Historical Accuracy in TV and Film

[Agelastus]

For example, in a film where they portray the English as being generally stupid, arrogant and borderline evil...they filmed the battle scenes for Stirling Bridge with no bridge in sight.

And?

And?

And what?

Do you only read the first half of a post and then comment?

[Agelastus]

Admittedly, I am trying to think of a historical film that actually does things right.

A Bridge Too Far.

Yes, I think I'll have to concede this one. I don't even recall the few German vehicles we saw in the film looking appreciably "wrong".

[Admiral Yi]

I also liked that movie about the English Civil War.  Can't remember the title.  Obi wan plays the king.

[Brazen]

Yeah that is always tricky when English is used for some other language.  Like in Warhorse where everybody speaks English...which I thought was just the substitute for French or German or whatever and we were supposed to know they are really speaking German blah blah.  Of course there are scenes where the Frenchman is speaking to the Brits in English...so ok maybe he knows English...but then there are scenes where the Germans and French are speaking to each other in English and that about made my head explode.

Could it possibly be that it's a film based on a children's book recommended for ages 10 and up...?

[Admiral Yi]

Gallipoli also seemed to get it right.

[Tamas]

what is there to like in Warhorse, srsly? Apart from Spielberg making the parody of his own life`s work himself.

I can see it not translating well to a non-English-speaking audience, but if you thought the movie a parody, maybe you might not want to watch English-language films at all.  Monty Python would blow your mind.

[Brazen]

I also liked that movie about the English Civil War.  Can't remember the title.  Obi wan plays the king.

Cromwell with Alec Guinness and Richard Harris.

They're making a TV mini-series of Wolf Hall with Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell. Hope they make a decent job of that. Probably stands a better chance than trying to cram it all into a film.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, I think I'll have to concede this one. I don't even recall the few German vehicles we saw in the film looking appreciably "wrong".

A tricked up Leopard I makes a passable Panther.

Though my understanding is the 10th SS didn't have any Panthers at Arnhem.

[Valmy]

Yeah that is always tricky when English is used for some other language.  Like in Warhorse where everybody speaks English...which I thought was just the substitute for French or German or whatever and we were supposed to know they are really speaking German blah blah.  Of course there are scenes where the Frenchman is speaking to the Brits in English...so ok maybe he knows English...but then there are scenes where the Germans and French are speaking to each other in English and that about made my head explode.

Could it possibly be that it's a film based on a children's book recommended for ages 10 and up...?

Could it be I was talking about the movie and not the book which I was not even aware of?  The movie was not a kids movie.

In any case I was amused by that.  Man I never thought my little English as other language thing would enrage so many people 

[lustindarkness]

My biggest beef with historical inaccuracy is with tactics rather than hard ware.  Two roman armies march towards each other, then they break up into groups of two and start dueling each other.

Yeah, agreed. They fought in formation as much as possible, which is one factor why the Roman armies were so effective. Same thing for other ancient armies of course. But in some movies they show formations and it not only looks right, it makes perfect sense as to the reason for using them. The movie 300 showed use of formations which is good but for me that movie fell apart with all the uber moves by individual Greek soldiers when not in formation.

In the beginning of the movie "The Eagle" a badly outnumbered Roman force formed testudo, turtled up, and that showed a very effective tactic. So movies do very well if they can portray some proper tactics as the tactics the ancient armies used were often so very effective. I cringe whenever I see well trained armies devolve into individual fighting at the start of battle.

But 300 is not a historical film, it is a film adaptation of a graphic novel. But I do understand your point.

[crazy canuck]

The movie was not a kids movie.

  It was billed as "a movie for all ages"

It seemed pretty obvious to me the target audience was the same as the book.

[Tamas]

The movie was not a kids movie.

  It was billed as "a movie for all ages"

It seemed pretty obvious to me the target audience was the same as the book.

trailers (for TV, which I have seen) did NOT advertise it as a kids movie. it was SPIELBERGS NEXT WAR MOVIE EPIC

[jimmy olsen]

Option 3, with, as has been mentioned, Braveheart being the classic example of a film that does things the wrong way.

And stupidly so to.

For example, in a film where they portray the English as being generally stupid, arrogant and borderline evil...they filmed the battle scenes for Stirling Bridge with no bridge in sight.

Stirling Bridge is a classic example of stupidity and arrogance on the English side ("Hey, let's cross this bridge two at a time with the Scottish Army drawn up in plain sight and waiting for us over there on the other side.") It's not something that has to be made up, or interpreted, or otherwise twisted as so much else was in that film, it really happened and fitted with their general portrayal of the English. And they ignored it.

Admittedly, I am trying to think of a historical film that actually does things right. Television tends to be much better at making acceptable "historical" historical series.

Wasn't the reason simply a budget issue? IIRC they couldn't afford to build a bridge.

[crazy canuck]

trailers (for TV, which I have seen) did NOT advertise it as a kids movie. it was SPIELBERGS NEXT WAR MOVIE EPIC

I cannot account for the fact that Hungarians advertised a kids movie, based on a kids book as an epic war movie for adults.

[Valmy]

The movie was not a kids movie.

  It was billed as "a movie for all ages"

It seemed pretty obvious to me the target audience was the same as the book.

It was rated PG-13, so a movie for all ages above 13

Nowhere in the marketing I saw was it being sold as a kids movie.