As you say, a HUGE percentage of that film was just plain silly. But for me, the silliest part was the oiled-up Spartans at Thermopylae fighting in little more than jock straps!
I suppose that appealed to the gays and 98-pound nerds who flocked to see it, but in reality, the Spartans who fought at Thermopylae were heavily armored from head to toe- that’s precisely why they were so hard for the lightly armored Persians to dislodge.
Amadeus is a separate case, because playwright Peter Shaffer would gladly have TOLD you that he wasn’t writing history, but fiction based on real historical characters. Shaffer, a successful and acclaimed artist, has always had nagging doubts about the quality of his own work. “Sure, I’m considered a great playwright NOW,” Shaffer thoughgt, “But what if I’m not really that good? What if there are REAL geniuses out there that the public is just too dumb to appreciate? After all, Salieri was far more acclaiemd than Mozart in his day, but who remembers Salieri any more?”*** Amadeus ***was Shaffer’s way of working out his own selfdoubts using real people as fictional characters.
In the same way, Nikos Kazantzakis would freely have admitted that ***The Last ******Temptation of Christ ***was a work of FICTION, in which he was working out his own issues by imagining Jesus as a weak, sinful man like himself.
Many audience members, of course, came away from ***Amadeus ***thinking they’d seen a serious biopic.
Then there’s U-571. In fact, an Enigma machine was captured from a crippled German U-boat early in WWII-- by the British Royal Navy, not the U.S. Navy; and this was in May 1941, when the U.S. was still trying to stay out of the war.
My uncle joked that it would have been like a movie in which Lyndon Johnson invades Vietnam to avenge the death of his father, JFK, at the hands of Communist assassins.
He also noted that the movie was absurdly popular in Scotland among nationalists who knew nothing of the country they claimed to be obsessively proud of.
There’s very little accurate history in any of his history plays. He was much more interested in entertaining his audience and putting on a good story than in documenting historical events. As a subject and a recipient of patronage in a medieval monarchy Shakespeare also knew where his bread was buttered. He didn’t want trouble and didn’t want his business ruined. Even if you forget the witches, for instance, Macbeth is totally inaccurate- it’s written the way it is because King James I believed he was a descendant of Banquo. And it’s possible the only reason the witches are in there in the first place is that James was fascinated by them. In real life, Duncan I was young man and maybe not that good at beign a king, and Macbeth was a good king who ruled for around 15 years.
Shakespeare still managed to make important people angry at least once: the character of Falstaff was named Oldcastle in his first appearance in Henry IV part I, and he may have been called that in later plays, too. Sir John Oldcastle was a real historical figure, and Oldcastle’s descendants were very powerful. Not surprisingly they were pissed off when Shakespeare portrayed their ancestor as a coward and a drunk, so Shakespeare changed the character’s name to Falstaff (which comes from a different historical figure who was evidently fair game) and he wrote an epilogue for Henry IV pt. 2 that carefully explains Sir John Falstaff is not Sir John Oldcastle. You can almost feel the strain of the forced apology, and in some places you can bits of Henry IV were not rewritten to reflect the change.
Yes, and yes.
I’m only guessing here, but it sounds like their version of Richard is influenced by a famous 1980s production starring Antony Sher.
as I’ve mentioned many times on this Board, a lot of Shaffer’s work is like this – he takes real historical incidents and turns them into philosophical daramas that are realy about God and Man, and not realy about their nominal inspiration at all. So Amadeus isn’t really about Mozart and Salieri – it’s about Salieri’s War With God and how Talent isn’t apportioned by moral merit. The Royal Hunt of the Sun isn’t about Francisco Pizarro and the Conquest of the Incas – it’s about how God Talks to Man. Equss isn’t about some British boy blinding six horses in his care (a real case that Shaffer heard about), it’s about making one’s interaction with God real and palpable.
After all, if Shaffer wanted to make a biography of Mozart, why not cal it Mozart? Or better still, Salieri, since it’s more about him? He called it Amadeus, because it means “beloved of God”, which was largely the point.
