Should Historical Films be Accurately Portrayed?

[Shamar]

This is the best and most accurate historical film ever made.

I was wondering when you were going to show up in this thread. You are probably more knowledgeable than most of us on this subject.

 

[Mary Terry]

People internalise what they see on film and it becomes a mental schema of a place and time they have no direct experience with.

Yes, but why should Broadway or Hollywood or Bollywood or the BBC be charged with educating or policing people who enjoy historically based plays and movies? Education is the key, not cancel culture.

 

[Cyber]

Yes, but why should Broadway or Hollywood or Bollywood or the BBC be charged with educating or policing people who enjoy historically based plays and movies? Education is the key, not cancel culture.

Good point. But we both know television and cinema inform people's cultural references > school. At the very least Hollywood or Bollywood or BBC or YouTube reinforces existing beliefs. Look around, we search for entertainment content in our favourite genre that fits with our ontological reality.

 

[Crossbreed]

If you are going to make a fictional piece of entertainment, what is wrong with drawing inspiration from historical events?

Did you know that The Three Musketeers, The Man in the Iron Mask, et al. written (1844-1847) by Alexandre Dumas, Sr., were fictionalized "historical adventures?"

The movie, Jaws (1975), drew inspiration from real-life shark attacks that occurred at Jersey Shore (1916).

 

[Cyber]

If you are going to make a fictional piece of entertainment, what is wrong with drawing inspiration from historical events?

Did you know that The Three Musketeers, The Man in the Iron Mask, et al. written (1844-1847) by Alexandre Dumas, Sr., were fictionalized "historical adventures?"

The movie, Jaws (1975), drew inspiration from real-life shark attacks that occurred at Jersey Shore (1916).

Yes like Guy Ritchie's 2017 film "King Arthur" was inspired a fictionalised historical story. It vas clearly meant to be a fantasy and not taken as a historical work, Same with Matt Damon in the Great wall, tom Cruise in the last Samurai and Eddie Murphy in Mulan,

 

[Mary Terry]

Entertaining movies and shows based on historical events or periods in time may pique viewers' interest in the event or time period. That's where education about history comes in to learn more about history.

The vast majority of people do not confuse works of entertainment based on history with real history.

 

[Judge]

Entertaining movies and shows based on historical events or periods in time may pique viewers' interest in the event or time period. That's where education about history comes in to learn more about history.

Point taken. I've heard this discussed before relative to "docudramas". That it's a method that is far more popular in attempting to relate history in a way that is interesting to viewers who might otherwise reject presentations of "raw history".

I know in High School some teachers occasionally ran movies which were not necessarily historical in nature, but involved historical settings and circumstances. A teaching tool that I look back on with a certain degree of satisfaction. That such films prompted me to seek out more about the actual history.

Though personally I enjoy that raw history as well. Reminds me of presentations seen on PBS involving historian Ken Burns and Doris Kearns Goodwin.

If such programming ultimately boosts the public interest in history on the whole, it isn't such a bad thing. And when Hollywood does get it wrong, there will still be us "history buffs" to argue the points to remind others when authenticity counts.

 

[Dagan]

This topic is edging an area where I was annoyed with the whole woke / social justice movement per filmmaking - wanting only one specific type of person to only ever play as that specific type of person in a film or stage play. Sorry, not sorry....the whole point of being an actor / for most, the whole pull to be an actor is to take on roles that are people / things they aren't in real life. For example (and I shouldn't even have to say this), if I wanted to play a werewolf in a film, I shouldn't lose the role to someone that has clinical lycanthropy instead. Likewise, if I did get the role, I shouldn't be subject to the court of popular opinions, social justice warriors putting me on blast because I got said role over someone with clinical lycanthropy.

 

[UFO]

Not that I think that Dagan meant that, but I just want to say pre-emptively that perhaps we shouldn't start pondering if it is ok for a black actor to play a white character, and other way around... If we do, I'll go and get some popcorn and stay out of that discussion.

Other than that, I think that most qualified, not most fitting, person should be selected in all professions. Including acting. Sometimes it is just not possible to find that lycanthrope with required qualifications.

 

[Cyber]

This topic is edging an area where I was annoyed with the whole woke / social justice movement per filmmaking - wanting only one specific type of person to only ever play as that specific type of person in a film or stage play. Sorry, not sorry....the whole point of being an actor / for most, the whole pull to be an actor is to take on roles that are people / things they aren't in real life. For example (and I shouldn't even have to say this), if I wanted to play a werewolf in a film, I shouldn't lose the role to someone that has clinical lycanthropy instead. Likewise, if I did get the role, I shouldn't be subject to the court of popular opinions, social justice warriors putting me on blast because I got said role over someone with clinical lycanthropy.

Although the casting decisions (like for Disney or Netflix productions) seem to have commercial imperatives rather than artistic. For example, top director Christopher Nolan's Greek classic "Odyssey" cast Lupita Nyongo as Helen of troy. was that an artistic decision? it's literally saying Lupita accurately depicts the most beautiful woman in the world. Should audiences care if they cast Lupita or say Margot Robbie?

 

[Cyber]

Not that I think that Dagan meant that, but I just want to say pre-emptively that perhaps we shouldn't start pondering if it is ok for a black actor to play a white character, and other way around... If we do, I'll go and get some popcorn and stay out of that discussion.

Yes, this is an example of my point. Should the audience understand this type of casting is an artistic choice? film after all is basically art in the form of moving pictures. But does the audience buy into that?

 

[Crossbreed]

For example, top director Christopher Nolan's Greek classic "Odyssey" cast Lupita Nyongo as Helen of troy. was that an artistic decision? it's literally saying Lupita accurately depicts the most beautiful woman in the world. Should audiences care if they cast Lupita or say Margot Robbie?

Since beauty is subjective, no casting choice is going to meet with everyone's approval.

 

[Metalhead]

There is such a thing as being TOO historically accurate in cinema. Watch Gettysburg to see what I mean.

 

[Judge]

There is such a thing as being TOO historically accurate in cinema. Watch Gettysburg to see what I mean.

That reminded me of "Saving Private Ryan" (1998). With the opening sequence of the invasion of Normandy being so intense and realistic making some ten minutes of footage overwhelming for many viewers. Witnessing certain graphic happenings of combat that were always omitted by censors of earlier eras.

I thought I had seen everything when it came to war films up to that point. But it certainly left me with an impression of the reality and intensity of war far beyond anything previous to it in both the sight and the sound of war.