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. -_-
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2009, 11:56:29 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2009, 11:56:29 AM
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.
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.
The narrative is more important. Tudors is TV entertainment not a documentary after all.
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 02, 2009, 02:02:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2009, 02:05:41 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 02, 2009, 02:02:28 PM
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.
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...
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. :P
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2009, 02:39:54 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 02, 2009, 02:02:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Kleves on August 02, 2009, 06:13:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2009, 02:39:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Kleves on August 02, 2009, 06:13:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2009, 02:39:54 PM
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.
:x
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2009, 11:56:29 AM
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. -_-
Leaving things out or making things seem more exciting than they really were or happened close together than they really were for the narrative's sake is ok.
Changing things tends to piss me off though. Things like making Renauld de Chatillon a Knight Templar.
Quote from: Zanza on August 02, 2009, 12:24:12 PM
The narrative is more important. Tudors is TV entertainment not a documentary after all.
That is a good point.
Some of the History Channel's documentaries simply enfuriate me they have such enormous "errors"
The one that crops up over and over again is the Renaissance Europe was primarily a contest between England and Spain it seems. England defeated Spain all by herself and went on to rule the world...the Ottoman Empire, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal...all unimportant. Spain was locked in a deathmatch with her most dangerous enemy...that military juggernaut 16th century England.
I mean you guys are pretending to show us history right?
Quote from: Kleves on August 02, 2009, 06:13:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2009, 02:39:54 PM
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.
That one, Gladiator, Braveheart, and The Patriot are all up there as truly horrible historical movies.
Remember the English were horrible racists while the Southerners were just desperate to free their slaves...oh and all those black men who joined up with the British? Forcibly conscripted...um...right.
I don't mind it when they take some liberties with history to make a better series/film. If they had to keep totally historically and completely accurate it's a safe bet there would be far less genuinely brilliant stories out there.
Braveheart and Gladiator are good films. They've as much historical accuracy as Conan the Barbarian of course but they still make good films.
The Tudors however fails with both historical accuracy and entertainment value.
Historical inaccuracy or not, Braveheart is still a piece of garbage.
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2009, 11:54:33 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2009, 11:56:29 AM
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. -_-
Leaving things out or making things seem more exciting than they really were or happened close together than they really were for accuracy's sake is ok.
Changing things tends to piss me off though. Things like making Renauld de Chatillon a Knight Templar.
That one just fucking confused me. I kept thinking why is the "monk trying to mary that chick"?
Sometimes I wonder what movies will be like in the far future. Blue coated Union soldiers fighting their way through the streets of Iraq, a Patton tank roaring to the rescue of the battle of New Orleans, Davy Crocket at Khe San...
I don't mind changing historical facts when it's clearly for entertainment value (see Tudors, Rome) but not when a movie pretends to be the historical truth (see Kingdom of Heaven). Gladiator was entertainment, and I don't even think it was particularly good. Braveheart was fine, and in any case Patrick McGoohan makes up for anything else bad in that movie.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2009, 07:17:43 AMBlue coated Union soldiers fighting their way through the streets of Iraq, a Patton tank roaring to the rescue of the battle of New Orleans, Davy Crocket at Khe San...
I'd pay 60 Crowns to watch that movie.
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2009, 10:42:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2009, 07:17:43 AMBlue coated Union soldiers fighting their way through the streets of Iraq, a Patton tank roaring to the rescue of the battle of New Orleans, Davy Crocket at Khe San...
I'd pay 60 Crowns to watch that movie.
I hope you didn't pay 60 Crowns to watch Wild Wild West.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 03, 2009, 10:56:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 03, 2009, 10:42:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2009, 07:17:43 AMBlue coated Union soldiers fighting their way through the streets of Iraq, a Patton tank roaring to the rescue of the battle of New Orleans, Davy Crocket at Khe San...
I'd pay 60 Crowns to watch that movie.
I hope you didn't pay 60 Crowns to watch Wild Wild West.
I live in hope.
Quote from: Kleves on August 02, 2009, 06:13:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2009, 02:39:54 PM
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.
I didn't. Because I heard it was a major offender in this respect.
You should watch it, it's an entertaining movie.
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2009, 11:57:17 PM
Some of the History Channel's documentaries simply enfuriate me they have such enormous "errors"
Yeah. I'm more annoyed by bad documentaries than I am by TV series that take liberties.
But yeah, I like Rome, I, Claudius, Gladiator and Braveheart. While I don't really like the Patriot. I think what matters is the quality of the entertainment, not the history.
Okay, I'll bite.
