Powerful narrative vs. historical accuracy

[Martinus]

I've just finished watching the second season of Tudors, and I must say it gripped me to the very end (and has been much better than season 1). One thing that it shares with my other favourite series/movies, such as I, Claudius, Lion in Winter or Rome are the accusations of the lack of historical accuracy.

But should a show like this aim at being historically accurate or take liberties with facts, while delivering a compelling narrative (that is faithful to history in spirit if not in letter)?

Discuss.

[Ancient Demon]

I've just finished watching the second season of Tudors, and I must say it gripped me to the very end (and has been much better than season 1). One thing that it shares with my other favourite series/movies, such as I, Claudius, Lion in Winter or Rome are the accusations of the lack of historical accuracy.

But should a show like this aim at being historically accurate or take liberties with facts, while delivering a compelling narrative (that is faithful to history in spirit if not in letter)?

Discuss.

I'm not entirely averse to distorting some historical details if it can make the story more interesting, but in almost all cases I find that real history is interesting enough, so I don't understand the need to simply make stuff up. Also it annoys me that many viewers ignorant of history will assume everything is historically accurate.

[Viking]

I've just finished watching the second season of Tudors, and I must say it gripped me to the very end (and has been much better than season 1). One thing that it shares with my other favourite series/movies, such as I, Claudius, Lion in Winter or Rome are the accusations of the lack of historical accuracy.

But should a show like this aim at being historically accurate or take liberties with facts, while delivering a compelling narrative (that is faithful to history in spirit if not in letter)?

Discuss.

Remember that as well as the conflict between narrative and historicity you also have a conflict between various theories within history.

I prefer to look at it in the same way that the Ancient Tragedians did, you can use history to impart a message or a moral. You just need to have the honesty to admit this first.

[The Brain]

Any movie or TV show has to be a good movie or show first and historically accurate second. But if the makers insert unnecessary and ridiculous stuff then that's obviously not good.

Considering the amount of unhistorical stuff in so called serious scholarship I don't really get upset with same in historical fiction.

[Zanza]

The narrative is more important. Tudors is TV entertainment not a documentary after all.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't have any problem with adding in elements that are unknown anyway. That makes it better and more entertaining. I don't have a problem with Graves making Livia a villain, for example. We have no evidence it didn't happen that way. The only thing that bugs me is when they change or leave out large known historical events. Like if they had added another wife for Henry who was bisexual just so they could have some threesome scenes. That would be awful.

[Martinus]

I don't have any problem with adding in elements that are unknown anyway. That makes it better and more entertaining. I don't have a problem with Graves making Livia a villain, for example. We have no evidence it didn't happen that way. The only thing that bugs me is when they change or leave out large known historical events. Like if they had added another wife for Henry who was bisexual just so they could have some threesome scenes. That would be awful.

What about the sister thing in Tudors (essentially they combined two Henry's sisters into one)? To be honest I am not particularly bothered by that.

[The Brain]

I don't have any problem with adding in elements that are unknown anyway. That makes it better and more entertaining. I don't have a problem with Graves making Livia a villain, for example. We have no evidence it didn't happen that way. The only thing that bugs me is when they change or leave out large known historical events. Like if they had added another wife for Henry who was bisexual just so they could have some threesome scenes. That would be awful.

What about the sister thing in Tudors (essentially they combined two Henry's sisters into one)? To be honest I am not particularly bothered by that.

Most people bring no real personalities and qualities to the table. If more people could be combined I would be happy.

[PDH]

Not even sure why the question is asked, Mart.  It depends on the audience and what is desired to be told.  Such a TV series is not a documentary, which would be ridiculed if elements were made up, but rather historical fiction designed to tell the story part of the past rather than the more traditional idea of objective historical facts (debate that one if you wish).

History is supposedly everything that went on, and since we don't know it all, nor can we related everything, it is always about picking and choosing.  Fiction, even historically based, attempts to tell a story in such a way as to fit the audience, to be gripping.  Sometimes comparing the two is a bit worthless, though when done well, historical fiction is good and can be a learning tool, when done poorly it is bad...but the same is said of history too...

[Martinus]

Well, it was meant to be a bit of a provocative question, since we are suffering from an over-representation of anal history geeks. I suppose the public at large would not care about historical accuracy, really.

[Syt]

I don't mind history flavored drama (Braveheart) vs. meticulously researched reenactment (Untergang).

It always depends on what a movie tries to be. Band of Brothers attempts to capture the reality of war for a small group of soldiers. Indiana Jones is an advanture movie set in the 30s. By its very nature (supernatural stuff) it's bound to take some liberties (like that ahistorical mono-wing in Raiders). It's really a matter of what's in focus: historical reality or the story.

[Malthus]

I don't mind a movie monkeying with the facts, as long as the artistic purpose of said monkeying is in the service of making a work that is at least true in spirit to that of the time represented. Often the true events are simply too complex to show in two and a half hours of film, so a certain amount of simplification serves the same purpose as abstraction in art - skillfully done it can provide the viewer with a true sense of the mood and spirit of the time, without pedantically overwhelming the viewer with exposition.

Moreover, some movies as others have said are just intented to be romances or adventures set in a particular time: for those, a certain amount of fact-inventing is likely to be necessary. 

What is annoying is when the maker of a work distorts the facts to make their chosen characters more appealing (or appalling) to modern sensibilities: that is, when the resulting work is untrue to the spirit of the time depicted.

[Kleves]

What is annoying is when the maker of a work distorts the facts to make their chosen characters more appealing (or appalling) to modern sensibilities: that is, when the resulting work is untrue to the spirit of the time depicted.

See: Kingdom of Heaven.

[Hansmeister]

I don't have any problem with adding in elements that are unknown anyway. That makes it better and more entertaining. I don't have a problem with Graves making Livia a villain, for example. We have no evidence it didn't happen that way. The only thing that bugs me is when they change or leave out large known historical events. Like if they had added another wife for Henry who was bisexual just so they could have some threesome scenes. That would be awful.

No that wouldn't.  Indeed, I wholeheartedly endorse that suggestion.

[Hansmeister]

What is annoying is when the maker of a work distorts the facts to make their chosen characters more appealing (or appalling) to modern sensibilities: that is, when the resulting work is untrue to the spirit of the time depicted.

See: Kingdom of Heaven.

Hear, hear.