Critic of historical movies

Malte279 · **on:** December 06, 2004, 09:17:26 AM

Hi!
Most of us (including myself) are very fond of movies with a historical background. Many of the movies (e.g. Braveheart and the Patriot), don't stick very closely to the historic facts, which is not necessarily a bad thing, as the movies are supposed to entertain us, and those who are interested can inform themselves.
However there are also really bad cases in which history is very directly falsified (e.g. Pearl Harbor) or idealized (e.g. Gods and Generals), or in which some parts of history are left out so a one sided picture is the result (e.g. Cold Mountain).
Also I find it somewhat sad (and I'm bound to be overruled in this point) how there is hardly a single movie of a saga which sticks to the written saga. The movies Troy, the Odysee, diverse movies of the Arthus saga, a movie of the Niebelungen saga which I watched recently... The story these movies tell has little in common with the original sagas, which is really a sad thing in my opinion. Sometimes the original sagas are even much more exciting than the version they show in the movies.

Nick22 · **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2004, 11:10:52 AM

Yes, but it is very difficult to tell the original stories and have them connect to today's generation. So they take liberties with history.
Nick

Malte279 · **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2004, 01:18:02 PM

But in some cases it seems like false information is spread deliberately. For example after watching Oliver Stone's "JFK" I did some research. Quite a few of the information in this movie seems to be made up. Or in "Pearl Harbor" you see Japanese bombing a hospital and throwing bombs at fleeing civilians like they had (to express it the cynical way) no better aims for their bombs.

Petrie · **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2004, 01:19:45 PM

It is no easy task to make a movie that people will watch that tell both sides of the story. The most "accurate" film I've ever seen is U-571 and from what I've heard, (never saw the film) Dances With Wolves gives perhaps the most accurate portrayal of Native American culture any western film shown.

Nick22 · **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2004, 01:26:25 PM

Dances with Wolves is very accurate with regards to Native American history, and it is a very good film.
Nick

Petrie · **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2004, 03:30:00 PM

At first I actually had thought it had something to do with wolves.

After reading reviews, in a way it does...protection of the wild frontier and the native way of life.

I'll have to invest in a used dvd copy...there's bound to be plenty of those about.

Malte279 · **Reply #6 on:** December 06, 2004, 03:46:38 PM

Quote

The most "accurate" film I've ever seen is U-571

You mean this ironically, don't you? There is hardly a single historical fact about the movie except for the fact that there was a second world war (slight exaggeration on my part).

Petrie · **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2004, 04:42:30 PM

I actually had meant what I said. :blink: If this turns into a long post, what is wrong with it?

Malte279 · **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2004, 05:02:32 PM

It begins with the fact that U-571 in fact was sunk by allied planes and was never captured. U-110 in fact was captured. But I don't want to be too picky about numbers. However it was captured by the British, not the Americans and it certainly wasn't captured in an action as foolhearty as the one shown in the movie. In fact on May 9th 1941 (America had not even declared war by that time) U-110 was damaged by waterbombs of British destroyers HMS Bulldog, HMS Broadway, and HMS Aubretia. When it emerged it was further damaged when the Bullog rammed it. The commander of the submarine Fritz-Julius Lemp ordered the submarine to be abandoned, considering it so severely damaged that it would sink before the British could get the enigma and other secret stuff from the submarine. However, they were wrong. U-110 sunk so slowly that the British had enough time to get hold of the enigma and some secret documents. They even tried to drag U-110 to Rekjavik, but it sunk on May 10th.
The documents optained from U-110 however didn't result in the allieds knowing about anything the Germans send from that point on. But it sure was a great help to dechifre many of the German codes.

Nick22 · **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2004, 05:36:56 PM

Oh the great liberties Hollywood takes with history <_<
Nick

WeirdRaptor · **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2004, 09:17:57 PM

U-571 is one reason I tend to steer clear of war movies about modern war (machine guns, bomber planes, ect.). I like movies like "Braveheart", "Troy", "King Arthur" (2004), and "The Patriot" a lot more.

Petrie · **Reply #11 on:** December 07, 2004, 09:26:41 AM

I thought it was accurate. :blink: You do have a point--most war movies are made for the action/suspense factor, less so about the historically accurate factor.

