How do you trust cinema?

[librarius_qui]

Some movies come out speaking about the History of a situation.

How much do you trust it, how much do you doubt it, how much do you get curious about the facts it tells.

Have you been badly disappointed at a movie?

[Stargazer86]

I can't think of any historically based movie that wasn't disappointing in the sense that it was inaccurate somewhere. I do greatly enjoy historical movies, but you can't rely on them for the facts. Movies are made to make money far more than they are to educate. You always have to bear in mind artistic license, how sometimes a twist on reality is far more interesting to your average moviegoer, differing historical sources, and a limited time frame.
Also, some historical movies are made about a certain time period and the events that took place, but the actual characters and the plot are fictitious or loosely based on a series of people/events. For example: Gladiator and Gangs of New York
Historical movies often can spark an interest in a subject and encourage one to look further into an event. Whenever I watch historically based movies, my 6 year old asks me all kinds of questions about what's true and what isn't. I can explain to him in my own way as well as look up information with him. He's learned about the Civil War, Revolutionary War, WWII, the Roman Empire etc etc this way.
Some of my favorite historical movies include:
Gangs of New York
Elizabeth I & II
Gladiator
Amistad
13 Days
and many many others. What are some of your favorites?

[BienvenuJDC]

There are too many movies made as propaganda, and people in general believe too much that they see on TV and film.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

How much do you trust it, how much do you doubt it, how much do you get curious about the facts it tells.

I tend to be quite dubious about what movies tell me, mainly for the reasons already brought forward by Stargazer86 & BienvenuJDC. Being the curious fellow I am, I often set out to check facts after having seen a movie. In fact, this often happens even if I have been watching the news... They are not always entirely correct (to put it mildly).

Have you been badly disappointed at a movie?

Rest assured that I have, and to widen the discussion a bit, not only concerning the facts conveyed, but also when it comes to the laws of physics: They are often abused in the worst possible way in the film world.

/Claes

[librarius_qui]

Whenever I watch historically based movies, my 6 year old asks me all kinds of questions about what's true and what isn't. I can explain to him in my own way as well as look up information with him. He's learned about the Civil War, Revolutionary War, WWII, the Roman Empire etc etc this way.

Wow!! This is very interesting!

_ What are some of your favorites?

I can recall very few.

"The Great Escape" is historically based;

"King Arthur" (of 2004) isn't a regular one ... Its proposition is slightly different: it's to turn legend into historic possibility. I like it, because it brings forth what can/could have been, from legend;

"Troy" is very similar to the one just above, only, it proposes to turn myth into historic possibilty (...). However the war between the Greek kingdoms against Troy is history, the (main) book written about it is poor as history, being rather a religious book and (fruit of) a(n oral) literary tradition. Even so, the movie turns the mythic narrative into something that is plausible, it makes the gods invisible, so as to say.



I have, on the other hand, some awful examples:

Worst of them is "Kingdom of Heaven", which tells a completely changed story about all the secondary events of the actual documented history of the period and situation. That movie abhors me


Lq~

[Stargazer86]

I didn't know that a King Arthur movie came out in 2004. i'll have to check that out. I would definately consider movies about well known myths and legends to be historical.

What is Kingdom of Heaven about?

[librarius_qui]

I tend to be quite dubious about what movies tell me, mainly for the reasons already brought forward by Stargazer86 & BienvenuJDC. Being the curious fellow I am, I often set out to check facts after having seen a movie. In fact, this often happens even if I have been watching the news... They are not always entirely correct (to put it mildly).

Rest assured that I have, and to widen the discussion a bit, not only concerning the facts conveyed, but also when it comes to the laws of physics: They are often abused in the worst possible way in the film world.

/Claes

These two examples are 100% accordingly! (to me), Claes.

Specially in what concerns "sci(ence)"-fi(ction), because, usually there's more (bad) fiction than actual science ...

There's ONE tv series that I consider to have accomplished something interesting in space simulation -- however the plot of the series isn't the most interesting to me but, .. well --, which was Battlestar Gallactica. I find it interesting the sounds of ships in that production, because we have an impression that we can only hear sounds of internal machinery of the ships, and communication noises, and, sometimes, there are scenes in which a ship or a fighter simply glides in the silence ... This is very well accomplished.

(On the other hand, they use the concept of "jump", which I avoid in *my* futuristic writings ... Again .. that's me.)



From this, we can extend to literature as well. Movies based on (literature/fiction) books. Possibly, the least of the weevils ... Except for Ronald Tolkien's ascets.

What is Kingdom of Heaven about?

It's about the taking of Jerusalem by the Persian king, in the second crusade, and a noble history of the defense.

I would love the movie ... if the characters hadn't been so badly [biographically] distorted

[Virgil]

You can never trust art to reflect reality. Never. I'm with Plato on this. One judges the art as art, development of a theme. But even if the portrayal of a situation is as honest as can be, it is one artist's opinion. It is not history or fact.

