Best history movies

[BrianTubbs]

What do you all think are the very best HISTORICAL films?

[Puma]

Captain from Castile, El Cid, Lloyds of London, The Scarlet Pimpernel (fiction but close enough), A Tale of Two Cities, Ben Hur, Gone with the Wind, Doctor Zhivago, Caesar and Cleopatra (Claude Rains, 1948ish), The Blue Max, Prince of Foxes, Robin Hood, Ivanhoe, plus quite a few of the WWII films. (I need to run look at my collection to see what all I missed).

If anyone can come up with the name of the film that was done about Rommel and the North African campaign in which there is a huge sandstorm and some of the German tank operators are buried in their tanks, I'd love to know what it is. It isn't The Desert Fox. It was probably made in the early 50's (hence the lack of remembery). It's one I'd love to see again. Puma

[Willowmound]

Das Boot, German six hour (3*2hrs) TV serial about a U-boat crew. Also available as a three hour movie. But get the full set of episodes. Brilliant.

[flannelberry]

Not... not... not New World which took me three tries and lots of fast forwarding to get through the overly angsty (and not good angsty) strange brooding scenes.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but I just watched it and feel the need to warn people.

Best - I loved Dangerous Liasons. It's old I know but good and I think fairly accurate historically speaking. Also the A and E Pride and P.

[robeiae]

The Blue Max (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060177/). But then, I'm partial to the period.

Oh, and Fast Times at Ridgemont High. It's got the 80's down.

[san_remo_ave]

I thought DANGEROUS BEAUTY was a lovely historical movie (renaissance Venice). And ELIZABETH with Cate Blanchett (I thought I heard that a sequel was coming soon, too).

[san_remo_ave]

Oh, and I just watched THE LIBERTINE with Johnny Depp which was nicely done historical piece, based on a true-life story. But then, I like just about anything with Johnny Depp in it, so maybe I'm a bit biased on that one..... ;)

Haven't seen that Marie Antoinette movie, yet, but it looked to be pretty interesting, too.

[giftedrhonda]

I thought DANGEROUS BEAUTY was a lovely historical movie (renaissance Venice). And ELIZABETH with Cate Blanchett (I thought I heard that a sequel was coming soon, too).

I liked both of these, too. :D

[flannelberry]

I haven't seen Dangerous Beauty but obviously should. I would second Elizabeth - striking movie.

[alleycat]

If anyone can come up with the name of the film that was done about Rommel and the North African campaign in which there is a huge sandstorm and some of the German tank operators are buried in their tanks, I'd love to know what it is. It isn't The Desert Fox. It was probably made in the early 50's (hence the lack of remembery). It's one I'd love to see again. Puma
Could it have been The Desert Rats? That was the sequel to The Desert Fox. There's a sandstorm in that movie; I don't specifically remember a scene where Germans are buried in their tanks, but then, it's been a long time since I've seen the movie.

[Puma]

Hi Alleycat - Thanks so much for the possibility of The Desert Rats (and the fact there's a sandstorm in it). That could be the one. I have no idea who the movie starred - mostly I remember the sandstorm and the plight of the tanks. I must have been about ten when I saw it and it made an impression. Thanks for your help. Puma

[alleycat]

James Mason was also in Desert Rats. I may be wrong, but I think Paul Newman was in it as well.

BTW, my local library had the movie, so I requested it.

[robeiae]

There's The Steel Lady (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046368/). It's a flight-of-the-phoenix type thing, where some guys find a German tank that had been buried by a sandstorm, then rebuild it to fight some other guys.

[BardSkye]

Midway impressed me when I first saw it, mostly because up until then I'd never seen a war movie that showed both sides.

Das Boot was fascinating.

I should point out, however, that I'm not much of a movie watcher.

[alleycat]

Bard's post reminded me of something, I liked Tora! Tora! Tora!

[Puma]

And 12 O'clock High and Run Silent, Run Deep. There were a lot of pretty good World War II movies. There's one, and again, I can't remember the name but it was based on a British airfield with memories by one of the pilots who had flown out of it during the war. I'm pretty sure it was a black and white film and started out at the deserted airfield with "ghostly" singing.

James Mason was also in The Desert Fox. I sort of remember The Steel Lady, Robeiae. Puma

[BruceJ]

All Quiet on the Western Front. Both the original and the remake have to be up there on the list. Also the Band of Brothers series and Saving Private Ryan have the advantage of state of the art cinematography and special effects to enhance the realism (is that an oxymoron?).

[C.bronco]

The Lion in Winter
:)

[Cav Guy]

Cross of Iron is right up there as far as I'm concerned. For a good look at life in the Frontier Army it's hard to beat John Ford's "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon." "Hamburger Hill" is good, and oddly enough "Last of the Mohicans" (the Michael Mann version) is well done, too. "The Rough Riders" (with Tom Berringer as Teddy Roosevelt) is also good, as is "The Lost Battalion." Both were made for TV, but are perhaps the best examples of historical movies done in that medium.

I'm not a huge fan of "Saving Private Ryan," but that has more to do with its immediate lapse into every WW2 movie cliche ever done after the first 15 minutes. "A Midnight Clear" is a better (and underrated) movie dealing with WW2, but that's just my opinion.

