Sticking up for Salieri: Historical movie thread

[defaultusername]

ximena said:

I am *crazy* about Rabbit Proof Fence. As an Aussie it's close to my heart, and plus it's a part of our history that isn't all kangaroos and ultra-tanned surfers. I love my home, but we have dark elements of our past just like any other country, and this movie showed one of them very accurately and very powerfully.

Just curious, how accurate was Rabbit Proof Fence? I saw the movie and liked it myself.

[Baby Fish Mouth]

I'm not sure it is possible to be totally accurate, but are there any mainstream Hollywood movies considered to be generally accurate, or at least better than most?

Two movies which contain a lot of historical inaccuracies are JFK and Elizabeth. Actually I love both of them--JFK because it's brilliant propaganda, and Elizabeth because it has such terrific acting and costumes.

I cringe whenever I hear someone say that there must have been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy based on watching JFK. Damn that Oliver Stone, he's so sly.

[Deleted]

Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to know how accurate RPF was. The core of the movie, that aboriginal children were removed from their families for several decades, is true. And the story itself, about Molly Craig and the two other girls, was true as well. However, the movie drew some criticism for its portrayal of Neville as a "devil". As far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong) there isn't much documentation regarding what exactly went on; some say that he was indeed a racist, and others say that he was truly concerned with the welfare of the Aborgines. Opinions vary from person to person.

[Deleted]

I love Braveheart. Totally inaccurate and over the top but it entertains the hell out of me. It is just all over the place - rampant homophobia, that crazy Irish dude, hundreds of naked men, that one guy who keeps getting injured and never dies, William Wallace sleeping with the French princess, etc... I love it. Freedom!!!!

As a rule, historical accuracy isn't a big deal for me. I would much rather see an entertaining film rather than an accurate one.

[ahenobarbus]

As a rule, historical accuracy isn't a big deal for me. I would much rather see an entertaining film rather than an accurate one.

But then why do history at all? Braveheart could have been about two mythical kingdoms.

[Deleted]

But then why do history at all? Braveheart could have been about two mythical kingdoms.

I see your point, but I don't see why a film that is based on historical events has to be historically accurate. I mean, even films with the best intentions often have to compress details or make composite characters or rearrange events to create a better dramatic structure. Should you not tell a story that means something to you because you can't get everything just right? I mean, Braveheart may be over the top and inaccurate (and, imo, it is pretty easy to figure out that the film plays fast and loose with history) but so were any number of Shakespeare's history plays. For me, if I am going to see a fictional representation of a historical event, the facts take a backseat to the entertainment. Thats not to say that historical inaccuracies don't ever bother me, they just aren't enough to ruin an otherwise good movie for me.

Braveheart is an example of a film where the basic story seems like it could be easily adapted to another genre (it does play out like ultimate good vs. ultimate evil) but what about something like The People vs. Larry Flynt, Without Limits, Finding Neverland or Antwone Fisher?

I don't want to seem like I am freaking out and defending Braveheart but I think a lot of great movies are based on real events or people and they don't get all of the details right by a long shot, but that doesn't mean that the stories should be completely fictionalized.

[kafka]

thursdaynext said:

For me, if I am going to see a fictional representation of a historical event, the facts take a backseat to the entertainment. Thats not to say that historical inaccuracies don't ever bother me, they just aren't enough to ruin an otherwise good movie for me.

I feel the same way. I don't see movies to be taught history. And that's coming from someone who is a historian in a very small, unimportant way, so I should be among those who *would* get upset. Hollywood rarely equals accuracy in my opinion, so I just turn off that part of my brain when watching something. And, if I'm really intrigued by something, then I'll look up the real story or situation to find out what the real story is.

Braveheart is an example of a film where the basic story seems like it could be easily adapted to another genre (it does play out like ultimate good vs. ultimate evil) but what about something like The People vs. Larry Flynt, Without Limits, Finding Neverland or Antwone Fisher?

What were the inaccuracies of the Antwone Fisher story? I don't know anything about it except that it was supposedly based on a true story, so I'm curious. And what parts of P.v.Larry Flynt were incorrect?

[speciousreasoning]

My favorite historical inaccuracy involves all Biblical movies. We do all realize that Jesus, David, Saul, Moses, etc, etc were all Jews right? So why are they all played by English guys or Americans? Can't we find some swarthy Israeli actors to portray them? (That's one thing I like about The Passion - at least Jesus didn't look Aryan).

Numero Two - Saladin (Moslem ruler dude) used to watch people being pulled apart, crucified and such. In "Kingdom Of Heaven" (which I barely recall), he was practically a "ninties" sensitive guy, not someone who butchered people and betrayed truces he made with other rulers.

