I’d probably call Inherit the Wind a historical allegory, but that doesn’t apply to all dramas with historical settings. When I was in high school I heard “historical fiction” used for the kind of story you are talking about, but those were usually not based on specific events.
The main accuracy problem in Glory is Denzel Washington’s character. Almost all, if not all, of the 54th’s initial enlistees were free men before the Civil War broke out- few if any were escaped slaves. Some escaped slaves- contraband- joined later, and there were in fact regiments of escaped slaves, but the 54th wasn’t one.
I’m trying to remember if any of the main characters in the movie survived the attack on Battery Wagner. In reality, while the 54th most definitely got the hell blasted out of it during that fight, half or more did survive. Also, though the order had gone out that all black men in uniform and their officers were to be killed on the spot if captured, to their credit most Confederate officers saw this as murder and flatly refused to carry it out; it’s probable Davis meant it more as a terror tactic since he never disciplined any of these officers, and some members of the 54th who were captured were imprisoned at Andersonville.
This is referenced in the TV film Andersonville (one of the better made for TV movies about the Civil War; the greatest inaccuracy is one the producers had no control over, which is there’s no safe way for actors to lose enough weight to look like the real survivors).
Although most were, all were apparently not. Thus highlighting the story of one is not inaccurate. wiki, etc.
“The Congressional bill authorized equal and full pay to those enlisted troops who were free men as of April, 1861. Of course not all the troops qualified. Colonel E. N. Hallowell, a Quaker, rationalized that because he did not believe in slavery he could therefore have all the troops swear that they were free men. Before being given their back pay the entire regiment was administered what became known as “the Quaker oath.”[citation needed] Colonel Hallowell skillfully crafted the oath to say: “You do solemnly swear that on or before the 19th day of April 1864, no man had the right to demand unrequited labor of you so help you lord.”[citation needed] It should be noted that Colonel Hallowell, wrote a “typo” in his hand-written transcript of the oath and actually said “1861” while administering the oath.”
CalMeacham has a couple of posts in this thread dealing with Plays Inspired by History that get turned into Movies That Aren’t Historically Accurate. Sorry, I don’t know of any shorter term!
When you’re watching a play, with live actors & minimal scenery, it’s easier to concentrate on what the playwright is trying to communicate. Which is not usually historical accuracy. A good movie will seem more “real”–even if it isn’t “correct.”
The play Amadeus is about genius & jealousy (perhaps). The movie Amadeus is about the wonderful music of Mozart & the beautiful city of Vienna. Yes, I know it was really shot in Prague–but the sumptous production really made you think you were seeing into the past. Of course it didn’t tell the true story of Mozart–but all the music was true. If I get a chance to see the play, I’m sure I’ll appreciate it intellectually. But I love the movie. If I want to know more about Mozart the man, I’ll read a book. But I’m more likely to seek out more of his music.
I believe one of the fellows who was on that raid said he enjoyed U571 stating that to be commercially successful it needed to be about Americans.
That didn’t stop this movie from the replacing Das Boot as the WW2 History Movie Most Hated by Brits.
Something’s always bothered me about that scene in Tombstone, and the Wiki article doesn’t really clear it up. The movie makes it look like the OK Corrall is little more than a patch of dirt between two buildings in town - about the size of a modern suburban front yard. I always thought that a corrall was something akin to a farm or a pasture.
What’s the deal. 
A corral is just a place where you keep cattle temporarily - basically, a patch of dirt with a fence around it, often in or near a market where you intend to sell them.
Word. I saw that part of the series and never watched a single episode again for that very reason. Pretty costumes or not, that was just dumb.
From the wiki article:
The gunfight did not actually occur at the O.K. Corral. It occurred in a 15-20 foot space between Fly’s Lodging House and photographic studio, and the MacDonald assay house west of it.
HeyHomie said:
Miller said:
Right. A corral is a holding and processing pen. It’s where you keep animals when you don’t want them wandering away, as opposed to typical situations on ranches where the animals free roam. A corral is the fenced area for breaking horses, training for barrel racing, etc. It also stands for the pen used to keep horses in town. If your horse isn’t saddled up or hitched to the wagon, it needs to be kept somewhere. There’s a stable to keep it covered, but the corral includes an open penned area that lets the horses have a little room to move around.
This photo shows Tombstone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tombstone1908OKm.JPG
The white highlighted area is the location of the gunfight. The actual OK Corral is shown in the picture. Third Street is the street running toward the upper left. Allen Street is in the forground running horizontal right. The entrance to the OK Corral is on Allen. As you can see, there is something of a clearing behind that area between the buildings. That is the corral. Not particularly huge.
1.) My post is a comment on an earlier post about Fall of a Nation, as the last line makes clear.
2.) The IMDb saying that this is listed among the “lost films” trumps your recollection that you think you saw a copy somewhere.
3.) I never saw your earlier post (from a much earlier thread.)
Elizabeth II (the movie not the queen) is the worst.
It’s almost insulting, the spanish are portrayed like muslim fundamentalists.
Though killing her off did free Gabrielle Anwar to go blow things up and kick ass on Burn Notice, so I suppose historical inaccuracy did serve that purpose.
I am mildly obsessed by Band of Brothers. There is one glaring error that ruins an episode for me. The episode Caretan centered around Albert Blithe played by Mark Warren. I am not sure why the producers of the mini series made the episode about him, he is barely mentioned in the book. At the end of the episode Blithe is shot and he is said to have died from his wounds in 1947. Albert Blithe actually survived his wounds and eventually made a career of the army. He made the rank of Master Sergeant, served in Korea, had over 600 jumps, was awarded the Silver Star, 3 Bronze Stars and 3 Purple Hearts. MSG Blithe died while on active duty in 1967 due to complications of a perforated ulcer. The members of his unit thought he died and that is what Ambrose reported in the book but they were wrong. The family came forward after the series came out to set the record straight. It wasn’t the fault of the producers but the error still bothers me.
To me, the accuracy of history in most movies is irrelevant, especially big-budget flicks starrings Big Names. So it’s not at all surprising that Elizabeth or Braveheart get it completely wrong, because I’m not expecting them to get it right.
However, there was one film where I (stupidly) thought that the specifity of the subject was such that they would go to pains to get it right, a subject that I thought would never get a movie treatment in the first place… a movie about Martin Luther. I mean, why make a movie about Martin Luther if you’re not going to take pains to get the history right? It’s not as if there’s a huge audience out there wanting to see a 16th century war of words, right?
Sigh. That’ll learn me.
Anyway, the movie was correct on a number of fronts - many of the speeches were pretty verbatim, they didn’t f-up the locations, etc. And there were some small issues that could be easily explained away… like the use of the word “inertia”, which wasn’t coined until a 100 years after the events in question. No need to expect the scriptwriters to be 100% linguistically accurate.
But what bothered me about the movie was two things:
-
The character of Luther himself. He was portrayed as a soft-spoken, gentle person who accidentally started the Reformation and was carried along by it’s irresistable force. While it is true that he didn’t set out to splinter the Church, there is no way in Holy Hell™ anybody could consider Martin Luther to be either soft-spoken or gentle… the man was a freakin’ loon who discovered a love of invective language, a man who had no problem calling the Pope the Antichrist, who compared Rome to Sodom and Gomorrah, a man who raged on a daily basis. Joseph Fiennes portrayal was one of the most inaccurate portrayals of a historical figure that I’ve ever seen, an inaccuracy that was highlighted in the second thing that bothered me about this film:
-
The Peasants Rebellion of 1524-1525. In the film, Luther was all “Oh, no! Don’t kill the peasants - they’re upset at the Church too and they are only doing this because of all the oppression they’ve suffered!” :rolleyes: In real life, Luther wanted the peasants put down even more ruthlessly than they were and he wrote a screed entitled Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants which contained such quotes as:
Gentle indeed!
Then followed it up with the pamphlets And Get Me Not Even Started About the Jews, its followup No, Seriously, You Don’t Even Wanna Know What I Think About Jews and You Know Who I REALLY Hate? Give You One Hint: Jews.
The film was made by the Lutheran church, so they’re probably not going to want to portray him as a loony, violent, anti-Semite.
It was produced by the Lutheran Church? I did not know that.
No wonder Luther was portrayed as he was(n’t).
Do you mean Elizabeth starring Cate Blanchett, about Elizabeth I?
Some movies get away with being historically inaccurate by being ‘postmodern.’ Shakespeare in Love is a good example of that. It really wasn’t trying to be historically accurate at all; unfortunately, some viewers seem to think it was. I’ve met a few people who thought Shakespeare really did start out having Romeo paired with Ethel.
The movie isn’t very good, but the portrayal of the Spanish crown and military as religious zealots bent on conquest is not at all inaccurate.