Regarding Historical Fiction...

[SckizoBoy]

Or rather, fiction purported to be based on historical fact...

Where is the line for dramatic licence that separates taking liberties thanks to the perceived ignorance of the audience (whether it's the reader/gamer/viewer) and absolute historical accuracy (which often takes a fair bit of the drama/fun out of the plot)?

I know that a lot of writers (regardless of medium) will take dramatic licence to make a certain point or increase the impact of a particular scene/phase in a historical figure's life, otherwise it wouldn't be particularly interesting to read from a dramatic perspective. But there are a lot of instances wherein this is done to almost flagrant disregard of what actually happened, along with massive anachronisms that serve to fuel popular myths.

That said, can you think of a single author/screenwriter etc. who readily admits to use of anachronisms, however petty?

 

[Saltyk]

I can't think of a particular author, but it always seems to me that if something is "based on a true story" it has almost nothing to do with the actual events. The Patch Adams movie springs to mind (probably because Nostalgia Critic reviewed it not too long ago). Not only was there a completely fictional female character with a completely fictional back-story who was actually based on the real guys real male friend that died. It completely fabricated the guy's actual work. The man that the movie was based on hate it as it has no bearing on his actual work.

And if you ever saw U-571, well that entire movie is a work of fiction. In fact, wasn't the team in the movie American while the actual team was British?

Yeah, based on a true story is kinda bunk.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I believe Mel Gibson said that the liberties taken with Braveheart were done simply to increase the dramatic and epic feel of the film.

However, personally, I really don't think there's much point in complaining about it when the director/creator never intended it to be historically accurate. Leave that for the documentaries and such.

*It's pointless to complain about the innacuracies of 300 when it's supposed to be an over-the-top stylisation.

*It's pointless to complain about Guo Huai using a rapid firing arm cannon in Dynasty Warriors 7 when you take in the fact that it's supposed to be an over-the-top romanticisation of an already heavily romanticised story.

*It's pointless to complain about Tadakatsu Honda being represnted as a giant robot with electricity in Sengoku Basara: Samurai Heroes when it's supossed to be as over-the-top and anachronistic as possible.

Also, when Luo Guanzhong named his novel "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" that was him basically saying "This isn't 100% fact".

 

[MammothBlade]

I draw the line at grossly misrepresenting history, saying something happened when the exact opposite is true. A lot of history is open to interpretation. Directors should follow the spirit of the law as it were, and not so much the letter. The Last Samurai is a good example of what I mean. It's not historically accurate, but it does present the general themes of the Meiji restoration whilst being culturally accurate. Someone looking for historical fact can go and read a history book after they've watched the film - dramatic representations are a good way to raise awareness of history itself. Unless something is purporting to be a documentary film, creative merit takes precedence.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I don't think it's a problem really.

Everyone should have the common sense to know that when they see a film or watch a TV show that claims 'based on true events', they mean that very loosely. They alter it to increase the drama, the suspense, create love intestests, etc... I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, especially if the end product is a great film/show.

Take The Tudors for example. They fabricate events, make up characters that never existed, change the chronology of events and make some characters appear much younger/older than they actually were at the time. I'm a history buff and I still absolutely love that show, you just have to take everything with a pinch of salt.

If events are intentionally skewed, twisted or altered (obviously they are going to be anyway but I mean to a huge extent) in something claiming to be a documentary, that's when it becomes an issue for me.


Having said that, one film that really did bug me with it's "artistic license" was Michael Collins, what a piece of shit film.

 

[HouseOfSyn]

And if you ever saw U-571, well that entire movie is a work of fiction. In fact, wasn't the team in the movie American while the actual team was British?

Yeah, based on a true story is kinda bunk.

Correct. Jon Bon Jovi was never there either.

 

[Bertylicious]

Aww... I though I was going to be able to talk about my George Washington/Josef Stalin fanfiction.

It's hot straight-on-straight gay action!

I think "historical fiction" tends to be an exploration of 'themes' of the time than a dry examination of factual evidence. Then again, archaeology tends to include a certain degree of liberal interpretation anyway. Afterall, how much can you really tell from a series of small walls?

 

[The Night Angel]

I like to read Bernard Cromwell, and he nearly always has an author's note in his books drawing attention to everything inaccurate in the book. To be honest, if it's well written, I don't mind if it is a bit inaccurate. When it is extremely inaccurate, I'd rather they just didn't claim it is historical fiction.

 

[Vault101]

the one thing I cannot stand is some fictional (purely fictional) wrok having any pretense of actually telling the TRUE story

I think the film anonymous had the tagline "was shakespere a fraud?"...yyeeeaaah Im sure this move will give us an acurate and NOT dramatised answer (ok mabye that wast the intention, but still)

I dont often have a problem with anything..some stuff does my me roll my eyes

like the obligatory "woman who does stuff" and of coarse our protagonist is going to NOT be racist or sexist

 

[Rawne1980]

Correct. Jon Bon Jovi was never there either.

Lies.

I remember hearing about it in history class how they found the machine and celebrated by singing Blaze of Glory.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

I think the film anonymous had the tagline "was shakespere a fraud?"...yyeeeaaah Im sure this move will give us an acurate and NOT dramatised answer (ok mabye that wast the intention, but still)

Completely apart from the asinine "Shakespeare didn't really write Shakespeare" premise, Anonymous is crammed full of historical inaccuracies. For instance, it has Christopher Marlowe still running around alive in 1598 when he was stabbed to death in Deptford in 1593. It also has a theater (probably the Rose) burning down in 1603, when the only Elizabethan theater that burned down in that period was the Globe, and not until 1613.

And okay, I expect a movie to take some liberties with casting, but for the love of God, they had a Ben Jonson who looked like the guy on the left, when the picture on the right is what he really looked like:

 

[DJjaffacake]

I only really have a problem when the inaccuracies portray a group of people who are still around today in an unfairly bad light (Braveheart, the Patriot) or give credit to the wrong people (U-571). Gladiator for example is terribly inaccurate, but it does no one any harm and Commodus is hardly likely to be offended, or Kingdom of Heaven, the converations between the Muslim leaders probably never took place, but they show that there was very little difference between the two sides, and that most Muslims are not violent fanatics.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Aww... I though I was going to be able to talk about my George Washington/Josef Stalin fanfiction.

No, no, go right ahead... I'll start profiling now, if you don't mind...(!)

I draw the line at grossly misrepresenting history, saying something happened when the exact opposite is true. A lot of history is open to interpretation. Directors should follow the spirit of the law as it were, and not so much the letter. The Last Samurai is a good example of what I mean. It's not historically accurate, but it does present the general themes of the Meiji restoration whilst being culturally accurate. Someone looking for historical fact can go and read a history book after they've watched the film - dramatic representations are a good way to raise awareness of history itself. Unless something is purporting to be a documentary film, creative merit takes precedence.

See, my line is very... very close to absolute historical accuracy. Broadly speaking, while not everything that happened in reality need not appear in the fictional retelling or vice-versa, I like there to be as much event/relationship fidelity as possible, though I give allowance for events or interactions that cannot be either verified or denied but are at least plausible. To pull an example off the top of my head, A Bridge Too Far is, IMO, a damned good film, but it has one huge anachronism (a lone Leopard I crossing the Arnhem Bridge), and character merging (Ludwig, a combination of Harzer & Harmel) along with a whole load of details that others would consider petty, but for all I enjoy the film when watching it, those little misses bug me. They're even worse in Gladiator, and while I acknowledge it as a good piece of cinematography, by god, I can't watch it without going mad.

[O]r Kingdom of Heaven, the converations between the Muslim leaders probably never took place, but they show that there was very little difference between the two sides, and that most Muslims are not violent fanatics.

I direct you towards this [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054847/]... awesome film (even if it rearranges a few events, but I'm sufficiently ignorant/uninterested, rather ashamedly, in the period that it's not too bothersome).

However, relevantly, what struck me about that film (Kingdom of Heaven, that is) was: how dumb do the film-makers think people are that they'll confuse Reynald de Chatillon and Raymond of Tripoli?! I wonder how any of them have been able to make any films about early to mid-Republic Rome when there were around half a dozen different names for the entire male population to choose from...

the one thing I cannot stand is some fictional (purely fictional) wrok having any pretense of actually telling the TRUE story

Am I feeling some hatred for Dan Brown in there somewhere?! However, Anonymous is more one of those laughable/plausible films, akin to conspiracy theories, but I haven't seen it (and, honestly, I don't bear much admiration for Shakespeare, so perhaps my view is biased here...).

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Well, a lot of the stuff that is historically inaccurate we completely miss:


(That guy is awesome, if you're interested in historical accuracy watch all his other videos DO IT!)

However, Shakespeare himself used anachronisms: There's a scene in Julius Caeser where a clock chimes!
Personally I think that the historic accuracy of the film should depend on, firstly how seriously the film is taking itself. Obviously I would expect Saving Private Ryan to be a bit more historically accurate than Pirates of The Carribean, or Gladiator to be more accurate than 300. Secondly I think it depends on what exactly the liberties are. Hollywood has to take some responsibility for the fact that whatever it shows people will believe.
For example, showing a Viking running about with a double bitted axe [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtp08ZSAYE&feature=relmfu] while historically inaccurate, is fine, as it's not really important. However when they start dicking about with actual historical events, changing people to look more good or evil than they were, or even changing the entire nationality of the people in question (especially when it's a tale of heroism like U-571 Where Americans stole and cracked the Enigma code, or that bit in Pearl Harbour were America sends all her pilots over to win the Battle of Britain etc.) Then I think they've gone a bit too far.

