I thought this would be a nice companion piece to the other thread.
What historical films got it right, in your opinion? Not necessarily accurate to every single detail, but they captured the events and the character of the persons portrayed with a reasonable degree of accuracy?
I'll start with two of my favorites:
THE ALAMO (2004) - Probably the most accurate Alamo movie ever made, it also captured the persona of the three main Alamo defenders in a way that reflects what we know of them - William Travis the social climber, Jim Bowie, the ruthless and brave criminal, and David Crockett, who came to Texas to salvage his political career and wound up in a fight he hadn't bargained for. Sam Houston was also brilliantly portrayed by Dennis Quaid, as he tried first to scrape together enough of an army to relieve the Alamo, and then to hold his force together long enough to avenge the fort's loss. The movie also captured the charisma and ruthlessness of Santa Anna very well, although the actor portraying him was far older than the Mexican President was at the time of the siege. Ironically, this brilliantly cast and well-acted film was a horrible flop at the box office - I guess Texans preferred John Wayne's macho myth to a more nuanced account.
LINCOLN (2012) I absolutely love this film. Abraham Lincoln is one of my greatest heroes, and Daniel Day-Lewis brought him back to life in this remarkable account of the battle to pass the 13th Amendment through the House of Representatives. Mary Todd Lincoln is portrayed in full carpet-chewing glory by Sally Field, and the supporting cast - including Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stephens and David Strathairn as Secretary of State William Seward - is top notch! I have seen this movie at least eight times and enjoy it every time. There are minor errors here and there, but by and large this movie captures Lincoln in all his melancholy, compassionate, and flawed glory.
OK, your turn. What historical films do you think got it right?
METROPOLIS.
It's the same as now-only in a user friendly form.
A Bridge too Far
There are a number of nits to pick, but they got it generally right, also, perhaps, because at the time there were still plenty of people around who remembered the real thing.
Also extra points for having the main advance preceded by an artillery barrage, instead of just storming ahead.
Quote from: Dr. Whom on February 02, 2023, 02:06:30 AM
A Bridge too Far
There are a number of nits to pick, but they got it generally right, also, perhaps, because at the time there were still plenty of people around who remembered the real thing.
Also extra points for having the main advance preceded by an artillery barrage, instead of just storming ahead.
I can recommend the book by Cornelius Ryan.
Although it was based on a 19th century novel, of course, it's said no other film got the 18th century right quite like Barry Lyndon did. From the use of lenses to allow filming by ambient candlelight alone, to the application of makeup made from period materials, to the simulation of smallpox scars, to the speech patterns (including having some character speak in a peculiar regional Irish accent that basically died out before the 20th century), to clothing that matched the changing attire of the various decades shown, to the use of something as minor as clay pipes made as they would have been then, Kubrick raised the bar very high here.
Quote from: ER on February 03, 2023, 10:28:05 AM
Although it was based on a 19th century novel, of course, it's said no other film got the 18th century right quite like Barry Lyndon did. From the use of lenses to allow filming by ambient candlelight alone, to the application of makeup made from period materials, to the simulation of smallpox scars, to the speech patterns (including having some character speak in a peculiar regional Irish accent that basically died out before the 20th century), to clothing that matched the changing attire of the various decades shown, to the use of something as minor as clay pipes made as they would have been then, Kubrick raised the bar very high here.
I really need to watch this one at some point.
Magnificent!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EykTXlhVmTg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EykTXlhVmTg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC5gJEoMvQ4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC5gJEoMvQ4)
Also, challenging ones. For example, Full Metal Jacket was shot in Britain because Kubrick didn't want to fly. They had to add lots of tropical plants and hire Asians in Europe as extras.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md_WfmSYAuQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md_WfmSYAuQ)
Reminds me of Kurosawa trying to figure out how to hid electricity lines and poles in period pieces like Kagemusha and Ran.
Meanwhile, much less effort is needed for that (and more) now thanks to computers. From over a decade ago, and involving TV shows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k)
Something to consider the next time you hear viewers talk about the wonderful cinematography and scenery in various movies and shows.
And now I hear they can now use virtual sets in place of green screen. This should made the effort to be historically accurate less difficult.
Another recent favorite of mine was 1917.
Although the main story is clearly fictitious, I don't know that I have ever seen any film capture the horror of the trenches and the sheer carnage of no-man's-land as well as this film did. I show my history class the clip of the two British soldiers crossing over to the abandoned German trenches when I teach that unit of history each year.
My Brilliant Career
Quote from: indianasmith on February 03, 2023, 08:21:09 PM
Quote from: ER on February 03, 2023, 10:28:05 AM
Although it was based on a 19th century novel, of course, it's said no other film got the 18th century right quite like Barry Lyndon did. From the use of lenses to allow filming by ambient candlelight alone, to the application of makeup made from period materials, to the simulation of smallpox scars, to the speech patterns (including having some character speak in a peculiar regional Irish accent that basically died out before the 20th century), to clothing that matched the changing attire of the various decades shown, to the use of something as minor as clay pipes made as they would have been then, Kubrick raised the bar very high here.
I really need to watch this one at some point.
You haven't seen
BARRY LYNDON? It's a favorite; I own it on DVD and the Soundtrack. I dislike
RYAN O'NEAL which makes the film an example of perfect casting.
Saving Private Ryan is listed as such, but that's probably in reference to the first half of the movie. Some reviewers questions the second half involving a German panzer division entering an abandoned town. With years of battle experience, they would have known not to enter such without scouting first. Besides, even if they were rushing, the scouts and storm troopers would arrive earlier than the armor.
I hate films in this genre (unless they're made by South Africans) but I have to admit that Attenborough's Cry Freedom is quite accurate in many ways.
One of my favorite movies, LA Confidential, was masterful in presenting social attitudes from the era it depicted. It was also meticulous in its protrayal of clothing, music, cars, and real life locations. It's simply a great film.
It's going to be easier to do now given not only CGI with green screen but even virtual sets.
DARKEST HOUR was perhaps the best portrayal of Winston Churchill I have ever seen.
It got a few things wrong, but it sure got a lot right!
Sometimes I think the last thing people want is historical accuracy. Think about how popular Ken Follett's bunk is, modern people and outlooks dressed in old timey clothes presented as historical fiction? That goes double for films. For years before I watched it I heard how Deadwood got the Old West right but even it didn't dare trod down some paths. Oddly enough that old black and white British psudo-doc on Culloden might be the closest thing I've seen to a genuine reenactment of what that particular past looked like, bad skin and teeth and dirty attire not excluded.
Quote from: indianasmith on February 11, 2023, 11:24:13 PM
DARKEST HOUR was perhaps the best portrayal of Winston Churchill I have ever seen.
It got a few things wrong, but it sure got a lot right!
Call me shallow but all I could think about as I watched (that outstanding performance, absolutely agree there) was how Churchill didn't wash his hands after going to the bathroom. That took me right out of the film. (Not kidding.) I know I'm a neat freak and wash my hands like two dozen times a day but how that moment didn't wreck the movie for everyone I don't know.