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. Including "Gettysburg". But it certainly left me with an exhausting impression of the reality and intensity of war far beyond anything previous to it in both its sight and sound.

But then there's also a film that preceded it five years earlier. Another Steven Spielberg film: "Schindler's List". Chronicling unspeakable acts of the Third Reich. Brutally accurate.

 

[Cyber]

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

I understand, but in the court of human opinion casting choices are always questioned, and in the case of beauty it adds another dimension. two examples come to mind. First in 2021 Kristen Stewart was cast to play Princess Diana in the Movie "Spencer" and in 2013 Naomi watts was cast as Diana in the movie "Diana". Ostensibly both women were good actresses. But they were cast to play Diana. In real life Diana was larger than life. I am old enough to remember her, a tall willowy 6ft blonde with an ethereal beauty (I was in high school in 1981 and she was on every school boy's lips, I have never seen that level of stardom before or since except (maybe) Princess Grace Kelly of Monaco). watts and Stewart seemed like odd choices. Both actresses were quite physically short and "plain" in appearance, I wasn't the only one who thought neither captured the Aura Lady Diana carried with her everywhere she went.

the second was casting Brad Pitt as Achilles in the movie troy and Elizabeth Taylor/Gal Gadot as Cleopatra. In this case you have the opposite situation where the actors were probably way too glamorous for the characters they were portraying. Beauty in these cases can distract from the story.

 

[Dagan]

I'll clarify. No actor is going to be everything that a specific role only calls for, and 99% of the time, it's not even why any actor wants the part. It is called, "acting." It's not called, "only being." If it is an artistic form, then it will always be an artistic take / vision / perspective / metaphor / analogy / etc. As such, per whomever is helming the film and their mind's eye, still, the Golden Rule and then casting according to star power to sell the film theatrical also very much come into play.

I contend that if folks had to only be exactly as the character they "act" like, then you'd have a ton less films or plays. We'd never have gotten Hannibal Lecter films. Neither Brian Cox nor Anthony Hopkins are homicidal cannibals with psychiatry degrees. Keanu Reeves wasn't ever a Russian-American contract killer. Christopher Lambert isn't an immortal since 1536 and therefore a historian with great swordsman skills. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not, in fact, a cybernetic killing machine.

 

[Cyber]

I'll clarify. No actor is going to be everything that a specific role only calls for, and 99% of the time, it's not even why any actor wants the part. It is called, "acting." It's not called, "only being." If it is an artistic form, then it will always be an artistic take / vision / perspective / metaphor / analogy / etc. As such, per whomever is helming the film and their mind's eye, still, the Golden Rule and then casting according to star power to sell the film theatrical also very much come into play.

Agreed, however we are applying deep critical thinking lens like professional movie critics, Most people go to a cinema to be entertained. If they are watching a comedy they are expecting to laugh. If it's an adventure, action or Sci-fi then a little escapism and have some fun on the way, Perhaps have a good cry/laugh at a drama.

So what about historical movies?

Sometimes the writing is brilliant and/or acting is top notch so it carries a particular historic movie. Sure, artistic licence is never going to please everyone. But the real question is can the audience remain hooked to the screen, can they be teleported to another historic place or time? actually when you boil it down its not much different to other movie genres, moviegoers want a good story, they want to be emotionally invested in the character's experiences, the highs and lows. So what? well if something in the story doesn't make sense (anything) then the audience is left confused and they have to keep getting off the roller coaster and re-assess what's going on. when that happens it can ruin the experience.

 

[Cyber]

I contend that if folks had to only be exactly as the character they "act" like, then you'd have a ton less films or plays. We'd never have gotten Hannibal Lecter films. Neither Brian Cox nor Anthony Hopkins are homicidal cannibals with psychiatry degrees. Keanu Reeves wasn't ever a Russian-American contract killer. Christopher Lambert isn't an immortal since 1536 and therefore a historian with great swordsman skills. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not, in fact, a cybernetic killing machine.

And sometimes good acting (actors you listed are all box-office stars) carries a movie. Lets travel to Bollywood for a minute. Indian audience just want to escape from the realities of life for 2-3hrs. Formula for a Bollywood flick isn't that complicated. Good looking glamourous actors, great costumes and sets and catchy addictive music, dance and songs. Pure escapism. People in India live vicariously through the dramas of famous actors and actresses. they don't care about historical accuracy of films.

So in Hollywood audiences do want more, but you can still win them over if it's Brad Pitt playing President Roosevelt or Margot Robbie playing Joan of Arc. High profile actors can swing success for the movie in the box office. even if movie critics trash the story/script.