Everyone who saw the film should know that the main plot is a fantasy, but some other scenes or situations in the film might detract from history as well. Everything but the obvious fictitious main plot might be accepted at face value as actual history by uninformed viewers and it is then, I believe, that a movie can be called historically inaccurate.
The opening scene of IB does have a major inaccuracy. Round-ups and forced relocation of French Jews started in late 1942, and was at that stage, at least, handled by Vichy and not so intimately by SS colonels. In the movie, however, the scene takes place in May, 1941, and it is said that the Jewish family had been hiding from round-ups for nine months, thus 1940. How many people will be aware that this is also fantasy and not reality? Also, the death of Reinhard Heydrich is mentioned in the opening scene (1941) even though he was killed in 1942. This can definitely not be excused as fantasy, it is an indisputable historical inaccuracy. If a situation in a film subtly misleads uninformed viewers, or if an actual non-fictitious event is presented incorrectly, or with the incorrect chronology, I believe it is an inaccuracy.
Does it really excuse all inaccuracies just by adding the words: “Once upon a time…” at the start of a film? What an asset for lazy-to-do-proper-research, use-Mike-Meyers-as-an-historical-advisor directors. Bending history completely and so freely, just so an improbable story will work out is just cheating. The writers of Braveheart, InglBst, U-571 cheated. Tarantino had to give the girl time to fade in the memory of the SS colonel, thus the bending of WW2 chronology, so his story could work out. The opening scene in IB is at least on the same level as some of Braveheart’s historical inaccuracies.
You’re analogy is terrible. The mistake in MadMen is simply not that material. The difference is chasmic between (i) introducing, as new, what is actually an old a product slogan for a product that has lost a great deal of popularity and recognition - Lucky Strike is simply not a popular brand today (other than for its retro appeal) - and (ii) anachronistiacally imposing a “great leap” techonology like human-flight into the age of horses and rifles.
I’ve seen you moan about this issue before, so apprently you have a hard-on for attacking MadMen’s auhtenticy, but this is just ridiculous. To categorize this is an “incredible historical” accuracy is pure hyperbole.
Sorry. Just realized this was a zombie thread - this is probably where I noticed your “issues” with Mad Men. Oh, and “your” not “you’re.” It’s your analogy that sucks. You’re wrong to conflate the use of an ad slogan with the presence of airplanes in the late 1800s. Carry on.
As good a thread as any to recall again the (possibly apocryphal) tale of the Confederate veteran who watched Gone With the Wind at it’s premiere and said of the trainyard-hospital scene (a crane shot that showed far more wounded than in this still) “If we’d had that many damned men we’d have won the battle!”
I’ve mentioned before my irritation over Twelve Oaks in GWTW but this will be one more: there was nothing remotely like that house in Georgia and probably not in the entire United States. It put the White House to shame. It made sense when I read that theTwelve Oaks staircase (if you haven’t seen the movie that pic’s not even half the stairs) was left over from a movie set at a European palace (I forget which movie).
Elizabeth: The Golden Age has been mentioned but its predecessor was pretty godawful as well. Among other things:
*75 year old Richard Attenborough was cast as Elizabeth’s advisor Sir William Cecil, who was in his 30s at the time
*How is it even possible to poison somebody with a dress?
*Katherine Ashley is seen as one of Elizabeth’s same age buddies; she was for all intents and purposes Elizabeth’s surrogate mother, having raised her since infancy as her governess
*Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) did not murder Marie of Guise post coitus
*The French prince she is shown as courting is Henri, Duc d’Angou, who was never proposed as a match for her- his younger brother was- and Elizabeth was old enough to be their mother, not the same-age queen from the movie
Worst of all was Robert Dudley’s betrayal of her, which not only never happened but it was of vital importance it never happened. I can only assume the director (who admits he knew absolutely nothing of the woman or her times) decided to merge him with his stepson the Earl of Essex many years later.
