Why don't historical movies ever get it right?

[DaveMac]

As far as I'm concerned the only Three Musketeers movie worth watching is the Disney one with Oliver Platt, Keifer Sutherland, Charlie Sheen and Chris O'Donnell. (Historically accurate or not, it's terribly entertaining!!)

Nah, the ones with Oliver Reed are a blast ;-)

[GreenDragon]

As far as I'm concerned the only Three Musketeers movie worth watching is the Disney one with Oliver Platt, Keifer Sutherland, Charlie Sheen and Chris O'Donnell. (Historically accurate or not, it's terribly entertaining!!)

Hallmark Channel did a re-imagining/sequel called La Femme Musketeer, with Michael York as D'artagnan, and John Rhys-Davies as Porthos.  The sons of the three are Musketeers (and a lot like their fathers), and Valentine D'artagnan wants to join.  They quickly get involved in a conspiracy by Cardinal Mazarin to keep France and Spain at war by kidnapping the Spanish princess.  Not as good as the Disney version but fun.

Which is the big key to the Disney version.  It doesn't follow the book much at all.  And yet, it has the spirit of Dumas' book.  The characters - except for Rochefort, and Buckingham - are pretty much spot on.  And Tim Curry just chews that scenery.  They had to film on location, because he would have eaten every set they had otherwise.

I also recommend the BBC(A) series.  Will be shocking in a couple weeks to watch Richelieu on this, and then Doctor Who.  (Much like watching the movie Doctor Who and the Daleks, then Star Wars).  (Peter Capaldi is the Cardinal).  Doesn't much follow the book, but has the characters (Athos, Porthos, Aramis, D'artagnan, Treville, Richelieu, Milady, Constance, and the royals) accurate.  I hope they will introduce the valets eventually.

Speaking of the valets - yet another example of how close and so far the steampunk version was.  It is the first version I've seen, to have any of them.  And they cast Jon Snow's buddy - so the Musketeers could have someone to literally excrete on.  A classless act that doesn't fit any of the Musketeers.

Someday, I hope to get a chance to see some of the earlier versions.  I've heard there were some very exceptional ones.  I believe the Oliver Reed ones DaveMac mentions are the ones in question, as they also have Michael York.

[Maniac Actual]

Yeah, but the problem is I've seen guys argue with more vitriol over the shades of red and blue DeLaurintis and Bodarchuk used for the extras uniforms in Waterloo than I have over fighting styles used in films.  And I reiterate, if your spending to much time looking at an actors chest to make sure the ribbons are in the correct order, your at the movies for the wrong reason.

Dav

While I agree with you up to a point, Davout, I only do so up to a point.  Consider the exampled I gave earlier of "The Last Legion."  I am not objecting to the costuming or the fighting style.  I don't know enough about that to object to it, and agree that that is not something worth fretting over.  OTOH, Getting things, like, the date of the fall of Rome wrong (which a google search would take care of in about .00002 seconds) is unforgiveable.  Little details, yeah - I don't sweat those.  But big ones?  SMH.

[Peter Smith]

Little details, yeah - I don't sweat those.  But big ones?  SMH.

As long as the movie is internally consistent with information, what does it matter? The movie aren't advertising themselves as documentaries, why hold them to the same standard?

[Maniac Actual]

As long as the movie is internally consistent with information, what does it matter? The movie aren't advertising themselves as documentaries, why hold them to the same standard?

Because laziness of that level demonstrates that the producers/writers/directors et al don't take their craft seriously.   It's not hard to fact check basic things.  Novels have to be proofed; why does Hollywood NOT do this?  Why do we let them?  These kind of egregious errors are easily preventable; only lazy greed lets them happen.

[Istal_Devalis]

Most of the arguments you see are essentially the same ones involving adaptions of other works. It just we're adapting history as opposed to fiction.

3.) Cultural Inertia: THIS IS THE BIG ONE! This one has been touched on already, and is related to my Point #2 above. Once you tell someone something, it is very hard to get them to accept an alternate proposition. Because a particular telling or movie or book depicted something in history in a certain way, that’s the way is will stay in the public consciousness, both because audiences now expect it and because future content creators will use it as inspiration or reference.

A famous one...the sound of gunfire. There's a stock sound effect that is used when guns are fired. The actual sound of gunfire sounds unrealistic to a lot of movie goers because that's not what they're used to. There's also my personal pet peeve these days; the 'fact' Sherman's brew up because of gasoline engines.

I'd add one more reason too...
4.) Sometimes the actual history is boring or difficult to follow if you don't know/have the background for it. The last thing something meant to draw an audience is supposed to be is boring. See most cinematic swordfights. The actual deal is pretty quick and hard to follow unless you know what to look for, so we get a more cinematic version that looks exiting. Taking this at another tack, in what way does this increased adherence to historical detail actually IMPROVE the work for the majority of the audience?

[Peter Smith]

Because laziness of that level demonstrates that the producers/writers/directors et al don't take their craft seriously.

Yeah, this is where we're not going to see eye-to-eye. I don't hold fictional works to the same level as I hold non-fictional works.

I'm also not going to insult folks working in Hollywood by saying they "...don't take their craft seriously." because some historical fact is wrong. Spielberg flat-out says he took liberties with history for the sake of the story in Saving Private Ryan. Is it your position that he does not take his craft seriously?

[Sabelkatten]

Yeah, this is where we're not going to see eye-to-eye. I don't hold fictional works to the same level as I hold non-fictional works.

I'm also not going to insult folks working in Hollywood by saying they "...don't take their craft seriously." because some historical fact is wrong. Spielberg flat-out says he took liberties with history for the sake of the story in Saving Private Ryan. Is it your position that he does not take his craft seriously?

Arguably, he didn't mean the same thing. If you put a WW2 battle in the wrong town (as long as it's a town in the same general area) you're still portraying a WW2 battle in a town in a given area.

But if the Americans roll in with Patton tanks you've done something really wrong. IMHO that's where moviemakers have real problems - easily verifiable information. Somebody mentioned "Arn"; apparently the battles around Jerusalem are probably in the wrong places, but since no one is absolutely sure where they stood does it really matter? But the portrayal of cloister life that's off by several centuries is really a disservice to the audience (in that case it was the book's writer, thought).

Those gun sounds are another thing. Is it really good that people don't recognize the sound of real gunfire because all they've heard is the movie sound? I mean, if you live in Norway it might not be a problem, but anywhere there is a real chance of someone actually pulling a gun on the street you'd probably want people to know what they hear!

[Weirdo]

Those gun sounds are another thing. Is it really good that people don't recognize the sound of real gunfire because all they've heard is the movie sound? I mean, if you live in Norway it might not be a problem, but anywhere there is a real chance of someone actually pulling a gun on the street you'd probably want people to know what they hear!

It would be nice to know if my neighborhood is filled with poorly-maintained cars and/or fireworks enthusiasts, or if I should put the police on my speed dial...

[YingJanshi]

The reason they use..substitute gunfire noise, is because most of the time the sound of the actual weapon being used isn't...impressive enough...

[I am Belch II]

There are a lot of actually so-called historical shows that are way off or tell a very different side of the historical event. So it's not just movies rewriting history.

[GreenDragon]

4.) Sometimes the actual history is boring or difficult to follow if you don't know/have the background for it. The last thing something meant to draw an audience is supposed to be is boring. See most cinematic swordfights. The actual deal is pretty quick and hard to follow unless you know what to look for, so we get a more cinematic version that looks exiting. Taking this at another tack, in what way does this increased adherence to historical detail actually IMPROVE the work for the majority of the audience?

4a) Sometimes history is so unbelievable, that Hollywood alters it to be less like a Hollywood movie.

[Sabelkatten]

4a) Sometimes history is so unbelievable, that Hollywood alters it to be less like a Hollywood movie.

QFT.

