On this week’s episode, Sonny Bunch (The Bulwark), Alyssa Rosenberg (The Washington Post), and Peter Suderman (Reason) talked about Ridley Scott’s riotous press tour and his disdain for historical nitpicking while also reckoning with the responsibility, if any, popular fiction has to represent the reality of the world. Then they reviewed The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, the prequel everyone was begging for. No bonus episode this Friday: enjoy your Thanksgiving, everyone. If you enjoyed this episode, please share it with a friend!
Discussion about this episode
Share this post
Sorry the discussion on LIES is ridiculous about a movie. Did you say the same for Killers of the Flower Moon? It has more inaccuracies, because Scorsese was communicating the feelings and horror of what happened. Scott wasn't lying or being dishonest. Ask Kubrick about truth in cinema. Sonny is right about Ridley Scott's passion and art. Yes, ART.
You want to know about Napoleon, read a g-d damn book!!
This is a MOVIE, entertainment not true history
I'm in agreement with Sonny. One of my favorite movies is "Kingdom of Heaven" (another Ridley Scott film). And yeah, it's not super accurate to the historical events that inspired it. But it's a movie that does get at "the truth" of the attitudes that were prevalent during the Crusades in how it portrays the motivations of the characters. So, it's not a great primer for learning the factual details of history. But it does help understand the time period it's based on.
Firmly in the "shut up, nerd," camp when it comes to this debate. It's a movie, not a documentary — and even the latter are often inaccurate.
I agree with you, Michael, especially considering movies tend to also have a disclaimer making clear the movie has taken artistic liberties, so a viewer would have to be an idiot not to appreciate that.
However, with red-faced apologies for being the nerd for a moment, I do think Netflix’s The Crown has done some real life damage to public figures who are alive today in its often wholly fantastical and sensationalised portrayal of modern day royals who still need and rely upon public goodwill, especially here in the UK. I think there is a genuine argument for a clear disclaimer on TV dramas such as this if relating to people who are still alive, and especially when it relates to the dramatisation of hugely painful events, such as the death in a car crash of a young mother (Diana, Princess of Wales).
Agreed on living memory topics that aren’t stylized (e.g., Elvis, Rocket Man, etc.).
Issue is most people do not know history and they think the movie was a real life documentary. Happy Thanksgiving to the crew.
"Movies are movies. History is history." Reminds me how the aliens in "Galaxy Quest" called television shows "historical documents." Sigourney Weaver asks them if they believe "Gilligan's Island," and they respond mournfully, "Those poor people..."
If you are going to portray yourself as history, as something that is supposed to represent reality, then you need to be accurate to the people and events. It doesn't mean that every nitpicky detail needs to be correct or that you cannot spin a different interpretation--but major events should not be out of order (or ignored, even if mentioned only in passing) or that the characters should not act/behave in ways that we know they did not.
If you are doing Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure kind of stuff, then anything goes--because you aren't pretending to actually be historical.
A big part of it is what are setting people up to expect.
OTOH, dwarves without beards (be they male or female) in a movie set in Tolkien's Middle-Earth are just WRONG, LOL.
If you are nitpicky about historical accuracy, I strongly recommend that you do not watch much (or even any) "historical fiction."
I was fully expecting you to suggest that Ridley Scott just answer,"Are you not entertained?" to reporters. Ethan Hunt and the Butlerian jihad? I am looking forward to your discussions on Dune Part 2. Have a good Thanksgiving!
As a historian I see it too often twisted the other way: if history doesn't match what I know from watching a movie (or something on TV, or now, on social media) than the history books must be wrong.
Years ago when Oliver Stone’s JFK came out, the WaPo ran a looong article debunking its claims. A friend went to see it and got totally caught up in it. I showed her the article and she wailed, “But they made a movie about it!” I think people do expect that film adds a layer of truth. Having said that, I’m w/Ridley Scott about getting too hung up on historical detail at the expense of story. And I’m sure tourists will be very relieved to find out the pyramids are still intact.
I guess the problem is this -- who the hell thinks movies are anything but half bs? still the endless re-writing of history in film and tv series that i've been exposed to "fit the times" (or make it actually entertaining, etc...) is ... either just part of the deal and wink everyone should know it, or a dark plot to make us dumber. well i guess that's working then.
Who the hell believes anything they read on Facebook?
Note to everyone: Gilligans Island was filmed on the back lot of CBS studios. Do people not get that? Actually I think people don't get that.
Happy Thanksgiving, gang. I hope your foods of choice are excellent, your family experiences rewarding and your cocktails of choice refreshing.
You too!
Wait, are you saying those latter examples are problematic? I'd have thought those type of movies are exactly the kind of non-historical nonsense you *can* do with historical figures, precisely because they're so obviously fiction, and so obviously intended for other purposes than historical drama.
It's stuff that could be mistaken for a straight dramatization, especially big-budget stuff that *looks* convincing (if you're not learned about the setting, at least), that creates the false narratives, I think. Any dramatic adaptation has a perspective, of course, and fictionalizes at least some unknowable details. (Documentaries do, too, if you want to be rigorous.) That doesn't have to impact the accuracy of *essential* points.
OK, we agree. Braveheart is a great example of being terrible specifically because it's got the production to come across as a serious historical epic, but it's nearly all wrong.
This is millions of people's primary image of Scottish history now.