[Brickie]

The Blue Max (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060177/). But then, I'm partial to the period.


*boggles*

Isn't that the one where we show the German Offensive of 1918 and have the British troops rising out of their trenches to meet the Germans for a bayonet-fight in no-man's-land?

I didn't know whether to laugh or clutch my face in aghastness. I was aghast.

[BrianTubbs]

Best Big Screen Historical Films based on actual events -- Apollo 13, Amistad, Miracle, Sergeant York, Patton and Braveheart

Best Big Screen Historical Films centered on fictional stories, while set in actual history -- Saving Private Ryan, Flyboys

Best TV history movies or miniseries based on actual events -- Band of Brothers, From the Earth to the Moon, The Rough Riders, and The Lost Battalion

Best TV history movies or miniseries based on fictional stories set in actual history -- North and South

**I'm sure I'm forgetting a few, but oh well.

[alleycat]

I'm surprised no one has Schindler's List on their, uh, list.

[Cav Guy]

*boggles*

Isn't that the one where we show the German Offensive of 1918 and have the British troops rising out of their trenches to meet the Germans for a bayonet-fight in no-man's-land?

I didn't know whether to laugh or clutch my face in aghastness. I was aghast.

I believe you're right. One reason it didn't make my list. "Dawn Patrol" is a better example of the genre.

I forgot to add "Downfall" to my list. Outstanding portrait of Hitler's last days in the bunker in Berlin. HBO also did a stellar movie about the Wansee Conference (where the Final Solution was planned), but I'm having movie title brain block and can't remember the name. Very accurate and well worth watching.

[san_remo_ave]

Then there's always the mega-hits like:

GLADIATOR (loved the computer recreated colosseum and roman-era, uh, Rome
BORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY
THE PATRIOT
LAST SAMURAI

Or O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? for Depression Era meets the Odyssey... John Goodman as Cyclops, anyone? George Clooney as "Dapper Dan Man" Ulysses Everett McGill, hee hee

[pdr]

I think Brian T is the only one to offer a definition of the history film. He still hasn't defined best!

How about you all go back and define for me why you choose the films you did and how you define them as history films? Are they history because they were set in the past? I mean some of the films mentioned were merely Hollywood history and bore no relationship to the actual history. There are films which were not history at the time they were made, but are wonderful glimpses of the thirties, forties or fifties now. Does that make them history films?

So are history films set in a period of time past or are they about people and events in history?

[Puma]

pdr et al - All of mine are about historical events. I think some of the films like The Ziegfield Girls and Meet Me in St Louis are decent movies that show a period of time - but I wouldn't consider them history movies. Also - has anyone else noticed how many war films are in the list? So I'll throw another couple out - I liked Becket and a very old one, Rasputin (one of the Barrymores I think) it's an excellent film about the end of the Romanoff period. If you've never seen it, it's worth looking for. Puma

[LloydBrown]

I like many of the above, plus The Ghost and the Darkness and Lawrence of Arabia. I'm sure I have lots more, but I can't think of anything right now.

[Brickie]

I'll kick this one off then...

For me, a historical film doesn't necessarily have to be completely historically accurate, as long as it is essentially "true". That is to say, I don't particularly bother that a film has a Roman Emperor out of sequence, or a tank that didn't exist until the following year. It does bother me when a film propagates a false view of a certain historical event, either by distorting the facts or by omitting some altogether.

Some films present an account of actual historical events - The Longest Day, for instance. Others present a fictional story within the setting of actual historical events - Saving Private Ryan. Others still use the history as more of a backdrop to the story they're telling. Captain Corelli's Mandolin, perhaps, though that bookends the personal story with real history.

The first type of film has the greatest responsibility to tell a correct story. It claims to tell historical fact, so it should. Others have more latitude.

Good Films

GLADIATOR
Some of the history is flawed (the battle at the start is spectacular but wrong), but it's got a great narrative and immerses you in the world of Ancient Rome. Maybe if I knew more Roman history, I'd find more to quibble with.

THE LONGEST DAY/A BRIDGE TOO FAR
I've included these together because they're based on books by the same author. Both books are impeccably researched, and faithfully translated to the screen. The Longest Day in particular is a far more complete account of D-Day that Saving Private Ryan is - or seeks to be. Both films are made with star-studded casts and manage to be exciting and involving without monkeying with the history.

THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN
Stunning aerial sequences (the production operated the world's fifth largest air force for a while), great acting from all concerned and - with the exception of a rather by-the-numbers romance sublot - genuine tension in an event where everyone watching knows the outcome...

DOWNFALL
As mentioned above. Chilling. Truly, genuinely chilling. Bruno Ganz has Hitler spot on and some scenes (Magda Goebbels poisoning her own children as they sleep) are almost unwatchably heartrending. Unforgivably ignored at cinemas because it's, like, foreign.

DAS BOOT
No happy ending, the Germans are the good guys. Would never get made in Hollywood. Gripping stuff, if it feels a little episodic when watched as a movie. I saw it when re-released with the sound punched up to Dolby Surround and that was one scary experience.

