• Feeling isolated? You're not alone.

    Join 20,000+ people who understand exactly how your day went. Whether you're newly diagnosed, self-identified, or supporting someone you love – this is a space where you don't have to explain yourself.

    Join the Conversation → It's free, anonymous, and supportive.

    As a member, you'll get:

    • A community that actually gets it – no judgment, no explanations needed
    • Private forums for sensitive topics (hidden from search engines)
    • Real-time chat with others who share your experiences
    • Your own blog to document your journey

    You've found your people. Create your free account

Should Historical Films be Accurately Portrayed?

I've never been able to watch the film "Revolution" (1985) for more than a few minutes.

Al Pacino may have been a classic studio pick for such a role, but his accent seemed to spoil every scene despite so much attention to the visuals. Reminded me of a character in the 1960 production of "Spartacus" where one actor had that strong New York accent, causing me to laugh.

And John Wayne as Genghis Khan? Priceless. Then again Omar Sharif sort of talked the part, but never looked it either. And all those white folks squinting to look Asian. Oh my. But then Clark Gable never sounded for a second like anyone I knew from South Carolina either. Then again dean Norris made for an amusing Ben Franklin. I could go on and on.

But then it's all up to the studios, who all do their own thang more or less. No matter what anyone thinks for much of any reason. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Judge said:
I've never been able to watch the film "Revolution" (1985) for more than a few minutes.

Al Pacino may have been a classic studio pick for such a role, but his accent seemed to spoil every scene despite so much attention to the visuals. Reminded me of a character in the 1960 production of "Spartacus" where one actor had that strong New York accent, causing me to laugh.

And John Wayne as Genghis Khan? Priceless. Then again Omar Sharif sort of talked the part, but never looked it either. And all those white folks squinting to look Asian. Oh my. But then Clark Gable never sounded for a second like anyone I knew from South Carolina either. Then again dean Norris made for an amusing Ben Franklin. I could go on and on.

But then it's all up to the studios, who all do their own thang more or less. No matter what anyone thinks for much of any reason. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And Yul Brynner as Genghis Khan or Schwarzenegger as Conan the Barbarian.
 
Cyber said:
And Yul Brynner as Genghis Khan or Schwarzenegger as Conan the Barbarian.
Click to expand...

Conan the Barbarian was a fictional character. I can live with that... :p

I suppose the only real-life role I could see Arnold recreating would be governor of California. ;)

"Your votes. Gib dem to me. NOW." (Preferably in a suit and tie and not in his birthday suit.)
 
Last edited:
Judge said:
...And for Diana Ross it's "Miss Ross to you!" :eek:
Click to expand...
full
 
Some good news on such a subject.

Where authenticity and forced method acting made for a great, yet heartbreaking film:

 
Judge said:
Some good news on such a subject.

Where authenticity and forced method acting made for a great, yet heartbreaking film:

Click to expand...
I was just thinking how frightening it was being an soldier on active duty in any war zone. Movie producers making a world war 1 or 2 or Vietnam war flick need to consider many of the young 18 years olds (basically teens) didn't want to be there as they were conscripted. For them it was like squid games. Death around every corner and seeing many of their brothers-in-arms die. And when Vietnam vets came home they got booed and humiliated by crowds. Not sure I've seen an actual movie about a reluctant soldier?
 
"Gandhi" was an epic film about an epic life. Quite a few scenes were based on elements of two or even three actual events, as well as condensing the action for brevity. So, that was not accurate. However, I thought it was quite true to the original for historical accuracy, while getting in many times more information than a documentary source could have in the same time.
 
Shevek said:
"Gandhi" was an epic film about an epic life. Quite a few scenes were based on elements of two or even three actual events, as well as condensing the action for brevity. So, that was not accurate. However, I thought it was quite true to the original for historical accuracy, while getting in many times more information than a documentary source could have in the same time.
Click to expand...
One of the problems with biopics (especially on famous historic figures like Gandhi) is that they are mostly made long after the famous person passed away. So writers are forced to rely on second hand information and/or anecdotes. Gandhi has become a polarising figure since the time Richard Attenborough released his film in 1982.

Back in the 1980s Gandhi was seen as inspiring the successful use of peaceful protest (he called it Swaraj) as a means of social and political change all over the modern world, pivotally in the USA hippy movement, women's rights, civil rights and anti-Vietnam war protests in the 1960s and later anti-apartheid protests and anti-nuclear protests in the 1980s all used this. And of course the independence movement in India. So when the movie came out Gandhi was already a global legend.

Over 100 countries host Mahatma Gandhi statues, with an Indian government report in 2019 stating 102 nations had them, including 82 with full-length statues and 20 with busts, reflecting his global status as a symbol of peace and non-violence. These memorials, often gifted by India, honor his legacy in places like the UN, the UK, the US, South Africa, Mexico and Australia.

But being held in such high esteem globally, soon a lot of information came out about Gandhi which has largely tarnished his once spotless reputation. I won't go into detail but they are the subject of a number of books and many of the claims are troubling (to put it lightly). And in the context of the movie, it would suggest the film skipped some glaring but important aspects of Gandhi's beliefs and behaviour.

But back in 1982 Richard Attenborough won two academy awards and two BAFTAs, making Gandhi one of the most famous films in history and a cinematic masterpiece. It was one of the only films that was mandatory for all high school students that I could remember.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom