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.
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.
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.