APOLLO 13
As with Battle of Britain, this manages to get tension and uncertainty into events that everyone knows came out all right in the end. A great character piece.

THE GREAT ESCAPE
some names are changed, some people conflated into less characters, but the history's generally right and it's a cracking film to boot. Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without Steve McQueen trying to vault fences on a motorbike, James Coburn's excruciating "Australian" accent, Donald Sutherland being blind as a bat, Gordon Jackson falling for the old "Good luck" trick and all the rest of it.

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN/BAND OF BROTHERS
Unfairly criticised in Britain for not showing or particularly mentioning the British contributions to D-Day (Why should it? We're following one squad of American soldiers), the famous first twenty minutes of SPR should be required viewing. One of my teacher friends recently showed it to his class of teens, who seemed genuinely baffled as to why the dead Americans couldn't just respawn inside the assault boat. Scary.

Honourable mentions go to Tora! Tora! Tora! (The film that Pearl Harbour didn't dare to be - showing the Japanese as human beings), Ice Cold in Alex (which Americans might know as "Desert Attack", a great character piece with a bit of espionage and escape drama thrown in), Elizabeth and hopefully Flags of our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima when I get round to seeing them

And two old films that have become period pieces.

THE THIRD MAN
Still one of the greatest British films ever made, and perfectly evokes postwar Vienna during a very specific period of its history. The city is split like Berlin but the central zone is patrolled by jeeps containing one American, one Brit, one Russian and one Frenchman. Iconic performance by Orson Welles, stealing the show despite only about 10 minutes' screentime.

METROPOLIS
Classic German silent movie from the 1920s - the plot's fairly thin (there's only so much you can do without speech), the acting's hammy (again, silent cinema doesn't reward understated performances) and the politics is dodgy (the poor huddled masses don't need freeing, they just need to understand their betters more!). But it's a glorious, glorious image of The Future, circa 1929. It's been referenced in everything from The Incredibles to Star Wars (C-3PO is based on the robot Maria). It was absolutely groundbreaking then - the Star Wars of its day - and still holds up visually now.

[brokenfingers]

History of the World: Part 1

[LloydBrown]

You've reminded me of a couple of others: Black Hawk Down and Enemy at the Gates. Enemy at the Gates apparently doen't come on cable, ever. I've seen it once, on a borrowed DVD, and I've been eager to see it again.

Spartacus, if no one's mentioned it (the 1960 one) is excellent. Really--who among us hasn't shouted "I'm Spartacus!" at some point? What? Just me?

[Brickie]

Ooh, yes. Enemy at the Gates. Me like. Bob Hoskins as Nikita Khrushchev. Quality.

I keep missing Black Hawk Down when it's on but I've heard good things.

[J. Weiland]

Quest for Fire

80.000 years ago was a very intense period.

[LloydBrown]

I love the prehistory, but I've never heard of that one. Imdb has good ratings for it, though. I'll keep an eye out for it.

[Cav Guy]

You've reminded me of a couple of others: Black Hawk Down and Enemy at the Gates. Enemy at the Gates apparently doen't come on cable, ever. I've seen it once, on a borrowed DVD, and I've been eager to see it again.

Spartacus, if no one's mentioned it (the 1960 one) is excellent. Really--who among us hasn't shouted "I'm Spartacus!" at some point? What? Just me?

Black Hawk Down is quite good.

Enemy at the Gates is good for the Soviets, but bad for the Germans in terms of historical accuracy.

Gettysburg is good, but I really feel it should have been done as an R-rated movie. It shows war a bit too clean.

Conspiracy is the title of the Wansee Conference movie I mentioned earlier. Oustanding piece.

To answer the history movie question, I feel that a history movie is one that captures the feel and nuance of the period it's portraying. Many of the "historical event" movies actually blow goats in terms of accuracy, so I don't really count them. But if a movie (like Unforgiven) can capture the feel of the period it's showing (Outlaw Josie Wales does this as well), then I tend to consider it a history movie.

One I have very mixed feelings about is Tombstone. It warps the whole O.K. Corral beyond recognition, but Sam Elliot as Virgil Earp is classic and Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday is perhaps THE best showing of that character ever. I also love Michael Behen (sp?) as Johnny Ringo, even though that character bears no relation to the real Ringo.

[LloydBrown]

One I have very mixed feelings about is Tombstone. It warps the whole O.K. Corral beyond recognition, but Sam Elliot as Virgil Earp is classic and Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday is perhaps THE best showing of that character ever. I also love Michael Behen (sp?) as Johnny Ringo, even though that character bears no relation to the real Ringo.

I've always likef Val Kilmer, but that role made me respect him far more as a dramatic actor. "I'm your huckleberry." Bwa-ha-ha. Awesome stuff.

Then there are movies that nobody's mentioned that I KNOW are going to get a beating, like Braveheart, the Patriot---

Doh!

Casablanca, anyone? For setting, of course, not historical accuracy.

Now I'm on a roll. How about the upcoming 300? That looks sweet!

[san_remo_ave]

One I have very mixed feelings about is Tombstone. It warps the whole O.K. Corral beyond recognition, but Sam Elliot as Virgil Earp is classic and Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday is perhaps THE best showing of that character ever.

