CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › A case for historical accuracy in films?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A case for historical accuracy in films?

post #1 of 74
8/11/09 at 6:05pm
Thread Starter 
Using Popular Films to Enhance Classroom Learning: The Good, the Bad, and the Interesting.

A study that just came out in Psychological Science tested whether watching movies could help or hinder people's recall of associated texts. Basically, they are studying whether watching a movie about, say, the French Revolution along side reading about it in a textbook would help people recall the information better. Turns out, yes, but with a cost. People tend to recall facts from movies better than text. So if the movie is accurate, people who also read the textbook recalled more (and more accurate) information than people who just read the textbook (and did not watch the movie). However, when the information in the film contradicted the text, people often (falsely) recalled the inaccurate info from the film. This effect subsided when teachers gave warnings to students that the film may have inaccuracies prior to viewing the film.

What a fun experiment. I need to design something like this for my dissertation.


Films and Topics Used as Materials for the Experiment
FilmTopic
Amadeus (1984)Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Amistad (1997)Mutiny on the Spanish ship Amistad
Eight Men Out (1988)The Chicago Black Sox scandal
Elizabeth (1998)Queen Elizabeth I
Glory (1989)54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry
Marie Antoinette (2006)The French Revolution
The Last Samurai (2003)The Satsuma Rebellion
Tombstone (2000)Wyatt Earp and the shoot-out at the O.K. Corral
U-571 (1993)Deciphering the Nazis' Enigma code
Reply
post #2 of 74
8/11/09 at 6:09pm
What, no AMAZING SCREW-ON HEAD for the Civil War?
Reply
post #3 of 74
8/11/09 at 6:16pm
i am not sure that is true. i watched alexander (a VERY accurate film, dispite what the critics would have you believe), and then proceeded to read like 7 books and biographies on him. i now know about as much on the subject of alexander III of macedon as most college classics professors
Reply
post #4 of 74
8/11/09 at 6:23pm
Thread Starter 
I'm not sure how your post contradicts the study.
Reply
post #5 of 74
8/11/09 at 11:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
I'm not sure how your post contradicts the study.
Both the study and Princess Kate are the fucking awesomes. How can you not see the relation?
Reply
post #6 of 74
8/12/09 at 4:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
i am not sure that is true. i watched alexander (a VERY accurate film, dispite what the critics would have you believe), and then proceeded to read like 7 books and biographies on him. i now know about as much on the subject of alexander III of macedon as most college classics professors
No it wasn't accurate. It wasn't outright lying but due to time and budget constraints events were conflated and moved to different timelines and the same thing happened to various people. That's not historically accurate. Especially the battles, were all messed up. Which was extra surprising considering Robin Lane Fox who is possibly the leading Alexander scholar was historical consultant for the movie. The movie even contradicts his own writings. I could nerd out and start writing a list but I'm sure no one wants to read that.
Reply
post #7 of 74
8/12/09 at 5:26am
Don't get me started on U571, that film is an insult to the men and women who worked very hard to crack the Engima code.

Titanic is my pet hate on this topic however, for a film that prides itself on being as true to the time period as possible its pretty flawed. First Officer William Murdoch being the biggest crime in this film, a man credited with saving the most lives turned into a murderer for the sake of needing an evil memeber of the crew.
Reply
post #8 of 74
8/12/09 at 10:59am
Freshman year my Am. History professor had us watch The Patriot as part of the curriculum, and later Gangs of New York.
Reply
post #9 of 74
8/12/09 at 11:08am
Fuck U571, a film so inaccurate that a piece of text had to be added to the end of the film pointing out how full of bullshit it was. Even having Jon Bon Jovi decapitated by a flying submarine hatch can't save it.
Reply
post #10 of 74
8/12/09 at 11:09am
Tombstone was 1993. That study group ain't gettin' shit accurate.

Off the top of my pea-brained head, I think showing movies is a lazy-ass shortcut for a history class. Teachers will call it an entry point but students will use films as a substitute.
Reply
post #11 of 74
8/12/09 at 11:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Oysterburger View Post
Fuck U571, a film so inaccurate that a piece of text had to be added to the end of the film pointing out how full of bullshit it was. Even having Jon Bon Jovi decapitated by a flying submarine hatch can't save it.
But even that text refuses to admit that its a total work of fiction, which only goes to show how little the writers cared about real events.

