Historical Accuracy and Film

The one thing which I cant figure out in the movie culture is why do people grill films for their historical inaccuracy when the film either has a subject matter, context, or slight basis in history yet outrightly proves or even states that it isnt fact?

Movies like 300 and Pathfinder come to mind for modern prime examples. It's no secret that both are based on comic book or graphic novels...heck, a 300 poster has in fairly big letters: "Based on the Graphic Novel by Frank Miller"!

So, why do people and critics feel the need to rant over and over again about how inaccurate the movie is when that wasnt the purpose in the first place. Such criticism should be reserved for those films which try and portray historical accuracy and fail (i.e. Alexander). Is it really that hard to seperate what flaunts as accuracy and what states that it's pure entertainment and fiction?

Between Iran complaining over 300 and now critics burning Pathfinder for it's oddball premise I wonder if maybe people as a whole are just plain stupid.

Originally Posted by VOP2288

So, why do people and critics feel the need to rant over and over again about how inaccurate the movie is when that wasnt the purpose in the first place?

To feel superior to the Common People, by displaying that they 'know more' about history.

Agreed with VOP2288.

If you critizise films as 300 of historical of physical inaccuracy you can accuse any bloody comedy of stupidity or missing realism.

films are entertainenment and if films like 300 do not fit in the classical categories it is time for the new kind of film

Films that are meant to depict real historical events may be, and must be critizised. But then again, the viewer must understand the taken artistic freedoms that are necessary to make the film "better", or viewable for common people. Some WW2 movies might be a great example, they are usually expected to be accurate, and they're at their best when they actually are accurate.

Then there are people who critizise films such as 300 for historical accuracy. Isn't it obvious that some films are not meant to be accurate, and even the dumbest person should realize that without someone pointing out those numerous errors for him?
Being based on historical event or period doesn't automatically mean that the movie must be accurate, unless they try to make it that way.
Some common sense should be enough to overcome this historical accuracy-syndrome.
I admit that there indeed is a shortage of films for true history buffs, but sometimes you're just better off reading a book.

besides...
there are films which are obviously not realistic and inaccurate. but the great part of films give us the illusion to be accurate

I think its simple: films meant solely to entertain are often not historically accurate and should not be treated as such. Of course they can be criticized for the inaccuracy misleading people, but its the viewers' fault if they believe the movie is aiming at documentary style accuracy AND entertainment.

The thing about Hollywood film is that, if you are too historically accurate people get bored and if you are too innaccurate, well you get this

I can understand people being pissed off about a documentary being inaccurate, but films are meant solely for entertainment, catharsis and profit- historical accuracy is quaternary to those goals.

haha nice parody

That youtube video is awsome.

@ the Topic

I think it's more a matter of poor education. Most people dont relize that film or video is a rather poor source for any accuracy of truth or fact whatsoever. Even with unedited an video feed, their 'truth' is only what is shown in the littel box of what they can see, and that can easily be manipulated.

Part of the reason for this is the disregard for the importance of arts in education, but the more important factor by far is its use by media under sources that are supposed to represent facts. Namely news and documentary. However neither of those sources is capable of real fact, esspecailly considering the amount of editing done after filming the 'truth' on the ground. However the general impression because 'it' is seen and heard is that these sources are 'truth', as such people expect to get truth from video or film.

Most critics are already on a lower level on the rest of humanity, so it is unsurprising that they get confused. But beyond that a large part of it is they dont want to actualy critisize the artistic content of the movie because it's harder to do and harder to defend. However picking apart the historical accuracy is easy and effective because its for the most part hard to argue against it. Somtimes incases where a peice of film or video presents itself as fact (which again, is impossibel to achevie on screen), it should be ripped apart in that way but mostly its a bunch of nonsense. Documentaries or 'histroical' films are esspecailly suseptible to this (rightly so) because they come off as somthing more then they are.

Originally Posted by VOP2288

Such criticism should be reserved for those films which try and portray historical accuracy and fail (i.e. Alexander).

