History Visits The Movies

[theuofc]

I've had some interesting conversations with members on the way historical events and famous people's lives are portrayed in films. The consensus seems to be that historical accuracy flies out the window to tell a good story or for other reasons. Are there any films you've seen that are historically accurate? Are there films you've seen which make you grit your teeth because "that wasn't the way it was"?



"A Bridge Too Far," "Lawrence of Arabia," "Zulu," "Churchill: the Wilderness Years" ..were any of these accurate?



Barbara

[Steve Crook]

(theuofc @ Mar 24 2006, 06:04 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

I've had some interesting conversations with members on the way historical events and famous people's lives are portrayed in films. The consensus seems to be that historical accuracy flies out the window to tell a good story or for other reasons. Are there any films you've seen that are historically accurate? Are there films you've seen which make you grit your teeth because "that wasn't the way it was"?



"A Bridge Too Far," "Lawrence of Arabia," "Zulu," "Churchill: the Wilderness Years" ..were any of these accurate?



Barbara

[/b]

A Bridge Too Far - Very accurate

Bridge on the River Kwai - Wildly inaccurate in almost every detail. The only connection with the truth was that there was a World War and there was a railway built by PoWs

Lawrence of Arabia - generally sort of accurate, but over romanticised

Zulu - events portrayed were fairly accurate. Portrayal of people involved was libellous

Churchill: the Wilderness Years - never seen it but Young Winston was generally sort of accurate, but over romanticised



Some dramas that I do like that are based on real events which I find to be fairly accurate are:

Carve Her Name With Pride (1958) & Odette (1950), The Battle of the River Plate (1956), Ill Met by Moonlight (1957), San Demetrio London (1943) and quite a few others, so it can be done.



Steve

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

The four films I've seen based on the life of Oscar Wilde, with Morley, Finch, Gambon and Fry, all seem pretty close to actual recorded events in Wilde's life.

The older films based on the lives and loves of composers such as "The Magic Bow" and "Song without end" are often ludicrously inaccurate.

The best "composer" film I would judge to be Ken Russell's "A Song of Summer" which is about Delius.



I had a further thought on this topic since posting the above to the effect that, while some licence might be forgiven filmmakers who use historical subjects as a basis for their work in the interests of making a drama which works and entertains, it's unpardonable to produce a "factual" historical series which is full of inaccuracies.

There is precious little known about the life of William Shakespeare of Stratford, beyond the fact that he was a part-time actor, hard-nosed businessman, tax-evader and possible mobster on the London theatre scene.

A film like "Shakespeare in Love" must be accepted as a fantasy, but when a so-called historian like Michael Wood presents a series "In Search of Shakespeare" in which he builds up a portrait which, to all intents and purposes, is meant to be accurate out of the flimsiest of evidence and presents conjecture as truth, it's time to object. I remember one instance in the series where Wood told a downright lie; discussing the "Thomas More" addition ( which is a fragment of a co-authored work believed by many experts to be "Shakespeare's" and in which, it is thought, is preserved a copy of "Shakespeare's" handwriting) Wood stated that in this manuscript we had an example of handwriting which we knew to be Shakespeare's. Anyone who has seen a reproduction of the Thomas More autograph would be hard-pressed indeed to identify that hand with any of the signatures thought to have been written by Shakespeare himself (and there's doubt about that too!)

Indeed the handwriting of the autograph resembles, to a remarkable degree, that of an authorship candidate, the 6th Earl of Derby. Wood, of course, never gave this a mention, but if anybody wants to judge for themselves there are a few webscans at the following site:

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/Derby/apocrypha.html#hand

[716Jones]

(theuofc @ Mar 24 2006, 06:04 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

I've had some interesting conversations with members on the way historical events and famous people's lives are portrayed in films. The consensus seems to be that historical accuracy flies out the window to tell a good story or for other reasons. Are there any films you've seen that are historically accurate? Are there films you've seen which make you grit your teeth because "that wasn't the way it was"?



"A Bridge Too Far," "Lawrence of Arabia," "Zulu," "Churchill: the Wilderness Years" ..were any of these accurate?



Barbara

[/b]

"The Charge of the Light Brigade" (1968). This seems to have been a pretty accurate account, apart from inserting Captain Nolan into the 11th Hussars where he had no business to be! Had a good period feel to it, too, and a brilliant performance from Trevor Howard as Lord Cardigan.



Dave

[Nick Dando]

Having just finished TE Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and having recently watched Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, I'd have to say that the film was very innacurate. There are too many failings, compared to the book, that I don't know where to begin.

