Top 10 Films That Have Failed The Lessons Of History

[DrJackson]

What you will read is not quite a top 10. It is just an article that I've found it and I wanted to share with you.(translation mistakes will be inevitable , sorry about that)
Those are only some historical mistakes in some movies.
So,

It is a fact that the expression "based on a true story, which is displayed on the title of a film production, has the gift to capture the attention of viewers more than they would make it a regular fiction film.
History abounds with examples of film.
However, the reality is that many historical films that have achieved great success at the box-office, informs the public less familiar with, just versions of history that would make a historian to have headaches.
Some of them you already know them, while others you probably have escaped attention.

For today:

10. Pocahontas

Nobody can complain about the quality of cartoons made by Disney prestigious production house.
Even if Disney was more of a producer who had placed their own versions of old tales in his films, when it comes to respecting the historical truth, production house and has drawn criticism from historians and teachers of primary schools .

Perhaps the best known error was Disney's 1995 version of the famous Pocahontas story.
In the film, between a young Indian origin and Scottish settlers, John Smith, blossoms a beautiful romance .
The climax of these romances is achieved when Pocahontas sits above her's lover body to save him from the fury of Powhatan tribesmen, tribe that had its name after it own king.

Today's historians believe that, in reality, the Englishman has undergone to a native ritual, a ritual from which Natives will ensure that through his spiritual rebirth, he will became one of them.
Well, about this famous love story from the early eighteenth century, between Smith and Pocahontas, there can be no.
Historical sources show that at the exact capture time by the Englishman, the daughter of Powhatan, had no more than ... 12.
She would marry, in 1614, with another famous Britain settler, John Rolfe , the first English that has developed a viable tobacco business, and also, was the founder of the first Euro-Indian families in North America.

Even if the film addresses both adults and children (who probably do not know the historical truth), critics were particularly harsh, arguing that such a production affect young people education and they have no right to show them another version of history, different from what really was.

and this one is just for....hmmm....fun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kxtAR9c24Q&feature=related


doc.

[DrJackson]

What you will read is not quite a top 10. It is just an article that I've found it and I wanted to share with you.(translation mistakes will be inevitable , sorry about that)
Those are only some historical mistakes in some movies.

Today:

9. Troy

If Homer had lived to see the grandiose production of the 2004 film "Troy", probably he had laughed, said many art historians and critics who saw in the historical movie directed by Wolfgang Petersen, just a misleading presentation of the facts that occurred in Iliad and Aeneid epical story.
Even if the "Troy" is one of the most expensive movies ever made ($ 180 million) and one of the best Hollywood productions Sale (revenues reached $ 500 million), events which are presented in the film can hardly be compared with what happened about three and a half millennia ago.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of the filmmakers of this film is to present a war that lasted 10 years, in a rapid facts development of about a week.
A flaw that can hardly be digested by the historian enthusiasts world .
We will not now refers to beautiful Briseis hair extensions and her's bikinis, or to plastic weapons or the passenger plane that is seen in a far plan during one battle.
These are just directing and editing flaws.
Important to note, though, a fact that occurs throughout the film.
Absolutely all Greek warriors refer to themselves as "Greek", which does not exist during the progress of the Trojan War.
At that time, Agammemnon's fighters were called themselves Achaeans and Mycenaean or Danaeans and they differed among themselves after the city names where were born.

Another loophole it was funerary practices.
In the movie, the killed warriors are cremated after had previously put copper coins on their eyes.
In reality, this practice involves placing a coin in the mouth of the deceased, as payment for the ferryman Charon, that who lead dead souls in Hell.
In addition, during the war of Troy, somewhere in the thirteenth century BC, the coins was not been yet invented, the earliest mention of coin inssuance in Hellas is dating from the seventh century BC.
Also it is wrong to use Hellas army costumes, costumes that are found in the Classical period (V-IV centuries BC), not during the Trojan War.

Memorable is the scene where Helen sutured Paris obtained wound in duel with Menelaus .
Such medical practice will not meet, just over more than two millennia after the epic war unfolding.

doc.

[honeybunny]

great topic.. interested in the next ones.

[DrJackson]

great topic.. interested in the next ones.

Thanks bunny honey .
Well, let's see.

What you will read is not quite a top 10. It is just an article that I've found it and I wanted to share with you.(translation mistakes will be inevitable , sorry about that)
Those are only some historical mistakes in some movies.


