Is it important for historical movies to be accurate?

I think there is a different historical responsibility in genres.

Movies that are historical fiction, or stories played out in real-life historical events, should have a smaller form of "artistic license" given the fact the "main story" isn't a "truthful recount of an episode" but a parallel to the events of the given plot. Like Platoon, the Patriot, Scarface '84 (dare I say), Orphans of the Storm (a Griffith Silent Film Classic), and so forth. These movies should stick with the facts, because they have carte blanche with the actual story. These movies can educate through experience, symbolism and correlation and still not lose the historical facts, and still change the "story" in accordance to historical aspects to make it more marketable and artistic.

Next, are the historical epics, myths, and perspective movies. 300 Spartans (historical epic), Passion of the Christ (historical perspective and epic), the Odessy, The Diary of Anne Frank and Schindlers List (historical perspective to an extent an epic of tragedy) These, I can say with ease, have NO reason for artistic license, but have the right to emphasise or leave out other notions or events that don't directly impact or are time consuming. They don't need to lie or embelish the stories, otherwise these given "stories" aren't worth the money, film, and time. If they lasted 4,000 years to 5 months, they already have "something" in them that gives them staying power, often that "something" is a timeless, inspiring, tragic, and/or everpresent; lesson or issue, that is rooted and best told factually and historically.

Documentaries, on the otherhand are the ones deserved of the utmost critical, responsible, and unbiased nature. This is a research paper, book report, and investigational science all in one, done on film. One obvious, protracted, logical, and factual error should sink these films and dub them as "Opinonaries" rather than "Documentaries." These films SHOULDN'T FOR ANY REASON: exclude, alter, embelish, interpret, or presume anything that isn't factual, logical, and/or pertinant to the given topic. These films' parts are greater than the film as a whole, the conclusion I believe howver could be flawed or questionable, so long as ALL FACTS and FACETS are presented unbiased and unquestionable.

But take the modern 300 Spartans, I'm fine with it, even though it is purely fantasy and dramatic, so long as it is obvious and not portrayed as "a factual account." The movie was done so that any logical and semi-intelligent person could see there is no way some of this is true. Did it take away from the historical aspect? Sure did, but not to the point of losing the essence and avenues that got to the actual historical outcome. Stupid people will belive what they want, if they think some 8ft tall Black/Mexican/Arab/Indian/Anglo precious metal enthusiest with a voice from Hell is the king of Persia or some 12 ft tall Baraka-from-Mortal-Kombat is the mightiest of the "Immortals", so be it, they'll also think other outrageous things are possible too.

Again I say, it's relative to the genre.

When movie producers and writers say a movie is based on a true event, it only means that the theatrical license to portray the show is for entertainment. They sometimes come very close to the theme of the story but as you surmised it doesn't always hit the mark. Where do you get the fact that 'most Americans think it is stupid to know about things happening...' I don't remember that. The past is sometimes more interesting than the present.

Spartawo...

I 100% agree with you. This drives me crazy.

Now we know that movie's cannot be 100% accurate. We don't always have the facts and we sure don't know what people said. However....it drives me crazy when Hollywood purposes distorts history and claims to be telling a 'True Story'.

Three examples that burned me up:

1. The Patriot - The 'villian' in the movie is based off of a real life British soldier. His name destroyed because of this garbage. There was absolutely no documented instances of the British (or this man) locking people into a church and burning them alive. Were there crimes during the Revoluntionary War...I'm sure. However everything I've read on the war is the British acted very gentlemanly.

2. U-571: Based off of a true story the heroes were Americans in the movie, but British in real life.

3. King Arthur: This movie was hyped as the "True Story of King Arthur". However fictional characters that were added to the King Arthur legends by a French author were included in the movie. Lancelot and Merlin are fictional! No one knows what the true story of King Arthur is!

I could go on and one.

Well, I agree with you, wholeheartedly! History is rich with interesting stories, and portraying them accurately would do no harm.

Yes, movies have to fit an entire story into a 2-3 hour block, but they could do so without making up facts! Braveheart is an excellent example. The inaccuracies are legion, but to many, the movie is their reference.

History can be interesting and exciting, and we could learn a thing or two. Just not at cineplex....

They should be as accurate as possible, however, sometimes things are changed for dramatic purposes(they sometimes have to combine several characters for time) or because the place where they film the movie is different from where the event happened. I know a movie where they used a different hospital than the "real" one from the event(I am familiar with the real hospital in that movie, which I forgot the name to, but it was about a murder that had happened) my guess is the "real" hospital didn't want the publicity,lol

The directors have to do the best they can with balancing time, budget and the historical accuracy issues against the demographics of the majority of the audience they are aiming at. The movie, "Sweet Liberty," a spoof of the making of the Historical films, is a tongue in cheek example of some of the things that goes on behind the scenes on a movie set . But the American public looks more for entertainment than they do the deeper meanings in the films and if that deeper meaning means learning that one of the "Redcoats" divisions wore GREEN instead of red for their uniforms then they don't want to get bogged down in details unless they are avid armchair historians like some of us and willing to do that digging on our own.

Yes America is dreadfully ignorant of History and many times it is because the unruly members of a class prevent the others interested in learning from doing so and the teachers have to coddle the disruptives because of being shackled by the "rules" governing the teacher's authority, instead of booting them from the class so the ones that want to learn can do so

It has been said and proved many times that "The Ones that refuse to learn from History are doomed to repeat History's mistakes." The best example of that can be summed up in Hitler's siege of Stalingrad. Napoleon had tried something similar before and failed and Hitler followed practically everything that Napoleon did with the same disastrous results, each general losing almost half the army in the frozen wastes around there each of the two times they tried it and it eventually cost each of them the war...

Yes the accuracy matters but some of the stories are universal. I saw a production of "Macbeth" done one time in Samurai garb then the Capulet- Montague feud from "Romeo and Juliet" could be played out as easily in the gang wars of NYC in "West Side Story" or the backwoods hills of Tennessee with the Martins and the Coys. The purists may scream bloody murder but if it looks like they are trying to do a reasonable job of sticking to the accuracy in the sets, props, speech and costumes, I can forgive a multitude of sins as long as the story remains the same one as in the history books. The directors may just embellish things a little, like gilding the horns of a unicorn, but as long as the facts are correctly presented, the chain mail can be knitted from yarn rolled in iron filings for all I care and spray painted silver. but they better have Hastings being fought in 1066 or they better be prepared to expect trouble.

It is important for historical movies to be accurate, especially in America where the average American doesn't read and will form a general opinion on just about everything based on the movies, or some other quick and easy information format.

I believe so. School teaches watered down local history. Many people at least draw some conclusions from movies. It is sad there is no code, or guide book for some of the sketchier ones...