OK, I'll be your huckleberry.... ;)

I completely agree --Sam Elliot & Val Kilmer were excellent character actors in this one!

[klostes]

OK, I'll be your huckleberry.... ;)

I completely agree --Sam Elliot & Val Kilmer were excellent character actors in this one!
Jumping on the huckleberry...er...that didn't come out quite right. I love that movie, too, even as it plays fast and loose with its "history." Sam Elliot was inspired as Virgil, and Kilmer was superb as Holliday. Dennis Quaid was wonderful as the Doc in Costner's "better details but poorer movie in general" version of that story, "Wyatt Earp." I've always felt kind of sorry for him because his thunder got so totally stolen by Kilmer in Tombstone.

I'm a sucker for almost any big historical epic that comes down the track; most of them have already been mentioned here, Gladiator top among them. I'm also not as picky about the absolute historical accuracy, as long as the time and place are brought to life--bonus if people who might not have ever been intrigued by that historical era are prompted to learn more about it. (Though as a fiber artist, I do find the lack of attention to cloth production even as a background element in many epics hard to ignore, especially considering it took more time than food production and ceramics combined.)

How easy am I? *digs out shield for inevitable pitching of rotten tomatoes* I love the dreadful, cheesy, horribly edited and directed King Arthur movie from several years ago. In many ways I love it for what it could have been (and for Ioan Gryffydd in black leather!) In my defense, Romano-Celtic Britain is hands down my favorite era in history, and Celtic King Arthur my favorite of that hero cycle. To get even such a flawed version of that world, that story on screen? (Bonus that it was with such pretty men!) I'm a happy, happy camper.

*waits for the jeers to die down*

To redeem myself, I offer the following:

Master & Commander - absolutely fantastic portrayal of the stories it was based on, which were probably some of the most historically accurate novels ever written. Following in that vein, though less stellar without the big screen budget and A-list director, the Sharpe's Rifles and Horatio Hornblowerseries.

Silverado Excellent, excellent capture of the Old West.

The Navigator: A Medieval Odyssey Excellent and probably almost totally historically accurate 14th century Cumbria and the Black Death, and an excellent portrayal of what would really happen should miners from that era turn up in Christchurch, NZ, of all places.

Ride With the Devil: Ang Lee's Civil War Epic, and one of the best movies about the ordinary people in the war, and a stellar presentation of the Southern POV.

Glory - still one of the best Civil War movies out there.

Alexander - Yes, I liked this one too, but I think it's a great example of what happens when filmmaking is impaled upon historical accuracy. Watch out for the blowback. Yeowch.

V for Vendetta...oops. Wrong forum. :tongue

*Retires to listen to King Arthur soundtrack while cleaning up the tomato and other rotten veggie mess*

[EngineerTiger]

For John Ford and U.S. Cavalry, I would recommend "Rio Grande" and "Ft. Apache" over "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon".

[Cav Guy]

For John Ford and U.S. Cavalry, I would recommend "Rio Grande" and "Ft. Apache" over "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon".

"She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" does the best job of showing what life was like for men in the Frontier Army on a daily basis, IMO. "Rio Grande" is a rehash of Mackenzie's raid into Mexico, and "Fort Apache" is the Little Bighorn redone. I'd seen the other two done in different ways, but Yellow Ribbon was always a nice set piece view of what the Army was like during that time. Like reading an old King novel, really.

[pdr]

That is to say, I don't particularly bother that a film has a Roman Emperor out of sequence, or a tank that didn't exist until the following year. It does bother me when a film propagates a false view of a certain historical event, either by distorting the facts or by omitting some altogether.

Brickie, doesn't that statement contradict itself? After all isn't it a distortion of facts if a tank or emperor shown in the film are not actually the historically correct ones?

The biggest problem with history films, particularly the Hollywood type ones, is that so often they reach a wide population who then believe what they see. If the film purports to be real history then it had better be accurate and that means food, clothing, everything!

With a novel writers can add a disclaimer to say that they have alterted or ignored or changed some historical fact, film directors never seem to do this!

Generally speaking history films are simply using a pretty or exciting background to tell a story and the directors aren't interested in facts. 'Saving Private Ryan' needs seeing in the context of the time it was made to see why it was filmed as it was but for reality? Yes, well least said etc.

There have been so few good history films! Those telling the story around a real person seem to come out best because we know that we are seeing that person through the director's eyes. 'Cromwell', 'Laurence of Arabia', the many film versions of Elizabeth 1 and Queen Victoria and Mary, Queen of Scots, the American civil war films for example.

Save your brickbats for when I next get back to a place with electricity, that's around the 10th! But if a film claims to be telling/showing history then hadn't it better get the details right, even if the characters are total fiction and the reason for the film is to retell a 12th C love story?

[Puma]

pdr et al - In my opinion, novelists and film makers were much more true to the realities of what really happened in the "old days" (and I'm not really sure when the change-over to half truths began). The standard way to write a historical novel was to use exact information with a fictional main character. As an example, the first one on my list, Captain from Castile about the Conquest of Mexico - the book was heavily researched, true to history, and most of the characters can be found in the records of the conquest - but the main characters were fictional. Plus, the film was made in Mexico. I don't think we see very much similar dedication to accuracy these days. Puma

[poetinahat]

A Man for All Seasons (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/)

and I second c.bronco's The Lion in Winter (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063227/)

I also liked Kenneth Branagh's Henry V (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097499/), but I don't know whether an adaptation of Shakespeare would count.

History of the World: Part 1 You crazy knucklehead! :e2stooges:

I guess, then, we have to include Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure . . .

"You killed my friend, you medieval dickweed!"

[PrettySpecialGal]

THE LONGEST DAY/A BRIDGE TOO FAR
I've included these together because they're based on books by the same author. Both books are impeccably researched, and faithfully translated to the screen. The Longest Day in particular is a far more complete account of D-Day that Saving Private Ryan is - or seeks to be. Both films are made with star-studded casts and manage to be exciting and involving without monkeying with the history.



A BRIDGE TOO FAR is excellent. OOPS! I meant to say A BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI. Sorry.

THE LONGEST DAY should be called THE LONGEST MOVIE.

:tongue

[PrettySpecialGal]

1941 was pretty darn close, donchathink?

and what about IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD??

[robeiae]

*boggles*

Isn't that the one where we show the German Offensive of 1918 and have the British troops rising out of their trenches to meet the Germans for a bayonet-fight in no-man's-land?

I didn't know whether to laugh or clutch my face in aghastness. I was aghast.It's the relationship between the East Elbian elites of the Luftwaffe and the rest of the society that concerns me. And also, the changing notions of honor in a military context, both of which the film captures quite nicely.

[BardSkye]

I thought 1941 was terrific.

But then, my favourite movie of all time is "Attack of the Killer Tomatos". :)

[Brickie]

That is to say, I don't particularly bother that a film has a Roman Emperor out of sequence, or a tank that didn't exist until the following year. It does bother me when a film propagates a false view of a certain historical event, either by distorting the facts or by omitting some altogether.

Brickie, doesn't that statement contradict itself? After all isn't it a distortion of facts if a tank or emperor shown in the film are not actually the historically correct ones?
[snip]
... if a film claims to be telling/showing history then hadn't it better get the details right, even if the characters are total fiction and the reason for the film is to retell a 12th C love story?

Yes and no. Take an example, I was watching "The Great Escape" over Christmas and there's a bit where James Garner and Donald Pleasance nick a German plane from an airfield. The plane the escapees steal is a proper German Messerschmitt Bf108 liaison aircraft, but the other aircraft standing around on the airfield are American Texan/Harvard trainers, painted up to look like German fighters.

The Harvards were clearly acting, playing the part of German fighters (presumably Focke-Wulf 190s were intended, with the radial engines) because no real 190s still existed. Those who knew their aircraft noted that fact, but it's not as if the casual viewer would come away from the film believing that the USA supplied Germany with aircraft during the war. Similarly, Harvards were cut to look like Zeroes for "Tora! Tora! Tora!".

Similarly, there is a scene at the start of "Battle of Britain", showing the German army marching through France. We see a tank making its way past the camera, and the observant among us note that it is actually a US-built "Priest" self-propelled artillery piece from later in the war and doesn't actually look much like a Panzer III or Pz34 that was used in France. But it's playing the part.

Perhaps my example of the Roman Emperor was a bad one. But I don't let it overly exercise me if, say, a wild west film set in the 1880s mentions a President that didn't come into office until a year or so later. If the president comes into the plot and has a part to play (like in Wild Wild West), then of course it's more important to get it right.

This isn't to say that no background detail is important, of course. I particularly tire of Hollywood having No Idea what the middle ages looked like, and falling back on the old tropes of mud, bad teeth, cruel barons and implausibly gothicky castles with heads on spikes.

I just think it's only really worth getting worked up about if you're actually giving the casual viewer a substantively false view of events.

[Brickie]

It's the relationship between the East Elbian elites of the Luftwaffe and the rest of the society that concerns me. And also, the changing notions of honor in a military context, both of which the film captures quite nicely.

Point taken. It just kind of undoes that by flubbing the trench bit so badly.

[Brickie]

I love the dreadful, cheesy, horribly edited and directed King Arthur movie from several years ago. In many ways I love it for what it could have been (and for Ioan Gryffydd in black leather!) In my defense, Romano-Celtic Britain is hands down my favorite era in history, and Celtic King Arthur my favorite of that hero cycle. To get even such a flawed version of that world, that story on screen? (Bonus that it was with such pretty men!) I'm a happy, happy camper.


My beef with King Arthur was not so much with the history - I'm no scholar of the era so I expect much passed me by - but with the dreadful script, wooden acting (I'm looking at you, Clive Owen. Most of the rest were OK) and horrible, horrible Disneyness of it. I mean, he holds up his sword, the horse rears, a shaft of light hits the blade and a badly-CG'd sparkle tings off the point. With, I swear, an actual Ting! sound-effect. Ugh.

Bernard Cornwell's "Arthur" trilogy are the books that this film ought to have been. I salute the attempt to make a "proper, historical" King Arthur, and I appreciate that it's not exactly the most-docmented era in human history, but to me it was precisely because it *should* have been a great movie that it disappointed so much. Even Ray Winstone was wasted, and that's just a crime.

