A case for historical accuracy in films? - Page 2

And Star Trek. And that James Spader movie.

And yet-

You should be in marketing, because that sounds like the best movie ever.

Points to consider regarding accuracy:

Young Guns is the most accurate telling of the Billy the Kid story;

Badlands is a not-terribly accurate account of the Charlie Starkweather killings;

Velvet Goldmine is the best story we're ever going to get about glam rock in the UK.

I don't know much about Billy the Kid, so I can't attest to that first one, but based on the strength of the other two arguments, I'm going to assume you're absolutely 100% correct on that, too.

A lot of folks will probably call this a stretch, but I think you can tie this preoccupation with faithfulness to historical detail to an overall trend of insecurity with the non-literal in our society. The concept of objective truth is so reassuring that we seek it even where it has no business being (art, religion, political theory, morality). The idea that powerful works of art can be built primarily on an artist's ideas rather than on historical fact should not be all that elusive - people have accepted this since we started telling stories. But we're increasingly wired to dismiss things that aren't based in physical reality and scientific data as entirely worthless, and that's, frankly, stupid. And if you don't buy this argument when it comes to Jesus or what-have-you, you should at least be able to buy it when it comes to Henry V, Amadeus, and Badlands.

The movie industry totally encourages this too, though. BASED ON A TRUE STORY is a big marketing line, designed to make the viewer believe they're watching something more than just some silly make believe story. I agree that people shouldn't look for historical accuracy in art, but most historical movies get marketed like they're fucking history textbooks. It's tapping into the audience's desire to think it's consuming something educational (even when we're really just seeing a goofy action movie) and of course the general fetish for authenticity that permeates the way people discuss art these days (I blame the Romantics.)

Well, Amadeus is one of my favorite movies, so I don't know what you're rambling about in that first paragraph. Secondly, what argument are you talking about? I wasn't making any sort of an argument, just saying it's a shame that Salieri's music hasn't been widly recognized until very recently through new recordings, and when most people hear his name they think "Oh, bad guy from Amadeus."

And of course it's not Peter Shaffer's fault, he didn't create the framework for Salieri being opposition to Mozart.

Wait. You thought he was being serious in that paragraph? Seriously?

Leave the Romantics alone. "What I Like About You" is a good song!

I don't think anyone's mentionedit yet, but "Gettysburg" struck me as being very historically accurate. My brother had to analyze a film based on history, and note how accurate (or not) it was for a history class he took in college, and knew I was a history major in college. So he asked if I could suggest something. I happened to have Shelby Foote's Civil War series on my shelf, and Gettysburg had just come out on tape, so I suggested that, and read the chapter alongside the film. They synched up pretty well, from what I recall. Maybe not the most exciting film in the world for all that, but Martin Sheen's Lee & Tom Berenger's Longstreet were exactly what I'd picture those two being like.

I think the fundamental crux to the art vs accuracy debate is in how the film is dressed up. In the case of Shakepeare's histories or Shaffer's play, they are serving up a shit load of subtext. The themes are more important than the actual plot.

In something like Titanic, Cameron is serving up a story and boasting about historical detail, with next to no subtext. So it becomes less about accepting artistic license as it does about best serving that detail. Making up a trite love story and backing it up with wonderful detail seems pointless when there are so many more interesting stories to be told from the real events.

I'm not saying it isn't his right to make that shit up, nor his responsibility to give a wholly factual account of the sinking of the Titanic. I just think its a shame that he didn't, given all the raw materials at his disposal as it would have served some kind of purpose as well as being exponentially more thrilling. See also, Pearl Harbour and Braveheart.

Thus endeth my argument.

I must've missed the punchline.

For one, I wasn't "rambling." Second, you seemed to be responding to my post on the merit of art that isn't faithful by pointing out the downside of inaccuracies rather than acknowledging that Amadeus is great despite this. I think I can be forgiven for assuming that you were presenting a counter argument to what I'd been saying (that counter argument being that Amadeus's lack of historical accuracy is a bad thing).

Third - Shaffer, Pushkin, whatever. It's irrelevant who came up with this idea of Salieri. The point is that it's historically bullshit, but dramatically magnificent.

I was just jumping in the conversation by saying I think it's silly that people would use a historically set film as a learning tool, and as someone who plays piano and is a fan of Salieri's work I was giving my two cents on Amadeus.

I got an awesome B-Day present one year when I was in middleschool. "History according to Hollywood" i believe it was called. It was about historical accuracy, and examined a number of different films. You guys might want to look into that book

I agree with pretty much everything Dave B has been saying. No, actually, forget the pretty much part, I agree with everything. That being said, JFK, as deliriously wonderful as it can be (as well as deliriously awful) leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I just can't rectify even though I try only to respond to its artistic merits. I suppose its because Costner's character comes off as the most righteous man in the history of history, so I guess in a way, had the film presented at least a more nuanced version of that douchebag Jim Garrison it might not bug so much, and in its own way I am responding to it on its own merits. Or something.

This is at the core of every discussion I have about the Bounty mutiny movies. Each suffers from a potentially distracting need to play up a nonexistant angle, whether it's the Gable/Laughton film where Bligh is assigned every tyrannical move ever committed in the King's Navy, the Brando/Howard film where the division of age and class is overstressed or the Gibson/Hopkins film where the attention is given over to a nearly hysterical homo-erotic jealousy theme.