[BienvenuJDC]

Also take into consideration that there are books that are historical fiction. The Man in the Iron Mask is based on a real king, Louis Philippe, but there was no twin. The Phantom of the Opera begins as the narrative of an investigative reporter, even though it is based on a real place, it is fiction. I've known some people to openly believe whatever they see, hear, or read. This even applies to the news as Claes comments. The difference is that historical fiction writers, movie writers, and producers are not putting out their work as a documentary...otherwise it would be called a documentary. Historical fiction by its own name is exactly that...fiction, and likewise the movies are fictional.

[Stargazer86]

Historical fiction: cool in movies (if done well) makes me cringe in book form. I just cannot stand historical fiction.

I think I'll pass on the Kingdom of Heaven.

Which reminds me, has anyone ever seen/read The Last Temptation of Christ? The old staunch Irish Catholic in me had a f*cking heart attack, but overall, very intriguing and interesting to look at Jesus as more man than devine. And to look at that region in that time period as more pagan (not in the Wicca/Neopagan sense) and tribal than Western influenced (as portrayed in several made for TV Jesus movies) Fascinating stuff. Although Willem Dafoe could have lost the Boston accent while playing Jesus...

I haven't read the book though. has anyone here read it?

Oh, my last post reminded me...
Braveheart. I freaking love that movie. Always have. And then I read a biography on William Wallace *sigh* *shakes angry fist at Mel Gibson* C'mon...didn't it occur to you that the Battle of Stirling Bridge actually took place on a bridge?! good lord, that movie is riddled with inaccuracies. The reason I thought of this was because of my mention of made for TV Jesus movies. There's one that I remember seeing several times as a kid that they used to show around Easter a lot. The guy who plays Jesus is the same guy who plays the nephew of Longshanks in Braveheart (the one who's head is sent to the king in a box). I haven't looked it up..but I'm pretty sure
And on the subject of historically epic Mel Gibson movies: The Patriot...the guy who plays the evil redcoat soldier is the same guy who plays the blonde curly haired guy in "Top Secret". I'm fairly certain of that one.
Wow..I need to find out names. *Counts* how many times can I say "guy" in one post? geeze...
And in the Patriot, the 2 main American patriots are both played by Austrailians
Just an observation with absolutely no point...

[librarius_qui]

You can never trust art to reflect reality. Never. I'm with Plato on this. One judges the art as art, development of a theme. But even if the portrayal of a situation is as honest as can be, it is one artist's opinion. It is not history or fact.

What Plato didn't think, Virge, is that cinema, sometimes distorts art! 8} .. (And History* as well.)



----
*Documents; for instance (from "Kingdom of Heaven"): it's documented that Balian II, son of Balian I, was married to Maria Comnena, and he had three children. She never commited suicide. Not to mention (many) other things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balian_of_Ibelin)

[dramasnot6]

Art reflects life and life reflects art,eh?
What scares me is when images of objectified women are the only images of women projected in cinema. This really does have an effect on the audience and how they perceive women in real life. When it comes to social representations of any sort of group, I don't trust mainstream cinema to be politically correct in the least.
Any historical document, even primary sources, tell the story of History in their own way. No historical artifact (primary or secondary, as in fictional film versions of an event) will represent the "factual" version of history necessarily. History is highly constructed no matter how you look at it, and even without "inaccurate" historical dramas people have their stereotypes and misconceptions about the past.

I am conflicted in judging art as having the responsibility to be truthful or as being allowed "artistic freedom" to do as it pleases with history or whatever else. On the one hand, art is a major player in everyone's socialization and does have some moral/ethical responsibility. On the other, it is an important source of creative distortion and imagination.

[Virgil]

The only responsiblity that art has is to be art. And every viewer and connoisieur of art needs to understand that, so everyone is on equal footing.

[Mathor]

i think most works of art that have a historical theme should be seen as such. I dont think many filmmakers or artists try to capture these things AS it happened but more how it COULD'VE happened or how it MIGHT'VE happened. When you read something from history of which there are no pictures or movies or anything to go by you are forced simply to use your imagination. It might not be historically correct, but it is artistically important because based on a person's interpretation of history it moved them to the point that they wanted to make art to express their feelings towards history not simply to say exactly how history was. What importance would other artistic embellishments in movies like Titanic or Ben-Hur or in art like The Last Supper have if not for the emotions attached to situations and events that might not have happened even close to how we imagine they did? I think these events would not have so great an effect on our lives.

[BienvenuJDC]

The only responsiblity that art has is to be art. And every viewer and connoisieur of art needs to understand that, so everyone is on equal footing.

Is literature considered to be art? Should books be historically accurate? Should history books be historically accurate? Obviously, we read books like Homer's Odyssey and Iliad and there are some embellishments. Where is the defining line? Is the producer trying to make you believe that what the viewer is watching is true? If so, then the facts need to be true. Is there a possibility that people will walk away thinking that history was different than it actually was? Then the producer has a responsibility to the audience.