Movies these days can take place in any sort of setting and it does not appear strange to us, whether it’s the medieval times, ancient times, the 1900’s, the 1950’s or five years ago.
My question is: do you find that different periods of time generally are well portrayed? Are they true to the source material, so to speak?
Born in the 1980’s, my experience of anything that takes place earlier than, say, 1995 is sort of dim to me. I will have to rely on others visions to gather a good mental picture to see what things were like. But I realize that it easily happens that periods of time are made into caricatures so people will be more likely to say “Oh, that’s how it was!”, making their own image skewed.
A knee-jerk response to the OP is that the only fair representation of a period will be a documentary or “real time” filming done during the period in question. That keeps anything older than, say, 1880, from being “accurate.”
The next best gauge of accuracy will be those supposedly “current day” things which don’t attempt to represent past or future periods. For instance a 50’s movie about the 50’s, a 30’s movie about the 30’s, etc.
Using things like older photos or representational art as the basis for a “movie” like the Civil War series Ken Burns did can have a flavor of the period but will lack the essence that movement can give.
Hubby has said numerous times that he doesn’t like to watch movies with me that have a historical setting, because I’m likely to suddenly spit out, “They didn’t wear that! She would never have done that-- it was totally improper! That armor is way too shiny!” For me, inaccuracies in sets, costumes or mannerism jarrs me out of the experience.
I think Deadwood is probably one of the better modern examples. They (generally) get things right. (If you look back at last year’s thread on the show, you’ll see me in there bitching about a detail or two.) Rome is pretty good, too, but my eagle-eye has spotted a few discrepancies here and there. (Timeline notwithstanding-- I’m talking about period costumes and sets.)
Hollywood has definitely gotten better at approximating the style of the period they are filming
Period pieces made in the 50s and 60s (and perhaps before that as well) had, in particular, the women wearing hair and makeup of the day (1964 for example) not of the period being filmed (ie 1780 or whatever)
Also the costumes often had more elaborate detailing or more vibrant colors than was historiaclly accurate
I’m not saying they get it exactly right nowadays. I’m just saying they’ve gotten much better at it.
Hollywood never bothered much with accuracy of historical detail. But the false assumption is that accuracy of historical detail is important. It’s second to telling a good story.
A good example is the film Hans Christian Andersen, which is an entertaining little film tying together many of Andersen’s stories into the story of his life. But the movie says right off that it’s not history: it’s a fairy tale about the fairy tale teller. Making it accurate would probably have made it less entertaining.
Anyone who is upset about the trivial details being portrayed in basically an anal retentive who is unable to see anything but the trivial details. Very sad.
I believe Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon was very good. It captured tyhe look off the period 1754-1763. very well down to the way rooms were lit by candle light. He also used a lot of real clothes from the period.
