What's new

11 Movies Saved by Historical Inaccuracy

Adux

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
3,856
Reaction score
0
11 Movies Saved by Historical Inaccuracy


By Michael Swaim Send Print




Every year, Hollywood pumps out “historical” epics so distorted, propagandistic and self-serving, you have to wonder just how stupid they think we are. But, try “fixing” some of those historical inaccuracies and you'll quickly realize what Hollywood screenwriters have known for years: History is lame. Here are 11 movies that make us glad no one gives a damn about trivial things like “what actually happened.”

#11.Gladiator (2000)


The Flick: Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott present the epic tale of Maximus, a Roman general who became a slave, a slave who became a gladiator, a gladiator who defied an emperor and an actor/director team who threw all the audience goodwill they'd earned on this away by releasing A Good Year six years later.

The Inaccuracies: Commodus, the hare-lipped Roman Emperor who lusted after his sister in the film, was in real life held in high esteem by the senate and ruled for a successful 13 years (rather than the ineffectual few months depicted in the film). Also, though the Emperor did, in fact, have an enthusiasm for gladiatorial combat (he did so incognito), he didn't get his ticket punched in the arena. He was killed in the bath by a wrestler named Narcissus to prevent him taking office as consul.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: No one wants to watch Russell Crowe take 13 years to murder an emperor, who is basically a decent guy, only to get beaten to the kill by a wrestler. We like our villains like we like our Books of Genesis: with implied incestuous relationships. Also, since any Roman unit that broke ranks when in combat against barbarians would have been mercilessly slaughtered, the movie would have ended within about 15 minutes.

#10.Braveheart (1995)


The Flick: Mel Gibson's earliest example of “loose” historical reenactment, Braveheart marks a promising start to a career later spent boiling complex political issues down to “Mel Gibson kills Englishmen with an axe” (The Patriot) and curiously drawn-out torture scenes involving his heroes (The Passion of the Christ).

The Inaccuracies: Far from a scrappy commoner who clawed his way up from the mud to defend his homeland, William Wallace was actually a knight from a noble family, and his father Malcolm wasn't killed by the English, but fought on the English side in exchange for political favor. Also, instead of kilts, the Wallace and his army wore saffron shirts.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: We have to imagine that if Mel Gibson were forced to play a role any more layered than that of the just and righteous warrior-king-redeemer, his face would melt off from the challenge, revealing the circuitry within. And as entertaining as that would be, it's not as entertaining as the actual movie, or the years of mileage we've gotten out of screaming “They may take our things—but they'll never take our FREEEEEEDOM!” when we have our nail clippers taken away from us at airport security.

#9.The Patriot (1998)


The Flick: An American whose home gets attacked by foreigners goes ape **** and kills everybody of the same race as those who attacked him, even people who weren't actually involved. Yay, prescience!

The Inaccuracies: Benjamin Martin, the vaguely-named Mel Gibson character in the film, is actually based on a real guy in the Revolutionary War, Francis “Swamp Fox” Marion. Aside from having a more memorable name, there were some notable differences between Mel and Marion. Marion, for example, never single-handedly killed an entire British infantry unit. He did, however, slaughter dozens of unarmed Cherokee Indians and repeatedly raped his female slaves. So, there's that.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: True, it would have given us an earlier tip-off that something is dreadfully wrong with Mel Gibson, but we're not sure anyone wants to watch a movie where the bad guys burn churches full of innocent prisoners and the good guy sexually assaults slaves and hunts Indians for sport. You kind of don't know who to root for anymore, other than maybe the French—and who wants that?


#8.Cold Mountain (2003)


The Flick: Jude Law, as Confederate soldier W.P. Inman, must find his way back to his love, Ada, while overcoming a deadly wilderness, the ravages of war and having to look at Renee Zellweger for an extended period of time.

The Inaccuracies: While Jude only deserts his unit after a disastrous battle, the real W.P. Inman was arrested twice for “cowardly desertion of his post.” Also, as Inman starts his journey from a hospital in Raleigh, NC, which is about 250 miles east of Cold Mountain, it's somewhat puzzling that he manages to reach the Atlantic Ocean, roughly 400 miles out of his way, before getting home.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: Despite everything mentioned above, by far the most movie-saving historical inaccuracy in Cold Mountain has to be the fact that women of the 1800s rarely, if ever, shaved their legs. Take every romantic scene between Ada and Inman and add the rustling sound of a six-month crop of leg hair, and you'll understand what we're talking about here.

#7.Marie Antoinette (2006)


The Flick: Kirsten Dunst takes a break from being whiny and self-centered in modern-day Manhattan to be whiny and self-centered in 18th century France.

