B.A.: Movies about historical events, when they aren’t completely fanciful, tend to play fast-and-loose with facts, creating characters and scenes out of whole cloth. Sometimes the changes are cringe-worthy, as with Clint Eastwood’s horrifying libel of journalist Kathy Scruggs last year, or crediting Churchill’s resolve to stand up to Hitler to a chance encounter in the Underground with a ten-year-old girl (which I believe was discussed, for some reason, right here).
So my question is: Can anybody name an historical (or biographical) film that stuck completely to the facts, at least in every meaningful way?
Comics I Don't Understand 
I asked Hubby to comment, as he is both a history and a movie buff. His comment [to me], so far:
This may have been kicked off by the fact that ‘Gone with the Wind’ has just been removed/suspended from Netflix or the movie channels catalog/choices “until they can add some context” and return it.
It’s unbelievable people couldn’t understand that a movie about the United States Civil War (which was about slavery) would need additional explanation and context regarding racism.
——–
Is this why the question was asked, or is he out in left field?
Sign me, Just Curious
To misquote Godard, film is “Truth, 24 times a second.”
Tora! Tora! Tora! was rather exact as I recall. Patton was probably pretty close, maybe aside from rearranging events and having a not-entirely-positive view of the subject. Perhaps there was a shift from “tell a story” into “provide a journey”? This was the criticism levied on Lord of the Rings…
From what I’ve read about it, Spotlight is supposed to be very close to what really happened
The 2006 historical drama The Queen, about the death of Princess Diana, may seem an odd choice, because it’s about Queen Elizabeth’s inner life, which was information not available to the screenwriter. However, its consistency with the known facts is impressive. The only inaccuracy of which I am aware is that two minor supporting characters (the queen’s secretary and assistant secretary) were conflated into one.
Last year’s “1917” did a good job portraying WW I. Bloody futility from top to bottom.
I would broaden the subject to story-telling in general: I have realized that I have reached a point where I can no longer suspend my disbelief in most all basic stories, they are almost all paint-by-number cliche-ridden tropes that have no verisimilitude whatsoever: there is nothing to learn about anything, because they don’t follow even basic reality — it is as if a Martian is the final script editor of all our stories. Fresh as Scandinavian Noir was, I can’t — especially now, with the failures of our policing blaring in the news — watch anymore, as utterly insane depictions of basically functional societies are somehow shoe-horned — longingly! — to be like the worst of our worst failed inner cities — they’re not even doing it ironically or anything! It just doesn’t fly! When one episode of an Icelandic show has more murders than that nation has seen in the last decade, I cannot take any of the story seriously anymore. Show us how better policing is done, don’t just ape our bad practices back to us!
I can’t watch gangster stories anymore, because they seem to be stuck glorifying the lifestyle, to the point that they invent stuff that never could happen, and instead of pointing a way to fix the inevitable sociopath society will throw out, they glorify it and revel in it and totally escape any actual reality. I recently saw a Japanese / English crossover, and then started a historical British gangster epic (where none of the top star actors are actually from the region whose accent they affect, so not even that slight bit of verisimilitude going for it), none of which in any way compelled me, stirred me, or otherwise made me think that this was just a gargantuan waste of talent and effort.
I’m now watching an “intelligent” spy drama, which, aside from the problems updating a story obviously written for the 70s into the 21st century with cell phones and ubiquitous tracking, you realize that most spy writers are incredibly deficient human beings who can’t write realistic characters because they obviously never actually met any actual human beings. As for women characters — forget it! And the hero always is some kind of midlife-crises red sports car macho man who has women falling for him left and right for no good reason, and who bumbles along, doing the most stupid of idiotic things, that if it weren’t for the heavy hand of the writer forcing the plot along, would have him revealed and killed in short order. And this one has top of the top A actors mouthing this idiotic pantomime, which actually makes it even worse, because sometimes the actor manages astoundingly to make the character seem real and human — despite the script — but then some heavy handed plot contrivance makes that character do something so stupid and unfathomable that you wish the character had just stayed one dimensional to lessen the jarring disconnect.
All that being said, to the topic, I have to call out “Band of Brothers”, which I recently rewatched — the level of accuracy to the actual history is remarkable in that series. Yes, you will get the kind of kvetching by history nerds to the tune of “I would never wear those pants!”, but I was impressed by how well it stuck to actual events and actual people.
I don’t know, but I’ve heard that “A Night To Remember” was pretty much accurate.
Selma, 100% (or pretty close to it). https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/based-on-a-true-true-story/
I recall “Dances With Wolves” arriving with much fanfare declaring how much work was put into historical accuracy, only to hear griping over the years since, so I don’t know what to think of historical films these days. If I want historical facts I can read a history book.
And then even documentaries can get things wrong, as style-over-substance programming on The History Channel over the years has shown.
I have seen two episodes of the Comedy Central series “Drunk History”, and while the visuals may play fast and loose with historical accuracy, the stories are based around actual facts.
The really scary part is how “historic” fictional treatments sometimes replace the real history, in the way people “remember” the events “actually” happening. Shakespeare’s “histories” were filled with effusive complementary handling of the reigning monarch and his predecessors, and his version of the events surrounding the death of Caesar is given equal (or better) footing than anything written by a contemporary commentator. One wonders whether 50 or 100 years from now, will the story about Apollo 13 be told in Jim Lovell’s voice from the NASA tapes (assuming they haven’t disintegrated or been erased), or will Tom Hank’s voice from the movie soundtrack prevail?
P.S. @ Grawlix – A long while back I saw the beginning of a WWII film on The History Channel. Despite the nastiest sort of racist characterizations and obvious propaganda, it was presented as straight “history”, without any sort of explanation as to why it was allowable for such a movie to “play fast and loose with historical accuracy“. If the History Channel cannot be bothered to provide adequate background when dumping that kind of tripe on the viewing public, then they are just as reprehensible as the original propagandists.
Hubby’s nominations:
“Flags of Our Fathers” (2006)
“Das Boot” (1981)
“Tora! Tora! Tora!” (1970)
“Schindler’s List” (1993)
“12 Years a Slave” (2013)
“The Pianist” (2002)
“Downfall” (2004)
“Letters from Iwo Jima” (2006)
Andréa, I read “12 Years a Slave,” and there was very little other than the general premise that rang true. So unless the movie (which I didn’t see) was somehow more faithful to reality…
Apollo 13 was pretty a pretty accurtae presentation with a only few minor tweaks for dramtic and storytellin purposes.
My understanding is that Schindler’s List was pretty accurate. (This page has a list of inaccuracies, nothing stands out as too terrible.)
Hubby writes:
An adaptation of the 1853 slave memoir Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup, a New York State-born free African-American man who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. by two conmen in 1841 and sold into slavery. Northup was put to work on plantations in the state of Louisiana for 12 years before being released.
The first scholarly edition of Northup’s memoir, co-edited in 1968 by Sue Eakin and Joseph Logsdon, carefully retraced and validated the account and concluded it to be accurate.
Other characters in the film were also real people, including Edwin and Mary Epps, and Patsey.
One person takes umbrage with a detail in the movie missing in the book about an attemped raped of a female slave by a sailor, an interfering male slave was stabbed and killed by that sailor.
The complaint was slaves were brought over as property and sailors would never damage cargo. Which completely ignores the fact when was slavery running was declared illegal by the British (1833) crews would throw entire coffles of slaves off ships when suspected and pursued by the British Navy (in order to lighten the ship and not to have any evidence onboard), much like drug smugglers do today.
I’ve heard that Zodiac was quite accurate, to the point that it actually had an absence of any satisfactory character arc.
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/entertainment/hbo-max-temporarily-removes-gone-with-the-wind-will-add-historical-context
I second larK’s characterization of the formulaic movies. When I was a child, we were going to see a movie as a family (hah! Remember those old days?) and I asked, “Grampa, don’t you want to come and see a movie with us?”. His reply was “No, honey, I’ve seen a movie.” Now I understand what he meant.
When I saw “Tora Tora Tora” written here, my whole body went, “THAT one.”
Goodfellas – from what I understand, apart from name changes, everything in the movie really happened pretty much as depicted.
larK, I think at one point in your blast you omitted an intended negative. The suggested edit:
none of which in any way compelled me, stirred me, or otherwise made me think that this was notjust a gargantuan waste of talent and effort.
Andréa, because I believe curiosity should, whenever possible, be encouraged…
The question came from a friend of mine ranting, as she periodically does, about the Eastwood-Scruggs thing.
I really like Apollo 13, but it frustrates me that they used (and popularized) the “Houston, we have a problem” misquote.
Thanks Mitch, I indeed omitted that negative, it’s been bothering me since, but I didn’t want to be too self-indulgent and correct it, especially as I didn’t catch it immediately, and a bunch of other posts were already up after it (it didn’t immediately appear after I posted it, so there were already two or three posts after it when it finally showed…)
I had to look up the “Houston” problem. Wikipedia has an interesting explanation by screenwriter William Broyles Jr. It seems to me that the difference in tense is not that significant.
Seems significant to me: one way it’s a non-issue that’s been handled, while the other way it’s “Ruh-roh, something’s wrong that Ron Howard’s going to make a movie about someday.”
(Though of course the latter turned out to be the case)
I actually interviewed Lovell many years ago, and he said he had no idea until days after he came home that he’d been misquoted in the public mind.
(And then of course the film cemented it)
Robert says –
“Gettysburg” was very close to accurate with only a few details off.
Pieces of “Gods and Generals” is also correct in pieces.
“The Patriot” (a movie so bad and inaccurate that many 18th century reenactors will spit when it is mentioned) had very accurate battle scenes in general, while not necessarily matching specific battles shown.
“Revolution” – has pieces of fairly accurate 18th century military camp life and NYC under British occupation. Pacino’s New Yawk accent had been faulted – but apparently was the accent then as the accent comes from the Dutch having owned New Amsterdam and still living here under the British. (Long Island/NYC was the longest, continually occupied location of the entire American Revolution. Occupation started with the British victory at the Battle of Long Island/Battle of Brooklyn (same battle goes by both names) at the end of August 1776 and continues until the literal last ship of British Military leaves for home in November 1782. Our unit participates in a memorial with a small battle reenactment the last Sunday in August in memory of the battle and of the Colonial prisoners who died on the British ships in the harbor – approximately where the Verranzano Bridge now enters over Brooklyn. The British ships which came in for this campaign is supposed to have been the large armada since Spain fought Britain in the 16th century. )
Barry Lyndon – while not accurate in it’s fictional story, shows life in the British Army fairly correctly during the 18th century.
John Adam mini series – some but not all – in particular shows accurately how small pox vaccine was administered. Also shows Adams sleeping in a box/cabinet bed while in France – the house we interpret at the December candlelight nights has one of same (though modern reconstruction) and those who are not staying in first person at our event will tell people to see same in the series to see how a bed like this is used.
Sure he will come up with more and will post.
We agree about “1917”.
Meryl
Bill, I wouldn’t say the use of “had” means “it’s a non-issue that’s been handled.” It could mean that, but it could also just refer to the fact that one specific problem just occurred. It doesn’t necessarily commit either way to whether that one problem will mean more problems in the future.
Of course, “have a problem” does commit one way, so there is still a difference.
I did not mean to imply that “Apollo 13” was not a “good” film; it certainly made a conscientious effort to present an accurate picture of the events, given the constraints of telescoping a seven-day mission into about one hour of screen time. In comparing the voices of Lovell vs. Hanks, I did not mean the tense of the verb(*), but rather the artistic license that the scriptwriters took in “dramatizing” some of the conversations (both in orbit and on the ground).
P.S. (*) – It doesn’t seem realistic to demand precise grammatical accuracy from an actor or an astronaut acting under stress in an emergency. The situation is remarkably similar to a more famous mistake, in Armstrong’s description of “…one small step for man…“. Everyone knows that he meant to say “…for A man…”, but the fact remains that he did not, and no amount of retroactive signal analysis can inject the missing “a” into the tapes.
I don’t expect much from a film about historical events. If it’s a particularly large event, who’s to even say what’s factual? World War II, for example, when used as a backdrop is simply a setting, not a subject. The little story of a few people may or may not have happened and it doesn’t matter.
More complicated is when a film addresses very specific things that are fundamental. You can’t f*** with them. I wouldn’t want to see a movie set during the War which denies the Nazi death camps. Or, for that matter, look at The Great Escape, which stars mostly USA actors when almost all of the planners and escapees were British or other Allies.
When a film purports to be a biography, those are most troublesome to me as they usually take huge liberties with the characters to fit public perception and sell tickets. While I haven’t seen it, I’d bet that “Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom” doesn’t address the terrorist campaign of bombings he led. “Erin Brockovich” is questionable when it comes to the science and doesn’t mention that the huge settlement awarded was…mismanaged is a charitable word. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/16/film.artsreviews
I have written for a living and am fortunate enough to be doing that again. While most of my writing is non-fiction, I also write some fiction (more hobby than profession). And one piece of advice I’ve learned and give to anyone in the story-telling business is “Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story”. You have to have a narrative that works, unless you’re doing a simple list of events. In storytelling, telling the story comes first. But if it’s a true story, you have a duty to represent the major points accurately and to not deliberately misrepresent things.
With all of that said, as a viewer, I think it’s my duty to inform myself about anything I care about that I saw in a film.
Finally, I think there is a desire to make as anodyne a film as possible so as not to alienate anyone. LIke in Forest Gump, when Tom Hanks speaks at the anti-Vietnam War rally but the microphone cuts out so you can’t hear anything he says. No danger of winding up on anyone’s -hitlist. It’s like how politicians in USA have for decades have pretended that the Confederate flag isn’t racist because they want racists to vote for them. Self-interest and money will come in almost all cases.
Documentaries, though, are a particularly misleading format. They range from playing it fairly straight to being a bag od lies and distortions. It can be very hard to tell them apart. I think the important thing to understand with those is that a documentary is a constructed narrative as well. The director has chose what to include, what to leave out, how to order it and how to weave it together. I’m not opposed to this. History books, magazines, and radio shows do the same. It’s only when a director or author tells me they are “unbiased” and “objective” that I call bullshit on the whole thing. NOBODY is any of those things. The best you can ask for is that they work to keep their own biases from distorting the bits that are supposed to be factual. As a viewer, it’s my responsibility to ask the question I always ask “Who benefits from this story being told?” Then, if I’m interested enough, I’ll look into details on my own.
TL;DR: Dude, don’t you have something else to do?
Oh, and a film I would say is largely accurate in the ways that matter is “The Longest Day”. It was made long enough after World War II to have some context, but many of those involved–in the executive suites, behind the camera, and on screen–had served and, I think, felt a certain duty to commemorate things with some accuracy while telling a dramatic story.
I had to look up the Scruggs story and am appalled but not surprised. Given his power and politics, Mr. Eastwood needed a villain and there are no greater villains than journalists in the eyes of rich and powerful. “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations”, right?
@CIDUBill
That beats me. The most famous person I have ever interviewed was Bruce Schneier. I’ve spoken to a couple of astronauts, but never interviewed one.
@MerylA
I want to spit when I hear about it, despite not being a reenactor and not having seen it, but that’s because of Mel Gibson being a nutbar hyper-religious, homophobic, anti-semitic, convicted violent criminal piece of garbage.
Vaccination was not in use at the time of the Revolution. Are you perhaps thinking of variolation?
@SingaporeBill
At least the movie explicitly acknowledges that it’s a fictionalization, not a retelling of history.
Bombings? The ANC practiced necklacing. Winnie Mandela bragged about it.
Kilby: “Everyone knows that he meant to say ‘…for A man…’…”:
Not everyone know that, because as a kid, that sentence confused the heck out of me. Teachers kept insisting that it made sense (without the “a”), even as I protested that he was just saying the same thing twice. It wasn’t until decades later that I found out there was a missing “a.” (IIRC, others here had similar experiences.) [*]
I agree that it’s not realistic to demand precise grammatical accuracy from Lowell under those conditions, but I wonder if he was inaccurate. It seems to me that at the time he made the statement, he didn’t know for sure if the specific problem that had occurred would reberverate to future complications, and so it was grammatically reasonable to not commit. Perhaps those more knowledgable about space exploration can say if that’s true or not.
[*] I’m still bothered to this day by the “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” in the most common formulation of the Miranda warning.
Thank you, WW, I had a similar reaction to Kilby’s summary, and a similar recollection of people insisting (back then, and some not too long ago either!) that there was nothing at all wrong with it without the “a”.
I have a niece named Miranda, and when it seems she’s going to get mad about something, family members will caution the offender “Uh-oh, you’re getting a Miranda warning!”.
I remember the director of the TV Movie “The Atlanta Child Murders” (the 1985 version) claimed he tried to do as little fictionalizing as possible — no events were rearranged or created from scratch, no new characters were invented, no composite characters were created from multiple real people, etc. The most fictionalizing was creating dialogue. He called this new form “docudrama”
Since then, the definition of “docudrama” has changed to mean “A historical drama based on recent history”. To bad we lost the original meaning, but so it goes…
Also, people (mainly in Atlanta’s government, it seems) still complained about the accuracy of the movie. Obviously, even if you strive for accuracy in details, a movie can still be slanted in one direction or another by choosing what to include and what to leave out..
Then there are the people who claim there was a transmission glitch which ate the “a”. But if you listen for yourself, you’ll hear that there wasn’t a glitch.
The best apologia I ever read for Armstrong was someone making the case that it was his Ohioan accent, in which the article tends to get elided into its noun, and deemphasized and destressed, so the voice activated mic would have been ever so slightly late in coming on as he said: “That’s .. one .. small step … for ..ǝman…” I can almost convince myself to hear it, but yeah, no, he flubbed his line.
Mitch4: Do people also insist to you that “and will” makes sense in the Miranda warning? (Or perhaps that doesn’t bother you, and this is just my idiosyncratic pet peeve.)
Re Amrstrong: I believe Armstrong himself has listened to the recording and concluded that he misspoke.
Tora! Tora! Tora! was amazingly accurate, down to the little slice-of-life scenes in Honolulu on December 7. I was floored to learn that the flight instruction episode actually happened.
Re: “an historical….”
I approve.
I came here to reply to WW on Miranda warning, and I see my reply from this morning is still in moderation. I just said I have a niece with that name, and when she gets steamed friends and family will say “Miranda warning!”.
To reply to Winter 3:29PM, yes, I think there is a slight awkwardness in the standard phrasing, but I don’t notice or discuss it much. I put it roughly in the same bucket with my broader fixation on a certain set of non-parallel constructions involving mis-parsed coordinate construction. Last time I tried to discuss it here I got blasted by our legal friend from the Pacific Northwest over the sins of being prescriptivist, and it kind of spoiled the fun.
But more on a subject-matter tangent, I realized I have been watching too much British police drama when I noticed I knew their standard Caution just about as well as the US Miranda one. “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” The “may be” is indeed better than the “can and will” that WW notes. But overall this is a gross contradiction — you have the right to remain silent, but you better not exercise it!
There was a quite interesting docudrama mini-series recently called “A Confession” and starring the ever-flexible Martin Freeman, exploring issues around the Caution and the related PACE rules they have. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9131050/reference
[Arlo Warning!]
Have sober investigators checked and either verified or debunked the Armstrong-related story about the neighbor’s blowjob request to his wife?
Mitch4: The British version doesn’t seem contradictory to me. You’re don’t have to talk, and you don’t have to remain silent, but be aware that whatever your decision, it could have repercussions in court.
Re neighbor: Snopes labels it false.
I just read a Robert Matson editorial cartoon where a woman with an iPhone camera is telling the police “You have the right to remain professional. Anything you do can and will be shared on social media.” (rollcall.com/2020/06/10/capitol-ink-miranda-rights-for-cops/)
I feel the “will” in the Miranda warning is sinister. “Can” suggests that I should be careful because they can use what I say against me. “Will” seems to suggest that no matter how innocent my statements, they’ll find some way to use them against me. “You say your name is ‘Arthur’? We *will* use that statement against you, somehow.”
Mitch, Kowalski wasn’t the only joke Uncle Irv loved to tell.
Arthur: That’s exactly my problem with the “and will.” It doesn’t make sense (unless they’re out to convict me no matter what). Apparently even if I give them an airtight alibi, they’re going to find some way to use it against me.
Okay, Arthur and Winter, now I see what you mean about that “and will”; and I agree.
WW: “Apparently even if I give them an airtight alibi, they’re going to find some way to use it against me.”
Yes.
(The Miranda case just made them have to admit what they were going to do, and warn you about it; sadly: never talk to the police — ask “am I under arrest?” If no, ask if you are free to go, if yes, go, if no, goto beginning; if yes, say “I want a lawyer” and shut up.)
larK: It may be true that it’s wise to never to talk to the police. However, the intended meaning of the message is not actually supposed to be that whatever you say will somehow be used against you in a court of law, even if it’s irrelevant or exculpatory.
WW: Yes, I know, but it’s funny how even if it wasn’t what was originally intended, it is indeed what is actually true…
Carl Fink –
We were finishing up our night time snack before going to bed somewhere around 3 am –
Of course it should been variolation – thank you for the correction.
I recall that in my childhood you could show your “vaccination scar” which was a little rough patch. Some vaccines were used not by simple hypodermic injection (or, soon, oral administration), but by scratching on skin were the liquid was beaded.
@ Mitch4 – The classic vaccination scar (usually on the upper left shoulder) was caused by the normal reaction (blisters & scab) to the smallpox injection, not by scratching.
Thanks for adding that, Kilby.
I did a little more reading, and I think each of us may be half right. You are right that the characteristic scar is caused by the body’s response to the vaccine, not directly to scratching or multiple pricking of tiny needles. But I am right that there was a special technique, not the usual muscle-penetrating hypodermic needle. Some of these articles talk about “bifurcated needle”. This Canadian one does not mention that, but does say “The smallpox vaccine was given by a special technique that caused a blister which formed a scab and when the scab fell off, it left a scar (usually in the deltoid area of the upper arm).” https://immunizebc.ca/ask-us/questions/what-was-vaccine-left-large-scab-on-upper
HAPPENED TO SEE THIS TODAY . . .