| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| redPen |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 11:48:29
ChocolateLady and I were discussing how much we loathe Hollywood's constant free hand with history. She mentioned that she wanted to start a discussion thread about it, but was a bit busy at present, and I got permission to start it up.
Regarding "Braveheart," check this load o' McCrap:
- The use of Tartan in the costumes is historically incorrect. Tartan was not invented until the late 18th century by Sir Walter Scott as a means to help reduce unemployment at that time by creating jobs.
- The opening scene depicts Sir Malcolm Wallace in the Scottish Highlands on horseback dressed in a kind of rough homespun clothing and a kind of kilt. The location should have been in the Ayrshire hills and as a knight of the realm of Scotland he would have been much better dressed in light mail, leathers and a cloak. His horse would have been equally protected.
- The young William is portrayed like an urchin when in fact as the son of a knight he would have been suitably dressed in leathers and a small cloak and would also have been on horseback.
- The opening scene should have depicted a tower house not a hovel. The murders of the Cunninghams are historically correct but they took place at Carleith Tower near the Killoch Burn near Auchencloigh in East Ayrshire but they occurred when William Wallace was 25 years old and it was he and his companions who found the bodies strung up not his father Malcolm as portrayed in the film.
- The film shows Wallace as a very young boy attending his father's funeral. In fact Wallace was about 25 years old when his father was killed in battle at Loudoun Hill in Ayrshire.
- When Wallace was a young boy of nine years he was at primary school some fifty miles north from Riccarton at a place called Dunnipace near Stirling. After that he went to Dundee to receive his secondary education at St Mary's vicarage remaining there until he was sixteen years old.
- According to the film Wallace's mother is already dead when his father was killed. In fact Wallace buried his mother at Dunfermline Abbey when he was 27/28 years old, about four years after the death of his father.
- Twenty five minutes into the movie and we are introduced to the adult Wallace (Mel Gibson) as a lone figure on horse back returning to a "farm" in the highlands of Scotland. This is wholly inaccurate. Firstly the costume is all wrong for a knight of the realm of Scotland and as such he would never travel alone being accompanied by his squire known as Kerle of Riccarton, his personal chaplain and several retainers. Wallace's homelands were in the area of Cunningham, Kyle and Carrick, which we know them today as Ayrshire.
- We are introduced to "Mirrin", Wallace's girl friend, which is more artistic licence.
- Sir William Wallace married the Lady Marion Broadfute of Lammington Tower in South Lanarkshire. They were married in St Kentigerns Church in the town of Lanark not in a highland grove! Once again the costumery and locus is inaccurate.
- The murder of Wallace's wife, Lady Marion, was carried out by Sheriff Hezilrigg of Lanark but not in a remote highland glen. He imprisoned Lady Marion, tortured her to try and find out where Wallace could be found. When she refused Hezilrigg hanged her over the battlements of Lanark Castle. Wallaces revenge was swift and violent. He sacked Lanark Castle and personally killed the sheriff. The people of Lanark rose up and finished the clearing out of English soldiers from Lanark, which Wallace had begun.
- At 114 minutes the set changes to the Battle at Stirling. The movie shows a set piece battle on a fairly flat terrain over a field. In fact this well documented battle occurred on the 11th of September 1297 when Wallace was 27 years old. The battle is known as "the Battle of Stirling Bridge". Wallace and his army held the high ground near the Abbey Craig on the north side of the Forth river, just east of Stirling. The English army had to enter a narrow bridge to reach Wallace. Wallace held his ground until some five thousand English soldiers had crossed and then poured his forces down on those soldiers who had got over the bridge and carried out a mass slaughter. As more and more English crossed the bridge they were systematically slaughtered. It was a rout not a set piece battle. It was the only way the Scots could possibly take on an army that outnumbered them by three to one.
- The costumery for the English invaders is largely correct but once again the costumes of the Scots is wholly inaccurate for the period.
- The Scots army of the 12th&13th century did not use war paint nor did they paint their faces. There is no record of any of the Scots at this battle or any other battle of the period showing their bottoms or genitalia to the opposing army. Pure Hollywood.
