What's historically inaccurate with this picture?

January 27, 2021 7:05 AM

Why are movie swords always wrong? How period drama costume design works. What's wrong with this still from Gladiator?
posted by TheophileEscargot (55 comments total)

I like Tod's discussion about swords.
He's got historically accurate armorer's thumbs.
posted by MtDewd at 7:26 AM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

I don’t look for historical costume/hair/face accuracy in period dramas, it’s a losing cause, but the main character’s straggly loose hair in Sanditon made it impossible to watch. (Well that along with the casting, the dialogue, and the plot).
posted by TWinbrook8 at 7:48 AM on January 27, 2021 [6 favorites]

There's a kind of meta-nerd-fight-de-escalation talk that I think you could distill from Tod's talk, probably "get off your high horse and enjoy the show". It feels like a talk that could be given by a lot of people, about a lot of topics, with the same basic structure and point. And yet, despite and audience that probably believes they understand abstractions, I suspect this one goes right over their heads.
posted by pulposus at 7:52 AM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

get off your high horse and enjoy the show

If you're worried how they stab and dress,
And other history facts,
Then repeat to yourself it's just a show,
I should really just relax
posted by Jon Mitchell at 8:06 AM on January 27, 2021 [23 favorites]

high, apple pie, in the skyyyy horse
posted by davelog at 8:15 AM on January 27, 2021

I found all of these illuminating, and I appreciate Tod's general perspective about balancing accuracy against the practicalities and storytelling requirements of filmmaking, but I draw the line at some points, such as the way corsetry is misrepresented over and over and over again as being restrictive, painful, and even injurious, which is discussed a bit in the period drama costume design video.

Bridgerton, for example, is guilty of this twice in the very first episode. In reality, for almost all periods in which they were common* stays and corsets were perfectly comfortable support garments, especially because they were typically made to measure and are highly adjustable. In fact, not a few historical costumers have said that they find them more comfortable than modern bras. History (and modernity!) have more than enough actual misogyny; lazy writers and directors don't need to invent more.

* With the exception of tight lacing in the 19th and very early 20th century, but even then it was far from a universal practice, with many detractors at the time on the grounds of both health and fashion.
posted by jedicus at 8:17 AM on January 27, 2021 [11 favorites]

Yeah, I enjoy stuff like Bernadette Banner's channel for learning how things were done, and I think she manages to walk a fine line between being nitpicky for nitpicking's sake and acknowledging it's just a show, they need to use modern fabrics and production methods so 100% historical accuracy isn't necessarily a reasonable target.
posted by Kyol at 8:18 AM on January 27, 2021 [5 favorites]

Yeah, not sure that I can really go along with the Hollywood needs to pander, the money is what's important, and what "you" want is this big budget entertainment above all, so the other things are all secondary. But then I'm probably not the right audience.

I enjoyed the other two videos though.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:20 AM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

What's wrong with this still from Gladiator ?

I called the thing about the wheat, but Roman Baetica wouldn't be filled with small fields (you would find them in modern Galicia in Spain, because of patterns of inheritance in families). The Romans created latifundia. The pals of the kings during the Reconquista would recreate them many centuries later and there's a lot written about the Andalusian campesinado and how this was the model replicated in colonial Latin America. Anyway, Mary Beard goes a bit about the colonial agriculture of Roman southern Spain in Ultimate Rome, start at 14:30 here.

Also, I have to note that the modern day scenes with the sheep don't have walls on the side of fields so I don't know what Lindybeige was thinking because quién le pone puertas al campo (who fences the field in)?
posted by sukeban at 8:54 AM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

If you're worried how they stab and dress,
And other history facts,
Then repeat to yourself it's just a show,
I should really just relax

I agree with this to a point. However - for people who really know about a given topic, if a movie plays fast and loose with the details of that topic, it can pull you right out of the world that show is trying to create, and that really can't be helped. Like, there's a scene in the original Jazz Singer which is a particular berserk button for me - it claims to depict the dress rehearsal for a big Broadway show, but after the lead's big production number, the entire rehearsal grinds to a halt so everyone can crowd around him backstage and tell him how great he was. Any stage manager would have been screaming uncontrollably at any cast that did that because "a dress rehearsal is supposed to be as if you're actually doing the show and come on people, this is throwing off my time and we need to move on to working the next number WILL YOU ALL GET BACK TO WORK!!!"

This is not the only thing about that movie that bugs me, mind you, but it's a big one for me - however, I'm also aware that it's not one that everyone would share or even notice unless they'd worked in theater. Similarly, there are probably ex-cops who have grudges against police procedurals because "NO COP would hold their gun that way", or astronauts who hate various moments from films about astronauts because "the physics in this is completely bonkers," or people who live in Vancouver who go bonkers any time they see an X-Files episode filmed there but set in "Kansas" because "come on, that's two blocks down the street from me," or what have you.

"Historical" films are also especially prone to this kind of fast-and-loose treatment; if it's just a detail like "you're holding the swords wrong", that's actually getting things off easy. Sometimes a film will completely change details of historic events, like when the old film They Died With Their Boots On tried to spin the story so that General Custer was the good guy. I'm not even a historian, but that would be making me fling popcorn at the screen.

There are points at which "it's just a show, just relax" doesn't bridge the gap, I'm afraid.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:58 AM on January 27, 2021 [6 favorites]

In general I'm fine with people using historical inaccuracy in fiction as a jumping off point for an informed discussion of what we know (most of Bret Deveraux's blog entries, for example.) But usually discussion is dominated by the type of poster who learned some trivia about 15th century weapons and repeats it as if it is a Universal Fact any time they see someone with a sword on screen to show off their knowledge, regardless of context or era. I was worried the first video was going to be another one that fuels that sort of poster and am glad I was wrong.

I confess I never thought about "Can you make this out of rubber and use it in a staged fight" as a consideration in cinematic sword design. Also, stuff about back scabbards. I didn't agree with all his reasons as being solid justifications, but I was mostly in his corner.
posted by mark k at 8:59 AM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

The guy who made the third video has some other good ones about the differences between modern natural settings and historical ones.

I could make a 10 part video series on what's wrong with men's facial hair consistency in movies.
posted by Liquidwolf at 8:59 AM on January 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

Sometimes a film will completely change details of historic events

Gladiator condenses 13 years of Commodus' reign into a much shorter period, invents the interesting concept that Marcus Aurelius wanted to end the empire and go back to the Republic, some bright mind informs us that "Rome was founded as a Republic" for emphasis, leaves alive Lucilla (whom Commodus had killed) and kills Commodus in the middle of the amphitheater instead of poisoned by his lover Marcia and strangled in the bath by his gladiator trainer.

Also Maximus (whose name is gibberish) uses stirrups in the inicial battle scenes, which really pisses me off but I try to ignore because the theme from Pirates of the Caribbean is playing.
posted by sukeban at 9:13 AM on January 27, 2021 [7 favorites]

It can end up really weird too - I believe The Tudors put in a certain amount of effort to have even period appropriate-ish breeds of sheep, cattle and domestic fowl. Most farm animals are much too big now, compared to their Tudor ancestors, so they got breeds like Kerry Cattle to sub in. (I'm a bit hazy on the details, as I was told about it at the time by a friend of mine whose family briefly sheltered some of the chickens, etc. that later went on to star in the show.)

However, despite going to that amount of trouble over the animals, they then decided that Henry having a sister Mary and a daughter Mary would be too confusing. So they removed one sister (Margaret) and gave her name to the other. (And I think, married her off to the wrong king?)
posted by scorbet at 9:23 AM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

...invents the interesting concept that Marcus Aurelius wanted to end the empire and go back to the Republic

I think it's a trope in a lot of Roman historical fiction that everyone wants to Restore The Republic (e.g. "I, Claudius", the Falco series). I think it's because some influential surviving histories were written by Senators, and the Senatorial class were the ones who had really lost out as part of the Roman Revolution. The Republic had highly effective structures for stopping one person dominating the Senate as a whole, and distributing power amongst the Senators (i.e. elite aristocrats) collectively. Below that level I'm not sure people cared that much that the Emperor had taken all the Senators' power and could bully and execute them if he liked.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:27 AM on January 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

A former curator coworker of mine was interviewed for this Smithsonian Magazine about Bridgerton and corsets that I think is a fun overview on the topic. People want the "clinging to the bedpost as the maid hauls on the corset strings" to be a thing, and it just mostly wasn't.
posted by PussKillian at 9:41 AM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I enjoy stuff like Bernadette Banner's channel for learning how things were done, and I think she manages to walk a fine line between being nitpicky for nitpicking's sake and acknowledging it's just a show, they need to use modern fabrics and production methods so 100% historical accuracy isn't necessarily a reasonable target.

adjacently, Karolina Zebrowska (the middle video linked in the FPP) also does a lot of great historical costuming commentary. Bernadette focuses more on sewing projects as a vehicle for historical investigation and education, whereas Karolina spends a lot more of her time deep diving into a topic with some great gifs but not necessarily with an associated sewing project (though her recent video on reconstructing Victorian winter clothing within the constraints of the modern fabric industry was great). They're both great at balancing the nerdy enthusiasm of sharing things about their expertise that make them excited, and calling out a bunch of popular misconceptions, and also acknowledging the limitations of something like "historical accuracy."

Karolina also did a great series of film critiques where she went deep on how wonderful Barry Lyndon was as a historical reconstruction project but was also generous to projects that approached historical accuracy with good faith but made different aesthetic calls for good reasons (like the BBC Pride and Prejudice w/ Colin Firth vs the cinematic Pride Prejudice w/ Keira Knightley)
posted by bl1nk at 9:43 AM on January 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

you definitely don't want to watch Braveheart with me, unless you enjoy someone screaming at the screen through many egregious historical inaccuracies.
posted by supermedusa at 9:45 AM on January 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

Gladiator condenses 13 years of Commodus' reign into a much shorter period, invents the interesting concept that Marcus Aurelius wanted to end the empire and go back to the Republic, some bright mind informs us that "Rome was founded as a Republic" for emphasis, leaves alive Lucilla (whom Commodus had killed) and kills Commodus in the middle of the amphitheater instead of poisoned by his lover Marcia and strangled in the bath by his gladiator trainer.

Gladiator is actually an interesting example of this for me - in addition to the historical fast-and-loose stuff, I also know allllllllll about some of the errors in the battle scenes, because I saw it with a friend who was a professional stage combat choreographer and he had Deeply Felt Opinions about the combat inaccuracies, which he told me about at length in a coffee shop afterward. (I know that sounds like it would have been boring, but I was highly amused and actually learned a lot.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:53 AM on January 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

also, I should say that I'd love to find out about vloggers or bloggers who love doing similar kinds of academic close reads for menswear. Often the only things I'm finding are style bloggers who want to rave about The Apartment or James Bond films as an example of great suiting, which, "sure, yeah, suits are great. But can we also talk about workwear in the 50s? or the 19th century? Can we talk about why hats faded from use? etc." Karolina and Bernadette touch on mens clothing from time to time, but never too deeply because they acknowledge it's not their specialty.
posted by bl1nk at 9:57 AM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

I don't really get too upset with historical inaccuracies in films. They're interesting to discuss and I like looking at how portrayals of the past have changed over the history of Hollywood but I don't often or ever base my opinion of the film on it's fidelity to history. Gladiator is a fun movie, I don't look to if for a history lesson.
posted by octothorpe at 10:00 AM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

Yikes, forgot to add this bit before adding post....