True. But there are plenty of movies that claim to be accurate or well-researched and simply aren’t. That woeful King Arthur with Clive Owen a couple of years ago, for example. That one presented the whacko fringe theory about “Arthur as Sarmatian warrior” as though it’s now accepted fact, when it’s nothing of the sort. The whole “history” in the story was bumbling gibberish and the DVD even had Keira Knightly (bless her) explaining that her bondage-gear-warrior-princess was accurate and well-researched. Total nonsense. And don’t get me started on “the Woads” …

Even Gladiator, which was always meant to be a Romanticised version of ancient Rome rather than anything historical, was accompanied by interviews with its Art Director spouting nonsense about how he had to make up all the gladiator arms and armour because “we don’t have any evidence about what gladiators looked like”. WTF?! Did he think about going to a public library and, perhaps, opening a book?

Another reason to comment on historical inaccuracy in films is when people are taking their inaccuracies as being accurate. I know people who insist that Thirteenth Century Scots must have worn kilts because they saw it on Braveheart. Several reviewers waxed lyrical about how “accurate and realistic” the battle scenes in that movie were, when they are actually rubbish. Similarly, I’ve seen people on TWC praise Gladiator’s in arms, armour and costume, when actually they were mainly nonsense.

Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg

True. But there are plenty of movies that claim to be accurate or well-researched and simply aren’t. That woeful King Arthur with Clive Owen a couple of years ago, for example. That one presented the whacko fringe theory about “Arthur as Sarmatian warrior” as though it’s now accepted fact, when it’s nothing of the sort. The whole “history” in the story was bumbling gibberish and the DVD even had Keira Knightly (bless her) explaining that her bondage-gear-warrior-princess was accurate and well-researched. Total nonsense. And don’t get me started on “the Woads” …

Even Gladiator, which was always meant to be a Romanticised version of ancient Rome rather than anything historical, was accompanied by interviews with its Art Director spouting nonsense about how he had to make up all the gladiator arms and armour because “we don’t have any evidence about what gladiators looked like”. WTF?! Did he think about going to a public library and, perhaps, opening a book?

Another reason to comment on historical inaccuracy in films is when people are taking their inaccuracies as being accurate. I know people who insist that Thirteenth Century Scots must have worn kilts because they saw it on Braveheart. Several reviewers waxed lyrical about how “accurate and realistic” the battle scenes in that movie were, when they are actually rubbish. Similarly, I’ve seen people on TWC praise Gladiator’s in arms, armour and costume, when actually they were mainly nonsense.

Well what about ROME the HBO mini series surely it has accurate arms and armor ,for the Romans at least because i know the Egyptians were totally crassed up to look something they weren't.

But the thing is , Has there ever been an totally accurate film ? i am guessing not because complete accuracy doesn't make for good cinema and since movies are all basically plays with special effect im sure real life dramas don't hold that much appeal to the common man.

@Cúchulainn: LoL

Originally Posted by Darkragnar

Well what about ROME the HBO mini series surely it has accurate arms and armor ,for the Romans at least because i know the Egyptians were totally crassed up to look something they weren't.

The HBO Rome was remarkably good, but still not accurate. It's good that pre-segementata soldiers were (for once) shown wearing mail and there were a lot of other little touches which showed exactly how much effort went into the research on that one.

Unfortunately, because it was filmed in Italy, they also used some Italian props companies whose crap turns up in a lot of movies. So almost all the soldiers wore helmets which looked like they had been made out of beaten brass with silly rings on top of them. These same helmets (from the same props house) also featured in The Passion of the Christ and seem fated to keep turning up in any "Roman" production filmed in Italy for years to come.

But even HBO didn't break the cardinal rule of making a "Roman" film: "Thou shalt have all your male characters wear weird wrist-protector/bracers on their wrists". Why do all "Roman" movies have guys wearing these things? Who knows, but they all do. Did the Romans ever wear these things? Ummm, no - but all "Roman" movies depict them anyway.

I agree with the topic, however...

I substitute teach at my high school, and was subbing for a carpentry class with some kids who watched 300. I told them I had also seen it and enjoyed it as well.

They then proceeded to ask me ridiculous questions about whether the Persians actually had huge monsters with knives for hands, and if the Immortals were actually mutant ninjas.

So instead of doing what a substitute teacher normally does (nothing) I actually got into an impromptu ancient history lesson with the carpentry class.

That is amuseing.

I find it intresting that though we belive our soceity is visualy sophisticated it is often proven to be far from the truth. As evidenced by your carpentry class: If they see it it must be true until proven otherwise. Though it is a positive sign that they asked.