# Historical inaccuracies...



## Pyan (Feb 27, 2008)

Further to a couple of posts in the Oscars thread:

How important is historical accuracy to you in a film? Does getting the small details wrong spoil the film in any way for you? Or does the sweep of a good story make errors in factual details unimportant?


----------



## jenna (Feb 27, 2008)

I'm a history nerd, so I can't help but "pffffft" at inaccuracies. They do bug me when they're really glaring or downright insulting...


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 27, 2008)

Depends what the film is attempting to do. Private Ryan for example, so much was done well, the odd gaff was alright. Then you view that stupid sub movie where Amercians captured the codes from the Germans - Yeah lets just re-write history. That bugs me big time. Even the British Gov spat the dummy about that


----------



## Joel007 (Feb 27, 2008)

If the inaccuracies are due to bad research or laziness, then I get annoyed. 
Some inaccuracies are inevitable though, such as those details which do not add to the film, or are not appropriate. I'd also understand those which would have required a significantly larger budget, or those deliberately altered through "artistic licence".


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 27, 2008)

Joel007 said:


> If the inaccuracies are due to bad research or laziness, then I get annoyed.
> Some inaccuracies are inevitable though, such as those details which do not add to the film, or are not appropriate. I'd also understand those which would have required a significantly larger budget, or those deliberately altered through "artistic licence".


 
Thats a good point you raise - Tora Tora producers realised they could not get ships to look right - so rather than try an muck around with models and stuff - Just filmed on modern warships that although inaccurate, helped the tone of the film no end


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 27, 2008)

Most inaccuracies I can put up with but, as MG 1962 says, a complete rewrite is just infuriating - in fact - it's historical theft as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## The Ace (Feb 27, 2008)

I hate it when history is adapted to its target audience, like U-571.  That's even worse than when the film-makers can't do their research.


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 27, 2008)

The Ace said:


> I hate it when history is adapted to its target audience, like U-571. That's even worse than when the film-makers can't do their research.


 
I agree. It also creates the problem that people get confused between history and fiction. We could end up in a world where what really happened and what Hollywood _said _happened get all tangled up and hardly anybody knows the truth anymore. There are already people who think that Winston Churchill was a work of hollywood.


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 27, 2008)

The Ace said:


> I hate it when history is adapted to its target audience, like U-571. That's even worse than when the film-makers can't do their research.


 

Yes yes, thats the pathetic film I was trying to think of. One momment that was simply hilarious. The American crew capture a german sub, just as a german destroyer turns up. Realising they cant allow the German ship to communicate the location of the sub, the crew man the deck gun, and hit the destroyers radio mast with their first shot.

If guns are that easy to use, why do gun crews spend hundreds of hours drilling with their weapons?


----------



## Connavar (Feb 27, 2008)

I can stand historical inaccuracy when its not too clear, in your face and so stupid that it makes you angry or annoyed.

If it doesnt hurt the story its alright.  Like 300 despite comic movie, you know every spartan didnt look like Gerard Butler and co or went to war half naked but you didnt care cause it didnt hurt the movie too much.


Taking an example from this thread there are way too many movies like U-571 that you cant accept the change in history.


----------



## Urien (Feb 27, 2008)

Yes the sub film was just offensive. It deliberately changed history. I imagine Americans would find a film that blatantly offered as historical fact the British taking of Iwo Jima equally offensive.

Speaking of which I did hear rumours of Tom Cruise as an American pilot in the Battle of Britain. That had enormous potential to offend.


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 28, 2008)

I may be corrected, but wasnt there a squadron of American airmen formed in Britian before the US entry into the war?


----------



## Quokka (Feb 28, 2008)

I think a lot of it depends on how the movie is portraying itself, I mean 300 is a movie based on a graphic novel inspired by real events from 2,500 years ago, so any links to actual events is really just a bonus (as long as they didn't have the Spartans miraculously wining the war). 

Whereas movies like Braveheart or U-571 where there is a realistic expectation that people are going to believe what they see I think tread a fine line between being disappointing as a movie to being outright defamatory. 

As others have said some inaccuarcies can be well justified _The story of the Kelly Gang (1906_) is a silent B&W movie filmed in Australia where the producers openly stated that the police were depicted in the film wearing uniforms when they certainly wouldn't have done in real life but they felt it was needed so the audience could distinguish who was who.

I think another big issue is biographies where you're actually giving a personality and character to people often in situations where you can't know the truth. In the end it's entertainment but doing it right certainly requires a lot of skill.


----------



## Culhwch (Feb 28, 2008)

To go entirely against the majority here, I don't mind a bit - or a lot - of historical inaccuracy in films. If I want facts I'll read non-fiction or watch a documentary (though even that can be a dicey, one-sided view). If I want to be entertained, I'll watch a movie. If the subject matter interests me enough then I'll do further research, and if that shows up glaring inconsistencies, well, so be it. That's the movie business. I know there are some people who will take what they see Tom Cruise or Russell Crowe or Mel Gibson doing on the big screen as factual history, and that's worrying, yes, but there's not a lot I can do about it. If a film purports to be exactly true to events and isn't, then that's a bit dodgy, but I've never once seem a film claim anything approaching that kind of fidelity...


----------



## Culhwch (Feb 28, 2008)

MG1962 said:


> I may be corrected, but wasnt there a squadron of American airmen formed in Britian before the US entry into the war?


 
Well, that is certainly what the esteemed historiographer Michael Bay led me to believe in his marvelous true-to-life account of the bombing of Pearl Harbour...


----------



## Urien (Feb 28, 2008)

Yes I think there were some Americans who signed up (via Canada I think). 

Nevertheless the prospect of "Tom Cruise and the Battle of Britain" failed to fill me with anticipatory joy.


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 28, 2008)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Yes I think there were some Americans who signed up (via Canada I think).
> 
> Nevertheless the prospect of "Tom Cruise and the Battle of Britain" failed to fill me with anticipatory joy.


 
Yes days of blunder - seems a title apt for the level of performance one has come to expect from the human bar stool


----------



## High Eight (Feb 28, 2008)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Yes I think there were some Americans who signed up (via Canada I think).


 
_Slight hijack_

There were. The most famous of them wrote this:

_*High Flight*_
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth 
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; 
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth 
of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things 
You have not dreamed of—wheeled and soared and swung 
High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there, 
I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung 
My eager craft through footless halls of air.... 
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue 
I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace 
Where never lark nor even eagle flew— 
And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod 
The high untrespassed sanctity of space, 
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God. 

at the age of eighteen before being killed in a flying accident less than a year later. (John Gillespie Magee, Jnr - his story here: John Gillespie Magee, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

_End hijack._


----------



## The Ace (Feb 28, 2008)

Yes, MG 1962, during the 'Battle of Britain,' American volunteers were formed into the three 'Eagle Squadrons.'  They were absorbed by the 8th AF  when it arrived in the UK in 1942.


----------



## MG1962 (Feb 28, 2008)

The Ace said:


> Yes, MG 1962, during the 'Battle of Britain,' American volunteers were formed into the three 'Eagle Squadrons.' They were absorbed by the 8th AF when it arrived in the UK in 1942.


 
I think there were also a lot of guys flying the bombers across the Atlantic from Canadian Airfields. I recently saw the Errol Flynn movie "Dive Bombers" And a couple of characters who were downchecked for fighter duty resigned their commisson and went and became bus drivers for a $100.00 a flight lol


----------



## Connavar (Feb 28, 2008)

Quokka said:


> I think a lot of it depends on how the movie is portraying itself, I mean 300 is a movie based on a graphic novel inspired by real events from 2,500 years ago, so any links to actual events is really just a bonus (as long as they didn't have the Spartans miraculously wining the war).
> 
> Whereas movies like Braveheart or U-571 where there is a realistic expectation that people are going to believe what they see I think tread a fine line between being disappointing as a movie to being outright defamatory.
> 
> ...




Im lucky about Braveheart, i didnt know anything about William Wallace when i saw the movie.  I saw a bio documentary about him years after the movie.  I thought the real version was more interesting.   Despite i enjoy Mel's version and Braveheart is one my favorit movies of that genre.

I suspect i wouldnt be a big fav if i saw it today for the first time 

What is sad is that there is a statue of Mel's Wallace instead of the real one today in wherever the really one was from.  Talk about selling your history for cash.....

I saw it in vacation pics of brit friends in a Gemmell forum.


----------



## The Ace (Feb 28, 2008)

Yes, Elderslie in Renfrewshire (nowhere near the Highlands) all 3 pubs there are named after him. There's still the Wallace Monument at Stirling, though.


----------



## Connavar (Feb 28, 2008)

The Ace said:


> Yes, Elderslie in Renfrewshire (nowhere near the Highlands) all 3 pubs there are named after him. There's still the Wallace Monument at Stirling, though.



Monument for the real Wallace, good to know.

That statue offended me, i cant think how it would offend a scotsman.

I wonder if people protested against it or something.


----------



## The Ace (Feb 28, 2008)

No, we're too busy laughing.  After the film, people began to visit the place (it's only about 10 miles outside Glasgow) tourists visit Elderslie from all over the world now and business is booming.


----------



## mightymem (Feb 29, 2008)

For me if the film is good I can usually ignore the inaccuracies, although I must admit to find them annoying. I rarely watch a history film and believe it outright, I always research the issue after wards. Sometimes the directors are usually trying to make a point and can be forgiven if the message is good.


----------



## Pyan (Feb 29, 2008)

it wasn't so much the general messages, or the directors's interpretation of the original books I was thinking of, though....more wondering if people noticed things such as ship cannon with practically no recoil, or Roman cavalry with stirrups....the little things that might detract from the enjoyment of the film.


----------



## Quokka (Feb 29, 2008)

I won't usually know enough about the historical setting to notice so it's less the historical inaccuracies and more the logical ones that bug me. Like in _300 *spoiler*_where they built a wall of corpses, waited behind it until one person was standing in front of it, pushed it on top of them and then climbed over the corpses to fight an enemy who was still standing on solid ground.


----------



## Parson (Feb 29, 2008)

I liked Braveheart a lot. But when I looked up William Wallace I was shocked at the number and the magnitude of the license they took with the story. Where can you draw the line. I can accept a little latitude with the story but I thought Braveheart went completely over the top, once I knew the true story. 

But I will still watch it on TV occaisionally. So I suppose in some people's eyes that makes it all right. Not in mine.


----------



## Rosemary (Feb 29, 2008)

I rarely watch movies, rather read the books.  I did watch Braveheart though and didn't enjoy it at all.  So much of the real story was omitted and the acting seemed pathetic.

I love reading historical fiction but I do hate it when there is an inaccuracy.  Haven't these authors researched for facts?  It's certainly what I would do.

I believe that one author had more naval books in his study to look through than the Admiral of the fleet had


----------