[Deleted]

What were the inaccuracies of the Antwone Fisher story? I don't know anything about it except that it was supposedly based on a true story, so I'm curious. And what parts of P.v.Larry Flynt were incorrect?

In the film, Antwone, with the help of Denzel the psychiatrist and the love of a good woman overcomes some very awful childhood events (horrible foster parents, sexual abuse, friends getting killed etc...) and abandonment issues to become a good person and come to terms with his family. He also inspires Denzel to be a better man and a better husband (this is where the film lost me - I thought it was so sappy - Antwone Fisher saved my marriage!!!). I remember (vaguely) that there was some fuss made about Antwone Fisher because a lot of the characters in the film - the Denzel character and the girlfriend character in particular - were composites of several different people. Antwone did not see one psychiatrist who changed his life (and vice versa), and the girlfriend in the film wasn't really based on a true person. This caused people to question the other information in the movie - particularly the horrible stuff done by the foster family and the abandonment of Antwone by his mother. AFAIK, no one ever refuted the claims Fisher made about his life (like, his foster family didn't freak out and call him a liar or something) they just pointed out that not every aspect of the "true story" was true.

As for The People vs. Larry Flynt, the main critique I remember (it was a bigger deal because of dirty Oscar campaigning - like what happened with The Hurricane and A Beautiful Mind) was that the film glossed over Flynt's (or Hustler's) objectification of women and his crazy and extreme political views to make the man and his fight for free speech more likable and palatable to audiences. Also, I remember reading that Flynt had quite a few wives and several children from those wives. The movie omitted those details to concentrate on the relationship between Larry and Althea. Not to mention the fact that the film did not really show any examples of Hustler porn.

[kafka]

thursdaynext said:

As for The People vs. Larry Flynt, the main critique I remember (it was a bigger deal because of dirty Oscar campaigning - like what happened with The Hurricane and A Beautiful Mind) was that the film glossed over Flynt's (or Hustler's) objectification of women and his crazy and extreme political views to make the man and his fight for free speech more likable and palatable to audiences. Also, I remember reading that Flynt had quite a few wives and several children from those wives. The movie omitted those details to concentrate on the relationship between Larry and Althea. Not to mention the fact that the film did not really show any examples of Hustler porn.

I see those things as being literary license and not necessarily wholesale untruths. Yes, one can lie by omission but glossing over certain things doesn't rise to the level of a historical inaccuracy to my mind. Objectification of women by a man who did Hustler? You don't say! I think that part is almost self-evident. As for the historical or political views of the subject, those are irrelevent to a story which has to fit into a maximum of 2 hours.

I'm not denigrating your views. In fact, I agree with your stance as expressed earlier. I'm merely questioning the issues which *the critics* have supposedly expressed. I think all too often people forget that there are some practical limits and industry-related issues which have to be met in order to portray a story. "People v. Larry Flynt" doesn't have be *ALL* about Larry Flynt or *every* part of his life over the span of 50+ years. It also doesn't have to belabor some points to death, such as the meaning of Hustler with regard to women. Besides, some things really should be assumed to be part of the cultural lore.

Bottom line, none of that rises to the level of a historical inaccuracy, in my view. But Antwone Fisher? Based on what you've said, that's obviously a slightly different case.

He also inspires Denzel to be a better man and a better husband (this is where the film lost me - I thought it was so sappy - Antwone Fisher saved my marriage!!!). I remember (vaguely) that there was some fuss made about Antwone Fisher because a lot of the characters in the film - the Denzel character and the girlfriend character in particular - were composites of several different people. Antwone did not see one psychiatrist who changed his life (and vice versa),

When one has composites of characters, it's always a problem. But the "Antwone saved my marriage" storyline doesn't bother me all that much, in terms of sappiness alone.That's just Hollywood. I'm not phased by such things because, to me, it's part of the executives' attempt to make a film palatable and popular with the audiences even though it lacks special effects, Orks, big bangs and car chases. But if there *wasn't* one psychiatrist --- and, therefore, that happy resolution never occured --- then yeah, it's an issue. That said, I think it's a relatively small one. It's historic and literary license which doesn't alter the underlying story about Antwone's life and what he went through. That part seems to be accurate and it's the main past/focus of the film. If the tangential denouement was massaged to fit time or industry requirements, then ... <shrug> It's not a documentary and doesn't pretend to be.

I think a lot of irritation could be spared if Hollywood would just stick to the "inspired by" tag line, instead of saying something is a true story. I certainly hope they do that in the upcoming Scarlet Johanssen film about Napoleon because, unfortunately, far too many people learn history from Hollywood.