(Oh, and Guinevere with perfectly smooth legs, pearly-white teeth and, although they broke her fingers, they apparently didn't touch her manicure...)

[pdr]

Brickie, whilst I agree with you that planes cut and painted to be something else is fair usage we'll agree to differ on the rest.

I would merely suggest that readers will not trust your writing, and therefore won't buy your books, if they find basic errors like a well known historical figure's date of birth or death given incorrectly. Their reasoning is that if you (or a film maker) cannot get simple details straight then the rest of the work is probably crap! You should hear the HNS members on the subject.

[robeiae]

I would merely suggest that readers will not trust your writing, and therefore won't buy your books, if they find basic errors like a well known historical figure's date of birth or death given incorrectly. Their reasoning is that if you (or a film maker) cannot get simple details straight then the rest of the work is probably crap! You should hear the HNS members on the subject.I think that's a little strong. Most readers don't know beans about anything, let alone the birthdates of historical personages.

Gross errors presented as facts are a different story...though given Dan Brown's success, I'm not sure there's a real problem here, either.

[klostes]

My beef with King Arthur was not so much with the history - I'm no scholar of the era so I expect much passed me by - but with the dreadful script, wooden acting (I'm looking at you, Clive Owen. Most of the rest were OK) and horrible, horrible Disneyness of it. I mean, he holds up his sword, the horse rears, a shaft of light hits the blade and a badly-CG'd sparkle tings off the point. With, I swear, an actual Ting! sound-effect. Ugh.

Bernard Cornwell's "Arthur" trilogy are the books that this film ought to have been. I salute the attempt to make a "proper, historical" King Arthur, and I appreciate that it's not exactly the most-docmented era in human history, but to me it was precisely because it *should* have been a great movie that it disappointed so much. Even Ray Winstone was wasted, and that's just a crime.

(Oh, and Guinevere with perfectly smooth legs, pearly-white teeth and, although they broke her fingers, they apparently didn't touch her manicure...)

Oh, gods, the horrid, HORRID miscasting of Kiera Knightly as Guenivere is, to me, the most egregious of the movie's sins. Though Clive Owen's wooden acting is a close second. As for the "Knights of the Round Table", Winstone et al, I think those actors did their best to overcome both the directing and the script. What's good about the movie usually involves their characters.

Like I said, I love it for it might have been, and the glimpses of that within the movie, rather than what it was. It really, really could have been fantastic, another Gladiator, with a better director. I'd love to see the original script. They did get a lot of the Sarmatian details, including their costumes, right, and there's enough evidence that even "Lancelot" is a derivative of a Sarmatian name. So those details were well done.

Cornwell's King Arthur series is good, but I think he kind of lost his steam with the third novel. The best over all for me will always be Rosemary Sutcliff's Sword at Sunset. It was the first "Celtic" King Arthur novel ever penned, and is just a wonderful work. She leaves Merlin out entirely; I do like Cornwell's mad, pagan Merlin better than anyone else's.

[pdr]

I think that's a little strong. Most readers don't know beans about anything, let alone the birthdates of historical personages.


Never underestimate the readers of historical novels. A large percentage of them are very knowledgeable.

And of those that aren't?
Where is your writer's integrity and honesty if you are happy to allow your work to be published with errors of that magnitude?

There are certain basic facts with which an historical writer works. Whilst interpretation may be personal, the facts aren't open to that tampering.

And before you throw Shakespeare at me let me say that most of his audience knew he was tampering with the facts in, say, 'Macbeth', because he wanted to say something about kingship. Hollinshed's Chronicles were well read and well known.

[robeiae]

Never underestimate the readers of historical novels. A large percentage of them are very knowledgeable.

And of those that aren't?
Where is your writer's integrity and honesty if you are happy to allow your work to be published with errors of that magnitude?Errors of what magnitude? An incorrect date for an event?

[LloydBrown]

Errors of what magnitude? An incorrect date for an event?

Dude, I used to run a game store. You should see the fights that would break out over whether a banner was painted pink instead of Polish crimson. If your Mexican Intervention Zouaves wore uniforms unique to the Franco-Prussian War, you were in for a mocking. I love the discussions we used to have, but historians are a fierce bunch.

[Brickie]

I agree, and I agree that Historical movies should be historically accurate as much as possible. Perhaps I used a bad example with my "wrong emperor", but I appear to have convinced pdr that I'm totally cavalier in my own writing with regards to details.

All I'm saying is when I sit and watch a movie, there are some things that annoy me when they're wrong, and some that don't. The things that annoy me are the things that make a difference to the plot. The things that don't are background detail. The wrong emperor's name would be the former if you were watching, say "Gladiator" where Marcus Aurelius and Commodus are an essential part of the plot. For me, as a non-Roman scholar, a character mentioning in passing the name of a wrong emperor - that's a minor thing.

There is a difference between a "U-571" just making stuff up or altering it beyond recognition; and a "Longest Day" being pretty accurate except in some details.

