Should fact based films be historically accurate?
Discussion
According to Mrs SC, "The Other Boleyn Girl" was full of historical f
k-ups. I can understand them needing to change stuff around a bit to make it fit, or get the story told within the time constraints, but it often seems that things which are known to be facts get changed for no apparent reason.
For instance, the recent "Pierrepoint- The Last Hangman" (the US version) had all sorts of inaccuracies. Even the title was wrong, as he wasn't the last hangman! The depictions of the hangings in Germany as happening in a large hangar like building (they were actually done inside a prison) on a gallows that wasn't high enough. What was that all about?
I'm sure there are many more examples out there.
k-ups. I can understand them needing to change stuff around a bit to make it fit, or get the story told within the time constraints, but it often seems that things which are known to be facts get changed for no apparent reason.For instance, the recent "Pierrepoint- The Last Hangman" (the US version) had all sorts of inaccuracies. Even the title was wrong, as he wasn't the last hangman! The depictions of the hangings in Germany as happening in a large hangar like building (they were actually done inside a prison) on a gallows that wasn't high enough. What was that all about?
I'm sure there are many more examples out there.
It worries me because so many people's only exposure to history is through TV or films. It is doubly important if the film is about something that still has political implications or is still embroiled in controversy.
Take 'Micheal Collins' for example. They went to the trouble of getting all the historical costumes, vehicles, weapons, background scenes just right and I was very impressed by that. But then they seemed to go right out of their way to present one - very biased IMO - slant of history. The rearrangements and ommissions and lack of general context were apalling.
Or anything by the arch Brit hater himself, Mel Gibson.
Take 'Micheal Collins' for example. They went to the trouble of getting all the historical costumes, vehicles, weapons, background scenes just right and I was very impressed by that. But then they seemed to go right out of their way to present one - very biased IMO - slant of history. The rearrangements and ommissions and lack of general context were apalling.
Or anything by the arch Brit hater himself, Mel Gibson.
BruceV8 said:
It worries me because so many people's only exposure to history is through TV or films. It is doubly important if the film is about something that still has political implications or is still embroiled in controversy.
That's one of my worries too. As written history becomes less and less important so visual material that is pupports to be based on fact ought to be made with more effort to be accurate and unbiased.I've not seen the Michael Collins film, and don't intend to, because being Anglo/Irish I would just get my pissed boiled.
With the remake of The Dambusters there is a big stink that they may be changing the name of the black labrador of Guy Gibson, 'Nigger' to something which would not cause offence.
I personally think this is fine as for a film to be over shadowed by a relatively minorthing would be a bit silly, the name of the dog had no bearing on the mission or anything else to do with the 'story'. Let them change the name and don't keep dragging it up is what I say.
I personally think this is fine as for a film to be over shadowed by a relatively minorthing would be a bit silly, the name of the dog had no bearing on the mission or anything else to do with the 'story'. Let them change the name and don't keep dragging it up is what I say.
There was a big article in the Telegraph yesterday going through several BBC period dramas which made errors.
The BBC's defence was that people (viewers) want the dramas simply to create a 'feeling' of the period, rather than be accurate.
I disagree.
Often, children will sit and watch them with you, see clothes or cars etc in the context of a story which has a specific date in history and the programme will effectively become a history lesson in complete b0ll0cks.
The BBC's defence was that people (viewers) want the dramas simply to create a 'feeling' of the period, rather than be accurate.
I disagree.
Often, children will sit and watch them with you, see clothes or cars etc in the context of a story which has a specific date in history and the programme will effectively become a history lesson in complete b0ll0cks.
it is annoying to people who read 'proper' history - Braveheart and The Patriot being two of the worst recect 'historical' films (Both from the same actor/producer!). Even Elizabeth - The Golden Age got it wrong, showing Raleigh directing his ship, the Ark Royal into the path of the Armada - no way were the very important (and expensive) Royal Ships used as fireships, only outdated galleons or merchant ships were converted.
I have no problem with them changing facts which are not historically relevant, but do have issue when they change things to depict out and out inacccuracies, as they did in U-571. It isn't artistic licence, it just didn't happen and is a material error of a key fact.
When they say it is 'based on a true story' this suggests to the movie goer that most or everything on screen is true when of course most of it is made up or conjecture at the least. Nobody knows what the conversation between Henry VIII and his wives were, but as long as they stick to facts and don't simply make important up stuff I don't object. When they give an historical character a reputation inconsistent with the facts I also think that is wrong.
Perhaps they need a grading system from fact thru fiction?
When they say it is 'based on a true story' this suggests to the movie goer that most or everything on screen is true when of course most of it is made up or conjecture at the least. Nobody knows what the conversation between Henry VIII and his wives were, but as long as they stick to facts and don't simply make important up stuff I don't object. When they give an historical character a reputation inconsistent with the facts I also think that is wrong.
Perhaps they need a grading system from fact thru fiction?
singlecoil said:
According to Mrs SC, "The Other Boleyn Girl" was full of historical fk-ups.
The film was, the book however, wasn't as bad - obviously, not having beent here an amount of artstic license has to be given, but re-arranging events is diabolical.k-ups. As for other examples, hell, they can't even make films about recent history accurate (Titanic; Peal Harbour; Sahara; The English Patient; Enigma etc) how the hell do you expect them to get 'old' stuff right.
V8mate said:
The BBC's defence was that people (viewers) want the dramas simply to create a 'feeling' of the period, rather than be accurate.
I guess that would be their excuse for pretty much all of Merlin - it may be fantasy, it may take little from the original legend other than the names of characters and places, and inserting some multiculturalism is mandatory now, but if you're going to set something in 6th century Britain, at least leave out the stuff that won't be invented or discovered for another 1000 years. raf_gti said:
the name of the dog had no bearing on the mission or anything else to do with the 'story'. Let them change the name and don't keep dragging it up is what I say.
