The 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Films

[Pirate]

We all accept that movies stretch the truth in the interest of building drama. The following ten flicks, however, treat the truth like it was Silly Putty -- pulling and twisting it until it's unrecognizable.

10,000 B.C.
Director Roland Emmerich is usually a stickler for realism (see: sending a computer virus via Macintosh to aliens in Independence Day). So we hate to inform him that woolly mammoths were not, in fact, used to build pyramids. Heck, woolly mammoths weren't even found in the desert. They wouldn't need to be woolly if that were the case. And there weren't any pyramids in Egypt until 2,500 B.C or so.


Gladiator
Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub.


300
Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos.


The Last Samurai
The Japanese in the late 19th century did hire foreign advisers to modernize their army, but they were mostly French, not American. Ken Watanabe's character was based on the real Saigo Takamori who committed ritual suicide, or "seppuku," in defeat rather than in a volley of Gatling gun fire. Also, it's doubtful that a 40-something alcoholic Civil War vet, even one with great hair, would master the chopsticks much less the samurai sword.


Apocalypto
This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migranes. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from the infected Spanish pigs.


Memoirs of a Geisha
The geisha coming-of-age, called "mizuage," was really more of a makeover, where she changed her hairstyle and clothes. It didn't involve her getting... intimate with a client. In the climatic scene where Sayuri wows Gion patrons with her dancing prowess, her routine - which involves some platforms shoes, fake snow, and a strobe light - seems more like a Studio 54 drag show that anything in pre-war Kyoto.


Braveheart
Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.


Elizabeth: The Golden Age
In 1585, when the movie takes place, Queen Elizabeth was 52 years old - Cate Blanchett was 36 when she shot the film - and was not being courted by suitors like Ivan the Terrible (who was dead by then). And though the movie has her rallying the troops at Tilbury astride a white steed in full armor with a sword, in fact she rode side saddle, carrying a baton. She was more of a regal majorette than Joan of Arc.


The Patriot
Revolutionary War figure Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson's character, but he wasn't the forward-thinking family man they show in the flick. He was a slave owner who didn't get married (to his cousin) until after the war was over. Historians also say that he actively persecuted and murdered native Cherokees. Plus, the climatic Battle of Guilford Court House where he vanquishes his British nemesis? In reality, the Americans lost that one.


2001: A Space Odyssey
According to this film, in year 2001 we would have had manned voyages to Jupiter, a battle of wits with a sentient computer, and a quantum leap in human evolution. Instead we got the Mir Space Station falling from the sky, Windows XP, and Freddy Got Fingered. Apparently the lesson here is that sometimes it's better when the movies get the facts all wrong.


Yahoo! Movies Presents: The 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by Pirate

[b]But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.

Well, this one, at least, can be easily explained.

In vitro fertilaztion, of course.

Any anybody who thought that 300 was supposed to be a historically accurate depiction of the battle of Thermopylae... Well...

[Agalloch]

I think the bottom line there is...Go to movies for entertainment, not a history lesson.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Agalloch

I think the bottom line there is...Go to movies for entertainment, not a history lesson.

No reason why it can't be both, though. A filmmaker can infuse their own vision and drama into a story without completely warping the history.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by Pirate

No reason why it can't be both, though. A filmmaker can infuse their own vision and drama into a story without completely warping the history.

I both agree and disagree. While I do think historical accuracy shouldn't be completely forsaken just for the hell of it, I also think it's not something that should stand in the way of the creative process even a tiny bit. The story has to come first, always. If historical accuracy can be preserved I'd consider it a bonus.

KM

[Pirate]

If you have a different story to tell, why bother basing it on true events? If an historical figure inspires someone to write a film about their life, why tinker with their story? In my opinion, presenting the story of an historical person, like William Wallace, and wildly disregarding historical fact, is irresponsible and disrespectful.

I agree that, in most cases, the story should come first, but since you’d have no story without the historical figure, respect for that figure must be taken into consideration. And if they can’t tell their story without destroying or skewing the integrity of the history, perhaps they should stick to original ideas.

Take Cameron’s Titanic as an example. As far as I know, the technical aspects of the disaster are intact—at least as far as their research understood. For his story, Cameron, instead of using actual passenger names or historical figures, implanted the fictional Jack and Rose. Sure, they interacted with Molly Brown, but not enough to be detrimental to her historical image. So the film serves the purposes of the storyteller without comprising the history.

Unless one is skewing or altering history for the sake of social deconstruction, or perhaps for reasons of satire, I don't think we should automatically give them the benefit of doubt for the sake of "artistic license."

[Astrakan]

If you have a different story to tell, why bother basing it on true events? If an historical figure inspires someone to write a film about their life, why tinker with their story?

Becuse their story might not be compelling enough. I for one would muchrather see a better movie ad a better story than an historically accurate one.

With regards to it being irresponsible...

I don't think that merely changing some things is by default irresponsible. Where it does become irresponsible is when the filmmakers or studio claim that the story is true. Even the old "Based on True Events" is generally interpreted as "Totally True Man" - so yeah, in that instance (wich are all too common) it is irresponsible. What filmmakers should do when they've had to alter the story in the name of storytelling is to simply say something along the lines of "Parts of this story is based on true events." or even something more defining.

M

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

Becuse their story might not be compelling enough. I for one would muchrather see a better movie ad a better story than an historically accurate one.

I find that, more often than not, the real story is just as compelling as the invented one. Sure, there may not be endless action or explosions, but it’s usually just as entertaining—if not more so. And, again, if you have to change the story that much, at that point, you’re telling a different story.

Originally Posted by Astrakan

I don't think that merely changing some things is by default irresponsible. Where it does become irresponsible is when the filmmakers or studio claim that the story is true.

I can agree with this. It’s an issue of degrees.

[ganthc]

Why didn't Alexander beat out Apocalypto?