[Puma]

I'm with pdr 100% on the need for accuracy. I'm one of the ones who even as a kid looked people and events up in reference books. If the information in a historical novel was incorrect, that author was dead as far as my interest went. Of course, I also understood that main characters in novels were usually fictional - if they weren't, the book would possibly have been non-fiction. Puma

[robeiae]

I guess my position is that if I want to know history, I read non-fiction. If I'm reading an historical novel and the author has two minor events take place in the wrong order, let us say, either because of an error or because it serves the story, I don't see any reason to get upset about it. And if the novel isn't very good, historical accuracy is inconsequential. Sorry.

[Puma]

robeiae - by the same token, if you want to learn English you read an English book, but it's okay if authors don't pay any attention to rules and conventions in their stories. Is that equivalent - and is that acceptable? Puma

[robeiae]

robeiae - by the same token, if you want to learn English you read an English book, but it's okay if authors don't pay any attention to rules and conventions in their stories. Is that equivalent - and is that acceptable? PumaYou're over stating my implied level of acceptance. A novel that purports to be historical, but is riddled with inaccuracies is one thing; an historical novel that has a minor error or an intentional misrepresentation of an event is something else.

[LloydBrown]

I don't think anybody's asserting that a minor error will smash the 4th wall and cause the reader to put the book down. I think that the better your book, the bigger the error you can write in (intentionally or not) because people will forgive it if they enjoy the story.

However, people who read that kind of thing will notice, and many of them will enjoy it less because of it.

[pdr]

interpretation isn't it?
Many readers would take umbrage if the book they were reading had Queen Elizabeth 1 dying in 1604. The date of her death is a basic fact and - so their thinking goes - how can you suspend disbelief and enjoy a novel if the fool of an author can't even get the basics right? But if that doesn't bother you, that's fine. It does bother me. I'm not using history merely as a pretty setting to tell an entertaining story. I write stories set in three particular historical eras because I feel the strong links between those periods and now and that we can learn something for now from what did and didn't happen then.

I have to say, and I know there will be howls of fury, but it is my personal thought and not a rant, or directed at anyone, Brickie or Robeiae. But it seems that Robeiae's attitude is an American attitude to historical novel writing.

I say this because I review novels for the HNS and what I and other non-American reviewers call sloppy research - we tut over incorrect forms of address to Dukes and Earls, incorrect behaviour to and of servants, and dreadful geographical and historical errors in Regency and Victorian novels, written by American authors - they have been accepted and published by American publishers. So it seems that what I consider sloppy and poor research is allowable in the USA writing world.

Different interpretations!

[arrowqueen]

I'm with pdr as well. This is a quote about one of mine (by Liz Coldwell from Forum magazine)

'Though the dialogue has its fair share of anachronisms, the period research has been thoroughly done...'

This is for an erotic novel, where you'd think historical detail would play second fiddle to the number of bonks per chapter, yet this was still commented on.

Readers of historical novels are knowledgable - and damn picky about accuracy too.

[Chumplet]

Quest for Fire

80.000 years ago was a very intense period.

My neighbour's son was one of the set designers for that film. Much of it was filmed just north of here. It's a haunting representation of prehistory. Tommy Chong's daughter Rae Dawn was the girl in it.

I just finished watching Papillon. It's supposed to be a true story and it sucked me in. I found myself shouting, "Get the f*** over that damn wall before they shoot you!"

Loved Amadeus.

[Puma]

As the disagreement in the importance of historical accuracy has played out in this thread something came to my mind - true, at least of me - I learned to read so I could read to learn. If material is not presented accurately, if I learn anything at all, I learn the wrong thing or that "close enough" is okay. But it's not.

Goring the other ox, I recently read a children's book published in Britain about the American Civil War that was so full of mistakes it was shameful. Accuracy in educational material for children is absolutely essential. The same series of books had one on Julius Caesar that showed him becoming consul four years after he died (on the same page even). So there needs to be some care taken on that side of the pond too. Puma

[robeiae]

I'm with pdr as well.Right. That's it for you, then.

*begins sharpening Phoenician tempered steel longsword*

[C.bronco]

The best ever, and it was on tonight: Papillon.

Robeiae "To Carthage then I came
burning burning burning burning
O Lord thou pluckest me out
O Lord thou pluckest
burning."

Couldn't resist.
P.S. Great hat.

[robeiae]

I seem to be known in all the wrong places.

[C.bronco]

It's the hat. Definitely.

[Chumplet]

History of the World: Part 1

It's good to be the King.

[pdr]

Good Lord, Puma, what a horrible shoddy job for a set of children's books. That's the pits! Who is the disgraceful publisher?

As for you, Robeiae, you may sharpen your anachronistic long sword. I will retaliate with an arrow from my yew long bow or might even sharpen my Roundhead ancestor's cavalry sword.

[Cav Guy]

I'm with pdr as well. This is a quote about one of mine (by Liz Coldwell from Forum magazine)

'Though the dialogue has its fair share of anachronisms, the period research has been thoroughly done...'

This is for an erotic novel, where you'd think historical detail would play second fiddle to the number of bonks per chapter, yet this was still commented on.

Readers of historical novels are knowledgable - and damn picky about accuracy too.

