Topic: Historical accuracy - Fixing the script.

[Eric]

There's many movies that either are biographical, based on true stories, inspired by true stories, historical characters and/or events...................at least that's what the writers/producers/directers/and_all_the_the_other_ers of the film industry claim.

Yesterday I watched two of these movies, Gladiator (2000) and Get Low.  They are two very good movies and I liked them, especially Gladiator which is stunning in Blu-Ray but after watching I decided to research a little to learn more about the characters and see how accurate (or innacturate) the movies are.

We all know that writers like to play around with history and I think it is acceptable up to a certain point.  I feel however that they often rewrite history claiming financial or technical reasons, continuity, fluidity or increased entertainment value without cause.  Over the years these seem to have become standard excuses for doing anything they want without even trying to be accurate.

I was just thinking about while washing my dishes and,  one thought leading to another, I had to idea of starting this thread where we can have a little fun trying to rewrite parts of these scripts and see if/how they could have been more accurate while achieving the same results in regards of establishing characters and plots.

In the next post I'm gonna start with Gladiator.

[Eric]

Title: Gladiator (2000)
Case: commodus assasinates Marcus Aurelius.
History: This is completely false, Commodus did not kill his father.  On the contrary, Marcus actually named him co-emperor and they ruled together for a few years until Marcus retired and dies a few years later.

The movie: 

• Marcus tells Maximus that he wants him to become Caesar, Maximus says he needs to think about it because he was hoping to go back home.
• Marcus announces his decision to Commodus who doesn't take it well.  He blames his father for not loving him and for not recognizing his virtues and qualities.  Marcus kneels down to apologize, they hug and Commodus kills him
  
• Maximus doesn't believe it's a natural death and refuses to submit to Commodus (the new emperor).  Commodus has him arrested and orders that he his taken to the woods and killed.
• Lucilla knows that Commodus killed her father, she slaps him in the face but then kisses his hand to submit to her new emperor.
• Maximus escapes and the movie goes on.

I think there was no need for this fantasy and history rewriting.  Marcus could have died of heart attack in the very same scene and nothing would be changed.  Maximus could still not believe in a natural death and turn his back on Commodus who could still order his death.

In the movie the scene where Lucilla slaps Commodus is before Maximus is arrested.  That scene could have been put after, the public would then think she's mad at Commodus for ordering the death of a man she loves, which was already established, and the rest of the movie would go on.

They could even have made Commodus look more of tyrant by having him sentence Maximum to death for a very small reason.  Let's say Commodus does believe that Marcus dies of natural causes, Commodus then asks for his help in fighting the senate in Rome (which he actually did in the movie).  Maximus refuses, says he was promised by Marcus to be sent home and insists that Commodus respects his father's promise.  Commodus then has Maximus arrested and orders his death because he refused a call from Rome.

I'm sure there could have been many more ways of making Commodus a bad person without having to rewrite history with him murdering his father.

[Najemikon]

You're right. They thought they needed a really evil villain, one so twisted he's in love with his sister, he's such an abomination! But I don't think they did and in fact, it could have been more interesting if they had created a Commodus whose hand was forced to protect the idea of Rome by putting a gladiator in his place. The problem is this was a return to the Hollywood golden age of epics, the very nature of which is broad, melodramatic themes. There can be no shade of grey or irony, it has to be very clear. Just a shame that to do it, they had to bring the man's name into disrepute.

Not the first time a Crowe film has done this. In Cinderella Man, he fights a monster of a boxer called Max Baer, a man so immoral and untamed he killed an opponent in the ring. In actual fact, he was apparently a gentleman. I haven't seen it, but the film seems to be accused of buying into Baer's depiction in the media of the time and into they hype that surrounds any boxing match. That's a shame, because it was surely an opportunity with this film to give him a fair treatment and even use a sub-plot to highlight how the media can twist things. It wouldn't diminish his ferocity and the threat to Braddock (Crowe).

[Eric]

This "Historical accuray" section of this wikipedia article is quite interesting.  It claims, among other things, that Ridley Scott thought that some events couldn't be included because they would have been too unbelievable for the public due to the perception of the ancient Rome that has been created by previous Hollywood movies.

It's like he approached it thinking he could make history whatever he wanted because others before him showed a wrong picture of the Roman Empire.  It looks to me like they missed a very good opportunity to do things right and correct mistakes of the past but they decided instead to use them to justify their own laziness.

[Najemikon]

I'm sure you remember the King Arthur discussion? I thought then that there is also an occasional and rather desperate attempt by film-makers to appear more legitimate and relevant than other media simply by being controversial. It's like it's more important to be remembered than right.

