I can not tolerate a movie that is historically ignorant. Sure some errors are okay, but what this movie did was roughly equivalent to a WW2 movie saying Hitler was Italian... or Emperor Hirohito was Korean... or Churchill was French.
So blatantly wrong.
It teaches false history.
It deserves a '1' for the author being too lazy to research.
[deleted]
It wasn't meant to be a history lesson, but a work of fiction inspired by history. If you attack "Becket" for historical inaccuracy, then you should also toss most of Shakespeare's historical plays out the window, not to mention most of the Greek tragedies.
share[deleted]
Shakespeare's plays were never meant to be historically correct, they were just the background for human actions and emotions, and in Henry V he would not have to mention archers because every Englishman alive knew about how the French were defeated.
Cry God for Harry, England and St George
[deleted]
I expect flaws in an historical film, but this one pushed it a bit. Becket was a Norman, not a Saxon. To not only get that fact wrong but to turn it into a major theme of the film is ridiculous.
I respect the tradition of using historical settings and characters as a backdrop. Small details aren't important if needs must for the story. But there's changing a few facts for a streamlined narrative and there's a complete disregard for the actual people and events.
I think there are some great performances in this film, only naturally considering the caliber of the cast, so I wouldn't give it a one. But the disregard for history detracted from my enjoyment.
Actually, the author -- playwright Jean Anouilh -- was not "too lazy to research." He wrote a play based on an 1890 history which indeed said that Becket was a Saxon, as most historians of the time believed.
Before the play was produced, he showed it to a historian friend who informed him that more recent evidence proved that Becket had been a Norman. Rather than rewrite the play "and tear my hair out," Anouilh decided to leave it was it was, believing it a better work.
Portraying Becket as he was would have totally destroyed the point of the film. Besides, Anouilh wrote, "maybe in time historians will discover that my initial version was correct."
[deleted]
Is it possible that electrictroy is a TROLL????
anytime someone puts a post like this, then never returns to discuss it, they're just trying to get a reaction- so here's mine:
THIS IS A MOVIE... not a documentary.
Movies should be judged not on their historical accuracy, but on things like:
ACTING
DIRECTING
CINEMATOGRAPHY
WRITING (its cleverness, not how accurate it is historically)
MUSIC
COSTUME DESIGN
.... for more categories, see the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences.
This isn't a history lesson or a documentary. It's a movie based on a play. People frequently take historical figures and make a fictional story from them.
A good case in point is the movie "Barrabas" with Anthony Quinn (who played Henry II on Broadway) it's the fictionalized account of what happened to the man they set free in Jesus' place. Great movie, good character development... who gives a fig if it's all true? was never meant to be- just like this movie! :)
>>>People frequently take historical figures and make a fictional story from them.
Thereby ruining a good person's reputation with slander/libel. That's how that stupid "I can not tell a lie" story started about George Washington. Movies should either HONOR the person's memory with accuracy, or else use fictional characters rather than sully a good man's character with falsehoods & lies.
So you must hate Shakespeare's histories too, I guess. History-based fiction doesn't "sully" the people who appear in it, because most people who see movies and read novels are smart enough not to use them as history texts.
The "I can not tell a lie" story didn't come from movies. It came from people purposely rewriting history in books to teach "moral" and "patriotic" lessons they think children should learn. The Washington story is a minor example.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
Shakespeare can be forgiven because his histories were written in a time when little was known about ancient persons (example: Julius Caesar). He made it as accurate as he good given the scant knowledge available in ~1500.