But I still don't think that's what bothers most of us "armchair complainers". It's the easy mistakes. Bombs that ignore gravity and air, warriors fighting in gear hundreds of years too recent, scientists that don't know high school physics, aircraft launching ground-launched missiles...

Those are (relatively) easy things to check up, and usually wouldn't impact the story at all. In fact in many cases it could even be used to make it more interesting! Just look at all the "subverted tropes" in TVtropes - in most cases when something is done "the real way" it makes the story better.

[Tokage]

Yeah, but the problem is I've seen guys argue with more vitriol over the shades of red and blue DeLaurintis and Bodarchuk used for the extras uniforms in Waterloo than I have over fighting styles used in films.  And I reiterate, if your spending to much time looking at an actors chest to make sure the ribbons are in the correct order, your at the movies for the wrong reason.

Dav

Sounds like you're arguing with a different person then, as I'd be happy if all historically set movies got it as close to correct costume wise as 'Waterloo'. Made today, I bet a Waterloo set movie would have katanas, martial arts moves, plate mail, and probably lions and tigers too.

I don't know why you're reiterating something I've never been concerned about (ribbons?).

This is the thing, we're off the other end of the scale now. Back when Waterloo was made maybe they took more care, certainly being a Napoleonic buff I have not complaints about that movie. I can't see it ever being made in a similar way now.

[StuartYee]

I think in general, where 0% represents total nonsense and 100% means absolutely historically accurate, I'm personally happy with movies making it to the 80s%. No film will ever be 100%, but it's possible to come close enough and still have an entertaining film that the scholar-rage is justified.

I would say:
1% Scorpion King
2% 300 (uh yes, it was Spartans, they did wear red capes and fight Persians)
3% Monty Python and the Holy Grail
4% Kung Fu Panda
12% A Knight's Tale (but who cares? It was still funny)
13% The Life of Brian
25% Battle of the Bulge
38% The Patriot
45% Disney's Pocahontas
48% Robin Hood with Russel Crowe
54% Robin Hood with Kevin Costner
62% Mel Gibson's Braveheart
79% Saving Private Ryan (last battle scene knocked it out of the 90 percentile)
83% Patton
85% Master and Commander on the Far Side of the World
88% Pork Chop Hill (though not necessarily in terms of weapon sounds and effects)
92% Das Boot

Exact percentiles are kinda arbitrary. And yes, I consider Kung Fu Panda and any Monty Python film more historically accurate than 300.

[I am Belch II]

I'm sure it's not a complete 100% but I think The Longest Day is at least over 90%. They got a lot of technical advisers on both sides that were involved in D-Day.

[Arkansas Warrior]

I think in general, where 0% represents total nonsense and 100% means absolutely historically accurate, I'm personally happy with movies making it to the 80s%. No film will ever be 100%, but it's possible to come close enough and still have an entertaining film that the scholar-rage is justified.

I would say:
1% Scorpion King
2% 300 (uh yes, it was Spartans, they did wear red capes and fight Persians)
3% Monty Python and the Holy Grail
4% Kung Fu Panda
12% A Knight's Tale (but who cares? It was still funny)
13% The Life of Brian
25% Battle of the Bulge
38% The Patriot
45% Disney's Pocahontas
48% Robin Hood with Russel Crowe
54% Robin Hood with Kevin Costner
62% Mel Gibson's Braveheart
79% Saving Private Ryan (last battle scene knocked it out of the 90 percentile)
83% Patton
85% Master and Commander on the Far Side of the World
88% Pork Chop Hill (though not necessarily in terms of weapon sounds and effects)
92% Das Boot

Exact percentiles are kinda arbitrary. And yes, I consider Kung Fu Panda and any Monty Python film more historically accurate than 300.

I think you undersell 300.  There were some good historical tidbits in there, if sometimes misplaced.  A significant number of bits of dialogue (for example) were taken directly from or adapted a bit from sources like Herodotus and Plutarch. 300 actually gets the broad strokes pretty good, and even some of the details. But the real problem with examining 300's historical accuracy is that you're missing the point.  The entire story is Dilios relating the tale around the campfire before Plataea.  It's not supposed to be accurate, it's hero-myth.  You may as well complain about a lack of historical accuracy in Paul Bunyan, King Arthur, or Robin Hood tales.

[Maniac Actual]

QFT.

But I still don't think that's what bothers most of us "armchair complainers". It's the easy mistakes. Bombs that ignore gravity and air, warriors fighting in gear hundreds of years too recent, scientists that don't know high school physics, aircraft launching ground-launched missiles...

Those are (relatively) easy things to check up, and usually wouldn't impact the story at all. In fact in many cases it could even be used to make it more interesting! Just look at all the "subverted tropes" in TVtropes - in most cases when something is done "the real way" it makes the story better.

That is my point exactly - thanks.  Does a battle occur in the wrong city?  Yeah, I won't notice that (Unless it's really egregious, like having Stalingrad occur in Kharkov or the like).  But getting a date wrong - like the year Rome fell - is inexcusable.  It takes less than a minute to Google that, and it can only be explained by laziness.

Someone mentioned that Spielberg took liberties with Saving Private Ryan.  I must say upfront that I have never seen the entire movie, but what I have seen there is nothing on the level of the example I mention above.  'nuff said.

[YingJanshi]

Unless the movie is documentary I think it is important to remember that movies are an artistic endeavor. Where the vision of the artist (the director for simplicity) is more important than the historicity of the events being portrayed. If it fits the artist's vision for the movie to be accurate, then good. They will strive for it.
But not all "historical" movies are meant to be accurate. Take "300" for example. It's not even supposed to be an historical epic. It's an action movie based off of a graphic novel. The same with "The Last Legion", it's a fantasy adventure movie.
These movies are following the "Rule of Cool". (Though whether they make or miss the mark is another question entirely.)

To expect those types of movies to slavishly follow the historical record is to miss the point of them completely.

[Prillotashekta]

In historical fiction of any medium there are always compromises the creator must make for the sake of the story. It’s just the way it is.
Ironically, I do seem to remember the ad campaign for King Arthur (2004) starring Clive Owen, Kiera Knightly, et. Al. specifically claiming it was the Really True! Actual History! story of King Arthur!

<snip>
See most cinematic swordfights. The actual deal is pretty quick and hard to follow unless you know what to look for, so we get a more cinematic version that looks exiting. Taking this at another tack, in what way does this increased adherence to historical detail actually IMPROVE the work for the majority of the audience?

Yeah. Stage swordfighting was developed for a very specific reason: safely having visually striking swordfights where the audience can see them. I remember reading a period fight manual from I think it was the late-15th early-16th century. I honestly can’t remember who—Silver maybe? Fiore? In any case, there’s a passage where the author writing the manual warns the reader against trying to mimic the show-fighters seen at fairs and theaters. So, I think we can say, unrealistic martial weapon use in theater is at least as old as theater itself; certainly not something unique to Hollywood.

I would say:
<snip>
62% Mel Gibson's Braveheart
<snip>

Personally, I think 62% is way too generous for Braveheart. I’m not sure they could have gotten much more wrong if they tried—it’s no wonder The Times listed it as #2 on the list of “most historically inaccurate movies” (beat out only by U-571).

To expect those types of movies to slavishly follow the historical record is to miss the point of them completely.

Which is why I really like the choices the production team made in A Knight's Tale and see it as more emblematic of the time-period than many other period pieces in large part because of its purposeful use of anachronisms.

[GreenDragon]

So, I think we can say, unrealistic marital weapon use in theater is at least as old as theater itself; certainly not something unique to Hollywood.

I think you mean martial.  Though, I believe you may still be correct.  ;)

[Lazarus Jaguar]

Yeah. Stage swordfighting was developed for a very specific reason: safely having visually striking swordfights where the audience can see them. I remember reading a period fight manual from I think it was the late-15th early-16th century. I honestly can’t remember who—Silver maybe? Fiore? In any case, there’s a passage where the author writing the manual warns the reader against trying to mimic the show-fighters seen at fairs and theaters. So, I think we can say, unrealistic martial weapon use in theater is at least as old as theater itself; certainly not something unique to Hollywood.

