HIstory in general has a Rashomon quality to it-- no matter how you convey what occured, there is a perspective to it that will always rub people in different ways.
When it comes to films generally, if you want as close to historical accuracy you can get, watch a documentary; preferably one with as little commentary as possible like Apoll…
HIstory in general has a Rashomon quality to it-- no matter how you convey what occured, there is a perspective to it that will always rub people in different ways.
When it comes to films generally, if you want as close to historical accuracy you can get, watch a documentary; preferably one with as little commentary as possible like Apollo 11.
Otherwise, what you are watching is a dramatic representation that should not be taken 100% literally accurate. Neil DeGrasse Tyson irritates me when he points out scientific inaccuracies in films because he can't suspend disbelief enough, historians do the same with historical movies to me.
However, if the inaccuracy is completely glaring. Something that is so fundamentally inaccurate to the point it is essentially fraudulent (to the character, to the events, to the raison d'etre of everything on screen) or tongue in cheek, or played for other reasons than fact, that's where a line is drawn, and then it should no longer be considered "historical fiction" and should just then be "fiction." Socrates in Bill and Ted's Adventure didn't cite the tagline to Days of our Lives. Abraham Lincoln wasn't a Vampire Hunter. Marty McFly didn't actually give Chuck Berry his signature sound. When you see it, you know what I am talking about.
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.
No, you are overthinking it. Those are just obvious examples. Everyone knows they shouldn't be taken literally as history. IT's all tongue in cheek. That's fine.
But then you get into problems with situations like in Braveheart, and the manner they treat Robert the Bruce-- that is wildly inaccurate, borderline fraudulent and shouldn't be considered history. Its a great movie, it adds the drama, but is so wildly wrong to be galling.
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.
And to drill the point home, years back, Zero Dark Thirty was looked past for Best Picture people made a stink about the "historical innaccuracies" in the film, particularly to it's depiction of torture. The film that won that year was Argo, a great film, but one that had historical inaccuracies in it too of a different kind, but played differently. IT seemed people were fine where it was played up as increasing the drama and were irritated when it was supposed to be a factual depiction.
HIstory in general has a Rashomon quality to it-- no matter how you convey what occured, there is a perspective to it that will always rub people in different ways.
When it comes to films generally, if you want as close to historical accuracy you can get, watch a documentary; preferably one with as little commentary as possible like Apollo 11.
Otherwise, what you are watching is a dramatic representation that should not be taken 100% literally accurate. Neil DeGrasse Tyson irritates me when he points out scientific inaccuracies in films because he can't suspend disbelief enough, historians do the same with historical movies to me.
However, if the inaccuracy is completely glaring. Something that is so fundamentally inaccurate to the point it is essentially fraudulent (to the character, to the events, to the raison d'etre of everything on screen) or tongue in cheek, or played for other reasons than fact, that's where a line is drawn, and then it should no longer be considered "historical fiction" and should just then be "fiction." Socrates in Bill and Ted's Adventure didn't cite the tagline to Days of our Lives. Abraham Lincoln wasn't a Vampire Hunter. Marty McFly didn't actually give Chuck Berry his signature sound. When you see it, you know what I am talking about.
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.
No, you are overthinking it. Those are just obvious examples. Everyone knows they shouldn't be taken literally as history. IT's all tongue in cheek. That's fine.
But then you get into problems with situations like in Braveheart, and the manner they treat Robert the Bruce-- that is wildly inaccurate, borderline fraudulent and shouldn't be considered history. Its a great movie, it adds the drama, but is so wildly wrong to be galling.
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.
And to drill the point home, years back, Zero Dark Thirty was looked past for Best Picture people made a stink about the "historical innaccuracies" in the film, particularly to it's depiction of torture. The film that won that year was Argo, a great film, but one that had historical inaccuracies in it too of a different kind, but played differently. IT seemed people were fine where it was played up as increasing the drama and were irritated when it was supposed to be a factual depiction.