome was meant to be a republic" bullshit.

Gods And Generals: This is what happens when a Southerner writes a US Civil War movie. Contains both heavy inaccuracy and whitewashing.

Kingdom Of Heaven: Many nitpicks and a ridiculous amount of whitewashing. Almost everyone in the movie is an agnostic.

Knights Tale: *Bangs head against the wall*

Pearl Harbor: It has Ben Affleck. That alone should be sufficient to keep you away. If that's insufficient, it contains so much chronological and technical inaccuracy that I couldn't list it all here.

Patton: this movie. Montgomery was a badass IRL.

Saving Private Ryan: Post D-Day the movie starts veering into fantasy. Good technical accuracy though.

The Last Samurai: So many inaccuracies, and things that just stretch credibility. A dude mastering Japanese and swordplay in a single Winter?

Troy: While it's based off of a myth, it's a myth based on a true event that we know or can extrapolate a good amount of information on, and since they left out all of the mythological elements, should be taken as a depiction of a historical event. I did enjoy watching Orlando Bloom get smacked around.

[TancredTheNorman]

Buddha, I hope you don't mind me criticizing your list, because I found a lot of things I regard as nonesense in it.

My problem with historically inaccurate movies in general is that they are the only source of knowledge most people have about history (especially in the the US). Because no movie is without a couple of inaccuracies, usually made because the plot demands it, I divide them into more accurate and less accurate. Comedies, such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Black Adder, are not listed.

More Accurate:

Henry The Vth: Both versions are excellent, but for that one scene in the first one where the knights are lowered onto their horses with cranes.

I disagree, Agincourt was anything but a question of Chivalry, the French lost because thay had to charge up a muddy hill against showers of longbow bolts that could penetrate their armor. The King of England was so Chivalric before the battle that he left the town of Harfluer a burning ruin with all of its population deceased, and his battlefield chivalry was so impressive that when it seemed the French might win he had all of his prisoners killed. Removing the muddy hill and longbow is like removing the Bridge from William Wallace's great battle, which is a Mel Gibson thing. It is a good play, but don't go to it for accuracy, this is literally Rennaisance Spin Artistry at work, it of course will emphasize the knights. I love the Henry V play, but for accuracy it isn't reliable.

Dat Boot: But for the crew messing with the reporter, good.

Downfall: But for a couple minor nitpicks, good.

Gettysburg: I can't think of anything wrong.

Master And Commander: I can't think of anything wrong.

Platoon: I can't think of anything wrong.

The Warlord: The costumes are a little off, but Charlton Heston's attitude is spot on.

Tora! Tora! Tora!: I can't think anything wrong.

Waterloo: The lengths they went through to make it accurate are amazing. They dug pipe systems under the battlefield to simulate the wet conditions.

Zulu: This movie is about 50-50, but I like it, so I'm putting it up here.

I don't really remember any of those

300: 300 is special because not only does it manage to be batshit over the top ridiculous in its inaccuracy (I mean, one can't even begin to list all the things wrong with that movie), it manages to be almost stupefyingly racist as well. Also, I wish they could have dropped Gorgo's name in there somewhere, like during the sex scene.

Leonidas: "Oh, Gorgo!"
Audience: "Wait, what?"

Everyone here knows that 300 is ahistorical, but please leave politics to a different forum, you know the part of the forum reserved for it? Determining wether or not it is permitted to allow anyone to be villain who isn't english or french is not an issue for here, and I'm serious Mel Gibson has his englishmen burning women and children in church (a direct reference to Nazi World War Two atrocities), he has his English Leaders slaughter their own troops out of impatience, and he has never been accused of racism against England, so please leave the R word out of things related to anything Medieval or earlier. For an amusing take on Britain's bad guy status watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQHtQqbJqhE

Alexander: Same as 300, but not nearly as bad.

Be more specific? I found that it is the most historically accurate movie ever made, and most historical by far. Oliver Stone got details you probably never heard of right, i.e. the dress worn by Scythian Archers, Greek and Macedonian Sexual Ideals, emphasis of free warriors vs slave warriors. What exactly did Oliver Stone do wrong? The movie was about Alexander, not his battles, and it did cover his most important battles very well, so in my opinion grouping it with 300 is as tasteless as grouping Shakespear with modern American rap artists.

Gods And Generals: This is what happens when a Southerner writes a US Civil War movie. Contains both heavy inaccuracy and whitewashing.

Never saw it

Kingdom Of Heaven: Many nitpicks and a ridiculous amount of whitewashing. Almost everyone in the movie is an agnostic.

Be more specific? There are innacuracies, but I thought it was a great depiction of the Crusader States. You don't seriously think Christians and Muslims hated each other all the time do you?

Knights Tale: *Bangs head against the wall*

Pearl Harbor: It has Ben Affleck. That alone should be sufficient to keep you away. If that's insufficient, it contains so much chronological and technical inaccuracy that I couldn't list it all here.

Patton: this movie. Montgomery was a badass IRL.

Saving Private Ryan: Post D-Day the movie starts veering into fantasy. Good technical accuracy though.

The Last Samurai: So many inaccuracies, and things that just stretch credibility. A dude mastering Japanese and swordplay in a single Winter?

Troy: While it's based off of a myth, it's a myth based on a true event that we know or can extrapolate a good amount of information on, and since they left out all of the mythological elements, should be taken as a depiction of a historical event. I did enjoy watching Orlando Bloom get smacked around.

I agree on those

[Badass Buddha]

It's good.

Concerning Henry V you’re absolutely right. I really like the play and was blinded by that and their adherence to it (although technically speaking it is pretty good), but that is both wrong and hypocritical of me as I get all over 300 later on while it an almost perfect adaptation of its source material. This has caused me to reevaluate my position, so thank you for that. I could swear there were longbowmen in that movie though.

