What constitutes a historical inaccuracy in films? (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

Likewise, I always find myself enthralled with John Boorman's Excalibur, even though I'm aware that the sixteenth century knights prance about in medieval dress armor. Thus I must agrue against Andrew's second point, "Things like costumes where you may as well get it right since it can have no effect on the comprehension of people who don't know but a major effect on those who do."

Except that "Excalibur" is based on a legend, not any sort of history, so you can take dramatic licence to it. Sometime, it annoys me more than others ("A Knight's Tale"), but it is their right.

My main problem with historical films is often, that is all the exposure that most people are going to get for that era. I do think the filmmaker does have a responsibility to try to get things as right as possible. I understand sometimes the need to take dramatic liberties sometimes, but to tear things apart and make things look completely different from accepted history is just wrong.

Jason

 

[Garrett Lundy]

John Boorman's Excalibur, even though I'm aware that the sixteenth century knights prance about in medieval dress armor

Sixteenth century? Last I heard the legend of Arthur, saxon king of Brittania was closer to Fifth century C.E. Of course the dress armour and costumes would Still be wrong...

 

[Julian Reville]

Interesting stuff.

But what happens when the advertising for a movie emphasizes Based On A True Story!, and the film is about something controversial or inflammatory? A proportion of the population will believe the film is telling the absolute truth, some because they WANT to believe it.

Should this director or producer be held to a higher or even an absolute standard?

I think a distinction might be made between the consequences of inaccuracies in say: Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey vs Amistad.

 

[Dave Hahn]

Jason, you said:

The total labor force consisted of about 68,000 Allied POWs and 200,000 Asian laborers. The combined death toll was around 96,000, of which 18,000 were Allied POWs. Consider for just a moment how these human beings died, where they died and, above all, why they died."

Both of my quotes come from here: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/filmnotes/bridgekwai.html

The History Channel runs a documentary, The Real Bridge of the River Kwai every now and then. Perhaps you'd find it interesting.

Lastly, for those who choose not to believe, King Arthur is indeed a legend. However, for this discussion, the film Excalibur is based on real historical sources and is inacurate to it's reference material. These include, but are not limited to: Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain and Sir Thomas Malory's 15th century work, Le Morte d'Arthur. Further interesting stuff on King Arthur can be found at: http://www.britannia.com/history/arthur/kapopular.html

 

[Seth--L]

David Baranyi,

eh.

 

[DeeF]

I'm capable of understanding the subjectivity of most films. History itself isn't made up of complete facts, but only those facts chosen to represent the author/historian's objective. Many other facts are left out, and could disprove or at least illuminate further the central premise. In this way, history could be seen as personal/subjective, in every case.

Here's an interesting example of a "fact" of history that isn't a fact at all, and isn't explained, and it is part of a movie which prided itself on historical accuracy: Titanic.

In the movie, Rose is returning from Europe, having acquired a lot of "modern" art pieces, paintings by Picasso, Matisse, etc. There is a conversation about Picasso. The paintings are shown in the water, sinking to the bottom of the ocean. And yet, the paintings shown in the movie were painted at different times, and all exist today. It's a foolish choice, even for artistic reasons.

 

[David Baranyi]

David Baranyi,

eh.

While "pauper" is not a term that is often used in daily English, you should at least try to spell the word correctly. After all, I thought you are saying that Mozart is close to being an opium addict, which he is not!

Anyway, while we see historical movies as pieces of fiction work, what about altering or omitting certain things from history because they are deemed "controversial" or "politically incorrect"?

There are elements in history that people would like not to remember or find offensive, but it would be dishonest of us to simply deny they exist by censoring them. It would be historically dishonest to make a black or white issue of any war, as like most things there are shades of gray.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Is Bridge actually based on a historical event, tho?

Yes, very loosely. More specifically, based on a novel by a Frenchman (Pierre Boulle).

Amadeus is historically somewhat inaccurate (e.g. it's utterly unfair about Constanza and Salieri), but I thought it was deliberately over-the-top. I find it a virtue rather than a curse.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Except that they trashed what was known of history. I still have friends that will never watch that film again because of the historical inaccuracies.

They're missing out on a pretty good movie.

As long as filmmakers readily admit they do things for dramatic purposes (Mel Gibson readily admits all of this on the commentary for Braveheart, an example being the principle of prima noctra, which doesn't even really exist), then I have no problems with historical inaccuracies portrayed in films.

It's when they feel that their art supercedes historical study (eg. Gladiator director Ripley Scott defends the historical inaccuracy in his film by stating that historians don't know anything either because they didn't live in the period.) is where I have a problem.

 

[Lew Crippen]

It's when they feel that their art supercedes historical study (eg. Gladiator director Ripley Scott defends the historical inaccuracy in his film by stating that historians don't know anything either because they didn't live in the period.) is where I have a problem.