Except that the dog's name was also the code word for a breached dam. Hence if the mission was sucessful back at base it would be ! ! We've got a ! I say, have you heard - its's , chaps!Bushmaster said:
raf_gti said:
the name of the dog had no bearing on the mission or anything else to do with the 'story'. Let them change the name and don't keep dragging it up is what I say.
Except that the dog's name was also the code word for a breached dam. Hence if the mission was sucessful back at base it would be ! ! We've got a ! I say, have you heard - its's , chaps!http://uncle_tom_rants.blogspot.com/2006/07/chris-...
Nigg*r gets to keep his name. Unless they cast a white dog as Nigg*r. Then they'd have to change his name to Honky or Cracker.
Would they be able to use the word "Dam" though?
- beat the fliter.
Edited by audidoody on Sunday 11th January 13:17
Edited by audidoody on Sunday 11th January 13:18
audidoody said:
Bushmaster said:
raf_gti said:
the name of the dog had no bearing on the mission or anything else to do with the 'story'. Let them change the name and don't keep dragging it up is what I say.
Except that the dog's name was also the code word for a breached dam. Hence if the mission was sucessful back at base it would be ! ! We've got a ! I say, have you heard - its's , chaps!http://uncle_tom_rants.blogspot.com/2006/07/chris-...
Nigg*r gets to keep his name. Unless they cast a white dog as Nigg*r. Then they'd have to change his name to Honky or Cracker.
- beat the fliter.
Edited by audidoody on Sunday 11th January 13:17
Landlord]Surely a fact-based film that needs to be accurate is a documentary. That's why films fact [b]based[/ said:
. So, IMO, no. Unless they purport to be educational rather than entertaining, they can use as much artistic licence as they see fit.
There is a real problem if they stray too far from the known facts of the situation. I think any production which purports to be "based" on facts had better stick pretty closely to those facts - otherwise they are essentially deceiving and lying.If they want to write a fictional story based in a historic period, well and good. But if they are going to pretend that the story is factually based, then their artistic licence needs to be limited.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 11th January 14:04
As I see it:
film "Based on a true story" - can contain an element of artistic licence.
film "is a true story of..." - should be mosty historically accurate.
The key being "based on", without this it should be accurate (within reasson), without it anything goes as long as roughly what happened is portrayed.
film "Based on a true story" - can contain an element of artistic licence.
film "is a true story of..." - should be mosty historically accurate.
The key being "based on", without this it should be accurate (within reasson), without it anything goes as long as roughly what happened is portrayed.
Dracoro said:
As I see it:
film "Based on a true story" - can contain an element of artistic licence.
film "is a true story of..." - should be mosty historically accurate.
The key being "based on", without this it should be accurate (within reasson), without it anything goes as long as roughly what happened is portrayed.
Exactly.film "Based on a true story" - can contain an element of artistic licence.
film "is a true story of..." - should be mosty historically accurate.
The key being "based on", without this it should be accurate (within reasson), without it anything goes as long as roughly what happened is portrayed.
If you follow the argument that all films pretending to be "based on" an event should be historically accurate... how accurate is accurate? You can't define the cut off point.
A film is a film, take them all with a pinch of salt.
navier_stokes said:
Dracoro said:
As I see it:
film "Based on a true story" - can contain an element of artistic licence.
film "is a true story of..." - should be mosty historically accurate.
The key being "based on", without this it should be accurate (within reasson), without it anything goes as long as roughly what happened is portrayed.
Exactly.film "Based on a true story" - can contain an element of artistic licence.
film "is a true story of..." - should be mosty historically accurate.
The key being "based on", without this it should be accurate (within reasson), without it anything goes as long as roughly what happened is portrayed.
If you follow the argument that all films pretending to be "based on" an event should be historically accurate... how accurate is accurate? You can't define the cut off point.
A film is a film, take them all with a pinch of salt.
There are all sorts of shades of accuracy in "historical" movies.
With WW2 in mind , an example of a highly accurate production would be "A Bridge Too Far". Another would be "Band of Brothers". Even in these there was some deviation from the absolute truth but not enough to mislead the viewer and the stories remained true to the real events - without losing any drama or poignancy.
Exmaples where fact and fiction were mixed to good effect were "Battle of Britain" and "Memphis Belle".
In "Battle of Britain", the main characters e.g. Dowding, Goring, Park, Leigh-Mallory etc) were genuine historic people and many of the lines put into their mouths by the scriptwriters had actually been said by them in reality. However, the pilots and lesser characters (and the actual squadrons depicted) were ficticious - but the events portrayed by those fictional characters and squadrons were based on real events and real people - even if the names and numbers had been changed.
In Memphis Belle the events shown were largely true but a lot of what supposedly occured in their last mission either never happened to that plane and crew or did happen on other B-17s at other points in the war. In other words, a lot of events were compressed into a single raid for dramatic effect. However, the jist of what it was like to fly and fight in an unpressurised bomber at 30,000 ft over enemy territory was very correctly portrayed.
An example where fact and fiction were badly mixed was, of course, "Pearl Harbor". The truth was played with so fast and loose in that film that it was sufficient to portay a totally inaccurate picture of what American pilots did in the RAF before December 1941 and the actual events at Pearl Harbor.
"U571" was even worse.
An example of a totally fictional story but which relates pretty well to the type of missions flown by Mosquito sqaudrons is "633 Squadron".
"Saving Private Ryan" falls into a similar category - a fictional tale but with accurate sentiments.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 11th January 14:36
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff