# Most historically accurate/inaccurate movies **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 2, 2002, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079 "2002-07-02T18:39:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2002, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/81 "2002-07-07T18:30:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Charmian \* > \*\*Oo! I just remembered one for “inaccurate”: _Birdman of Alcatraz_. Burt Lancaster won an Oscar for his protryal as a rather sensitive, humane inmate redeemed through his kindness to birds. > > IIRC Robert Stroud (the real “Birdman”) was a vicious bastard who had to be kept in solitary confinement and segregated from other inmates because he was so prone to lethally violent rages. He did keep birds when he was in prison at Leavenworth, but got in deep doo-doo when he was caught using his “speically ordered help-the-birdies equipment” to build a still. \*\* Indeed. The reason he was in solitary confinement was that he had made sexual advances to another inmate, who spurned him. Stroud was serving life anyway, had nothing to lose, so he knifed the other convict to death. So they put him in solitary, where he got interested in birdies and wrote a book about them. Recently I have read some people who claim that his book is a bunch of crapola as well. I asked my father the veterinarian about it, but he never treated birds, so he had no opinion. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![detop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@detop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/detop)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2002, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/82 "2002-07-07T18:45:30Z")
My choice for most inaccurate is [Québec](http://us.imdb.com/Title?0043946) , a 1951 movie whose **only** bits of accuracy are the title and the fact that there was an attempted uprising in 1837. Everything else in this movie is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![HalberMensch242](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecb155/32.png) [@HalberMensch242](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HalberMensch242)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2002, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/83 "2002-07-07T19:15:31Z")
i can’t belive noone has mentioned _Birth of a Nation_ yet…talk about a forking sham… ---
**Author:** ![Netbrian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71e660/32.png) [@Netbrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Netbrian)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2002, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/84 "2002-07-07T19:23:05Z")
Another note about Titanic: I read that although there was excellent accuracy in many areas, their renditions of the stars/constallations above the ship had some… issues. Anyone want to help me here? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2002, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/85 "2002-07-07T23:10:06Z")
Yes, _Anastasia_ could have been worse. It could have been made by Disney. One for the “Accurate” column: _Apollo 13_. This may, of course, be partly due to the fact that most of the major characters are still alive. From what I’ve heard, the only quibble that the astronauts had was that the parties were a little tamer than depicted. ---
**Author:** ![audit1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@audit1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audit1)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2002, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/86 "2002-07-07T23:32:34Z")
In the Accurate Column… The Longest Day ---
**Author:** ![Alphagene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Alphagene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alphagene)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2002, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/87 "2002-07-08T02:03:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fallapart \* > \*\*Oh come on!!, Wouldn’t it be fun to see Les Mes redone in cartoon form with animals??..i have to go take a bath in boiling water now ☹ \*\* Actually, Warner Brothers beat 'em to it. _Animaniacs_ had a musical episode called _Les Miseranimals_ featuring the godawful Rita and Runt. The antagonist, Camembert (yeah, I know…) was a German shepherd. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2002, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/88 "2002-07-08T02:16:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fallapart \* > \*\*“At least Disney never got ahold of Hugo’s other famous novel _Shudders_.” > > Oh come on!!, Wouldn’t it be fun to see Les Mes redone in cartoon form with animals??..i have to go take a bath in boiling water now ☹ \*\* I see the following if disney gets ahold of it: 1. The love story is unnesscarily played up (but this was also the case with the most recent film). 2. There is at least one talking animal with at least one song. 3. There will be quite a bit of singing (but disney will probably be too cheap to pay for the rights to songs from the musical, so they will make up crappy songs). If they do get the musical songs, songs with mentions of people dying, calling out to god or 4. Fantine will no longer be a prostitute. 5. The entire Riot part will be stripped. 6. Most, if not all, religious references will be cut. 7. Javert will be simply misunderstood. 8. The movie will not feature the death of Val Jean or Javert. 9. Cossette will be unbearably cute and cuddly. Am I missing anything? ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/89 "2002-07-15T10:58:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bean\_shadow \* > \*\*Well, imagine my surprise after watching **Time After Time** when I realized that HG Wells never met Jack the Ripper and they didn’t go into the future. Man, I was bummed. Talk about inaccuracies! \*\* All kidding aside, I thought the premise of that film was plausible. Whoever Jack the Ripper was, it’s reasonable to think that he could pass, and would have been found in the company of someone like H.G. Wells. As far as **Titanic** , I remember the fracas on the AOL board about the coin Rose gives to Jack for the portrait. Was it a shilling? A Roosevelt dime? A 1912 dime? “Guys,” I said, “this is the scene where she gets naked, n’est-ce pas?.. **And you’re looking at the dime?!?!** ” **Gettysburg** was as accurate as anything could get. Also, if you think Bible stories count as history, **Prince of Egypt** was right on the money. I don’t think even Mouschwitz would mess around with the Bible. Not exactly history, but based on real-life events: **Chariots of Fire** made a huge fuss about that one guy not wanting to compete at the Olympics on Sunday. He and the IOC are at a stalemate when Lord Thistlebottom comes bouncing in and says, “I can switch with you, old chap!” Delightful! Except that the matter had been brought up, and the schedule hammered out, before the athletes even left England! ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/90 "2002-07-15T11:14:19Z")
I suspect it’s not possible to make a truly accurate historical film. As Peter Stone said (the author of the “book” for **1776** , cited above, and one of my favorites), “God writes lousy theater” (Actually, he was quoting a friend, but we’ll let that pass). And it’s true – you have to condense events, simplify situations, and combine characters to get something that’s comprehensible, short enough, and evtertaining as well. Stone spent long hours at the Rutgers library and elsewhere digging up the facts and quotes for **1776**. I love **A Man for All Seasons** – Robert Bolt used a lot of real situations and quotes (including the who Averill Menchen subplot). Nevertheless, apparently there was a _lot_ of inaccuracy. The History Channel apparently did one of those shows contrasting reality with the movie. I’m sorry I missed it. In some cases it’s not appropriate to complain about this. Peter Scaeffer never claimed to be accurate. As I’ve noted many times on this Board, **Amadeus** wasn’t supposed to be historical – it was almost a theological examination of the relationship between God and Man (like a lot of PS’s other work), and he called it a “fantasia”. The movie script differs very significantly from the stage version, by the way, and neither is hostorical, or meant to be. I’m more annoyed by things like **Gladiator**. After we finished watching it on DVD, my wife asked if it was accurate, so I dived into the depths and surfaced with my copy of **The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire** and flipped to the relevant chapters. The movie is virtually a fantasy. I loved **Lawrence of Arabia** (written by the same Robert Bolt who did **A Man for All Seasons** ), but you only have to start reading Lawrence’s own **The Seven Pillars of Wisdom** to see how very far removed from reality the film is. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/91 "2002-07-15T11:30:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Braveheart as pointed out by foolsguinea has some glaring innacuracies. They had the battle of Sterling Bridge without a bridge!! You know, they wanted to do it like that, but the weather was so bad on location they couldn’t film there, and trying to build a bridge elsewhere would have cost way to much. So, rather than send everyone home and write off the loss (those evil Hollywood pennypinchers!) they made up that section and played the battle out another way. > [@](#): > > Well, aren’t most movies based on historical figures "based on a true story? Most likely because veryf ew totally true tales are both long enough and interesting enough to make a adventure or war movie, without being too silly. An, when it comes down to it, we often simply have no record of people’s ideas, thoughts, conversations, and so forth from 100 years ago, much less 500 or more… > [@](#): > > Robin returns home to England, and lands at Dover (famous white cliffs clearly visible). He says ‘Tonight we will dine with my faher in nottingham’ - uh, that’s several hundred (3 or 4, i think) miles from Dover - and they don’t even have a horse. The very next scene, they are walking along the top of hadrian’s wall, which is up near the scottish border. Apparently, they have covered nearly 800/1000 miles that day, and have managed to walk straight past nottingham! Most likely because few peope outside Britain would get it. I’ve never seen Dover now Hadrian’s wall. That might have been the director’s bit of a joke. Now the writers who changed the nationality of the sailors in U571 ought to be smacked around. It was a pointless alteration meant to strengthen the American marketability. There is a line between making a good story and out-and-out greed. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/92 "2002-07-15T11:38:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HalberMensch242 \* > \*\*i can’t belive noone has mentioned _Birth of a Nation_ yet…talk about a forking sham… \*\* I mentioned it on page 1. Marc ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/93 "2002-07-15T20:14:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > \*\* > > Now the writers who changed the nationality of the sailors in U571 ought to be smacked around. It was a pointless alteration meant to strengthen the American marketability. > > There is a line between making a good story and out-and-out greed. \*\* The entire movie was a joke, not just changing the nationaity of the crew. Unless anyone seriously believes this “faux sub commando raid” stuff. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/94 "2002-07-15T23:04:07Z")