At least Cameron apologised (and gave money to the local school) for his butchering of history.
Reply
post #12 of 74
8/12/09 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Off the top of my pea-brained head, I think showing movies is a lazy-ass shortcut for a history class. Teachers will call it an entry point but students will use films as a substitute.
We even had tests on them. Granted this was an 1101, but I'm pretty sure a good portion of the kids in my class got the impression these were completely historically accurate.
Reply
post #13 of 74
8/12/09 at 1:11pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Tombstone was 1993. That study group ain't gettin' shit accurate.

Off the top of my pea-brained head, I think showing movies is a lazy-ass shortcut for a history class. Teachers will call it an entry point but students will use films as a substitute.
Could have been a typo on my part.

Yeah, which is exactly what the study is showing.
Reply
post #14 of 74
8/12/09 at 1:20pm
I totally got an A.
Reply
post #15 of 74
8/12/09 at 1:35pm
I remember arguing with a teacher that vouched that Braveheart was historically accurate. After I showed him how wrong he was, and that Robert The Bruce wasn't the weak ass pussy the movie portrayed him as, he still argued.

And Alexander was not only boring as fuck, but historically poor. The Battle of Gaugamela and Hydaspes are hilarious.
Reply
post #16 of 74
8/12/09 at 2:51pm
Don't get me started on Braveheart. I was actually embarrassed for the way they treated Robert The Bruce, the man who actually liberated Scotland. The worst part is, I actually met Scotsmen that treat this movie like gospel.

And Hydaspes. Damn. How they could turn what is possibly the most brilliantly fought battle of Alexander's campaign into some weird skirmish with horses and elephants running around all crazy like in a fucking tropical forest, I'll never understand. If Stone wanted to throw in some hamfisted Vietnam parallel, war is hell scene, there were tens of subsequent battles that he could have used.
Reply
post #17 of 74
8/12/09 at 2:57pm
While not technically a movie, Band of Brothers comes to mind.
Reply
post #18 of 74
8/12/09 at 3:03pm
These films should be the gateway one uses to undertake further study. If a film like Braveheart, as poor history wise as it is, is used as a springboard to actually study the people and time frame itself I'm all for it.

And The Patriot is a load of jingoistic horseshit. Fuck that movie.
Reply
post #19 of 74
8/12/09 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Don't get me started on Braveheart. I was actually embarrassed for the way they treated Robert The Bruce, the man who actually liberated Scotland. The worst part is, I actually met Scotsmen that treat this movie like gospel.

And Hydaspes. Damn. How they could turn what is possibly the most brilliantly fought battle of Alexander's campaign into some weird skirmish with horses and elephants running around all crazy like in a fucking tropical forest, I'll never understand. If Stone wanted to throw in some hamfisted Vietnam parallel, war is hell scene, there were tens of subsequent battles that he could have used.
We could argue that Hydaspes was Alexander's finest hour as a field general (Gaugamela is still his high point as far as that in my mind), but Hydaspes is the other battle that Stone fucked up so bad. Eve more so, you can show how Alexander really was when he named a city after his dead HORSE after the battle.
Reply
post #20 of 74
8/12/09 at 3:17pm
In terms of complexity of battle plan I think Hydaspes comes ahead. But sure, Gaugamela is a better example of using a single genius maneuver (and bravery bordering on insanity) to overcome ridiculous odds.
Reply
post #21 of 74
8/12/09 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
In terms of complexity of battle plan I think Hydaspes comes ahead. But sure, Gaugamela is a better example of using a single genius maneuver (and bravery bordering on insanity) to overcome ridiculous odds.
Yeah. And the river engineering plan is a WTF move even now.

