Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > History in Films and on Television
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

History in Films and on Television History in Films and on TV - Documentary Films, Historical Dramas, and history programs on PBS and the History Channel


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 14th, 2016, 03:54 PM   #11

stevapalooza's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 963

He wasn't keen on Braveheart either.
stevapalooza is online now  
Remove Ads
Old July 14th, 2016, 03:56 PM   #12

Lawnmowerman's Avatar
Cutting your grass
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,606
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevapalooza View Post
He wasn't keen on Braveheart either.
Again, an incredibly inaccurate film.

He does however like 300. But he points out it isn't meant to be historically accurate.
Lawnmowerman is offline  
Old July 14th, 2016, 04:09 PM   #13

stevapalooza's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 963

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmowerman View Post
Well that would be because "we were soldiers" was fairly accurate. Whilst "patriot" was utter hypocritical tripe
Yeah, The Patriot was almost deranged with the anti-British sentiment. You'd think we were at war with them when the movie was made. Someone should've told Mel that we're all friends now. Its ok.
stevapalooza is online now  
Old July 14th, 2016, 06:30 PM   #14

WhatAnArtist's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 340

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
I think that he makes interesting reviews. I think they are positive. After the first one we begin to note the British bias and a certain morality from today applied to the past and too many “funny” inserts.
I'd say he's actually very even-handed and unbiased. In his very first review - of Zulu - he points out multiple times how both the British and the Zulus fought bravely and neither side was right or wrong.

As for him applying modern-day morality to historical periods, my memory isn't too good on all of his reviews to confidently say if he does or doesn't do that, but he very strongly opposed the filmmakers applying modern values in The Patriot and Kingdom of Heaven.
WhatAnArtist is offline  
Old July 15th, 2016, 06:20 AM   #15

ghostexorcist's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Midwest
Posts: 737
Blog Entries: 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevapalooza View Post
Probably from Mel Gibson. He hasn't been too kind to his movies
No, it was filed by a film studio with a history of false DMCA complaints. It centered around his review of the movie _Agora_ (2009).
ghostexorcist is offline  
Old July 15th, 2016, 06:28 AM   #16
Suspended until September 28th, 2017
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 3,816
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmowerman View Post
Well that would be because "we were soldiers" was fairly accurate. Whilst "patriot" was utter hypocritical tripe
I had read the book "we were soldiers once, and young" before viewing the movie itself. and for the most part they got it right.

The patriot was a comedy sketch right? right??
TotalAaron is offline  
Old July 15th, 2016, 07:13 AM   #17

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,692

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmowerman View Post
Again, an incredibly inaccurate film.

He does however like 300. But he points out it isn't meant to be historically accurate.
And the others were to be historically accurate? They are movies not documentaries.

Patriot is a US movie not a British one but Mel Gibson is Australian… ok… I am confused now
The barbecue in the church was really unnecessary. And I still recall when I saw for the first time the scene of the black men stating that they were not slaves they were just passing by.... It is political correctness to the extreme!

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatAnArtist View Post
I'd say he's actually very even-handed and unbiased. In his very first review - of Zulu - he points out multiple times how both the British and the Zulus fought bravely and neither side was right or wrong.

As for him applying modern-day morality to historical periods, my memory isn't too good on all of his reviews to confidently say if he does or doesn't do that, but he very strongly opposed the filmmakers applying modern values in The Patriot and Kingdom of Heaven.
Zulu is a British movie that hails the British victory. Hailing the Zulus just improves the British victory. But don’t get me wrong, I loved the movie. But it would be interesting to see a review of Zulu Dawn.

As for bias and applying modern values see the 1492 review. He burns completely a very enjoyable movie. Even with all its inaccuracies. I think that is in that that he calls Columbus a war criminal. Did that concept existed in 1492? He implies that Columbus killed millions of people in Hispaniola and that was not a man of his time. He also states that Columbus didn’t discovered America. At least he could had say that he (re)discovered it. We all have bias, but at least he could admit it.
Tulius is online now  
Old July 15th, 2016, 08:40 AM   #18

WhatAnArtist's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 340

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
Zulu is a British movie that hails the British victory. Hailing the Zulus just improves the British victory. But don’t get me wrong, I loved the movie. But it would be interesting to see a review of Zulu Dawn.
...your point is what, exactly? Rourke's Drift was a victory for the British, and a damn impressive one at that. The movie just showed what really happened; the British were vastly outnumbered, but because of their superior technology and training they prevailed (barely). The movie got all of that right. What did you want it to do, change the historical facts? Oh, and it doesn't "hail" the British victory. If anything it shows how hollow it was, since all of the soldiers are upset and traumatised over the battle and show absolutely no joy or satisfaction in having won.

Quote:
As for bias and applying modern values see the 1492 review. He burns completely a very enjoyable movie. Even with all its inaccuracies. I think that is in that that he calls Columbus a war criminal. Did that concept existed in 1492? He implies that Columbus killed millions of people in Hispaniola and that was not a man of his time. He also states that Columbus didn’t discovered America. At least he could had say that he (re)discovered it. We all have bias, but at least he could admit it.
The concept of a war criminal as we know it today likely didn't exist back then, but he actually supplies historical evidence showing that even the people back then were appalled at what Columbus did and certainly didn't believe it was acceptable behaviour.
WhatAnArtist is offline  
Old July 15th, 2016, 10:36 AM   #19

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,692

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatAnArtist View Post
Rourke's Drift was a victory for the British, and a damn impressive one at that.
Why the italics in “was”?

My point was solely that a British reviewer best review is in a British movie about a British impressive victory against impressive enemies. A epic victory in a epic last stand during the time period of the Great British Empire. I just noted the coincidence. And as I said before: It is really a good movie.

And the reviewer is biased against Columbus. I can understand that but there is no need to increment his faults and deny his achievement like his first voyage was a minor thing. The question if the man was a greedy butcher doesn’t invalidate the historical importance of the consequences of his voyage. It is enough to point the historical errors of the movie, and he made some work there, but other things can be seen like in “the Patriot”, in the “Kingdom of Heaven” or in “300” as “artistic liberties”. I also would have preferred a more faithful narrative in any of these four mentioned movies.
Tulius is online now  
Old July 15th, 2016, 03:01 PM   #20

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,402

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
And the others were to be historically accurate? They are movies not documentaries...........
I would agree that films do not have to be historically accurate since their purpose is to entertain not educate.

However the film makers (IMO) do have a moral duty to decide why they are changing something in the best and is it for 'less than honest' purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
...........Patriot is a US movie not a British one but Mel Gibson is Australian… ok… I am confused now
...........................................
Mel lived much of his life in the USA and plenty of Australians can be Anglophobic (many not it must be said).

However I seem to remember reading that it isn't simply Mel's fault for the Anglophobic story line in the 'Patriot'.

The story was supposed to be 'violence begets violence' and once you start one side commits an 'atrocity' the other retaliates etc.

Both sides claim to be fighting for 'freedom and law and order etc but both through the urgencies of war 'forget' that.

However in production the producers change aspects of the story in order to make it more 'accessible' to the 'average' viewer -- suddenly al patriots atrocities or questionable acts are removed and even the irony of slave owners fighting for 'freedom' is changed because suddenly the slaves are free.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
............Zulu is a British movie that hails the British victory. Hailing the Zulus just improves the British victory. But don’t get me wrong, I loved the movie. But it would be interesting to see a review of Zulu Dawn.............

Zulu is not that historically accurate (its a history text book compared to the Patriot) but its a film not a documentary.

Eg a favourite Character CSM Bourne
Click the image to open in full size.

who plays the stereotyped senior NCO was actually the youngest senior NCO in the army and his nickname was actually 'the lad' -- he retired a colonel.

Zulu Dawn is also not a very historically accurate move and very much takes LT Col Durnford case -- you can actually blame him for the disaster-- and doesn't show the battle very realistically at all, especially the behaviour of the redcoats.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
...................As for bias and applying modern values see the 1492 review. ................
Unfortunately too few people use Context when studying history.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > History in Films and on Television

Tags
channel, history buffs, youtube



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The Great war" WW1 weekly channel on Youtube with Indy Neidell Janos Peter European History 4 December 9th, 2015 03:22 PM
Full movie "Carthago Nova" in youtube. dgmind History in Films and on Television 1 December 8th, 2012 11:42 AM
"Gettysburg" - History Channel Documentary OakRidge History in Films and on Television 1 May 8th, 2011 07:03 PM
Beer saved the world - From the "also not history" channel Sharks and love History in Films and on Television 11 January 24th, 2011 05:39 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.