Foo - historical accuracy of movies

anybody know how to find out about the historical accuracy of movies such as moulin rouge and the costumes?

Costumes are always historically inaccurate. You can't put a modern woman in a corset when she's never worn one in her life, and expect her to move with it the same way a woman of that day and age would have. Men's costumes have the same problem, but not quite to the same degree.

It may LOOK accurate, but it's not.

East Hill

so your saying that the costume designer researched everything well, and that the innacuracies were do too the actors not the designer?

In general, assume a movie is inaccurate until proven otherwise.

so your saying that the costume designer researched everything well, and that the innacuracies were do too the actors not the designer?

Designers can research the heck out of the costumes, but whoever's in charge of the production can come in and say:

"I don't CARE how modest women were in those days, I paid for Angelina Jolie to have a low cut outfit and BY GOLLY I'm going to HAVE a low cut outfit. Just GIVE her the lowcut outfit."

So, not necessarily the actors, but there are a lot of people in a movie production who have a finger in the pie. Also, standards of beauty have changed over the years. Just because people today may think that Hepzibah Doofus (not a real person, just in case any of you look) is a real stunner now, doesn't mean that she was one 'back in the day'.

For instance, do you find Clara Bow attractive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Bow

How about Mae West?

http://www.bombshells.com/gallery/west/west_gallery.php

East Hill

anybody know how to find out about the historical accuracy of movies such as moulin rouge and the costumes?

You know the parts where everyone spontaneously breaks out into song?

Not historically accurate.

The one movie I know of that strove to be realistic was the Great Escape. They had people who were really there supervising to insure accuracy.

The one movie I know of that strove to be realistic was the Great Escape. They had people who were really there supervising to insure accuracy.

All movies do that...

Designers can research the heck out of the costumes, but whoever's in charge of the production can come in and say:

"I don't CARE how modest women were in those days, I paid for Angelina Jolie to have a low cut outfit and BY GOLLY I'm going to HAVE a low cut outfit. Just GIVE her the lowcut outfit."

So, not necessarily the actors, but there are a lot of people in a movie production who have a finger in the pie. Also, standards of beauty have changed over the years. Just because people today may think that Hepzibah Doofus (not a real person, just in case any of you look) is a real stunner now, doesn't mean that she was one 'back in the day'.

For instance, do you find Clara Bow attractive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Bow

How about Mae West?

http://www.bombshells.com/gallery/west/west_gallery.php

East Hill


Actually yes, but your point still stands. One has to remember they were both goddesses in their day.

Oh and I can't view the Mae West link, firewall settings at work.

And Betty Paige is still hot as h3ll.

Blade Runner was historically accurate. But only the directors cut version.

In general, assume a movie is inaccurate until proven otherwise.

I would agree. I know a few people in the industry. The really funny part is they seem to care the most about things I find the least important. or perhaps I should say least linked to the story. Let's say it is about a politician in 1956. They will ***** a brick over a 1957 chevy being in the film. But not blink at all over adding a campaign manager who did not exist and making him a major character, changing the guys marital status and the district he represents.

Across the Universe was very accurate for the years 1966 - 1970. I especially thought the draft board physical was dead on accurate, brought back a flood of memories.

All movies do that...

Like "Animal House"? :eek:

How about Terminator? :p

[edit] further review shows that I was beat to the punch line. Curses!!! Also, I think "The Great Escape" was an outstanding movie.

The one movie I know of that strove to be realistic was the Great Escape. They had people who were really there supervising to insure accuracy.

Let's see.

In the real world no American actually escaped from the camp. (Almost all Americans had been transfered before the breakout. There were at most a handful left, likely due to country of enlistment bot being the U.S.)

There was no mad dash on a motorcycle.

If there had been it sure would not have been on the model shown. (Would have been a nice trick to have a 1960s bike in WW II).

There are other details like getting the entrances to the tunnels wrong.

Oh and it seems the murder of about 50 of those who escaped was not a mass killing, but carried out 3 and 4 at a time.

Typical of the 'trying' for accuracy.

All movies do that...

Of course movies are fact! Ronald Reagan (before your time) used to quote them in his speeches. :rolleyes:

Dreadful

U-571: 2000 movie based (very loosely) on real events, but totally rewritten to appeal to the American audiences, by suggesting that the Americans (rather than the British) captured a vital Enigma machine early in the war (in actuality the event was before the Americans joined the war) and for the negative portrayal of German U-boat crews.


Brilliant

Das Boot: 1981 movie based (very accurately) on real events reported by a war correspondent on the German submarine U-96.


For further information on a couple of events common to both films, see Laconia Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident).

- Wil

What I want to know is how historically accurate National Treasue is . . . slim chance, yes, but any accuracy like the president's book.

So inaccurate, they probably misspelled the director's name.

Actually yes, but your point still stands. One has to remember they were both goddesses in their day.

Oh and I can't view the Mae West link, firewall settings at work.

And Betty Paige is still hot as h3ll.

Exactly!

They were all (and to many, still are) goddesses.

But if you try to re-create Clara Bow now, you simply won't succeed. We haven't been raised in that time period, and can't just 'be' those people.

And who would even want to try to re-create Mae West or Betty Paige?

I know I have often thought that I could try riding a bicycle in a long skirt, but because I have not been raised to handle long, unwieldy lengths of material, it just would not feel or look natural. Still, it's an interesting thought.

East Hill

Let's see.

In the real world no American actually escaped from the camp. (Almost all Americans had been transfered before the breakout. There were at most a handful left, likely due to country of enlistment bot being the U.S.)

There was no mad dash on a motorcycle.

If there had been it sure would not have been on the model shown. (Would have been a nice trick to have a 1960s bike in WW II).

There are other details like getting the entrances to the tunnels wrong.

Oh and it seems the murder of about 50 of those who escaped was not a mass killing, but carried out 3 and 4 at a time.

Typical of the 'trying' for accuracy.

Yes some of it was hollywooded, but there was a guy there that was there who insured small details were kept accurate, like tunnel size.

Of course movies are fact! Ronald Reagan (before your time) used to quote them in his speeches. :rolleyes:

That's not what i said. Yay, lets turn this into a cyber penis measurement.

I said all movies hire experts to help achieve a level of accuracy, especially historical driven movies. That doesn't mean they are accurate.

Well, they didn't have zippers, and the leather outfits of the Barbarians aren't smelly OR lice infested, so no, not historically accurate ;)

Well, they didn't have zippers, and the leather outfits of the Barbarians aren't smelly OR lice infested, so no, not historically accurate ;)

:roflmao:

By the way, costume design in movies has been a passion of mine for many years--I have several books on the subject.

East Hill

Rock n' roll movies are the worst. So many non-period instruments.

Costumes are always historically inaccurate. You can't put a modern woman in a corset when she's never worn one in her life, and expect her to move with it the same way a woman of that day and age would have. Men's costumes have the same problem, but not quite to the same degree.

Men in corsets do have the same problem.
Seemingly accurate--at least with respect to men's corsets--and on topic regarding historic accuracy: Topsy Turvy.
Hard for me to judge, but Marie Antoinette and Amadeus costumes were both convincing.

Oh, and in a few decades, identified as an accurately-costumed period film will be Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

For instance, do you find Clara Bow attractive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Bow


Very.

Late's suggestion is don't trust their accuracy. I agree. Still movies can give an accurate snaphot of the past if they have done their research. Wish there was a website that talked of the historical research done on the part of movie directors. / Example of a movie, I'd like to think accurate. One of our favorite movies, "Chaplin" with the leading role done by Robert Downey Jr. Brilliant movie. I'd like to think it well researched.

You have a good point, a good movie can be a window onto a lost world.
Helps if you know a bit about the situation so you don't buy a load of crap.
I loved Charlie Wilsons War. It uses the CIA as a prop. But it does so to highlight
what Charlie did. If he hadn't had a fanatically anti-Communist president who had appointed a lunatic to the head the CIA, it would have never happened like that. But it's not a documentary. Republicans these days go to such great lengths to avoid the truth, it's not like it would make a difference. And if they have the common sense given to a dog, by the end of the movie they know we screwed up massively.

There are books aplenty if you want to get closer to the truth; but damn few movies as
poignant and funny as that one. I had tried for years to raise awareness of how we got into this mess. The movie accomplished that task effortlessly.

And Betty Paige is still hot as h3ll.

+1000000000000

Men in corsets do have the same problem.
Seemingly accurate--at least with respect to men's corsets--and on topic regarding historic accuracy: Topsy Turvy.
Hard for me to judge, but Marie Antoinette and Amadeus costumes were both convincing.

Oh, and in a few decades, identified as an accurately-costumed period film will be Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

Admittedly, some films do come VERY close in accuracy.

One reason we can find people attractive in Marie Antoinette and Amadeus is because those characters came close to our perception of beauty in modern times. They used makeup, for one thing. Most of us would not find American women in the 1840s through 1860s as especially attractive, because the hairstyles were 'ugly', and there was no use of makeup. Yet, those same women were found to be highly attractive in their time.

East Hill

Very.

Don't forget, she was a redhead, too :D .

East Hill

Yes some of it was hollywooded, but there was a guy there that was there who insured small details were kept accurate, like tunnel size.

As I said before they worry about things that don;t really matter and simply do not care about things that do. They will manage to get unit insignias right, but for a unit that was 1000s of miles away or disbanded at the time.

In short they choke on gnats while swallowing camels.

Don't forget, she was a redhead, too :D .

East Hill

I know, redheads=dead sexy.

Brilliant

Das Boot: 1981 movie based (very accurately) on real events reported by a war correspondent on the German submarine U-96.




- Wil

..

anybody know how to find out about the historical accuracy of movies such as moulin rouge and the costumes?

The first step in researching historical accuracy of movies is to check the box and see if the name "Jerry Bruckheimer" appears anywhere. If so, you can bet that it takes the basic context and sometimes actual participants of a historical event like oh say, Pearl Harbor, creates a painfully unbelievable storyline replete with cheesy cliches, and markets it as "the personal story of real events" or some other such tripe. As far as scenic accuracy...well, Hollywood has an entire industry devoted to getting costumes right, but it should be telling how much faith you can put in the production crew when you note that the Japanese were bombing Aegis cruisers, a type of ship that didn't exist until the mid 1980's.

/Rant

A good start for movies that are either historical or rely heavily historical elements is actually wikipedia. There's lots of nerds who nitpick movies, and that's one of the easiest places to look for glaring errors.

There's also nitpickers.com, but a lot of that is production technicalities like "He was holding his cigarette in his left hand before the camera cut and in his right hand after."

And then there's always google "movie name accuracy". I did this once for Band of Brothers, which is actually superbly accurate and was surprised at how much info I found. Things like, "The hedgerows in this scene are too short, more like English hedgerows than the french hedgerows they actually encountered," or "the men actually would've been issued tan, rather than olive jackets by the time of that battle."

You know the parts where everyone spontaneously breaks out into song?

Not historically accurate.

:roflmao:

Exactly!

They were all (and to many, still are) goddesses.

But if you try to re-create Clara Bow now, you simply won't succeed. We haven't been raised in that time period, and can't just 'be' those people.
East Hill

And even if you could recreate them and make them be those people - they would speak to an audience who did not understand or appreciate them because they are not of "our" generation.

I said all movies hire experts to help achieve a level of accuracy, especially historical driven movies. That doesn't mean they are accurate.

That's true. I actually had an opportunity recently to act in a National Geographic documentary (or docu-drama, whatever you want to call it). I assume their screenwriters researched the events fairly carefully and there were a couple technical experts on hand who served on the types of submarines we were covering, but I saw quite a few inaccuracies that were either due to limited resources*, attempts to add drama or create busywork, genuine uncertainty about the actual events, or just plain that they didn't care for minor details.


* Like the fact that we were filming on a diesel-electric submarine while the actual incidents took place on nuclear-powered boats. The "Hazard - Radiation" signs the producer had put up in the engine room were an amusing touch. :rolleyes: