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

[Dan Rudolph]

How about Brotherhood of the Wolf? My understanding that pretty much everything that's verifiable, which is to say most everything up until Grégoire starts investigating in an unofficial capacity, is true. After that, it's made up, but it's not like there would have been any records of that anyway. Or am I off on this?

 

[Ralph Summa]

I'm lenient when it comes to films that portray events of which no reliable records remain. For example, I can accept the fictional constructs in Braveheart because so little is known about the real William Wallace.

Right, and I think everyone is reasonably sure that William Wallace did not father an heir to the British throne. It was a good storyline though.

One thing I did find interesting was the portrayal of the Battle of Sterling in which the Scottish routed the English. The battle is historically known as the Battle of Sterling Bridge. Historians state the only reason that the Scottish won this battle was because the English army was trapped on the bridge. The battle we see in Braveheart takes place in a wide open field, which is much better suited for the 2.35.1 aspect ratio. Bridges are so 4:3!

Ralph

 

[MarkHastings]

Bridges are so 4:3!

You've obviously never seen the Tappan Zee Bridge

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Or the Golden Gate....

 

[andrew markworthy]

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.

The Bruce betrayal is hotly disputed.

According to the reliable historical records, either Bruce fought on Wallace's side at Falkirk, or he was never near the battle. He was *not* on the English side.

The 'dissection' (aka being hanged drawn and quartered) was standard punishment for hundreds of years for traitors. Wallace was just as brutal.

A major mistake is to assume that Wallace (and Bruce et al) had a vision of a free Scotland in which there would be democracy as we understand it. This is laughably simplistic. For the average citizen, life would be equally nasty, brutish and short no matter who the leader was('meet the new boss, same as the old boss').

Oh yes, and Edward II outlived Wallace by a couple of years, and the idea that Wallace and Isabella would have started an affair is laughable. As well as distinctly dubious, since she would at most have been 14 years old.

And ... oh that's enough. The film is historically inaccurate.

 

[Chris Farmer]

For me how much historical inaccuracies bother me it depends on two things. First, the tone of the movie. A serious movie that intends to dramatize the real past needs to stick as close to reality as possible. This is why the inaccuracies in Amadeus bothered me, and Braveheart didn't. Amadeus was from the first an intent to show that Mozart was murdered by Saleiri, even the tagline says that. Braveheart had a more mythological feel to it, almost like a Superman of mid-evil times (a feelign that is heightened by the legends of his exploits told over shots of Wallace on top of the mountains). Amadeus set out to tell what happened, Braveheart set out to tell you of a person. In Amadeus, the events were the point, and the people got you there, in Braveheart, the people (especially Wallace) were the point, the events were just there to create them. So inaccuracies there don't get to me. U 571 is another bad one in this case, it sets out to tell what happened, or at least give a decent idea, then changes the nationality of the key players.

Second is portraying real people drastically different then they are in real life. The aforementioned mess ups in Amadeus come to mind with Mozart's tom foolery and Saleiri's mediocrity. If you need a character that acts a certain way and no real ones suffice, make one up. Don't make a mockery of the real people by making them fit your mold. This is somethign The Patriot did well, it didn't have any real people that could act out Mel Gibson's part, so they invented one.

Two movies by Ridley Scott perfectly highlight the differences. Gladiator is not a historical biopic, it's a completely fictional story told in a real world setting. They key players were all fictional. Gaffs in battle sequences to allow for a better movie are excusable (such as many think thumbs-up actually meant death, down meant you lived, or fire arrows that were more easily lit). Black Hawk Down on the other hand was intended to be as accurate as possible and a bare minimum was changed. Characters and plot lines were condensed out of necessity, but only when absolutely necessary. That, in my mind, is how you deal with history.

Basically, for me, when you use real people you need to keep them who they really were, and if you try to show events as what happened, then yo better try to stay as close to reality as possible. Otherwise change the tone of your movie so people don't look to it for accuracy.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Gladiator is not a historical biopic, it's a completely fictional story told in a real world setting. They key players were all fictional.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Were Marcus Aurelius and Commodus real people? Oops, my bad. :b

 

[Seth--L]

I'm split on this issue.

On one hand I really don't care about historical fiction in films since a narrative film isn't about depicting an historical event as it truthfully unfolded. But than again, quite a few people do treat movies as history class, and since directors know this, would it really hurt the film if some kind of disclaimer was included?

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I've also heard somewhere that Commodus was a competant fighter.

 

[andrew markworthy]

The lead characters in Gladiator were real people (including many of the gladiators). What happened to them in the movie was almost total fiction

 

[Yee-Ming]

IIRC, whilst Commodus did enter the gladiatorial ring and successfully fought several bouts, as a friend of mine put it, as his opponent, you wouldn't exactly go all out to kill the Emperor, would you?

Commodus was also a bit of a nutcase, renaming the months after himself and family. And other assorted mayhem, details of which escape me right now.

 

[MarkHastings]

I think the really popular Gladiators didn't even fight as often as the movie leads you to believe.

 

[John_Berger]

I think the really popular Gladiators didn't even fight as often as the movie leads you to believe.

If I recall correctly, actual gladiators did not appear that often as most of the entertainment was between criminals and either animals or other criminals. Many gladiators were held in very high regard and were considered to be the equivalent of our sports legends, complete with pensions.

I found this to be an interesting read.

 

[Seth--L]

Aren't there also claims now that people were rarely actually killed in gladiator fights?

 

[andrew markworthy]

Aren't there also claims now that people were rarely actually killed in gladiator fights?

Seth, like what the thumbs down originally meant, we now don't know. However, it's conjectured that in fights amongst the top ranking gladiators, death was rare. Certainly if the person presiding over the games ordered the death of a popular defeated gladiator, he could make himself very unpopular (there's a remark about it somewhere in Suetonius's Twelve Emperors I think), so it seems unlikely that competent gladiators were killed often if they were simply disarmed or trapped by an opponent. However, the evidence is conjectural. It seems likely though that combat between 'lesser' fighters was always to the death.

 

[John Watson]

there was a hungry cannibal who met a missionary. I hear he was glad he ate her

Back to topic, someone has said that "fiction makes it real"

An old history book I am currently reading has a quote on the front page from Cicero

"Not to know the events which happened before one was born, that is to remain a boy"

BTW, in the interests of accuracy Cicero did not speak English .

 

[John_Berger]

And his name wasn't pronounced "Sisero" either, as every one calls him.

 

[MarkHastings]

I hear he was glad he ate her

Isn't that a porno?

 

[Greg O' Connel]

I doubt Commodus was killed in the gladiator ring.

He was strangled to death by a wrestler who was hired to kill him by his advisors. The movie got the part about him not being a popular guy right.