Should period piece movies be kept true to the era? (1 Viewer)

[andrew markworthy]

As Jonathan has correctly pointed out, this only applies to some epochs, but although teeth might have been white, they would also have been crooked, etc. However, this was meant as one of a set of comments. There's no disputing that there would be more people with limps, deformities, etc (plus appalling body odour).

Something we forget today is how many people had appalling pock-marked skin as an aftermath of smallpox. A neat study a few years ago looked at the adverts in 18th century newspapers appealing for information about runaway slaves (to our shame, the UK had domestic slaves in the 18th century), servants, apprentices, etc. If I remember correctly, roughly 1 in 20 (it may have been higher) were described as having seriously pockmarked skin. Since smallpox struck indiscrimnantly across classes, this means that a noticeable proportion of the population had really ugly complexions. Incidentally, this may explain why there are so many English folk songs praising the beauty of milkmaids. Since those working in the dairy industry rarely got smallpox (since they usually caught the far less harmful cowpox, which was sufficiently close to the smallpox virus to offer double immunity) they would almost always have rather better skins than average. [And if you want a really obscure piece of trivia, Jenner - who first nailed the science behind innoculation against smallpox - did not become a member of the Royal Society for his work in the field. Indeed, people tried to have his membership revoked because they thought the idea of innoculation was insane. In fact Jenner first became a member of the RS for discovering that the cuckoo was a distinct species; until that time scientists thought it was a mutation that could occur in any bird species].

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Andrew - Tell me more. You're a wealth of information. Fascinating. Thank you.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

There was a vaguely disparaging comment about Monty not achieving his objectives. This is historically correct - the British did not advance as much as they were supposed to; not taking Caen due to heavy resistance and being repulsed at Villers Bocage, despite having an easier time at their landings than the US did at Omaha and Utah. Montgomery did claim in later years that his overall plan was to effect a defensive strategy, but it could easily be seen by the film's American GI's as something to be disparaged given the importance of Caen to the advance and the hell that was Omaha for these characters. There were no non-American allies in sight because each ally had specific locations and objectives and their paths were not to cross for weeks. This is a silly critique of SPR and while understandable given the mess that was "U-571", it is not founded in historical fact.

 

[Jon Mahoney]

Doesn't U-571 at the end basically say that it was a tribute to those, especially the British, that captured the original Enigma machine?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

It recaps the actual capture of Enigmas and codebooks, giving just due to the Poles, British and an American destroyer.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Andrew,
As you probably already know, disparaging remarks constantly went back and forth between the allies during those years and most likely, anytime a war was fought with different countries aligned with and against each other. Hell, within the American forces, they always made disparaging remarks about each other. Army versus Marines and Army Airforce versus the Navy being examples. Through alliances comes rivalries and from such rivalries comes a certain amount of in-fighting, not much different then what happens among close friends and family.

In short, what an American soldier said about the Brits in SPR should be taken in the proper context of the film and not as an indictment against the British Commonwealth and their important role in winning WWII.

 

[todd s]

I only think that about the French. (just kidding)

Seriously, thanks for the other info it was interesting. This has me thinking about "Gangs of New York". With all of the craziness that happened back then. It is surprising NY survived.

 

[Zen Butler]

Exactly, and I would support the statement.

About the time Amadeus came out, I was studying classical(now "serious") music in college. At the time I loved picking apart the inaccuracies. I so enjoyed the film though, that I had to suspend this invasive, somewhat pretentious snobbery.
Also a factor, and more of a crime, was when I eliminated the fluff from the biographies that were assigned by my professor, I wasn't left with a lot of hard facts. Books considered non-fiction can be just as fluffy as these "inaccurate" films. Hailed too!

 

[Nathan V]

As far as brutal historical realities, I would suggest Scorsese's Gangs of New York and Mel Gibson's Passion as two of the best recent examples.

 

[Jean D]

There was no Floss either, and there was plenty of alcohol, and citric acids (which eat away at enamel)

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Perhaps, but wasn't citrus pretty much American and far too expensive for most people in Europe? How were the Seminole's teeth?

 

[Brian Thibodeau]

GANGS at least deals with provable, independently verified brutal historical realities, although I'm sure artistic license was taken. That other film, only parts of it can be historically verified. Some would argue it's based on fact, others would argue its based on mythology. The director was free to interpret it in the way that most mattered to him. Doubtless, there was some truth to the actual technical process undertaken.

 

[DaveButcher]

And it took HUGE amounts of "artistic license", I was so looking forward to that movie when it was announced. I still think it was among the worst movies that came out that year, as it was a chance to make a movie about a time period that's pretty much ignored, and they couldn't help but fall into the trap of "well, most people won't know the truth from fiction, so why should we care".

The trouble is, that it's a period that doesn't have to be changed.

BTW it's great book, I highly recommend it.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Ah, Amadeus. Great film. I recently revisited it on the big screen, and what an experience. A most astonishing story of jealosy, hatred and envy destroying a man, as well as being a celebration of the greatest music ever written.
It's just a shame that many people assume it's true. It's not, I want to yell. it's a fictional story about real people.

 

[Kevin M]

...umm..it would help.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Nope - lemons originated in India and oranges in China, and both crops were being widely grown in Mediterranean countries by the 13th century. Both fruits were introduced to America by European colonists/invaders.

Doubtful too if they were too expensive. Certainly not in the Mediterranean and it's doubtful if they were fabulously expensive in more northern countries (though not cheap enough to be part of daily cuisine) - trade and communication between countries was far more frequent and efficient than many people realise.

In any case, although fruit acid can rot teeth (let's not forget apples in all this), refined sugar is a far more effective remover of enamel. The fact remains that if we look at the teeth in bodies disinterred from past centuries, in historical periods where there's no refined sugar, teeth are considerably better. It's a mistake to think that there would be *no* tooth decay, but it would be far less.

This isn't the only instance where diet and living conditions have had different effects in the past. E.g. most people think that everyone was shorter in the past. Not so. Take the case of Brits. Whilst it's true that in Victorian times people were shorter, in e.g. Saxon times, they were not far off modern averages. It depends on diet and living conditions. A similar thing can be seen in Japan at the moment - the younger generations are on average taller and fatter than their parents because of a shift to a more western diet.

I