Rob Roy

[macwilkin]

Said it before, say it again:

Those who do not study history are condemned to learning it from Hollywood.

You mean the USS Nimitz didn't REALLY time-warp back to the Battle of Midway??? GASP!

(Removing tongue from cheek.)

Having taught at college too, I'll agree - Hollywood can make life more difficult for us to get the "accurate" information out. But it can also be a great tool in introducing learners to new subjects/areas, and motivate them to dig in and do the research to find out the truth!

One can hope that a movie inspires people to go out and learn more about history. When I've mentioned Dunkirk to people I tend to get blank looks.
Henry V and St. Crispin's Day? Ditto. Anything that's gets people to go out and "READ A BOOK" is a good thing. I think I'd rather have people have some idea (even if a bit distorted) than no clue.

I have a quote on my syllabus that says:

History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time.
-- Anonymous

Which is not only true for history, but also for my class!

Seriously, though, I do agree that movies do provide a "springboard" for some in to the realm of more "serious" history -- the problem comes with those who are not curious about the "real" story and take the movie for face value.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I enjoy a good ol' movie anyday -- but sometimes I do get frustrated. I do remember reading an interesting article about the volcano thriller Dante's Peak a while ago by a noted volcanologist who said that while the movie had some problems (lava flows are found in Pacific volcanos, not the Mt. St. Helens type), overall, it presented a fairly decent picture of what a volcanologist does. I try to take the middle ground as much as possible, even when I am cleaning up the mess!

T.

[Fearnest]

I have a quote on my syllabus that says:

History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time.
-- Anonymous

Which is not only true for history, but also for my class!

Sounds like me and several variations of undergraduate math...

[MacWage]

I am in an odd situation on the history/hollywood battle.
You see, I am trained in history.
My family is REALLY into movies. My uncle is the "Director of Photography William Wages" and 2 cousins and brother went to film school. My father is a HUGE film buff.
So, I am in the middle and both sides of the debate.

I appreciate and applaud a good historical work.
However, I am able to understand SOME changes when the history is complex and convoluted. It accounts more as simplification, rather than random changes.
That said, what REALLY gets my "gut" is STUPID changes that either add unnecessary changes or complexities or either misrepresent a person or fact or are simply IRRITATING (history buffs know EXACTLY what I am talking about)
I also separate the story, the "look and feel," surrounding history/politics, and the like.

Rob Roy is VERY GOOD for looks, design, costume, and period history.
As for the precise events of Robert MacGregor (Campbell)'s life, I simply don't know enough about the truth. The movie is reflective of many of the popular legends of Rob Roy.

Braveheart is an excellent epic (which I love from a cinematic standpoint), BUT misrepresents the costumes, history (battles, cities, culture, and more), persons (like Robert Bruce), and more. THESE drives me NUTS!!!!
(I feel like Two-Face, torn between 2 sides on this movie.)
My rewritten ending:
(picking up at death of Wallace)
Scene-> Bruce tells of father
Scene-> Bruce-> "You have bled with Wallace, bleed with me"
Visuals: montage of battles and ambuses
"Robert the Bruce took up Wallace's sword and lead the army. For 7 more long hard years, the Scots fought for their freedom. In the year 1314, the armies of Edward II and The Bruce met on the fields of Bannockburn, just miles from the Bridge of Stirling. Here, in the spirit of Wallace, the Scots won their freedom. (continue as written in the end of Braveheart)

To me THAT would BOTH be more accurate AND more powerful. PLUS, it gives the Bruce his due (rather than charging an unsuspecting army, in a TOTAL slam of the ACTUAL battle)
Of course, what else would you suspect when Randal Wallace (writer of Braveheart) says "I never let the facts get in the way of a good story" (now sometimes rephrased as "way of the truth").

Back to topic-> Me Like Rob Roy!!!!!

[mudd]

You mean the USS Nimitz didn't REALLY time-warp back to the Battle of Midway??? GASP!

No. That was Pearl Harbor.

[Fearnest]

No. That was Pearl Harbor.

D'oh!!! And I thought my revisionist history was up to date!

[thescot]

Amen, McWage. Tell it!

The real historical error in Braveheart had to do with his "affair" with the wife of Edward II! I think she was just a little girl at the time of the events depicted in the movie. My students, no doubt, believe that the next heir to the English throne was, in fact, the shild of Wallace.

As for me, give me Casablanca anyday.

[SnakeEyes]

...The real historical error in Braveheart had to do with his "affair" with the wife of Edward II! I think she was just a little girl at the time of the events depicted in the movie. My students, no doubt, believe that the next heir to the English throne was, in fact, the shild of Wallace...

Apparently she didn't even marry Edward II until something like 9 years after Wallace was dead!

[cacunn]

I should be remembered that it is difficult to get multiple years of events into a play about an hour and half long. Even if the desire is to be as accurate as possible that is like like me at 300 pound trying to get in to a size 28 kilt. Then there is the problem of the actual purpose of making the movie $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. As was said there is no reason to let historical accuracy get in the way of profit.

When you watch a movie sit down suppend reality and enjoy, you are there to be entertained not to learn.

[macwilkin]

When you watch a movie sit down suppend reality and enjoy, you are there to be entertained not to learn.

Not necessarily. I understand the specifics of the movie business just as anyone else does, but I think you can be entertained and learn something at the same time. There are some very good movies that are entertaining and educational; Disney's recent take on the Alamo, for example, complete with the Piper, John MacGregor.

But, I, in general, do not watch the so-called "fantasy" movies; real life has just as many thrilling stories, and the very fact that they did happen to real people makes them more compelling.

Regards,

Todd

[bubba]

I recall Randall Wallace, the author of Braveheart, said in an interview, " I never let the facts get in the way of the truth". My reaction to that statement was "HUH????"