Ali didn't meet Lawrence in the desert, and he didn't stay with him as a companion. There's no hint of hero worship at all. Lawrence's servants both died, and not in the way portrayed. Lawrence didn't cross the desert, and certainly didn't go back for Gasim. Gasim wasn't the person that Lawrence had to execute. There was no mention of Dryden or Colonel Brighton. There was no mention of the collapse of the services in Damascus.

Etc. etc.



Nick

[Steve Crook]

(Nick Dando @ Mar 25 2006, 05:13 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

Having just finished TE Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and having recently watched Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, I'd have to say that the film was very innacurate. There are too many failings, compared to the book, that I don't know where to begin.

Ali didn't meet Lawrence in the desert, and he didn't stay with him as a companion. There's no hint of hero worship at all. Lawrence's servants both died, and not in the way portrayed. Lawrence didn't cross the desert, and certainly didn't go back for Gasim. Gasim wasn't the person that Lawrence had to execute. There was no mention of Dryden or Colonel Brighton. There was no mention of the collapse of the services in Damascus.

Etc. etc.



Nick

[/b]

Well you can't expect a biographical movie to be too accurate [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]



Also, remember that "Seven Pillars" was Lawrence's own version of events. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that view or that there's anything inaccurate in it, but it is his own view of things. The film does try to put it in the context of what was happening elsewhere at the time and the effect that Lawrence had on events.



Steve

[Marky B]

(Steve Crook @ Mar 25 2006, 07:46 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

Well you can't expect a biographical movie to be too accurate [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif[/img]



Also, remember that "Seven Pillars" was Lawrence's own version of events. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that view or that there's anything inaccurate in it, but it is his own view of things. The film does try to put it in the context of what was happening elsewhere at the time and the effect that Lawrence had on events.



Steve

[/b]

Having not read the book,but perhaps Lean and co felt the contents of the book were not suitable for a film and thus having to invent scenes for cinematic impact.

Ta Ta

Marky B [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Ambrosia]

(Steve Crook @ Mar 24 2006, 08:48 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>



A Bridge Too Far - Very accurate

Bridge on the River Kwai - Wildly inaccurate in almost every detail. The only connection with the truth was that there was a World War and there was a railway built by PoWs

Lawrence of Arabia - generally sort of accurate, but over romanticised

Zulu - events portrayed were fairly accurate. Portrayal of people involved was libellous

Churchill: the Wilderness Years - never seen it but Young Winston was generally sort of accurate, but over romanticised



Some dramas that I do like that are based on real events which I find to be fairly accurate are:

Carve Her Name With Pride (1958) & Odette (1950), The Battle of the River Plate (1956), Ill Met by Moonlight (1957), San Demetrio London (1943) and quite a few others, so it can be done.



Steve [/b]

</div><div class='quotemain'>A Bridge Too Far - Very accurate[/b]

I disagree the film although accurate in the depictions of major facts lended more as all dramatisations do to artistic licence in the use of the material, although this is acceptable in an entertainment context, it is not in historical dramatisation because;



Historical evidence is nither complete not accurate to support hypothersise on personal events, this is pure subjective dramatisation, speaches and personal interactions are not documented and are therefore sujective.



Seqence of historical facts and their historical importance is confused and disjointed regarding its significance to the portrayal of the events shown in the movie.

[Steve Crook]

(Maltman @ Mar 26 2006, 11:34 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

I disagree the film although accurate in the depictions of major facts lended more as all dramatisations do to artistic licence in the use of the material, although this is acceptable in an entertainment context, it is not in historical dramatisation because;



Historical evidence is nither complete not accurate to support hypothersise on personal events, this is pure subjective dramatisation, speaches and personal interactions are not documented and are therefore sujective.



Seqence of historical facts and their historical importance is confused and disjointed regarding its significance to the portrayal of the events shown in the movie.

[/b]

So what do you find to be inaccurate (if I understand your comment correctly) and in what way does it affect the understanding of the historical events?



Steve

[djdave]

One of the finest moments in Hollywood movie-making was 1960's Spartacus. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clapping.gif[/img]



However, the film was historically flawed in several respects. To name five:





- Charles Laughton's character of Gracchus had been dead for many years by the time of the Spartacus revolt.



- Spartacus died in battle, and not on the cross as depicted in the film.



- Spartacus was a deserter from the Roman army, and not as morally pure as depicted in the film.



- The final battle took place in the "toe" of Italy, and involved the building of a massive wall by the Romans.



- Spartacus was not averse to making Roman captives fight to the death, contrary to Kirk Douglas' speech to his fellow gladiators.





Do these inaccuracies make it less of a film? No...It still makes me teary-eyed in three places (you know the ones I'm talking about) and it still stands as a testament to the courage of some of Hollywood's film-makers i.e. hiring blacklisted Dalton Trumbo to do a screenplay of blacklisted Howard Fast's novel. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[jersey_lightning]

I like the title of this thread; having taught history, it is always a challenge to find a good movie to show in class. Or at least, a good one that you don't have to do too much explaining as to why parts aren't quite accurate.



I think one of the reasons the history isn't quite intact is the length. Damnably hard to fit everything into a neat, two-hour or so package.



Another reason may be that the writer/director/whomever is trying to get across another message, so they manage to corrupt things a little to get their point across.



One of the best exercises in History vs. the Movies was from my British History professor, who made us read Christopher Hill's "God's Englishman" and then compare the book to the Richard Harris' "Cromwell" movie. Talk about trying to dissect two diverse interpretations! That was also the professor who used to ask us to determine: is it historical fiction, or fictional history?



I will say one thing in defence of even a bad history movie -- at least people learned something about history. Most people think history started the day they were born (well, at least here in the U.S.). As much as I admire Sir Larry, I wouldn't want anyone to think he licked the Armada single-handed, ala "Fire Over England." But at least viewers learner there WAS an Armada, and plus you got Flora Robson as Good Queen Bess.



By the way, I agree with the poster above about "Charge of Light Brigade." Especially if you compare it to the earlier Warners Bros. version with Errol Flynn!



Regards,



Kat

[Steve Crook]

(jersey_lightning @ Mar 29 2006, 01:22 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

...

By the way, I agree with the poster above about "Charge of Light Brigade." Especially if you compare it to the earlier Warners Bros. version with Errol Flynn!



Regards,



Kat

[/b]

Yes, the Flynn/Niven version was totally confused linking it all to some events in India.



But talking of The Charge of the Light Brigade, how many people also know about The Charge of the Heavy Brigade? That happened in roughly the same place on the same day and it even had a poem written by Tennyson about it as well. The other event in the same area on the same day was the action by the 93rd (Highland) Regiment which was immortalised as The Thin Red Line.



It was quite a day in history



Steve

[arty-dave]

InDeed

[Johnny Rico]

There have to be interpretations put upon history when making a film ( Lets leave aside historical travesties like U571 - a film which continues the fine traditon of "Objective Burma" )



I was particularly interested in " A Bridge Too Far " having visited the Bridge at Arnhem . There is a scene where the Sherman Tanks of the Guard's Armoured stop short of reaching Arnhem , seemingly to " have a cup of tea" much to the American's disgust and the audiences.



There are a number of interpretations put on this ( historical ) action. Many think that the Guard's Armoured could have smashed on to Arnhem and rescued the Paras. There is another school of thought that says that argues that taking Tanks along a single road exposed on each flank would have resulted in total failure.



Most people are left with the impression that somehow the British Tank crews " Bottled it" ( see also Band of Brothers )



At least the film avoided the " Monty-Bashing" seen in US films like "Saving Private Ryan" and TV's "Band of Brothers"

[Johnny Rico]

On a lighter note , I once told my history Teacher how I could only see Cardinal Richelieu in terms of Charlton Heston . He said that for his generation it was the version in the Gene Kelly film that stayed in his thoughts!



I haven't seen the Gene Kelly version but apparently he referes to said Cardinal as " Rich-Loo"

[Steve Crook]

(Johnny Rico @ Mar 29 2006, 11:27 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

There have to be interpretations put upon history when making a film ( Lets leave aside historical travesties like U571 - a film which continues the fine traditon of "Objective Burma" )



I was particularly interested in " A Bridge Too Far " having visited the Bridge at Arnhem . There is a scene where the Sherman Tanks of the Guard's Armoured stop short of reaching Arnhem , seemingly to " have a cup of tea" much to the American's disgust and the audiences.



There are a number of interpretations put on this ( historical ) action. Many think that the Guard's Armoured could have smashed on to Arnhem and rescued the Paras. There is another school of thought that says that argues that taking Tanks along a single road exposed on each flank would have resulted in total failure.



Most people are left with the impression that somehow the British Tank crews " Bottled it" ( see also Band of Brothers )



At least the film avoided the " Monty-Bashing" seen in US films like "Saving Private Ryan" and TV's "Band of Brothers"

[/b]

There's a lot of background that couldn't really be covered effectively in the film:

Like why the reports from the Dutch resistance were ignored - that they were known to be heavily penetrated and mainly run by the Abwehr. Even so, once the Airborne got there, the Dutch were managing to communicate effectively - by using the normal phone system.



Like that Market Garden was about the 20th suggested operation for the Airborne since D-Day and that all the others had been cancelled, often at the last minute. And if the Airborne forces weren't used soon then the winter would set in and the weather would be too bad.



Like that the whole operation, one of the major operations of the war, was put together in less than a week.



