History vs Cinema

[BAYLOR]

How well does Cinema do in portraying history, Famous historical figures , Peoples , places and events major and minor ? Which films do a good job with this regard and which film do a poor job . What factors come into play in how these things are portrayed?

 

[J-Sun]

I think cinema's relation to history is about like its relation to science and perhaps for similar reasons - nothing's ever good enough unless it's been glitzed up into something completely manufactured. I gather certain things like Apollo 13 (hey, history and science!) don't score 100 but do pretty well. Things like Cleopatra, not so much. Seems like the farther back you go in Hollywood and the farther back you go in time, the worse it gets. Individual dramatic events fare better than larger complex social sweeps, at least in some cases. But I'm not a big historical film buff so it's just a general impression. I'm sure major fans can cite individual items pro and con much better and maybe the overall field is better than I think.

 

[Foxbat]

I think - first and foremost - we have to accept that cinema is entertainment and probably will not be 100% accurate because of that. I think it's okay to a certain extent to apply artistic licence but the audience will probably be hostile towards a movie if it's more or less a downright lie (unless, of course, it's a deliberate parody - something like a Mel Brookes movie).

I think in recent years I've enjoyed Downfall. It seemed accurate (from what I know) and was both gripping and horrific. Waterloo is another I enjoy and, like Downfall, brings a three-dimensional edge to the tyrant in question.

Another was The Baader Meinhoff Complex which, again, seemed a fairly accurate portrayal of the events. Che Part Two tended to avoid the reality behind Guevara's execution (failing to mention the removal of his hands and implying that it was a primarily Bolivian decision to execute him without trial). It did not detract from the movie but was an annoyance in the sense that the whole truth was not being told. I could live with it and still regard it as a fine movie.

U571 - on the other hand - is just an insult to the real men who obtained the Enigma code machine.

I think, ultimately, writers and directors simply need to know just how far they can go and when the audience will just simply say no.

 

[Abernovo]

Yes. What Foxbat says.

 

[BAYLOR]

Braveheart anyone?

 

[Venusian Broon]

I think - first and foremost - we have to accept that cinema is entertainment and probably will not be 100% accurate because of that. I think it's okay to a certain extent to apply artistic licence but the audience will probably be hostile towards a movie if it's more or less a downright lie (unless, of course, it's a deliberate parody - something like a Mel Brookes movie).

U571 - on the other hand - is just an insult to the real men who obtained the Enigma code machine.

I think, ultimately, writers and directors simply need to know just how far they can go and when the audience will just simply say no.

Apparently the writer, David Ayer, of U571 did meet one of the real men who recovered an enigma machine and apparently the veteran wasn't offended with the script/story, but Ayer does say now that he regrets distorting history in such a manner and he would not do it again. (After the film got made and he made his fee of course...)

There does seem to be a great commercial pressure particularly for WW2 films made by US studios for them to be Americanised, 'cause that's the biggest market. I think though there is a lot to be worried about such shenanigans, but then again such pressures are as old as, well, any media.

Take the D-day landings. When I was growing up the seminal film about this event was The Longest Day, a faux documentary, and it looked at all sides and had a reasonably balanced showing of US, French, German and 'British' involvement (I'll come back to why I've marked out us Brits...). Post 1998 the seminal D-day film has become Saving Private Ryan, and although it's purpose is not to tell the story of the full landings, I think there is a danger that because it is so powerful future generations will make it synonymous with D-day - and perhaps come away thinking that the US did everything. Of course not so, the British Empire supplied the majority of the initial forces for the landings.

Which leads me to why I can't really have a go at the 'yanks' for this. When the UK film industry churned out war films in the late 40's and fifties you'd be hard pressed I think to find the contribution of the Canadian, ANZAC or South African nations in their films - the big market for the films of course being the UK, so it's all stiff-upper-lipped Brits being brave. Going back to D-day I believe about a quarter of those landed on the beaches on the first day were Canadian and I'm not sure even the Longest Day portrays this reality. And talking about the Enigma code machine does the film 2001 Enigma film downplay the contribution of the Polish?

Finally I have yet to see a UK war film that shows us the contribution of the 2.5 million Indian army that volunteered to fight for Britain. And add to that the approximately one million black African troops raised by Britain to fight, or the Caribbean men that fly and fought for us as well. (Apologies to any far-flung parts of the old British Empire that I haven't mentioned!)

I suppose films will always be looking at what generates the dollars, or pounds, or euros....

 

[Vertigo]

I suppose films will always be looking at what generates the dollars, or pounds, or euros....

Ultimately that is, I think, the most powerful factor. The film moguls are not (for the most part) philanthropists; they are interested in making money.

Braveheart anyone?

It's not just Braveheart; it's just about any historical film made by Gibson: Braveheart, Patriot, Passion of Christ. All of them were gross distortions of history.

Personally I think it is worrying. It seems to me that history is given less and less influence in school these days which leaves people believing what they see in the cinema and on TV is valid and correct history. Whilst popular media has always distorted history (think Shakespeare and Richard III) I think the power of film to do so in the modern era is much stronger. And, of course, because it is 'fiction' it is allowed to get away with it. And maybe that's okay even if I happen to dislike it intensely.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Braveheart anyone?

Given there are areas of Scotland that are woeful at preserving their own history, I don't think we can blame Hollywood. I live in one of the most important areas to Scottish History - the city has what was one of the biggest Cathedrals in Scotland. However most people outside of Scotland don't know it exists. We don't have a proper dedicated records office and the information is scattered. Things have improved and there are now excavations. Aberdeen University and UHI now have archaeology degrees (20 years ago they did not). However the High Street has one blue plaque that doesn't even mention the most famous inhabitant of the house and one inaccurate information board with a picture of Jeremy Irons in medieval clothes.

We don't know enough about William Wallace to make an accurate film about him. I've heard more than one Scots history teacher call him the "Interfering Frenchman."

 

[Foxbat]

I think the best description I've seen for Braveheart is a 'Porridge Western'. Kind of sums it up nicely.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Like the majority of WWII film, it's history as people would have liked it to have been. Interestingly, the only war films that tend to be harrowing rather than glorious (with the odd exception) are those from WWI.

I'm sure that Wallace (and most Scotsmen) would love to think that he was just like the Gibson character in the movie; but reality I'm sure was very different.

If people watch the movies, then are interested enough to follow this up by reading about what happened on the internet, then that's great. And I would say that with the ease information can be accessed via the internet (rather than having to go to the library to find a book on the subject), people these days have never had it so easy.

In all honesty, it doesn't really matter whether Wallace was a Scottish Rambo, if the Yanks get the Enigma rather than the Brits or that humans weren't around when dinosaurs ruled the Earth; as far as tv and film is concerned the truth should never get in the way of a good story.

 

[J-Sun]

Like the majority of WWII film, it's history as people would have liked it to have been. Interestingly, the only war films that tend to be harrowing rather than glorious (with the odd exception) are those from WWI.

Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill, The Deer Hunter. I think Viet Nam qualifies. And the most godawful "I will never, ever watch it again and despise it as murder/gore porn and want to wash it out of my brain" movie, Saving Private Ryan, was WWII. Yes, most everybody was real heroic when they weren't shooting prisoners and so on, but I can't call it anything but harrowing and inglorious. And, contra WWI's negativity, there's Sergeant York, for instance. But, yeah, statistically, WWII does seem to be the most heroic war in film. Not sure about the most negatively portrayed war, though - that's probably Viet Nam rather than WWI.

Interestingly, in a macroscopic sense, that would mean cinema was historically accurate in that most societies see WWII as the necessary good fight and Viet Nam as a mess.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Sorry, forgot about Vietnam. I guess with WWII many of the battles were even contests which make for good action flicks. The same applies to the Napoleonic Wars, and Rome , Sparta etc. Vietnam and WWI were different in that much of the conflict was one-sided; either the US bombing huge swathes of 'Nam, Viet-Cong ambushing GIs then retreating to the jungle or in the case of WWI machine-gun nests mowing down hundreds of helpless troops. Because there is less action, more time is spent looking at the individuals involved and the futility of war.

Also I guess it helps that WWII was one of the few wars which really was about good vs evil, and not just two (or more) power-hungry nations battling it out for the same territory; and just as importantly we won! Which gives more of a feel-good factor about the battles.

 

[Flyerman11]

One example of terribly wrong "historical" films is "The Sound Barrier" (1952) it does not even try to get things right and a lot of people who saw it believed for years that the British were the first to fly supersonic. Even today, the film description from IMDB says :"Fictionalized story of British aerospace engineers solving the problem of supersonic flight." It should say: "Fictional story - or even Science Fiction story" as I feel the term fictionalized implies that some historical aspects are real.

Not only that, but the technical elements are so flawed it's laughable (reversing controls near supersonic speed will most likely kill you).

 

[BAYLOR]

Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill, The Deer Hunter. I think Viet Nam qualifies. And the most godawful "I will never, ever watch it again and despise it as murder/gore porn and want to wash it out of my brain" movie, Saving Private Ryan, was WWII. Yes, most everybody was real heroic when they weren't shooting prisoners and so on, but I can't call it anything but harrowing and inglorious. And, contra WWI's negativity, there's Sergeant York, for instance. But, yeah, statistically, WWII does seem to be the most heroic war in film. Not sure about the most negatively portrayed war, though - that's probably Viet Nam rather than WWI.

Interestingly, in a macroscopic sense, that would mean cinema was historically accurate in that most societies see WWII as the necessary good fight and Viet Nam as a mess.

Kubrick's Paths to Glory . I was stuck by how the film portrayed the callousness of the generals and commanding officers towards the soldiers under their command . The film wasn't wrong on that score In WW I.

In battles like the Somme and Verdun, they just ket sending men into those cauldrons. They're still finding bodies from those two battles to this day.

 

[Michael Colton]

If you would like to be annoyed by virtually every historical film ever made, study the history of typography and typefaces. Filmmakers almost never, ever go to that level of detail in the films.

 

[BAYLOR]

The 1981 film Excalibur. I absolutely love this film. The big issue with it is that it it around the 6th century roughly? The suits of armor that all the knights wore is all from middle to high middle ages .

 

[AnyaKimlin]

World War II also suffered from the documents being restricted. It is only recently a lot of them have been released.

The Dam Busters had to rely on Guy Gibson's autobiography and guess work. With an awful lot of history there just isn't enough information to construct a whole movie.

 

[Venusian Broon]

The 1981 film Excalibur. I absolutely love this film. The big issue with it is that it it around the 6th century roughly? The suits of armor that all the knights wore is all from middle to high middle ages .

Perhaps its set some time in the age of deepest myth, just before the age of fables and just after the age of BBC dinosaur documentaries.

Actually people complained officially (in jest I hope) to the BBC that the recent TV programme Merlin wasn't 'accurate' to the myths of King Arthur. Which of course depends on which mythic Arthur or story your basing it on. There are plenty of time periods to steal from when constructing your new Arthur...

 

[BAYLOR]

Perhaps its set some time in the age of deepest myth, just before the age of fables and just after the age of BBC dinosaur documentaries.

Actually people complained officially (in jest I hope) to the BBC that the recent TV programme Merlin wasn't 'accurate' to the myths of King Arthur. Which of course depends on which mythic Arthur or story your basing it on. There are plenty of time periods to steal from when constructing your new Arthur...

Hm , Im thinking that Hollywood likes a good historically inaccurate epic that sells popcorn .

 

[BAYLOR]

U571 - on the other hand - is just an insult to the real men who obtained the Enigma code machine.

I think, ultimately, writers and directors simply need to know just how far they can go and when the audience will just simply say no.

I saw U571in the theaters ,thought it an okay action flick, but that about all.