Harbour Repeat

When the movies are based on historical events, they have an obligation to be accurate to what happened?

I'll give you three examples of films - Pearl Harbor - which represents a difference in the period leading to the attack by Japanese and atrributes incorrect citations and actions to those historic, changed to appease Asian audiences. U-571 - which has changed the troops who captured the Enigma code the American rather than British, again to appeal to members of the audience King Arthur - who for reasons of modern values changed Guinevere as a warrior who fought alongside King Arthur and for some reason knew Whoop ass martial arts. It is the fate that spring to mind, but there countless others. My question is, where is the line between artistic license and historical accuracy? Is it acceptable for movies to represent things which does not occur, or to change certain aspects of history are repeating to appeal to demographics? Or are you too tight to feel like it, and can we play "What If" games with history in the expression of art or a story?

Caffeine Fiend hi, First, let me say that I am not a student or a professor of film studies. I'm just a regular guy who likes to watch quality films during her hobby. Regarding your question, I think the filmmakers have an obligation to adhere to the precision when it comes to stories based on real historical events, otherwise they incur the wrath of criticism and history buffs alike. Of course, this is the ideal goal for the realization of historical films, but many filmmakers intentionally do not reach this aim. Please note the word "intentionally". They do not reach for this goal not because they are incapable of, but because of considerations such as artistic expression, public response and budget, just to name a few. They then twist the film to make it consistent artistically and economically. May you ask, what the budget and public reaction has to do with the precision of a film history? I say, very much. A film with budget constraints may affect the accuracy of a film's props, costumes, and departments location. As for public reaction, imagine if the players were really staying true to the era of history, say, the 11th century, when they have to speak the language and jargon of the time. I bet it would hurt your ears to hear the old people speak. So, my point in all this is that we should allow filmmakers to make changes as long as: 1.) They do not hack (or hack too) the events from its true historical narrative, 2.) The actors do not differ too much from celebrities, characters Historical they are portraying, 3.) they do not touch with the real result of historical events (which has something to do with the obligation moral filmmakers: they must not be biased when depicting historical films.) * "King Arthur" is a case of a historical film with a blur history. That is why the filmmakers were very liberal in their representation of this legend. BTW, I do not think may even consider "King Arthur" as history. It's more like mythology. Historians do not agree among themselves on what the legend King Arthur was based or if it was still based on a historical figure or event! ------------------------- ------------------ Additional: None of the things I mentioned above is important if the film is a historical travesty! And oh, another extra that I forgot to say there is a difference between historical fact and historical fiction. When describing historical facts (meaning of historical events that actually took place) through cinema, a filmmaker has less to no freedom at all. But when it comes to fiction history (such as "King Arthur") filmmaker has more freedom unlimited.