Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting blog
Caught it by accident
Guy analyzes historical accuracy of various movies and tv series
If he doesn’t have access to certain channel can’t review certain series https://aelarsen.wordpress.com/about/
I didn’t have to log into anything and read several of the blog articles
If you discuss historical accuracy that is not there—you obviously discuss INaccuracies
Some of the films/shows do have better than average attention to detail—so there is less inaccuracy with those
Re the disclaimers of producers—
You would have to be more specific, but I doubt you made the effort to read any of the posts
I don't particularly care about the accuracy of historical dramas because the emphasis is on the drama and the historical is secondary. There's a reason drama is the noun and historical is the adjective.
Fiction is meant to entertain. History is meant to educate.
The Seventh Seal
Lincoln
Mad Men
Nixon
Chernobyl
In all, the drama is paramount. When history is paramount, the proper format is the documentary.
This should be self-evident. Dialogue is by necessity almost completely invented. Or, to put it another way, it's fiction. Depicted situations, attire, interactions? Again, invented because mostly it's not known to the precision that can be depicted in the first place. That's fiction. And since the goal is ultimately to put butts in theater seats and sell streams, the history will necessarily be dramatized in order to increase its appeal.
I have not one shred of sympathy for those who find themselves misinformed because they presumed they were learning history when, in fact, they were watching a fictionalized dramatization. Their presumption is the problem.
I don't particularly care about the accuracy of historical dramas because the emphasis is on the drama and the historical is secondary. There's a reason drama is the noun and historical is the adjective.
Fiction is meant to entertain. History is meant to educate.
The Seventh Seal
Lincoln
Mad Men
Nixon
Chernobyl
In all, the drama is paramount. When history is paramount, the proper format is the documentary.
This should be self-evident. Dialogue is by necessity almost completely invented. Or, to put it another way, it's fiction. Depicted situations, attire, interactions? Again, invented because mostly it's not known to the precision that can be depicted in the first place. That's fiction. And since the goal is ultimately to put butts in theater seats and sell streams, the history will necessarily be dramatized in order to increase its appeal.
I have not one shred of sympathy for those who find themselves misinformed because they presumed they were learning history when, in fact, they were watching a fictionalized dramatization. Their presumption is the problem.
I agree, but there have been some historical movies which took pains to present factual representations. An example is "Nicholas and Alexandria" which while including dialogues which had to be invented, presented the facts of the story as they happened. "Tora Tora Tora" was as close to a documentary as a fictional film ever gets. "A Bridge Too Far" also stuck to the facts, while presenting some composite characters and filling in dialogue.
The opposite extreme includes travesties such as the Errol Flynn "Charge of the Light Brigade" where the reason for the charge turns out to be a personal duel between Flynn and some evil Turk he first encountered while posted in India. "Far Horizons" took the Lewis and Clark story, which needs no enhancement to be exciting, and added romance and battles, all fictional.
Site mostly works for me, although you click on some movies like "1776" and then I hit a paywall of some sorts.
Pretty good site, thanks OP. I can spend a good afternoon browsing it. Very detailed, the guy doesn't like "Braveheart" that's for sure.
If you are into historical movie factchecking you shpuld look into the channel History Buffs on youtube, they aren't quite as thorough but do a good job in a more engaging way.
It had been my misfortune to pick "1776" as the first review to read. It is registration blocked, but the others I tried are not as I had assumed they also were.
He does a very good job with the critique of "Braveheart", although the concentration was on specific details rather than the film's greatest misrepresentation, which was that Wallace was a true "freedom fighter." What was at stake was which group of nobles got to exploit the Scottish peasantry, not whether the Scots would be free or enslaved.
I would have liked to have read the author's take on Wayne's 1960 "The Alamo" and the more recent Billy Bob Thornton entry, but alackaday, those movies do not appear.
They generally say that the stories are dramatizations based on actual events, often meaning they take "artitistic liberties".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
