register

  • Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 

Movies for historical education

Film, TV & DVD » Movies for historical education (Posts 31 to 48 of 48)

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2008
    Oh and i'd certainly NOT include Pearl HArbor in this list biggrin
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2008
    You could argue that Pearl Harbor stands as historical education on how not to make a movie.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLSH
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2008
    Yeah and Bad Boys 2 taught me nothing about the Spanish Inquisition so I'm gonna scrap that one too.
  4. biggrin

    The attack itself was cool, but the rest was drivel, not only due to historical inaccuracies (NO AMERICAN PLANES STARTED DURING THE JAPANESE RAID, FOR GOD'S SAKE) and being offensive to Japan (the film was officially banned in that country, go figure), but also Bay showed that he really can't work with actors...
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    Oh and i'd certainly NOT include Pearl HArbor in this list biggrin


    Luckily Pearl Harbor IS included in this list in the superior form of TORA! TORA! TORA! cool

    includes a far superior score too by Jerry Goldsmith.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthoromaha
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008
    Timmer wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Oh and i'd certainly NOT include Pearl HArbor in this list biggrin


    Luckily Pearl Harbor IS included in this list in the superior form of TORA! TORA! TORA! cool

    includes a far superior score too by Jerry Goldsmith.
    True that!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMiya
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008 edited
    PawelStroinski wrote
    (the film was officially banned in that country, go figure),


    Pearl Harbor was never banned (I don't think any movies are officially banned in Japan)... it was released as a Hollywood romantic blockbuster and became a big hit rolleyes But of course it got rubbished a lot as well.
    Labels are for cans, not people. - Anthony Rapp
  8. I don't think I'd ever bring in a movie to help people study what things were like. There's far too much surviving visual material and analytical resources that aren't complicated by dramatic license. Where movies are particularly useful is as documents of their own time, and the thoughts the world they were made in had towards the past.
    A butterfly thinks therefore I am
  9. Miya wrote
    PawelStroinski wrote
    (the film was officially banned in that country, go figure),


    Pearl Harbor was never banned (I don't think any movies are officially banned in Japan)... it was released as a Hollywood romantic blockbuster and became a big hit rolleyes But of course it got rubbished a lot as well.


    Oh, I thought it had a ban somewhere. Sorry.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008 edited
    franz_conrad wrote
    I don't think I'd ever bring in a movie to help people study what things were like. There's far too much surviving visual material and analytical resources that aren't complicated by dramatic license. Where movies are particularly useful is as documents of their own time, and the thoughts the world they were made in had towards the past.


    Completely agree but if you're a serious, sensible filmmaker with knowledge on the subject-matter and want to pass down some info on those lazy teens in the cinema, why not do it and actually contribute a bit more other than plain entertainment? I am all in for it, if researched and accurate as possible - since history itself is a highly subjective matter, imo, since it's being written by historians which are evidently human beings with their own perspective, point of views, ideas and ethics, beliefs.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  11. I don't think you can't honestly make a film about a certain historical period without doing your research. Unless your name is Wolfgang Petersen and you give 16th century armors and weapons for the war of Troy, of course, but still.

    I think the best possibility to prepare an awareness of certain facts and be somewhat objective (not judging parts of a conflict in a very strict way, that is) is using the Alexandre Dumas type of convention - you have an important historical event and put fictional characters in the middle of it. The same thing was done with the historically researched series of Rome.

    Now, we also have things like Gladiator. The atmosphere of the times was probably well-depicted, but when THE HELL will Hollywood learn that Commodus DID NOT KILL Marcus Aurelius (the same stunt was done with The Fall of Roman Empire)?

    We can depict early times in a very convincing fashion, though we have many possibilities to do that, from using specific iconography (a certain painting in the Louvre defines the way Richelieu is created in Hollywood movies), we can refer particular style in music, of course, too. The question is what do we really call historical movie - showing the right atmosphere or the facts?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008
    PawelStroinski wrote
    Now, we also have things like Gladiator. The atmosphere of the times was probably well-depicted, but when THE HELL will Hollywood learn that Commodus DID NOT KILL Marcus Aurelius (the same stunt was done with The Fall of Roman Empire)?


    They pretty muchl lost me a lot earlier when Ridley managed to incorporate EXPLOSIONS in the very first battle. smile

    Rome looked great, though (as did the film as a whole).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    PawelStroinski wrote
    Now, we also have things like Gladiator. The atmosphere of the times was probably well-depicted, but when THE HELL will Hollywood learn that Commodus DID NOT KILL Marcus Aurelius (the same stunt was done with The Fall of Roman Empire)?


    They pretty muchl lost me a lot earlier when Ridley managed to incorporate EXPLOSIONS in the very first battle. smile

    Rome looked great, though (as did the film as a whole).


    Having not seen the film for a long time what were the "explosions" apparantly created by? ( I seem to remember the involvement of catapults?)
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008
    I love Gladiator. Great story, great acting, great music and excellent directing. But I'd rather watch the Discovery Channel if I want to actually learn about the Romans.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008
    Timmer wrote
    Having not seen the film for a long time what were the "explosions" apparantly created by? ( I seem to remember the involvement of catapults?)


    Catapults and ballista's with burning spears and -I suppose- loads of Greek fire.

    Certainly made me smile. smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    Timmer wrote
    Having not seen the film for a long time what were the "explosions" apparantly created by? ( I seem to remember the involvement of catapults?)


    Catapults and ballista's with burning spears and -I suppose- loads of Greek fire.

    Certainly made me smile. smile


    I don't know my weaponry from this period very well, was it a case of having no such weapons in Roman artillary at that time period?
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008
    Oh, they certainly had that kind of artillery...it just wasn't used with incendiaries or against ground troops. The catapults were mainly siege weapons, and the ballistas were generally used on ships to sink enemy vessels.

    As far as I know the Romans never employed incendiary missiles or knew the secret of Greek Fire.

    It sure looks good on film, though, and will even allow for explosion-type sound effects! An epic film maker's wet dream!
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeSep 16th 2008
    Martijn wrote
    Oh, they certainly had that kind of artillery...it just wasn't used with incendiaries or against ground troops. The catapults were mainly siege weapons, and the ballistas were generally used on ships to sink enemy vessels.

    As far as I know the Romans never employed incendiary missiles or knew the secret of Greek Fire.

    It sure looks good on film, though, and will even allow for explosion-type sound effects! An epic film maker's wet dream!


    smile

    Maybe should bring back the old film 'goofs' thread that I did at Score Reviews so we can all nit pick at film inaccuracies.
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt

31 to 48 of 48

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >