Are inaccurate movies a blessing in disguise?

[Alatar]

I finally watched Kingdom of Heaven last night. Thoroughly enjoyed it, trebuchets and all. It did raise an interesting question for me.

I always assume any movie has been Hollywood-ised, so I therefore assume that it bears only a vague resemblance to the facts. This naturally prompts me to wonder what really happened, which makes me go look it up or try to find out more. If movies were more accurate, I'd probably be inclined to treat them as "clifff notes" and be content with a vague idea of what happened. Instead I'm more inclined to assume its 90% fabrication, so I have to go look at a more accurate source.

In other words, Historical movies are not just fictional, they're sufficiently fictional to prompt further study. Is that a good thing?

[Impenitent]

I'm afraid you're in the minority, Alatar. I think the vast majority of those who have watched '300' or 'Braveheart' have assumed they've got it all straight from the horse's mouth.

There are so many people who believe advertising, after all.

[Crucifer]

I'm afraid Impy is right, Alatar. Most people accept the movie as fact.

[Primula Baggins]

I have to agree with Alatar. If a historical film fascinates me, I usually make some attempt to find out more about the time and the people—which usually involves finding out that the film was way off. This goes far back for me; I remember watching Anne of the Thousand Days and The Six Wives of Henry VIII as a young teen and going on an English history kick that lasted for a couple of years.

I don't know that the "history books" I read were necessarily that much better than the films—they were what I could find in the neighborhood library—but I certainly wouldn't have just spontaneously picked them up.

And I still do that to some extent. Though I haven't ever seen either Braveheart or 300.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm afraid I think that you and Alatar are the exception, rather than the rule, Prim.

[yovargas]

I'm afraid you're in the minority, Alatar. I think the vast majority of those who have watched '300' or 'Braveheart' have assumed they've got it all straight from the horse's mouth.

Braveheart, maybe. But only the very stupid would think 300 was accurate. The movie is borderline fantasy what with its trolls and mutants and such.

[axordil]

Well, you know it was ancient Greece. They had minotaurs and centaurs and Tauruses, so they probably had mutants and trolls too.

[yovargas]

Good point.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, there are limits to the "historical" films I'll watch; brutal violence usually keeps me away in any case. I can handle it in books, but films are too much "in my face," even on DVD.

I like my historical films with lute playing, witty dialogue, and pretty costumes, not people hacking each other in half—even if the latter is more historically accurate.

[truehobbit]

I remember watching Anne of the Thousand Days and The Six Wives of Henry VIII as a young teen and going on an English history kick that lasted for a couple of years.

Exactly the same here.

Those movies started me on some serious Tudor-fascination.

But I'd still agree with Imp, that many people take the movies as fact. And even if not, the books they might go to from them are possibly not much better fare than the movies.

[JewelSong]

The movie "Amadeus" sent me in search of a decent biography of Mozart. The best one I read was written (I think) by Charlotte Daniels, who hated the movie with a passion! But the movie was fantastic in how it portrayed the dress and customs of the people, the class divisions and how Mozart's music reached past the upper class and was embraced by the masses. And of course, all the music was his. I use portions of it when I teach classical music...the kids are always amazed by how everyone wore a wig - men and women alike. (Mozart adored wigs and spent a good deal of his money on them!)

I think any "historical" movie is necessarily going to contain a lot of fiction an invented scenes. My criteria is: does it capture the "essence" of the event or time? If it is purely factual, then it's a documentary.

[Primula Baggins]

Interesting, hobby! Same films, same reaction. . . .

(Anne of the Thousand Days was the first "M"-rated film I ever got to see! My parents took me. It had sex in it! Well, people in bed without their clothes on, anyway. And someone said "virgin." Gracious!)

For me, history and historical fiction are both much more enjoyable if I have some clear image of how people dressed and lived at the time. Then I can visualize as I read. Even a very un-historical "historical" film usually gets that much right. (Not 300, I understand!)

[Alatar]

Exactly Jewel, movies are entertainment, and their primary goal is to entertain, not to educate. Still, I think a lot of you are giving very little credit to the majority of the population. Surely its not true that we as a group are so much smarter than everyone else! Even my 8 year old daughter knows that movies aren't "real".

[WampusCat]

I'm in Alatar's camp. Seeing a movie that either pretends to be historical or is set in a particular era always sends me scurrying to research what really happened.

Certainly a lot of people will assume the movies are completely factual, but even so, their interest might be stirred to the point that they read more about the subject -- and then discover the inaccuracies.

Consider "Jurassic Park," which sent every kid who wasn't already enthralled by dinosaurs to scour library shelves for information on them.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

All this is fine if one actually does go to a book to discover an accurate account. For the majority who don't the film version is the only one. I have seen several opinions over the years on message-boards that recounted a film/movie version account as reliable history, even cit!ting the film title as proof. Given that Brits are currently the Hollywood villain of choice this can become a trifle tiresome. (cf Mel Gibson)

[Primula Baggins]

Well, Tosh, someone who accepts a movie as accurate history has got a problem in any case. If there were no wrongo movies to cite, they would be citing History Channel or Discovery Channel TV specials, or junk pop history books, or their own unswerving but uninformed convictions.

It's unfortunate that such sweeping wrong impressions are created, but often the movie's mistaken version is already the popular impression before the movie is even made.

I have one unshakable opinion about history, and that is that I don't know a darn thing about history. I don't even know which books to trust, or which sources to trust for lists of trustworthy books.

[Frelga]

I see Alatar's point. I'm not sure I agree, though. For instance, I watched Painted Veil over the weekend. Until I read this thread, it didn't occur to me to wonder how accurately the movie depicted the situation in China in 1920s. It was beautifully filmed and the historical context was only their as a background to the relationship between the two principal characters. The movie didn't really make me go and seek out the accurate information on the subject, which is not in my immediate sphere of interests. Yet it is possible that at some point I might unconsciously substitute the facts as portrayed in the movie for the actual knowledge.

What is wrong with movies using accurate information to prod interest in historical research?

[Primula Baggins]

Nothing at all, Frelga—but often the true story is much less thrilling and much less well known than the myths movies choose to depict instead. Heroes have feet of clay; noble aspirations can be traced to squalid motivations. It's not the story about ourselves that we want to hear or believe.

[Frelga]

Alys, exactly! If the subject matter is (or becomes) near and dear to my heart, I might well do my own research. But I would have anyway! On something that is just of a passing interest, I'll take the movie-supplied info without bothering to challenge or verify it.

[Alys]

Oh sorry Frelga! I deleted my post, I didn't think anyone would have read it...