The definitive historical film, made by us

Hear me, fellow historians and scholars.

Too long has Hollywood trampled on us, too long have they ignored our quiet wishes for an accurate film, a film which portrays history as it was and ignores all that 'coolness' **** Hollywood and popular culture imposes on it's filmmakers.

After a disgusted viewing of The Patriot this evening, and an even more disgusted watching of The Alamo, believe we must band together and make a film. A film which portrays history in all it's glory, equal and unassuming about anything. What I propose is a film focusing on one of the key moments in history.

Waterloo

A simple title for a single-minded film. A film which potrays the entire Waterloo campaign in all the great detail such a momentous moment in history demands. An equal movie, showing the points of view of the three great men who made that campaign what it was. Gebhard von Blucher, Arthur Wellesley and Napoleon Bonaparte. No English spoken except by the British soldiers and officers, who make up but one part of Wellington's army. Every nationality speaks in their native tongue. The French in French, the Prussians in German, the Netherlanders in Dutch. Every uniform accurate down to the slightest detail. Instead of the vast CGI-generated armies that are oh so common in this day and age, we bring together an army of at least six or seven thousand Napoleonic reenactors, just like what Gettysburg did with Civil War reenactors. And the music, we buy the rights to use all the great musical scores such a film demands, along with getting a great composer like Ennio Morricone to do the original music.

Imagine this: It is 11 o'clock on the morning of June 18th. Napoleon Bonaparte, great conqueror of Europe, sits and waits for the ground to dry so he can order the assault forward. He opens his telescope and peers through it at the ridge before him, paticularly at one blue-jacketed figure sitting on a horse. We switch perspectives and see Arthur Wellesley peering through his own telescope at the grey-coated figure near la Belle Alliance. The generals stare at each other, as this musical score plays, all other sounds are muted.

There is a long moment, time seeming to slow down as the great minds seem to contemplate each other. There is almost a sorrowful moment that these two men had to meet in war, somehow united yet eternally divided, never to meet face-to-face. The viewer comes to understand that this one battle, these two armies, these two generals, these two men, will determine the course of European history for the next century. As the music ends and time and sound returns, Napoleon order the assault forward.

What I propose, comrades, is that we, the historians and scholars across the internet and the world, come together to form an organization. An organization determined to acquire the funding, actors, script writers, producers, directors, composers and all other components neccesary to make a truly definitive historical epic. And it won't be biased in one direction or the other, and it won't have heroes or villains. It will be history, plain and simple. Who is with me?

......

LOL.

I think a radio show first would work better.

Man that sounds so boring...why would I want to watch that movie?

At the very least pick an age a little more eye candyish..

I hear you Eric.. You won't believe how many times I've sighed at the complete disregard certain directors have for history and historical development..

However, I do understand why it happens. History is amazing in itself, but it doesn't always provide the most engaging narrative. Most historians don't care about that, but there are plenty of 'normal' people who find it incredibly boring.. Look at the movie 'Master and Commander'. I think the fact that it's so exciting is because these are fictional characters set in a historical setting. If the movie had been about Nelson and De Villeneuve at Trafalgar, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been half as exciting..

Waterloo and other major battles are interesting as historical narrative, but don't really draw large crowds at the cinema. The 1970 movie 'Waterloo' looks amazing (even to 2008 eyes), but it is very, very long drawn, with little to no investment in any of the major characters. 'Gettysburg' tried to draw the audience in with both sides of the conflict and (despite the fact that I'm a huge fan of the American Civil War) even I couldn't help but sigh at the slow and unusually long depiction of fighting..

The fact is; single battles generally don't make for very good movies. Also, it would be very, very difficult to get funding for them from interested parties.. A longer, drawn out conflict with characters people can relate to (which in this day and age would probably be the common soldiers, not the generals and emperors) would probably be more succesful.. A story about a fictional soldier (perhaps a mid-level officer) in Napoleon's army during its march to Russia and its subsequent retreat?

There are plenty of examples imaginable, but I don't see 'true' historical films happening anywhere in the future. And frankly, I don't think we should be too worried about it either: after all, history is only an approximation of reality at a certain point in time, with the purpose of informing people who live in our day and age. Movies about history do not serve the purpose of informing people; they are meant to entertain. Yes, it's a shame many people let themselves be informed by movies, but there's nothing that can be done about that..

Movies like The Lost Battalion, Joyeux Noel, Alexander and All Quiet on the Western Front are the average hollywood blockbusters but are still quite historically accurate.

Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer

Movies like The Lost Battalion, Joyeux Noel, Alexander and All Quiet on the Western Front are the average hollywood blockbusters but are still quite historically accurate.

And on that notion there is nothing overly in-accurate about Troy.

Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer

All Quiet on the Western Front

Actually it was just been elected as best Historical film in Military History.

Alexander?

A single battle won't give sufficient depth of characters, simple as

Why don't you guys do the following things:

• Stop being in denial about hollywood films.
• Remember that documentaries are their own branch of filming for a reason.
• Admit to yourselves that this would be more interesting as a documentary than some vain attempt at entertainment.

I think the best you're going to get is Bondarchuk's 'Waterloo' or his 'Voyna i mir'. No CGI there.

And on that notion there is nothing overly in-accurate about Troy.

The costume design was fairly impressive, bar that for some of the main characters, but the story completely blitzed the mythology behind the war.

Originally Posted by Racer X

The costume design was fairly impressive, bar that for some of the main characters, but the story completely blitzed the mythology behind the war.

How far was the mythology ever accurate? Sure, stories were made, but the film made it realistic.

Let's say 'tradition' instead, then. The chronology of characters dying is the main problem. That was pretty inexcusable, as it wasn't related to any gods or living rivers or whatnot.

Yeah, that was pretty terrible.

See, I didn't have a problem with Troy, at least after I'd studied it on an academic level. You'd be surprised how much it gets right; though it does screw up Menelaos and Hector quite badly and a few others to a lesser extent. Its interpretation of Achilles though is actually very effective.

Also, I would like to point out that the poems themselves are very much rooted in the human aspects of the war. Troy's interpretation of the gods impact on the battle was highly effective as I see it. The characters are constantly doing things in reference to the gods and the divine. Imagine if you will that the film presented the film from a purely human perspective, rather than an all encompassing one that shows you the gods interacting with the events. Besides, there is no way it would work with a modern audience by including gods. I'm pretty well versed in the Illiad as a poem now, and I do think it was a good move not to include the divine explicitly.

Originally Posted by Stalins Ghost

See, I didn't have a problem with Troy, at least after I'd studied it on an academic level. You'd be surprised how much it gets right; though it does screw up Menelaos and Hector quite badly and a few others to a lesser extent. Its interpretation of Achilles though is actually very effective.

You mean how it misses out, I dunno, everything? Insulting the priest of Apollo, Achilles and Troilus, the war lasting a decade, Achilles being insulted, the problem with his armour, everything else that happened in the years between Achilles' death and the horse, etc. etc. Everything was wrong, really.

Quite simply, there is no way that it could have included everything in the Trojan epic cycle. Troy basically sought to capture the character of the Illiad's protagonists. It very effectively captured the character of Achilles. It dealt with his insult by Agamemnon well without having to get into the technicalities of Greek Kleos which would have only confused its audience. It handled his mortality excellently. And as anyone with a basic understanding of the Illiad knows, the book is primarily about the rage of Achilles.

The sequence of events was always going to be screwed up though. There was simply no way that Peterson could have included the entire length and bredth of the siege. It was too much for any single poet of the ancient world in the form of a single poem, and it was way too much to squeeze into a film; that may I add was long by many peoples standards already.

I'm not saying it was perfect by any means, but as far as a modern film about the ancient period goes, it wasn't entirely without merit.

But instead of missing chunks out with the line '9 years later', he actually put stuff that happened 9 years ago in the now. Achilles' death, for instance. Sure, human emotion was conveyed well - that's the job of the actor. The director just didn't cut it.