There are a number of books that examine historical epics and comment on their accuracy. One of the better ones is _Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies_, edited by Mark C. Carnes. Among the movies reviewed: _Glory_ (nearly all of the soldiers were fictional; only Matthew Broderick’s Colonel Shaw really lived; even Cary Elwes’ character Major Forbes was fictional) _The Molly Maguires_, A film about Pennsylvania coal miners starring Sean Connery was cited for trying too hard to be accurate: They tried to film the underground scenes using the same lighting the miners used, but in 1876, the miners used candles, so most of the underground scenes are too dark to see anything! 😃 There are about fifty films examined in this book. Try it out. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/95 "2004-08-05T21:55:23Z")
> [@fallapart](#): > > “At least Disney never got ahold of Hugo’s other famous novel _Shudders_.” > > Oh come on!!, Wouldn’t it be fun to see Les Mes redone in cartoon form with animals??..i have to go take a bath in boiling water now ☹ It would probably be preferable to seeing them cock up “The Man Who Laughed.” ---
**Author:** ![Ms\_Boods](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5e9695/32.png) [@Ms\_Boods](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms_Boods)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/96 "2004-08-05T22:52:45Z")
_Caligula_ drives me absolutely bonkers – actually, I’m not sure which sends me more into Herbert Lom-style twitches, the horrible historical inaccuracies, or that I’ve read comments on the imdb and met people who think it is historically accurate. Yes, there are tales of Roman aristocratic depravity in Suetonius and the _SHA_ but the whole point was that such stories were meant to be horrid and scandlous to the contemporary Romans, too. Roman society was probably more prudish than the traditional image we have today of Victorian society. As an historian, I have a heck of a time looking at historical films (and I understand from chums I’m loads of fun to look at a film with 😛 ) Actually, I am harsh on myself here – I can suspend disbelief and have a grand time looking at a movie, even if the wee voice in the back of my mind is trying to figure out why the costumes and ships in, say ‘Pirates of the Carribean’ span about 200 years, etc. There is a wonderful book on history in the movies called ‘The Hollywood History of the World’ by George MacDonald Frasier – his thesis is that one doesn’t look at historical films for text book accuracy, but rather to get a feel for a time and a place long gone. Where else would you be able to ‘see’ for example, gigantic armies as in ‘Napoleon’ or the English arrows flying against the French at Agincourt…or even what sun baked Jerusalem may have looked like at the time of Christ in ‘Life of Brian’ 😉 That said…yeah, I still love to pick apart historical inaccuracies in films 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SlickRoenick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SlickRoenick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlickRoenick)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/97 "2004-08-06T00:10:54Z")
I’m not an expert, but i’ve heard **Tombstone** is both, depending on who i talk to. The only detail i remember from the cynical guy was during the OK Corrall shoot out that Morgan Earp didn’t get shot in the ankle, i don’t know if that is true or false. ---
**Author:** ![Estilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Estilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Estilicon)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/98 "2004-08-06T00:15:32Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > Enemy at the Gates: Foolish me for thinking that the Russian army would speak with Russian accents. Unless they speak in russian and the movie is presented with subtitles I find it ridicule to demand the actor to fake an accent. > [@](#): > > Yes, there are tales of Roman aristocratic depravity in Suetonius and the SHA but the whole point was that such stories were meant to be horrid and scandlous to the contemporary Romans, too. Roman society was probably more prudish than the traditional image we have today of Victorian society. Wrong in fact we are more prudish than the roman in sexual matters. I remember reading once that in Pompey’s ruin they found little bronce penisis that were hanged 🙂 in the doors of houses for fertility. Historians agree that romans, while not so liberated as greeks, were very 60 about sex. ---
**Author:** ![Ms\_Boods](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5e9695/32.png) [@Ms\_Boods](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms_Boods)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/99 "2004-08-06T00:44:23Z")
> [@Estilicon](#): > > Wrong in fact we are more prudish than the roman in sexual matters. I remember reading once that in Pompey’s ruin they found little bronce penisis that were hanged 🙂 in the doors of houses for fertility. Historians agree that romans, while not so liberated as greeks, were very 60 about sex. Do you mean Pompeii? Yes, the Romans (and the Greeks) had fertility symbols, even in the home. But the Roman lifestyle as one, long orgy as depicted in ‘Caligula’ is not historically accurate. Ms Boods, who is an historian and taught Roman and Greek history at the uni level for 3 years 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079/100 "2004-08-06T00:58:31Z")
I know it’s not a movie, but what did you fellow historians think of _Deadwood_? Plot aside, I thought that the sets and costumes were spot-on-- I was very impressed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-historically-accurate-inaccurate-movies/117079.md?page=6)