 

[OneCatch]

And if you ever saw U-571, well that entire movie is a work of fiction. In fact, wasn't the team in the movie American while the actual team was British?

Yeah, not only that, but the enigma code was broken by British and Polish Intelligence before America even entered the war. The Brits captured about 10 naval enigmas, the Canadians caught a few, and then the Americans captured one later on. That's not to discredit the Americans - they were tied up the the Japanese, but it isn't fair to undermine the achievements of the other allies.
They even managed to misrepresent the Kriegsmarine:
There were almost no recorded instances of U-boat crew killing adrift sailors. In fact, far more often the opposite occurred (they rescued them), even after Hitler expressly forbade it under threat of court martial.
Further, the Kriegsmarine generally disliked Hitler and he hated them. They weren't like the SS; as they were portrayed in the film.

 

[requisitename]

I'm pretty middle of the road, I suppose. I don't mind (what I consider) minor things like clothing or weapons that aren't perfect.. or people being a bit older or younger than they actually were at any given time.

When they start making shit up, though, I take issue. Like adulterous or incestuous (a favorite, that!) relationships that there's no good reason to believe ever occurred. Or, as mentioned above, changing the nationality or ethnicity of people. Or battles that never happened, or people doing things in places there's no good reason to believe they ever visited.

Or, my pet peeve, taking credit for something awesome away from someone and giving it to someone else. That bothers me a lot. People should get credit for both the good AND the bad they've done.

Completely off topic, what the hell does "turn up trumps" mean?

 

[BathorysGraveland]

I don't think there should be too much of a limit, it is entertainment in the end, after all. That said, I believe historical accuracy and dedicated research can help some work in this field. I just got done reading Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire, and that book would not have been nearly as good if it the author didn't have a vastly expanded knowledge on the historical events themselves. This is something where 300 took fault, I think. Trying to depict the Spartans as freedom fighting good guys and the Persians as evil enslaving tyrants (when ironically, the Persians went to great efforts in abolishing slavery yet there were more slaves in Sparta than Spartan freedmen.. go figure) whereas in Gates of Fire, the Spartans are depicted accurately and the characters and events feel a lot more life like and believable.

I'm not one for ridiculing art forms that mess the history up for good purpose as in the end, all it is is entertainment. However, accuracy and research can go a long way to help said art form in being even better than what it would be otherwise.

 

[Stu35]

That said, can you think of a single author/screenwriter etc. who readily admits to use of anachronisms, however petty?

Bernard Cornwell.

At the end of his books he always includes historical notes pointing out where he just fucked history off for the sake of a good story.

Also, his books are bloody brilliant.

 

[HouseOfSyn]

And if you ever saw U-571, well that entire movie is a work of fiction. In fact, wasn't the team in the movie American while the actual team was British?

Yeah, not only that, but the enigma code was broken by British and Polish Intelligence before America even entered the war. The Brits captured about 10 naval enigmas, the Canadians caught a few, and then the Americans captured one later on. That's not to discredit the Americans - they were tied up the the Japanese, but it isn't fair to undermine the achievements of the other allies.
They even managed to misrepresent the Kriegsmarine:
There were almost no recorded instances of U-boat crew killing adrift sailors. In fact, far more often the opposite occurred (they rescued them), even after Hitler expressly forbade it under threat of court martial.
Further, the Kriegsmarine generally disliked Hitler and he hated them. They weren't like the SS; as they were portrayed in the film.

I've read articles about the Kriegsmarine simply going out to sea then finding somewhere to hide until they were due back in port. The submariners usually being young men or just teenagers who had no interest in killing unarmed men on merchant ships.

Here's an interesting article on the Irish helping German sailors during WW2 :

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-german-uboats-refuelled-in-ireland-surely-not-2356105.html

Correct. Jon Bon Jovi was never there either.

Lies.

I remember hearing about it in history class how they found the machine and celebrated by singing Blaze of Glory.

Deleted scene perhaps?

 

[Rawne1980]

Deleted scene perhaps?

One does not simply delete history.

When the British found the Enigma machine they broke out the guitars, on strolled Bon Jovi and they got down to some serious Blaze of Glory.

That is historical fact right there.

At least it would be if history was more fun than it actually is.