----
Because God created it, the human body
can be uncovered and preserve His splendor. -Pope John Paul
Shakespeare needn't be forgiven for anything. His main source for "Julius Caesar" was Plutarch's "Lives", not something from 1500. His sources for other "ancient" characters was equally authentic. It was probably closer to reality than much of what passes for historical fiction in movies. The point is that historical FICTION doesn't have to hew closely to reality; that's not what it's for.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
[deleted]
Shakespeare's title is not "The History of Julius Caesar," as it is with his plays about the Kings of England; it's "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar." Tragedy and Comedy are two forms of fictional theater. Judging a 500+ year-old play by the standards of documentary film is silly. What "accuracy" does it mention in or on the DVD? The only "accuracy" it could possibly be talking about would be the accuracy of Shakespeare's text. No historical accuracy was ever claimed by any Elizabethan playwright. Prove me wrong.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
[deleted]
OK, you quoted my post about Shakespeare, so I continued in the same vein. I'll alter my question in light of your new post. Does it say on the Becket DVD that it's historically accurate? It is, after all, based on a play by Jean Anouilh, not on a historical source. Movies about historical figures have no requirement to be historically accurate. They're not meant to be instructive, but entertaining; and it isn't the filmmakers' fault if viewers believe what they see on the screen is the truth.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
Historicity vs. fictional borrowing. This has been gone into at length on the "The Bridge On the River Kwai" board. The following may help:
From Aristotle's "On Poetics" --
"From what we have said it will be seen that the poet's function is to describe, not the thing that has happened, but a kind of thing that might happen, i.e., what is possible as being probable or necessary." . . . Hence poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature of universals, whereas those of history are singulars." . . . "By a universal statement I mean one that such or such a kind of man will probably or necessarily make -- which is the aim of poetry, though it afixes proper names to the characters." . . . "The poet being an imitator just like the painter or other maker of likenesses, he must necessarily in all instances represent things in one or other of three aspects: (a) as they were or are, (b) as they are said or thought to have been, (c) as they ought to be."
Now ... does the poster actually "need" to be "told" before experiencing it that a play by Jean Anouilh is "not" a documentary? That's a little like asking the produce manager at the grocery store to put a label on the cucumber proclaiming it is not an asparagus.
1. If you measure all movies by Aristotle you must be disappointed a lot.
2. I have no idea what any poster "needs". I comment on movies and discuss them.
3. Your vegan metaphor doesn't really fit.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
Well . . . I'm a bit perplexed. My post was offered in "support" of your previous post. You seem upset by it??? . . . Am I wrong here?
However, re your point "1.", I really have no idea how to respond as my post said nothing about "measuring all movies" by Aristotle. But, if I did that and if I take your meaning correctly, I'd be "seldom" disappointed. I think The quotes say something else entirely, which you obviously do not comprehend.
Re your point "2.", my "needs" comment was directed at the "other" poster who said "Becket" should have had something like a warning label that it was not a documentary. Then you say, "I comment on movies and discuss them." Uh-huh. Okay. Don't we all on these boards, and what does that have to do with my post???
And, re your point "3.", I think the metaphor is quite apt -- as a response to the "other" poster's sine qua non.
????????????
Mea culpa. I'm not used to posts apparently answering mine that are really answering someone else.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
The old Hollywood vs. History quandary is a tough one. I suggest, as I have elsewhere, that stories such as "Becket" and it's ilk, should inspire moviegoers who are so inclined to study further, and that's a good thing. I'm not sure how concerned Hollywood is with getting into the education business.
If I want entertainment I'll go to the movies. If it's history I'm looking for, I'll go to the library.
Would you be as open-minded about a book (example: A Tale of Two Cities) that claimed Robespierre was a German?
Probably not. A movie should be held to to the same standards as novels are held.
Well since after over a year electrictroy came back, I retract my "troll" statement (not wishing to be accused of malfeasance!)
Like I said- it's JUST a movie.
I agree with the other poster that suggested that even untrue movies that distort the facts serve some purpose, because if you have any brain or curiosity at all, it will encourage you to research the true historical characters more. It can be posited that if all movies were strictly fact, they wouldn't get a very wide viewership. Drama helps. For example, I like in the movie "Zulu" that the two warring factions have a small singing contest- I did the research & it wasn't true but a wonderful moment in the movie. And that is not to say that some true stories aren't dramatic enough on their own- but Hollywood being what it is, they rarely make a movie that is really a documentary in disguise.
If you are the kind of person that watches movies and thinks that they are documentaries and thinks even when the title says "based on a true story" you are getting the whole story correctly, then that's the VIEWER'S fault. Electrictroy seems to be placing the entire onus of responsibility on the movie maker- ever heard the saying "buyer beware"? Well it applies to viewers. They put the movie out there, it really is the viewer's responsibility to research more if they want the "truth."
As for holding movies and books to the same standard- I have read plenty of books that confound and confuse historical events and people- they're called fiction. Here's a good example: "A Cadenza for Caruso" by Barbara Paul. It's a FABULOUS book (especially if you like opera) about the premier of Puccini's "La Fanciulla del West" at the MET in 1912. Paul takes all the historical personages and weaves a wonderful murder mystery. But I KNOW the story is just that- despite her using accurate events surrounding the story, I know it is just a fiction.