Compressing the events of history, or making other similar changes for dramaturgical reasons, I can overlook to a point. Sometimes a 100% factual account of events would be a little boring to watch as a story - this is where the term "dramatic license" comes in. To use Gladiator as an example - the big thing my friend flipped out about is the Roman army doing a chaotic charge during the early battle instead of marching in a tightly-organized phalanx. I think I understand where that came from, though - we're used to seeing those tightly-organized phalanxes from a lot of cheesy sword-and-sandal movies in the past, and maybe Ridley Scott felt it looked too polished and changed things up so that a modern audience would be more engaged. What surprised me when my friend was speaking is that "but Roman armies actually did march like that, for military and combat reasons."

Now, he knew all about that because of his background. But I, and probably most other people, wouldn't know that - to our eyes, that tightly-compacted Roman army marching in formation might read as "cheesy 50s style" and we'd get turned off.

It's a bit of a continuum, though - there are larger and smaller details that can get fudged, depending on the story, and the larger the detail the more likely it is that you'll find someone familiar with the story who will say "Hey, this is wrong." And if they change the actual narrative, or change an actual historical figure's motivation, this can get downright irresponsible, to my mind - I mentioned They Died With Their Boots On earlier, which suggests that Custer was actually sympathetic to the Sioux, and only fought in the Battle of Little Big Horn because he was forced into it by a crooked deal between politicians and a corporation that wanted Sioux land. That's just....flat-out untrue.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:19 AM on January 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

Gladiator is a fun movie, I don't look to if for a history lesson.

I can forgive wheat being short and roads not being right for lack of the horse-trodding, as location shooting is already a pain and you'll only solve that with green screening everything, but a CGI Rome, where you CAN be somewhat faithful, and everything is frickin' monotone?

I get that it doesn't have to be a history lesson, but you would think lurid colors in Rome would lend to the extreme fantasy of that film, and STILL be historically based.

Frankly, that's a missed opportunity, if anything.
posted by linux at 10:22 AM on January 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

people who live in Vancouver who go bonkers any time they see an X-Files episode filmed there but set in "Kansas"

This made me think of the movie My Fellow Americans - Some of it was filmed in and around Asheville NC, and anyone who has lived there laughs at a couple of scenes because the locations which are supposedly tens or hundreds of miles apart are, in reality, about an 8 minute drive from each other.
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:25 AM on January 27, 2021

if a movie plays fast and loose with the details of that topic, it can pull you right out of the world that show is trying to create, and that really can't be helped. [...] "the physics in this is completely bonkers," [...] There are points at which "it's just a show, just relax" doesn't bridge the gap, I'm afraid.

Is this the thread where I can submit my complaints about how The Expanse handles gravity?
posted by nickmark at 10:27 AM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

I'm personally hugely interested in historical inaccuracy, because everything in art is a choice -- sometimes deliberate, sometimes unintentional. All of these choices tell us about the people making that art and the time they made it in. That's what's fascinating to me. Even if that choice is, "Cleavage is important to us as a society. If it don't cleavge, it ain't prestige."

Like the Tiffany problem. Or when a historical romance needs orphans for the plot to function--and there were a ton of orphans in the 18th or 19th century, that's not historically inaccurate--but the author has these children orphaned when their parents die "in a carriage accident." That's an obvious thought process of, "well, how do kids get orphaned? if their parents die in a car accident, I guess, but they don't have cars in Olden Times so a carriage." Instead of dying in, I don't know, an epidemic! Or, as was common, having one parent die and then another a few years later. I'm not saying a historical romance writer needs to consult mortality tables. Yet it's completely a modern outlook and thought (or thoughtless) process.

And yeah, I've definitely read a bunch of fiction where the author is like, "Obviously this stuff happens to my characters in Period X, because that's the stuff that happens in the other fiction I've read which is set in Period X." And I agree with the thinkpieces saying "Uh the "Middle Ages" were not like Game of Thrones and this is actually telling us a lot about the author and the time it's written." There are a frightening number of people who get their historical "education" from fiction. Therefore you see books set in the 18th century where there's suddenly a witch trial, because this is What Happens to Uppity Women in the Olden Times. Yeah it's not the worst thing in the world, and I don't think frothy romance should come with warning labels, but we're all kidding ourselves if we think that it's about anything except the people making it, and the place and time it's made.
posted by Hypatia at 10:28 AM on January 27, 2021 [6 favorites]

This made me think of the movie My Fellow Americans - Some of it was filmed in and around Asheville NC, and anyone who has lived there laughs at a couple of scenes because the locations which are supposedly tens or hundreds of miles apart are, in reality, about an 8 minute drive from each other.

My favorite location example is the Jackie Chan movie Rumble In The Bronx, which was filmed in Vancouver - there's apparently one scene in which Jackie Chan is walking down a "typical street in the Bronx" and you can see these enormous majestic mountains in the background. ....You have my word that there are no mountains in the Bronx.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:30 AM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

there are no mountains in the Bronx.

For some reason I read that in my head using Tom Hanks' "there's no crying in baseball!" voice.
posted by Greg_Ace at 10:37 AM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

In season 2 of the TV series Fargo, which is set in the 1970s, they show the Fargo skyline which (being just a edited version of a photo on Wikipedia) included a building built in the 1980s, it took me out of the story.

But then I got over it because the Fargo series is excellent, you should go watch it.
posted by AzraelBrown at 11:06 AM on January 27, 2021

there are no mountains in the Bronx.

Not in our Bronx but there are in the Bronx in that movie.
posted by octothorpe at 11:09 AM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Gladiator’s accuracy goes off the rails in the very first scene with the Germanic tribe, those are Bantu chants from the film Zulu.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 11:12 AM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

Is this the thread where I can submit my complaints about how The Expanse handles gravity?

Poor Expanse. It went from 'Yo, physics and hey it takes a long time to get places' to 'OK, jam some shit into our spines and we'll be there in a hour!'
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 12:03 PM on January 27, 2021

My favorite location example is the Jackie Chan movie Rumble In The Bronx, which was filmed in Vancouver - there's apparently one scene in which Jackie Chan is walking down a "typical street in the Bronx" and you can see these enormous majestic mountains in the background. ....You have my word that there are no mountains in the Bronx.

To be fair, I love that movie, and the majestic mountains of the Bronx isn't even in the top five implausible things about that movie. (One of my favorites is when, during the hovercraft chase (!) down a busy street (!!) into an open-air heavy metal concert (!!!), the drummer removes his sunglasses, points, and yells "HOVERCRAFT!" Come on. The drummer in a metal band wouldn't remove his sunglasses!)
posted by Gelatin at 12:06 PM on January 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

there are probably ex-cops who have grudges against police procedurals

All the CSI shows are pretty challengeing. I personally cant watch them without annoying the cats with all the yelling and incredulous snorting. One of our Agilent reps was so proud of having one of their (at the time) brand new 6890s on one of the shows until we pointed out that they were doing manual(!) injections and worse doing them ALL FRICKEN WRONG and their MSD wasn't connected properly and... And then lets TALK about their HANDLING of evidENCE...
posted by bonehead at 12:17 PM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

The drummer in a metal band wouldn't remove his sunglasses!

That is a total Steve McQueen move.

As per my note about CGI Rome being boringly unpainted marble, stuff that's already CGI anyway, and therefore has zero practical problems like what swordsmith Tod talked about, should be as historically accurate as possible within a creative medium.

I've long learned to resist other stuff, particularly since I did train as an archaeologist and so some of that stuff could really aggravate me if I let it (particularly in my field, which was East Asia, where you get to compound the issue with orientalism). Pretty sure getting older helps, too.

Flip side, my professional career veered into dot-com coding and IT work, so I'm less able to resist groaning with computer-y stuff, like people interfacing with Hollywood desktops ("It's a UNIX system. I know this!"). I'm okay when it serves the plot, but when a screen is playing what is meant to be live video, and it clearly is a QuickTime Player window with a progress bar running below it, that just takes me right out. Yes, I pointed out Jurassic Park twice - because it is guilty, and yet it is an amazing movie I love.
posted by linux at 12:30 PM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

If you used swords/weaponry correctly, wouldn't you get an actor stabbed/maimed?
posted by Evilspork at 12:59 PM on January 27, 2021

"It's very difficult to say what the right orc hunting sword is."

