# Can you enjoy an inacurrate movie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 29, 2007, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338 "2007-08-29T07:03:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/21 "2007-08-29T18:24:27Z")
[QUOTE=kidchameleon] Usually it depends on the rest of the movie. I can live with a little Bad Science in the _Bourne Identity_, but abuse of gamma rays made me angry in _The Hulk_. [/QUOTE] Exactly _how_ angry? How would you express that anger? ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/22 "2007-08-29T18:26:05Z")
[QUOTE=Trunk] I don’t get the distinction. Marketing is just marketing. I could see how it would bug you if they published inaccuracies in a peer-reviewed journal. But, are you saying that if I made two identical movies – “King Arthur” and “King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend” – you’d have a problem with one, but not the other? [/QUOTE] It wasn’t just marketing; the director of the movie made a big deal about it, blathering at some length. ---
**Author:** ![kurilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ea5d25/32.png) [@kurilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kurilla)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/23 "2007-08-29T19:46:27Z")
For me, the question is, “Does this kick me out of the movie?” For the aforementioned _King Arthur_, there were too many moments that kicked me out of the movie to mention. Timing, dates, technology, and so on – which I might have overlooked if it hadn’t been for the blather that yes, this is REALLY how it happened… And it’s not just historical inaccuracies that can kick me out of a movie, but also smaller things. Spoilering the following because _The Invasion_ is still in theaters; it’s not REALLY a spoiler, but… Nicole Kidman’s ex-husband is with the CDC. He’s been called out to the shuttle crash site and SHOWN the spores on the shuttle debris. He’s in a full containment suit for this, because, presumably, they don’t know what those spores are going to do. The news is making a big deal about telling people NOT TO TOUCH THE DEBRIS. So, naturally, when this guy’s leaving the site and a young girl holds out a piece of debris saying, “I found this on my roof,” – HE TAKES IT WITH HIS BARE HANDS. He deserved to be taken by the snatchers, if he’s that damn stupid. “Rid us of your stupidity.” ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/24 "2007-08-29T20:05:38Z")
[QUOTE=RealityChuck] As I have said many a time here, people seem to nitpick on the basis they’d rather see something “accurate” and dull than dramatic. Frankly, if you need to have accuracy in your movies, then you’re the one losing out. [/QUOTE] Completely agree (though I don’t share your love for “The Day after Tomorrow”; accurate or not, its a pandering, hoaky, and maudlin film). Documentaries deserve to be judged on their accuracy, drama not so much. I think everyone has a subject area they can claim as their expertise, and when a person sees a film that impinges heavily on that subject area, he/she naturally evaluates the quality differently than would a general audience. Part of this will of course involve a tendency to nit-pick the details, but IMO some of the greatest cinematic disappointments can be filed under “lost opportunity”. “Night and Day”, the laughable 1946 biography of Cole Porter starring Cary Grant, is perhaps the ultimate example of this when you compare it to the more recent “De-lovely” (I’m not saying “De-lovely” was a great film, but it certainly had more to work with than its cringeworthy predecessor). I’d also say a filmmaker who buffs out inconvenient facts with the heavy hand of propaganda is something that I find jarring; “The Day after Tomorrow” is one example, and judging from reviews, the now-playing “September Dawn”–a film based on the 1857 murder of members of a wagon train by fanatical Mormons–might be another. But in these cases at least, “inaccurate” might simply be shorthand for “dramatically bad”. So, again, it doesn’t seem fair to criticize a dramatic film strictly because it’s inaccurate; you have to show how that inaccuracy leads to bad drama, and I think that can happen regardless of the subject matter’s veracity. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/25 "2007-08-29T20:19:18Z")
[QUOTE=Priceguy] Case in point: _In the Name of the Father_. Saw the movie, thought that was roughly the way it happened. Then read the book. Not even close. And now I bet thousands of people believe there was a file in the archives with a note saying “Not to be shown to the defence”. [/QUOTE] Oh man, worse than that: “Objection!” - “Sustained!” “Objection!” - “Overruled!” They don’t _do_ that in British courts. That’s American. Grrr. ---
**Author:** ![LH75](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lh75/32/4438_2.png) [@LH75](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LH75)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/26 "2007-08-29T20:34:00Z")
I go to movies to be entertained. I never assume that the information I see in movies is accurate or factual, even when it is explicitly stated to be the case. I am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the film is entertaining. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_Bowe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@Doug\_Bowe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_Bowe)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/27 "2007-08-29T20:36:58Z")
Boy do I run hot and cold on this issue. I enjoyed **Braveheart** even though I knew it was wrong (maybe because I didn’t know it was wrong until _after_ the movie–the film made me check his bio out of the library). **JFK** on the other hand was a total turn-off. I lived through that time and knew what happened. Besides, wasn’t the real story already dramatic enough? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/28 "2007-08-29T20:40:30Z")
Sometimes I can overlook and forgive a great deal of inaccuracy, even if the movie is supposedly somewhat historical (Shakespeare in Love, for example), other times, I just can’t suspend disbelief, even if the movie is very conspicuously a flight of fancy (The Core). I’m not sure what my criteria actually are, if indeed they can be defined. ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/29 "2007-08-29T21:10:02Z")
That reminds me of a Netflix review of _Frankenstein; the True Story_. This reviewer complained because it wasn’t really the true story of Frankenstein. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/30 "2007-08-29T21:46:57Z")
I have a serious problem with inaccuracy in movies. I have various (pedantic, pointless) notions of the authentic in films. The use of languages is one way many films go out the window with accuracy. **BrainGlutton** has already pointed out a few of the more glaring inaccuracies in Braveheart, a film I used to enjoy. Now, I find I would enjoy it more if the Scots characters spoke Gaelic, it would just seem more “real” to me. (I bet this comment is gonna bite me in the arse when some scholar of Scottish history is going to point out that William Wallace and his associates didn’t speak Gaelic at all!) In the film _Barry Lyndon_ the main character is meant to be from Ireland but he affects a peculiar mid-Atlantic accent that centres somewhere a few hundred miles east of Long Island! I loved the film and don’t know enough about the political climate or social mores of the time to be able to point out other inaccuracies but the accent one limited my enjoyment somewhat. It is scary how inaccurate historical films become historical orthodoxy. The vast majority of the “facts” most Irish people know about (Irish freedom fighter and politican) Michael Collins and the like came from the film of the same name. Granted there were certain things in the film that were somewhat accurate but it is difficult to separate the dramatic from the factual. I suppose there is a trade-off between authenticity and entertaining people sometimes but these sort of films are potentially dangerous in the myths that they peddle. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/31 "2007-08-29T21:50:51Z")
Put me down with the “How serious was it meant to be?” crowd. I hated **Braveheart** and **The Day After Tomorrow** , for example, but absolutely adored **Shakespeare In Love**. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/32 "2007-08-29T22:18:04Z")
[QUOTE=RealityChuck] As I have said many a time here, people seem to nitpick on the basis they’d rather see something “accurate” and dull than dramatic. [/QUOTE] Then you’ve spoken nonsense many a time, and presented a false choice. If, for instance, _Braveheart_ had been historically accurate, it would have been even more interesting. (For one thing, there would have been a bridge at the Battle of Sterling Bridge.) There have been two major movies about the incident in the Crimean War popularly referred to as the Charge of the Light Brigade. One, with Errol Flynn, was entertaining but absolute nonsense; the other, made around 1970, was very accurate in presenting the sequence of events, and presenting the historical characters as flawed, complex individuals. Both versions were dramatic and entertaining, but the one based on real history was more satisfying. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/33 "2007-08-29T22:37:44Z")
[QUOTE=installLSC] I’ve always felt that as long as no one is accused of something loathsome like murder or rape, that films/historical novels don’t have a responsibilty to be accurate. [/QUOTE] I disagree. A historical film should not change historical facts. In Hollywood war movies this typically involves changing the heroes to Americans. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/34 "2007-08-29T23:04:22Z")
[QUOTE=silenus] Put me down with the “How serious was it meant to be?” crowd. I hated **Braveheart** and **The Day After Tomorrow** , for example, but absolutely adored **Shakespeare In Love**. [/QUOTE] But there’s the crux, not many people viewing Shakespeare In Love would imagine it as a factually accurate portrayal of Shakespeare. You might be forgiven for thinking the other films portrayed actual historical events accurately and possible/probable future events respectively. ---