And The Patriot... Freeeeddddoo... oh wait. Wrong movie. Damn you Mel!
Reply
post #22 of 74
8/12/09 at 3:41pm
You guys take Alexander and I'll take Subotai or Tamerlane and we'll see who wins.
Reply
post #23 of 74
8/12/09 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
You guys take Alexander and I'll take Subotai or Tamerlane and we'll see who wins.
It has always been one of my dreams to find a way to put these kinds of battles together. Alexander vs. Julius Caesar vs. Genghis Khan all in command of their respective armies. Alas, the closest we've come to this was when Alexander crossed the Oxus the river during his Bactrian campaign and defeated the Scythians and when the Romans defeated the Macedonians in the Macedonian wars.
Reply
post #24 of 74
8/12/09 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
These films should be the gateway one uses to undertake further study.
I was inspired to further my studies in stealing shit and getting drunk with midgets, after watching the historically "accurate" TIME BANDITS.

Reply
post #25 of 74
8/12/09 at 4:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
You guys take Alexander and I'll take Subotai or Tamerlane and we'll see who wins.
Cool. Mind you, Alexander did his shit in less than 12 years. But these guys were all from the same mold.
Reply
post #26 of 74
8/12/09 at 5:16pm
Should we start a 'My general can your general's ass' or should we for economy's sake take over this one?

I'm only half joking.
Reply
post #27 of 74
8/12/09 at 5:40pm
Hahahahaha darkmites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
It has always been one of my dreams to find a way to put these kinds of battles together. Alexander vs. Julius Caesar vs. Genghis Khan all in command of their respective armies. Alas, the closest we've come to this was when Alexander crossed the Oxus the river during his Bactrian campaign and defeated the Scythians and when the Romans defeated the Macedonians in the Macedonian wars.
I do this all the time, it's called playing Civilization
Reply
post #28 of 74
8/12/09 at 7:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
No it wasn't accurate. It wasn't outright lying but due to time and budget constraints events were conflated and moved to different timelines and the same thing happened to various people. That's not historically accurate. Especially the battles, were all messed up. Which was extra surprising considering Robin Lane Fox who is possibly the leading Alexander scholar was historical consultant for the movie. The movie even contradicts his own writings. I could nerd out and start writing a list but I'm sure no one wants to read that.
it WAS accurate, in that everything hte critics complained about is true history. some stuff, like the fact there were two mutinies and in the film they were condensed into one, or the final battle in the film actually was against a walled city and was fought differently, are just poetic license. stone making india alexanders vietnam.

also, galgamalia (i cannot spell sorry) was VERY VERY accuratly depicted (as far as we can tell, there was so much dust, NO ONE really knows the exact sequence of events).
Reply
post #29 of 74
8/12/09 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
We could argue that Hydaspes was Alexander's finest hour as a field general (Gaugamela is still his high point as far as that in my mind), but Hydaspes is the other battle that Stone fucked up so bad. Eve more so, you can show how Alexander really was when he named a city after his dead HORSE after the battle.
i dont really care about stone "fuckng up the battles". only one of the three is changed from the history, and thats for character and probably budget reasons. i've read every singel review of alexander out there, and every time a critic says "look at what stone did!" its always something that comes straight from a historical source or what have you. most critics are dumb.
Reply
post #30 of 74
8/13/09 at 3:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post
I do this all the time, it's called playing Civilization
Civilization's battle engine is kind of a joke. It is anything but accurate.

And Kate, apparently we have a different concept of what historical accuracy means. Would you call a WWII movie that had all the D-Day landings happen on Omaha beach, accurate if they had the unit names correct? Certainly every creator has a license to tailor events to an extend so his art can work. But this takes away their accuracy. And Gaugamela is kind of accurate, except for them not including Alexander's Thessalonian cavalry that was the corps that Parmenion commanded, not the phalanx.
Reply
post #31 of 74
8/13/09 at 4:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Civilization's battle engine is kind of a joke. It is anything but accurate.
It'd be pretty fucking ace if we could do it with Total Wars engine tho eh Stel???
Reply
post #32 of 74
8/13/09 at 4:39am
I've tried it with Rome: Total War and it was kind of fun, but how do I know I the AI acted as they would have acted? I'm talking about getting way specific with the tactics, the capabilities of the weapons, the AI's operation. I'm pretty sure that to get good results you'd have to use the facilities that something like West Point has to run simulations. I even tried something like that when I was in the army but I was blown off almost instantly.
Reply
post #33 of 74
8/13/09 at 8:49am
I think, on a slightly different note, that its a fucking crime to alter the course of history for entertainment's sake when the true events of what happened are often far more interesting and thrilling. Titanic, Braveheart and Pearl Harbour are terrible for this. There's a much better story to be told and its already written.