It's not difficult to say--we now know those swords that glow when orcs are around are the best swords.
posted by betweenthebars at 1:19 PM on January 27, 2021 [3 favorites]

Is this the thread where I can submit my complaints about how The Expanse handles gravity?

Here are some Scott Manley videos about The Expanse:

The Rocket Science of 'The Expanse'
How Fast Are Spaceships In 'The Expanse'?
posted by Pendragon at 1:20 PM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

The costuming video reminded me of W. M. Thackeray's explanation of his deliberately anachronistic illustrations for Vanity Fair: "I have not the heart to disfigure my heroes and heroines by costumes so hideous; and have, on the contrary, engaged a model of rank dressed according to the present fashion."

Perhaps paradoxically, I'm much more forgiving of major changes to historical fact than I am to errors in detail. The former usually goes to the argument that the film/play/novel is trying to make about the period, whereas the latter is about not checking Wikipedia (or the equivalent) beforehand. (Whether or not it's a good argument is another matter.) My go-to for this is always the Judi Dench vehicle Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown: it's unreliable about everything having to do with the 1860s and all the characters involved, but often has a good reason for it (yes, it completely misplaces an entire Prime Minister; no, the audience doesn't need to be distracted by somebody other than Disraeli wandering in). That doesn't annoy me. But referring to Lord Tennyson in the 1860s?! Arrrgh!!!
posted by thomas j wise at 1:22 PM on January 27, 2021

Poor Expanse. It went from 'Yo, physics and hey it takes a long time to get places' to 'OK, jam some shit into our spines and we'll be there in a hour!'

Scott Manley talks about this in the second video I linked. Constant acceleration and deceleration makes space travel a lot quicker than you would think.
posted by Pendragon at 1:40 PM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

I love deep dives like this one into costuming the 1995 Pride & Prejudice, which seems to be generally considered very well done as far as period accuracy with creative, well thought out exceptions.

It feels worthwhile to do the first 80 percent of that, because that really places the viewer in the time in a way that will feel real even if they don't quite know why. The last 20 percent is where there are strange details that may only serve to distract - like perhaps a person in the 17th century at a party would just go pee in the corner while conversing with the others. That's going to take a lot of people out of it even if it's accurate! So you don't include it, which is sort of "inaccuracy by omission" and helps things flow better.

Historical accuracy seems like both a science and an art and those sometimes come into conflict. I thought the dresses in the 1995 P&P were unflattering and too plain for society debutantes — but apparently that's how they were! As the showrunner, do I insist on accommodating the viewer's expectations or defying them? That's a creative choice and one that can be argued either way.

It's when the "choice" seems to just come down to laziness, mistake, or a sort of malicious ignorance ("I don't care about how it 'really' was!") that it can be detrimental past the point of redemption.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:45 PM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Then repeat to yourself it's just a show,
I should really just relax

Like others mentioned above, there's really a range to things like this. I imagine the acceptance of historical inaccuracies grate less when you aren't as close to the subject.

If someone made an American Civil War movie with Revolutionary War uniforms, I can imagine that a few people would pitch a fit.

Meanwhile, James Clavell can write a novel called Shogun about the beginning of the last shogunate, where the titular character was named "Toronaga" so that he could fictionalize various details for dramatic reasons, and most Americans are fine with that.

For reference, that'd be like someone writing a book about the founding of the USA, centering on a Japanese man and the president was named "Greg Wilmington".

This was the problem that a lot of people had with the live-action Mulan movie, it was rife with shit like that.

