Historical inaccuracies...

[pyan]

Further to a couple of posts in the Oscars thread:

How important is historical accuracy to you in a film? Does getting the small details wrong spoil the film in any way for you? Or does the sweep of a good story make errors in factual details unimportant?

[jenna]

I'm a history nerd, so I can't help but "pffffft" at inaccuracies. They do bug me when they're really glaring or downright insulting...

[MG1962]

Depends what the film is attempting to do. Private Ryan for example, so much was done well, the odd gaff was alright. Then you view that stupid sub movie where Amercians captured the codes from the Germans - Yeah lets just re-write history. That bugs me big time. Even the British Gov spat the dummy about that

[Joel007]

If the inaccuracies are due to bad research or laziness, then I get annoyed.
Some inaccuracies are inevitable though, such as those details which do not add to the film, or are not appropriate. I'd also understand those which would have required a significantly larger budget, or those deliberately altered through "artistic licence".

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Joel007

If the inaccuracies are due to bad research or laziness, then I get annoyed.
Some inaccuracies are inevitable though, such as those details which do not add to the film, or are not appropriate. I'd also understand those which would have required a significantly larger budget, or those deliberately altered through "artistic licence".

Thats a good point you raise - Tora Tora producers realised they could not get ships to look right - so rather than try an muck around with models and stuff - Just filmed on modern warships that although inaccurate, helped the tone of the film no end

[Foxbat]

Most inaccuracies I can put up with but, as MG 1962 says, a complete rewrite is just infuriating - in fact - it's historical theft as far as I'm concerned.

[The Ace]

I hate it when history is adapted to its target audience, like U-571. That's even worse than when the film-makers can't do their research.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by The Ace

I hate it when history is adapted to its target audience, like U-571. That's even worse than when the film-makers can't do their research.

I agree. It also creates the problem that people get confused between history and fiction. We could end up in a world where what really happened and what Hollywood said happened get all tangled up and hardly anybody knows the truth anymore. There are already people who think that Winston Churchill was a work of hollywood.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by The Ace

I hate it when history is adapted to its target audience, like U-571. That's even worse than when the film-makers can't do their research.

Yes yes, thats the pathetic film I was trying to think of. One momment that was simply hilarious. The American crew capture a german sub, just as a german destroyer turns up. Realising they cant allow the German ship to communicate the location of the sub, the crew man the deck gun, and hit the destroyers radio mast with their first shot.

If guns are that easy to use, why do gun crews spend hundreds of hours drilling with their weapons?

[Connavar]

I can stand historical inaccuracy when its not too clear, in your face and so stupid that it makes you angry or annoyed.

If it doesnt hurt the story its alright. Like 300 despite comic movie, you know every spartan didnt look like Gerard Butler and co or went to war half naked but you didnt care cause it didnt hurt the movie too much.


Taking an example from this thread there are way too many movies like U-571 that you cant accept the change in history.

[andrew.v.spencer]

Yes the sub film was just offensive. It deliberately changed history. I imagine Americans would find a film that blatantly offered as historical fact the British taking of Iwo Jima equally offensive.

Speaking of which I did hear rumours of Tom Cruise as an American pilot in the Battle of Britain. That had enormous potential to offend.

[MG1962]

I may be corrected, but wasnt there a squadron of American airmen formed in Britian before the US entry into the war?

[Quokka]

I think a lot of it depends on how the movie is portraying itself, I mean 300 is a movie based on a graphic novel inspired by real events from 2,500 years ago, so any links to actual events is really just a bonus (as long as they didn't have the Spartans miraculously wining the war).

Whereas movies like Braveheart or U-571 where there is a realistic expectation that people are going to believe what they see I think tread a fine line between being disappointing as a movie to being outright defamatory.

As others have said some inaccuarcies can be well justified The story of the Kelly Gang (1906) is a silent B&W movie filmed in Australia where the producers openly stated that the police were depicted in the film wearing uniforms when they certainly wouldn't have done in real life but they felt it was needed so the audience could distinguish who was who.

I think another big issue is biographies where you're actually giving a personality and character to people often in situations where you can't know the truth. In the end it's entertainment but doing it right certainly requires a lot of skill.

[Culhwch]

To go entirely against the majority here, I don't mind a bit - or a lot - of historical inaccuracy in films. If I want facts I'll read non-fiction or watch a documentary (though even that can be a dicey, one-sided view). If I want to be entertained, I'll watch a movie. If the subject matter interests me enough then I'll do further research, and if that shows up glaring inconsistencies, well, so be it. That's the movie business. I know there are some people who will take what they see Tom Cruise or Russell Crowe or Mel Gibson doing on the big screen as factual history, and that's worrying, yes, but there's not a lot I can do about it. If a film purports to be exactly true to events and isn't, then that's a bit dodgy, but I've never once seem a film claim anything approaching that kind of fidelity...

[Culhwch]

Originally Posted by MG1962

I may be corrected, but wasnt there a squadron of American airmen formed in Britian before the US entry into the war?

Well, that is certainly what the esteemed historiographer Michael Bay led me to believe in his marvelous true-to-life account of the bombing of Pearl Harbour...