History vs Hollywood

[porrick]

True, but history teachers like myself have to clean up the mess that such movies leave, since most folks will take the "history" presented in the movie as "gospel" (no pun intended towards "The Da Vinci Code"!)

Sigh...but at least it's job security.

Quite agree, as a fellow teacher (though not history) I understand only too well...

[Valencian Kilted]

True, but history teachers like myself have to clean up the mess that such movies leave, since most folks will take the "history" presented in the movie as "gospel" (no pun intended towards "The Da Vinci Code"!)

Sigh...but at least it's job security.

Cheers,

Todd

...Absolutely agree,... even doubting about the originality of the "Da Vinci Code" (You could find more than 10 years ago a book called "ASSASSINI" talking about supposed crimes on church involved with middle ages misteries...) and as well doubting about it's literary quality (I prefer "The last Cato", by Matilde Asensi), it's amazing how people launched themselves to devorate such pack of paper...

In the case of Braveheart I can understand that at least the result was an explosion of interest about Scotland, and also the creation of a nice "image" for the country outside, but in this case ... which is the benefit for society then? ARE WE BETTER AFTER READING THE BOOK OR EVEN WE LEARNT SOMETHING THAT COULD GUIDE OUR SPIRITS?

In Spain we say a sentence:

"A dried **** doesn't smell until you put water and move it!"

... it seems that somebody put water and all the rest wanted to move it!


¡Salud!

T O N O

[macwilkin]

Tono, point taken, but we probably should steer clear of the "Da Vinci Code" all together...let's stick to "Braveheart" and that ilk here.

T.

[porrick]

I've had a look at some history Mag's I have here at home ..I found a list of the liberties Hollywood took with Bravheart

Wouldn't it be far quicker to list the details that are historically accurate?

However, there is always the question of how to define historical accuracy. (Some facts are indesputable, but as with questions such as who betrayed who, we have to rely on the storytellers and their perceptions of events.)

I think the history teachers here can appreciate the challenge of the principals of historical accuracy...

[Freelander Sporrano]

Wouldn't it be far quicker to list the details that are historically accurate?

Which were?

I agree however, this was the list I found about Braveheart.

Brown does say that it difficult to find accounts of the mans life which aren't coloured by Victorian romanticism. There is only a slender body of contemporary material available

[porrick]

...

In the case of Braveheart I can understand that at least the result was an explosion of interest about Scotland, and also the creation of a nice "image" for the country outside,

Yes, this is positive.

I teach English literature, and my thesis is on adaptation from literature to film. I have spent a fair amount of time looking at the accuracy of various adaptations and accuracy in film and visual presentations. There are always students that comment in the line of "hey, this isn't the way it's supposed to be!" and the likes. We will often end up in a discussion about (historical/geographical/story) accuracy. The bottom line is the ability to make the distinctions between education and entertainment. Some books and films are made merely for entertainment - such as Braveheart. And what good entertainment (subjective, I know )
Making money out of their efforts? Well, that is the bottom line for most authors and filmmakers

[Valencian Kilted]

Tono, point taken, but we probably should steer clear of the "Da Vinci Code" all together...let's stick to "Braveheart" and that ilk here.

T.

Again I'll agree absolutely,... ;)

¡Salud!

T O N O

[Sylvain]

The problems with films is that our mind will always take for granted what it sees, but not what it reads (or hears). Once one has seen the film, it will remain in one's mind as something real. And an historically accurate film would be so boring... You know, life is boring.

[macwilkin]

The problems with films is that our mind will always take for granted what it sees, but not what it reads (or hears). Once one has seen the film, it will remain in one's mind as something real. And an historically accurate film would be so boring... You know, life is boring.

I disagree with your last statment. No film is 100% historically accurate, but those who at least make the effort can achieve a balance between authenticity and accuracy. Take for example the most recent depiction of the Alamo in 2004 -- yes, it had its problems, but overall, they did pretty well -- they used noted historians like Bruce Winders (curator of the Alamo) and Steven Hardin as advisors, and overall, they achieved that balance. From a reenactor/living history standpoint, the depiction of 1830's material cultural (clothing,weapons, etc.) was "pretty durn close".

Same with films like "Tora, Tora,Tora!", which is far better than "Pearl Harbor". One of the best historical films I've seen in a long while was "The Great Raid", which again used historians as consultants -- in this case the two historians that have written the two standard works on the Cabantuan Raid.

Besides, real life is always more exciting, more dramatic than fiction -- to know that someone actually went through an event is much more effective!

Cheers,

Todd

[porrick]

[QUOTE=SylvainYou know, life is boring.[/QUOTE]

Huh????


Thanks for a good read - I've enjoyed this thread. I'll bow my way out of here - and watch Braveheart while I enjoy a Guinness and a wee drop of Bushmill's Black Bush tonight