On preview, what BlackLeotardFront said.
posted by ishmael at 1:51 PM on January 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

I can be tolerant of a variety of small details....but hairstyles done wrong throw me off constantly. Every era of filmaking has its examples, but movies made during the 60s were probably the worst for this.
posted by gimonca at 1:55 PM on January 27, 2021

For reference, that'd be like someone writing a book about the founding of the USA, centering on a Japanese man and the president was named "Greg Wilmington".

...I would read this.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 2:20 PM on January 27, 2021 [4 favorites]

There are points at which "it's just a show, just relax" doesn't bridge the gap, I'm afraid.

MST3K frequently goes against its own motto. Host Joel in particular is often openly angry at ways that poor production values and lazy writing show contempt for the audience. It may be just a show, but we deserve good shows.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 3:45 PM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

The duel from Rob Roy looked pretty authentic, how a heavier cutlas was at a disadvantage to a lighter quicker rapier.
posted by Beholder at 5:33 PM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

Yes, if you're a historical costume nerd and you don't already follow Frock Flicks, you need to follow Frock Flicks. (Warning: It's Snark Week right now so they're dragging things for fun. But most of the year it's deep dives into costume dramas and retrospectives on particular costume designers and actors.) I feel like two of the reviewers have a lot of interesting things to say about historical accuracy versus demands of modern audiences/filmmaking, and one is a lot more hung up on things being wrong, wrong, wrong and is so less-interesting to read, but YMMV. Personally I lean a bit more towards "I really like modern reinterpretations of old-timey fashion" (I adored the approach to costuming on "Reign" -- I thought it was fantastic for the show -- and I will never not watch A Knight's Tale) than they do. But I learn a lot and it's really interesting!

My husband and I (both lawyers) have a longstanding nitpicking dispute about Law & Order (classic version -- more recent versions are more true crime/murder mystery-ish and less "interesting legal dispute"-ish). I am not bothered by how it elides a bunch of legal procedure to draw out the interesting issue of the week. (There was a 5th Amendment episode with a very dramatic courtroom moment that NEVER could have happened, but it did a really nice job dramatizing and illustrating the competing demands that could arise, which would be boring to see in 27 different motions over two years.) It drove my husband UTTERLY BANANAS and he'd spend the whole episode, every episode, going, "You can't do THAT! No! No judge would allow that!"

I mean, I've never been in a courtroom that allowed you to stroll around the room while questioning a witness or doing your summation -- stay at your table, counsellor! -- but whatever, that's a baked-in American film trope now.

(I WAS in a courtroom where one lawyer complained to the judge about the other lawyer's shoes, though. He felt the second lawyer was trying to impermissibly influence the jury with his shoes.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:47 PM on January 27, 2021 [1 favorite]

I always look at the teeth. Inevitably everyone has perfect gleaming-white orthodontia (because of course, that's what every actor has these days), which is fine, but it takes me out of the scene just like someone who knows the details of correct corsetry seeing incorrect undergarments.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:56 PM on January 27, 2021

@Dip Flash I like your point because historically accurate dentition would probably take most viewers out of the story. Looking forward to advocating that all the sexy lead actors should have black and gap-toothed visages the next time someone talks about historical accuracy.
posted by indexy at 8:28 PM on January 27, 2021

I'll never forget watching The Thin Red Line with my dad who was a Vietnam Vet and the son of a WWII Vet and that film just made him so mad. I distinctly remember him yelling about how, "they're marching way too close together! I know the director probably wanted them all in the shot but still..."

It's really hard not to notice things when you happen to knowledgeable about something. I tend to notice bad form when people "play" musical instruments. And I don't mean those who may have developed a novel playing technique but so many times an actor has clearly never even held the instrument before. I'm willing to forgive a lot (like clearly made up fingering) but wow, it can be so distracting.

I love the period costume videos the most because that's something I find fascinating but really know nothing about so I'm always happy to have some insight into the fashions and hairstyles of the day. Although, I do find myself getting really distracted by super modern hairstyles in period shows. I'm a sucker for the show When Calls the Heart and I'm not even gonna get started on all the inaccuracies there (I just want my light fluffy Canadian Hallmark drama, please) but my god, the HAIR!

