How historically accurate should historical movies be?

[deepr]

Unless it's a specific and explicitly stated aim of the movie to be as accurate as possible, it's best to have no expectations at all.

[Pannonian]

I know, and Greece does have blondes. But they still usually have some Mediterranean features. Alexander the Great was described as "sandy-haired" I think, but the dye job they gave him in his movie was awful.

I dunno, I've just seen a long history of miscasting when it comes to Greeks and Romans, and it gets annoying never seeing anyone who actually looks like they lived in that climate. Especially back before it was as easy to avoid getting tanned as it is today.

I agree with you, that casting in historical films is usually awful, but i wasn't disturbed by Achilles, as him looking outlandish for the region makes sense for me, because his heritage (and as mentioned it fits with the description - the blue eyes go with the hair). Now a real travesty in casting was the series "Helen of Troy"



You wanna guess who these guys are?

On the right: Agamemnon and on the left: Achilles.

After being a witness to this, Brad Pitt isn't that bad... (and yes... this S&M harness is his actual armor, he fights in)

[RobertoCarlos]

Depends on the film and the directors intent.

If you want the film to be historically accurate thats great but the chief principle of making a film is the story and history can get in the way of a good story, or history can already be a fantastic story that doesn't need to be changed and should be accurate as possible

- - - Updated - - -

After being a witness to this, Brad Pitt isn't that bad... (and yes... this S&M harness is his actual armor, he fights in)

Thats pretty hilarious. that thing looks like it would hinder and restrict movement and do absolutely nothing for protection.

[Pannonian]

Thats pretty hilarious. that thing looks like it would hinder and restrict movement and do absolutely nothing for protection.

Tb.h i never actually saw the series, only mocking videos of it, but if you need a bit of entertainment, it's hilarious

:

[Stelio Kontos]

On the right: Agamemnon and on the left: Achilles.

After being a witness to this, Brad Pitt isn't that bad... (and yes... this S&M harness is his actual armor, he fights in)

Well that Achilles should almost constitute a hate crime. Those guys all look like they'd burn in about 10 minutes under the summer Peloponnesian sun. And that harness...like you said, he looks like he's gonna head on over to his sex dungeon after lunch.

I've told people generally I think Billy Zane (he's sorta aging into that Telly Savalas look) and his sister Lisa Zane are decent examples of Greek actors. Especially Lisa, it's hard to put into words, but she has a certain look that I think is very common in Greek women. I've got a couple of female family members that look a lot like her. I'd choose Joe Manganiello for a Greco-Roman action-based role too.

But yeah, it's still small fry compared to Hollywood's casting issues in general.

[schwarzkopf]

There is a lot of argument about if you want perceptual accuracy, or historically accurate films.

Do you want to SHOW the truth, or do you want people to SEE the truth.

A typical example is how we show attractive woman of the middle ages ... historically accurate would be to show plump 'overweight' woman, but if you want the audienace today to perceive the correct thing - you would show women that we consider attractive today.

My expectations - a documentary should SHOW the truth, a historical movie should be SEEN as the truth.

[GrinnersGrin]

If you wanted to make a thread where jews kvetch about Mel Gibson you could've done it in your facebook group

[taliey]

Movies and accuracy? Word association phrases would have more in common than movies and accuracy.

[bearlolzx]

No movie is ever gonna be historically accurate down to the wikipedia sentence. Thats what makes movies about wars or ancient times intreguing to watch

hate the backlash over interstellar over same reasons, you liked the plot now why bash the minute details that u would nver notice unless brought up

[Gaaz]

If a movie pretends to represent a real episode in human history to any degree of authenticity, then it should be as accurate as possible. Obviously that does not concern parodies like Inglorious Bastards or some such, but for more or less serious works, twisting history is unacceptable. We are getting more and more buried in different myths, tales and misconceptions as it is with faulty and inadequate education.

[Stelio Kontos]

If you wanted to make a thread where jews kvetch about Mel Gibson you could've done it in your facebook group

Looking at your post history and racist shots you take at blacks and Jewish folks, I'm guessing you spend a lot of time in the time-out corner here.

[Zeta333]

Mel Gibson's movies like Apocalypto and Braveheart. While it may seem like having a movie in Maya adds an extra layer of authenticity to the films, I think it may give people the impression that films like Apocalypto are historically accurate.

Focusing on Apocalypto specifically, the movie has a pretty inaccurate portrayal of Mayans. The opening hunting scene of the movie betrays a group of Mayans or another Mesoamerican people hunting a tapir, which contradicts the Ancient Mayan lifestyle and most Mesoamerican cultures at that time which were largely agriculture. The appearance of the tribe itself portrays them more as some isolated neolithic Amazonian tribe rather than the intricate society where women dressed more conservatively. That's not even the worst inaccuracy of the movie.

In my opinion at least, movies that are based on history should strive to be as accurate as possible (ala Dances with Wolves) or just flat out throw away everything and create a fantasy movie (ala 10,000 BC) but when you try to be both, 9-times-out-of-10 you just end up with something awkward to anyone aware of history.

Maybe it's just me, I'm a very nitpicky person when it comes to movies, but am I wrong for wanting historical films to be at least semi-historically accurate?

EDIT: Removed the mention of the Passion of the Christ as looking it up it's a biblical drama, I just ignorantly assumed it tried to be historically accurate (as accurate as a biblical story can be).

who cares if they are accurate or not. Who are you to say what a movie or director should or shouldnt have or put in its movie. At its core its entertainment, wether you learn from it or wether its fiction.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

Well I think that if you're trying to give the impression that it's historically accurate, you should do your best to make it so. If you're making something that's clearly ahistorical, it's fine to take liberties.