**Author:** ![GreedySmurf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a698b9/32.png) [@GreedySmurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreedySmurf)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/35 "2007-08-29T23:21:47Z")
[QUOTE=Trunk] I also find it funny when someone says, “it ruined the movie for me when such and such happened” and then, it turns out that “such and such” really did happen, or that “such and such” is perhaps a matter of debate between people, and the filmmakers decided to go one way with it. So, not only have they watched the movie in a way the movie wasn’t meant to be watched, but they’ve taken themselves out of it by their own ignorance. [/QUOTE] I couldn’t have put this better. I should know better than to chat about movies in some forums, but it is so infuriating when you come across people that say “_I was loving the movie until such and such happened - it was totally destroyed for me then_” The worst example I’ve encountered of this was around Saving Private Ryan, Now I know it had it’s problems, but regardless I think it is a good movie, definitely in the top 3 of my favourite war movies. This internet idiot commented that the whole movie was ruined becasue (I think it was Ryan) used the term “_tankbusters_” “_but that term wasn’t in use until August …blah blah blah_” Prove it! How can anyone know exactly when a particular military slang term was first used?! Quote me all the stuff about the first written usage - but prove it that no one had ever said tankbusters before the time set of the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Linty\_Fresh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Linty\_Fresh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linty_Fresh)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/36 "2007-08-29T23:46:49Z")
I don’t really mind inaccuracy, unless a real person is being slandered, especially if that person is dead and unable to defend himself. It doesn’t matter if the movie isn’t meant to be taken seriously, because no matter how far out the premise, there will always be a bunch of yayhoos ready to take it as gospel. For instance, **From Hell** painted Frederick Abberline as a young heroin addict in love with a prostitute. Now I know Jack the Ripper was a long time ago, and I know the movie was based on a graphic novel that ignored any semblance of historic fact, but it bothers me that a middle-aged devoted detective, husband, and father should be played like that by Johnny Depp. They should have just made up a fictional name to go along with the fictional portrayal. Two others that tick me off: **Shine:** The movie portrays David Helfgott as a brilliant pianist neglected by a cruel father. According to many, the movie is zero for three. Not only is David regarded by qualified musicians as an abysmal performer, but several people have come forward to say that the portrayal of Peter Helfgott, his father, as an abusive tyrant is way off base. In fact, David was overindulged. Of course, others say that Armin Mueller-Stahl’s performance was accurate, so I guess this could go either way. **Walk the Line:** I liked this movie, but come on, no _way_ was Robert Patrick’s portrayal of Ray Cash accurate. He might not have been the most friendly open person in the world, but nothing IRL suggests that he was the monster Robert Patrick made him out to be. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2007, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/37 "2007-08-30T00:33:06Z")
I can enjoy an inaccurate movie…_up to a point._ Take _Titanic,_ for example. I’ve been a Titanic buff for going on 30 years. I can’t recite facts/figures the way a real frootloop might, but I knows my facts and figures _well enough_ about the real ship, the people on her, and what happened April 15th, 1912. Cameron’s depiction of First Officer William McMaster Murdoch killed any enjoyment I was having in the film (the first time I saw it; since Cameron supposedly apologized to the Murdoch family, I can live with it). According to eyewitness accounts, Margaret “Molly” Brown told off Quartermaster Robert Hitchens; in the movie, she meekly backs down. The situation in Lifeboat 6 was never that dramatic, anyway. Check out her bio; she was a remarkable woman. His villainization of J. Bruce Ismay was unnecessary; he had his moment of weakness, and climbed aboard the lifeboat, that much is true. But making him the “full speed ahead, I must have glory!” asshole he was in the movie was insult on top of (admittedly, self-inflicted) injury. Things he did _very_ right: the relationship between Isador and Ida Strauss; Wallace Hartley and his band; and his portrayal of Thomas Andrews. And in spite of the Romeo/Juliet Jack/Rose story, I was enjoying the movie. I still do; at least (almost) everything _after_ they hit the iceberg. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2007, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/38 "2007-08-30T00:40:08Z")
[QUOTE=kurilla] For me, the question is, “Does this kick me out of the movie?” For the aforementioned _King Arthur_, there were too many moments that kicked me out of the movie to mention. Timing, dates, technology, and so on – which I might have overlooked if it hadn’t been for the blather that yes, this is REALLY how it happened… [/QUOTE] That’s pretty much the case with me too. For me, it really depends on what the movie is trying to do. For example, I’ll forgive historical inaccuracies and anachronisms in broad comedies like **Monty Python and the Holy Grail** and movies that treat their subject with an obvious wink-and-nod toward the audience (e.g.,the **Pirates of the Caribbean** series). I’m even willing to cut Oliver Stone some slack for **JFK** since I think it clearly is _his_ paranoid POV about who was responsible for the Kennedy assassination and, as such, represents personal opinion rather than fact. The example of **King Arthur** (from which I have only seen a few short bits) is an interesting one. Even though the saga of King Arthur is almost entirely made