If nothing else, you have provided my dose of humor for the day—thanks, Dome.

 

[TheLongshot]

They're missing out on a pretty good movie.

Not to them. It takes them right out of the movie. It is the same thing with my father and "Top Gun". Sure, it is cheeseball, but he's still upset that they couldn't get the medals right on the uniforms. Everyone has their pet peeves in films from their personal experience.

Jason

 

[Tino]

In regard to the earlier question about whether the family of an officer sued the makers of Titanic.

In the film, First officer William Murdoch is shown shooting a passenger and then committing suicide,. Many thought Cameron invented this scene and became outraged.

In reality, there were a few eyewitnesses to this event and it is detailed in The Making Of Titanic, Walter Lord's The Night Lives On, and The Complete Titanic.

Understandably, Mr. Murdochs family was upset, so 20th Century Fox made a donation to the high school in his hometown in Scotland to "appease" the family's distress. No lawsuits were fled and no apologies were made.

As to Titanics historical accuracy, apart from the fictional love story and its characters, it is the most accurate portrayal of the Titanic sinking ever filmed.

 

[Nick_Scott]

I was pretty happy with the way Black Hawk Down turned out.

Pretty much all the scenes happened just as described in the book, and most of the characters were as I imagined.

But, that probobly doesnt make it historically accurate since the movie was only based on parts of the book, and the book itself was based on interviews by soldiers and now historians.

Same for "We were soldiers". I also read the book first, and the movie seemed pretty accurate... (even it seemed a little... cliched).

I might be naive, but whenever a war movie says "based on true events", I always seem to enjoy it much more since its easier to imagine myself in the situation, and find the events plausable.

Nick

 

[MarkHastings]

Nick,

During the Black Hawk Down commentary, they mention how there were so many characters and stories that it would be confusing (to the audience) to do them all so they had to incorporate the characteristics of many people into 1 character.

Also, in the Apollo 13 commentary, they talk about how of the stuff was 'embellished' to make the movie more dramatic. Unfortunately directors have to hype of some of the material to make it interesting for an audience to sit through. This would also include shortening time frames before incidents and rearranging events slightly to work within a movies time line and structure.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Same for "We were soldiers". I also read the book first, and the movie seemed pretty accurate...

Not including the scenery. With the ever-present pine and oak trees in "vietnam" I wouldn't have been suprised if the vietnamese secret base-camp was located in a Chevron station.

 

[DaveGTP]

It's when they feel that their art supercedes historical study (eg. Gladiator director Ripley Scott defends the historical inaccuracy in his film by stating that historians don't know anything either because they didn't live in the period.) is where I have a problem.

That was funny stuff. Amusing. I like Braveheart a lot, but I don't like the inaccuracies. I hate seeing history distorted. I won't start in on Disney *cough Pocahantas caugh*.

 

[Seth--L]

I don't think anything quite tops the failed Disney America theme park, where you could "experience slavery."

 

[MarkHastings]

I don't think anything quite tops the failed Disney America theme park, where you could "experience slavery."

Although the experience of being "robbed and raped" seem to be doing well in all of their theme parks.

 

[david stark]

In regard to the earlier question about whether the family of an officer sued the makers of Titanic.

In the film, First officer William Murdoch is shown shooting a passenger and then committing suicide,. Many thought Cameron invented this scene and became outraged.

In reality, there were a few eyewitnesses to this event and it is detailed in The Making Of Titanic, Walter Lord's The Night Lives On, and The Complete Titanic.

Understandably, Mr. Murdochs family was upset, so 20th Century Fox made a donation to the high school in his hometown in Scotland to "appease" the family's distress. No lawsuits were fled and no apologies were made.

cheers for that, I remember stuff getting kicked up in the media about it, but couldn't remember if anything concrete ever came of it.

 

[Stephen_Dar]

Consider The Perfect Storm. The film sold itself to the unprepared like myself as "based on real events," and I think probably used even stronger language somewhere along the line to suggest that this was the story of one particular fishing boat. In fact, the story of the fishing boat in the movie was about 98% "fiction" in the sense that none of those events happened to the fishing boat. No one knows what happened to the fishing boat since all hands were lost with her. The events in the film were mostly events that other fishermen hanging around that port told the author of the book long after the boat was gone, tall stories, hearsay about friends and friends of friends who worked on fishing boats over the years. That struck me as an unacceptable approach to film making, I must say. I'm willing to give license, but they violated reasonableness in my book.

I think Braveheart was relatively accurate. I say relatively - look at the essential elements he didn't change. He showed Wallace betrayed by the famous Robert the Bruce, a Scots national hero, which apparently is true. He showed the betrayal destroying Wallace's army, and he showed Wallace being captured and dissected. A few decades ago, those things would probably never have made it to the final cut of a film about a larger than life hero.