Our resident historians at the Movies: JCT, mvscal, BSmack!

[velocet]

Yeah yeah there are others of us with some usable command of past events but these 3 posters have floated to the top of the heap o' recognition for knowing their history. Well I suspect that these fellas have studied history on a level beyond what passes for literacy in the subject. So I wanna know (and I suspect others do as well) what films are probably good historical depictions in their esteemed opinions. It is asking the impossible for any of us to say "Hey, does Alexander come close to what happened back in the day?" and expect them to be able to answer that as though they were there AND possessed of an omniscient vantage point. No, what I hope for is that these guys can, in the informal context of messaage board banter, fill us in on what historical movies they've seen jive with extant sources and learned reconstructions they know.

AND let it be known that there are movies set in an historical period but are not movies that claim to tell the story (Apocalypse Now comes to mind: set in Vietnam but really nothing more than a ripoff of a Conrad novel).



There's a couple of films I want their thoughts about and also if each of them would throw down a short list of best in this category.

Stalingrad- a German film with subtitles.

Braveheart

Alexander

Schindler's List


... I'm sure others will come up with more. Thanks.







velocet

[mothster]

sticking with wwII and all-star casts, how does 'a bridge too far' portray operation marketgarden as far as accuracy

[JCT]

I just noticed this thread and will weigh in later. i just wanted to agree about Bravo Two Zero. I read the Book (Andy McNabb) and saw the movie (Sean Bean) very well done.

[SunCoastSooner]

Personally, I never watch what purports to be a "true, historical story" with the expectation of it being historically accurate. I'll settle for a great movie rather than great history. I think it's enough if a movie can give you the flavor of the event.

As far as it goes, I would say the Band of Brothers mini-series was very accurate. The Longest Day is another one that comes to mind that made a good effort at being an accurate chronology of events but it's kind of difficult to get past the "all-star cast" cheese.

Bravo Two Zero is a very underrated and excellent movie about an SAS mission in the first Gulf War.

Of the ones you listed, I've only seen Braveheart which was a great movie, but very poor history. Gibson himself admitted he took quite a bit of artistic license with the film. I haven't really studied that particular period in any great detail. About all I can say is that there was a man William Wallace who did in fact battle the English during that time frame.

By all accounts he was a huge, strapping brute of man with a violent temper who took shit from nobody and found himself on the wrong side of the law as a result. He was also a capable guerilla fighter who caused some problems for Edward.

It's likely that he wasn't nearly the hero portrayed in the movie while Edward I (Longshanks) probably wasn't quite as villainous.

Edward the Longshanks was just as villianous as they described in the movie Mvscal.

The Scotch (which I am decendant from on my father's side) represent William Wallace as a sort of national hero though nothing could be further from the truth. His hatred for the English held more weight than his love of Scotland. The many years he spent in France lobbying for their support is proof of such.

This leads me to one of the gretest travesties in film making history in my opinion. The battle of Stirrling in the movie takes place in a large field where Sir Wallace gives a rousing speech to encourage the army to remain and fight the English. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Battle of Stirling Bridge took place litterally on a bridge. The Scottish Guerilla army hid in the reeds north of the bridge and as the English were crossing attacked leaving the English Military unprepared and bottle necked. All that was left was a slaughter and rout. The Scots were out numbered almost 4 to 1 in the battle but because of Wallace's masterful plan and implementation of it the English army was decimated. Hugh de Cressingham was never allowed to lead an English army into battle ever again. [Mel Gibson admitted to the misportrayel of this event because he did not have sufficent funds to film it in the correct light but could not avoid telling the story without the presence of the conflict]

At Falkirk the movie portrays the Irish as switching sides at the begining of the battle. This is not true either. It was the Welsh Longbowmen who refused to participate but this had more to due with payment than anything concerning treason or loyalty to the scottish. The Welsh simply sat the battle out and watched from a distance, fighting for neither side of the conflict. Luckily for the English they had three company's of heavy Knighted cavalry to utilize. The battle took longer than most as Wallace had positioned his archers and pikes in a bog that the Knights had to muddle their way through but when they did all that was left was a routed Scottish force.

William Wallace escaped to France where he spent the next four to seven years (conflicting dates make this hard to extract an exact time period) gaining their support.

William Wallace had finally garnered the French support and military was being formed to aid the scots in France and was set to depart when the first wild card came out and the King of France died leaving his coniving heir Phillip "the Fair" (because of his skin not his morality) took the throne. Wallace saw the writting on the wall and returned to Scottland without a French army at his rear.

William was betrayed by a Templar Noble of Scotland trying to gain the favor of the English by giving Wallace into the hands of the English by identifying him at a secret confrence by turning the bread counter clock wise and angled infron of sir Wallace where English Knights in hiding were watching for it and then arrested Sir Wallace with little fight.

Phillip "the Fair" would then commited the most detrimental act to the English conquering the Scots unintentionally. He began his persecution of the Knights Templar. Many of the order escaped to the British Isles where Longshanks welcomed them with open arms and ailing health. Upon Edwards death his son under great pressure and the threat of excommunication from his brother in law Phillip and the Pope succumbed to their will and excommnicated the remaining Templars and arresting as many as possible. He did not enjoy the act as the Templars of the region had always been loyal to the throne. The Templars that were not arrested simply moved further north to Scottland where Robert the Bruce had already been excommunicated by the pope for the killing of John Comyn and they would be gladly accepted.

