William the Conquerer, Duke of Normandy since age seven, was around forty years old when he stormed England, taking the throne from King Harold and becoming one of medieval England’s most powerful kings. It’s one of history’s great coups that I won’t dare spoil, since a film based on William, titled 1066, is being written as we speak by Gladiator and Elizabeth: The Golden Age scribe William Nicholson.
I’m always diggy-down for a well-made, big-budget Hollywood epic. I’m a sucker for them, in fact, historical inaccuracies and all. I have never felt shame in my unwavering enjoyment of recent historical epics such as Braveheart, the Kingdom of Heaven director’s cut, and Gladiator.
These films transport me to another time and place in our world’s history (isn’t that what watching movies is all about anyway?), and while their stories may be melodramatic and completely fictionalized, the attention these well-made epics pay to the historical setting has always been enough to completely capture my attention.
While there are no directors and no stars on board yet and it has a pretty crappy title straight out of Roland Emmerich’s Handbook for Naming Movies, I’m hoping this puppy falls in the right hands. We haven’t had a great historical epic with swords and bloodshed in quite a while. I think we’re do.
Souce: Variety
I only hope that the film is more historically accurate than Braveheart. While I love historical epics, they can go too far in the liberties they take (and in my opinion Braveheart did so).
What about it bugged you so much? Or, where is the line that you draw that makes these liberties too far for you?
I ask for a few reasons. I’ve mentioned here before that I am a student of history, I am in the midst of teaching history to high schoolers right now, which obviously makes me a real history nut – yet these liberties that are taken in these films rarely bother me. That is, as long as the film contains fine acting, is well made, and most importantly captures the essence of their times. In other words, I tend to value the film on its own merits, I suppose. Although I can be more or less forgiving, depending on the time period and the amount of data and primary sources there are describing certain people, events, etc.
And this is why I will be disturbed by films such as 10,000 B.C. (which takes more liberties than any big budget “historical epic” I think I have ever seen), but I am not disturbed by Apocalypto, two films that extremely flawed historically-speaking.
I thought both Braveheart and Gladiator had laughably shoddy scripts. Bombastic and free of nuance. The films are in part saved by performances, but even that can only go so far.
“They can take our money, but they will never cure our BOREDOM!!!!”
I bet if Braveheart was in ukranian Kurt would be gushing over it.
Perhaps. But then it would be a completely different film.
historical inaccuracies do not both me.
its just adapting history to suit the cinematic drive. just like adapted a novel. you change what needs to be changed for the sake of the medium.
What bugged me about Braveheart is that it was so terribly inaccurate. In fact, its portrayal of Edward I, one of the greatest kings of England, was nearly slanderous. No such custom as primae noctis was ever practised by either the Normans or the English. Of course, I guess some might call me a hypocrite because I like a movie like, say, Brotherhood of the Wolf, which is also very historically inaccurate (I doubt 18th century Frenchmen knew the martial arts….). Where the difference comes in is that Braveheart was supposed to be a “serious” film. And sadly a lot of people believe what they see in such a films. There are probably folks out there who honestly believe William Wallace was true hearted freedom fighter (not quite true) and Edward Longshanks a total tyrant (not true at all) all because of Braveheart!
I’ve never had huge issues with historical inaccuracies in film – they’re not history lessons; they’re meant to entertain (though a good one should do both and do it well). That said, I saw an episode of The Big Bang Theory last nigh with a little opening rant that fits nicely in here, if not directly about movies. Colleen will particularly appreciate this:
Yeah, I agree with Mercurie in that the real problem is dumb people who believe everything they see without ever checking to see if what they’re watching is true.
Exactly, Andy. I also have a problem with Cinderella Man and its portrayal of Max Baer. I realise that movies must be entertaining, but I believe that they can do so without rewriting history!