Shaffer has never denied his practice of writing quasi-historical philosophical plays, but I think neither he nor his producers or filmmakers have ever been careful to make it clear.
At least when Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee made Inherit the Wind they changed all the names, which should’ve made it obvious that they weren’t telling the straightforward history of the Scopes trial. But people still didn’t catch on.
There is a tendency, when making movies for an American audience, to make the heroes Americans, or at least enlarge their role. They seem to figure we wouldn’t be interested if it wasn’t Americans in the lead. They did the same thing with The Great Escape, in which they generally depicted things properly and got the details right (owing to using former inmates as advisors), but they kept Americans in as msajor characters. In reality, although Americans were At Stalag Luft III and did contribute to the effort, they were separated by the Geremans months before the Big Break because they were getting along too well (trhe Germans hoped there’d be friction, which would’ve kept anyone from working on escape). That could’ve made for a dramatic scene in the movie, because apparently the X Organization did discuss trying to ove the gbreak earlier to let the Americans escape, too. But it’s not in the film. But the James Garner role was really British, and the Steve McQueen part is virtually complete fabrication (It’d be hard to believe anyone letting himself be recaptured after escape, let alone assaulting as many Germans as he did, or performing motorcycle stunts to escape).
Sounds vaguely familiar. 
The movie that comes to mind is *The Sound Barrier *(US title Breaking the Sound Barrier). When the movie came out in 1952 people generally didn’t know that Chuck Yeager had already flown faster than Mach 1, and many people to this day believe that at supersonic speeds airplane control surfaces have to be reversed to operate. It is unlikely anybody with this belief will be in a position to apply this though.
There is a persistent belief that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand started WW1.
This was a minor incident…it was more of an excuse for Kaiser Wilhelm to start the war. Wilhelm had been planning a war against France for years-his personal journal recorded his thoughts on this (August 1914)…“now or never”.
Wilhelm knew that this was the best time to attack France-if he waited, the balance of power would shift away from Germany.
He had planned it all along-the assassination was a good excuse to get things rolling.
Yes, and I loved how the last line was treated.
As far as historical accuracy goes, doen’t even get me started on Fargo.
That McQueen could turn up in a POW camp dressed is chinos and a sweat shirt is perhaps the oddest thing of all. Apparently he insisted and would not do the part in uniform. The strange bit is the producers agreed. :smack:
My first thought was Disney’s Pocahontas - wasn’t the real Captain John Smith a middle-aged man and Pocahontas a 14-year-old girl? Which in reality would make him a bit of a pedo.
But the caption at the start of the film was a joke.
The Cohen Brothers have admitted it was never intended to be anything other than a made up story, parts of which were stolen from a real case.
Or am I being whooshed here? 
You are being whooshed.
In the first edition of Ringworld, the Earth rotates the wrong direction.
Actually, what I really like were the cliffs and mountains and waterfalls so close to the ocean.
Have you ever been in that part of Virginia? It’s flat.
I agree, but, any film that plays that the usual way is not guilty of historical inaccuracy; it’s a matter of historical interpretation. Diplomatic relations are so complicated and multi-factored, now and then – one could still make a reasonable case that the war could have been avoided, or significantly delayed (and delay changes everything), if Gavrilo Princip had missed his shot.
And O Brother Where Art Thou was hardly a faithful version of the Odyssey!
Please try to support this argument.
I remember catching one of those Oscar bait historical films on TV about Albert Einstein - like Gandhi, Malcolm X, you know. I can’t remember what it was called, but it was absolutely bizarre. The details of relativity were explained well, and the portrayal of Marie Curie was spot on, but it took place mostly in Australia and had Einstein inventing rock and roll! Which can’t be true, because he died only a few months after Bill Haley’s “Rock Around the Clock” came out.
Also, fizzy beer long predates Albert Einstein. I admit he might have developed a more effective technique - atoms are a bit like bubbles, if you think about it - but I felt the film oversold that aspect of his career. I mean, the film was entertaining enough. Einstein was played by a talented, zany guy who must have died shortly afterwards, because I haven’t seen him in anything else, and his talent was too big to hide. Or contain within the body of one man.