Nick22 · **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2004, 10:03:45 AM

Besides in war, good and evil are separeated by a very thin line, and both sides cross the line. Take the bombing of Dresden , for example. The war was nearly over, and the city had little or no military significance. Yet the Allies bombed it to bits and 150000 died.
Nick

f-22 "raptor" ace · **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2006, 09:01:39 AM

the most historic war movie i've seen is 12'oclock high. the reason is it showed how it was like for the pilots of bombers during and after their missions. memphis belle does the same.

Malte279 · **Reply #14 on:** July 15, 2006, 10:58:02 AM

I haven't seen "12'oclock high" high yet. As for historical accuracy "Memphis Belle" however is not a very good movie. It is entertaining of course and there are spectacular scenes and all that, but from the historical aspect there are several mistakes. As for the question of "what it was like" in the bombers for example, the crew would not have been able to take off their gloves and Oxygen masks at the high altitute the result would have been almost instant frostbite. As a matter of fact many members of bomber crews were awarded the Purple Heart for serious injuries they suffered from the extreme coldness at high altitutes.

F-14 Ace · **Reply #15 on:** July 16, 2006, 11:38:33 PM

Video games based on historic events tend to go over the edge too. FOr example, Secret Weapons Over Normandy is one of those games. Its a good game but highly inaccurate. Some parts actually are accurate, like the Battle of Midway but other parts are just made up. For example, there is one mission where you fly an aircraft called the Flying Pancake. It was a real plane but it never saw action in WWII. Another thine is that there are parts of the game where you can take enemy aircraft. I one mission, you fly a stolen JU-88 bomber across the English Channel into France and destroy an envasion fleet. When it runs out of ammo, you land at a German airfield that has been captured by the French Resistance and take the BF-109s there. Then, when you are fighting the Japanese, you can steal a Zero when your plane becomes too badly damaged to make it back to base. But the most rediculous part is when you steal an ME-262. You man the ball turret of a B-17 and when it is over the airfield, you bail out with the bombs and snach the jet when nobody is looking. In fact, the ME-262 was not captured until after the war.

f-22 "raptor" ace · **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2006, 09:07:22 AM

tora tora tora does a pretty good job in the historical account of the preal harbor attack. that is what i think,and it had some real footage taken during the attack.

Malte279 · **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2006, 09:52:39 AM

"Tora, Tora, Tora!" is indeed one of the movies where even a history fanatic like me finds nothing to complain about. There are arguments going on about the question whether or not Japanese Admiral Yamamoto ever said this famous "sleeping giant" quote which is presented at the end of the movie, but even if he didn't I suppose it would be a tolerable mistake. The movie is really accurate about many details and unlike many other movies it doesn't come accross as propaganda.
They also made better use of original footage (mainly the explosion of the USS Arizona) than they did in some other movies.
The movie Midway, for example, is somewhat careless about the original footage. It is not really a bad movie, but more of a story compared to the historical account "Tora, Tora, Tora!" gave. While the original footage of the movie Midway is interesting to watch it includes many plains which weren't even prototyped by the time the battle was fought (e.g. Grumman F6F Hellcat, F4U Corsair, and Curtiss SB2C Helldiver) while on the other hand it seems that there wasn't any original footage of some planes which fought in the battle (Grumman F4F Wildcat, Douglas TBD1 Devastator).

f-22 "raptor" ace · **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2006, 09:59:39 AM

yes when i saw midway i was dissapointed about it. also the dauntless was the another carrier plane in the battle. btw the could you close the newest topic i started?

Malte279 · **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:05:16 AM

I think there were Dauntless dive bombers in the movie though I'm pretty sure they were the type "SBD-5 Dauntless" which was used in the later time of the war while at Midway it would have been "SBD-3 Dauntless". Also the insignia of the planes at the time of the battle of Midway would have been a white star on a blue circle with a red point in the star's center rather then the purely white star on a blue circle with bars on both sides. I think that second insignia was not introduced until 1943.

Quote

btw the could you close the newest topic i started?

Which topic? Philadelphia Experiment?