Of course, even in historically accurate films you can forgive the occasional deviation from history if it serves the story and drama well enough and doesn't fundamentally compromise the portrayal of the era. Where exactly that line is is subjective though.

And yes, History Buffs is a fun channel :P

- - - Updated - - -



But Inglourious Basterds was deliberately being ahistorical.

that's why it felt disrespectful to me. i'm all about smashin some nazis but i dunno. maybe i just hate tarrintino

[Macaquerie]

Well that Achilles should almost constitute a hate crime. Those guys all look like they'd burn in about 10 minutes under the summer Peloponnesian sun. And that harness...like you said, he looks like he's gonna head on over to his sex dungeon after lunch.

I've told people generally I think Billy Zane (he's sorta aging into that Telly Savalas look) and his sister Lisa Zane are decent examples of Greek actors. Especially Lisa, it's hard to put into words, but she has a certain look that I think is very common in Greek women. I've got a couple of female family members that look a lot like her. I'd choose Joe Manganiello for a Greco-Roman action-based role too.

But yeah, it's still small fry compared to Hollywood's casting issues in general.

I think most of the English speaking world has a hard time shaking that impression of Ancient Greeks and Romans as these pale skinned dudes with British accents, rather than, you know, Greeks and Romans. If I'm not mistaken, in the historical sources Greek writers actually mocked Persians for being too pale, which I found quite surprising.

[Zogarth]

Depends on if they claim it to be historically accurate. Pretty sure things like 300 is not entirely an accurate depiction of the Spartans, but still entertaining. Though if a movie claims to be historical, yet is filled with pure fiction, it is naturally an issue.

[Mormolyce]

that's why it felt disrespectful to me. i'm all about smashin some nazis but i dunno. maybe i just hate tarrintino

How dare you sir.

But to be honest his last several have been a pretty mixed bag.

[Cerilis]

I think, because of their broad audience, movies should either be obvious to not be historic at all, or strictly accurate.

For artistic freedom regarding historical accuracy, theatre plays are probably better suited.

I couldn't care less though about the gender or skin colour of a fictional comic character in a movie.

[Flarelaine]

Mel Gibson's movies like Apocalypto and Braveheart. While it may seem like having a movie in Maya adds an extra layer of authenticity to the films, I think it may give people the impression that films like Apocalypto are historically accurate.

Focusing on Apocalypto specifically, the movie has a pretty inaccurate portrayal of Mayans. The opening hunting scene of the movie betrays a group of Mayans or another Mesoamerican people hunting a tapir, which contradicts the Ancient Mayan lifestyle and most Mesoamerican cultures at that time which were largely agriculture. The appearance of the tribe itself portrays them more as some isolated neolithic Amazonian tribe rather than the intricate society where women dressed more conservatively. That's not even the worst inaccuracy of the movie.

In my opinion at least, movies that are based on history should strive to be as accurate as possible (ala Dances with Wolves) or just flat out throw away everything and create a fantasy movie (ala 10,000 BC) but when you try to be both, 9-times-out-of-10 you just end up with something awkward to anyone aware of history.

Maybe it's just me, I'm a very nitpicky person when it comes to movies, but am I wrong for wanting historical films to be at least semi-historically accurate?

EDIT: Removed the mention of the Passion of the Christ as looking it up it's a biblical drama, I just ignorantly assumed it tried to be historically accurate (as accurate as a biblical story can be).

Oooh, another thread from you that actually takes some thought to post in. Keep that up.

I mostly agree with you - something is either historical or is not and it should be made clear. But that does not mean something that is not wholly historical can only be fantasy! A case in point is one of my favourite movies, The Lion in Winter. It was adapted from a play with maybe 8 speaking roles and is basically a family drama with historical figures. For all we know, the events portrayed never took place - but they actually could have and the whole movie is pretty much in character for what we know about the people involved (which is a lot, considering the cast involves four kings and a queen). This may be an important criterion - even if a movie is not entirely historical, it should not falsify history or historical characters. I think the recipe is taking a slice of history and filling the gaps with stuff that actually fits there. Another example of this, while not a movie, would be Crécy by Warren Ellis - a retelling of the Battle of Crécy in a comic by an English longbowman. (Admittedly, the guy breaks the fourth wall all the time, but the history is correct.)



As for your specific examples... Apocalypto is guilty as charged, I think. Admittedly, Mayan civilization was past its prime by the time, but there are degrees of decline between building metropoli and collapsing back to hunting and gathering. And while we know they conducted human sacrifice, we also know they preferred choice, high-status prisoners for feeding the gods - I guess them gods would have considered some random hunters as low-grade junk food. The whole movie, while very captivating, kinda carries the sneering "them benighted savages" attitude.

Braveheart... now I admit I'm biased when it comes to that one. I never found it as good as the hype about it and having to endure it for two days on loop when I was at a summer camp didn't really help. Good thing I managed to get up first one morning. They never found the tape. But even personal anecdotes alike, I always felt that one too stereotypical. On topic, the movie pretty much threw established history out of the window - not just events, but the characters as well.

[Kalcheus]

I can't believe a conversation about historical accuracy and Mel Gibson doesn't include a single mention of The Patriot, the movie so historically inaccurate that Cowpens Battleground doesn't stock the film in their store (and the NPS units in DC stock Night At the Museum and National Treasure, so you know their standards for inclusion aren't high).

[Techno-Druid]

I can't believe a conversation about historical accuracy and Mel Gibson doesn't include a single mention of The Patriot, the movie so historically inaccurate that Cowpens Battleground doesn't stock the film in their store (and the NPS units in DC stock Night At the Museum and National Treasure, so you know their standards for inclusion aren't high).

Doesn't that movie just more or less follow the plot of Braveheart?