I'm currently in the process of putting together a script based around the Jack the Ripper murders and realised that most of the films out there - aside from how accurately some of them portray the victims' cadavers - are really, really light on accuracy drawn from official reports or even societal context. So my aim is not to write about Jack, but about Whitechapel in 1888 and offer no solution as to who Jack was, but to offer up the facts. There was so much going on in that area at that time that there's enough for a whole TV series. Why make up some bullshit?
Reply
post #34 of 74
8/13/09 at 9:37am
Exactly!

Sounds like a pretty cool concept there Ben, if you havent already I suggest you watch the Michael Caine Jack the Ripper film as it's one of the better ones.
Reply
post #35 of 74
8/13/09 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Thomas View Post
I'm currently in the process of putting together a script based around the Jack the Ripper murders and realised that most of the films out there - aside from how accurately some of them portray the victims' cadavers - are really, really light on accuracy drawn from official reports or even societal context. So my aim is not to write about Jack, but about Whitechapel in 1888 and offer no solution as to who Jack was, but to offer up the facts. There was so much going on in that area at that time that there's enough for a whole TV series. Why make up some bullshit?
What do you think of Alan Moore's From Hell?
Reply
post #36 of 74
8/13/09 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Thomas View Post
Why make up some bullshit?
Easy. Because bullshit sometimes gets you Shakespeare's histories (as well as his other history-based tragedies), Arthurian legend, Amadeus, and (Moore's) From Hell. The goals of art and education are not the same.

As with adaptations, faithfulness to source material (in this case, real life) is seldom a good gauge of quality.

I get what you're saying, and I think the same goes for Public Enemies - the real story of Dillinger has more interesting details on paper. But, faithful or not, it's always all in the telling.
Reply
post #37 of 74
8/14/09 at 1:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
I remember arguing with a teacher that vouched that Braveheart was historically accurate. After I showed him how wrong he was, and that Robert The Bruce wasn't the weak ass pussy the movie portrayed him as, he still argued.
Christ, the Battle of Stirling is supposed to be the Battle of Stirling BRIDGE. And that's the key battle scene.

I certainly think it's a great movie but to look at it as anything other than a fiction based on William Wallace is a mistake.
Reply
post #38 of 74
8/14/09 at 4:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
Christ, the Battle of Stirling is supposed to be the Battle of Stirling BRIDGE. And that's the key battle scene.
Yeah, but how could they show Wallace's tactical brilliance, if they showed that the English lost at Stirling because they insisted on trying to cross the bridge, pushing and shoving each other while the Scotts were waiting on the other side slaughtering them as they crossed?
Reply
post #39 of 74
8/14/09 at 9:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post
Exactly!

Sounds like a pretty cool concept there Ben, if you havent already I suggest you watch the Michael Caine Jack the Ripper film as it's one of the better ones.
Caine's miniseries was probably the first exposure I had to the Ripper when it was aired on British TV in '88. But it still shows Abberline as being way more involved and enlightened than he was.

Damn good show though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post
What do you think of Alan Moore's From Hell?
Never read it, but the Hughes brothers' film was pretty scandalous in its disregard of the truth. I understand it differs somewhat from the graphic novel though. I will say this - they nail the crime scenes and the production design is pretty brilliant. Its just not a very good film. A fascinating theory, told poorly. And having Mary Kelly SURVIVE?! What the fuck.