Regards King Arthur, we have a story that is perfect for the big Hollywood treatment and has never been done well before. They have a ready made, modern revisionist novel (The Winter King by Bernard Cornwell) that would adapt very easily (Cornwell's Sharpe books have already been made into successful TV series) and leave room to lift up some of the mythical fantasy elements, but what did they choose? A brand new theory that actually undermines Arthur as a purely English legend by suggesting he was a Sarmation, in Roman thrall, that didn't even want to be in Britain! Tolkein said he created Lord Of The Rings because England had no myths. Hollywood want to take our few legends too! They just wanted a short lived controversial element rather than doing the story properly.

[Eric]

I'm sure you remember the King Arthur discussion?

Of course I do, it was one of the most interesting discussions I had here.

It's like it's more important to be remembered than right.

Sadly, for them it probably is but in reality one doesn't prevent the other.  I don't think Gladiator would have been any less a success or less remembered if they had showed Marcu's death as it really was.  It is after all pretty insignificant in the whole of the movie.  Movies can be right and remembered, it isn't incompatible.

They just wanted a short lived controversial element rather than doing the story properly.

I think it does deeper than that, script writers aren't historians, they are writers.  They're not interesting in telling existing stories, they're only interesting in telling their own.  The problem is that some, apparently, can't invent a whole story by themselves so they just take history and change it to make it what they would like it to be.

I couldn't quote anyone but I'm sure most film makers would tell you that if you want to know the truth you only need to check wikipedia or your local library.  

I have to admit though that they're not entirely wrong, it's not their fault if the general public take movies as historical fact......as long of course as the movie isn't advertised as such.

Jon you said earlier that Gladiator isn't the first Crowe movie that does this..........should we bring "Robin Hood" into the discussion ?  This is even worse than anything ever done with Arthur, they took some fictional characters out of their story and wrote a completely different story from scratch.

P.S: I never read Robin Hood so I really hope I didn't just write something terribly stupid  

[Najemikon]

You're right, screenwriters tell stories, but that puts them in a powerful position. Dramatising history into a recognisable story makes it more relevant to modern audiences. They don't have to abuse it to put their own mark on it.

I read a book recently on the history of film which put each countries cinema history into context and the author described the core Hollywood style as "Romantic Realism". By which he means that the characters and the world they live in is recognisably "real" to us. But those same characters do things we are very unlikely to do, good or bad, and those events follow a convenient, almost predictable fashion, so it's "romanticised".

I would add to that and say you can break any story down into any one or a mix of the following:

Genre: where the rules of making a Western or a Film Noir dictate what a character will do and the world in which they do it in.
Drama: the characters and what they do is as real to us as possible, not even "romantic" necessarily.
Melodrama: an exaggeration of real people; a heightened reality to emphasise a point.
Romance: as with the Hollywood template, the events are somewhat contrived and characters simplified for convenience.
Fantasy: not the fairy and elves kind! Not even the porn kind. This is the sort of story where the characters embody something the writer wishes he could do. It's a debatable idea, but I would say Benjamin Button is this. It can also be a much more complicated notion used for when a character is imagining the story we're seeing and it isn't obvious to us (Adaptation, even Fellini's 8 1/2).
Metaphor: the writer constructs the story in such a way as to represent a bigger idea not directly related to the events we are watching. For example, The Godfather is actually about the failure of the American dream; Avatar is designed to be critical of US foreign policy.

So when a writer adapts a piece of history, it will almost certainly be a Metaphor so it relates or mirrors our current world because that was the most likely attraction to doing the story at all (e.g., Braveheart has a political air to it); and dramatic, possibly even Melodramatic (not in a negative sense), to emphasise that point. But to make it work as a story that entertains, it has to be romantic and possibly follow a Genre and maybe in extreme circumstances, have an element of fantasy.

Those last points are key because they mean changing things for convenience so the story flows, and as long as it represents the spirit, or the Metaphor (basically doesn't lose the point of telling the story at all), I have no problem with it if those changes are minimal. Historical characters dying too early or living longer than they should, so they can affect the central point of the story is tough but may be necessary. I've even heard of examples where two or three real people have been changed into one handy fictional character!

This is why Braveheart is one of the hardest for me to judge. They changed so much. Having the princess in the story for a love interest, which helped define Wallace's motivation and undermine the kings legacy, I can live with, even if she didn't actually visit England until after Wallace's death. What I can't stomach is the crap twist where it's implied that Wallace sired her son and therefore his blood would rule England. That's bollocks and is down to the writer putting a Fantasy element in for no-ones satisfaction, but his own. Unnecessarily controversial.

Amongst the best adaptation I have seen are:

Catch Me If You Can in which Spielberg actually toned down Frank Abagnale's con tricks so the film would run as a 50s style caper. He was apparently an airline pilot for much longer than implied, but as a story, that wouldn't have worked. It's still incredible and great fun. Spielberg of course also did Schindler's List, which I know is a controversial choice on these forums! But for me it's a perfect way of focusing attention on one small element to demonstrate an understanding of the bigger picture. Contrary to some criticisms I have read, it is not intended to belittle what happened or even be a historical document of the entire thing. He does gloss over some of Schindler's history and motivations, but the central point was emboldened for it; to demonstrate how one man can make a small difference, so if we all did that, maybe another Holocaust can be averted, etc, etc. 

Then there's The Fighter. It's in living memory and the story is already unusually convenient to fit the zero to hero Rocky template that makes it a perfect sports movie, but I'm sure a few elements were smoothed over to make it flow even better and they at least waited to see if Micky Ward was going to win his next fights so they could include them. He didn't!  But that just means they picked the major fight he did win as the conclusion.

I also recently saw Ip Man. It's the story of Bruce Lee's Master and is very likely to be full of inaccuracies, but it very cleverly disguises itself as a pure Martial Arts Genre movie, at least for the first half. That shows a very shrewd understanding of the audience. Bruce Lee fans love the style of those classic b-movies and by using it at the cost of pure accuracy, the writers were able to make a very entertaining film that honours the spirit of the man and demonstrates the point and philosophy of King Fu.

Jon you said earlier that Gladiator isn't the first Crowe movie that does this..........should we bring "Robin Hood" into the discussion ?  This is even worse than anything ever done with Arthur, they took some fictional characters out of their story and wrote a completely different story from scratch.

P.S: I never read Robin Hood so I really hope I didn't just write something terribly stupid 

I have it on Blu-Ray, but have yet to see it. I would tentatively say this might be an adaptation I find favourable, because if I've heard correctly, it's basically a prequel to the story we already know. So there's no Sheriff and Robin becomes an outlaw at the end? There are a few changes to timings of actual events I believe, but it sounds like they have kept him as an English hero and explored his motivation. Like Arthur, we don't know if he existed, but unlike the King Arthur film, they aren't undermining who he was supposed to be. On that score, I expect I will like it, but I've heard there are all sorts of other issues with it!

[Dragonfire]

I don't know a lot about the history of Robin Hood.  I know the movie with Crowe was very different from others.  It was entertaining, though some of the differences are a little odd. 

I did read some stuff about the real people after seeing The Fighter.  It sounds like there were more...umm....issues with Dickie that were left out. 

[Najemikon]

I thought the depiction of Dickie was already pretty raw. I would imagine the dynamics in the family were a lot more complicated, but that's what I mean about a good adaptation, because they didn't gloss over his problems. The guy was -and may still be- a crackhead and the story is as much about him as Micky.

[Eric]

I have no problem with it if those changes are minimal. Historical characters dying too early or living longer than they should, so they can affect the central point of the story is tough but may be necessary.

This is what this thread is alla bout.  I can accept that some historical characters, either real or fictional, are used to write stories and that sometimes they have no choice but to take some liberty with history and I'm fine with that. 

Let's get back to Gladiator for a second, Maximus never existed, as soon as you mix fictional and real characters in a movie and have interaction between them you have no choice but to twist history.  How could we expect the whole plot behind Gladiator to be true when of the characters didn't exist.

That I have no problem with.  What I dislike is when the devil gets in the details that aren't essential for the movies continuity or it's entertainment value, things like Commodus killing his father or Wallace having fathered the next king of England.

That is also the reason for some of my grief with Robin Hood.  It is sold as a prequel and therefore one would expect anything in that movie to have happened before any of the things that in the orignal Robin Hood story but that isn't the case.

They took the liberty of taking events or concepts from the original story an incorporate it in this so called prequel.  I don't want to say too much because you haven't seen it but I don't think this will spoil it for you.  In the original story, Loxley escapes prison from some country and returns to England.

Logically the prequel should end either when he leaves for the crusades or just after he's captured but it doesn't.  It begins the same way, with Loxley escaping and returning to England but they twisted the original story and it's not from the the enemy's prisons that he escapes from.  I can't say more without spoiling it but that, in my opinion, is a liberty that should not have been taken.

It's one thing to take a story and use the characters to write a prequel or a sequel, it's another thing to write a so called prequel but incorporate some of the original story.  Not only it's disrespectful to the original author and the public but it's also kind of anachronic.

[Dragonfire]

I thought the depiction of Dickie was already pretty raw. I would imagine the dynamics in the family were a lot more complicated, but that's what I mean about a good adaptation, because they didn't gloss over his problems. The guy was -and may still be- a crackhead and the story is as much about him as Micky.

It was definitely raw.  I think I had that after he got out of prison - the time shown in the movie - that he did relapse at some point, maybe a few times..that's what was left out.  I thought I read something about their mother being upset about certain things in the movie..though I may be remembering wrong.

In the new Robin Hood with Crowe, I don't remember his character being in jail and escaping.  He just returned to England after the king was killed and he was suppose to be going to check on the real Loxley's father.  I think.  I only saw it once.  Hmmm.
The movie did have King Richard dying during a battle though.  I think I read that he did die in a battle like that...unlike in other Robin Hood movies when he turned up at the end to reclaim the throne.

[Kathy]

I've become sceptical with how much of historical "facts" are actually true or accurate.

As far as movies are concerned, I don't pay that much attention to those types of details. I just go along for the ride. 

[Dragonfire]

That's probably a good attitude to have about it Kathy.

I try not to get too bothered by that stuff.  Though I will usually look some stuff up after I see a movie that is based on a true story...or historical person.  Just out of curiosity.

Even some movies that manage to stay fairly close to the real events still add other extra stuff in.  Like in the one movie about the girl surfer who was attacked by a shark.  I can't remember the name right now..  From what I read about her and the incident after the movie, it was pretty close.  They just built up a rivalry with another surfer...guess they felt they had to have a villain in the movie other than the shark that attacked her.

[Eric]

In the new Robin Hood with Crowe, I don't remember his character being in jail and escaping.  He just returned to England after the king was killed and he was suppose to be going to check on the real Loxley's father.  I think.  I only saw it once.  Hmmm.
The movie did have King Richard dying during a battle though.  I think I read that he did die in a battle like that...unlike in other Robin Hood movies when he turned up at the end to reclaim the throne.

Not to be read by those who haven't read the movie yet.

(click to show/hide)

Marie I rewatched the beginning of the movie this morning and I guess we're both a bit wrong. 

King Richard and his armies are out on the crusades.  One evening Robin and another soldier have a fight, Richard who was walking anonymously in the camp has them stopped and asks who started.  Robin said it was him who threw the first punch, the other says he thought Robin to be a lesser man and he was showing him differently.  King Richard pretends to be impressed by Robin's honestly and other man showing respect for his enemy.

He then asks them if they're honest enough to tell a king what he doesn't want to hear, asks them what they think about his crusade and if God will be happy with his sacrifice.

Robin says that he won't because of a Massacre where they killed women and children.  Richard doesn't like that and has both men arrested.

Richard dies in battle, Robin convinces a soldier to free him and his friend and then they run away.  He doesn't really escape but he doesn't simply return home either, he's a deserter.

[Dragonfire]

In the new Robin Hood with Crowe, I don't remember his character being in jail and escaping.  He just returned to England after the king was killed and he was suppose to be going to check on the real Loxley's father.  I think.  I only saw it once.  Hmmm.
The movie did have King Richard dying during a battle though.  I think I read that he did die in a battle like that...unlike in other Robin Hood movies when he turned up at the end to reclaim the throne.

Not to be read by those who haven't read the movie yet.

(click to show/hide)

Marie I rewatched the beginning of the movie this morning and I guess we're both a bit wrong. 

King Richard and his armies are out on the crusades.  One evening Robin and another soldier have a fight, Richard who was walking anonymously in the camp has them stopped and asks who started.  Robin said it was him who threw the first punch, the other says he thought Robin to be a lesser man and he was showing him differently.  King Richard pretends to be impressed by Robin's honestly and other man showing respect for his enemy.

He then asks them if they're honest enough to tell a king what he doesn't want to hear, asks them what they think about his crusade and if God will be happy with his sacrifice.

Robin says that he won't because of a Massacre where they killed women and children.  Richard doesn't like that and has both men arrested.

Richard dies in battle, Robin convinces a soldier to free him and his friend and then they run away.  He doesn't really escape but he doesn't simply return home either, he's a deserter.

(click to show/hide)

I forgot about the King arresting him for that.
Just remembered something else.... The real Robin was taking something back to England..the crown or Richard's sword..something very important.  The French were trying to get it.  Crowe's character came across the real Robin and was talked into returning the item to England..and then going to see his father - the real Robin's father.  The real Robin and the men with him had been attacked by the French.