Dramatically, all three are quite sturdy. And though '84s THE BOUNTY leans most heavily on period details and convincing esthetics, it still falls prey to the irresistible siren call of audience appeal.

As wonky as it gets(and it's hardly a major offender), I love THE BOUNTY. Going with the unconvetional in both lead performer dynamics and it's Vangelis score, it has a dreamy quality that helps reinforce the idea that what we're seeing is not the actual incident reenacted verbatim, but more a meditation on the elements that all came together in the South Pacific in 1789.

A real good example of the "meditation" thing I'm talking about can be seen in Nicolas Echevarria's CABEZA DE VACA. That is a must see when discussing the collision of fact and fiction tectonic plates.

Alexander's vietnam was not afganistan. that sucked for him, and took 3 years, but in the end he married oxwiartes (cant spell his name) daughter and declared victory and left. he didnt buy peace, he married into the family of the ruling warlord. afganistan was alexanders afganistan. india was his vietnam-- because he did not win or continue on to the end of the earth.

god i love the 84 bounty. watch it every couple of months. great scores, so accurate too! from everything i've read there was a sort of homoerotic jealousy thing going on. its why bleigh did not get into the native girls at all. that could be inaccurate though

I don't mind if the author takes some liberties with history, I can even understand turning a hero into a villain, or a wuss ( Titanic, Braveheart ), but I simply cannot understand when someone makes the decision to skip or alter the interesting bits, to produce a movie that is actually less interesting than reading a non-fiction historical account.

"Kingdom of Heaven" for example. The real characters of Saladin, Balian, Richard Lionheart, Conrad, the real events, it all played out like a great movie. But, for some reason, someone decided they should scrap all that and make 15 hours of Orlando Bloom prancing about with a sword, looking into the distance with puppy eyes.

Saladin had humble beginnings, and became an emperor and conqueror thanks only to his own charisma and intelligence. Balian of Ibelin was a crusader noble who was surrounded by incompetent, greedy, savage douchebags, and still he managed to act so honourably, his deeds were rewarded by the conquering Muslims, and they spared thousands of christians.

Bam! Movie right there.

Except that's not what the movie is about.

Except that's exactly what the movie was about.

I think the Titanic issue is one of age. There are (or where at the time of the film) people alive who rememberd the actual event. More to the point there are still relivtives of the hero-made-villian for the film still alive and having to deal with idiots who now belive there family member was a villian.

I do think the filmmaker has a responsability to at least try and honour the good name of someone if the events are still in recent memory.

Another good example of this is Boys Don't cry, Lana Tisdel sued the pants off of Fox for bascially re writing her life story.

The movie is kinda that btw, but you have to know that making movies sometimes involves changing things to make a better movie. Kingdom of Heaven is a great example of that. Monahan took several separate stories and made one, but the final movie, like Greg Said, is the one you described. In this case it's like bitching about the changes made to the LOTR trilogy.

This is one of Ridley Scott's best movies (the director's cut, of course)

I'm not bitching about changes - I'm saying the writer took an interesting story and made it bland. The problem isn't just in the details, the core of that movie is problematic.

I love the look of the movie, but it lacks substance.
It jumps from event to event, character to character... and doesn't give any of the amazing actors nearly enough time or things to do. When I finally found the director's cut, I thought Ridley Scott fleshed out the story more, but no, it still feels (to me) like 15 hours of Orlando Bloom, and 15 seconds of everyone else.

Within the film's own reality, I got the feel the characters portrayed by Jeremy Irons, Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, Eva Green etc. were all much more intriguing than what we saw. I saw KoH three or four times, and every time I see it, I just can't believe how little the audience is shown. It's a grand historical event, it should convince us we're seeing a living, breathing world... but it's too neatly written, there are almost no scenes which are just there to show us the atmosphere of medieval Jerusalem.

It's a bland movie about a moment in history which was anything but bland.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that Terminator: Salvation comes to mind as a culprit - in a similar way.
TS obviously had an amusing world, some interesting characters portrayed by fine new actors,
yet, for some reason, someone decided we need to see just too much of Christian Bale doing nothing.

You saw the movie 3 or 4 times and still didn't get it? Bland? The real story is unfilmable as a movie. As a series, maybe, but I understand the choice made. Bloom, while not a grand actor, delivered enough to make the journey of Balian interesting and engaging. He's surrounded by excellent actors, and while Paul Bettany certainly would have made a better job, I'm not dissing Bloom's work here.

'm getting the impression here that you wanted to see a certain movie and because you didn't get it, you didn't like it. And if you saw the DC, you'd know it's not only about Balian.

If you criticize something, use facts to back your arguments. The fact that you in someway compare KoH: Dc to T4 makes me want to kick you in the nuts, if you have them.

Ah, the personal insults, so much fun.

Well, next time think before writing shit up. I just can't take you seriously after your post. T4 = KoH: Dc? Really? I might as well class you with Duke Fleed and ignore you. The best you came up with is "Balian ain't like real life". Yeah, but it wouldn't have made a great movie. The changes weren't deep enough to distract from the movie flow, unlike fucking Braveheart.

I'm sorry, I just can't discuss anything after you completely destroyed my argument
by kicking me in the nuts. It just hurts too bad to type.