Robert the Bruce, as they expected, accepted them happily and still smarting from the deceit by Pembroke and the English forces Methven where the English had convinced him to postpone battle until the following day and then attacked under the cover of darkness later that evenning, immediatly formed the knights into heavy cavalry.

In the movie Bannockburn is displayed as group of Scots that followed both Wallace (post humosly) and Robert the Bruce into battle and winning a quick victory. This once again is false. The Battle was fought over two days. The first day were very minor skirmishes but strategically the most important day of the battle as it allowed the Scots to form its troops at places of its choice. The second day of battle was begun with a very disorganized heavy cav charge by the English which was repelled by Scottish schiltrons in strict formations. The heavy cav was pushed back into the English Infantry that was still attempting to cross the burn. At this poitn with the English flanks reeling Robert the Bruce Unleashed his most deadly and secret weapon, the excommunicated Knights Templar rode into battle and throughly decimated the entire Northern Amry of England. England could muster no more troops to waiste in the north while trying to repel the French in Brittany and a ceasation of conflict ensued though it would be another decade before Robert the Bruce was recognized by them as the King of Scotland and their independance given.

[SunCoastSooner]

Edward the Longshanks was just as villianous as they described in the movie Mvscal.

That's certainly a matter of perspective.

Edward I was dealt a shitty hand by his father and spent almost his entire reign at war, but he laid a lot of the ground work for what would become the United Kingdom.

By committing genocide and allowing rape! These are not qualities in an individual.

[SunCoastSooner]

That's certainly a matter of perspective.

Edward I was dealt a shitty hand by his father and spent almost his entire reign at war, but he laid a lot of the ground work for what would become the United Kingdom.

By committing genocide and allowing rape! These are not qualities in an individual.

Genocide? :roll:

I guess that would make every last one of them were "villians" then. Edward was actually very patient with the Scots up to point. Once he passed that point, he started stomping. He is hardly unusual in that respect.

Making value judgements based on a standard of morality that did not exist at the time is always a pointless exercise.

Point taken. I still think he was an evil son of a bitch but I can respect your take on it.

[Dr_Phibes]

Stalingrad was terrible. It focused on the human drama of a section involved in the street fighting - so no room for any historical interpretation. Full of terrible cliches like:

soldier: Sir! Ze men are hungry! Zis is awful!

To which the officer replies, complete with Sesame streets 'the Count' lightening and thunder sound effects:

tell it to ze Fuhrer! ahahahaha!

The topic is too politically charged for a German company to make an honest effort.

If you're looking for historically accurate films, I'd stay away from American productions. It is safe to say that one hundred percent of American war films are revisionist propaganda pieces, designed to exaggerate American involvement and invent success in order to prop up the psyche of a society that suffers from a massive inferiority complex. Not to mention re-interpret imperialist aggression as democratic intervention.

One film I would recommend would be 1970s- 'Waterloo'. Four hours long, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk and filmed in Europe, it featured tens of thousands of real Russian troops for the battle scenes. Tactics, columns and line formations are pretty much dead on with massive camera angles for full effect. Very little human drama involved but a nice cameo from Orson Welles. No arguements with the descriptions of the larger political situation at time.

So for accuracy, I give this film a big Ward Churchill 9 out of 10.

[Lizard King]

When you die, the world will be a better place. Do you smoke? Skydive?

Just give me a little hope that you'll be gone soon. That's all I ask.

[BSmack]

I don't think it possible for even the people involved in a historical even to judge exactly how accurately a movie portrayed said event. I do believe the later WWII dramas have taken a strong lead in redefining the genre, in part because they are relying on some very accurate primary source material. As time passes, I think the same might be true for Viet Nam and even our present day conflicts. But not until the bulk of the classified documents pertaining to those conflicts are unseals. And that won't be happening anytime soon.

As for the movies listed, here goes.

• Braveheart- Totally agreed with mvscal. There is simply not enough known about William Wallace to create an accurate portrayal of the events.
• Stalingrad- Never saw it. As it is a German film, I'm guessing there might have been some bias in regard to source material. Though, Joaquim Fest did write an excellent bio on Hitler, and he was able to step outside the box.
• Alexander- [imdb check] Isn't that the Oliver Stone movie? Oh, yes it is. [/imdb check]
  
  Anything done by Stone is automatically suspect. I remember watching JFK, and watching the last 45 minutes as Kevin Costner's character offered up tangent after tangent that never implicated the people he had actually put on trial and thinking to myself that Stone was finished as a credible A-List director. Time has proven me correct.
• Schindler's List - A powerful polemic that is based on the incontrovertible facts that the Holocaust happened, and a man named Schindler did his best to save those who worked as his slave labor from extermination. The historical timeline of the movie is spot on, and even the most deliberately gut wrenching scene (the little girl in the red dress during the liquidation of the ghetto) rings true. The only scenes that could be suspect are the scenes with the Nazis themselves, as they were not exactly around to defend themselves. But that is a minor complaint.