- At 147 minutes there is a meeting between Wallace and the Princess of Wales. This is pure theatrical invention. Such a meeting never took place.
- The Battle of Falkirk occurred on July 22nd 1298 at Westquarter Burn near Callandar Wood close to Falkirk. In this battle 30,000 Scots were faced by 87,000 English soldiers. The Scots costumery is again inaccurate but the outcome is a matter of historic record, a massive defeat of the Scots army.
- Following the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace, his closest companions and the two remaining commanders of his army were on their own fighting a guerrilla war against Edward 1st.
- Missing from this period is Wallace's appointment as Scotland's ambassador to the Papal Court in Rome and the Court of Phillip 1V of France at the palace of Le Louvre in Paris.
- 220 minutes shows another fictional meeting with the Princess of Wales. The trial of Wallace was accurate enough but there never was an intervention by the Princess of Wales.
- It is a matter of historic record that Edward 1st was present at both the trial and execution of Sir William Wallace in London on 23rd August 1305 at Westminster Hall and Smithfield Elms respectively.
- The mode of death by hanging, drawing and quartering was specially invented by Edward for the killing of Sir William Wallace.
- The film does not show Wallace receiving the last rights of the Church at the hands of England's leading church man, Robert Winchelsea, the Benedictine Archbishop of Canterbury, nor Wallace's reading of the psalms as he was being systematically killed. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 01:02:59
U571 - It was the Royal Navy that captured an enigma machine and certainly NOT Bon Jovi!
|
| GHcool |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 18:14:31
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Scottie
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Biblical historical fiction literature tends to be as bad, if not worse, than Hollywood. Someone recommended a book to me called The Red Tent about the rape of Dinah which I thought was such a crock that I tossed it aside and picked up my copy of the Pentateuch that I got on my bar mitzvah and read the original.
Never call your daughter Tamar!!!
Unfortunate Tamar 1: Genesis 38
Unfortunate Tamar 2: 2 Samuel 13
I wouldn't call the Genesis Tamar unfortunate. She was a hero. She got stuck in a bad situation and kept on truckin'. If not for her determination, the tribe of Judah would have been extinct. |
| duh |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 16:03:53
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Scottie
Never call your daughter Tamar!!!
Unfortunate Tamar 1: Genesis 38
Unfortunate Tamar 2: 2 Samuel 13
I think the story of Absolom and his sister Tamar would make a very interesting movie, if the writers didn't vary too much from the Biblical account.
I find the story of Absolom to be particularly interesting because as a child in Sunday School, he was presented to us as a very bad person. As an adult, I see him as a young man who was desperate for his remote father's attention. |
| silly |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 13:34:58
My favorite is Life of Brian.
"Blessed are the cheesemakers." |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 09:28:12
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Biblical historical fiction literature tends to be as bad, if not worse, than Hollywood. Someone recommended a book to me called The Red Tent about the rape of Dinah which I thought was such a crock that I tossed it aside and picked up my copy of the Pentateuch that I got on my bar mitzvah and read the original.
Never call your daughter Tamar!!!
Unfortunate Tamar 1: Genesis 38
Unfortunate Tamar 2: 2 Samuel 13 |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 09:20:21
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
One pet peeve of mine is Bible movies that don't get the Bible right or grossly emebellish the Bible. Isn't the Greatest Story Ever Told great enough that it doesn't have to be Hollywoodized?
Some of it wasn't "embellished." In fact, quite the opposite. Sometimes it was highly sanitized. When Moses came down the mountain and found the Israelites worshiping idols, then lost his temper and smashed the stone tablets, do you know what happened next? Look it up. It differs from the Hollywood version quite a bit.
Of course it does.
But you know, with the Old Testament, different translations differ from each other and the original, so why should Hollywood be any different?
(I was shocked to hear that Christians have a different numbering of the 10 Commandments than Jews do.)
|
| GHcool |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 21:52:08
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
One pet peeve of mine is Bible movies that don't get the Bible right or grossly emebellish the Bible. Isn't the Greatest Story Ever Told great enough that it doesn't have to be Hollywoodized?
Some of it wasn't "embellished." In fact, quite the opposite. Sometimes it was highly sanitized. When Moses came down the mountain and found the Israelites worshiping idols, then lost his temper and smashed the stone tablets, do you know what happened next? Look it up. It differs from the Hollywood version quite a bit.
Biblical historical fiction literature tends to be as bad, if not worse, than Hollywood. Someone recommended a book to me called The Red Tent about the rape of Dinah which I thought was such a crock that I tossed it aside and picked up my copy of the Pentateuch that I got on my bar mitzvah and read the original. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 21:03:43
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
One pet peeve of mine is Bible movies that don't get the Bible right or grossly emebellish the Bible. Isn't the Greatest Story Ever Told great enough that it doesn't have to be Hollywoodized?
Some of it wasn't "embellished." In fact, quite the opposite. Sometimes it was highly sanitized. When Moses came down the mountain and found the Israelites worshiping idols, then lost his temper and smashed the stone tablets, do you know what happened next? Look it up. It differs from the Hollywood version quite a bit. |
| GHcool |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 20:31:14
One pet peeve of mine is Bible movies that don't get the Bible right or grossly emebellish the Bible. Isn't the Greatest Story Ever Told great enough that it doesn't have to be Hollywoodized? |
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 19:38:53
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Prime numbers always struck me as odd, if not irrational.
Here's a review just for you M0rkeleb.
|
| Montgomery |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 16:09:51
quote:
Originally posted by M0rkeleb
Well, not exactly in keeping with the topic, but as a mathematician, I was amused to note two glaring mathematical errors in Cube (which I should state I loved anyway). Both concern the supposed math 'genius' Leaven.
1. It takes Leaven about 3 seconds each to realize numbers like 584 and 635 are not prime. Any math genius worth his/her salt should recognize these as non-prime instantly (any number with last digit even or 5 is not prime - unless it is 2 or 5). OK, this is just a timing issue, so it's not really serious. But:
2. Later in the film, it's revealed that it's not important which numbers are prime, but rather which ones are powers of primes. Leaven posits that this new wrinkle makes it way too hard to find such numbers, that the difficulty is "astronomical" and no one could do it (which is why the idiot savant character is necessary).
But this is just false, because there just aren't many powers of primes less than 1000 that aren't themselves primes. For squares, you only need to go up to 31^2 (32^2=1024), and any math genius worth his/her salt knows the squares up to at least 31^2=961 by heart. Cubes of primes are even better, since you only need to go up to 10^3=1000 - this gives you 2^3, 3^3, 5^3, and 7^3. Fourth powers only include 2^4, 3^4, 5^4. Powers of 3 go up to 3^6=729, and powers of 2 go up to 2^9=512. Again, I say any math genius show know all these numbers by thought and be able to identify them pretty quickly (simply because there aren't very many of them).
Further, throughout this film, she's been determining whether arbitrary 3-digit numbers are prime or not, which is usually much harder than what I've talked about above. Take, for example, 667. To see this is not prime, I'd start by seeing it is not even or divisible by 5 (immediate), then check 3 and 11 (takes a little time, but there are shortcuts). Then 7. Then 13, 17, and 19. These last few would be a bit time-consuming, since there are no shortcuts and you actually have to try dividing. Finally, 23 works - 667=23*29. This process takes much more time and thought than figuring out if a 3-digit number is a prime power that isn't a prime.
Wow! MOrkeleb. I think your I.Q. could beat up my I.Q. and take its lunch money for sure.
EM :) |
| benj clews |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 14:23:27
quote:
Originally posted by silly
Try sitting through Jurassic Park (or any of the like) with a paleontologist.
...or anyone with reasonable computer knowledge...
"This is a UNIX system! I know this!"- out of the mouth of an pre-pubescent girl. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 13:54:36
quote:
Originally posted by silly
Try sitting through Jurassic Park (or any of the like) with a paleontologist.
In Friends, Rachel enjoys winding Ross up with "Jurassic Park could happen". |
| silly |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 18:39:36
Try sitting through Jurassic Park (or any of the like) with a paleontologist. Almost as bad as watching Star Wars with a Trekkie...
 |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 21:33:46
Prime numbers always struck me as odd, if not irrational.
Here's a review just for you M0rkeleb. |
|
|