I saw this video awhile back that I quite enjoyed, 5 Historical Films That Got the Costumes RIGHT. It's unlikely you'll find someone more excited about hand-stitched eyelet holes.
posted by NotTheRedBaron at 8:31 PM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

Flip side, my professional career veered into dot-com coding and IT work, so I'm less able to resist groaning with computer-y stuff, like people interfacing with Hollywood desktops ("It's a UNIX system. I know this!"). I'm okay when it serves the plot, but when a screen is playing what is meant to be live video, and it clearly is a QuickTime Player window with a progress bar running below it, that just takes me right out.

It's funny because I just started rewatching Halt and Catch Fire because of this post and one of the things that is really bugging me is that the supposedly awesome super coder is a hunt and peck typist.

I can handle eliding over technical details or tossing in some jargon for the sake of making things sound "techy", but c'mon, no one is writing an entire bios with two-finger typing!
posted by madajb at 11:16 PM on January 27, 2021

"It's funny because I just started rewatching Halt and Catch Fire because of this post and one of the things that is really bugging me is that the supposedly awesome super coder is a hunt and peck typist.

I can handle eliding over technical details or tossing in some jargon for the sake of making things sound "techy", but c'mon, no one is writing an entire bios with two-finger typing!"

Maybe they're like Harlan Ellison who supposedly could type 120 wpm with two fingers. While I think the speed is exaggerated, he definitely did type with two fingers.

[Edited to add: to be clear, I agree with you but it just made me think of Ellison]
posted by NotTheRedBaron at 11:34 PM on January 27, 2021

MST3K frequently goes against its own motto. Host Joel in particular is often openly angry at ways that poor production values and lazy writing show contempt for the audience. It may be just a show, but we deserve good shows.

I think you may be missing the intended purpose of that line in the opening theme song. It's not about the movies they are forced to watch, but to advise viewers not to think to hard about the 'reality' of the mechanics with the show itself. Things like how they got a huge satellite up with no one apparently noticing, the presence of gravity, sufficient air/food/etc.

Actually, that little line is quite a clever and efficient way to help direct a new viewer to the main focus of the show - the movies they make fun of. It's just a friendly invitation to join them in some fun, and don't take this space and robot stuff as anything complicated - it's just a goofy premise for a show where we watch dumb movies.
posted by chambers at 11:38 PM on January 27, 2021 [2 favorites]

I can handle eliding over technical details or tossing in some jargon for the sake of making things sound "techy", but c'mon, no one is writing an entire bios with two-finger typing!

As someone who was coding in the late seventies and eighties, I don't find that weird at all. I took typing in highschool on a lark (and maybe to meet girls) but it was not anything like a universal skill back then. Mostly only girls who were going to be secretaries learned to touch-type.

My freshman roommate from college is now a tenured professor, has published scores of papers and to this day can't touch-type and just bashes away with two fingers. I turned in most of my papers during my first few years of college in longhand because I didn't have access to a typewriter and word processers weren't really a thing yet.
posted by octothorpe at 2:32 AM on January 28, 2021 [2 favorites]

I saw this video awhile back that I quite enjoyed, 5 Historical Films That Got the Costumes RIGHT. yt It's unlikely you'll find someone more excited about hand-stitched eyelet holes.

Thanks for that link, that's an excellent video, in no small part because Banner not only goes into gleeful detail about what the movies got right, but why it matters for how viewers understand the stories set in a different era without them pandering to modern sensibility, largely shaped by previous movies. It is actually important. Sure, there are details that can or need be changed for various good reasons, but the attention to history matters because it establishes the relationship between characters and the characters to the world they live in.

Pandering just tells viewers comfortable, and often damaging, lies. That mostly happens because of the circular self perpetuating logic of Hollywood, that audiences only want to see what they've seen before and liked, so they keep releasing variations of the same things over and over, which is almost all of what the audience ever gets to see.
posted by gusottertrout at 4:00 AM on January 28, 2021 [4 favorites]