| Author |
 Topic  |
|
redPen 
"Because I said so!"
|
 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. |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 12:43:17
|
(Typing while on my lunch break!)
Our redPen has quite a few. My bugbear is Gladiator.
Roman women were NEVER allowed to go with their men when they went to war, but in the film the character of Lucilla shows up with in the command tent as if its the most normal thing on earth.
Costumes - let's talk colours, shall we? Back in Ancient Rome, dyes were very expensive to get and use so the vast majority of clothing was very dull in colour, especially among those who were poor or middle-class. Take a good look at the crowd scenes where you've got all the masses wearing all the colours of the rainbow. What's more, I recall one of the gladiators wearing a light blue shirt. Now, to make light blue, you have to first bleach the cloth to pure white and then add a small amount of blue. No one who was a slave would have any clothing that took that required cloth that much time and effort to make!
Swords - this is the biggest bugbear and it happens over and over in this movie, as it does in others like Troy. Ancient Rome had broadswords and those babies weighed tons, and had very wide blades which were razor sharp. What really got me was that opening scene. There's a bit where one of these swords goes whup-whup-whupping through the air and Crowe catches it by the blade with one hand. Because of their weight, the amount of effort to get it whup-whup-whupping like that would take such force you'd practically need a catapult to do it. Again, the weight would make it impossible to catch. But what really got me is that not only does he catch it in ONE BARE HAND, and BY THE BLADE but when he takes his hand away there isn't even a scratch on his bare palm! If that had happened with a real broad sword the weight of the sword would have caused it to slide through his fingers at least by a few centimeters and the sharpness of the sword would have severed every single finger on that hand - if he had been able to catch it at all. Sheesh!!!!
Of course, aside from that, no one seemed to notice that they're handled like those thin, light-weight sabres that Errol Flynn used in those swashbuckling movies. These guys swished their broadswords about like they weighted feather, and they only used one hand while doing it. A real broad sword takes two hands to hold and all your strength to wield because of their heavy weight. Go figure!
After seeing these things I got totally disgusted and couldn't watch the movie straight through. I have a friend who tells me there are even more mistakes - and that Troy was just as bad in much the same areas.
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 10/18/2006 12:43:49 |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 14:02:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by redPen
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.
Yeah, there may have been some inaccuracies, but the Jews were to blame, right? 
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 14:42:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Yeah, there may have been some inaccuracies, but the Jews were to blame, right?
Um... yeah... sure!
(Those damned Jews!!!)
|
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 15:30:44
|
| I think it's a little silly to complain about historical inaccuracies in "Braveheart." The whole point is that the history of William Wallace was all wrapped up in myth and legend already, and much of it is vague enough that Gibson and the writers felt empowered to take a lot of artistic license. In fact, you speak with such conviction about so many specific facts about his life that I'm inclined to wonder what your sources are. And since the story is really about the man more than it's about Scotland and England and Edward I et al, it's even less important if all those other historical facts were accurate. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 15:35:54
|
| Not about Scotland and England? Hhmmm... I think it's a prime case of Hollywood's rule that Scottish and Irish people are always good and English people are always bad (and Welsh people mustn't be mentioned). Saying it's about the man doesn't make it all right to lie in his favour. And the kilt thing is completely ridiculous (and not just in this film). |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 15:54:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by redPen
Regarding "Braveheart," check this load o' McCrap:
You left out one fiction: 'prima noctae', an invention of the movies. Even so, one of my Braveheart FWFRs is "Scot brides noctae up." |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 16:23:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Not about Scotland and England? Hhmmm... I think it's a prime case of Hollywood's rule that Scottish and Irish people are always good and English people are always bad (and Welsh people mustn't be mentioned). Saying it's about the man doesn't make it all right to lie in his favour. And the kilt thing is completely ridiculous (and not just in this film).
I'm almost tempted not to renew my "The Mel Gibson Jewish Fan Club of England" membership. 
 <- Mel
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 16:26:46
|
I can tell you that any movie showing Kings and Queens in the Dark Ages wearing elaborate outfits and gowns - each seen only once - is completely inaccurate. Even the richest royalty and nobility would be lucky to own more than two outfits, which were rarely washed and often lacked the elaborate ornamentation we see in movies. That's because it was a society plagued by underproduction, so luxury items were rarely even available to buy. Also, wealth was measured in land rather than "money," so it would be rare that one would even have the means to acquire luxury items on those instances that something from Byzantium or the Far East might appear.
And any movie set in that period showing even more than a handful of commoners over the age of 40 is way off. Pretty much the entire society was starving to death and the average lifespan was around 30 (although this average is brought down even lower by the high infant mortality rates), which is why the population of Europe dropped continuously from the 5th century through the 12th. The main reason for this is that the knowledge of how to make a yoke that wouldn't choke the animal was essentially lost, forcing people to litterally scratch at the soil with hand tools. Harvest yields were significantly less than what the Romans accomplished centuries earlier. |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 16:33:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
(Typing while on my lunch break!)
Our redPen has quite a few. My bugbear is Gladiator.
Roman women were NEVER allowed to go with their men when they went to war, but in the film the character of Lucilla shows up with in the command tent as if its the most normal thing on earth.
That film did get me curious enough to go look up information about Commodus. Apparently, he did indeed take part in fights with gladiators; fights that he always "won."
Another film with historical inaccuracies that comes to mind is Dances With Wolves (my brother complained bitterly about inaccuracies of its firearms). I found it amusing that the Indians in the film were complaining about the loss of buffalo when in fact, the Native Americans would stampede entire herds over cliffs. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 16:41:44
|
Well you're right, duh, that's how they hunted buffalo. They're very stupid animals and they really will follow each other right off a cliff. But that was the method Indians used for centuries, without any major impact on the population of the species. It was the railroads that began the process that nearly killed off the buffalo, because the animals would tend to wander onto the tracks and wreck the locomotives. Bounties were offered on buffalo hides, so settlers began shooting the animals on sight whether they were planning on using it or not, just for the bounty. Then as the frontier started to close and more and more of the open land became privately owned, larger and larger stretches of it were being fenced off for cattle grazing, and that was pretty much it for the bison.
So I'm sure there were plenty of inaccuries in that film, but that wasn't one of them. |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 17:34:15
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
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...
 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
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". |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
AAAARGH! - Hollywood Historical Inaccuracies
