View Single Post
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 22nd January 2011, 20:37
apict's Avatar
apict apict is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, usa
Posts: 50
Historically accurate movies? Maybe not - if you're talking 100% truth. But unless the film/book or whatever claims to be 100% true, I'm thinking MAYBE that's not such a big deal. Braveheart was not 100% true, agreed. One could "pick lots of nitts" with it. But there was truth in it. And it tells a great story: perhaps even a story that captures some of the true feelings experienced by people of the day. Clearly some of those scenes were based on speculation. But I think that some of that speculation was consistent with feelings/emotions/thoughts of the day (like the betrayal felt by Wallace upon discovering that he was battling against Robert the Bruce - the scene likely never happened (and I don't remember hearing the name of DeMoray being mentioned at all - could be wrong about that) but certainly aristocrats like Bruce did NOT support the cause of Wallace and DeMoray). So even if not "totally accurate", I think that films like "Braveheart" are historically relevant. Certainly, though, I agree that "Braveheart" style facts need to be checked before being claimed as truth.
However, historical truth is not always apparent. Some facts can be confirmed. But much of history was written by those with the power to slant "the facts" in ways they saw as serving their own purposes. How much of what we "know" about Prince Charlie is truth and how much of it the result of propaganda spread by an english government that wished to discredit Stewart claims to the British throne and divert/minimize responsibility for atrocities committed?
There may be times (not all the time - just some of the time) when the story is as important as strict adherence to purported facts. We would not want to miss the forest for the trees.
Reply With Quote