They most certainly are. I suspect many of them read the historicals so that they can feel part of their favorite era. I'm a big history type, and nothing will turn me off faster than a basic historical error in a book (I read a Western once by a major figure in the field...he had his main character shaking hands with Ranald Mackenzie - who was known on the Frontier as Bad Hand because two of the fingers on his right hand were blown off during the Civil War. This author always talked up his "historical accuracy," but after that I wasn't buying him.). I can deal with anachronistic dialog to a degree (but if I see "dude" in anything set before 1900 I will go crazy), but the facts need to be right.

Movie audiences (myself included to a degree) can be more forgiving, but readers of historicals are much more demanding.

[Puma]

FYI - there's a new philosophy of writing forum in the conference room (2nd one under share your work). I started a thread there last night on the accuracy vs. artistic license issue. Those of you who've been engaging in the debate here might want to also take a look at that thread and add your two cents worth. Puma

[Puma]

pdr - I don't think there's any value in naming names and I don't think I'd place the blame on the publisher or even the publisher's editor. Those people are in the business of putting out books; they're concerned with the mechanics and the grammar - not the substance of the book itself. I blame the author for not doing adequate research and not checking over the manuscript well enough before it went to print. Part of the errors that show up in the books were caused by an inattentive (or unknowing) art department. The author surely had an opportunity to review the art, but nonetheless, as an example, in the Civil War book there are illustrations of battles with soldiers shooting rifles - while holding them out at arm's length beside them with one hand. Can't be done - especially with a flint or percussion rifle and a lot of the ones in the Civil War were those (I have a Civil War foraging gun which is actually a cut down Brown Bess muzzle loader from the Revolutionary War period. The thing's extremely heavy and holding it around the lock area as the book illustrations show would burn the heck out the holder's hand - as well as be extremely inaccurate if the holder was actually able to pull the trigger). So, I blame the author for not taking the time to do the job right or not caring whether the books were accurate or just "close enough". Nuff said. Puma

[pdr]

I suspect many of them read the historicals so that they can feel part of their favorite era.

I'm sure you're right there, Cav Guy. There's certainly something very strong at work as far as historical readers go. They are not just miffed over errors, they are infuriated to the point of violence! Something, I suspect, to do with spoiling that magic creation of a fictional world between the reader and writer. The spell is broken and the joy lost.

[MegaData]

Was "Dances with Wolves" very accurate? I haven't seen it since it was in the theaters. I saw it available on DVD recently but I wanted a "Widescreen" format for that kind of movie, so I haven't picked it up. Maybe I'll have to rent it...

I want to write something around the same time period. Before settlers were documented, really. I am working with many unknown elements. The history sin't well documented. I have to look up a great many things as well. (music, housing structures, languages, customs, genealogy, political climate, cross checking the facts that are known) I'm thinking it'll take 3 years to write but I may be underestimating the writing time by taking on more than I had anticipated. Especially since I'm working two jobs to pay the bills giving me less time for writing and research...

[BardSkye]

I suspect many of them read the historicals so that they can feel part of their favorite era.

I'm sure you're right there, Cav Guy. There's certainly something very strong at work as far as historical readers go. They are not just miffed over errors, they are infuriated to the point of violence! Something, I suspect, to do with spoiling that magic creation of a fictional world between the reader and writer. The spell is broken and the joy lost.

I'm going to chime in with my two cents here as a reader rather than a writer.

I've never been much of a romance reader. Harlequin didn't interest me even as a gawky teenage girl. Yet I have quite a few historical romances on my shelves that get re-read often. Why? For the depth of historical detail they give the story; the little background items mentioned in passing that make the period (1066 England, for me) come alive.

I credit Kathleen Woodwiss' "The Wolf and the Dove" with sparking an interest in history that my high school teacher managed to bury under dusty dates and dull names.

Another was Alistair Maclean's "HMS Ulysses" -- about as far from romance as you can go -- set on a destroyer in the North Atlantic in a doomed convoy. It not only brought WWII to life in a way no history book ever could, the depth of nautical detail made me feel the salt spray and despair along with the characters when the wolf packs finally caught up.

It's the accuracy of the historical detail that makes the book for me. An occasional mistake, well, everyone makes mistakes once in a while. And if the author has a disclaimer saying he or she has changed something for the sake of the story, I'll go along with it without complaint. But glaring inaccuracies, or even alternate histories, are just not for me.

[Brickie]

alternate histories, are just not for me.

On the Nanowrimo HistFic forums, during November at least, there was a regular occurrence that went like this (an extreme example, btw)

Original Poster:
"What was life like in High School in 13th century Europe? What subjects did they study? Did they have lockers like us?"

Rest of the forum:
"High school didn't exist in 13th century Europe. [insert lots of detail on 13th century education]."

Original Poster:
"Hmm. I think I'll call it an alternate history, where they did have high school. That way I can still write my story the way I had planned to."

And I never did think that that sounded like a novel I'd want to read.

[robeiae]

"Dudeth, canst thou here-ith that? Tis mine skull!"

"Tis Saxon history. I espieth the philospher's parchment on yon desk."

"Sire, if thou fails to closeth thine mouth, I shalt beateth thou without mercy!"

Quotes from Fast Times at Ipswich High

[pdr]

Can't wait to read the finished work. Such dialogue. Outstanding!