An interesting article here:
LONDON (Reuters) - Hollywood film studios are guilty of a "grotesque distortion of history" which is destroying Britain's national identity, a newspaper has quoted historians as saying.
The chief executive of English Heritage, the government body responsible for the historic environment, told the Independent on Sunday film-makers' "sloppy" and "formulaic" approach to history had left a generation of children confused.
"One of my principal concerns is that the majority of children now leave school with the sketchiest of chronology about English history," Simon Thurley said, adding that they turned to films for knowledge.
Antony Beevor, the country's best-selling author of popular history, told the newspaper the Americanisation of British history was a particular problem.
"You can't turn every hero in the world into an American," he said.
The historians singled out "Saving Private Ryan", based on the Normandy World War Two landings, "U-571" about submariners, and "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" as prime offenders.
In "Saving Private Ryan" all mention of British or Allied troops was omitted, while the British submariners at the heart of the real action were replaced by Americans in the film "U-571".
"Robin Hood" was accused of distorting of Britain's medieval past.
Beevor described the trend as "shameless and totally irresponsible -- a grotesque distortion of history".
Classical historian Bettany Hughes said it was not just British history that had been misrepresented.
"Hollywood has committed some terrible crimes against history," she said, describing the Hollywood epic "Troy" as a "travesty of mismatched cultural references".
"Dead heroes in Greco-Roman dress were cremated with coins on their eyes -- before money had been invented," she said.
Whilst I agree with some of it, I don't find the omission of British and Commonwealth troops in Saving Private Particularly offensive. After all, it was made by an American from an American point of view.
Is the Americanisation of other cultures now distorting our view of the past? How much of a mix should there be in films between entertainment and factual accuracy?
My own opinion is that (apart from the odd film - U571 ) it's not too bad at the moment but shouldn't be allowed to get any worse.
If we are not careful, we will create a bunch of Ersatz Hollywood heroes that will become indistinguishible from the real thing.
Here's an interesting point: The Battle Of Stirling as portrayed in Braveheart (a not exactly accurate film itself - best description - a Porridge Western) was nothing like as imaginative as the real thing. Wallace cut away at Stirling Bridge during the night, waited for the English cavalry to charge across in the morning and then pulled away the remaining supports - trapping the cavalry in the marsh on the Scots side. They were subsequently slaughtered. I think this would have made a far better set-piece on the Silver Screen.
Perhaps history has something to teach Hollywood after all
LONDON (Reuters) - Hollywood film studios are guilty of a "grotesque distortion of history" which is destroying Britain's national identity, a newspaper has quoted historians as saying.
The chief executive of English Heritage, the government body responsible for the historic environment, told the Independent on Sunday film-makers' "sloppy" and "formulaic" approach to history had left a generation of children confused.
"One of my principal concerns is that the majority of children now leave school with the sketchiest of chronology about English history," Simon Thurley said, adding that they turned to films for knowledge.
Antony Beevor, the country's best-selling author of popular history, told the newspaper the Americanisation of British history was a particular problem.
"You can't turn every hero in the world into an American," he said.
The historians singled out "Saving Private Ryan", based on the Normandy World War Two landings, "U-571" about submariners, and "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" as prime offenders.
In "Saving Private Ryan" all mention of British or Allied troops was omitted, while the British submariners at the heart of the real action were replaced by Americans in the film "U-571".
"Robin Hood" was accused of distorting of Britain's medieval past.
Beevor described the trend as "shameless and totally irresponsible -- a grotesque distortion of history".
Classical historian Bettany Hughes said it was not just British history that had been misrepresented.
"Hollywood has committed some terrible crimes against history," she said, describing the Hollywood epic "Troy" as a "travesty of mismatched cultural references".
"Dead heroes in Greco-Roman dress were cremated with coins on their eyes -- before money had been invented," she said.
Whilst I agree with some of it, I don't find the omission of British and Commonwealth troops in Saving Private Particularly offensive. After all, it was made by an American from an American point of view.
Is the Americanisation of other cultures now distorting our view of the past? How much of a mix should there be in films between entertainment and factual accuracy?
My own opinion is that (apart from the odd film - U571 ) it's not too bad at the moment but shouldn't be allowed to get any worse.
If we are not careful, we will create a bunch of Ersatz Hollywood heroes that will become indistinguishible from the real thing.
Here's an interesting point: The Battle Of Stirling as portrayed in Braveheart (a not exactly accurate film itself - best description - a Porridge Western) was nothing like as imaginative as the real thing. Wallace cut away at Stirling Bridge during the night, waited for the English cavalry to charge across in the morning and then pulled away the remaining supports - trapping the cavalry in the marsh on the Scots side. They were subsequently slaughtered. I think this would have made a far better set-piece on the Silver Screen.
Perhaps history has something to teach Hollywood after all