Period Films and Inaccuraces

[hatguy1]

"The Patriot" with Mel Gibson was an interesting film...but I agree. It had several historical inaccuracies. Granted, it wasn't meant to be a "history film" if you know what I mean. But still...

For that matter, how about Ben Affleck's "Pearl Harbor" love story of 2000?

 

[rjb1]

"Pearl Harbor" is absolute terrible. Among its *many* problems was the sudden transformation of fighter pilots to bomber pilots so they could go on the Doolittle Raid. However, the worst was having Eric Baldwin playing Jimmy Doolittle. Doolittle's descendants should have sued for defamation of character.

 

[rjb1]

There have been a number of movies made about "The Three Musketeers", so this is general and applies to all of them.
They are labeled as "Musketeers" - someone who carries/uses a musket... However, I have seen them do a lot of sword fighting, with never any sign of muskets. If their opponents had muskets they would be 100% out of luck. In the real world it's not a good idea to bring a sword to a gun fight...

 

[hatguy1]

...the worst was having Eric Baldwin playing Jimmy Doolittle. Doolittle's descendants should have sued for defamation of character.

True, but the movie came about before Baldwin started acting like such a clown. And yeah; the fighter jocks turned bomber pilots might've been a bit of a stretch.

 

[hatguy1]

A couple more WW2 movies lacking accuracy....

The recent "Red Tails" butchery of the Tuskegee Airmen story was horrible. The 1990s "Tuskegee Airmen" version was far better credit to those brave men. What I resented most about "Red Tails" was the politically-correctness at the start trying to claim that white fighter pilots were too scared to stick with the bomber formations properly and only the black Tuskegee Airmen did their duty. What a crock and it really cheapened the accomplishment of the true Tuskegee Airmen. They deserved far better credit than such PC nonsense gives them.

Another one that isn't very historically accurate is the "Memphis Belle" movie from what? - 1990 or so? Great movie in terms of the flying scenes, telling the story of fear, bravery, combinations thereof and ways the airmen of the 9th AF dealt with it, but an absolute abortion of the story of the real crew of the Memphis Belle. Not a shred of accuracy about any of them.

 

[2jakes]

I have to agree on the movies that were mentioned ( Memphis Belle, Pearl & Red Tails ).
If only they would've applied as much attention to story content, plot or credibility as
they did in the visuals .

 

[Zombie_61]

...Another one that isn't very historically accurate is the "Memphis Belle" movie from what? - 1990 or so? Great movie in terms of the flying scenes, telling the story of fear, bravery, combinations thereof and ways the airmen of the 9th AF dealt with it, but an absolute abortion of the story of the real crew of the Memphis Belle. Not a shred of accuracy about any of them.

Absolutely. The basics of the story were true--there was a B-17F named "Memphis Belle" that was one of the first to complete 25 combat missions--but the rest was Hollywood fiction.

Another movie that was almost as bad in that regard was Bonnie and Clyde (1967, starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty). Again, the basics of the story were mostly accurate, but the movie contained characters and incidents that were completely fictional, and the incidents that were reenacted were highly "Hollywoodized".

 

[Zombie_61]

Oops, double post.

 

[Worf]

The recent "Red Tails" butchery of the Tuskegee Airmen story was horrible. The 1990s "Tuskegee Airmen" version was far better credit to those brave men. What I resented most about "Red Tails" was the politically-correctness at the start trying to claim that white fighter pilots were too scared to stick with the bomber formations properly and only the black Tuskegee Airmen did their duty. What a crock and it really cheapened the accomplishment of the true Tuskegee Airmen. They deserved far better credit than such PC nonsense gives them.

Another one that isn't very historically accurate is the "Memphis Belle" movie from what? - 1990 or so? Great movie in terms of the flying scenes, telling the story of fear, bravery, combinations thereof and ways the airmen of the 9th AF dealt with it, but an absolute abortion of the story of the real crew of the Memphis Belle. Not a shred of accuracy about any of them.

While I agree with almost ALL of your criticism of "Red Tails" I think you got it wrong. It didn't say that white pilots were "too scared" to stick with the bombers, quite the opposite, they were too "aggresive" to stay with the bombers. When the Lufties attacked they would peel off and follow the lead elements to the deck to hunt kills leaving the bomber stream undefended. What they were looking for was fighters "disciplined" enough NOT to go hunting kills. The HBO film was/is so superior to Lucas' hack job it's a crying shame. Lucas can't tell a story anymore, hasn't been able to in years. All concerned should be GLAD he's no longer involved with the Star Wars franchise.

