[mooperman]

Inspired by the braveheart thread just below and watching Public Enemies last night it got me thinking, what films ARE historically accurate, i'm not sure i could think of any.....

I was reading the wiki page on Public Enemies and it seems whilst a lot of the events are accurate (to a degree) they are mostly in the wrong order....

so what can you guys think of..??

[Pecker]

There ain't no such thing.

If you want 'the thruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', you'd need to follow the action round with a documentary film crew, and even then you could completely change things with the edit.

At best, any film can only be said to be 'based on true events'.

Of course, some are more accurate than others, but there are no truly accurate films, only different degrees on inaccuracy.

Steve W

[mooperman]

Just racking my own brain here, but what about Apollo 13....

Of course when i said accurate i didnt mean to every minute detail, just that hollywood didnt take to many ridiculous liberties with the story a-la U-571..

[doug56hl]

what films ARE historically accurate, i'm not sure i could think of any.....

Titanic?
A Bridge too Far?, a few of the historical advisors were involved in the actual events and I think Attenborough would have tried to give a fairly truthful rendition of the story.

[spann3rs]

Band of Brothers? Not really a film I suppose...

[RickDastardly]

Good idea for a thread

Haven't seen it yet, but what about Frost/Nixon...did that remain true to actual events?

[RickDastardly]

Band of Brothers is a good shout, especially in terms of actual events, battles and those involved.

[Rambo John J]

Originally Posted by RickDastardly

Good idea for a thread

Haven't seen it yet, but what about Frost/Nixon...did that remain true to actual events?

according to the real David Frost they made a lot of changes to effectively turn him into an underdog out of his depth, which is the way hollywood likes its hero to be.



history is always written with some kind of bias to it so, personally, I doubt there's any such thing as anything at all that's historically accurate because it's all just collections of facts filtered through some scribe's opinion. Places and times might be right but that's about it (in my opinion), and if it's been translated from ancient texts or even just foreign languages, that's where things get even sketchier.
From what I've read, Zulu's pretty accurate, and Waterloo aswell, but what I read could obviously not be entirely 100% accurate. The actual military actions/skirmishes/battles in Band Of Brothers were meant to be spot on too

"historically accurate" and "cinematic" don't often sit well side by side.

[andy1249]

From what I've read, Zulu's pretty accurate, and Waterloo aswell,

Im sorry but I have to laugh there , seeing as how this thread got started , with the english bashing going on in braveheart , now it swings over to the only accurate accounts being ones where the spirit of British Derring Do is shown to be victorious ..... come on .... please

Zulu is about as historically accurate as the Matrix , anyone prepared to read up on the subject will quickly find out that the VC's awarded for Rourkes drift were an exercise in propaganda used to deflect attention away from the disastrous defeat that morning .... and nothing like what was depicted in the movie.

That aside though , I still think its a great movie , a lousy history lesson , but a great movie nonetheless

[RickDastardly]

I think war films can be pretty historically accurate and cinematic at the same time (that's the frightening nature of war I guess). I assume it is also partly out of respect to the veterans that they try and stick to what actually happened. I know We Were Soldiers was pretty accurate about Hal Moores lot engaging regular NVA for the first time. Same could be said about the battles in other war films like Hamburger Hill, 9th company etc.

P.S. Not even going to mention U571!!

[Rambo John J]

Originally Posted by andy1249

Im sorry but I have to laugh there , seeing as how this thread got started , with the english bashing going on in braveheart , now it swings over to the only accurate accounts being ones where the spirit of British Derring Do is shown to be victorious ..... come on .... please

Zulu is about as historically accurate as the Matrix , anyone prepared to read up on the subject will quickly find out that the VC's awarded for Rourkes drift were an exercise in propaganda used to deflect attention away from the disastrous defeat that morning .... and nothing like what was depicted in the movie.

That aside though , I still think its a great movie , a lousy history lesson , but a great movie nonetheless

exactly why I had the rest of the sentence (that you didn't quote ) about what I read may not have been entirely accurate. Which sums up history to a tee - it's always written by the winners, and they always leave out facts and details that don't fit with the opinion that's being expressed. History only tells us what the people writing it want us to know, and films aren't historical documents, they're entertainment

[nwgarratt]

I don't get why U-571 gets mentioned so much. I have no problem with it. If anyone watched the extras they mention they took more than one aspect of the war and put it in the film to make a action film (which it succeeded) not a history film. The biggest flaw is they never said the enigma machine was the first in the film like so many people say The US did get hold of one in the war later on.

They did however change how the U571 was destroyed. It was sunk off the coast of Ireland. I found that out afterwards so it didn't stop me enjoying the film.

I don't want too much history in films. I want to be entertained not bored to death.

[philbam]

I watched 'Gandhi' on blu the other day and thought that was pretty accurate regarding the history/ timeline of the area at the time.
Darn good film too!!

I too enjoyed 'U571' as well, accurate or not.

[gregww1]

Originally Posted by RickDastardly

...I know We Were Soldiers was pretty accurate about Hal Moores lot engaging regular NVA for the first time. Same could be said about the battles in other war films like Hamburger Hill, 9th company etc.