DaveB, I agree with the point you're making. I guess I just get pissed off when filmmakers take liberties with the material to distort history and lessen the impact. There's a world of difference between the Richard IIIs and Amadeuses of the world against the Titanics and the Pearl Harbours.
Reply
post #40 of 74
8/14/09 at 9:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
And Kate, apparently we have a different concept of what historical accuracy means. Would you call a WWII movie that had all the D-Day landings happen on Omaha beach, accurate if they had the unit names correct? Certainly every creator has a license to tailor events to an extend so his art can work. But this takes away their accuracy. And Gaugamela is kind of accurate, except for them not including Alexander's Thessalonian cavalry that was the corps that Parmenion commanded, not the phalanx.
Another thing: it was so poorly shot that even I got confused. Alexander's tactic was fucking simple. Draw his left wing further left so he could charge straight at Darius, while his own left and center had to hold it long enough for him to do that. But it's so fucking boring on screen. Unlike some BOOKS!

And Alexander's Vietnam was Afghanistan. He ran into the same problems everyone else did, and had to adapt his tactics to very brutal ones in order to fight the same kind of battles NATO is doing now. How did he win? After 2-3 years of that (and even his soldier were disgusted by it's brutality), he bought peace. He bought his opponents into joining him.
Reply
post #41 of 74
8/14/09 at 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
Easy. Because bullshit sometimes gets you Shakespeare's histories (as well as his other history-based tragedies), Arthurian legend, Amadeus, and (Moore's) From Hell. The goals of art and education are not the same.

As with adaptations, faithfulness to source material (in this case, real life) is seldom a good gauge of quality.

I get what you're saying, and I think the same goes for Public Enemies - the real story of Dillinger has more interesting details on paper. But, faithful or not, it's always all in the telling.

I'm sorry I don't agree with that, if (like Titanic for example) you go to all the trouble of making everything as acurate as possible even down to the silverware and then turn one of the actual heroes of the real event into a villian for the sake of entertainment then you might as well not bother trying to make a historical piece. Just make it a fictional story set in the past.

Braveheart suffers from the same thing, take the real hero of the Revolution, turn him into a spinless wimp to make your hero seem better.

My point is if you are making a historical peace you have a responsability to tell the story as close to the event as you can. If it's not entertaining enough then don't bother with it.
Reply
post #42 of 74
8/14/09 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Thomas View Post
Never read it, but the Hughes brothers' film was pretty scandalous in its disregard of the truth. I understand it differs somewhat from the graphic novel though. I will say this - they nail the crime scenes and the production design is pretty brilliant. Its just not a very good film. A fascinating theory, told poorly. And having Mary Kelly SURVIVE?! What the fuck.
I ask mainly because Moore is extremley interested in the historical background of the Ripper case and very little in the actual crimes (he's said that he doesn't really believe the theory From Hell is based on.) So there's some liberties taken with the stories of the actual crimes, but a lot of care given to showing what living conditions were like for prostitutes at the time, how the class system worked, etc.

After the main story there is also a small piece on "Ripper-hunting" which sums up all the different theories and twists in a hilarious fashion.
Reply
post #43 of 74
8/14/09 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post
I'm sorry I don't agree with that, if (like Titanic for example) you go to all the trouble of making everything as acurate as possible even down to the silverware and then turn one of the actual heroes of the real event into a villian for the sake of entertainment then you might as well not bother trying to make a historical piece. Just make it a fictional story set in the past.

Braveheart suffers from the same thing, take the real hero of the Revolution, turn him into a spinless wimp to make your hero seem better.

My point is if you are making a historical peace you have a responsability to tell the story as close to the event as you can. If it's not entertaining enough then don't bother with it.
Like I said above, Shakespeare disagreed. Artists have been playing with the past since storytelling began, and we've gotten some immensely important and satisfying art out of it. If you've got a bone to pick with Braveheart and Titanic on this basis rather than on the basis of how they work on their own terms, then you've got a bone to pick with all of the stuff I mentioned above. And then you've got to ask yourself: would we really be better off if Peter Shaffer had taken your advice and hadn't bothered writing Amadeus because the real story wasn't entertaining enough? Would the world somehow be a better place with a thoroughly accurate Richard III?
Reply
post #44 of 74
8/14/09 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Thomas View Post
DaveB, I agree with the point you're making. I guess I just get pissed off when filmmakers take liberties with the material to distort history and lessen the impact. There's a world of difference between the Richard IIIs and Amadeuses of the world against the Titanics and the Pearl Harbours.
Right, but the world of difference lies not in how faithful they are, but in how good they are. Amadeus is probably far less reliable than Titanic.
Reply
post #45 of 74
8/14/09 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Thomas View Post
Caine's miniseries was probably the first exposure I had to the Ripper when it was aired on British TV in '88. But it still shows Abberline as being way more involved and enlightened than he was.

