The Fine Line of Historical Films
As I was writing up the latest Robin Hood casting news, it occurred to me that Ridley Scott's film will undoubtedly play fast and loose with the Plantagenets. (A historical film that alters the facts? No!) I decided I didn't care -- for now, anyway.
When it comes to historical films, I'm maddeningly hot and cold. There are films I forgive even the most glaring errors because the story (real and cinematically whitewashed) is good, or because it spurred me into research I never recovered from. Braveheart and 300 both fall into that category, as does Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra.
Then there are films that leave me furious, such as Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth, which is just so inaccurate as to be bizarre. Actually, films dealing with the Tudors in general tend to infuriate me (I'm looking at you, The Other Boleyn Girl), possibly because it's so well documented and because the real story is far more interesting than any soapy fiction they throw in. But even here I'm not to be trusted -- Kapur's Elizabeth: The Golden Age is full of fiction and clunky symbolism, but it's the very definition of "guilty pleasure" for me because of the ruffs, the Armada, and oh-my-God-Clive-Owen-in-a-doublet. The same goes for Showtime's The Tudors, which has really impressed me by continuing past poor Anne Boleyn, and into Henry's really terrifying years.
When it comes to historical films, I'm maddeningly hot and cold. There are films I forgive even the most glaring errors because the story (real and cinematically whitewashed) is good, or because it spurred me into research I never recovered from. Braveheart and 300 both fall into that category, as does Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra.
Then there are films that leave me furious, such as Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth, which is just so inaccurate as to be bizarre. Actually, films dealing with the Tudors in general tend to infuriate me (I'm looking at you, The Other Boleyn Girl), possibly because it's so well documented and because the real story is far more interesting than any soapy fiction they throw in. But even here I'm not to be trusted -- Kapur's Elizabeth: The Golden Age is full of fiction and clunky symbolism, but it's the very definition of "guilty pleasure" for me because of the ruffs, the Armada, and oh-my-God-Clive-Owen-in-a-doublet. The same goes for Showtime's The Tudors, which has really impressed me by continuing past poor Anne Boleyn, and into Henry's really terrifying years.
On the other hand, Kingdom of Heaven is one I couldn't forgive even in its director's cut. Everyone has a factual sticking point with this one, and for me it was a medieval character openly doubting his faith in the heart of Jerusalem. I'm not sure why I can't excuse that anachronism when I overlook so many others, but I think it's because it's trying so hard to make a modern parallel instead of letting them happen naturally. There's a reason why "history repeats itself" is a catchphrase, after all, and even the thickest audience member is probably going to catch on.
As someone who nearly went all the way in the field of history, I should have a firmer stance on this topic, tossing out Gladiator as easily as I snub The Other Boleyn Girl. But I can't -- and that's where I'll hand the topic off to you -- which are the historical films you can forgive, and which are the ones you can't? Which ones are perfect? And when it comes to inaccuracies, where do you draw the line?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
4-13-2009 @ 5:19PM
Brian said...
For me it's all about entertainment. That's why I got to the movies, if I get educated along the way, it's a bonus. If I want a documentary, I'll go see a documentary. A historical inaccuracy is forgivable if the story carries it well enough to still entertain.
Examples of this are 300 & Troy.
Troy was excruciating because it wasn't entertaining. There was nothing to hold my attention, so therefore I was left to think completely about how terribly inaccurate the story was.
300, on the other hand, was so rich and fully enveloping (especially in IMAX) that I couldn't think about how horribly inaccurate it was was. It wasn't about being accurate or not, it was about being entertaining.
Reply
4-14-2009 @ 1:23AM
Sarah said...
I agree with camillagoe. I can't bear the sight of Troy and Alexander, though for my degree in Classics I've had to watch them for class. I saw Troy before I read the Iliad, and even then I saw it for the stinker it is. The only redeeming thing about it was the casting of Eric Bana and Orlando Bloom: perfectly honorable Hector and whiny-pants Paris.
Alexander... Well, there are no words. Bad all around.
