This is probably my favourite movie genre but I am usually disappointed when I research to find the producers have twisted the truth into some sappy hollywood plot. Often, I’ve thought that the movie would have been better if they had stuck to the facts.
Titanic tops my list. I thought that it was reasonably accurate except that the two leads trudge around in freezing cold water for an hour while the same water kills everyone else in minutes.
I always considered Band of Brothers to be quite accurate. Saving Private Ryan is in the ballpark. Tom Hanks is always quite proud of the fact, so I’m basing this on his word.
I’ve heard that <B>Miracle</B> is surprisingly accurate - with particular attention paid to the final hockey match against the Russians, the plays were taken straight from the actual game.
Oh, and <B>Apollo 13</B> was reasonably accurate as well, barring some added dramatic scene, but still quite accurate by Hollywood standards.
Ugh…I really, really, which this forum used basic HTML - I also wish that 5-minute edit thing were implemented already.
My favorite is Tora! Tora! Tora!, which is far superior to that piece of drek, Pearl Harbor.
Gettysburg gets most of it right.
The Wannsee Conference–not the later dramatized version with Kenneth Branagh but one made originally for German television in 1984. This one is done in real-time (85 minutes–nearly exactly the amount of time the conference ran) and has much of its dialogue taken verbatim from the meeting’s transcripts, notes, and other archival material.
I seconded it, fascinating film.
How about Eight Men Out?
Cool! I saw the Kenneth Branagh version and thought it was great. I will try to get a version of this one.
The opening sequences rather than the ridiculous mission to rescue one man in the middle of a huge and desperate operation?
“God Writes Lousy Theater,” complained an unnamed friend of playwright Peter Stone, who wrote both the play and movie 1776. The work isn’t perfect, by any means, but it’s surprisingly faithful. Stone spent a lot of time researching it among the books of Columbia University Library, Rutgers University Library, and NY Public, and a surprising amount of it is true, and accurately quoted. But Stone frequently put some quotes in the wrong mouths, clearly deliberately. More than this page on the IMDB has:
In fact, David MacCulloch seems to have made it his mission to correct these misquotes. He never mentions Stone or his play or film, but in his books "John Adams’ and “1776” he takes the errant quotes and puts them in the correct mouths.
Another play and movie I love is Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons. Again, Bolt used a lot of More’s own writings for lines. The History Channel did a piece oncontrasting this play with the historical facts, which I’ve never been able to catch. But criticisms of the historical accuracy I’ve read seem to boil down to minor points and sins of omission. Yes, I know that others protested the King’s actions, such as bishop John Fisher, but not mentioning tha doesn’t affect the play or the actions.
It’s recent history, but United 93 was like watching a hidden camera show. Very good and very unnerving.
the 3rd reel of Galipoli was a pretty close match to the wiki description of the battle
Yeah, naturally. I mean that the atmosphere was accurate, not the obviously written plot. I should have specified.
The only complaints I’ve heard about Master & Commander regarding historical accuracy are that the uniforms are technically too up-to-date for the setting of the movie.
Some liberty (okay, a lot of liberty in regards to John Smith) was taken with the plot of The New World, but the costuming and buildings for the English colonists were absolutely spot on. The production team went to some lengths to research the costuming for the Native Americans, too. For example, instead of using makeup for the body paint the warriors wore, they used materials that would have been available, going so far as to field test different types of dirt. There are some piddling things, but I really don’t expect a production crew to re-seed hundreds of acres of grass to remove all the foxtail.
I have no comment on the accuracy of this film, but I want to say my mom’s cousin is in this film. As an extra.
I believe they also changed the opposing ship from an Americans frigate to a French vessel. While that’s seemingly more a plot issue than a historical one, apparently that does effect the historical accuracy. The American frigates at that time were “super-frigates” considered more the equal of a small ship-of-the-line and as such were regarded as extra-fearsome opponents.
- Tamerlane
The Acheron in the movie is still American made, but it’s part of the French navy. I believe that’s the same as the novels, but it’s been a while since I read them. There’s a whole scene where one of the sailors presents Aubrey with a scale model of the Acheron, noting that his cousin works in an American shipyard, building ships just like it. It’s mentioned several times that the Acheron is an American ship.
Unless I’m missing something entirely in your post.
Haven’t read the book, myself. But it appears from the synopsis that it was set in the War of 1812 and originally one U.S.S. Norfolk that was the opponent. Actually reading the wiki, it appears the movie stole plot points from four different novels in the series.
Anyway, while I don’t recall the exchange you mention, I’m sure you are correct :). I read about this controversy some time after seeing the movie, by which my memory was no doubt foggy.
There is still the matter of being slightly PC and not using he Americans as the bad guys. But again that’s certainly not a huge issue.
- Tamerlane