Damn good show though.



Never read it, but the Hughes brothers' film was pretty scandalous in its disregard of the truth. I understand it differs somewhat from the graphic novel though. I will say this - they nail the crime scenes and the production design is pretty brilliant. Its just not a very good film. A fascinating theory, told poorly. And having Mary Kelly SURVIVE?! What the fuck.

DaveB, I agree with the point you're making. I guess I just get pissed off when filmmakers take liberties with the material to distort history and lessen the impact. There's a world of difference between the Richard IIIs and Amadeuses of the world against the Titanics and the Pearl Harbours.

from hell is one of the best books i ever have read, though, i sort of wish they had someone write the words more clearly, sometimes i couldnt read what a character was saying (especially elephant man)
Reply
post #46 of 74
8/14/09 at 2:02pm
Also possibly a bit problematic on the historical accuracy front was that time Jack The Ripper showed up on Babylon 5.
Reply
post #47 of 74
8/14/09 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
Right, but the world of difference lies not in how faithful they are, but in how good they are. Amadeus is probably far less reliable than Titanic.
While I don't know enough details about the Titanic to know how it compares to Amadeus in regards to historical accuracy, I can say that Amadeus (the play or film) is the worst thing to watch/study if you want to learn about Mozart's time in Vienna. In its original iteration dating back over a hundred years ago the concept was always meant to be a dramatized tale, but since movies have been around people have a propensity to take what's on screen as accurate when it comes to historically set films. It's a shame too because Salieri's music is fantastic, and by all academic historical accounts he had a very amicable relationship with Mozart. He was essentially made into the villain of the story because a foil was needed, not because of any historical data.
Reply
post #48 of 74
8/14/09 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cordo View Post
While I don't know enough details about the Titanic to know how it compares to Amadeus in regards to historical accuracy, I can say that Amadeus (the play or film) is the worst thing to watch/study if you want to learn about Mozart's time in Vienna. In its original iteration dating back over a hundred years ago the concept was always meant to be a dramatized tale, but since movies have been around people have a propensity to take what's on screen as accurate when it comes to historically set films. It's a shame too because Salieri's music is fantastic, and by all academic historical accounts he had a very amicable relationship with Mozart. He was essentially made into the villain of the story because a foil was needed, not because of any historical data.
Yeah, and it completely sucks, right? A completely stupid and insignificant film with nothing to say on the nature of art and artists, inspiration, and mediocrity in the face of innovation. (Plus, I'd argue that Salieri is far more complex than simply "the villain" in the story - Amadeus isn't about good and bad, as such.)

Frankly, I'm not concerned with what stupid people believe, so the "it's a shame that many audiences really buy this as reality" argument is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Artists are not journalists. There's no obligation on their part to give you a history lesson. It's not Shakespeare's fault or Peter Shaffer's fault or even James Cameron's fault that a certain segment of the audience will take what they've produced and consider it literal truth. It's more important that they make something that transcends the particulars of reality and speaks to us on a deeper level.
Reply
post #49 of 74
8/14/09 at 3:16pm
If nothing else this thread has spurred me on to watch Amadeus.

Braveheart is an interesting one because Robert the Bruce is the national hero, is the man who brought independence to Scotland and is the man with the far more interesting story. William Wallace's journey in Braveheart is essentially Death Wish with armies and broadswords.
Reply
post #50 of 74
8/14/09 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
Like I said above, Shakespeare disagreed. Artists have been playing with the past since storytelling began, and we've gotten some immensely important and satisfying art out of it.
Yeah, you can take it back a lot further than Shakespeare (though always a solid reference point). Thousands of years before, the fall of a city-state in Asia Minor was being punched up by Homer, and of course you can insert a snarky reference to the holy text of your choosing here.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › A case for historical accuracy in films?