I’m cheating here because my contribution is this poster I stumbled across. I saw it and immediately wondered what the hell the picture had to do with the title, and then thought, what are the most ridiculous historical blunders in movies?
And who better to ask than Dopers?
The opening episode of Mad Men was pretty egregious. Don Draper had to come up with a new ad campaign or lose his job, so he came up with a slogan that had first been used 40 years earlier, and which was still being used in the time frame of the show. It was sort of like having Custer call for air support.
The movie Hans Christian Andersen contains not a single actual fact about Andersen’s life – but it’s pretty upfront about that, stating at the start that it’s no more true than any of his fairy tales.
Pearl Harbor. My entire department went to the movie as a group and laughed our asses off.
So you were all veterans of 7 December 1941 or you took your fingers out of your ears while Affleck and Hartnett were “acting”?
The main one that springs to mind would be U-571 having Americans recover an Enigma machine from the eponymous submarine. In real life, the British had recovered an Enigma machine when they captured U-110 before the USA entered the war. Also, the real U-571 sank with all hands.
The Times did a top ten of historical inaccurate films a few months back - link - and U-571 comes out number one.
Regarding the number two film in that list, Braveheart, the full quote by the historian mentioned reads:
She also had this to say about the film in general:
Our friend who’s into the history of Scotland thought that Braveheart was hilarious.
Me, I like the wayyyy-over-the-top absurdities of 300, mixed with the wonderfulness of the helot-owning Spartans talking about the joys of Freedom, and complaining about those gay Athenians.
Actually, as I’ve remarked in threads like this before, the difficulty is in finding movies that are historically accurate, rather than vice-versa. as an example, I offer A Man for All Seasons. Even though Robert Bolt wasn’t trying to make a fully accurate account (he had a dramatic point to make, after all), he did use a lot of More’s words. His metaphor of the River works really well as history, too. The most that critics of the film seem to be able to bring in is that it doesn’t tell the entire story, leaving out parts and other figures (like Bishop John Fisher) – but’s not inaccuracy.
Krakatoa was *west *of Java.
Braveheart was… wrong. All of it.
The Battle of Stirling Bridge bothers me most. Where was the bloody bridge? It was a pretty important part of the battle.
However, I refuse to believe the bit with the Scots mooning in defiance is untrue. Where else could our penchant for a cheeky baring of the bum have come from?
Should have clarified. I teach history. The whole History Department at my school saw the film together as a lark. The rest of the audience should be apologised to, I think. We seldom stopped laughing.
Two words people: Inglourious Basterds.
Not really. It wasn’t our reality/universe.
A Man for All Seasons had a much larger inaccuracy. It left out the fact that More was genuinely guilty. Henry’s laws may have been unjust but they were laws and More repeatedly and knowingly broke them. The movie however makes him look like a wronged innocent.
Just as with “U-571,” no Americans took part in “The Great Escape,” but the movie was filled with them (Steve McQueen, James Garner, et al.).
In that case, none of these movies are inaccurate.
Confession: I own five different versions of the film Pride and Prejudice. I always get a kick out of how not one of them agree on what the women’s fashions were supposed to look like. One version has them in thick fabrics with expansive hoop skirts, while another has them in thin, clingy gowns. From reading about the time period, I believe the more accurate portrayal of a gentleman’s daughter’s clothing would be a dress with a high empire waist, with no hoop skirt or severe corset.
This. Good grief, a lot of Sparta’s neighbors probably would have been better off under Persian rule.
It also features a song which, over and over again, mispronounces “Copenhagen.”
Why you’re quoting me isn’t clear, but I thought of this too.
It’s not true, strictly speaking, that no Americans took part in the Great Escape – Americans were in the same camp, and in the same compound, and contributed toi both the digging and the auxiliary activities (like forging). But the Germans separated the Americans out a few months before the big break (Paul Brickhill, who wrote the book The Great Escape, and was a prisoner there) said it was because the Americans and British were getting along too well – the Germans had hoped that they wouldn’t mix well (You know, that whole Revolutionary War thing. Not to mention 1812), but that didn’t work out. The Escape “X” organization considered breaking out early, to let the Americans participate, but it was judged far too much of a risk.
I could accept them having Americans in at the break, then, because it wasn’t all that much of a stretch. But they gave the Americans way too prominent a role – the Scrounger was American? And the Cooler King? Steve McQueen’s role was wholly made up – if anyone had assaulted German soldiers like that, worn a German uniform, and did many of the other things he did (like walking over the Warning Wire), he would have been shot. Many times over. And nobody who broke out would have voluntarily gotten captured again. Nor could I see “X” organization asking them to do it. They had plenty of information on the vicinity of the camp from other sources.
Well…it’s east if you go far enough…
Yeah, that doesn’t really help.
No, Inglourious Basterds is very explicitly a fantasy.