8. The Bridge on the River Kwai

Although it is a fascinating portrait of British prisoners dilemma forced by the Japanese army to build a bridge over the River Kwai in Burma, that Hollywood production from 1957 was considered a slap on the face of the veterans of World War II, directly involved in the construction of that bridge.

The film focuses on the charismatic figure of Lieutenant-Colonel Nicholson, a role wich the actor Alec Guinness was rewarded with an Oscar.
Nicholson is a prisoner in a Japanese prison camp, where prisoners are forced to build a bridge to help Japanese military transport to the theater of war, an extremely important element of Japanese military tactical in the Second World War.
Also in the film, being the highest grade officer, Nicholson takes over the whole operation.
To his comrades surprise, Lt.col. was trying to mobilize people to build a more solid bridge, that till the end, when done helping the enemy and decides to destroy the entire building.

In reality, the Lieutenant Colonel's name is not Nicholson, but Philip Toosey, British officer in charge of supervising the works on the Thai-Burma railway.
Those who know the true story say that the Hollywood production seriously undermine the image of that who was Philip Toosey.
Truth is, he said, as Britain has done nothing but keep their people alive, never lacking an obsession for building the bridge.
Toosey his admirers say he did everything he could to delay the work, being aware of the help he gave the Japanese.

Filmmakers suggests that Japanese were not able to build a strong bridge, needing allies officers to complete the works, an idea more than hilarious if we think that Japan enjoy some of the best engineers and architects of the time.
Moreover, the Thai-Burma railway was completed in 16 months, this after allies estimates that the work requires will be completed only in 5 years.

But the reality is even further from what happens in the film.
Not a bridge, but two were built in that period by the prisoners of war, both still operating two years after completion.
Those were destroyed by Allied bombing, later were repaired.
Both bridges are functioning today.

doc.

Sorry about my english.

[DrJackson]

What you will read is not quite a top 10. It is just an article that I've found it and I wanted to share with you.(translation mistakes will be inevitable , sorry about that)
Those are only some historical mistakes in some movies.


Here we go:

7. The 13-th Warrior


Although it is not pretending to be a production that presents exactly the historical reality, "The 13th Warrior" is a film that is based to the real ground.

The action is based on Risala, one of the oldest and most detailed testimony about the Scandinavian way of life, diary belonging to the tenth century Arab diplomat, Ahmad ibn Fadlan ibn al-Abbas ibn Rashid ibn Hammad.
It is a fascinating journey that Ahmad undertakes, between 921 and 923, in the Slavic lands in Russia today, until near the Volga River, that in his writings, he will describe in detail all that journey.
Early scenes of this movie are closely taken from Risala, and closely follow manuscript of this Arab scholar.

Problems arise in movie when Vikings travel to the land of King Hrotgar, King of Denmark, who lived in reality in the year 500.
Not only heroes are back in time for over almost four centuries, but in that time, the Islamic religion has not yet been born, which makes impossible Ahmad's presence.

Moreover, how characters are costumed, proves serious shortcomings in terms of history knowledge.

Thus, only Buliwyf can claims that is dressed in an appropriate manner.
Instead, one of the characters wear helmet of a Roman gladiator, while another wears helmet and armor of a classic Spanish conquistador. (hmmm...., money, money, money.... )

Meanwhile, one of the two Scottish players used during filming, is equipped with the traditional kilt, piece of clothing whose origin is found only in the XVI century.
From Ahmad ibn Fadlan's Risala has become clear that ALL Vikings meet during his trip were tattooed from head to toe, while in the film, only one character shows such body decorations. (but is hard to find good actors with so many tattooes )

Not to mention the fact that the language used by some of the heroes of the film is modern Norwegian, language that it has not been yet born in X century.

It is downright hilarious the Vikings's short trip through the woods, just after landing, there tree cuts have chainsaw traces, a cutting method that is only in the twentieth century.
In addition, the set of all trees indicate the modern practice of reforestation.

One last mistake is at the beginning of the movie, when Baghdad is represented on the map somewhere between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea.
In fact, it is positioned at West of the Tigris River, in today's Iraq. (but geography it is very complicated for many, many people ).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXwnQ4bjCbw&feature=player_embedded



doc.

[DrJackson]

What you will read is not quite a top 10.
It is just an article that I've found it and I wanted to share with you.(translation mistakes will be inevitable , sorry about that)
Those are only some historical mistakes in some movies.

6.Pearl Harbour

Based on the adventures of two fictional characters, Captains Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker, makers of 2004 mega-production movie, "Pearl Harbor", has announced at the time of movie occurrence that it will be the most well done and documented historical film about the Japanese attack on U.S. base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
The story has in the forefront on the two heroes, Rafe and Danny, who, surprised by the Japanese attack, manage to climb in their airplanes and shot down several dozen Japanese fighters.
Both survived that attack, then they were sent as bomber pilots on bombing missions to Tokyo.

Historians say that this is a totally different interpretation of what actually happened.
During the attack on Pearl Harbor, American pilots were shot down just a few Japanese planes.
In addition, there was no evidence that fighter pilots were used to steer the giant U.S. bombers, which needs pilots specialize in such missions.

A filmmakers error, ascribe to the difficulty of using 1941 manufactured machines replicas, it is the use of military equipment that was being manufactured at end the war or the years afterwards.
It is the case of M38 Willys Jeeps , models that appeared after 1950, the American assault ship that was invented in the '70s, or air conditioning installation, visible in many frames of film.
If we add to all those beautiful Helens and other nurses bikinis, clothes that had not been invented yet in 1941, the conclusion can be only one ... "Pearl Harbor" failed the lesson of history.

and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-osWlAevZU

doc.

[DrJackson]

5. Braveheart

When "Braveheart" came on the market, in 1995, the film quickly proved successful.
Directed by Australian Mel Gibson, and the one who embodies the legendary Scottish hero Willliam Wallace, "Braveheart" was able to conquer the hearts of audiences both in Scotland and elsewhere in the world, where rebels from the thirteenth century was still unknown.

Moreover, the film has won five Oscars, including two for Best Picture and Best Director.
But, if critics praise flowed in abundance, were not the same opinion from historians who saw the film like a serious distortion of historical truth.

The story's film it is placed in thirteenth century, when young William Wallace returns into a Scotland awe by brutality of English King Edward I and his nobles.
Forced to marry in secret because of the edict entitled primaire noctis (law that allowed the English nobles to spend the first night with any wedding lowness), Wallace is later witness of his wife's dead, killed by British soldiers.
That is why the hero starts a battle of epic proportions against an entire empire.
Throughout the film, Wallace reached even have a romance with Isabella, wife of French origin Prince Edward II.

First, British historians say there was no mention that the edict primaire noctis was established in England by Edward I.
Moreover, a romance between Isabella and William Wallace was virtually impossible, as long as she does not have more than two years when our hero's died.

Another Mel Gibson's mistake was that of equipping all Scottish with the traditional Kilts, vestimentaer objects that appeared, in fact, in the sixteenth century and were worn for the first time in a fight in 1700 during the Battle of Culloden.
It's like you dress in blue-jeans whole Napoleonic army at the Battle of Waterloo.
Image is wrong also about that Scottish warriors goes to war with painted faces in blue color.
Such a fact usually is only found in antiquity, at the ancient Celts, not in Scotland, in thirteenth century .

It should be mentioned that in the movie, William Wallace and King Edward I die the same day.
However, history tells us that the English monarch has died about three years after the brutal disappearance of rebel Scottish.

doc.

[DrJackson]

4. Gladiator

Director Ridley Scott has requested the assistance of a historian, when he made "Gladiator", a grandiose production of year 2000, for the purpose that this movie to show a "chunk" of history, closer to the reality that was two millennia ago.
Even so, Gladiator has attracted criticism from experts, although the hero of the movie, Maximus, is a fictional character.

In the movie, Emperor Marc Aurelius chooses General Maximus as his successor to lead the Rome, in preference of his own son, Commodus.
Betrayed, the latter killed his father and ordered that the general be executed.
Maximus escapes from the hand of the executioner, is captured and sold into slavery, finaly getting into position to fight for his own life , as gladiator.

But historians say that the script is rather fancy, presenting facts, figures and events that never existed.
In addition, errors are held chain, which only decreases the value of such a film in the eyes of a connoisseur.

Let's analyze, for example, the first part of the movie, where Roman Army defeats somewhere in Germany of that time, a whole barbarian army.
First of all, historians say that how it was aligned and equipped Roman Army has nothing to do with historical reality.
The Romans never use catapults during huge battles themselves, much less in the woods.
Such weapons were used only on the siege, Romans prefering to use scorpions (heavy weapons at that time) against enemies.