If TV shows count, Showtime’s THE TUDORS is a very weird case because it simultaneously deals very well with some actual historical events not usually touched on in movies (e.g. The Pilgrimage of Grace, the Siege of Boulougne) while being the absolute crappiest history ever filmed with the main plots. Examples:
*Henry VIII has one sister- Margaret- who marries the old King of Portugal then dies, young and childless, after marrying Charles Brandon. In reality he had two sisters- Margaret, who became queen of Scotland and a thorn in his side and, most importantly, the direct ancestor of every English monarch after Elizabeth I, and Mary, whose granddaughter by Brandon was Jane Grey.
*When he marries Katharine Howard Henry VIII (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) says “ooh my leg” once in a while but still has purt buns and at least a two pack. In reality he was obese and in such poor health he was rarely able to do much other than lament his lost youth in her bed.
And there are countless others. Ditto Rome, which does away with- among many others- Augustus’s daughter Julia (from whom Caligula and Nero descended among many others), Livia’s son Drusus (father of Claudius and grandfather/great grandfather of Caligula and Nero) and makes Agrippa the true father of Antonia the Elder (which would make the next generation’s marriages all really incestuous), plus the fact that nobody ages anywhere near 25 years over the course of 25 years.
The Dwarf-tossing of Gimli, and Legolas’ rail-slide-on-a-shield down the wall outside Helm’s Deep both appear to have pre-dated the debut of these activities in the 20th century.
While I won’t say that LOTR is historically inaccurate, I will say that the Sauronian historians give a very different account of the battles. “We asked some people to return a ring that had incredible sentimental value, we never asked for an invasion by Little People Gay Pride Floats, hippies, pissed off unemployed H.R. Pufnstuf trees turned ecoterrorists, a Yosemite Sam Lookalike Runner-up, elves that look like Vulcan fops, Dead Traitors and an English William Lee Golden impersonator.” Maybe Gregory Maguire will one day tell the other side in a book called “EYE, WIZARD” (dustjacket blurb: “Just Because an Eye is Made of Volcanic Fire Doesn’t Mean it Can’t Cry”).
In fairness, I doubt if there were many working Panzer tanks in 1970. I don’t have a problem with getting two different looking tanks even if they are the wrong vintage.
Regarding “The Great Escape” one of these military history/WWII magazines I get had an article several years ago about an American who enlisted in the British military before Pearl Harbor and was one of the people involved in the escape. His number was too low (something like 275) to get out before the goons caught on. I can understand why some people don’t like Americans cast in roles as Canadians, Australians, Poles, etc but the question remains. Do these films get made without box office stars like them?
I think the only accurate thing about the Errol Flynn film about George Armstrong Custer “They Died with their Boots on” was the fact that Custer liked onions. Final film pairing of Flynn and Olivia de Havilland (still alive! she’ll outlive Abe Vigoda!). The scene when they depart both knowing that he’ll never return but neither saying so out loud marks the end of one of the great film couples.
A problem with Custer was that his widow Libbie lived until 1933 and zealously guarded his legacy and she had many powerful friends. As a result there were few critical analyses written before her death (there were some) and he was considered an icon. The criticism mushroomed after the Flynn movie (though probably no causal link).
I realise the remarks I’m about to make have no bearing on the historical accuracy of that film, but seeing across the Channel has nothing to do with being Queen. Whilst I have no idea *exactly *where the battle took place, the port of Gravelines (a lovely little town now, BTW) is only a very short distance north of Calais, and it is certainly very much possible to see across to France at that narrow point. Here is a good picture from the top of the cliffs, but I’ve seen across in both directions (not at once, you understand) on much less clear days than that. And the battle was in, what, July? We don’t have much good weather, but if we did it may well be around then! Also, getting from Tilbury to Dover is a journey of just about 100 miles even if you’re unfortunate enough not to be Queen and have to go all the way round by the bridge and motorway instead of having your own boat. It wouldn’t take very long.
Sorry to answer myself, but I’ve just learned that the Tilbury to Gravesend ferry still runs, so even the plebs can nip across the estuary and then ride their horse a mere 50 miles!