There are other things that maybe should have been mentioned but weren't:

Like why a headquarters group had to be moved into the field. That used up many transport planes that could have carried fighting troops and also took a lot of Airborne troops to protect them.



Like why the Dutch military in exile wasn't consulted. There was apparently an exercise the Dutch Army used to give their officers of how to move a body of men across the Netherlands. If you took that single road you failed the exercise! It was so vunerable to attack, being a single road, either raised or with big ditches either side.



There were so many little things that went wrong with the whole operation. Had any one of them, or a few of them, not gone wrong then the whole thing might well have worked. And it probably would have shortened the war so it was worth the effort.



Of course the Dutch people suffered terribly in the "Hunger Winter" that followed. But despite that, they still quite like us and they have a very moving annual ceremony where schoolchildren are told all about what happened and then they go and lay flowers on the graves of those that remain in the area.



Steve

[Marky B]

(Steve Crook @ Mar 29 2006, 03:22 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

There's a lot of background that couldn't really be covered effectively in the film:

Like why the reports from the Dutch resistance were ignored - that they were known to be heavily penetrated and mainly run by the Abwehr. Even so, once the Airborne got there, the Dutch were managing to communicate effectively - by using the normal phone system.



Like that Market Garden was about the 20th suggested operation for the Airborne since D-Day and that all the others had been cancelled, often at the last minute. And if the Airborne forces weren't used soon then the winter would set in and the weather would be too bad.



Like that the whole operation, one of the major operations of the war, was put together in less than a week.



There are other things that maybe should have been mentioned but weren't:

Like why a headquarters group had to be moved into the field. That used up many transport planes that could have carried fighting troops and also took a lot of Airborne troops to protect them.



Like why the Dutch military in exile wasn't consulted. There was apparently an exercise the Dutch Army used to give their officers of how to move a body of men across the Netherlands. If you took that single road you failed the exercise! It was so vunerable to attack, being a single road, either raised or with big ditches either side.



There were so many little things that went wrong with the whole operation. Had any one of them, or a few of them, not gone wrong then the whole thing might well have worked. And it probably would have shortened the war so it was worth the effort.



Of course the Dutch people suffered terribly in the "Hunger Winter" that followed. But despite that, they still quite like us and they have a very moving annual ceremony where schoolchildren are told all about what happened and then they go and lay flowers on the graves of those that remain in the area.



Steve

[/b]

Dirk Bogarde summed it up eleoquently as General "Boy" Browning:"As I said to Monty,don't you think we're trying for a bridge too far?"

Ta Ta

Marky B [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Steve Crook]

[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif[/img]-->

(Marky B @ Mar 29 2006, 07:53 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

Dirk Bogarde summed it up eleoquently as General "Boy" Browning:"As I said to Monty,don't you think we're trying for a bridge too far?"

Ta Ta

Marky B [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsup.gif[/img]

It made for a convenient line in the film. If only the real life version was that simple. It was really far more complex and a lot of the blamd for it going wrong falls on the shoulders of Browning.



Steve

[theuofc]

(Steve Crook @ Mar 29 2006, 07:08 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif[/img]--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marky B @ Mar 29 2006, 07:53 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

Dirk Bogarde summed it up eleoquently as General "Boy" Browning:"As I said to Monty,don't you think we're trying for a bridge too far?"

Ta Ta

Marky B [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsup.gif[/img]

It made for a convenient line in the film. If only the real life version was that simple. It was really far more complex and a lot of the blamd for it going wrong falls on the shoulders of Browning.



Steve

[/b]

Apparently so. And Bogarde got a lot of flak, unfairly many think, for playing the role of Browning.



Barbara

[jersey_lightning]

(Johnny Rico @ Mar 29 2006, 05:33 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>

On a lighter note , I once told my history Teacher how I could only see Cardinal Richelieu in terms of Charlton Heston . He said that for his generation it was the version in the Gene Kelly film that stayed in his thoughts!



I haven't seen the Gene Kelly version but apparently he referes to said Cardinal as " Rich-Loo"

[/b]

Actually, I always think of Chuck Heston as Andrew Jackson, as per "The Buccanneer"!



The Gene Kelly movie in question is one of the many versions of The Three Musketeers, with Kelly as D'Artagnan. The musketeers are played by Robert Coote, Van Heflin, and Gig Young, with Lana Turner as the Lady D'Winter. A true MGM technicolor epic of the 40s! Vincent Price is "Rich-loo" and I believe all the characters similarly mangle the pronunciation.



When I covered France in the 15 and 1600s in a world history class, my freshman students never heard of either Reichelieu or Rich-loo, or the musketeers for that matter. Sad.



Kat in the US