Gladiator was one of those movies I saw in theaters and then had to go to my library the next day to find out about Marcus Aurelius and gladiators. It was a wonderfully shot film that excelled in every way that Alexander failed: costumes, battle sequences, music, acting, emotional attachment to the characters, etc.
There are quite a few movies that are period films, but don't contain the "epic" characteristics of films like 300 and Gladiator. For example, Schindler's List is a wonderful historical film, but is hardly ever brought up in the company of the "swords and sandals" movie club.
4-13-2009 @ 5:21PM
camillagoe said...
For me it's Troy (much as I appreciate Brad Pitt). My father actually forbids me from watching it while at my parents' house- as my BA Ancient History raises its head, i tend to yell at the screen... I haven't got the nerve to even attempt to watch 300.
Reply
4-13-2009 @ 5:33PM
Brice said...
Alexander. Oh GOD Alexander. I can't sit through that movie, not only because it's bad, but because it's probably one of the worst historical adaptations in the history of ever. Well, excluding 10,000 B.C, but that's really a completely different story.
I still enjoy 300 and both Elizabeth movies, just because they are so damn entertaining, not to mention 300 is less an adaptation of the history, as it is Frank Miller.
Reply
4-13-2009 @ 10:43PM
Kate said...
'Alexander' is an abomination because man-sex was promised AND OLIVER STONE DID NOT DELIVER! You do not put Colin Farrell and Jared Eyeliner Leto in the same movie, promise the goods, and then twat block your audience. That's a hanging offense!
(Sorry, I'm still sore about that movie.)
4-13-2009 @ 6:18PM
Rufus said...
U-571 pissed me off because it took away something from the British, and gave it to the Americans. I can forgive fiction to entertain, but that's just wrong and too far.
No comment on Alexander, no comment at all...
Reply
4-13-2009 @ 7:42PM
c said...
Alexander was the single most painful movie experience I have ever had.
I can overlook a lot of problems if the movie is entertaining.
Reply
4-13-2009 @ 8:30PM
drewtheg said...
alexander is not only one of the most historically inaccurate, but probably one of the worst movies ever....ever
Reply
4-13-2009 @ 8:48PM
Vern said...
I just finished Ben Hur, the 1925 silent version. Knowing almost by heart the 1959 version, I found more interesting not the accuracy of the various parts of the story, say with the book, but the history involved in the making of films in the first place, everything down to the overemphasis in visual to make a point in the silent version. It was entertaining on more than one level. So one might say I view movies for entertainment and history also, but not the history of the story.
Reply
4-13-2009 @ 9:06PM
roshow said...
I agree 100% with Brian. I don't watch any fictional narrative (even if it's historical fiction) for a literal interpretation of events. If it captures the spirit of the story, bonus. If it is historically accurate, double bonus. But if it's neither yet still an entertaining movie, I'm happy.
Reply
4-13-2009 @ 9:57PM
jeff w said...
Alexander was one of the two movie i have ever walked out of. Amazingly bad, without mentioning the historical inaccuracies.
On the other hand, I think Gladiator may be one of the best movies ever made, and I loved 300, and both of those movies are far more inaccurate. Same goes for Troy.
I can ignore historical inaccuracy in an otherwise good movie. I'm more annoyed by movies set in a wildly different future, except it's only five years into the future. Predator 2, 12 Monkeys, etc. It's hard to sit down in 2009 and watch a movie made in 1990 set in the post-apocalyptic future of 1997.
Reply
4-13-2009 @ 10:41PM
Kate said...
What Brian said. I resisted '300' for the longest time because the inaccuracies were infuriating. Then when I actually saw the movie and realized it was so stupidly macho there was no way to take it seriously, I loved it. (The 99% naked hot menz helped plenty too. :D)
'Troy' tried to be realistic and failed hard. '300' took the piss and it was great. 'Gladiator' and 'Elisabeth' were the same, but 'The Other Boleyn Girl' put me in a rage because the book was so damn good and they tore it to shreds. Anne? Undone by her ambition and arrogance? Nooo! She should be sensitive! *VOM* The book was great fiction. The movie was crap. (Very pretty tho.)
