Exactly how angry? How would you express that anger?
It wasn’t just marketing; the director of the movie made a big deal about it, blathering at some length.
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.”
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.
Oh man, worse than that:
“Objection!”
- “Sustained!”
“Objection!” - “Overruled!”
They don’t do that in British courts. That’s American. Grrr.
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.
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?
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
I disagree. A historical film should not change historical facts. In Hollywood war movies this typically involves changing the heroes to Americans.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.