History vs Cinema

[Star-child]

Historical media? The point of criticism here is that the examples discussed here do not present historical media while pretending to do so.

They don't pretend to do so. They say quite clearly "based on true events" right at the beginning of the film. This discussion is a red herring. No Hollywood producer claims anything is 100% accurate and no sensible viewer has cause to think it may be. We can't construct a society around the insensible members.

 

[olive]

They don't pretend to do so. They say quite clearly "based on true events" right at the beginning of the film. This discussion is a red herring. No Hollywood producer claims anything is 100% accurate and no sensible viewer has cause to think it may be. We can't construct a society around the insensible members.

Yes, they do. If you take a historical figure that actually exists and write a made up story with it on an existing conflict, you are exactly pretending to do that. There is no need for a claim. Especially, in an era when people cannot reach information with a few buttons, actually even better manipulated then but is not our subject. Do you understand the difference between 1995 and 2010 in this context?

This is not a discussion. It's not even clear what are you defending. Your reaction to the general criticism in the thread is 'these movies do not pose a threat or danger because nobody attacks each other as a result in real life' ? So this thread is confusing historical fiction with history'. ? 'Lessons in history' ? 'Wikipedia to understand the difference between fiction and reality' ???!!! What are you talking about?

"...no sensible viewer has cause to think it may be. We can't construct a society around the insensible members."

This is wishful thinking, a prayer... whatever you call it. Societies or people do not work that way. Sensible people?

 

[Star-child]

Yes, they do. If you take a historical figure that actually exists and write a made up story with it on an existing conflict, you are exactly pretending to do that. There is no need for a claim. Especially, in an era when people cannot reach information with a few buttons, actually even better manipulated then but is not our subject. Do you understand the difference between 1995 and 2010 in this context?

This is not a discussion. It's not even clear what are you defending. Your reaction to the general criticism in the thread is 'these movies do not pose a threat or danger because nobody attacks each other as a result in real life' ? So this thread is confusing historical fiction with history'. ? 'Lessons in history' ? 'Wikipedia to understand the difference between fiction and reality' ???!!! What are you talking about?

"...no sensible viewer has cause to think it may be. We can't construct a society around the insensible members."

This is wishful thinking, a prayer... whatever you call it. Societies or people do not work that way. Sensible people?

I just don't follow what you think the dangers are, here.

Does Terry Gilliam's Baron Munchausen cause audiences to have beliefs that are damaging to society?


According to a lot of people (but almost no scientists) exposure to porn, firearms and heavy metal music will make people rapists, murderers or devil worshipers. What happens to people when they see a false affair William Wallace had with the Queen of England?

 

[BAYLOR]

I just don't follow what you think the dangers are, here.

Does Terry Gilliam's Baron Munchausen cause audiences to have beliefs that are damaging to society?


According to a lot of people (but almost no scientists) exposure to porn, firearms and heavy metal music will make people rapists, murderers or devil worshipers. What happens to people when they see a false affair William Wallace had with the Queen of England?

In the case of Baron Munchausen , he was known to be teller of tall tales.

 

[Foxbat]

A few years ago a new statue of William Wallace was erected in Scotland and it was the spitting image of Mel Gibson in Braveheart. If that's not distorting history, I don't know what is.

 

[CupofJoe]

That is one ugly statue...

 

[Star-child]

A few years ago a new statue of William Wallace was erected in Scotland and it was the spitting image of Mel Gibson in Braveheart. If that's not distorting history, I don't know what is.
View attachment 60542

The artist did that on purpose (Wallace's spirit coming through Mel), and it was rejected from it's planned Wallace Monument because of that.

But there are plenty of other Wallace depictions to choose from:

 

[Vladd67]

The artist did that on purpose (Wallace's spirit coming through Mel), and it was rejected from it's planned Wallace Monument because of that.

But there are plenty of other Wallace depictions to choose from:

Maybe James Cosmo should have played Wallace.

 

[Foxbat]

The artist did that on purpose (Wallace's spirit coming through Mel), and it was rejected from it's planned Wallace Monument because of that.