Worf

 

[Edward]

"Pearl Harbor" is absolute terrible. Among its *many* problems was the sudden transformation of fighter pilots to bomber pilots so they could go on the Doolittle Raid. However, the worst was having Eric Baldwin playing Jimmy Doolittle. Doolittle's descendants should have sued for defamation of character.

Morally, maybe - but as he's dead that's not, to the best of my knowledge, technically an option in any US State (or in the UK, for that matter). PH was dreadful. I watched it on television and enjoyed watching the jackets, but I found the story tedious as all hell... and not much better than old school Westerns in terms of its take on the complexities of war. It might as well have been Top Gun <spits> in that respect.

There have been a number of movies made about "The Three Musketeers", so this is general and applies to all of them.
They are labeled as "Musketeers" - someone who carries/uses a musket... However, I have seen them do a lot of sword fighting, with never any sign of muskets. If their opponents had muskets they would be 100% out of luck. In the real world it's not a good idea to bring a sword to a gun fight...

lol I never thought of that, but you're bang on... I'm thinking of one of the Cairo scenes in Raiders now...

Another one that isn't very historically accurate is the "Memphis Belle" movie from what? - 1990 or so? Great movie in terms of the flying scenes, telling the story of fear, bravery, combinations thereof and ways the airmen of the 9th AF dealt with it, but an absolute abortion of the story of the real crew of the Memphis Belle. Not a shred of accuracy about any of them.

My strongest memory of seeing that for the first time is wondering why Sean Astin was wearing an Irvin - maybe he swapped it with an RAF boy who wanted one of those much flimsier Steve Macqueen jackets? How times have changed me! lol

While I agree with almost ALL of your criticism of "Red Tails" I think you got it wrong. It didn't say that white pilots were "too scared" to stick with the bombers, quite the opposite, they were too "aggresive" to stay with the bombers. When the Lufties attacked they would peel off and follow the lead elements to the deck to hunt kills leaving the bomber stream undefended. What they were looking for was fighters "disciplined" enough NOT to go hunting kills. The HBO film was/is so superior to Lucas' hack job it's a crying shame. Lucas can't tell a story anymore, hasn't been able to in years. All concerned should be GLAD he's no longer involved with the Star Wars franchise.

Lucas couldn't direct traffic.

I've not seen Red Tails yet.... when I heard who was directing it, I gave up on it being any good. I have been watching the DVD on sale here, but it's yet to drop below the equivalent of about USD5.00, and much as I'm curious to see it for the jackets etc, it's not worth that much to me. Quite frankly, as a rule you'd have to pay me to see a Lucas film. (Might I also add Han shot first, and RIP Star Wars, 1977-1997, KIA).

 

[Chasseur]

There have been a number of movies made about "The Three Musketeers", so this is general and applies to all of them.
They are labeled as "Musketeers" - someone who carries/uses a musket... However, I have seen them do a lot of sword fighting, with never any sign of muskets. If their opponents had muskets they would be 100% out of luck. In the real world it's not a good idea to bring a sword to a gun fight...

Just to clarify, if memory serves me correctly the Musketeers in question were not simply musketeers meaning a military unit that used muskets (ie pikemen, heavy cavalry, etc.) but were named unit of the French royal guard called "The Musketeers of the Guard". So while they did at times carry muskets (and sometime fight from horseback) it was more the traditional name of the particular unit rather than their military function. Like how we have contemporary military units called cavalry or hussars or cuirassiers etc. that do not ride horses. It was the name given to the units when they were cavalry units with horses (in most cases, some are new/reformed units that took a famous units name etc.).

 

[BigFitz]

Watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, I noticed when Indy is at the controls of the Tri Motor that there's an ILS (instrument landing system) indicator on the panel. I thought it was out of place in a plane from 1935, and it is, but not as far off as I thought. The ILS was under development in the US during the '20's but the first ILS installations weren't authorized until 1941.

 

[GoldenEraFan]

I haven't even seen the latest Great Gatsby film but I know it's a complete anachronistic mess. Just look at the cars, http://www.imcdb.org/movie_1343092-The-Great-Gatsby.html . The story is supposed to be set in the early '20s and the movie has cars being used from as late as 1933. Regarding the costumes, I was told by someone who knew a person who worked with costumes for the movie said they knew they were making things period inaccurate, but that it was okay from their perspective because everyone knew it was anachronistic. I've always made it clear to people my annoyance with how The Great Gatsby is so directed towards everything relating to the "Roaring Twenties". Yes, it was written in 1926 during the well remembered period, but the story itself takes in 1922, when America was going through a post-war economic recession. It should also be noted that James P. Johnson won't compose "The Charleston" until a year later. With all this being said, why does Gatsby himself get associated with roaring twenties parties when the character wouldn't have been alive for the latter 3/4 of the '20s?