I remember reading how Shakesphere was never accurate.  Regarding historical stuff, or even the type of weapons used by contemporary fighters.  The one example that immediatly comes to mind is in Romeo and Juliet.  The stage play describes the characters being equipped with cutlasses and bucklers (the kind of gear common among the English of the time), and one character telling another "remember thy swashing blow".  However, Italians prefered straight rapiers, and used stabs and thrusts, and had dropped shields for non-military fighting.  So yeah, theater has been compromising accuracy in favor of what the audience expects or prefers for ages.

[Top Sergeant]

Nah, the ones with Oliver Reed are a blast ;-)

Agree 100%!  O0

And Porthos is the most quotable of them all!

[Peter Smith]

To expect those types of movies to slavishly follow the historical record is to miss the point of them completely.

YeahPrettyMuch.

[False Son]

Personally, I think 62% is way too generous for Braveheart. I’m not sure they could have gotten much more wrong if they tried—it’s no wonder The Times listed it as #2 on the list of “most historically inaccurate movies” (beat out only by U-571).

Ah, Braveheart.  Stewart Lee has my favorite perspective on that film.

[Matti]

Personally, I think 62% is way too generous for Braveheart. I’m not sure they could have gotten much more wrong if they tried—it’s no wonder The Times listed it as #2 on the list of “most historically inaccurate movies”.

And I've heard some people call it their most favourite movie ever. I wonder why...

[StuartYee]

I think you undersell 300.

Using the Stuartian Percentile Scale, where would you put it?

  You may as well complain about a lack of historical accuracy in Paul Bunyan, King Arthur, or Robin Hood tales.

A) Never said I was complaining, it is what it is
B) I actually do list King Arthur (well actually Monty Python and the Holy Grail) and two Robin Hood movies. However I see your point in that I should have listed Paul Bunyan...

[StuartYee]

And I've heard some people call it their most favourite movie ever. I wonder why...

It used to be one of mine. Understanding the egregious historical inaccuracies made me like a little less....but it's off my list primarily because of (and I'm understating this) the questionable nature of Mel Gibson's character. Perhaps getting off topic a little, but knowledge of an artist's personal life and personality does in fact color my enjoyment of their work.

[Lord Cameron]

It is out and out laziness.  It's the same reason Star Trek writers (for example only - they are ALL far from innocent) refuse to hire a physics major or two as interns to get their science right.  Or, put another way, 95% of even Trek FANS don't give a ****, so the production houses continue being fat and lazy, making drek with huge plot holes.  The numbers of those of us who care aren't enough (or loud enough) to matter.

I remember seeing this movie "The Last Legion" a few years back.  It was so AFWUL because of the historical "inaccuracies" that I asked for my money back. As a history teacher, I cringed at one after another after another "inaccuracy."  Yet my family, who are no slouches when it comes to knowledge of history, collectively went "meh, it wasn't THAT bad."   THAT BAD?  IT WAS THE WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!   I

 had to walk away from my brother to avoid punching him in frustration.   :(

It's the outright re-writing of history that bugs me more than wrong or missing armour/weapons etc.
The problem with the director's claim that "It's what people want" is that it leads to a very ill informed public. U-571 & Argo are a couple of the worst offenders that come to mind, but there have been lots of others

[Arkansas Warrior]

I remember reading how Shakesphere was never accurate.  Regarding historical stuff, or even the type of weapons used by contemporary fighters.  The one example that immediatly comes to mind is in Romeo and Juliet.  The stage play describes the characters being equipped with cutlasses and bucklers (the kind of gear common among the English of the time), and one character telling another "remember thy swashing blow".  However, Italians prefered straight rapiers, and used stabs and thrusts, and had dropped shields for non-military fighting.  So yeah, theater has been compromising accuracy in favor of what the audience expects or prefers for ages.

He also has a clocktower in Julius Caesar.