Also, in light of the above, Zulu belongs in less accurate. I like that movie, but there are just too many mistakes.

I really am not one to lightly use the R-word, but my issue with 300 and Alexander is the way the Persians are portrayed. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are bad guys, it has to do with the fact that they are portrayed as a disorganized rabble. I think the portrayals are racist because even though Persia and its satrapates had many people of varying skin/hair/eye colors and ethnicities, all the Persians without exception are heavily accented dark skinned people, even going so far as to have black Persians in 300, who never existed. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but to me, it seems like this is done to make the Persians more alien, as opposed to the freedom loving Nordic looking Greeks. Alexander is a good movie, and is very accurate in the ways you listed and more, and is surely more accurate that Zulu, it’s just that that kind of thing pisses me off. In that one respect, the two are somewhat similar, although like I said before, Alexander is not nearly as bad.

My largest issue with Kingdom of Heaven is not the way the Christians and Muslims interacted, but their spiritual ambivalence, especially among the Christians, where the Templars are referred to as fanatics.

[Mulceber]

I disagree, Agincourt was anything but a question of Chivalry, the French lost because thay had to charge up a muddy hill against showers of longbow bolts that could penetrate their armor. The King of England was so Chivalric before the battle that he left the town of Harfluer a burning ruin with all of its population deceased, and his battlefield chivalry was so impressive that when it seemed the French might win he had all of his prisoners killed. Removing the muddy hill and longbow is like removing the Bridge from William Wallace's great battle, which is a Mel Gibson thing. It is a good play, but don't go to it for accuracy, this is literally Rennaisance Spin Artistry at work, it of course will emphasize the knights. I love the Henry V play, but for accuracy it isn't reliable.

Based on more recent evidence, those arrows COULDN'T penetrate armor - the arrows were made out of iron while the armor was made out of steel. In tests, the arrows just crumpled when they hit armor. Based on the research, the reason the English won was actually due to the weather - there had been heavy rain the night before, which meant there was deep mud on the battlefield. The suction created by the mud made it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for a person wearing armor to move about, so by the time the french reached the English lines they were exhausted, and fell quickly in melee. The mud created issues here too, since due to it, all the English Longbowmen had to do to incapacitate the french was knock them over and the mud would prevent them from getting back up.

The movie was about Alexander, not his battles, and it did cover his most important battles very well,

Well, the battle fought against Darius was actually an amalgamation of 3 historical battles, but I agree with you in principle that the movie did a good job of covering Alexander's life. -M

[Madoushi]

Knights Tale: *Bangs head against the wall*

Troy: While it's based off of a myth, it's a myth based on a true event that we know or can extrapolate a good amount of information on, and since they left out all of the mythological elements, should be taken as a depiction of a historical event. I did enjoy watching Orlando Bloom get smacked around.

So were you expecting A Knight's Tale to be historical before or after the peasants started singing We Will Rock You?

As for Troy, I still feel I liked Helen of Troy better. I have no idea if it was any more accurate, but it felt a lot less like a mindless action movie.

[Badass Buddha]

I haven't seen Alexander since it came out, so maybe you're right, but what sticks out in my mind is an arial shot of the two armies where opposite the Macedonians phalanxes is a massive horde of Persians where no distinct units could be seen. They did look better close up though.

As for black people in 300, the first messenger is black, as is the messenger they send to the Ephors. While I doubt the racism was intentional, that it how it comes off to me. I am also not denying that many Hollywood portrayals of English people are racist as hell, an example being Montgomery's depiction in Patton.

[Phalanx300]

I haven't seen Alexander since it came out, so maybe you're right, but what sticks out in my mind is an arial shot of the two armies where opposite the Macedonians phalanxes is a massive horde of Persians where no distinct units could be seen. They did look better close up though.

As for black people in 300, the first messenger is black, as is the messenger they send to the Ephors. While I doubt the racism was intentional, that it how it comes off to me. I am also not denying that many Hollywood portrayals of English people are racist as hell, an example being Montgomery's depiction in Patton.

300 Racist? Just because there are black actors in it? That very thought is more racist then the movie...

The Helots of Sparta were treated much worse than the average slave of the day, they were routinely terrorised buy the Spatan citzens to keep them in line.

For example, an advanced part of the Spartan military training (the Krypteia) involved state sanctioned murder of them.

The Helots had it far better then most slaves. Being able to keep 50% of what you produce and to own. To form and live with familly. The Krypteia came there when the Messenian Helots revolted and almost destroyed Sparta, after that the Spartans started to redicule (Messenian?)Helots and to kill those thought to be a problem.

[Andronikos]

So were you expecting A Knight's Tale to be historical before or after the peasants started singing We Will Rock You?

As for Troy, I still feel I liked Helen of Troy better. I have no idea if it was any more accurate, but it felt a lot less like a mindless action movie.

A Knight's Tale: LOL

Helen of Troy: you mean that one where Achilles was a bad guy and Helen was raped by Agamemnon in the end?
I didn't like any of them, actually I would like to see a good movie based on most accurate mythology as possible, either Greek or Arthurian legends or whatever. And after what I heard and read about the new Clash of the Titans I would avoid it.

[Mulceber]

Define "truth".[/INDENT]

Hence why I added "or at least as close to the truth as it's possible to get." I would argue that there is a concrete reality, but it is impossible for humans to know it because our senses and/or the faculties we use to process sensations are clouded by our ideology and our perception of the way we think things "should be." Thus, all opinions are going to be inherently inaccurrate. However, there's a difference between accidentally being biased while in pursuit of truth and willfully presenting something one knows to be false in the interest of "evening the score." -M