Ok, if you don't give a monkeys about how history is constantly misrepresented on TV or in film purely for entertainment and ratings then this thread is not for you. However, as a historian I do find this tendency particularly galling. I have recently written about a manoeuvre made by the Beeb to 'enhance' the story of a person's relative, but was shooed off that thread. For those who are miffed about broadcasters and film makers who do this far too frequently here's a place for you to comment.
Honestly, it doesn’t take much research to get it right. Nicholas Parsons was famously declined from ‘Who Do You think You Are?’ for being to boring! Excitement and story sells, like the recent ‘Gunpowder’ miniseries, which was highly biased against the British state (made a change)!
But my favourite ever ER episode was the one where nothing happened!
Sorry about the other thread Leman...
The "yesterday" WWI by the numbers had a load of mistakes in it !
IanS
Ideally, I would prefer them to get their facts straight. As mentioned above, it
shouldn't be too difficult.
I remember seeing the 1998 film of the 'Man in the Iron Mask'. Not bad adventure
story with some famous faces and included what (to me) seemed like credible French
uniforms. Anyway, the film was gliding to a satisfactory conclusion when the final
voiceover caused some seriously raised eyebrows.
The wistful voice informed us that "Louis XIV gave his people food, prosperity and peace".
Cough, splutter, serious eyebrow raising, informing beloved of Louis' many faults etc etc.
As far as I can see, there are two general issues :
a. Despite its faults, I would rather have a chance to see bad history on the screen than
not see it. I really enjoyed seeing this period being re-enacted. Might lead to more
research / buying of wargame figures etc;
b. However, my concern is that too many people will take what they see as gospel.
When this concerns a daft film, it doesn't really matter that much - it does perhaps
show how easily people can be manipulated...
Phil
Quote from: Glorfindel on 16 November 2017, 09:24:57 AM
Ideally, I would prefer them to get their facts straight. As mentioned above, it
shouldn't be too difficult.
As far as I can see, there are two general issues :
a. Despite its faults, I would rather have a chance to see bad history on the screen than
not see it. I really enjoyed seeing this period being re-enacted. Might lead to more
research / buying of wargame figures etc;
b. However, my concern is that too many people will take what they see as gospel.
When this concerns a daft film, it doesn't really matter that much - it does perhaps
show how easily people can be manipulated...
Phil
I'm with Glorfindel Phil on this.
With a lot of the 'historical' progs I sometimes get to watch.....I feel that I've actually learned something.....But then I wonder how much of a false idea of the particular period I'm getting.
I get the impression that a lot of the programmes get 'sexed up', to encourage people like yours truly to watch them.
(Historical muppets like me, anyway.)
I can certainly understand why those who have done a lot of research into a particular period, get annoyed by misrepresentations, though.
Cheers - Phil.
I'd question the excitement of Gunpowder.
In response to the question, no.
Quote from: mad lemmey on 16 November 2017, 08:56:59 AM
... like the recent 'Gunpowder' miniseries, which was highly biased against the British state (made a change)!
That's interesting. I thought it showed the plotters in a very poor light - real nutters / fundamentaloids - especially Fawkes. Their Spanish "allies" weren't much better with their snacking whilst burning people AND to cap it all they go and betray them anyway! Yes, the British manner of execution was a bit OTT, but them's the rules: firm, but cruel. At least they had HDQ down to a tee.
Very topical though: the 17th Century MI5 & Special Branch rooting out religious fanatics.
Rather enjoyed Gunpowder, I kept my teethgrinding to a minimum so as not to disturb the other half :D
Manipulation of historical fact is not limited to modern media, it's a function of control all across history. See Shakespeare, Gilgamesh, Ceaser et al.
We're perhaps just in a better position to notice, now.
Given the garbled nonsense some friends have come up with after watching things that were, in my view, reasonably accurate programmes I am increasingly of the opinion that any history is better than no history at all.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 16 November 2017, 10:23:14 AM
Given the garbled nonsense some friends have come up with after watching things that were, in my view, reasonably accurate programmes I am increasingly of the opinion that any history is better than no history at all.
Agreed! Anything is better than nothing - and we don't have to watch it. If it's not up to par simply complain to the programme makers - I do! The BBC subtly removing Germany from WW2 and replacing them with Nazis is a really frustrating.
My dear departed mother always blamed Errol Flynn for her 4% history mark! ;D
History on TV....... :-
If it purports to be a documentary take it with a pinch of salt depending on channel and revisionist/reactionary nature of the producer/director – about 1% of programming falls into this area.
If it is branded as general history and presented by a well known 'face' take with very large pinch of salt as the program will be trying to make it 'interesting' for the common people (who won't watch it anyway) – about 4% of programs fall into this area.
If it's marketed as 'historical drama' get out the beer and crisps and hope to be entertained by a cross between East Enders and Game of Thrones, because any actual historical content will be a fortuitous accident – the remaining 95% programming.
However I don't find the way TV treats history as infuriating as the way all channels treat sports like climbing. Inevitably any climbing shown on TV will be a hapless presenter being dragged up an easy climb and spending the whole time saying how hard/scary/dangerous it is.
Are you old enough to remember the BBC live broadcast of the climbing of the Old Man of Hoy. It was one of the most exciting things I can remember from childhood. On a plus point, when the Beeb made the dramatisation of Mons in 2014 they did admit that they had trouble finding a good location and that their eventual choice was very much a compromise (wrong sort of bridge, too many trees etc), but I felt gratified that they had taken the trouble to recognise that and I enjoyed the programme all the more for it.
QuoteAre you old enough to remember the BBC live broadcast of the climbing of the Old Man of Hoy. It was one of the most exciting things I can remember from childhood.
Just, it's one of my earliest TV memories, I remember being glued to the TV. Many years later I spent the winter doing some serious training and went to Hoy to climb it, unfortunately we were at the beginning of the season and it was plastered in sleet for three days, after which we got bored and went elsewhere. Probably just as well, as it's the scariest thing I've ever considered climbing.
My two main peeves in this respect:
1. Archers being given the order to "FIRE". X_X
2. Exploding cannon balls in pre-exploding cannon ball time periods. :'(
Upon seeing either of these, my Mrs will immediately leave the room shaking her head as she knows a tirade is about to ensue, generally labelling all BBC, ITV etc. script writers as r****d, f***t**d vermin who should be euthanized before they can pollute the gene pool. :d
While I find them getting simple details, as above, wrong frustrating it is the broader misinformation that I worry about more
An example is the general theme that America won the war (any war they were involved in apparently)
I remember a comment from a US based wargamer and reenactor who was dress as a British soldier at a display to mark an anniversary of D-Day. The response of several visiting the display was, "were the British involved in D-Day" ~X(
The above involves another more subtle example, "D-Day", there were thousands of D-Days but to the public one in particular is D-Day, and most of them couldn't tell you the actual date or a location much more accurate than France
I have a number of issues with all kinds of cinematic 'history'. Yes, I agree with the fact that for most WWII films of the late 60's and possibly into the early 70's there were not that many German tanks left after the war and Battle of the Bulge had to use whatever M number the tanks really were; I get the fact that they have to spice things up to make it interesting to 90% of the watching population...BUT when they deliberately get things wrong or change FACTUAL things to make it 'interesting' is where I tend to lose it a tad. Case in point -two points actually- Cromwell and U-571: there are others I could mention but these will do. Cromwell is brim-full of fiction almost from start to finish after a supposed ten year research period, and U-571 caused such an outrage over here that whoever made it had to make an apology for misleading people at the end. As far as I am concerned this is a total disregard for history. We have had centuries of interesting stuff happening but sometimes producers and researchers can't even get that right.
And don't get me started on Omar Sharif's Genghis Khan- I had to give up counting the mistakes after finding more than 25 in the first half an hour!
MickS
With every man and his dog labelled as a 'historian' these days, it ain't gonna improve. That plus the dumbing down factor.
For me, the frustration is that pretty much always the actual history is more interesting, bizarre, and exciting than the "dramatised" version we're offered.
Quote from: Chieftain on 16 November 2017, 09:34:19 PM
For me, the frustration is that pretty much always the actual history is more interesting, bizarre, and exciting than the "dramatised" version we're offered.
+1
+2
Most of us have knowledge for a particular period that would equate to degree level or better, so Open University or similar programmes may be a better option for us to watch.
The general public to which most of these things are aimed at may vaguely remember something from school, so if whatever they are watching inspires them to read, research on the internet then that is a success.
We as a group will be impossible to satisfy with mainstream programming.
Cheers
Ian
Christ, we can't even watch wargames programs without someone wincing :D
Although as that might be at the clothes as they're mainly late 70's-early 80's :D
Whilst it is a bonus if they are presented in an entertaining manner, I think we are all agreed that historical documentaries must be HONEST and educational, based on sound research and factually accurate as far as is reasonably possible.
In the case of TV dramas and movies, whilst we appreciate that the primary focus is on entertainment, ratings and profit, the worry for us history buffs is that the ordinary viewer will take the interwoven fiction as fact. This can sometimes lead to some unfortunate consequences for relations between the people of different nations in the modern world, e.g., The Patriot which portrays an atrocity - burning American civilians alive in a church - that never happened (in the AWI at any rate). Therefore, in the case of TV dramas and movies, I would like to see more HONESTY.
Where the story deviates from history into fiction, I would therefore like to see TV dramas incorporating the same kind of approach employed by Bernard Cornwell in his Sharpe novels. As fans will know, when the story is concluded, he devotes a chapter to the actual historical background, highlighting where and why he has deviated from fact into fiction in order to enhance the telling of his story. I watched Versailles on Amazon or Now TV but I understand, when first shown on TV (BBC?) that this approach was taken with each episode followed by a short documentary covering this very thing.
I do agree that actual historical events are often more fascinating and entertaining than fiction. For example, take Braveheart - a good movie but wrong in so many ways, i.e., even from the very beginning, "Scotland 1280 AD"-"The King of Scotland has died" - no he hadn't! He didn't die until 1286! For me, the actual story of William Wallace and Robert The Bruce is eminently more interesting and entertaining.
Nevertheless, where I have a basic background knowledge of events, I actually look forward to seeing how the fictitious characters interact with the actual personalities of the period and how they try to weave the fiction in with the fact (e.g., in Outlander where the characters interact with Bonnie Prince Charlie or in Turn: Washington's Spies where important historical characters are integral to the story). Of course, I'm not always satisfied by the results but, sometimes it can bring up some unexpected surprises, especially after further research by myself. For example, in the TV Series, Rome, Vorenus and Pullo are pals. Now, I used to think they were fictitious characters but, in fact, like Caesar and Pompey, etc. they were also real historical personalities but instead of Vorenus being the officer and Pullo the squaddie, both were actually centurions who are mentioned in Caesar's Gallic Wars and said to have a particular rivalry with each other!
Quote from: SV52 on 16 November 2017, 09:06:44 PM
With every man and his dog labelled as a 'historian' these days, it ain't gonna improve. That plus the dumbing down factor.
Ahh yes, who can forget "Dan Snow, a FULL historian with a whole degree in history" (Might have bene Alan Partridge, if not probably that Jonathon Pie chap).
But returning to "Should TV mess with history" - I'm wondering about the motivations for the question.
1. Pesky Doctor Who going back there and interfering.
2. Meddle all you like Television - you'll never compare with Wargamer's ability to mess with history.
People on here mess about with history, so why not the entertainment industry? :d
Because we know we are messing it about, the entertainment industry and the general public don't :P ;)
Of course they do, they know their audience is all. First mention of a detail the audiencve changes channel which impresses not the advertisers.
And the results of not tackling ignorance can be plainly seen in Brexit, Trump and Palestine. Think I'd rather have history not messed with.
Quote from: Leman on 17 June 2018, 11:20:56 AM
And the results of not tackling ignorance can be plainly seen in Brexit, Trump and Palestine. Think I'd rather have history not messed with.
Words of wisdom.
If someone understands history differently than you then they are wrong and you are right. There can be only one objective historical truth and that is the one we ourselves embrace (or a group claiming authority embraces). That’s the take away I am getting.
Pixie suggested, and I paraphrase, everyone brings magical thinking to their observations, a POV which we may not be aware of, or at best, struggle to filter out. I believe this to be the case in virtually everything we humans do. Mathematics may be the exception if all the boundary conditions are determined, and yet, even here, rigorous proofs sometimes fall apart.
All history is interpretation. The professional (and gifted amateur) historian painstakingly reconstructs from the very best data available at a fixed point in time. Things, however, can change (new data, new methods, new witnesses). As to the original question - if it is entertainment it should always be labeled as such (“yes, folks we took some dramatic liberties because we think we are better storytellers than Homer”). If it is presented as History it must be, as Westie said, scrupulously documented in a way that anyone can check the sourcing.
Congratulations if you read this far. :)
(http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/learning_from_history.jpg)
Indeed, history is something that happens to other people.
Quote from: SV52 on 18 June 2018, 11:15:22 AM
Indeed, history is something that happens to other people.
Surely it is something that 'happened' to other people? :- :- :D
Quote from: mollinary on 18 June 2018, 01:41:04 PM
Surely it is something that 'happened' to other people? :- :- :D
;D ;D
Here's another historical conundrum. Some people have set off a bomb; they are terrorists! Some women called Suffragettes set fire to letter boxes, smashed windows in churches and other things besides; weren't they wonderful - we must celebrate them.
Quote from: mollinary on 18 June 2018, 01:41:04 PM
Surely it is something that 'happened' to other people? :- :- :D
Don't blame me, it's a quote from somebody called 'Anonymous'
Quote from: Leman on 19 June 2018, 09:46:37 AM
Here's another historical conundrum. Some people have set off a bomb; they are terrorists! Some women called Suffragettes set fire to letter boxes, smashed windows in churches and other things besides; weren't they wonderful - we must celebrate them.
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." - John Harington
Why not, everyone else does?
Dr Who has been messing with history since the 60s!
Well actually since long befoe that. I remember the documentary when he went back to see Robin Hood.
Quote from: Leman on 19 June 2018, 09:46:37 AM
Here's another historical conundrum. Some people have set off a bomb; they are terrorists! Some women called Suffragettes set fire to letter boxes, smashed windows in churches and other things besides; weren't they wonderful - we must celebrate them.
They were called terrorists and worse at the time. As were the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Abolitionists and indeed anyone who threatens the status quo and the ruling elite of the time. Doesn't mean they were wrong, doesn't mean they're right. Just propaganda against change, label them as perjoratively as possible and demonise them.
Ofc that rather devalues the terms when you hit the real assholes.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 20 June 2018, 12:35:49 PM
They were called terrorists and worse at the time. As were the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Abolitionists and indeed anyone who threatens the status quo and the ruling elite of the time. Doesn't mean they were wrong, doesn't mean they're right. Just propaganda against change, label them as perjoratively as possible and demonise them.
Ofc that rather devalues the terms when you hit the real assholes.
I think leaving bombs in railway stations constitutes terrorism, you may not of course. There is an argument that the suffragettes put back women's votes for years.
Well I think we all know that it was the peaceful persistence of the Suffragists, plus the impact of women's contribution in WWI that actually got them the vote, and not the suffragettes' shenanigans.