In general I could go on and on about car inaccuracies in period films, like the 1940 Fire truck appearing in "Bonnie and Clyde", or the postwar Chevrolet in "A Christmas Story". But a most likely lesser known goof was in The Indiana Jones Chronicles. The episode had Indiana and his friend trying to regroup with the Belgian Army during WWI, but the freedom fighters (or whatever they were) drove around the desert in a Ford Model A. I was really surprised by this anachronism due to the fact that they could have a used a Model T, the most common car then and now from the era.

 

[hatguy1]

While I agree with almost ALL of your criticism of "Red Tails" I think you got it wrong. It didn't say that white pilots were "too scared" to stick with the bombers, quite the opposite, they were too "aggresive" to stay with the bombers. When the Lufties attacked they would peel off and follow the lead elements to the deck to hunt kills leaving the bomber stream undefended. What they were looking for was fighters "disciplined" enough NOT to go hunting kills. The HBO film was/is so superior to Lucas' hack job it's a crying shame. Lucas can't tell a story anymore, hasn't been able to in years. All concerned should be GLAD he's no longer involved with the Star Wars franchise.Worf

Either way, it cheapened the true accomplishments of these men. And I wholeheartedly agree, the previous "Tuskegee Airmen" movie from the '90s did a far more accurate and respectable tribute.

 

[Stanley Doble]

The Great Gatsby is a wonderful story but it took place at a specific time, the summer of 1922. Change it by more than a year either way and it doesn't make sense.

Of course you can rewrite it into something else but if you do, you are throwing away the best part of the story.

Sort of like a remake of Gone With The Wind that left out the Civil War, and rewrote the Rhett Butler and Scarlett Ohara characters to be more politically correct.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I can tolerate that far better (though I know it's historically inaccurate) than trying to read a bunch of English subtitles all the time.

For me, the English speaking is historically inaccurate in the same way Clint Eastwood wasn't really in WWII is an "inaccuracy". It's a necessity of it being a dramatic telling, it's not part of the plot. In fact, they go out of their way earlier in the film to basically tell the audience "OK, when they get to Germany, pretend these guys are all speaking fluent German".

 

[HudsonHawk]

The Great Gatsby is a wonderful story but it took place at a specific time, the summer of 1922. Change it by more than a year either way and it doesn't make sense.

Of course you can rewrite it into something else but if you do, you are throwing away the best part of the story.

Sort of like a remake of Gone With The Wind that left out the Civil War, and rewrote the Rhett Butler and Scarlett Ohara characters to be more politically correct.

Reminds me of a story I once read by an author complaining about Hollywood producers butchering their work. It was something like "imagine a movie producer's take on The Old Man and the Sea"....

"Ernie...we LOVE it...but the part about the fish...it's boring. And the old man...he's too old. He should have a girlfriend..."

 

[hatguy1]

For me, the English speaking is historically inaccurate in the same way Clint Eastwood wasn't really in WWII is an "inaccuracy". It's a necessity of it being a dramatic telling, it's not part of the plot. In fact, they go out of their way earlier in the film to basically tell the audience "OK, when they get to Germany, pretend these guys are all speaking fluent German".

Agreed. To me, I don't need to dress up in a hot wool uniform, carry a musket, eat hardtack and sleep out under the stars and get shot to appreciate a Civil War movie, so why should the language used become a barrier to my enjoying the film. If it's an English-language audience, let 'em speak English. We'll get the idea they're Germans by the uniforms, salutes, airplanes, tanks and whatnot. I don't need them speaking German and me trying to read subtitles to get the idea.

 

[GoldenEraFan]

The Great Gatsby is a wonderful story but it took place at a specific time, the summer of 1922. Change it by more than a year either way and it doesn't make sense.

Of course you can rewrite it into something else but if you do, you are throwing away the best part of the story.

Sort of like a remake of Gone With The Wind that left out the Civil War, and rewrote the Rhett Butler and Scarlett Ohara characters to be more politically correct.

Yeah you summed up my point quite well

 

[Two Types]

'Bitter Springs' made in 1950 but set in 1900.

Chips Rafferty just looks like a badly dressed man from 1950, not like someone from 1900:

I don't know much about women's jeans from 1900 (so correct me if I'm wrong) but again this just looks like 1950:

The same with their leather jackets:

'The Beloved Vagabond' Made in the thirties, supposed to be 1900:
The soft suede brogues in the second pic are rather out of place

I believe this style of cutaway morning coat only became popular in the early 1920s, also the pleated trousers were (as far as I know) not popular in 1900.