I get upset at historical inaccuracies in movies, especially in movies where they have decided to be more entertaining than accurate. Yes, Braveheart, Gladiator, I'm looking at you.
The writers directors might have decided to play fast and loose with the facts, but they are not clear on this, and far, far too many people wind up taking such movies as historical facts.
If you want to make a period piece, or historical fiction, that's generally fair game. A western with invented characters, a WWII piece, you're generally fair to make of it what you will. But once you start to bring in real characters and real people, I do think you have a duty to the general public to take reasonable steps to portray events as they happened.
I like it when an the English are given short shrift in a movie, because the whining from over there is hilarious.
Like that U-whatever movie.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 03, 2009, 11:57:24 AM
I like it when an the English are given short shrift in a movie, because the whining from over there is hilarious.
Braveheart. :yeah:
I sorta agree with Bee Bee, but the thing is... who cares what the ignorant unwashed masses think? They'll forget about the movie in a day or two, and anyway their opinions don't matter. :)
Also, don't forget The Patriot.
English = Nazis. :)
Quote from: Caliga on August 03, 2009, 12:49:19 PM
Also, don't forget The Patriot.
English = Nazis. :)
They are. Little fat, surly wannabe nazis.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 03, 2009, 12:50:21 PMThey are. Little fat, surly wannabe nazis.
The thing that I always wondered about: if Gibson thinks English=Nazis, then why weren't the Brits the good guys in that movie? :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on August 03, 2009, 12:48:37 PM
I sorta agree with Bee Bee, but the thing is... who cares what the ignorant unwashed masses think? They'll forget about the movie in a day or two, and anyway their opinions don't matter. :)
The thing is - their opinions do mater, and they won't forget about the movie.
According to our Colosseum tour guide, people are always asking about Maximus. :bleeding:
And near the William Wallace memorial in Scotland, there is a statue of William Wallace straight out of the movie Braveheart (and not to mentin all the Braveheart-themed items for sale). There is a tragic mixing of the movie and real history.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 03, 2009, 12:50:21 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 03, 2009, 12:49:19 PM
Also, don't forget The Patriot.
English = Nazis. :)
They are. Little fat, surly wannabe nazis.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bigheadpress.com%2Fdisppage%3Ffile%3D%2Fsimages%2FRT%2Frtpage035B.jpg&hash=c1be3aee59a7db1c4de36b3bf1121a66868569df)
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2009, 01:15:55 PM
And near the William Wallace memorial in Scotland, there is a statue of William Wallace straight out of the movie Braveheart (and not to mentin all the Braveheart-themed items for sale). There is a tragic mixing of the movie and real history.
Ok, but how do your examples illustrate that their opinions matter?
Quote from: Caliga on August 03, 2009, 01:55:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2009, 01:15:55 PM
And near the William Wallace memorial in Scotland, there is a statue of William Wallace straight out of the movie Braveheart (and not to mentin all the Braveheart-themed items for sale). There is a tragic mixing of the movie and real history.
Ok, but how do your examples illustrate that their opinions matter?
They vote. They help shape public policy.
As far as I can tell the entire Scottish Independence movement is driven by such flawed views of history.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2009, 01:58:01 PM
As far as I can tell the entire Scottish Independence movement is driven by such flawed views of history.
That's nonsense. The SNP did hand out leaflets to queues waiting outside the cinema to see Braveheart and they make use of that sort of historically inaccurate nationalist romanticism. But the election after Braveheart was Labour's best, though the SNP did okay. The reason the SNP are successful is they've got political nous and the other Scottish parties are in a bit of a state.
I think the idea that the movement's driven by the film is a bit weird. Surely it's just that the fatalist, historically inaccurate, romantic version of history that's used by nationalist movements the world over, makes for a pretty good film?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 03, 2009, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2009, 01:58:01 PM
As far as I can tell the entire Scottish Independence movement is driven by such flawed views of history.
That's nonsense. The SNP did hand out leaflets to queues waiting outside the cinema to see Braveheart and they make use of that sort of historically inaccurate nationalist romanticism. But the election after Braveheart was Labour's best, though the SNP did okay. The reason the SNP are successful is they've got political nous and the other Scottish parties are in a bit of a state.
I think the idea that the movement's driven by the film is a bit weird. Surely it's just that the fatalist, historically inaccurate, romantic version of history that's used by nationalist movements the world over, makes for a pretty good film?
English motherfucker, do you read it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 03, 2009, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2009, 01:58:01 PM
As far as I can tell the entire Scottish Independence movement is driven by such flawed views of history.
