Ten Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

[D B Campbell]

The Times have published their list of Ten Most Historically Inaccurate Movies. And there's no sign of 300! :roll:

[Jona Lendering]

The Times have published their list of Ten Most Historically Inaccurate Movies. And there's no sign of 300! :roll:

That's indeed an inaccurate list! 300 is worse than Gladiator.

[Praefectusclassis]

Well, the movies mentioned are certainly not wonderful examples of history (and perhaps 300 was left out as too inaccurate to even be considered a historical movie?), though some of the commentary requires an annotated list in itself...

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

No King Arthur?

[Robert Vermaat]

perhaps 300 was left out as too inaccurate to even be considered a historical movie?

I think 300 was seen as a fantasy comic, not something from the same category. On the other hand, that 10.000BC thingy..... at nr 3 no less!

Braveheart is my nr 1, as it seems to have influenced a lot of people's view on Scottish history, whereas I doubt that the others made as much difference.
What, no King Arthur, indeed? Nor Alexander?

Met Gibson is certainly the only actor figuring more than once in this list! :mrgreen:

[Sean Manning]

It partially depends on what sort of accuracy you care most about. Artifacts? Historical persons and events? Culture? It looks like the authors of this list perfer historical persons and events, with some regard to the other two.

I don't watch many movies, so I can't throw in any suggestions. I agree that Braveheart belongs near the top!

[Theodosius the Great]

How about Kingdom of Heaven ?

Apocalypto didn't qualify to be on the list, imo.
It sounds like it was politically motivated to put it there.

Afaik, the film didn't make any pretensions about being historical.

~Theo

[Narukami]

The problem with a list like this -- there are always more films that should be included.

Indeed where is 300?
Robin Hood with Kevin Costner?
Or how about that old Hollywood war horse The Battle of the Bulge?

General der Panzertruppen Hasso von Maunteuffel commented after attending a screening in Munich:
"The content of this film is completely fictional and has hardly anything to do with the events of those days"

Apocalypto was nothing more that a remake (almost scene for scene) of another old Hollywood staple The Naked Prey, which is no defense of that film. It would be impossible to defend any of these films from an historical perspective, and in some cases even a cinematic one.

However...

Such lists are always fun. For those who don't know this book I would recommend Pact Imperfect - History According To The Movies. An entertaining read and sorely in need of a sequel.

:wink:

Narukami

[Robert Vermaat]

How about Kingdom of Heaven ?

I agree, that was a 'pseudo-historical' movie, with real character doing fantasy things. Maybe less than Gladiator though.
However, when the Christians evacuated Jerusalem, it turned out that the Holy City lies on a flat plain.... I mean, could they the producers not have added a background of the Real Jerusalem? A shame.
Or at the end, when our hero and his Queeen have reached France (eh?) and the meet up with Richard Lionheart... [barf].

Apocalypto didn't qualify to be on the list, imo.
It sounds like it was politically motivated to put it there.
Afaik, the film didn't make any pretensions about being historical.

I think the reason why it's on the list has more to do with it being directed by Mr Braveheart, who seems to be a real hero for the author of the list... :twisted:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, the problem I see with 300, is, it is historically accurate, as long as you don't count the visuals, and 90% of the dialog...... :roll:

[Graham Sumner]

Perhaps it would be more interesting and harder to come up with the ten most accurate historical movies!

The list is an odd selection. 'Young Victoria' is on there because of one major error, in which case why not 'The Viking Queen' which was an error from start to finish, why even the title was incorrect that must be a first! Or what about 'Salome' who did the dance of the three veils to SAVE John the Baptist!

Graham.

[Epictetus]

Perhaps it would be more interesting and harder to come up with the ten most accurate historical movies!

That would be more difficult! In fact, while just sitting here and thinking, absolutely no movie comes to mind that I would call "historically accurate." Then again, I don't watch many.

[Sergey Lenkov]

IMHO article as stupid as it could be.
10 000 years B.C. hystoric film? Where did the lady study history? Why not The Fellowship of the Ring is placed in the list?
I think that the film is work of art, it isn't reconstuction - in that sence they can't compete with BBC educational films - and it's easy to see the difference between fiction and documentary. The artist should give to the viewer the image of the epoch and to express himself and if he could be as correct as possible - it's good, but that's not the main aim of historic film.
Mel Gibson could do as much mistakes as possible but still Apocalypto is good film. The same thing I could say about Gladiator.
By the way, it's possible to read memoirs by Bernard Diaz del Castilio - and to think that probably Mel Gison was too delicate in depicting of rituals Apocalypto is the film about our modern society - not about Mayas, Aztecs etc.

[Narukami]

Good points Sergey -- indeed film is art, and as such you are quite right that the artist (director, writer, etc.) should push the boundaries of the art form. Tarantino's new film will certainly do that.)

However...

When those artists, say Steven Spielberg and his screenwriter, make pre-release claims that their film (Saving Private Ryan) would be the first honest, realistic depiction of the D-Day landings and then proceed to make obvious historical errors (exactly where was the 2nd SS Panzer on D+3?) then I think that film is fair game for criticism on historical grounds.

Many film makers use the dodge that, oh this is just a film not a documentary, but that is nothing more than lazy film making. Kurosawa was legendary for his attention to detail. Most of his films were fiction and yet he was no less rigorous when it came to costumes, sets, atmosphere, etc.

How would we react to a film about the Battle of Kursk in which the Germans wore modern US Army Kevlar helmets or the Soviets wore First World War Tsarist Army caps? And yet is that not essentially what happened in the HBO Rome series? The helmets worn by Pullo and Vorenus are of a style much later than the time period of the film.

Even so...

Your point is taken Sergey, it is silly list, but fun none the less. I happen to enjoy Rome, warts and all as I do I, Claudius where the armor and helmets were not much better.

I think this is why we so admire the films of Kurosawa, or Kubrick or Scorsese, and look askance at films like 10,000 BC or 300 (a triumph of design though the latter may have been).

Just my random thoughts.

:wink:

Narukami

[john m roberts]

One of my favorite movies of the 40s was "They Died With Their Boots On," starring Erroll Flynn as George Armstrong Custer. In this film Winfield Scott (Sydney Greenstreet) commanded the Union forces throughout the war, the battle of Gettysburg was fought on terrain that greatly resembled southern California, and Custer saved the day at Gettysburg by leading repeated cavalry charges before being shot by a Reb armed with an 1873 Colt Peacemaker. This was at a time when many Civil War vets were still alive. It was still a great movie. Hollywood movies have always been fantasies.