up of a whole cloth of myth surrounding a few tiny faded patches of history, I think the idea of stripping it of much of it’s more fantastic elements and accurately depicting the historical time-frame in which it was supposed to have occurred (c. 500 A.D.) is a promising one. However, judging from your description and the reviews I’ve read of the movie, the problem was in the execution. The director didn’t do a thorough enough job in depicting the era and (even worse) was not able to tell a good story. Thus, his blatherings about how “accurate and true” his version of King Arthur would be only made things worse. [QUOTE=CJJ\*] … I don’t share your love for “The Day after Tomorrow”; accurate or not, its a pandering, hoaky, and maudlin film. [/QUOTE] I might be alone on this but I might’ve like **The Day After Tomorrow** better if it had been made as a satiric “take no prisoners” pitch-black comedy that addressed the topics of global warming and environmental degradation the way **Dr. Strangelove** addressed nuclear war and the arms race. Unfortunately, the filmmakers weren’t that talented. [QUOTE=CJJ\*] I’d also say a filmmaker who buffs out inconvenient facts with the heavy hand of propaganda is something that I find jarring; “The Day after Tomorrow” is one example, and judging from reviews, the now-playing “September Dawn”–a film based on the 1857 murder of members of a wagon train by fanatical Mormons–might be another. But in these cases at least, “inaccurate” might simply be shorthand for “dramatically bad”. So, again, it doesn’t seem fair to criticize a dramatic film strictly because it’s inaccurate; you have to show how that inaccuracy leads to bad drama, and I think that can happen regardless of the subject matter’s veracity. [/QUOTE] While the subject is certainly grim, the circumstances behind the “Meadow Mountain Massacre” could’ve made a compelling film. Unfortunately (and I hate to judge a movie entirely on the basis of a few reviews), **September Dawn** doesn’t appear to be it. I think a better film on the incident, for example, might’ve examined what causes seemingly “normal” people to snap and mercilessly slaughter defenseless women and children. The moive could’ve also addressed the differing perspectives of what happened before, during, and after the massacre (e.g., was it a deliberate plan or a situation that got out of control with horrific results?). In any case, these approaches would’ve introduced ambiguity to the story and, if you’re making a movie that simplistic and heavy-handed, ambiguity is the enemy. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2007, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/39 "2007-08-30T02:10:57Z")
I’m going to say I’m with the side of the argument that claims that if a film is going to incorporate obvious inaccuracies it has to make those things worth the ‘speedbump’ it gives me when I see it. Thus, like **ExTank** , I was highly disappointed in a number of things in the move _Titanic_. They didn’t really add anything to the story, IMNSHO, and made me question just how well researched the movie was, after all. The thing that pissed me off the most, was Rose’s editorial comment about the boat that came back, after the ship had sunk, looking for more survivors. She said something like, “Only one boat came back.” Which, while it was true, wasn’t quite the abandonment of the survivors that she implied - that boat represented the empty spaces of _four_ lifeboats, who redistributed their loads to send back a crew-heavy boat with space for as many people as they could find. It was a much braver, and more caring, act than the desultory event she implied. (The thing with First Officer Murdoch was so much in the news before I saw the film that I was expecting that.) Similarly, _Pearl Harbor_ was another historical movie that seemed to miss much of the history it was trying to portray. To the detriment of many people’s ability to enjoy the film as a story. I think that the cardinal rule of storytelling, and for this purpose movies are stories, is that if it works then it’s fine. When it doesn’t work, it’s another reason to castigate the storyteller. Accurate stories can be compelling. And within limits changes to the historical record don’t necessarily cost a film accuracy - specifically, composite characters, where the roles of several historical persons are combined into one character, don’t bother me - it’s a shorthand to keep from overwhelming the audience with people coming onscreen to say one line, or less. _Apollo 13_ did this, and I never thought that it compromised the accuracy of the film to do that. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2007, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338/40 "2007-08-30T02:19:37Z")
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki] Similarly, _Pearl Harbor_ was another historical movie that seemed to miss much of the history it was trying to portray. To the detriment of many people’s ability to enjoy the film as a story. [/QUOTE] Our entire history department went to see _Pearl Harbor_ as a group. I’m ashamed to say that anybody around us (there weren’t many) had to put up with our running count of historical inaccuracies, impossibilities, and dramatic “flairs” that were just plain stupid. I forget what our final count was, but I believe we almost made triple digits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-enjoy-an-inacurrate-movie/417338.md?page=3)