Moreover, that time Roman combat tactics require that the soldiers throw theirs famous spears, pillum, to the opponents, then start to move in close formation towards them.
In the movie, the soldiers only carry the spear, do not throw to the barbarians.

The Romans fought side by side, without breaking ranks, this discipline is, in fact, that it has provided military supremacy for many centuries.
On the other hand, the Germans, taken individually, were some of the most effective warriors of Europe. In a deployment of troops like in the movie, the Roman army were simply massacred.

Roman uniforms are also not certain that fits the era in which the movie unfolds.
In reality, armor soldiers in "Gladiator" had existed about 80 years before Marcus Aurelius.
Those armor have changed radically after the Dacian wars, when their creators have realized that they were ineffective against feared Dacian falxes. (for those who didn't know, Dacians were ancestors of what it is called today Romania ).

Another rough flaw is the picture of Germanic barbarian warrior who perform a dance before the battle.
The truth is that both dance, and their yells are found in the traditions of Zulu warrior, a good example for this is movie "Zulu", produced in 1964.
It should be added that Roman generals did not participate in actual fights, not even with cavalry.
A cohort (1 / 10 of a legion) was led by several centurions.
A legion had a Legatus headed, while only an entire army (usually several legions) were led by a general.
After the number of soldiers belonging to the battle scene, there can be only one or two cohorts, which excludes this general on the battlefield.
It is downright hilarious and the order given by the Roman officers to archers - "Fire!" - that it only appeared on the battlefield with the invention of firearms.

And that's not all.

Producers blunders continue with the Marcus Aurelius murder scene, by his own son, Commodus.
In fact, Marcus Aurelius has died at Vindobona (Vienna today), probably killed by plague.
Murder link could be find with the death of another emperor, Tiberius, suffocated from Caligula's order , but this episode happened about 200 years before the death of Marcus Aurelius.

Another scene finds a Roman politician who said that Rome was born republic. A serious mistake, as long as the Eternal City for many years was the monarchy, before becoming a republic.

It is true that the emperor Commodus was wont to descend into the arena and fight with gladiators, but its real image is the opposite from the one represented in the film.
The real Commodus was a massive man, with the allure of the athlete, who was fight in many battles, and was often likened to Hercules.

Moreover, he was married and there are no historical evidence that mentions any passionate love affair for her own sister.
Commodus was indeed assassinated, but the act was used in one of his villas and not in the arena, as the film suggests. The murderer was his own coach.

doc.

[DrJackson]

Well, finally, we are at the end of this top, a top that is not quite a top.
It is rather a presentation of some (10 in this case) movies that shows some fragments of history, more or less in line with what really was.
But, movies (either with historical themes), are made for viewers, if we will want to know historical truths, we have Discovery Channel, History Channel, or even better ... books.

Because today is friday and weekend it is upon us, I'll post the last (from a list of ten) three movies.
So,

3. They Died With Their Boots On

Even if it's the oldest movie presented in this top (it was released in 1941), They Died With Their Boots On is a classic example of malicious distortion of history.
The action revolves around the Battle of Little Bighorn, on June 25, 1876, one in which Colonel George Armstrong Custer was defeated by the Indians led by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.
The film also puts a strong emphasis on the life and personality of the American colonel.

Like all those western or historical movies of those years, the image of American fighters is strongly influenced by a nationalist hardship, they are represented like real heroes, regardless of the camp who fought for or reasons that have driven them at the war.
One of the biggest hoax in the film, because we can not say mistake, it was that of a Colonel Custer, very emotional about the cause of Native Americans.
The filmmakers suggest that he even wrote a touching letter to Congress, to help the Native American cause.
Facing the refusal of the authorities, same Colonel Custer starting an unsuccessful battle and chooses to sacrifice himself, for a cause who doesn't belongs to him.

The truth is, however, quite different.
It is clear that George Armstrong Custer showed an almost morbid hatred towards the Native Americans, which is apparent even in his own letters.
In one of these, he mentioned them to his wife that the only way he has fun in the vast Native American lands is to shoot the native Americans.
Regarding the Battle of Little Bighorn, the film grossly distorts the truth again.
Custer did not intend never to make any personal sacrifice, much less to help the Native Americans cause.
Historical sources indicate that he began the fight arrogant, despite his smugglers and spies advice, decided to annihilate once and for all Indian elite warriors.
Only because of this infatuation, Custer and absolutely all the soldiers that he had under authority, were massacred by Sioux, Arapahoe and Cheyenne warriors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMxxt_rQrRY


2. 300

Surely that Zack Snyder, director of famous "300", never has proposed to follow exact historical reality line in the story of the heroic 300 Spartans died at Thermopylae.
The film goes, basically, from the comic book with the same name, and the characters, especially negative ones, it looks like are torn from Tolkien's novels.
But there is some historical errors that we can hardly overlook, even for a sensational productions, such as "300."

Spartans Legend is already known to everyone.
It's a continuous story told by more than 2,000 years and still continues to fascinate us with their tragedy and the dedication of those who then fell to Gates of Fire (that is, in fact, Thermopylae).
The reality is that against the Persians, who were by no means one million (their number would rather have been somewhere around 200,000), the 300 Spartans were supported by thousands of Greek soldiers who came from all over Hellas.
True force led by Leonidas include about 7,000 people, a veritable army at that time.

It can not be overlooked the big Persian army, as it is presented in the film.
For example, Xerxes never arrived in Africa in order to can display specific units of that continent, on the Thermopylae battlefield .
There was, again, no mention in the old chronicles that the elephants were used in this fight in the Battle of Thermopylae, much less a rhinoceros.
In respect of the 10,000 immortals, we can get over their monstrous appearance.
In fact, the film deliberately exaggerate features heroes, just to emphasize the idea that good conquers evil.
But it is unforgivable, their presentation in costumes reminiscent of Asian fighters from Japan, China and Tibet, as well as their knowledge of kung-fu and other martial arts.

On the other hand, Spartan citizens are depicted in typical Athenian costumes, not spartan, and while warriors it looks like, rather, a bunch of men with fatal, after all XXI century standards.
Maybe this was the reason for Spartan warriors to not wearing armors that they were equipped in fact.
About why they are shod with typical Roman sandals, this it can not be explained but only by the filmmakers.
Be sure, however, that may be worse.
It's enough to watch the 1962 similar production, "The 300 Spartans", so you can admire the entire Spartan army equipped in Roman...uniforms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTXlWYdodnc&feature=related


1. The Pathfinder

From such top, for any reason, can not miss "Pathfinder", trumpets and drum-rolled released movie in 2007.
If you have amused by the errors, with or without any intend, in the productions listed above, in the Pathfinder you can enjoy, instead, by a veritable comedy of blunders of any kind.
In fact, the film proved a resounding failure after launch, a result that has not surprised anyone.

The action takes place around the year 1000, a period when the Vikings first reached the shore of North America.
The central character, Ghost (played by New Zealander Karl Urban), is a forgotten child in the middle of northern Native American warriors.
He is grown up by AmerIndians and finally reach a way to save his tribe by Viking hunters of people.

We will not talk here about the serious directing errors, as would be the hero who, in full winter, falls into a frozen lake, and comes out there completely dry.
We will not talk about any obvious discontinuity of a bad scenario.
Episode in which Native Americans digging a pit-trap that all they had to fall, is downright ridiculous.
However, we can not to mention serious historical flaws that are found everywhere.

Vikings first and last time reached the North America shore in 1003, when Leif Erikson would have crossed the ocean in the head of a 35 warriors crew, and he established a temporary settlement on the shore of a huge land on which he called Vinland - Wine Country.
Traces of this settlement have been discovered in the archaeological site at L'Anse aux Meadows on the island of Newfoundland, Canada.
It is out of question that Vikings had have expeditions to hunting people in a so distant land, even if it was an actual practice among the Vikings.
In fact, it would be much easier to capture people in the British Isles and northern Europe, than to cross ocean thousands of miles in search of them.

Then it's about how Viking warriors are portrayed in the film.
Besides black faces giants looks like monsters from stories kites, they are depicted (yet again?) wearing helmets with horns.
It is a fact known for a long time that Viking were not wearing such a helmets, their armor it was with a completely different issue.
What can we say about Rottweilers accompanying them?
Such a canine breed has appeared only in the twentieth century.
Besides this mistake, Viking horses that are a different breed than the north one, and Pekin ducks that abound in the movie , but in reality were not brought into the North American continent only in 1873, looks like small errors.


Well, I hope you liked.
I would not want to understand I had anything with the movies above.
There are films that special effects can be appreciated, maybe for actors, perhaps the performance of actors, each finds something for a particular film.
I believe instead that can be highlighted some errors (intentional or not) made in making these movies.



That's all folks!

'Till next week.

doc.