I haven’t seen Shanghai Knights yet, but it;'s possible that Charlie Chaplain was used because Jackie Chan is a big fan.
You know, you are not entirely wrong, but I think you aren’t entirely right either.
I know they are inaccurate and you know they are inaccurate, but do they know it’s inaccurate? I would like to think that every one else is aware of the inaccuracies and takes the movie with a grain of salt, but I don’t think this is always the case.
Futhermore, I must admit that I don’t always know what parts of movies are historically accurate (at least to some extent) and what parts aren’t. Sure I can be pretty certain about the glaring problems, but not about the subtler parts. I could just regard everything that comes from Hollywood as 100 percent false and leave it at that, but it’s not as simple as that, some stuff isn’t entirely bunk.
Imagine what it is like for people who have very little exposure to real history. I mean I’m no expert, but I know a fair amount. The people who have got their history from television and movies and bad high school history classes don’t have much good stuff to evaluate the bad stuff with. It bothers me a bit.
Because it’s only American films that do these things, right? 
Oh, for Pete’s sake. This kind of thing is not new. In Shakespeare’s Henry V, the playwright jiggered the ages so Hal and Hotspur could be legitimate rivals, and have a climactic battle; in reality, Hotspur was like twenty years older. And the idea that characters in historical plays should wear costumes appropriate to the period setting is a relatively recent novelty.
Human beings need good stories to reinforce our ideas about how the world works. Everything else is secondary.
You see this a lot…like in “GANGS OF NEW YORK”…the flick shows “Butcher” Bill and “Boss” Tweed hanging out together in 1863…only Bill died in 1857! And in “THE GODFATHER”…somehow the Kefuver hearings in Congrees (which took place in 1954-55) got magically transported to 1960!
I take it that none of you care for any of the versions of “Ragtime”.
Elizabeth McGovern got naked in Ragtime. It is, therefore, a good movie.
Come on – if it weren’t for Hollywood, hardly anyone would even know that Toulouse-Lautrec got up the first production of The Sound of Music. 
It all depends-if it’s meant to be fiction, then fine. But if someone is doing an autoportrait-like Jennifer Love Spewitt in The Audrey Hepburn Story (do NOT get me started!), well, it should strive for accuracy.
And stop saying based on true events if you’re going to wildly embellish. Mel Gibson, I’m looking in your direction.
I’m with Cal here. Sexing up history is a much bigger irritant to me.
How much of Schindler’s List is wrong, lissener?
And in the real history of Scotland, Macbeth killed Duncan in battle, and was a pretty good king after that.
(I think you are the victim of a typo, Cervaise - Harry Hotspur is in Henry IV; he’s dead by the time of Henry V. Nitpicky, I know, but given the topic of the thread…)
:smack: And I’ve been in both plays.
Thanks for the nitpick. And the point stands, of course. You should see what Shakespeare did to Julius Caesar.
Hahaha!!
This is the exact movie that I was thinking of when I saw this thread title.
All art has three intertwined purposes: to entertain, to inform, to persuade.
Of course, simply to make some stories accessible to modern audiences, the language used in period films and plays often has to be changed to a blend of the archaic and contemporary; once that slippery slope is started on, all sorts of anachronisms often creep in – like oddly contemporary attitudes, thoughts, hairstyles and the occasional bit of (sometimes unintended) technology. Facts and dates get skewed, historical figures are simplified and amalgamated, concessions are made to interject some peoples for the sake of ethnic and cultural diversity.
On the whole, though, Hollywood can be trusted to ignore, re-invent and screw up the accuracy of period pieces and even most historical portrayals for the sake of drama and popular appeal.
Inaccurate or prehaps even inappropiate depictions of historical characters in movies intended and advertised as comedies or dramatic fictions mostly don’t bother me unless it’s a historical figure (or actor or director) I happen to admire.
lissener, speaking for myself, as a one-time history teacher, I have to firmly disagree with the notion that you shouldn’t use fiction to teach history. I wasn’t a big fan of history until my junior year in college, when I audited an American studies course with a wonderful professor who taught to engage, then to discuss inaccuracies. His point stll stands: sometimes what is widely accepted as true tells as much about the audience for whom an historical fiction was made as the viewpoint of the writer/poet/artist/actor involved. Plus high school history is so dry and sanitized I didn’t realize how much blood, guts, violence, sex and death was involved until I started doing some reading on my own.
None of which explains what the hell Morgan Freeman was doing as a Moor in that Kevin Costner Robin Hood flick awhile back. I mean, damn, even fiction should have some limits.
Although it doesn’t irritate me, it sometimes does surprise me how easily some people are taken in my this kind of thing.
A friend of mine, an intelligent, educated man, was absolutly convinced The Untouchables was a true story.
As I recall, James Garner’s character in The Great Escape was supposed to be Canadian. Similarly James Coburn was cast as an Australian, and Charles Bronson as a Pole. Only Steve McQueen’s character was American, in classic “brash young rebel” cliche fashion.
I haven’t actually seen U-571, but I thought the plot was far enough removed from reality that it wasn’t simply a matter of substituting the Yanks for the Brits. I think the only British codebreaking operation involving a captured submarine was simply a matter of a committed British intelligence officer forcing his way onto a crippled U-boat as its crew abandoned it, and aborting the scuttling in order to obtain its Enigma machine. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there was ever any merry jaunt with a British or American crew actually sailing a captured U-Boat anywhere (and for that matter, here’s the actual service record of the 571, at least as “they” would have us believe).
My impression of the U-571 controversy is that it was just a manifestation of the longer term resentment of British veterans and others about “the Yanks thinking they won the bloody war all by themselves”. Arguably a legitimate gripe, but I think misplaced in the context of non-documentary films. Since the British were the primary Allied power involved in breaking the Enigma code, somehow the argument goes that they have some sort of property rights over any utterly fictional story involving breaking German codes. Another flare-up I remember from about the same time lamented how the British contribution to D-Day wasn’t reflected in Saving Private Ryan, which rather ignores the “grunt’s eye view” tone of the film, and is kind of like complaining that there weren’t any African-Americans or women in the Ranger squad.
I have to say I’m pretty indifferent to playing fast and loose with the facts in the context of “Gump plays ping-pong with the Chinese and sees LBJ’s ass.” I’m much more troubled by it when “Oliver Stone tells you the real story behind the JFK assassination.” or “Michael Moore gets to the heart of violent American culture”.
Well, context is everything.
It’s true, “Shanghai Knights” was not intended as groundbreaking documentary, or a history lesson. Hell, I’m personally in FAVOR of films that fire things up a little – I know of several kids who decided to read up on the events of December 7, 1941 after seeing that Ben Affleck was there, in the movie.
True, the movie stunk, but I figure anything that arouses an interest in examining the facts further can’t be THAT bad. Besides, I don’t remember it ever claiming to be a documentary, despite its title and some of the flash and thunder. What was it? A fictional love story, set against the beginning of America’s entry into World War II.
…but when a film purports to be a retelling of the facts, it should stick to the damn facts. Buster Keaton’s life was woefully rearranged because some damn producer thought it was boring. I can only imagine what Keaton himself, a consultant on the film, must have thought.
And Oliver Stone doesn’t know what happened to JFK, any more than you or I do. The only difference is that he managed to get people to pay to hear his version.
Really annoying use of historical figures of course was using Socrates and Attilla and Shakespeare (?) to help with a term paper in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure…
BB King no. 3 and no Ritchie Blackmore in the list? WTF is right.
Crap.
Sorry, wrong thread.