MovieChat Forums > Giù la testa (1972) Discussion > 'Non-Period' is NOT an 'anachronism' or ...

'Non-Period' is NOT an 'anachronism' or 'goof'

posted 16 years ago by rockmail
8 replies | jump to latest

Okay, IMDB, time to just stop the gun freaks (and other history fanatics) from designating out of period weapons and other items as "Goofs" in a work of fiction.

Guess what dudes, first of all, these are productions of entertainment, not records of history, or even documentaries. Most productions are NOT EVER going to be able to obtain perfect examples of all physical items for a story set in the past - it's simply impossible.

So just stop pointing them out as goofs, in this case "close" IS good enough.

If you want to note that items in the production are not perfectly authentic, then simply do so in the message board or review portions of each production's pages.

IMDB, it's really stupid to call these authenticity issues, "goofs".

Second of all, "anacronisms" are NOT items which are LITERALLY in the wrong time period (which of course is currently physically impossible other than in the movies!), they are items which SEEM out of place in their current context, like a superhero driving a Model T rather than a supercar of some kind, or a computer programmer character using a typewriter and an optical scanner to enter code, rather than a computer keyboard. An anacronism has to be visually or otherwise obvious, not just a fact of history that seems out of place.

Yes kids, words have proper meanings and functions when you use them correctly!

[–] paulr03 16 years ago

100% agree! As my wife says to me when I see a(n) historical mistake, "HEY IT'S A MOVIE!!!"

[–] zeos-threeeightysix-sx 16 years ago

in principal i agree with you, but how hard would it have been to take the correct period machine guns off the tank like thing from the previous scene and use one in the scene with the mg-34/42.

also according my dictionary anachronism can refer to someone or something either literally out of place (ex. mg-42 in 1910s mexico) or seemingly out of place (ex. a sword on a modern battlefield).

in the long run though you are right something like that shouldn't hamper your enjoyment of a movie; it certainly didn't in my case.
----------------------------------------
scooty puff jr. suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks!!!

[–] Locomotiva1 16 years ago

For me, too, the MG42 machine guns can be filed under "goofs".

You have to be an expert to see that Juan used a belgian GP-35 pistol (or its HP british copy) instead of the more common U.S. Governament M-1911 colt.45 to kill the Governor, you need to be an hawk-eye to see the italian WWII machine gun in the armoered wagon, ready to fire outside the windows and only an expert will note in the train wrench scene the peones used a little "pump action" mortar: it's a World War Two Royal Italian Army weapon, the Brixia.

All those weapons, plus the MG42 are "goofs", as anachronisms.

But, the MG42 is a sort of trademark of World War two War movies, in german hands.

So it's not only an anachronism, it's like Robin Hood using the Musketeer fencing sword or a Gangster using a german MP-40 Burp gun (instead of a thompson with round magazine).

Of course it's not a big problem, and for sure I'm not arguing "they destroyed the whole movie" as someone did for "Cross of Iron" for a single scene with the wrong airplanes.
But, as Leone had other weapons (the above mentioned MGs in armoered train, for example) and some maxim-like guns, it wouldn't hurt to leave the MG42 out of frame or into the mass scene, not carried around by the main characters.

[–] billybutts 15 years ago

according to my definition of anachronism, you are an idiot

[–] FinnurE 15 years ago

Of course the anachronisms are goofs, but you don't have to be bothered by them.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5184666

[–] alphaboo 14 years ago

Billybutts is 100% right.

Per Oxford Dictionary

anachronism |əˈnakrəˌnizəm|
noun
a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, esp. a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned : everything was as it would have appeared in centuries past apart from one anachronism, a bright yellow construction crane.
• an act of attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong.

Now I don't agree a wwii machine gun is a goof in this movie, but it is an anachronism, like the guy wearing the watch in the chariot race in Ben Hur.

An Anachronism is by definition an object that is used earlier than when it was made, like Macbeth using tanks and wwii artillery.

Sometimes it is meaningless in a movie other times it hurts it. Often it disorients unless it is a few years off like the wrong Russian tank variant in Stalingrad(not the US one about the snipers), which I never would have noticed but it was pointed out to me.

So without a doubt any object used in a realistic fiction(not alternate reality or Sc Fi type genre)is an anachronism.

However since Pan Am went out of business does that make the Pan Am shuttle to the moon in Kubrick 2001 a retroactive anachronism?

My problem with the movie is a little too long.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alphaboo 14 years ago

Very true like saying "they are crazy a black spotted orchid could live there!" and minor stuff like in stalingrad the person who realized that the Russian T34 variant 75(main gun size) was not being filmed but instead they were using the T34 variant 85(main gun size) which was not made for one to two years later. A minor detail like that well who cares it is not a documentary. I didn't even know there were two different T34s.

However when I see a german machine produced in the 1940's in a movie that seems based in the first years of the mexican revolution (Mexican revolution 1910 to 1920) roughly 1912 1913 or 1914 seeing a gun that was made 30 years later shows signs of being lazy, bad research, or needing a weapon with a high rate of fire to make the see at the bridge work so you have use a weapon not made yet and hope no one notices or they forgive you. I think Leone needed a weapon with a high rate of fire. But it can be confusing or a little disappointing and can ruin verisimilitude.

Anyway I read in a book about hitchcock's films that he would often film a scene in the time it took to happen, like the cab ride at the beginning in North By Northwest, it is supposedly exactly how long that ride would take. However if it did not fit his needs a cab ride would take as long or short as needed. Interesting.