That's nonsense. The SNP did hand out leaflets to queues waiting outside the cinema to see Braveheart and they make use of that sort of historically inaccurate nationalist romanticism. But the election after Braveheart was Labour's best, though the SNP did okay. The reason the SNP are successful is they've got political nous and the other Scottish parties are in a bit of a state.
I think the idea that the movement's driven by the film is a bit weird. Surely it's just that the fatalist, historically inaccurate, romantic version of history that's used by nationalist movements the world over, makes for a pretty good film?
I didn't blame Braveheart for the SNP. I blamed "flawed views of history" such as Braveheart. The movie is only an example.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2009, 02:13:18 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 03, 2009, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2009, 01:58:01 PM
As far as I can tell the entire Scottish Independence movement is driven by such flawed views of history.
That's nonsense. The SNP did hand out leaflets to queues waiting outside the cinema to see Braveheart and they make use of that sort of historically inaccurate nationalist romanticism. But the election after Braveheart was Labour's best, though the SNP did okay. The reason the SNP are successful is they've got political nous and the other Scottish parties are in a bit of a state.
I think the idea that the movement's driven by the film is a bit weird. Surely it's just that the fatalist, historically inaccurate, romantic version of history that's used by nationalist movements the world over, makes for a pretty good film?
I didn't blame Braveheart for the SNP. I blamed "flawed views of history" such as Braveheart. The movie is only an example.
Haggis and Kilts are english, didn't you get the memo?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 03, 2009, 11:57:24 AM
I like it when an the English are given short shrift in a movie, because the whining from over there is hilarious.
Like that U-whatever movie.
:unsure:
There rarely is such whining. That's why films always have English badguys, they can get away with it.
Quote from: BarristerThey vote. They help shape public policy.
As far as I can tell the entire Scottish Independence movement is driven by such flawed views of history.
Nah, its football thats more to blame.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2009, 01:58:01 PM
They vote. They help shape public policy.
As far as I can tell the entire Scottish Independence movement is driven by such flawed views of history.
How does a flawed view of Roman history, for example, affect what people will vote for or how public policy is shaped?
I used to feel the exact same way as you do until I was having a conversation with somebody on this topic and it dawned on me that it just doesn't matter what dumb people think about things like history, since there is no path that I can see between "flawed view of history" and "poor public policy".
Your Braveheart -> Scottish nationalism example may be the best one we have, but apparently that's flawed, according to Shelf (previously I might have cited that if I'd been taking your side).
I expect someone will pull out Triumph of the Will -> Nazism now, but the Nazis were already firmly in power when that movie debuted.
I'm not saying there is no way you can be right about this, but I need a concrete example before I can go back to agreeing with this notion.
Quote from: Tyr on August 03, 2009, 02:23:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 03, 2009, 11:57:24 AM
I like it when an the English are given short shrift in a movie, because the whining from over there is hilarious.
Like that U-whatever movie.
:unsure:
There rarely is such whining. That's why films always have English badguys, they can get away with it.
Yes there is. I read the newspapers.
Quote from: Tyr on August 03, 2009, 02:23:38 PM
Nah, its football thats more to blame.
Odd that New York still hasn't wanted to secede despite the existance of the New York Giants.
I think fiction can be woven into a greater narrative that is faithful to the time. Gladiator pisses me off because it has Republicanism as a major force, an anachronism about on par with having Commodus ride a wooly mammoth in full plate mail in his charge against Ghenghis Khan. Similarly, Braveheart's nationalism was awe inspiringly stupid, especially as it was of the Scottish variety.
That said, I think Rome, and to a lesser degree Spartacus, make earnest attempts at portraying an era as it was, for all their historical inaccuracies as it felt, rather than using it to tell a story or for camp value, like Aesop at a fucking Renaissance fair. I never saw Maximus drop an iron phallus fetish from a Germanic tribe on the table as a gift to his wife. I think Mad Men accomplishes something similar for the early-mid 60s.
Quote from: Barrister on August 03, 2009, 02:13:18 PM
I didn't blame Braveheart for the SNP. I blamed "flawed views of history" such as Braveheart. The movie is only an example.
But I think the flawed view of history that makes a film like Braveheart comes from a romanticisation of certain history, not least by nationalist movements. That political use of history, like Hollywood, is more interested in a myth than the truth.
And it's always been so. I'm sure there were virulent pamphlets in the 19th century moaning about Walter Scott's blatant disregard for historical truth. According to wiki Mark Twain in part blamed Scott's romanticisation of battle for the South's decision to fight the Civil War. The South was, and in Lettow still is, motivated by a similar romantic myth of history. I think the source for separatists and nationalists is that it's difficult to confront a historical fact when that fact is, effectively, that you lost.