The Inaccuracies: One of the conflicts in the film centers around Marie and Louis' (Jason Schwartzman) difficulty in producing an heir. In the movie, Louis is afraid of sex. In reality, Louis had phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin of the penis cannot be fully retracted. This was later fixed with an operation, and the couple did in fact conceive.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: The only thing we want to see less than Jason Schwartzman and Kirsten Dunst argue about his extra penis skin is footage of the operation in which this skin is removed with all the benefits of 18th century medical technology.

#6.Amadeus (1984)


The Flick: Mozart, the leather-pants rock star of the Classical era, farts and bangs noblewomen while composing magnificent music at the drop of a hat, all to the chagrin of rival Salieri, who spends so much of his time deviously plotting Mozart's demise it's hard not to imagine Snidely Whiplash in the role.

The Inaccuracies: Sure, Mozart was a man who enjoyed the occasional diarrhea joke, but by all accounts he was far from the ******-minded, giggling simpleton depicted in the movie. Also, most historians agree that his relationship with Salieri was one of “friendly rivalry, marked by mutual respect and admiration.” And though the movie hints that Salieri may have killed Mozart by poisoning him, the truth is Mozart probably drank himself to death on good old-fashioned booze.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: A movie about Mozart having a friendly rivalry with someone he respects and admires, then slowly drinking himself to death, would have been about as entertaining as home movies of me interacting with my father.


5.300 (2007)


The Flick: Frank Miller's graphic novel (accent on the “graphic”) explodes onto the silver screen in the form of hilariously toned abs, gyrating nude oracles and trolls with lobster claw hands who we'd imagine must have had a lot of difficulty using the facilities.

The Inaccuracies: Setting aside the use of magic missiles, lack of body armor and the appearance of both a hunchback and a villain that resembles a 7-foot lisping version of Dhalsim from Street Fighter II, 300 seems to glorify some aspects of Spartan life—prowess in battle, fighting for democracy, loyalty to the homeland, constant spear throwing—while slyly downplaying others, such as the fact that Sparta was a fascistic church-run warrior caste of slave owners who regularly enjoyed pederasty (having sex with little boys), and holy Christ they had sex with little boys.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: Just ask Oliver Stone and anyone who lost money on Alexander.

#4.Apocalypto (2006)


The Flick: Mel Gibson wisely places himself behind the camera instead of in front, but not-so-wisely decides that it would be good for his image as a borderline-crazy racist to try and do justice to an entire ancient civilization in two hours.

The Inaccuracies: Although Mayans did occasionally engage in ritual human sacrifice, they were a far more civilized and complex culture than shown in the film. In fact, the Mayan sun god Kukulkan, to whom the sacrifice is made in the movie, never asked for and was never given such a sacrifice, so whatever priest was offering Kukulkan a human heart was probably just creeping him the **** out.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: Hey, if surrogate Mel Gibson is going to be on the run for half the movie and kicking *** for the other half, it better be because his heart's going to get carved out with a spoon, and not because the elders are going to hold a tribunal, mitigating his sentence to house arrest and temporary probation


#3.Shakespeare in Love (1998)


The Flick: The Bard of Avon meets his muse and imitates his own plays in what is essentially a RomCom for theater-folk. “Hilarious” references to the Shakespearean cannon are as plentiful as they are obscure.

The Inaccuracies: Basically everything, since Shakespeare is one of the most mysterious figures in English history. Historians still argue as to whether he was gay, a front for the Earl of Oxford and/or Sir Francis Bacon, or a cyborg from the future sent back in time to found western civilization, thereby hastening the creation of the McRib sandwich.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: There isn't much that is less cinematic than someone who may or may not be gay possibly writing a group of plays that may or may not be those attributed to him after his unremarkable death… we think.

#2.Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2003)


The Flick: A High-Classical epic of the Qing Dynasty, detailing the lives of those who are touched by the legendary blade known as “The Green Destiny” and their ability to speak in a fantastical space-language.

The Inaccuracies: You will be happy to learn that the Chinese cannot fly, despite what you have seen in every single martial arts movie made in the last 15 years. Their Chi, though powerful, has not yet granted them the magical abilities they so desperately desire, which is thankful—for that barrier is all that stands between us and the “United States of Beijing.”

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has enough exposition, slow dialogue, meditative reflection on the transience of life and forced reading as it is. If we didn't get a flying side-kick now and then, we probably wouldn't have made it 15 minutes in.

#1.2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)


The Flick: An evil computer based on the IBM Corp. tries to stop mankind from reaching our goal of a manned flight to Jupiter, but ends up singing like a little schoolgirl instead. Score one for the giant space baby!

The Inaccuracies: In case you hadn't noticed, Arthur C. Clarke's vision of a millennial dawn in which we are masters of our solar system was a bit optimistic. And though we may fear death at the hands of a computerized master, odds are more on Google or a creepy Japanese baby robot than anything IBM could cook up.

Why It Would Have Sucked Otherwise: Because a movie true to the events of 2001 would have been about Super Bowl XXXV (a 34-7 snooze-fest), the release of the Planet of the Apes remake and the Spice Girls breaking up. Oh, and Mir, the world's most advanced piece of space technology, falling to Earth in a fiery blaze and crashing into the sea.

http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=2202&pageid=4
 
Galdiator, 300, Patroti, Braveheart...thats my ranking. I liked them all. One more that i liked was Troy.
 
I consider Braveheart as the best one! even though the rest is good aswell. If u want the film to sell the directors need to alter the history!


A nice quote:
William Wallace: The answer is yes. Fight for me, you get to kill the English.
Stephen: Excellent.
 
Been waiting ages to post this.......It's from another forum (And written by someone else, but I agree with the sentiments......


The era of the Greek and Persian wars has long fascinated me and owning
several sets of authentic reproduction Greek armor of this period, I
served as a historical adviser, and happened to play the part of
Leonida's second in command in a History Channel type production on
this very same battle. Instead of filming on a Canadian soundstage like 300, we
filmed ours in a far more realistic Malta. Both films used about 40 soldier actors,
who changed costumes depending on the scene.

Beginning at that point, the terrain in 300 looked nothing like the
original battlefield. It looked like a dark cold place like British Columbia,
nothing at all like Greece.

The Spartan soldiers in 300 looked nothing like real Spartan soldiers.
Clad in nothing but their black, skin tight spandex bikini bottoms, I
suspect these "Spartans" would have made far better dancers in a gay
bar. And while there are authentic accounts of ancient Greek warriors
fighting naked, certainly not in a war against an Asiatic foe whose
main weapon is the composite bow, and hundreds of thousands of archers.
And if any group of Greek warriors had a full panalopy of Hoplite
equipment during the Greek and Persian Wars, it would most certainly
have been the body guard of King Leonidas.

It is a ironic that we have a more accurate picture of Greek soldiers
of this time, separated from our own time by nearly two and a half
thousand years, when we know far less on how some soldiers dressed a scant
few hundred years ago. And this is because the Greeks realistically
depicted their warriors on pottery vessels, as well as the incredible
wealth of ancient Greek armor of the correct period, recovered both
from warrior graves and temple sites where much armor was dedicated to
the Gods. With this knowledge it is possible to recreate the Spartan
warriors of Thermopylae in a very realistic fashion, but the little
armor we see, is not a replica of anything, but rather, strangely
corroded and crudely made fantasy armor better suited to equip Peter
Jackson's orcs. The Greek swords were equally fantastic and resembled
no real type ever used.

The rank and file Persians were vaguely authentic but the so called
Immortals were totally ridiculous. Ninjas with Samurai face masks?
Hmmmm, did the Persian Empire extend to Japan? Evidently not, for when
one of the "immortals" was unmasked, we did not see an oriental face,
but what appeared to be an Orc from Lord of the Rings. But this Persian
army seemed to have many deformed and monstrous looking troops drafted
from Mordor, and not only men, but beasts as well, such as the 50 foot
tall Easterling war elephants. But the Spartan supermen had no problem
pushing them over a cliff to their doom which was quite ridiculous. There
was no record of normal elephants fighting at Thermopylae, let alone giant
refugee pachyderms from Middle Earth. This Persian army also had giant war
rhinos and I half-expected to see a Persian Air Force of giant flying "fell beast"
reptiles since virtually everything else from LOTRs was there.

But back to reality, we actually have a very good idea what the elite
Persian Immortals of this time really looked like, as well as Persian
Kings from the very life like friezes from Persepolis. The King Xerxes
in the film also looked like something out of LOTR and bore no
resemblance to anything Persian. His massive transportable throne-dais
was clearly imitated from the one used in the Elizabeth Taylor,
Cleopatra.

And lets not forget they made the evil hunchbacked Greek traitor look
almost identical to Smeagol from LOTR, except fot the originality of giving him
the hunched back.

Even though the Spartans, and rest of the Greeks of this film bore no
resemblance to real Greek warriors of the time, I was pleased to see
that at the beginning of the battle, they actually formed a real
phalanx, and that during the first Persian charge, and the huge pushing
match of the two forces that ensued, was actually a very good
impression of a real battle of the time. But this was short-lived.
Throughout the rest of the film we see the Spartans breaking out of
their phalanx, dancing around and cutting down Persians in their black
spandex bikini bottoms, oblivious to the fact, that if this actually
occurred, they would have all been shot down instantly by the thousands
of Persian archers. This makes all the battle scenes, save for the very first
one, totally unrealistic despite the all the blood.

And we see the Spartans marching off with no supply train whatsoever. Where
were the Helot servants that carried each Spartan warriors equipment? Where
where the wagons of food, and amphora of fresh water? Were they planning all
along to have orc and giant rhino steaks?

Why were so many officers of the Perisan Army black africans when only a tiny
percentage of the Persian empire extended into africa, and then, essentially Egypt,
and even Egypt was never completely conquered? There may have a miniscule
percentage of blacks from Nubia, but this was a tiny backwater of the Persian Empire
and it would have been ludicrous to think so many high officers, leading persian troops
would be african. I sense an agenda here.

The list of everything historically incorrect about this film could go
on and on, and I only have 1000 words for this post. So in summary,
save for some good cgi to simulate a cast of about 40 ridiculously costumed
models to simulate thousands, mounds of dead and some extremely graphic,
somewhat gratuitous iron-age violence, this film was totally deficient from the
aspect that, graphic novel notwithstanding, this film was indeed based on a
real historical event, or names like Leonidas and Xerxes, Sparta and Persia,
should have never been used. This abortion will be responsible for distorting
and demolishing ancient Greek history in the minds of average people for
the next several decades.

But of course, it can be said that this "isn't supposed to be
realistic", and that this it is only a film version of a "graphic
novel" (aka expensive adolescent comic book). But that's not true. The
comic is based on a real historical incident involving, brave men that
fought on both sides. There ought to be a law against turning real
history into such a retarded fairy tale. Yes, some people can tell the
difference, but many won't and this will be their only exposure to this
era of history, just as the movie Gladiator was, for the Roman era.

I am both dismayed and amused to see so many so-called "professional
critics" already heaping praise on this desecration of history. And
this is from the same crowd that ridiculed an admittedly serious flawed
Eragon, for its obvious plagiarism of Star Wars, yet these writers are
apparently oblivious to the fact this film freely imitated another
"fantasy" movie hardly two years old. And one could also say that the
plot of 300 plagiarized the identical plot of the classic "The 300
Spartans" a far better movie in every respect, and even filmed virtually on the
original location with real Greek soldiers in the role of the Spartans
instead of (ahem) male models in spandex bikini bottoms.

But the critics will say it is great, because they are really no more
knowledgeable than the rabble, (and possibly turned on by the dudes in
bikinis), and the ignorant rabble will flock to see it because the
critics told them to, and it will get a lot of Oscars for the same
effects and characters used in Lord of the Rings because they are
easily impressed with special effects and makeup.

World history, and particulalry ancient history is hardly taught at all in amercian
schools below the college level. So lets all thank the jackasses who discharged
this load on the American public. If the producer had been so impressed by the
original battle and heroism of the Spartans, he never would have produced this
desecration.

Some will say that this is "art". Probably the same ones that acclaimed the genius
of the so-called "artist" who urinated in a jar with a picture of Jesus, and this was
presented in real art museums to the great aclaim of art critics.

At least I was able to see it for free on the Army base. I'd have been
really upset if I actually had to pay money to view this artsy fartsy, blatantly racist
disgrace to historical film-making
 
i saw this movie with my persian friend he was so pissed of that he left half way during the movie.
 
Wonder How Persian movies and Indian movies show Alexander or Any westerner as!!!!!!
 
I can imagine that...
Maybe he should watch South Park's version of 300 Sparten. :lol:

That episode was so awsome. To be honest we discussed that episode the day after it aired and he was pretty ok about it not laughing as hard as i was but still he found it pretty amusing. I think that we Pakistani's have kinda grown to it pertaining to the fact that we are shown in every Indian movie as blood thirsty bastards ready to kill Indians on a moments notice :pakistan:

PS no offence to any of the indian members here. :woot:
 
Pakistani movies will show Indians as blood thirsty!!!!...its simple fact of life, 300 was a Hollywood movie ;a western organization ofcourse they are going to make a movie which shows a western side!!!!

Heck the movie U-571 says the American found the enigma machine first, in reality it was a British Destroyer..There goes true history out the window...lol

Movies are just that Movies.
 
Movies can affect reality. Most people will see a movie and not check the REALITY behind it. For example William Wallace was a bit of a asshole in real life, It seems that the Americans win every battle (even when they were not even in the country) like Objective Burma.

There is a saying "If you repeat a lie enough it becomes reality" thats why I hate these films. They perpetuate lies. And most people are too lazy to find out about reality. Hell even in the Aladdin cartoon the good guys look western and the bad guys look more "Arab like".

Please note that it is not even subtle in 300. The "Greeks" don't look like any Greeks I have ever seen. They didn't give a fart about "freedom" and kept slaves (They even had days when a Spartan had to kill a helot) and had organised pedastry(thats sleeping with young boys for those of you who don't know).........and it wasn't 300 it was at least a 1900.

MEL Gibson is full of crap too
 
Back
Top Bottom