I know some people who will get twisted panties over the slightest inaccuracy, but as long as you can tell a good story, I don't care.
Reply
4-13-2009 @ 11:25PM
victor de la torre said...
GLADIATOR is one of the greatest not because of its historical accuracy but for its intense emotional impact with many audiences. Audiences don't go to the theaters for facts, they go for emotions.
Reply
4-14-2009 @ 12:00AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
All movies are entertainment so the veracity is pointless - everything you see on screen (even documentaries) is manufactured and distorted. There is no truth - just entertainment.
Reply
4-14-2009 @ 12:25AM
vegimorph said...
sheesh, you make entertainment sound like its a bad thing
4-14-2009 @ 12:31AM
vegimorph said...
While I do have a strong interest in history and I do get a little mad sometimes when its inaccurate, like with Troy, I don't look at the whole thing as a whole as bad. Sometimes, I learn about someone or something in history that I never knew about before, like Frank Abignale Jr. in Steven Spielberg's Catch Me if You Can. Sure, some of the stuff was most likely exaggerated, but hey, I was fascinated to learn that a kid in his teens around my age had really gone around the country, conning people with fake checks. Other times, its the actors in the film that I really like. For example, Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth. sure, events might not have gone a certain way like they do in the film, but Cate really nailed it, i think, as Elizabeth, and as Katherine Hepburn as well.
Reply
4-14-2009 @ 1:55AM
Yoda's House of Pancakes said...
I don't look at 300 as a historical movie. I see it as David Wenham's character, Dilios, telling a story to rouse the army into battle. That is why all of the enemies are monsters; it is a storytelling tactic he uses to convince those listening that the Persians are made up of abominations that must be destroyed for the good of all mankind. I think the movie makes more sense if you view it in this regard.
Reply
4-14-2009 @ 7:24AM
WillTheSecond said...
Spartacus is another interesting one. The (class based) politics of
that film are actually meant to be more about the modern era. Slave
and Roman representing class hierarchies.
Similarly, Kingdom of Heaven is really about modern clashes of
religion, not medieval ones. The setting is there to engage the
audience but also to demonstrate (to a certain extent) that
historical nature of current conflicts. El Cid is a similar, if less
philosophically complex film.
In short, no, I doesn't bother me. Why? Because they're fiction
films. I expect historical documentary to be accurate but fiction is
fiction. I nevertheless has the capability to inform debates while
entertaining (i.e. the best kind of film).
Reply
4-14-2009 @ 8:50AM
Jason said...
The farther removed a movie is from me by time and distance, the more forgivable I am for the inaccuracies that may be within it. After having my interest sparked by movies like Braveheart, Gladiator, and Kingdom of Heaven, I have gone out and read more about those events, those time periods, even picked up a book or two on the subjects. But they are fictional movies from Hollywood and I think you get to a point where some leeway is understood with the facts of time.
And much like one of the posters above says, either the subject matter of the film or the actors involved can cause me to overlook any inaccuracies.
But my biggest shake my head and ask if people were even trying has to be Pearl Harbor. It probably is one of those guilty pleasure movies of mine, but to see shots of Navy ships in that movie and realize that it looks like stock footage darkened up to hide the fact that its scenes of modern ships just made me sad.
Reply
4-14-2009 @ 11:05AM
Brian said...
I'll add to my earlier comments just a bit.
Someone else said it, that even documentaries are for entertainment, and while their post seemed a bit skeptical and negative, there is something to be said about nothing really ever being accurate.
I don't usually promote books or my own agenda on here, but if you're into finding out about history, you need to check out how a Russian mathematician is out to prove that how we all view history is completely wrong:
http://www.amazon.com/History-mathematical-statistics-Eclipses-Chronology/dp/2913621074/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239721430&sr=8-1
It's interesting reading, if a bit dry, but it will blow away everything you think you know about our history.
Reply