Yeah, We Were Soldiers is very accurate, just a few things changed for artistic reasons...an evocative story too, especially as the chap who is pictured on the front of the book (can't remember his name) was a Cornishman who was also the chief of security at the WTC and died whilst helping over 2000 people get to safety...a real hero.

[captainarchive]

How about

1984

2001 A Space Odyssey


...not.

I'm hoping 2012 is just as accurate.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by philbam

I watched 'Gandhi' on blu the other day and thought that was pretty accurate regarding the history/ timeline of the area at the time.
Darn good film too!!

Gandhi is a case in point. It's a great film, and gets over the main message, but is not historically accurate on many fronts. Its portrayal of Jinnah is quite controversial, for example.

Steve W

[B12]

Originally Posted by mooperman

Just racking my own brain here, but what about Apollo 13....

Of course when i said accurate i didnt mean to every minute detail, just that hollywood didnt take to many ridiculous liberties with the story a-la U-571..

Its not totally accurate if you need to nit pick? But I guess this one has to be closest for claims to accuracy?

I'm not sure what is wrong, off the top of my head ... search the forums on Stargazers Lounge It was the tiniest of details though ... great film

[mattrixdesign2]

Hunger - maybe, not sure how many liberties they took, certainly depressing enough to be real.

[Blue Triangles]

I think Star Wars gets it just about right. Although from what I hear, lightsabers were never manufactured in Green.

[rd9124]

The Passion of the Christ...

No?

[thearrowmaker]

It depends on how much you wish to nit-pick. No movie can be 100% accurate. That's clearly impossible. However some movies obviously manage it a lot better than others, when telling roughly the same story. The example that springs to mind is Tora,Tora,Tora as opposed to Pearl Harbor.. Whilst the former has a very documentary feel to it, without actually being a documentary, Pearl Harbor comes across as Star Wars with P-40's and Zero's.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by doug56hl

A Bridge too Far?, a few of the historical advisors were involved in the actual events and I think Attenborough would have tried to give a fairly truthful rendition of the story.

A Bridge Too Far is an epic film, and my favourite war film, but even then it gets quite alot of small details wrong, for example the initial engagement of XXX corps was not done with German 88s as these had been destroyed in the rolling artillery barrage - instead the Germans allowed the first Shermans to pass and engaged with hand held anti-tank weaponry.

Ultimately films are for enjoyment and nickpicking is a little silly. But it does annoy me when some glaring historical inaccuracy ruins everything - TV tends to be the worst - I was watching Piece of Cake the other day but stopped because the Spitfires they were using were obviously totally wrong. It was also gash but that is beside the point By contrast I treat films like Braveheart in the same category as Lord of the Rings - both are fantasy and highly enjoyable!

[B12]

Straying into the Horror genre ... The Exorcist is based on a real life event.

Lots of spooky stuff happened to cast members and the scene it was it shot at ... as I recall?

[B12]

Also

The Dambusters is worth a mention ... the original had to suffer from the secrecy act, that has only recently been lifted ... I live beside RAF Lossiemouth, the home of the current 617 Dambusters ... I wonder what the forthcoming Peter Jackson re-make will call Guy Gibsons Dog?

Trigger?

That certainly wont be accurate

[paulst10]

Originally Posted by Pecker

At best, any film can only be said to be 'based on true events'.

Of course, some are more accurate than others, but there are no truly accurate films, only different degrees on inaccuracy.

Steve W

I think I agree with Steve here, if you want total accuracy then it has to be the documentary

You will find that many disks come with special features that highlight the difference between Hollywood & fact and the reasons given for taking that route

As this thread was created from the discussion of Braveheart I suggest you watch "Tales Of William Wallace" on disk 2 of the UK (and US) release, this is considered to be accurate by what evidence they do have (not that I could confirm otherwise as I've never met WW)

"The Valkyrie Legacy" doc. is also an eye opener, also "Uncovering The Real Gangs Of New York"

[chrisgal]

Getting away from the historic war movies Donnie Brassco and Goodfellas although without doubt not 100% accurate would be based pretty heavily on events.

[captainarchive]

Originally Posted by B12

Also

The Dambusters is worth a mention ... the original had to suffer from the secrecy act, that has only recently been lifted ...

I'm afraid there's loads of historical inaccuracies with that film.

[simonblue]

I would have to none,most are just based on real events,

Zulu, the battle didnt start till late afternoon.

Loads more from Patton to A Bridges To Far,JFK Braveheart,ect

Some are closer than others

[dunks517]

Quadrophenia?

Shackleton with Kenneth Branagh?

A couple of examples showing 'bang on' historial accuracy are:

The Life of Brian and Monty Python's Holy Grail... So much in fact when you visit Doune Castle where most of the filming took place you can tour the castle with a pair of coconuts and listen to Terry Jones commenting on highly dubious historical facts and totally true Holy Grail facts.

I once heard that any film in colour must be true!

[Todd Tomorrow]

Life is too messy to be dramatically, satisfying so films will always shuffle characters or events around, omit and invent some or combine them to simplify a dramatic arch that would otherwise be way to complex. The only thing you could evaluate films by is whether they get the period right. Until the 70s films made barely any attempt to get a period right, with characters of past decades and centuries sporting obviously contemporary hair and make up. Only in the 70s did the idea of historical accuracy in depicting a time period take hold.