Besides- if you don't know Robespierre was part of the French Revolution- then you are either not graduated from High School yet, or living in a field of mushrooms. Any book that wrote that he was German in it, I would merely take with a grain of proverbial salt.
But somehow I don't think my well explained arguments will make an impression... I think the world is black and white for electrictroy. Me I like the greys. :)
As a student of History I agree that often historical inaccuracies make for jarring viewing. But I tend to find that such inaccuracies are more annoying in a movie that is bad anyway (Pearl Harbour anyone?).
Yes having Beacket as a Saxon is wrong but I don't think it is equatable to reading a book where Robespierre is German, unless his being German is put forward for a motive for his actions as here Becket's being Saxon is made a major part of his motivation for his religious conversion. If the author was following historical theory (even if it was a little out of date) then I think he can be forgiven. All we know for certain is that there was a rift between the two men after Becket became Archbishop (which we can only presume came from some religious conversion or deepening of religiosity on Becket's part)preventing him from being wholly the king's man. What caused the change precisely is up for debate and if the author thought he had a reason for it then good for him.
According to the DVD commentary with Peter O'Toole the play wasn't really about Henry and Becket but a rift between two stars of the French theatre for whom the parts were originally written.
Basically its a good enough film for me not to care too much about the inaccuracies.
I think the OP wants a documentary. Really he's in the wrong place. Sometimes people don't know how to do their research...;-).....
share>>>Like I said- it's JUST a movie.
And a bad one at that. I don't enjoy movies or books (or literature in general) that twists history and thereby *deceives* the reader with false facts. A lot of people watch or read something, and then they quote it as if it was real history.
A little bit of fiction is okay, but as I mentioned before, if Tale of Two Cities claimed Robespierre was German instead of French, that too would receive a "1" in my rating. I like fiction, but I don't like blatant lies.
-----
Because God created it, the human body
can be uncovered and preserve His splendor. -Pope John Paul
Like I said- it is a MOVIE- if people are stupid enough to take what they see on the silver screen as "the gospel" then it is their own fault.
If a person is truly interested- they will do the extra research (as you have done) and find the historical truth. If a movie - even an inaccurate one- gets someone more interested in history, that is a good thing.
Twisting of facts however, does not make a bad movie- if that were true, the only good movies in Hollywood would be documentaries.
This is a great movie despite the inaccuracies. After all a movie isn't just about the accuracy of the screenplay- there's a few other minor details like ACTING, DIRECTING, MUSIC, CINEMATOGRAPHY, COSTUMES, ETC.....
[deleted]
That's nothing more than your subjective opinion.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
Would you be as open-minded about a book (example: A Tale of Two Cities) that claimed Robespierre was a German?
Find a movie that says Robespierre was German, and your point may gain a little weight.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
[deleted]
And YOU are aesthetically malfeasant.
Not to mention, you yourself, are historically malfeasant.
You write as if "English" "French" etc, had the same meaning in 1145 as it does today. This shows you to be quite the dilletante.
Go away and stop bothering the truly smart people.
Anouilh never cared to do any research for this play, and never pretended otherwise. He once bought a book, randomely, just because he liked its green binding. The title was "the conquest of England by the Normans" written in 1825 by an Augustin Thierry. What he read in it about the relationship between Henry and Becket — "the drama of two men who were so close, loved each other, but unfortunately had to part for a reason the one who loved most found absurd" — gave him so much pleasure and emotion that he didn't feel the need for any other source material. "I created the king I needed and the ambiguous Becket I needed" he said. Once his play was completed, he learned that Becket was not even a Saxon, and that Augustin Thierry had had it all wrong. "For a serious man, (such a revelation) would've caused havoc" Anouild said, "but, being a man of the theatre, I am light and easygoing; therefore I decided not to care. What about you?"
shareITA. The inaccuracies in this film are appalling. For me, the portrayal of Eleanor of Aquitaine as some sniveling housewife who Henry never found appealing was a blatant falsehood. It's fact that those two were initially quite anamored with each other, that's why she left her first husband. She was also quite strong and never feared Henry.
Also, the costumes were about 300 years ahead of their time.
F minus.
The Lion In Winter is a far more substantial and accurate portrayal of Henry and Eleanor.