1. Even though it seems that the movie is based on total inaccuracy, as are a lot of historical movies lately, I think everyone can agree that the point of the movie is not to be polite to the history books. It's a movie, thus it's entertainment, and if it's eccentric and entertaining it gets more money. I did wonder that if there were any recent movies that were fair to history, or if it took a trip further back in time to find ones that were. I bet myself that I wouldn't find one on a list that was made after 1990 on a legitimate looking list for historically accurate medieval movies... http://www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=5947&NLID=229. I wasn't surprised by this (minus the fact that there was one movie on the list from 1994), but I was surprised to find that people during class acted as if a movie coming out today was holding to historical myth over accuracy.
2. The reasons behind witchcraft being blamed for the black plague. The cultural beliefs of the time seemed to fit right into a myth blaming women for a mass epidemic. I found this interesting... http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-witchcraft-and-witches.htm
I realize this isn't middle ages per se, but I did want to comment that the movie Elizabeth I: the Golden Years is a fairly historically accurate movie made recently. Tudor England is a particular interest of mine, something I have been studying for a long time, and I have seen a number of movies made on the subject. Cate Blanchett does a wonderful job portraying an Elizabeth I ACCURATE to real life, instead of all this romance nonsense that usually accompanies this subject. I heard that Young Victoria, another recent film, is also quite accurate; and I know that at least two people enjoyed that film.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to another point: a year or so ago, I wrote a paper about the difference between historical fiction and what I call "fictional history." As I see it, the former puts accuracy in HISTORY first, entertainment second. The latter, as you may guess, does the opposite. This is an old, favorite rant of mine, though I'll save the details for another time and place. However, it is my firm belief that a movie can be BOTH accurate and entertaining. Real life is crazy enough: why exaggerate it even more?
~C. Erba
There's certainly something to that, and I think academics often over-react to feature films. On the other hand, so much of what people think concerning the Middle Ages is derived from films, video games, and popular literature, that I share a general frustration with a common Hollywood refusal to keep the historical accuracy to a minimum. At least, it seems that way sometimes--many times, I think to myself, "All you needed was one sentence, a throw-away line, that would add complexity without compromising your story! Why didn't you do that???"
ReplyDeleteInteresting list, though I'd quibble with some of it. "Nevsky"'s a great film, but quite distorted history, and I don't really like Umberto Ecco's view of medieval history at all. "The Mission" is a good film. One of the best "medieval" films, in my opinion, is actually "A Knight's Tale." I know, ridiculous at first glance, but the more you know of the 14th century, the better the film becomes.
I agree that the purpose of the work is important, though I'm not entirely sure of what is meant by "fictional history." That makes me think of all those books about the Knights Templar purporting to explain a secret, hitherto-untold narrative, which 9.5 times out of 10 is all hokum. Anyway, to be continued...
Of course, films rarely portray actual historical event. Some of them should be classified as fantasy movies rather than historical movies, such as characters having a machine guns that shoots out arrows and shooting laser beams out of their eyes. It is kind of sad that I have not seen any of the medival films listed on the site except for Ben-Hur. I hope this site will eventually include portrays Asian historical events.
ReplyDelete"Fictional history" is just as it sounds: an occurrence in history that has been altered so that it is no longer actually historical fact.
ReplyDeleteTo offer an example: Philippa Gregory has a line of novels and a movie out that are set in Tudor England. One of the major claims she makes is that Mary and Anne Boleyn were fighting for King Henry VIII's attention--a sort of sister vs. sister catfight over the King.
While it is true that Mary, Anne, and Henry VIII all existed, that the girls were related, and that Mary and Anne were both intimately involved with the King, that's pretty much it. Mary and Anne DID NOT fight over King Henry VIII...I do not believe that they were ever both single and at court at the same time. Mary was Henry's mistress for a time, until she became pregnant and was married off to Francis Casey. Anne joined the court as a lady-in-waiting to Katherine of Aragon later. There actually is now evidence suggesting that Anne never was Henry's mistress and that the two were married before their daughter was concieved.
What is so aggravating about this particular situation is its suggestiveness. Anne Boleyn has always been followed by rumor and suspicion, most of it either unfounded or superstitious nonsense. However, because of Gregory's novels, and their inevitable appeal due to their nature, most people neither are aware of the truth nor care to be. As a student of history, and as a "Tudorphile" from an early age, that fact is incredibly frustrating and disheartening.
To emphasize the point, though, Gregory's novels are an example of "fictional history."
~C. Erba