But there are plenty of other Wallace depictions to choose from:

Maybe so, but it doesn't change the fact that it was influenced detrimentally because of a cinematic depiction.

 

[svalbard]

I would advise avoiding both Hollywood and Wikipedia for historical accuracy. The former is great if you want entertainment and the latter can be useful in directing you in the right direction.

Braveheart, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Exodus,300 etc, whilst entertaining are full of holes. Oddly enough Stone's Alexander the Great(the Directors Cut) had a more firm grounding in historical accuracy although still well off. BTW I know it is a polarising movie but The Directors Cut is the only version of Alexander worth watching.

Going back further to the 50s and 60s Hollywood historical adaptions also had higher level of accuracy than the current offerings.

 

[CupofJoe]

I would advise avoiding both Hollywood and Wikipedia for historical accuracy. The former is great if you want entertainment and the latter can be useful in directing you in the right direction.
Braveheart, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Exodus,300 etc, whilst entertaining are full of holes. Oddly enough Stone's Alexander the Great(the Directors Cut) had a more firm grounding in historical accuracy although still well off. BTW I know it is a polarising movie but The Directors Cut is the only version of Alexander worth watching.

I agree.

Going back further to the 50s and 60s Hollywood historical adaptions also had higher level of accuracy than the current offerings.

Oh... I'd like proof of that
The Conqueror? The Vikings? Jason and the Argonauts? [any film with] Robin Hood...
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with these as films.
There might have been accurate historical films, but I feel that was the era of never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[svalbard]

Let us take the example of The Fall of the Roman Empire and Gladiator. Both dealing with the same period in history, roughly the same characters however one is closer to history whilst the other(Gladiator) is most definitely not.

 

[svalbard]

I agree.


Oh... I'd like proof of that
The Conqueror? The Vikings? Jason and the Argonauts? [any film with] Robin Hood...
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with these as films.
There might have been accurate historical films, but I feel that was the era of never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Are you questioning John Wayne's casting as Genghis Khan...surely not

 

[Venusian Broon]

I would advise avoiding both Hollywood and Wikipedia for historical accuracy. The former is great if you want entertainment and the latter can be useful in directing you in the right direction.

Braveheart, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Exodus,300 etc, whilst entertaining are full of holes. Oddly enough Stone's Alexander the Great(the Directors Cut) had a more firm grounding in historical accuracy although still well off. BTW I know it is a polarising movie but The Directors Cut is the only version of Alexander worth watching.

I think I prefer the 'Ultimate Directors Cut' but it might be the cut you are talking about. The official (1st) directors cut is somewhat shorter than the original, the ultimate, later re-cut, is much longer (I'm sure I have all three versions in my DVD collection.)

From my understanding it is pretty much based on Robin Lane Fox's book on Alexander the Great. (He was a consultant on the film and did take part in one of the battle scenes as one of Alexander's companions.) That's a good read too and he's not afraid of laying out the fact that there is a lot we just don't know, and of the stuff we do have a great deal is hagiography and uncertain.

Hence the issue with films that try to be true to history - there is a great deal of holes that have to be guessed at to fill in.

 

[Foxbat]

John Wayne: Truly he was the son of God...in full American accent. Hilarious and unforgettable.

 

[svalbard]

Yes. It is the Ultimate Director's cut I am talking about. Fox's book is superb and unflinching in it's view of Alexander.

 

[Toby Frost]

So John Wayne is on set and has to deliver his line. He sees the crucifixion and says "Truly, he was the son of God."

The director calls him over. "Your delivery's a bit flat, John," he says. "Do it again, but with more awe."

They roll the cameras again. John Wayne sees the crucifixion, takes a deep breath and says "Awwwww, truly he was the son of God."

Sorry.

 

[svalbard]

Apparently one of the great Movie Urban Legends.

 

[Star-child]

Maybe so, but it doesn't change the fact that it was influenced detrimentally because of a cinematic depiction.

Detrimental to whom? What is the detriment?

 

[svalbard]

Detrimental to whom? What is the detriment?

I suppose if you are Scottish you might have an issue with your National Hero being modelled on the likeness of someone who expressed questionable views on a number of subjects.