Judging Films: Historical Accuracy Versus Directorial Achievement

Braveheart was a masterpiece of a motion picture. But the historical deviations were great, and the anachronistically intolerant critics were there to remind the fans that "Scots didn't wear kilts at that time," "The Battle of Stirling was fought at a bridge" and many other variants. Many movies that depict historic time periods are met with this challenge, accusing the film makers of historical inaccuracies that "make the film unwatchable". Braveheart to this very day is consistently derided by history buffs for the liberties taken by Malcolm Wallace and Mel Gibson, even if the result of the film was a renewed interest in Scottish history and British/Anglican politics.

A casual fan may ask oneself when historical accuracy really matters. Couldn't one simply toss aside historical accuracy entirely and still produce a quality film, as was the case in Gladiator? Of course, the blood, guts, and graphics aside, it could be argued that Gladiator was not that quality of a film, what with its weak script and poor plot, but the point still stands. How important is historical accuracy to a film? In the case of Gladiator, it did not prove necessary to make the film successful.

Perhaps the easiest way to determine when a film should be historically accurate is to interpret the "mood" and "theme" of the film. Fast forward to Ridley Scott's box office dud, Kingdom of Heaven, arguably a far superior film to Gladiator that deviated just as much from its historical roots. Why did it not do as well with much the same formula? As opposed to Gladiator, which promised little more than gore and mayhem, but delivered something of a plot with memorable quotes, Kingdom of Heaven is offered as an insight into the history of the conflict for "the Holy Land". Ridley Scott makes it very clear both in the prologue and epilogue that he is trying to get a glimpse of where all this bad blood began - and if you're going to try to examine this in film you need to get the facts right.

Braveheart, in comparison, was a film that achieved all of its historical objectives. Hoping for realism, it provided a viable, believable climate that allowed the audience to associate with William Wallace, become interested in and familiar with the time period, and receive a fundamental understanding of the time period. Indeed, there was no nation at the time known as Scotland. True, there was supposed to be a bridge at Stirling. Yes, the nobles at Falkirk did not betray William Wallace - but one must ask, could the historical realities work in the constraints of a 2 and a half to 3 hour major motion picture?

In the case of Gibson's movie, the answer is no. The true history behind William Wallace is indeed more fascinating than the fiction - but it also requires a contemporary understanding of the climate. One would have to enter into the subjects knowing of the Scottish propensity for betrayal, the bitterness felt between peasants and crown, the dynastic disputes that set up this theater. Armed with what Gibson had, he had to try to display these things with the time frame allotted him.

He could not take time out of his already full script to place in a sub plot of devious Scottish nobles who were in the employ of England - it came out more naturally by simply altering some of the facts around Falkirk. To this end as a historical epic, Mel Gibson achieved his goal. Any person could identify the Scots for who they were, the battles were aesthetically appealing and very close to authenticity, the politics were amateurishly right, the major figures were introduced, and the major impacts were described.

Most importantly, the feel and the overarching truth of the film was portrayed. The general accuracy of the film was spot on - even if the specific details weren't.

A film like Kingdom of Heaven which espouses itself as a historical epic with fact-verified research, promising to be the root of Middle Eastern tensions, cannot fundamentally change pivotal characters, scenes, sequences, and events, only to make an attempt at them later in a Collector's Edition Director's Cut and hope to maintain the credibility of the film.

In contrast, the Jerry Bruckheimer film King Arthur was an over the top, swashbuckling, almost fantasy epic. Nevertheless, for what it was, it was more "historically accurate" to its roots of Arturios than Kingdom of Heaven was to Balian of Ibelin. Although the film was blasted in the reviews, primarily because of the awkwardness with which audiences were expected to turn from the Knight in Shining Armor epic of Excalibur and adjust to a Roman flick, the film otherwise embraces a side of King Arthur that is most likely true.

Naturally, it is not likely that the Roman captain who became King Arthur rescued a noble named Marius from the Saxons, he was probably not trained by Pelagius, and he probably did not have any quarrels over the withdrawal of Sarmatian Knights from Britannia. But like in Braveheart, the overarching theme of the film was kept adequately intact.

Therefore, when judging a film by its historical accuracy, it is best to judge a movie based on what it is trying to achieve. No one need be comparing the mast heights and musket ratios of Pirates of the Caribbean - but likewise anachronisms are more than "forgivable" as long as the film, which intends to represent an accurate portrayal of the time period, maintains the correct theme and gets the point across accurately. In this case, details can be sacrificed.